Ethnicity should not be encouraged

I am also happy that an Indian, that too a Tamilian (Dr. Venkatraman
Ramakrishnan) got the Nobel Prize for Chemistry this year.  But the
way both the media and the govternment suddenly began to claim and own
such person as a person of Indian origin or Tamil looks both
hypocritical and artificial.  According to Ravikumar, M.L.A.--who
wrote in Junior Vikatan, 'He is a Tamilian,' 14thOct. 2009, p. 13--Dr.
Ramakrishnan, left his birth place Chidembaram at the age of three
because of his father's work.  If I am correct, on the day the Nobel
Prize announced to Dr. Ramakrishnan, one Tamil T.V. channel even
interviewed the elementary school teacher at Chidembaram, where
Venkatraman studied?!?  How did a three year old child study in a
school back in early 1950s, where no pre K. G. or L.K.G. schools ever
existed?  I am not sure whether the T.V. report is wrong or
Ravikumar's information.  As the Television channels do all kinds of
things for the TRP (target rating point), we cannot trust them much.

Now coming to the claim of Venkatraman being a Tamilian or Indian,
there were genuine reasons for many such intellectuals to go away from
India and demonstrate their ability where they were given the
opportunity to work as a Scientist first and then as a human—least
minding about their ethnicity and nationality (or caste in our case).
But such intellectual drainage should bring more shame to us, while
instead, we suddenly begin to claim them as our own.

In fact, Dr. Radhakrishnan is an American.  The same way, when Kalpana
Chawla was killed in the Nasa space launch, she was glorified as a
pioneer Indian woman space scientist, whereas she was actually an
American citizen.  It is interesting to note that the Tamil Nadu
government even constituted one Bravery Award for women in Kalpana
Chawla's name.  Though I am not despising her tragic death, I cannot
still understand what kind of bravery there was in her death.  It was
a tragic accident, and according to some reports she died even before
her mind could recognize it.  But in India, particularly in Tamil Nadu
a 'bravery award' is constituted in her name to encourage any woman
who has done some real brave incident in real life.  Politicians can
use anything to earn some popularity.

In the recent past in the same way Mr. Mailswami Annadurai of ISRO
was recognized and glorified as a Tamil scientist when ISRO
successfully launched Chandrayan satellite.  It is true that they
deserve due recognition in their birth place, as it will inspire and
challenge many more youngsters to follow such research.

At the same time it should remind our government to think seriously
about such intellectual drainage from our land and encourage the
existing scientists working sincerely in India itself.  It is true
that the herb in our own garden never gets its value.  In the same
way, when we appreciate any individuals for their success as pioneers,
the spirit of regionalism or nationalism should not be highlighted too
much at the cost of certain facts which hit us back.

I am not blaming or questioning those who left India, but let us learn
to encourage and appreciate and even claim as our own those who stay
here and toil as Indians first and then as Scientists rather than
narrowing them down with regionalism.

Dayanand Bharati, Gurukulam, October 8, 2009

Debated Dialogue

Before sharing the dialogue, I need to explain why I gave the title to
this as 'Debated Dialogue.'  Dialogue is rightly called 'samvad' (sam
+ vad) where we come together (sam) to discuss (vad) a topic of common
interest.  In such a dialogue, each side remains humble enough to
acknowledge their own limitation and never tries to impose their own
view on others.  The main purpose of dialogue is to learn from each
other.

In a debate, however, we try to defeat the other through our skillful
talk and method of presentation.  This is also not wrong, but in both
Dialogue and Debate, what we all need is the patience to listen to
others' point of view before we give our view.  It will never serve
any purpose if we fail to listen to others and, instead, react quickly
without giving others opportunity to share their view.  This often
happens in life, and we can see this in many political debates on T.V.
 Anyhow, whatever might be life's lesson, we learn only from such
incidents.

During my recent visit to Delhi, I got an opportunity to have a
dialogue on 'avatara rahasya' (the secret of avatara).  It was not
actually a dialogue meeting, but a puja arranged by one of my
shishyas. However, considering the presence of people belonging to
two faiths (Christians and Hindus), after the puja I shared a bit
about the meaning behind every avatara.  First, I shared about the
meaning behind the avataras of Rama--Krishna and then about Jesus
Christ.  Though we started well in a cordial atmosphere of dialogue,
soon it became a heated discussion, leading to debate and ending in
argument.

To come to the point of the discussion—debate—argument, I have to
mention a bit of the message that I shared, so that what we discussed,
debated and finally argued will make some sense.

To begin with, I said that giving answers is very easy but asking the
right questions is a difficult task.  For this I quoted Arjuna's
(good) question in Gita which in one way helped us to get the answer
that we most need through Krishna.  But the most difficult part in
asking any question is that for which you already know the answer.
Most of the time in life, 'when the questions itself becomes the
answer' and then any kind of answer becomes unnecessary.  Out of
life's desperate situation, we ask some questions for which no answer
is coming.  This we find in the life of Jesus Christ, when He asked
the question, 'God why have you forsaken me?' He didn't get the
answer, because He already knew the answer.

'Dushta nigraha; sreshta paripalana' (destroying the evil one and
protecting the noble ones) is the meaning behind the avatara of Rama
and 'For the protection of the good and the destruction of the wicked
and for the establishment of dharma, I am born from age to age,'(Gita.
4:8) is the meaning behind the avatara of Krishna.  Whereas, though
the
orthodox view of Christ avatara is to 'save the sinner and destroy the
sin,' yet for me more than that, the avatara of Jesus portray the
self-emptying work of God to set an example for us to remove our'aham'
(ego).

As both Rama and Krishna remained true to the purpose of their
avatara, Jesus (or in Jesus, God) remained true to His avatara.  We
often keep ourselves at the centre of our life and view others from
our point of view.  For example a person always says, 'This is my
wife, my children, my home, my parents' (my policy, principle and
ideology) etc.  He will never say, 'I am her husband.' their parents
etc.  As we view life from our point of view (keeping our interest at
the centre) others also do the same ('my husband,' 'my parents,' etc.)
and hence we cannot avoid tension and friction in relationships.  The
best way to overcome any friction in relationship is to think from the
other's point of view, viz., 'I am her husband,' 'I am their parent'
etc'.  Then when we feel that others are not accepting our view, not
showing respect to us and even abusing us, the realization that once
we
belongs to them (viz. I am her husband; I am his wife etc.) when
others abuse us or go against our interest, they hurt themselves more
than us.  For example, when a husband abuses his wife, the wife begins
to realize that her husband is not abusing her, but he is abusing that
which belongs to him.  In the same way when a husband feels that his
wife is not showing or giving the respect that he deserves as a
husband (which he
has to earn rather than demand), he realizes that what his wife is
actually disrespecting is not him as an individual but her own
husband, which will hurt her more than him.  In this way throwing
ourselves at the disposal of others, instead of claiming or fighting
for our (legitimate) right will help us to overcome our aham and will
set others an example.

This is what we find in the avatara of Jesus.  This avatara violated
all the expectations of His nation and disciples.  They all were
expecting a 'deliverer' (Messiah) to give them freedom from the tyrant
Roman occupation and give back their own power and authority.  So when
He was doing miracles, healing the sick and feeding the hungry, they
all
thought that the long-expected Messiah had come.  But, contrary to
their expectation and even to their shock, He refuse to fight back,
telling them very clearly that His Kingdom does not belong to this
world.  He even refused to use His power against those who wanted to
get rid of Him and silently submitted Himself to them.  Here God set
an example for us to learn.  The sovereign God emptying Himself threw
Himself at the disposal of His own creation.  He was standing before
the earthly authorities as if telling, 'Here I am.  Do whatever you
want to do to me.  I am not going to deal with you as if you are my
creation.  But now I throw myself to you as your creator.'  And they
have done what every egoistic person would do.  Yes they crucified Him
on the Cross.  But as He emptied Himself of His Godhead, identifying
with His own creation, He could even say from the Cross, 'God forgive
them as they don't know what they are doing.'  Such a prayer is
possible only for a person who completely annihilated his/her ego.

Though Cross is traditionally considered as a symbol of suffering, yet
for me suffering is there in every form even before the death of
Christ on the Cross.  But what I found there is the self-emptying
process of God not only to save humanity but set an example for all of
us to get rid of our ego (aham).

So, the purpose of reading and learning about all these avataras is
for us to imitate them and not just worship them through some rituals.
 For example the main purpose of reading Ramayana is that we should
strive to become like Rama.  By merely worshipping and doing puja to
please Him to fulfill our earthly needs will never help anyone to
integrate the
teaching of Ramayana in personal life.  Upholding (personal) dharma is
the main teaching of Ramayana, and Rama set as example for it in his
relationship with everyone.  While most of the man expect their wives
to be like Sita, they themselves do not want to be like Rama.  Then
their wives too will be like Surpanaka (Ravana's sister), not  like
Mandodhari the wife of Ravana who is the enemy of Rama.  Only a Rama
can create a Sita, and that is the purpose of Ramayana.

Bhakti comes from the root 'bhaj' which means standing in personal
relationship.  It is not merely a concept, ideology but relationship.
So unless we too stand in personal relationship in our bhakti with our
God by developing relationship with Him by learning the values which
He wants to impart, then our bhakti will also become blind, and our
worship will end up as mere ritual.  Unfortunately, most of the time
we expect God to dance according to our tunes through rituals.  Then
such rituals become mere superstitions and bhakti--instead of
remaining a relationship--becomes a blind faith.

There I stopped, and after waiting all this time to question,
immediately one of the participants said, 'Even bhagavan Krishna
danced for a cup of porridge.'  Then another person, endorsing him
said, 'God even accepts our mere rituals and fulfills all our prayer
for mundane needs. Salvation is not possible for everyone, and He
allows majority of the
people to be trapped in this maya samsar: desiring, demanding and
praying only for earthly needs.  But God even accepts such kinds of
bhakti and rituals'.

For this I said, 'Yes.  God will not say "no" to our daily needs.
"Give us today our daily bread," Jesus taught His disciples.  He also
said, "Seek the Kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these
things shall be given to you."  So seeking and asking for our mundane
needs is not wrong.  But God never expects us to stop there alone.
With proper knowledge (jnana) of Him, He expects us to progress more.
'

As soon as I used the word 'Jnana' (knowledge) immediately
several--all at the same time--began to argue, 'Jnana is not important
in bhakti. Several bhaktas attained mukti only by their bhakti and
not because of their knowledge.  Taking the name of their God is more
than enough to have all kinds of jnana'.  Agreeing with this I quoted
Tulsidas who
said, 'While Rama was alive, He could hardly save a few individuals
like Sabari, Jatayu, Ahalya, Vibhishna (all are the characters in
Ramayana who attained mukti through Rama).  But when He went away, now
His Name saves millions and millions.  So who is greater "Rama" or His
"Nama" (name).  But merely repeating the name of God without knowing
His nature and purpose of His avatara, most of the time leads to blind faith.'

Again the first person started to say that God even accepts such blind
faith, and no jnana is important for bhakti.  For this I said, 'When I
used the word "jnana" you took it for chanting Sanskrit slokas,
quoting from Upanishads and other Sanskrit sources.  But jnana is not
this but to know and understanding the character and nature of God.
Bhakti without such a knowledge of God will become blind faith; and
(mere bookish) knowledge without proper bhakti (personal relationship
with God) will become arrogant.  Both bhakti and jnana are the two
sides of the same coin.  One cannot exist without other.'

Then many began to talk at the same time.  And some time after one
asked the question, before I give answer another person started to
argue.  So with a smile, I listened them and then said, 'I listened
when you talked.  Now would you please allow me to respond?'  Though
they said 'yes,' yet before I could complete my answer, again they
began to argue.  For example, in the context of bhakti is all
sufficient one person after quoting Sudhama (1) (Kuchelan in Tamil),
who even didn't ask his friend Krishna for help. His wife pestered
him to go and ask, but he said he "felt shy even to ask Krishna" who
was his bosom friend. So for him bhakti alone is important, and he
did not even use his bhakti and
friendship for his earthly needs.'  For this I said, 'Every story has
a central theme.  And if we began to stretch it beyond its limit, then
we will lose the main teaching and end up what they call in English as
"allegorization."  In Sudhama's story, the central theme is
that bhakti as true relationship is enough for God even to realize our
need without even asking.  Here in this story the central message is
Sudhama's true bhakti as a relationship.  But if we began to debate on
side issues like "He felt shy," "He didn't ask," etc., then we can go
on to stretch the illustration and debate over it.  Then you can prove
my points wrong, and I can prove your points wrong, and there won't be
an end to it.  For example, we can take the side issues like whether
he asked or not, when he left his home with an intention to ask, he
already had done it in his mind.'

Before I could complete this, the same person said, 'Sudhama came
under the pressure of his wife; that is why he even decided to go to
Dwaraka to seek Krishna's help.'  Again, responding to him I said,
'Now we are beginning to debate over side points. Why should a wise
person like Sudhama even come under the pressure of his wife?  If his
bhakti was that strong, he did not even need go to Dwaraka.  He could
have stayed back at his home and thought about Krishna, and the latter
also realizing the need of His bhakta could have fulfilled all his
needs.  But these are not the main points of this story.  And on every
small detail, if you want to argue, I am also ready for it.  We can
continue it for several days and there won't be an end.'

Then another person, who had kept quiet all this time asked, 'Swamiji,
do you accept that there are many ways for "mukti" (salvation)?'
Another person (who asked about Sudhama) quoting Gita said, 'para
dharmo bhayavaha' (the dharma of others is dangerous).  Thankfully he
didn't interpret it wrongly but rightly said that doing one's own
dharma viz. swadharma is good. I endorsed his view and quoted the
entire verse in its context.  Knowing that the dialogue had turned
into a discussion leading to a debate and ending in argument, I didn't
want to confront them anymore, as I was not feeling well.  So I said
'yes,' but continued, 'A thing which we bought to give some one will
become a "gift" only when it is accepted by him.  If he rejects it,
then it will remain merely a thing that we bought.  In the same way,
unless we too accept the mukti which God wants to give, He too cannot
do anything about it.'

This is not the first time for me to meet such people, and it won't be
the last one, but as usual I learned the principle that by turning a
dialogue into a debate, no one will be benefited.

Notes

1. Sudhama and Krishna studied together at Gurukulam.  They were very
close friends.  After their studies, Krishna went back to his kingdom
and became the king at Dwaraka and Sudhama married and got 26 children
and was suffering because of poverty.  Then his wife often told him to
go and ask his friend Krishna some help.  Though he hesitated, yet he
finally went taking a handful of puffed rice which his wife gleaned
from the harvested field.  Though he was cordially received by
Krishna, yet Sudhama didn't ask for help.  But, realizing his need,
Krishna--after taking the puffed rice and eating it--gave all kinds of
wealth to Sudhama's wife back at home. Without knowing this Sudhama
returned but found the blessing that Krishna had given him.

--

Don't follow but be a leader

'Don't be the tail but be a head; don't be the bogey to be dragged by an
engine, but be the engine; don't remain a follower; know you have the
potential to become a God' are the main thrust of Sri Suki Sivam's
talk today (November 21, 2009) in SUN TV. Of course we have to
understand and appreciate his rebuke with a real concern for those
followers who just imitate the gurus in their mannerism, attire etc.
Otherwise one can turn the table against him by saying, 'Then why should
we be a listener of any speaker and why not we ourselves be the
speaker? Without an audience to hear there cannot be a speaker.'

Though we have to agree with Sivam about his criticism against mere
imitation of some mannerism and attire of one's guru, yet we have to
understand the fact that all cannot be a guru or leader. In fact if
finding a true guru is difficult, it is equally more difficult to find
true followers. In most cases the truth which a guru found and shared
becomes known to the world only through his followers who
'imitate' his teaching in their life and not their mannerism. For
example, St. Paul says in the bible, 'Imitate me as I imitate Christ'.
And this he says with some authentic experience with authority. Because
when he said this he 'imitated' his guru, he meant of his suffering for
others and sacrifice that he made. Because, according to the Bible, Paul
never saw Jesus while He was alive. And so there is no hope for him to
imitate the mannerism and attire of Jesus.

Above all, even to become a leader and guru, one should first be humble
enough to be a follower to learn. Unless we are humble enough to learn
and follow first—either a person or principle--we can never become a
guru and leader. No one is a born leader. Some might have that potential
in them by birth, but they too need some one to find and shape it. Even
those few rare exception like Buddha or Ramana Maharishi whom we claim
found the reality on their own were all shaped by the long standing
tradition and scripture which enabled them to search for it.

So, yes it is good to be a leader rather than a follower. But the process for
that should begin as a follower—not the mannerism and attire of the
guru, but their personality, teaching and principle.

Dayanand Bharati, Gurukulam, November 21, 2009.

Vows

Taking a vow is both a spiritual and moral commitment. But without having any moral conviction and commitment, when we take any vow, then it becomes worse than a ritual and sheer hypocrisy.

Taking a vow is called ‘sankalp’ in our land. However, in a worldview where pluralism and relativism are dominant, these sankalpas also could be violated according to the need—based on time and place. Well my point here is not to discuss the merits and demerits of such vows, but to point out the need to take them seriously. Almost every religious cum social sanskar (ritual) has its own sankalpa to make. But as those vows are chanted by the priests (mostly) in Sanskrit and people only need to say ‘tatastu’ to it, people performing those sanskars neither know the meaning nor take it seriously, as it too has become part of the ritual. For example, almost in every marriage a kind of vow is taken both the by the boy and girl. But none know what they took. However, suddenly in the post-Independence India, taking vows in public become part of our social activity. Nowadays we have many vows, particularly taken on the death anniversaries of some popular political leaders (like Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi etc.) I don’t remember if people ever take any vow on the birth and death anniversary of great leaders like Gandhiji and Nehruji.   However as Gandhiji Jayanti is celebrated as International Ahmisa day, definitely there too will be some kind of oath ceremony, as no birth or death anniversary of leaders in India is ever complete without such a ‘vow’ ritual.1

Well, added to such politicized vows, nowadays taking other kinds of vows in public also has become part of our social need. For example, almost every year, several hundred couples gather in a particular ashram to take vows—that too holding their hands together and repeating what is read out for all. It is an encouraging sign and shows some kind of maturity and progress showing the affection and commitment in marriage publicly. In a land, where holding the hand of a wife in public place is not considered proper, these kinds of activities definitely show a great change in the mindset of the people. However, if this is done to imitate other kinds of vows or values, then this too will become a kind of social entertainment for publicity.

The sad fact in our Indian societies is that without making a personal moral commitment we take several vows. For example, school and college students take vow against the use of plastic and polythene bags and covers. But in real life, they rarely remember to strictly implement it. So what is the best way to help our people to remember and implement any vow? Let me return back to the same marriage vow (sankalp). Without knowing the meaning of the sankalp which they took in their marriage, almost all the couples keep their commitment to each other till the end of their lives. Exceptions are there, but thankfully they never decide the general rule. The main reason for this is that marriage commitment is not verbally expressed in our land but implemented strictly, as it is related with our sentiment. This is one good value on which we Indians can take pride. Our relationship with each other—of every kind, is mostly based on sentiment, and it helps us to commit to each other without any need to repeat or remind ourselves of the bond through any vow or celebrating those relationship as an event (like Father’s day; Mother’s day, Valentine's day etc.) This is well said by some one: Marriage is an entertainment in France, commitment in England, agreement in America and SENTIMENT in India. Our literature, dramas and even many cinemas demonstrate this well. And most of the (Tamil) films are based on this sentiment. Implementing this sentiment not only in our relationship with people but also with nature can better equip our young generation to take the vows seriously rather than merely make it as another public entertainment.

Dayanand Bharati, Gurukulam, September 10, 2009. Notes
 
1. In this context I remember a famous joke (which was shared by many).  In a big institute when any dignitary visits, they will ask him to plant a tree seedling to celebrate the event as well as a grow a tree remembering his visit.  But each time a dignitary visits, they will plant another seedling again in the same place.  When someone questioned about it, the response came with a satire, ‘it is a lucky place’.  This means that they never take the visit seriously or the event seriously but it has become part of a public ritual, like our public vows.

Call in Life

People have different calls in their lives--to live as a family man or
a sannyasi (or single in modern context). Though one can learn from
another, yet it is wrong to take one as the example for another to
live his/her life.   One T.V. speaker (Tenkasi Swaminathan, Sun T.V.
in July 2009) proved this by telling a story of a sannyasi.   Before
I share further, I have to acknowledge that he is a very good speaker
sharing more practical teachings on various subjects.
One time a sannyasi went and stayed with a king for few days.   And he
received the best hospitality even enjoying the food, dress and
ornaments and other facilities of the palace.   After a few days the
king came with confusion and asked a question, 'While we both are
enjoying the same food etc., why do I always feel sad whereas you
always remain happy?'    The sannyasi replied that he was waiting for
such a question and promised to give an answer after a few days.
Finally one day the sannyasi told the king that he wanted to go and
asked the king to come along with him for a distance.   When both
reached the border of the kingdom, the sannyasi said to the king, 'Now
I am going to leave everything that you gave.   And if you want to be
happy, leave everything and come after me.'  For this the king said,
'How can I leave behind my family, kingdom and responsibility?'   Then
the sannyasi said, 'This is the secret of my happiness.  Though I
enjoy all your hospitality, yet I am ready to abandon everything and
walk freely, as I am not attached to it.  Whereas though you too enjoy
it, as you are attached to it, you feel the burden more than the joy
you get from it'.
And the moral of the story, according to Swaminathan, is that while we
enjoy the things of this world, like that sannyasi we should not have
attachment with them.  And like that sannyasi, we too should be ready
to give up everything and walk away freely.
Certain illustrations, though they are good in themselves, still
cannot convey the correct teaching that is relevant for every
situation.  It is wrong to say that sannyasis don't have any
attachment.  In fact some 35 years before I wrote a song in which I
said, ' "Renounce the world," says a sannyasi, but he too renounced
the world with a DESIRE for mukti (moksha)' (ulahai turandu nee
vazhunduvidu yendru turanda jnanee solipponan; anda turanda jnanim
veedu petreya virumbiye turavu kondan).  What a sannyasi gave up is
his responsibility towards a family (but not to the society).  Here
too, he has some kind of responsibility towards his mother.  Whereas
for a family wo/man 'responsibility' comes before her/his legitimate
rights to enjoy the pleasure of life.  And those who tactfully manage
to keep a balance between 'responsibility' and 'privilege' can even
enjoy that 'responsibility' joyfully rather than treating it as a
burden.  Whether a sannyasi or a family man, no one can run away from
responsibility.  But a sannyasi could never be a best model for a
family man to understand and accept his responsibility.  King Janaka
of Mitila should be the model for a family man and not any sannyasi,
however great they might be.
Here I have to share my personal view as a sub point.  The so called
'nishkamyakarma': 'Do your duty but never seek its fruits' often
consoles a person who failed after sincere efforts in any endeavor.
Though the context of the sloka in Gita (2:47) is different, yet it is
often used out of frustration than with a true spirit of
nishkamyakarma.1.   One can have the spirit of renunciation but none
can give up responsibility which accompanies like a shadow every stage
in life.
Notes. 1.  I am not an expert on Gita.  However the main context of
this sloka in Gita (karmanyevaadhikaaraste maa phalesu kadaacana; maa
karma phala hetur bhuuma te sangostvakarmani. Your right is to perform
your duty only, but never lay claim to its fruit. Let not the fruit of
action be your object, nor let your attachment be to inaction'—Gita
Press, Gorakpur) is based on the doctrine of 'karma' which binds every
one.  As the fruit of karma binds one, better do your duty but never
seeks its fruit.  But this word 'nishkamyakarma' (which is not in
Gita) has often become a scape goat for all our frustration in life.
If I remember correctly, N.T. Ramarao (the late C.M. of Andhra) when
he lost his elections, then quoted this word and even the Gita sloka.
Whereas the best attitude to accept failures and defeat should be 'At
least I tried; though I failed'.  This will help one to learn some
good lessons from that failure and defeat than any frustration in
life.
Gurukulam, July 21, 2009.

What is Seva?

What is seva?

When a thing needs to be done but there is no one to do it, if I do it
without expecting any recognition, reward, acceptance or award, then that is
called seva. Other actions are only some kind of transactions done with some
expectation behind them.

A yet more important point in doing seva is that if my seva is in fact doing
damage to the person I intend to serve, then however humbly I claim to be
doing seva, it won't be appreciated with the same spirit and attitude by the
receiver. And the tragedy is that in real life most so-called seva is done
for publicity or personal satisfaction and never serves a true purpose. And
those who are in need continue to suffer, in fact more than before such
selfish seva was done to them. Once example will suffice to prove this.
People living in huts are moved to temporary shelter to construct permanent
houses for them. But after the inauguration and publicity, no one pays any
attention to the project. So, losing their huts and living in temporary
shelter camps, their life becomes even more miserable than it had been
living in huts. Instead of serving their needs, they are exploited by
selfish people.

As also mentioned in discussing dana and charity, we should never do any
seva to satisfy our ego or just to feel good. In such seva, we are more
exploiting others who are in need, with a goal to satisfy our need. And
exploitation done in any name or form is sin against God and humanity.

Dayanand Bharati, Gurukulam. August 31, 2009.

Friendliness and Friendship

Differentiating 'friendship' from 'friendliness', the former being mean,
selfish and even like raw mutton (borrowing the words from Osho?), Suki
Sivam on July 5th again gave his usual type of talk on Sun T.V. After
quoting from the life of Buddha, who never had any 'friend' but had
friendliness towards everything, he concluded that everyone should have
friendliness than friendship.

But to my consolation on July 12th in Vijay T.V. in a programme 'Neeya
Nana,' Gopinath led the lively discussion (rather debate and friendly fight)
about the GREATNESS of friendship.

We all need idealism in life as it motivates us to rise from our limited and
narrow perspective of life and try to achieve more than what we can actually
do. It is like raising the bar to achieve greater height. However, real life
cannot be lived based on idealism alone. Because without gaining from real
life experience, all idealism will remain mere talk.

Friendliness is an ideal but friendship is very important even to be able to
talk about that idealism. Friendship is based on relationship which needs to
be cultivated and nurtured. As human beings any noble idealism could be
effective when it is implemented based on relationship. For example, we can
be friendly with everyone, but to carry on with it, we need personal
relationships with others. However we like, we cannot have friendship with
animals or even with nature, because they cannot reciprocate our
relationship to further develop it. Whereas we can be friendly towards them.

For example, Suki Sivam shared the experience of a Swamiji (Ram Theerth?)
who went to England on a ship without knowing anyone there. On his voyage
when one Englishman asked him where he was going to stay in England etc. he
answered 'I don't know'. Later in the course of the talk when the Englishman
asked who is the friend that he knows in England, that Swamiji said that he
is standing in front of him. And when he turned back, he didn't see anyone.
To make the story short, Swamiji said that he is that friend and finally
stayed with him in England. After saying this Suki Sivam said that as that
Swamiji (like Buddha) had friendliness with everyone, he easily became a
friend with that stranger.

But my question is: what happened after that visit? In our life we meet
several people and move with them in a friendly way. But we soon forget them
in our life. What happened to those school and college friends with whom we
even ate off of one plate? But real friendship is not like that, as it is
based on relationship. Friendship, like all other relationships, demands
personal commitment, whereas friendliness like any other idealism can
inspire and motivate but can remain only an idealism if it is not
implemented through friendship. Without a friend, friendship will remain
merely a concept and without friendship friendliness will remain mere
idealism. Friendliness and Friendship is like 'rta' and dharma. Rta is the
macro-cosmic order whereas dharma is the micro-cosmic order. And following
dharma (duty) is essential for the maintenance of rta (cosmic). Most
literature glorifies 'friend' and 'friendship' and not 'friendliness.' So
for me 'Friendship' is more important and valuable than the noble idealism
of 'Friendliness'. Therefore have real friends and develop deep personal
relationships with them through friendship. Otherwise our life will remain
barren without bringing any fruit as human beings.


Dayanand Bharati, Gurukulam, July 13, 2009