Living in the ocean of scarcity, shortages, and blackness, one from the edge of bleakness comes up with the aspirations of living a luxurious life being surrounded by celebrities, politicians, reputed personnel, and reporters every second. Being overwhelmed he does hard work believing in his capability, and he enjoys the journey. One can see him, living a miserable life: busy all the time, working hard, no leisure time, non-routine food schedule, and sometimes going with an empty stomach despite it all, he is happy with what he has been doing?

Is this a miserable life which he has been living?

When one tries to define Misery, there always appears another from the dubious world to claim the exceptional cases. Misery has been a banal topic since the ancient period. And whatever answer to the equation of misery is made everything gets perfectly fitted like: comparison is what is the main cause of it? While other claims it is dreams of humans that brings misery in life? Some even claims that misery is the way to success and so on. No answer is wrong, despite being correct, there is always a hook that turns the situation into another dimension.

Misery is a broad topic, it encompasses social, economical and mental aspects. We can't just see it from one side.

Economically

Economically, Karl Marx's theory of conflicts between the haves and have-not, conclusive part is These conflicts are the roots of misery.

Karl Marx focuses on the structure of the capitalistic world where he claims that there are always conflicts lies between haves and have-nots besides the profit. This conflict is what he claims triggers misery in everyone's life. We can't be free from these conflicts in our economic system.

Marx doesn't say anything about the mental condition of the working class, he was concerned or focused on the discriminated pleasant class and sought a revolution of them being conscious globally.

Socially

Sigmund Freud Australian neurolysis, psychologist, claims that human beings are social animals. Also if human beings are left to act freely, they will appear as wild animals. If one tries to put some constraints on their behaviours it becomes a misery for them.

This, regulate the behaviour one has to impose some customary regulation on the behaviours in the forms of national laws, religious obligations, morality, and ethics which is the root of the misery. This, to act as a moral, decent being one need to follow the rules and regulation which in turn reflects the misery in one's life.

One has to be clear that, Sigmund is more centred on the acts of human beings. His approach is not economical, that one acts to become rich.

Mental

Whether it be Marx or Freud, they didn't think about the mental condition, they concentrated on the physical ethos of the misery. And this is well explained by, Lord Buddha.

An exposition of the ideology of Lord Buddha's four noble truth, the first and second speaks about the suffering, which are:

• The world is full of suffering, and it is part of life.

• There is a cause to this suffering ( attachment, desires and carvings)

Marx who saw the world with the spectacles of the working class struggled his whole life he was supported by others economically and thus saw flaws with the economic system, Freud who worked his whole life in the file of psychoanalysis before his death published a paper which was controversial to all his found out in his life, did the best job in understanding the misery of life.

And Buddha who was a prince, and later lived in the jungle for 12 years experienced both the physical, economic and also mental aspects of life, his theory is a more scientific one. But it is not relevant to ask who is best? All hold the perfection in their realm.

Meanwhile, contemplating these theories, the conclusive part comes out that we will be never free from misery, as long as we have life and is alive.

Misery is the way of life.

Thank you, © Lawa1988