Everyone of us , is given with an ' equation' , with its two sides. We deal with it throughout.

The
complexity of processing increases as we move ahead dealing with it . First we know few tools and we
use them , then we learn more . We 'add' , we 'substract'. Then we learn to 'multiply' it , later we 'divide'
it . Moving ahead we 'diffrentiate' it , then we 'integrate' it .We do 'transformations' and finally we
'inverse' it .
All , so much , to prove in the end , ' Life He Said' is equal to 'Right He Said'. Those who can do it are
'right' .
But is it the only way ? Is that the only conclusion , to be concluded by us to prove ourself right ?
It’s true that every equation has two sides , but those sides not always have ' equal to' sign between
them.
What matters more , to conclude in the end or to end with a conclusion ?
Isn't this question, in itself, a paradox . We can't conclude if we have no one to conclude this to . And if
there is someone , then we, alone, can’t decide that we concluded it the way it was 'supposed' to be
concluded.
Even if somehow we manage to get out of this paradox one question still remain unaswered . When to
say it is the end and we need to conclude.
Is 'End' ,the prequisite of every conclusion? Or can 'end' be modified in accordance with the
conclusion?