Listening is Doing

Listening is 'sadhana,' and it needs single-minded concentration.  When we began to (negatively) react or (positively) respond while listening, then actually we are not listening.  Then quoting Osho, Sukisivam (Sun T.V., 31^st May, 2009) as usual very nicely explained how to develop the art of 'listening'. 

 

But after his talk, while I was thinking on this subject I realized how it is practically impossible for most of us to listen without reacting or responding to it simultaneously.  Of course there are many who can do it, but I am talking about ordinary people like me.  The reality is that while listening to others, not only do we think of various things related what is being said, but we often fail to allow others to listen by passing our comments on it.  As a digression I would like to mention here the way some people irritate others by passing comments while they listen the news or to some other programme.  Some during a T.V. debate or panel discussion, we comment on some point, and we began our debate and argument without listening the entire programme ourselves or allowing others to listen.  It is like changing the T.V. channel without seeing one programme properly.  Some have this sickness which often irritates me and others also.

Well, coming to the point, as Arjuna rightly says, 'The mind is so fickle that sometimes it is easier to hold the wind in our hand than to control our mind' [Gita 6:34] (enabling it to listen without any deviation).  And Krisha, agreeing with Arjun that the mind is so fickle says, 'By practice and determination (vairag) we can train it'(Gita 6:35).  But, what is the evidence that we have achieved some success in this sadhana? If asked, I would say, 'By doing or implementing what we listened to.' Yes for me the real test of any TRUE LISTENING is practicing it, once we agree with it.  Otherwise all our listening will end like hearing any other sound.

Gurukulam, May 31, 2009.

Instant Satisfaction

Instant satisfaction is the curse of this age. Though many people are aware
of this fact, very few speakers have the courage to rebuke both the fake
gurus who promise to give it for a certain fee and the seekers who claim to
have it within a week or two through some workshop or class. But thankfully
Sri Suki Sivam challenged such instant satisfaction, particularly on
'enlightenment' etc. on May 16th 2009 on Sun T.V.

This is not the first time as he always takes up certain issues which are
very sensitive and boldly asserts his view. Particularly the way he exposes
hypocrisy among lay people as well as religious leaders is remarkable. Well,
my intension here is not merely to support Suki Sivam but to point out how
we should know the difference between 'detractor' and 'reviewer' on such
issues. When we share our views, sometimes very critically, then we are
blamed as 'fault finders'. 'Some people derive their pleasure by always
finding fault in everything that others do. Instead of appreciating all the
good aspects in it, they can see nothing but mistakes and failures. That's
why people often ignore such critics and continue to do what they think is
good for them. At least, irrespective all the shortcomings, more people are
seeking spirituality. Particularly as young people are showing much
interest, rather than finding fault, such speakers should encourage more',
is the counter comments on such speakers.

When we see a doctor, her prime duty is to diagnose the disease and provide
treatment for that particular problem. And a 'reviewer's' duty is also the
same. We do not derive any pleasure just by 'commenting' negatively. A fault
finder is one who has an inferiority complex and in order to hide her own
shortcomings and failures always comments negatively. Whereas a speaker like
Suki Sivam's aim is to steer the boat rather than allowing it to drift by
every wave and wind. The very next day, he also spoke about facing failures
courageously and encouraged those who feel defeated in life (I am not sure
whether he spoke in light of the election results) while living or fighting
for any cause.

Adding to his comments, here I too would like to say one more thing about
seeking instant spirituality through shortcuts. Many youngsters who seek
such 'experiences' do it as a kind of 'therapy' to escape from the stress
which they themselves created through their busy life. These days even a
lazy person does not have time for anything. As many youngsters want
'progress' and 'satisfaction,' they seek them quickly by using all kinds of
shortcuts. They think that such 'instant nirvanas' will provide the needed
therapy to overcome stress and the problems that have resulted due to their
lifestyle. Well, nature's law cannot be altered in everything. And seeking
true spirituality is a part of that natural process within us, not available
through any busy outward activities, workshops and classes. Thankfully, as
nature never fixes a price for its generous gifts, spirituality cannot be
bought at any price fixed by readymade gurus.

Gurukulam, May 20, 2009

Imagined Interpretations

Reading scripture for its own sake is one thing and reading it for what one
wants to find in it is entirely different. But traditionally
'systemization' and 'interpretation' have been tools for 'text torture.' As
a (sincere) student of scriptures, while it always amuses me when I read or
hear speakers impose their own message on certain texts of scripture, yet it
also always causes concern for those who read or listen to such teachers
without any critical spirit. Without interpretation we cannot understand the
scriptures, but if we ignore the context and impose our personal views it
become more an 'imagined interpretation' than real exegesis.

This morning (May 15th, 2009) I heard an interview with a Vaishnavite
speaker about Divyaprabandam (Sri Varadhacharyiyar on Jaya T.V.) He, as
others also do, claimed that everything that other religious scriptures say
is already found in the Bhagavadgita. Then he quoted the Gita, saying
'Krishna is fire (agni)', and suggested that 'this is what Jesus says in
Geneses 1:14, "let there be light"'. At the end of the programme he
expressed his desire to write comparing other religious scriptures with
Divyaprabandam also.

Well, he is not the first and won't be the last in such an endeavor. Such
people are there in every religion. For example, in a television talk a
Tamil Christian went to the extent of saying that Adam was a Tamilian (Dr.
Daivanayagam's speech in Podigai channel, April 16th, 2007, 11.00 pm to
11.15 pm). He was not the only Tamil Christians as there are a few like
him. What is really shocking is that during the time of Ram sethu
controversy (see http://www.khabarexpress.com/tag/Ram-Sethu.htm for details)
one Tamil Christian went to the extent of saying that 'Ram sethu is another
evidence to show that Adam was from South (Tamil) India as his descendant is
also called "Seth".' (I either read or heard this, but I don't have the
evidence at hand.) But he forgot the fact that 'sethu' in Hindi means
'bridge'. So 'Ramsethu' is actually what we call in Tamil 'Ramar Paalam'
and has nothing to do with Seth, the descendant of Adam.

When through Arjuna the Gita says that Krishna is 'fire' (11:39) it has
nothing to do with the Bible saying 'let there be light' (as per
Varadhachariyar, Jesus said this!) What Arjuna says after seeing Krishna's
vishvarupa (universal form) is part of worship, whereas what is said in
Genesis 1:14 is in the context of the creation story. Similarity of
'words', '(ethical and moral) teaching', 'terms', 'doctrines', even
'philosophies' doesn't mean that one scripture borrowed from another or one
influenced the other. When even within one scripture a single word can mean
different things according to the context, it is over simplistic to say that
one particular scripture is the foundational from which other people
borrowed all views. As there are several similarities to the longing and
need of humanity, irrespective of place and time, we expect to find several
parallel expressions through terms and words. But reading one's own message
into them merely exposes our limitation in understanding other scriptures
rather than serving any positive purpose. The following one will
demonstrate this even more clearly:

'Oak is best known, perhaps, for his continued efforts to prove that the Taj
Mahal was originally a Siva temple. Oak's books attempt to argue that
everything of value in the world originally came from India or was part of a
greater India. His etymologizing and general level of scholarship are
astounding, even in the context of this genre of literature; for example,
(Oak, p.343) England was originally pronounced as Angulisthan, since
"ancient Hindu explorers and administrators who fanned over a virgin Europe
looked across the English channel and called the British isles 'Anguli'
('sthan' or 'desh') i.e. a finger-size, finger-length land. If one imagines
Europe to be a palm-size, palm-shaped continent Great Britain appears to be
'anguli' namely the (extended) finger" (Oak P.N. 1984. World Vedic Heritage.
New Delhi 984, p. 842). I was informed by a professor of history at
Jawarhal Lal Nehru University that even the RSS, which previously had
cultivated Oak, has since completely distanced itself from his views. Oak's
insistence that all other cultures from all over the world in all historical
epochs ultimately originated in Vedic India, however, does parallel some of
the scholarship of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century in
Europe. Attempts were made to accommodate the newly discovered Eastern
traditions within a biblical narrative by suggesting etymologies such as
Brahman being the Sanskrit for Abraham and Sarasvati for Sarah.'

--Edwin Bryant, The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration
Debate, Oxford University Press (2001) 2002 Indian edition, notes 6,
pp. 343-44.

Gurukulam, May 21, 2009

Giving Thanks

When I was staying with an American family for few days at Varanasi, it amused me a bit whenever they said thanks to each other in the family. For example when they sit for breakfast, they will say thanks to each other for everything they have done for each other. Even when one needs a spoon, then she has to ask, ‘a spoon please’ and when it is given then ‘thanks’ will automatically come on her lips.

After a day or two, when we were talking on various cultural and social issues of both India and America, I asked why they behave so formally by often giving thanks to each other. Even the husband will says ‘thanks honey’ when he receives a glass of water, etc. For this my friend’s wife said, ‘in our culture, only very close people say thanks to each other. By saying such a word we appreciate their service and love for us. But when one’s boss give instruction to do a work and when his subordinates does it, the latter won’t expect any thanks and the former often won’t say thanks for it. Whereas among close relatives and friends when we say “thanks” it is not a word of formality, but an expression of closeness’. This really surprised me. Because in India rarely a husband will say thanks for the wonderful food served by his wife, or wife for the best gifts given by her husband.

But in our culture we use difference means to express our love and affection. Though nowadays in the city children have begun to say thanks to parents, and even husband and wife to each other (and even good morning in the homes), yet in our traditional culture we express our love and affection through our actions and reactions. For example, a husband (or the guests or others) to appreciate good food says, ‘today my stomach is really filled; I ate up to my nose (in Tamil) etc.’ In the same way, instead of asking whether the food is tasty or not most of the time the women will say, ‘is there enough salt; I hope it is not too hot, etc’. In response, the guest (or family members) will say, ‘perfect. The food is very tasty today. How did you cook it? What is the masala that you added today, etc.’ (Immediately the woman/cook will start to give the recipe as well as the method of cooking).

So, though there is nothing wrong for us to offer ‘thanks’ to others and even to God to ‘appreciate the here and now,’ yet as Vaswani rightly said, ‘Some people even say "thanks" automatically, without so much as looking up at the person they are giving thanks to, or even meeting her eyes’. Because ‘Normally, the act of saying "Thank you" puts a certain distance between the giver and the receiver.’ (“Appreciate the Here and Now,” 18 Feb 2009, 0800 hrs IST, J P VASWANI, ‘Speaking Tree,’ Times of India, from website.)

There is nothing wrong with learning new manners which we think good for us. But instead of preserving the best (old) values which we have we began to imitate others just for the sake of aping some aspect of their culture which best serves their purposes, then artificiality cannot be avoided. At the same time, considering the influence of multiple cultures in our global village, even if we don’t like it we cannot avoid the influence of other cultures on us. So at least when we try to imitate certain new manners let also understand the ‘value’ which is behind them.

For example, I have observed that most westerners look into each others’ eyes when they exchange their love, care and concern, while we Indians rarely do so. Even while we talk (or argue and fight) we most of the time avoid eye contact. I think this is part of our Indian mannerisms. Rarely will a doctor look at a patient while checking her. She will mostly look at the report or old prescription rather than having eye to eye contact with the patient. When we go to the temple to worship, most of the time we close our eyes while stand before the deity (thankfully in our iconography, the eyes of the deities will remain wide open as ‘darshan’ means not only that we see the deity, but also that we are seen by the deity). Even in romantic scenes in films after some initial eye contact both the boy and will girl will talk (mostly sing and dance) without looking at each other very much. Even in romance the girl is expected to be shy (and not directly look at the boy), whereas the boy can express his love openly. This is even endorsed by Tirukkural, as the boy (man) says, ‘Yaan nookunkaal nilam nokuum; nokkakaal thaan noki mella nahum’ (when I see her she will look at the earth and when I don’t see she will see me and laugh gently).

As the life of the people cannot be divided in water tight compartments like cultural, social and religious, etc., what Vaswani says about the historical background for Thanksgiving Day in America make sense for us to understand their social world view (of thanksgiving). This could also be one of the reasons for the lack of such practices in our civilization. Though there might be several bhajans and poems of thanksgiving in our religious and secular literature, I cannot remember any of them immediately. Whereas in the Bible one can see several poems (particularly in the book of Psalm) and prayers of ‘thanksgiving’ to God. It would be interesting to collect all the ‘thanksgiving’ poems and bhajans in our Indian literature.

Though Vaswani has written with a positive note that, ‘Every day in India is a Thanksgiving Day for we have to thank God for all that we are and all that we have, every day of our lives!’, yet considering the corruption, lack of civic sense, lawlessness in every level, ‘We cannot, indeed, confine our thanksgiving to any single day. Ideally every day, every moment of every day should be an occasion of thanksgiving. The spirit of thanksgiving should so infuse our life that it should transform our life into a constant remembrance of His infinite mercy on us.’

In spite of all the shortcomings that we have, yet I am thankful to God that I was born in India. But if we Indians begin to adopt all the best things from other cultures, it is also important for us to understand the ‘value’ behind them. In the same way, not giving up the best traditions among us will help us to ‘appreciate the here and now’ in our life, too.

Gurukulam, May 13, 2009.

Reformation or Regeneration

Reformation or Regeneration

People often talk about 'reform.' Yes, individuals, families,
communities and society need to be reformed for people to live in a
better way. From time immemorial, the spirit of reformation has been
in every community and society and it has made considerable progress
in reforming people and values. This has happened in every sphere of
the society—religious, social, cultural, economic, political etc.
However, after a period of reformation, people face the same old
problems, now only taking different forms.

One of the basic reasons for the failure of several reforms could be
that the same old values, which need to be changed, are simply refined
a bit and presented in different forms. For example: discrimination
among people based on caste, race, class, wealth, education etc. has
been reformed outwardly without touching the core issue of
discrimination that is in our nature. In general people don't want to
see everyone as their equal. Because then they too would become one
among them. At least, somebody should be below their rank, so that
their worthiness could be realized and recognized.

Of course all are not going to be equal in every area. Likewise,
those who toiled and came up in life because of their hard work need
to be recognized as the pioneers and leaders in their particular
fields. But instead of their successful position challenging and
motivating others to work hard in their respective fields, it only
creates unhealthy competition, jealously and inferiority complex in
others. Thus, mere reformation of people (here the pioneer and their
followers) alone won't bring the change.

Reformation fails to bring change, because most of the time, the
reformer takes the old value, refines it a bit and presents in a
different form. As people are familiar with the value, after the
initial enthusiasm of new form fades, they go back to the same old
position. What needed is regeneration, which could introduce new
values that could give new vision to change some of the old values.
Change can be brought about only by individuals, families, communities
and societies that welcome the new value which is not in their
worldview. Those who resist such new values--in the name of
protecting and preserving their culture or tradition—will fall short
of true regenerative change. They will end up promoting only
reform—which only changes the form but not the value.

Mathigiri, February 14, 2007

Positive Yoga

POSITIVE YOGA

Next to morality, yoga has become the subject on which any kind of
interpretation is correct. If I were allowed, I would prefer to use the
term 'situation-yoga,' like situation ethics. As ethics evolves according
to our need, so does yoga.

One can read something related to yoga in almost every newspaper or magazine
in India these days; not only because yoga is so popular and in demand but,
it has become a fashion to relate every human activity with yoga.

Of course, Swami Nranjananda Saraswati of the Bihar School of Yoga has his
own right authority to say, 'Discover Your Potential through Practice of
Yoga'. The Bihar School is one of the rare, well established centres where
yoga is taught seriously and according to the prescribed tradition.
Therefore, my critique is not to challenge his authority and knowledge on
yoga. Compared to him, I am not even on an elementary level in my knowledge
of yoga. I do not practice yoga-viz. asanas, which is wrongly treated as
yoga in itself. All that I know about yoga is with my limited reading on
this subject-not even a proper study.

Well, coming back to the subject, it is encouraging to see what Swamiji says
in his article (The Speaking Tree, The Times of India, Bangalore, Feb. 22,
p. 18), 'If we just revolve around our likes and dislikes, actions and
reactions, desires and rejections all our life, it means we have not learned
the lesson to bring out the positivity', which according to him is the
purpose of yoga. He continues, 'Positivity and acceptance have to be our
focus if we want to succeed in life. If this focus is lost, we cannot claim
to be practitioners of yoga, only practitioners of asana, or meditation.'

To prove his point then he quotes the third sutra of Yoga Sutras of
Patanjali, which, according to him, 'discusses being established in one's
own nature as the seer, the drashta. To be established in one's own nature
means there has to be harmony, a flow in life.' And by practicing yoga
(mainly asana and meditation) if 'we only identify with the inner experience
of happiness, but react externally in our attitudes, behavior, relationships
and communication, then that experience can never be complete. That is the
true meaning of yoga.'

There are so many good points that Swamiji shares in this article. However,
I am not sure is this the main teaching of Patanjali in his Yoga Sutras. If
my (limited) understanding is correct, the aim of Patanjali Yoga Sutra is to
teach some eight steps to attain samadhi, which is based on Sankhyan theory;
the purusha can be separated from the prakriti and gets its release from the
bondage.1

At least Patanjali Yoga Sutra cannot be analyzed by separating it from
Sankhya, as they both are two side of the same coin. If Sankhya is theory,
then Yoga is practice. There is nothing wrong in getting some practical
benefit from Yoga Sutra itself, as very few can follow the Sankhya-Yoga
systems in their totality. However, separating a few sutras from the
overall context of the text and giving our own interpretation may serve our
immediate purpose-either to write an article or to teach 'Practical Yoga.'
Nevertheless, considering our nature and need, these principles to attain
positivity in life can be taught independently. But the power of positive
thinking, is not some magic to bring positivity in life without knowing the
reason for 'negativity' that we have within us-as Swamiji himself says in
his introduction, 'Our personality is a combination of both rubbish and
gold, and generally we are affected by the rubbish and we ignore the gold.'

One of my friends in his recent comment on 'Love & Loving' said, 'Patanjali
is the ultimate on the subject with his 4 Sutras of
Maitri-Mudita-Karuna-Upeksha' (loving-kindness, compassion, joy and
equanimity.) However, Patanjali has nothing to with 'Love & Loving';
however, we wish to read such beautiful thoughts in his Sutras.2

My critique is not a 'criticism' of another's view. When some of the human
values can be taught both by words and deeds with our own level of
understanding, why do we need to quote those authorities, about which common
people have no proper understanding as well those authorities who never
taught as we wish to read in their teaching? Quoting some ancient authority
will give some weight to our point, but they may not serve our purpose.

Notes

1. Traditionally the Yoga of Patanjali is known as a 'negative' one, in the
sense of it advocating sense suppression through eight fold paths. See the
following comments by P.V.Kane:

...That sutra (Yoga Sutra III.11) states the goal of Yoga viz. the soul that
is seer abides in its own form then (i.e. when the functions of the mind
have been mastered), while in ordinary life the soul appears to assume the
forms of the fluctuations of the mind. The Vrttis are five, some of which
are (p.1409) afflicted by hindrances called klesas and the others are not so
hindered (those that are hindered are to be mastered or eliminated and the
others are to be accepted). The five vrttis are pramaana (means of valid
knowledge), viparyaya (wrong conception), vikalpa (fancy), nidraa (sleep),
smrti (memory). Pramaanas are three, pratyaksa (perception), anumaana
(inference), aagama (verbal testimony). The means for the suppression of
the vrttis are abhyaasa (practice) and vairaagya (passionlessness)
(simultaneously carried on), the first being the effort to secure a calm
flow of the mind free from vrttis, continued for a long time uninterruptedly
and earnestly and the latter (vairaagya) being the consciousness of mastery
over (i.e. freedom from thirst for) seen objects (such as a woman, food and
drink, high position) and objects promised by Revelation (such as heaven,
disembodied existence etc.). Vairaagya is of two kinds apara (described in
Y.S.I.15) and para (highest) described in Y.S.I.16 and bhaasya thereon. In
the highest vairaagya, the yogin (who has reached discrimination between the
self and the gunas, sattva etc.) is free from thirst not only for objects of
sense, but also free from the gunas, attains a stage of undisturbed
consciousness only and leads the yogin to reflect `I have attained what was
to be attained, the klesas (hindrances avidyaa etc.) that have to be
destroyed have been destroyed, the close-knit succession of births and
deaths has been cut off'.... .-P.V. Kane, History of Dharmasastras, Pune,
vol. V, part.II,p.1409-11

2. The principal virtues of universal friendship, universal compassion,
etc., to which reference has already been made, were appreciated early in
Buddhism and also in the yoga of Patanjali. But it may well be argued that
there was scarcely any place for the active manifestation of universal
friendship or universal compassion in a scheme of life which was decidedly
individualistic. No one who sought the absolute (p.98) freedom of his own
self, or the extinction of his whole personality like the extinguishing of a
flame, and who sought the cessation of his own rebirths and sorrow as the
only goal and the only ambition to be realized, could have much scope for
any active manifestation of universal friendship. The altruistic ideal can
therefore at best be merely a disposition, and can manifest itself merely in
a negative way, e.g., in non-injury to any being. But a person who holds
such an individualistic notion of salvation cannot, in his scheme of life,
have any leisure or opportunity for the doing of active good to others.-
S.N. Dasgupta, HINDU MYSTICISM, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, (1927), 1992,
pp.98-99

Dayanand
Mathigiri, February 22, 2007, 11.30 am.

Meaningless Ritual

MEANINGLESS Ritual

Ideology is the intellectual articulation of some serious reflection on a
concept by the elitists. But common people, living on an existential level
have different, practical-oriented approaches to the same concept. The main
difference is that while the elitists are criticizing the common approach to
reality by the commoners, the commoners are neither aware of such
intellectual ideologies nor bother to learn from them to survive.

In answer to the question, "Are rituals a way to become peaceful or are they
a solution to life?" Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev says:

You can derive some benefits from ritual, if it has some element of science
in it. However, rituals were popularly practiced when most people were
ignorant.

When intellect is sufficiently evolved in society, the practice of
performing rituals begins to slowly recede because this is just like old
technology. We should use other methods that can easily transform a person.
Rituals have now become a source of exploitation. There could be something
to ritual, but it is overly exaggerated. If you want to be peaceful, there
are some simple things that you can do with yourself. If you invest just a
few minutes a day to yourself, remaining peaceful through the day is easy.
(Shun Meaningless Ritual, Get A Hold On Yourself, The Speaking Tree, The
Times of India, Bangalore, May 31, 2007, p. 16)

Then after pointing out the vanity of performing of ritual to avert
earthquakes at Andhra and financial problems in Tamilnadu, the Sadhguruji
explains the genuine and natural way to handle those problems. Again
pointing out the need to address the poverty seriously, he concludes:

You must be in a condition that you won't crack up and break down when
situations demand exertion from you. So it is important that you do some
inner engineering, strengthen and stabilize yourself before setting out to
face challenges.

Of course every reasonable person will welcome such sober advice, which is
the need of everyone. However, we need to question the statement that
'rituals were popularly practiced when most people were ignorant.' Because
down the centuries, if we observe Hinduism (or any other religion), rituals
need not be practiced all the time with ignorance. If we call the rituals
of common people as ignorant ones, then they can say our way of finding
peace without performing any outward ritual, but only through the so-called
scientific methods of 'meditation,' 'contemplation,' 'yoga' etc. are nothing
but different kinds of rituals in their eyes. We may think that such
practices are not rituals. However, these are the same old methods of
interiorizing the outward forms (of rituals) that are recommended in
Aranyakas. In Aranyakas, the vanaprastas (forest dwellers) were advised to
abandon all kinds of outward rituals and perform them mentally.

Inner transformation never comes so easily. Performing 'simple things' by
oneself will never bring peace easily. Whether we choose some inner
engineering or outward (old) technology of rituals, when it comes to
attaining peace, there are not 'simple things' alone involved.

Of course, all kinds rituals, performed with ignorance or mechanically need
to be improved. However, considering our nature, even these so called
'simple things' of scientific inner engineering could themselves become mere
routine and mechanical. Then performing such practices becomes another kind
of ritual, only gaining certain sophisticated terms like 'meditation',
'contemplation' or 'yoga'.

Dayanand Bharati,
Mathigiri, May 31, 2007.