Showing posts with label On Happiness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label On Happiness. Show all posts

Saturday, June 16, 2012

The Point

The point is not in having more, but in being better.

The point is not in having friends more, but in being friendly.

The point is not in having love more, but in being in love.

The point is not in having money more, but in being rich.

The point is not in having health more, but in being healthy.

The point is not in having understood more, but in being understanding.

The point is not in having God, but in being Godly.

The point is not in having cared more, but being caring.

The point is not in have life more, but being alive.

The point is not in having memories more, but being memorable.

The point is not in getting stuck, but being in flow.

More than in the noun, the essence is in the verb.

More than the visible, the essential is the invisible.
_____________________________________________

Copy Right © All rights reserved - Samrat Kar

Sunday, June 3, 2012

On Action and the Law

Dharma is the Omnipresent law, the Archetype, the ideal. Dharma is the Way. Karma is the vehicle to tread the way. It is the means to be one with Dharma. It is the manifested dharma. If dharma is the order, karma is what keeps it alive. 
Karma exists in 3 fold manifestations - the knower, the knowledge, and the known. All these three dimensions of karma can exist in the following 3 climates or temperaments - Rajas, Sattva, and Tamas. 

Following words try to express the feel of Rajas: 
Plurality, analysis, individuality, separation, alienation, arrogance, fear, stress, anger, nervousness, anxiety, restlessness, disbelief, meanness, stinginess, prejudice, go getter, material efficiency. 

Following try to explain what constitute the Tamas: 
Attachment to an individual, lust, attachment to having something or somebody, indulgence, laziness, driven by baser instincts, attachment to results, to profits, helplessness on the face of obstacles, rationalization, over intellectualization, delusion, inactivity, habit 

Sattva stands for unity, integration, non attachment to the material manifest, one sighted concentration on the Archetype, the Dharma, the Ideal. From this vantage point all the three constituencies of Karma, viz - Knowledge, knower, and the known are considered as a way to be one with "Krishna" – the invisible Ideal – The Truth – The Source. From this standpoint every moment of existence becomes a worship. The action or the outcome of the action per se loses its importance. What is primary is the process of being in the act to be able to "see" the invisible in all the three material constituents - the knower, the known and the knowledge. 

Life is an opportunity to practice Sattva every moment of being alive. It is about living in touch with one’s sense of Being, instead of Having. Both Tamas and Rajas are flavors based on the mode of “having” 

It is easy to be swept in the delusion of having something or somebody. The way media, society and the world around imposes its noise on our minds, It is very easy to fall in the trap of the rat race of searching one’s self worth, one’s identity, in the form of one’s possession of power, knowledge, education, a lucrative job, profits, deals, relationships, etc. Not much attention is given to Be. Even if someone is giving a passing thought into one’s being, it is always weighed against what he shall “have”, out of “being” that. So, a person would prefer reading a book, if one is convinced that it would help one at work, and everyday living, manipulating life and people to achieve one’s own end. Or others might want to read, to have a stint of fantasy, to escape from one’s own reality. Not much thought is given to just Being. 

The state of Being is mostly misunderstood as the state of inaction. Rather it is quite contrary. The state of being is actually as state of immense internal and external activity, which helps a person to express out who she really is. It is a journey to discover one’s real self. It is a journey of self analysis to know one’s own self, the life, and the world around. It is a life lived in deep contemplation observing and knowing life. It is about being in that profound gratitude and appreciation of the creation and grandeur of nature. It is about trying to solve the mystery of one’s own existence. 

Being is what remains with man – his increases awareness, his growing respect of life and people, his enhanced capacity to love, his enlarged soul and heart, his resolution to stay with the Dharma, love, peace and harmony – no matter what. Being is that immortal sheen on one’s soul that transcends one’s life. It continues to be in this creation long after the body ceases to exist. After 2500 years of the death of the prince Siddhartha, the shine of his Being still is so young and relevant in this world. Same is the case of Beethoven, Dickens, Shakespeare, Blake, Mozart, Michelangelo, Jesus, and hundreds of masters who have made their being sublime in their lifetimes. Certainly no matter what they had, has all perished away. Nature and life has not even a passing awareness of them. But it was their Being which has remained timeless. 

Today is the world of markets. It is the world of business, of industry, of capitalism. Capital is the God. It is not for wellbeing, man wants capital. But it is for capital, one needs more capital. Capital is no more just a means. But it has become an end to itself. Everything is measures in the backdrop of its salability. Even before taking up a hobby, it runs out in the mind of man, on the aspect of its salability to the society. Today, in the shelves of the best sellers, you see books which worship the men who “have” – in the form of power, capital, prestige, knowledge, or any other such forms of getting more capital in return. Unconsciously man has started measuring his own worth based on this skewed scale. 

But, remembering the ageless wisdom of the Vedas, if we practice the Sattvik form of living - a living based on the way of being, life becomes a beautiful play of discovery and enchantment.
______________________________________________
Copy Right © All rights reserved - Samrat Kar

Sunday, May 6, 2012

Adding that needed depth

"Go and be somethingological directly", Mrs Gradgrind orders her children in Charles Dickens's Hard Times (1854). The children are brought up on their father's strict utilitarian principles - or rather, on Dickens's ferocious satire of them. So they have "a little conchological cabinet, and a little metallurgical cabinet, and a little mineralogical cabinet; and all the specimens were all arranged and labelled", but they have no fairy tales or nursery rhymes - nothing that might encourage fancy or wonder.
Not surprisingly, the children come to bad ends. On her deathbed, Mrs Gradgrind tells her daughter: "There is something- not an Ology at all - that your father has missed, or forgotten."

Science, in Dickens's view, does immense good - moral, social and intellectual - but only when it works hand in hand with imagination and reverence. Dickens being a Protestant Christian, did not see science as a threat to religious faith. On the contrary, he argued, learning the true nature of forces or objects brings us close to their creator. In a speech he gave in 1869 at the Birmingham and Nidland Institude, he speculated that Jesus might have taught scientific truth about the "wonders on every hand", but chose not to because "the people of that time could not bear them". 

Dickens's objection in Hard Times was not to science itself, but to the reductionist principle that imposes stultifying order and leaves no room for emotion or imagination. Plenty of Victorian scientific writers would have agreed with him. Michael Faraday, for example, taught that "in the pursuit of physical science, the imagination should be taught to present the subject investigated in all possible, and even in impossible views."

Dickens was appalled by people whose scientific knowledge was not connected to imagination or feelings. As soon as we meet Bradley Headstone, the teacher in Our Mutual Friend(1865), we know that he will prove a villain, because his mind is rule-bound and sterile: "From his earliest childhood up, his mind had been a place of mechanical stowage...astronomy to the right, political economy to the left - natural history, the physical sciences, figures, music, the lower mathematics and what not, all in their several places." The same tidy-mindedness that incidcates the barrenness of the little Gradgrinds' natural specimens foretells Headstone's descent into criminal insanity. 

What excited Dickens most about science was its ability to reveal an unimagined world behind ordinary objects. "The facts of science are at least as full of poetry, as the most poetical fancies", he wrote in an 1848 review of RObert Hunt's The Poetry of Science. By revealing the wonder of everyday things, science compensates us for the beloved but ignorant beliefs it destroys. "When science has freed us from a harmless superstitions" Dickens wrote in the same review, "she offers to our contemplation something better and more beautiful, something which rightly considered, is more elevating to the soul, nobler and more stimulating to the soaring fancy." Dinosaurs, he went on, are really far more impressive than dragons, and coral reefs more so than mermaids.

Accordingly, Dickens championed writers who used science to show the world as spectacular, magical or astonishing. Among his close friends were mathematician, and father of the computer Charles Babbage, and Richer Owen, the comparative anatomist who coined the word dinosaur: Owen was enthralled by Dickens's novels, following them avidly as they came out in installments. Science historian Gowan Dawson has argued that there are strong similarities between Owen's paleontological studies and the way Victorian novel readers tackled serially published novels. 

On the same lines of Dickens, many greatest names in the field of physical sciences like that of Pythagoras, Archimedes, Kepler, and more recent Neil's Bohr, Newton, Einstein, Pauli, etc, have time and again hinted on the danger of the reductionism of science.

In our contemporary world similar over simplification raises its ugly head in the way children are taught  in schools, workers work in offices, managers and clerks manage the administrative works, engineers work out engineering feats, teachers teach and do research, priests carry out religious practices, doctors treat patients. 

Time is ripe, when there is an immediate need for man to step back, and listen to the in-audible, see the invisible, reason out the non-apparent, thereby being fully human. Mankind needs to focus on depth and not breath - on quality, not on quantity - on being, not on having.

______________________________________________
Copy Right © All rights reserved - Samrat Kar

Saturday, April 21, 2012

On Loving - An Action

Erich Fromm speaks about Love, marriage and relationships from the perspective of "having" and "being", beautifully as follows in his book - "To Have or To Be"

"Love has two meanings, depending upon whether it is spoken of in the mode of having or in the mode of being.
Can one have love? If we could, love would need to be a thing, there is no such a thing as "love". In reality there exists only the act of loving. To love implies caring for, knowing, responding affirming, enjoying: the person, the tree, the painting, the idea. It means bringing to life, increasing his/her/its aliveness. It is a process, self-renewing and self-increasing.
When love is experienced in the mode of having it implies confining, imprisoning, or controlling the object one "loves". It is strangling, deadening, suffocating, killing not life-giving. What people call love is mostly a misuse of the word, in order to hide the reality of their not loving.
The same may be said of marriages. Whether the marriage is based on love or, like traditional marriages of the past, on social convenience and custom, the couple who truly love each other seem to be the exception. What is social convenience, custom, mutual economic interests, shared interest in children, mutual dependency, or mutual hate or fear is consciously experienced as "love" - up to the moment when one or both partners recognize that they do not love each other, and that they never did. Today one can note some progress in this respect: people have become more realistic and sober, and many no longer feel that being sexually attracted means to love, or that a friendly, though distant, team relationship is a manifestation of loving. This new outlook has made for greater honesty - as well as more frequent change in partners. It has not necessarily led to a greater frequency of loving, and the new partners may love as little as did the old.
The change from "falling in love" to the illusion of "having" love can often be observed in concrete detail in the history of couples who have "fallen in love".

During courtship neither person is yet sure of the other, but each tries to win the other. Both are alive, attractive, interesting. Neither yet has the other; hence each other's energy is directed to "being", i.e. to giving to and stimulating the other. With the act of marriage the situation frequently changes fundamentally. The marriage contract gives each partner the exclusive possession of the other's body, feeling and care. Nobody has to be won over any more, because love has become something one "has", a property. The two cease to make the effort to be lovable and to produce love, hence they become boring, and hence their beauty disappears. They are disappointed and puzzled. Are they not the same persons any more? Did they make a mistake in the first place? Each usually seeks the cause of the change in the other and feels defrauded. What they do not see is that they no longer are the same people they were when they were in love with each other; that the error that one can have love has led them to cease loving. Now, instead of loving each other, they settle for owing together what they have: money, social standing, a home, children. Thus, in some cases, the marriage initiated on the basis of love becomes transformed into a friendly ownership, a corporation in which the two egotisms are pooled into one: that of the family.

When a couple cannot get over the yearning for renewal of the previous feeling of loving, one or the other of the pair may have the illusion that a new partner (or partners) will satisfy their longing. They feel that all they want to have is love. But love to them is not an expression of their being; it is a goddess to whom they want to submit. They necessarily fail with their love because "love is a child of liberty", and worshipper of the goddess of love eventually becomes so passive as to be boring and loses whatever is left of this or her former attractiveness.

This description is not intended to imply that marriage cannot be the best solution for two people who love each other. The difficulty does not lie in marriage, but in the possessive, existential structure of the both partners and, in the last analysis, of their society. The advocates of such modern-day forms of living together as group marriage, changing partners, group sex, etc, try, as far as I can see, only to avoid the problem of their difficulties in more "lovers", rather than to be able to love even one."

Beautifully expresses so succinctly, Fromm points to the root cause of attachment and pain, or disillusionment one undergoes in love, is rooted in one's propensity of "having" the object of love, in the above abstract in his book. Love in all forms loses its sheen, its life, its vitality and potency, when the love falls down to the form of a commodity to be "had". A person would be in excruciating emotional pain till he has not "had" his love. Countless poets have expressed their heartbreak, loneliness and helplessness in being in defiance from their love object. If by luck, the lover is able to "have" his love, then, as Fromm has rightly explained, the magic evaporates, as precisely occurs to one, when one buys the latest iPhone, and then loses interest in that, when a new version of iPhone is released the next year. I know here I have taken the subject to an extreme, and no one compares his lover to an iPhone. The comparison here is symbolically done to put a point.

The way out of this existential dilemma is always to relate love as an action - a productive, creative, nourishing and beautiful action. When one says, "I love you", one should relate it to saying, "I am standing in an act of caring, respecting, feeling, appreciating and affirming, who you are and who you are not". It is true that one cannot "fall in love". Rather one can only walk in love, stand in love, sing in love, write in love, create in love, see in love, paint in love, and live in love. I like to be always "inlove" :)
It is so true when Fromm says - "To love implies caring for, knowing, responding affirming, enjoying: the person, the tree, the painting, the idea. It means bringing to life, increasing his/her/its aliveness. It is a process, self-renewing and self-increasing." Yes, when one is not able to self-renew and self-increase, and do the same for his object of love, one has to be aware that it is not love that one is. But rather it is a personality defect - a craving, a need, a parasitic and symbiotic attachment.
______________________________________________
Copy Right © All rights reserved - Samrat Kar

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

An Effort

I have been talking about the insanity of "having" the current society in some of my previous articles, such as http://criativ-mind.blogspot.in/2012/04/dont-kill-just-listen.html
http://criativ-mind.blogspot.in/2012/03/karl-marx-on-being-and-sham-of-having.html

This propensity of having is so ingrained in everyday life, that it is most often hidden from our conscious selves. It is rather easier to come out of this race of having more and more on a material realm, related to possessions in material, once man sees the innate emptiness in just material possessions. But the addiction of possessing more and more in the mental and emotional realm is much more tricky. Man many a times is prey of his own rationalizations, and get stuck to the illusion of having.
Erich Fromm portrays in a beautiful and simple way the nature of "having" knowledge and learning, and its difference from the higher state of "being" in the realm of knowing, in his book "To Have or To Be". He says-
"The difference between the mode of having and the mode of being in the sphere of knowing is expressed in two formulations: "I have knowledge" and "I know". Having knowledge is taking and keeping possession of available knowledge; knowing is functional and serves only as a means in the process of productive thinking.
Our understanding of the quality of knowing in being mode of existence can be enhanced by the insights of such thinkers as the Buddha, the Hebrew prophets, Jesus, Master Eckhart, Sigmund Freud, and Karl Marx. In their view, knowing begins with the awareness of the deceptiveness of our common sense perceptions, in the sense that our picture of physical reality does not correspond to what is "really real" and, mainly in the sense that most people are half awake, half dreaming, and are unaware that most of what they hold to be true and self evident is illusion produced by suggestive influence of the social world in which they live. Knowing, then, begins with shattering of illusions, with disillusionment. Knowing means to penetrate through the surface, in order to arrive at the roots, and hence the causes; knowing means to "see" reality in its nakedness. Knowing does not mean to be in possession of the truth; it means to penetrate the surface and to strive critically an actively in order to approach truth ever more closely.
The Buddha calls on people to wake up and liberate themselves from the illusion that craving for things/people lead to happiness. The Hebrew prophets appeal to the people to wake up and know that their idols are nothing but the work of their own hands, are illusions. Jesus says : Truth shall make you free. Master Eckhart expressed his concept of knowing many times; for instance, when speaking of God he says: "Knowledge is no particular thought but rather it peels off all coverings and is disinterested and runs naked to God, until it touches him and grasps him". According to Marx, one needs to destroy illusions in order to create the conditions that make illusions unnecessary. Freud's concept of self-knowledge is based on the idea of destroying illusions through ones own rationalizations in order to become aware of the unconscious reality.
All these thinkers were concerned with human salvation; they were all critical of socially accepted thought patterns. To them the aim of knowing is not the certainty of "absolute truth", something one can feel secure with, but the self affirmation process of human reason. Ignorance, for the one who knows, is as good as knowledge, since both are part of the process of knowing, even though ignorance of this kind is different from ignorance of the unthinking. Optimum knowledge in the being mode is to know more deeply. In the having mode it is to have more knowledge.
Our education generally tries to train people to have knowledge as a possession, by and large commensurate with the amount of property or social prestige they are likely to have in later life. The schools are the factories in which these overall knowledge packages are produced - although schools usually claim they mean to bring the students in touch with the highest achievements of the human mind. Many undergraduate colleges are particularly adroit in nurturing these illusions. From Indian thought and art to existentialism and surrealism, a vast smorgasbord of knowledge is offered from which students pick a little here, a little there, and in the name of spontaneity and freedom are not urged to concentrate on one subject, not even ever to finish reading an entire book."

This is beautifully expressed! I would not have agreed more to the thoughts of Fromm, and could not have expressed it so to-the-point, precise and correctly. It amuses me when I get weekly newsletters from various organizations presenting abstracts of various books and articles. The so called think tanks of the current world like Harvard Business Review, The Economist, and others in the league, try to bring out tit-bits of knowledge form here and there. Most of the articles try to give a peek to the reader, some deep and long research work of some professors inside the hallowed walls of the greatest universities of the world. It is good that this helps the common man to have a peek onto what is happening in the realms of the frontiers of leadership, science, archeology, etc. But the issue is the common man is satisfied with an abstract, or an illustration, or a simplified "digestible" format of the knowledge. With the half baked knowledge the reader extrapolates it and tries to use it for himself. Neither there is a depth of thinking that is developed in the reader, nor the reader is able to create something unique and original. Most of the things he says, believes and opines are borrowed thoughts, which are not even understood properly. I understand that one has to learn from the giants. But "learning" from the giants is reduced to "copying" from the giants. The scope of the writings of the greatest masters and thinkers get reduced when man tries to relate to them from the mode of having, and not giving enough time and energy to go deep into the real essence of them. No wonder I see many writing in their interests section, in their profiles in the social networking sites - Bollywood gossips, films!
Our society is in dire need of increasing depth and quality, and reducing the quantity. An effort needs to be taken from each individual to take a breath, step back, and be mindful of his present - what he is reading, what he is watching, what he is doing, what he is thinking. And from that point, he has to go deeper into each realm, trying to break through the forced illusion that is being intricately woven by the modern plague of capitalism, consumerism, commoditization, globalization, and what not. It is high time to ask ourselves questions like - "Which book am I reading nowadays?", "What I understood for myself from the book I read last?", "What is that I care the most?", "What the great thinkers of yesteryears had to say about their lives and nature of the world?", "What are the illusions I subscribe to without even questioning?", "Was I helpful to others in any way today?", "Was I in a state of love or hatred in the moment just passed?", "What is the legacy I am leaving behind", "What I would like to leave inscribed on my epitaph, when I die" etc.

______________________________________________
Copy Right © All rights reserved - Samrat Kar

Thursday, March 29, 2012

The Idea of Right Action

Bhagavad Gita gives reference to "karma" - action, aligned with "dharma" - the laws of nature, at multiple places. The idea of "action" and then the "right action" as postulated in the Bhagavad Gita is pretty interesting and profound. In this article I discuss different dimensions of this philosophy.

A) Action without attachment to the Goal.
In this Krishna says, "You have a right to perform your prescribed duty, but you are not entitled to the fruits of actions. Never consider yourself the cause of the results of your activities, and never be attached to not doing your duty"
In simple terms it means: Keep on performing your duties without expecting any reward in return, leading a selfless life.
Most of us today have forgotten about this part and always take things as business deals. Be it friendship, love or even marriage. We always impose conditions before doing anything so that we benefit from it in the end. Here the suggestion is to do away with the greed of the result of any action.
In this level, one can logically arrive to the efficacy of this formulation. Obviously, when you are not distracted by the future result that your action will take you to, and focus all your energy and attention to your task at hand, you would be able to be more organized and efficient at your task. This will by itself lead you to successful result.

B) Action - the only path to true wisdom.
In the next level, we are told that "the path of knowledge is the same as the path of action." What this means is that "the path of action," i.e, of what is called Right Action, when it is attained, merges with the path of knowledge. At this point, they become one and the same; but this is  because that action is no longer action, as we normally understand it, but something quite different: it is wisdom in activity and, ultimately, just wisdom. So we can see that in order to reach this path of wisdom, a man cannot be bound to the action he is carrying out, but must be immersed in the Law, and act from there. Right action is not an attitude of giving in order to receive, of sowing in order to reap. To understand this we have to break down our mental structure which is unable to conceive the reality of something for that "something" in it. If we take a certain path, we feel we have to get somewhere; if we make a sacrifice, we have to gain a reward; it we give, we feel that sooner or later we must receive something in return. This is the way we tend to think. But the Bhagavad Gita has totally a different formulation. It says that right action would put an end to the chain of exchanges, with cause and effect. It leads one to a kind of freedom, where one is closer to the truth, to the wisdom. There is nothing that action shall take to, which is any way near to the profundity of wisdom that action itself nurtures the person. It is the journey the person undertakes doing an action that beautifies his character with added insights and wisdom. The result of the action is just another outcome - a bonus, if you would. There many grander aspects of entering into an action per se. Attaining knowledge, wisdom, understanding, maturity, insight, etc are various other dimensions that linger from the process of entering into a right action. It is further said that without action, no wisdom is possible.
To explain this tenet, let me take up a small example. If I am to explain to my daughter what love is, I might explain all the definitions, theoretical frameworks, aspects, nature and ramification of this word. My child might be able to get a fair idea of the concept in a mental level. But it will be still be in the superficial level of just another intellectual concept, a shallow mental picture. It is only through her personal experience of what is love, by entering into an activity engaging her entire personality, experiencing the bliss of being in  love in relating to it, or experiencing the pain of not in love, from the level of mind, heart, body and soul, she will be able to for the first time taste what real love is all about. You might agree that this voluntary or involuntary engagement into an activity to really experience love is a necessity in the part of my daughter to really understand what love is, in its totality. Not just a partial understanding in the level of mental models. Same thing holds good in any aspect of life. An understanding which is based on borrowed ideas, without entering into self-action, remains superficial in the level of just mental models. That is just a partial view. That is by itself powerless and sterile. There is no potency, vitality or life in it. Life has to be lived, entering into activity, to experience and understand life, in its various aspects. One who has not seen, felt and trekked the Himalayas, will never even come close to what is known as the grandeur of the Himalayas.
In today's world of rampant commoditization, people think that they can buy anything and everything off the shelf. If one wants to have a good dinner, one immediately buys oneself an expensive dinner in a restaurant. But the person totally misses out the pleasure of growing the vegetables, washing and cutting them, cooking them, and really cherishes the profundity of the pleasure of eating and sharing the food, after ente ring into all these activities. One would be able to appreciate the difference in the quality of pleasure one derives in the second way, when compared to the first.
One has to really understand that even in the realm of interpersonal relationships this holds good. If one does not take deep interest into the other, and really enter into an internal activity to understand a person, his point of view, his pains and fears, his personality needs, his background, his interests, one will never even be able to relate to what the other is even trying to say. Most of the way we relate to others is very superficial. We never feel for the other. We relate to the other just in the mental and logical level, most of the times superimposing our own autobiography on the other person. Relating to another person in such superficial realm, we end up either loving, or hating him. One has to understand that such a stance is just an illusion. By this, one has to understand that he is not dealing with another individual, but just a projection of one's own self.

C) Being-ness over Having-ness - 
In the journey from "action" to the "right action", Krishna proposes the aspect of Being over Having. The state of being is prescribed to search for the "right action" for one own self. This right action for an individual is suited to the uniqueness of the individual. It helps the individual to express himself fully and bring the full expression of his unique individuality. In Sanskrit, the term used to denote this is "Swadharma". In the state of being, which precedes the state of doing, a person is asked to contemplate on his self, and use his reason, experience, understanding and other human faculties to break through the illusions both within and outside, and search for himself the right action - the right way of being. Only after this phase, one is asked to venture into the world of action. This phase of being-ness does not end when a person is in the domain of doing. He continues in this state, being centered in his "Swadharma", and keeps taking action. He is always centered and grounded.
The state of Being has two fold purpose. One is it allows the person to select which action to take, and which not to. This is a sense of discrimination one develops within. The second is that the person grounded in the state of being, even when performing the action, does not get distracted by the storm of the distractions of "having" from all the directions of the material world. He is tuned to the internal compass of "Swadharma".
This can be appreciated in the way Mother Earth manifests herself. Mother Earth or as she is known by the ancient Greeks as Gaia, is always in a state of tranquil inaction, in an outward realm. But she is always quietly serving thousands of seeds to nourish them in her womb, holding in her immense embrace the sparkle of the diamonds, the sheen of gold, the passion of throbbing geysers and hot springs, and innumerable life forms. Mother Earth does not enter into these activities to "have" something. She even does not proclaim for her actions to the universe.  Please note that the state of being-ness as is not about lethargy, in-action, and a dejected state of hopelessness. Rather it is a state of immense internal activity. The activity might not be visible to the material world. But there are lots of upheavals being crossed, battles being won, obstacles being overcome, in the is-ness of one's own inner self. This builds up the psychological capital which provides the strength and direction to oneself to relate to the world outside. Mother Earth in this case, always is in a state of "is-ness". This state of "is-ness" from outside looks like a life-less inertia. But in reality, from within, she is in endless activity grounded deep into love, concern and compassion. She does not have anything. She is just "IS". This awareness and appreciation of "Being-ness" brings into one's consciousness new depth of being alive, which would have otherwise fizzled out when man is vexed in the race of having and having. A person will be able to see the hidden beauty of life, which is camouflaged by the apparent commotion, dis-integration, contradictions and ugliness all prevalent on surface. This opens up avenues to appreciate and observe divinity from the everyday chores of one's existence. Being-ness attaches meaning to an action. This meaning crops from one's capacity of love, concern, passion, vitality and potency. In the state of "Being", one starts to recognize that, in spite of abominable ugliness of the world around, there is an undercurrent of beauty and melody and a serene composure joyously gurgling. The more he recognizes the harmony in which the life is woven, more he goes deeper - between the ridges of the tapestry and dives into the beauty gushing out from each deep pore of the fabric of life. He realizes that the true bliss is not having something or somebody. That pleasure of having is just momentarily. Eventually what one has, rusts, decays and die. Only what stays is what "is" 
______________________________________________
Copy Right © All rights reserved - Samrat Kar

Monday, March 5, 2012

The Falling Leaf

“You can take the boy out of the jungle, But you cannot take jungle of the boy.” - so was said for Mougli by his mother, in the Jungle Book. There was this non physical onenesss between jungle and Mougli. So is there a non-perceivable oneness between the life furthering force and all the forms visible to the eye in this world of forms. 

In the season of Fall, when the dried leaves wither away from a tree, one can perceive the death of the leaves, where they part away from the tree of which they were a part of, for about an year. On surface it appears to be a moment of melancholy parting, between to entities who were actually one - one in love for each other - the leaf and the tree.

Going a bit deeper into the visible phenomenon, one can quickly appreciate the presence of that invisible force of life, which tends to express itself outside to the world of form. That force of life, made the first sapling grow from the seed, and when the sapling grew, it made it possible to continue its journey to upliftment to take the grand form of a tree. And then the same life force was busy expressing itself in the forms of leaves, fruits, shade, solace to the passing travelers, taking the form of God to the nearby communities, being the place for those incognito meetings between the lovers. This life force is what the essence is. It takes various forms just in order to express itself. These forms are subject to entropy of nature, just to keep that invisible life to express itself re-juvinated and young, with every passing moment, to eternity. The physical forms of leaves, fruits, shade, sound, etc are only the passing Shadow of Divine object - the life force, in movement towards Objectives which are not perceptible from the materialistic point of view. 

It probably appears advantageous not to be attached to the forms in the level of physical reality. They are transient manifestation of the hidden potential of the Life itself. Physical life forms are disintegrated shining entities condensed out from the Source. These physical entities of lower vibration and high density are subject to entropy to sustain the eternal flow of life in this world, through these forms. So, as per natural laws these life forms will always morph, transmute, grow, perish and again born, just to accommodate that ever moving Source. 

Although man is limited by his 5 senses, and in some cases 6, which makes him totally incapable of even relating to this invisible life force, there are avenues available to him to get a feel of how this elevated state feel like - not in actuality, but atleast in an analogy. Being involved in an activity, which enables man to express his unique potential of being who he is, is one of them. Similarly the state of being in active love, grounded in service, concern, humility, objectivity, responsibility, and respect, gives a glimpse of this hallowed state of the Source in its pristine form. I have tried to explain this idea of activity and love in my article - http://criativ-mind.blogspot.in/2012/03/love-and-productive-reason.html

This place of the Source, the unchanging ideal, is termed as Nous by the ancient Greeks, and Manas by Vedic traditions. This is the Ideal, the all loving divine inspiration which is at the core of everything. This ideal lends its manifestation to both inspiring beauty as well as the abominating ugliness. Both these extremities help the life force to express who it is, as Man’s perception is determined by duality. This desire to express itself, and to be able to conscious of itself, appears to be the objective of this life force, at-least in the level of understanding of ordinary mortals. 

In our dealings of every day life, in our engagement with the play of Maya, it seems logical not to be swayed by the gross forms of the material world - both in the forms of emotions, needs, attachments, fears, etc. The point is not about guarding oneself from these propensities. Infact these propensities are the ones that make us human. They are the premise on which the play is performed in the stage of Maya. But in the process of working with these “Shining Doubles”, Man has to be centered with the central axis of the Nous - the real reality. It is not a trick to avoid pain and be happy. Rather it is a way to express one’s respect to the invisible life force. It is about standing in acknowledgement to the laws of nature. It is a firm human resolve to be led by reason and awareness. It is not about relinquishing one’s independence and creative human faculties to a bigger and more powerful force. But, it is about standing in perspective to be able to enquire the nature of this invisible, omnipresent life force, in order to express oneself in absolute originality in a more optimal way. 

It is of prime importance for mankind to be engaged optimally in active love and productive activity in order to live life in full awareness, standing in acknowledgement of the eternal intelligence of Life. This is the only gateway to experience the Source. Talking about this path, N.Sri Ram had beautifully said so -
"Only as we go out in Love which seeks to help and serve, do we transcend ourselves and develop that consciousness which embodies the awareness of your essential unity with others."
______________________________________________
Copy Right © All rights reserved - Samrat Kar

Saturday, March 3, 2012

The Symbolism of the Bhagavad Gita

The Bhagavad Gita is much more than a moral treatise, which it apparently appears as. Behind the literary veil, the Bhagavad Gita presents a profound discussion on sum total of all science, harmony and mathematics of universal creation. The Bhagavad Gita - “The Song of the Lord”, was not named as the “Commands from the Lord”. By definition the work of art is not authoritative. Rather it is an expression of the laws of nature. It is a “song” of the Lord. It depends on the reader to listen to the song and implement the wisdom relating to it at a level appropriate for him. 


At the outset it is important to be reminded ourselves that the Bhagavad Gita - “The Song of the God”, is a symbolic tale. The two central characters are Krishna and Arjuna. Krishna symbolises the intelligence, the Buddhi, the dharma, the inspiration. He is the link to the ultimate Wisdom - the Ideal.


Krishna is the link to the Nous for the Greeks, Isis for the ancient Egypt, Buddhi for the Vedic school, Ideal for Plato, and Virtues for Aristotle. Arjuna is Hebrew Abraham, dragging himself in infinite pain up Mount Moriah with the torch of Faith illuminating his heart, triumphant over his human grief. The most important aspect of Krishna is that he is not a personna in human sense. He is above human needs and propensities of emotions, desires, ambitions, anger, body and soul. He is the mirror of “Vishnu” in the material world. At the same time he is not Vishnu. He is a man-God, or “Manas Putra” - the way Vedic tradition likes to name. He is symbolically analogous to the serpent of the garden of Eden - a harbinger of wisdom, enabling man to raise to the next level of evolution - a stage where man is more aware of what is right and what is wrong. In the myth of the trinity of Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesh, Vishnu stands for the sustainer. He stands for a womb of creation, nourishment, intelligence, inspiration, the right environment, which makes the will (Brahma) to grow up to the form of creation (Mahesh). Vishnu is the analogous to Isis in ancient Egypt. Brahma is Osiris, and Mahesh is Horus. Krishna is the manifestation of the abstract idea of the ideal of Vishnu, in the material world. He symbolically acts the role of the charioteer to Arjuna. Hence he guides Arjuna to the right path. He is the eyes of Arjuna in his battle. Note that Krishna does not do the fight for himself. He is the inspiration, the link between man (Arjuna) and The Ideal (Vishnu). Krishna is the teacher of the wisdom. Wisdom is Vishnu himself. Arjuna is the disciple. Krishna is the philospher - the link between man and the Ideal.


Arjuna stands for Nietzsche’s Superman, and kierkergaard’s Christian. Arjuna is “Krishna” in potential. He is the disciple of the Dharma. He is the leader who manifests the inspiration of Krishna to the material world, into form. He stands for the common man, who is fighting the battle of his life. The battle between Kauravas (lower self) and Pandavas (higher self). Arjuna’s doubts are our doubts, his problems and dilemmas are ours, and the questions which he puts to Krishna are the same universal and eternal questions that men and women of all ages, and from every part of the world, have been asking themselves since time immemorial. 


One very important premise on which the Bhagavad Gita is based is the idea of the battle between Kauravas and Pandavas. Since time immemorial most of the greatest of the ancient civilizations have been teaching that man has two natures : the sense and the mind. The former is material and the latter is divine. Plato speaks of our lost wings and of the useless beatings of the stumps which have lost the prodigy of flight. The immortal soul, when free of the body, has wings that hold it aloft, in heaven. Yet the wings are lost when the soul is tied with the body, but since the soul has glimpsed the immutable forms, it strives to join them again. The eternal striving of the lower self (Kaurava) to be united with the higher self (Pandava), battling the human propensities grounded in the material world of senses has been symbolised by the battle of Kurukshetra, to win over Hastinapura - “The city of elephants”. Elephant symbolizes Wisdom. Hastinapura has been translated to the “City of Wisdom”. 


Just to clarify the lower self (Kauravas) is not something that has to be despised and subdued. The lower self is just the transient, material, emotional part of being human. It is more connected to the animal nature of man. It is the physical existence of the man. This part of man acts as a vehicle for man to climb the stairs of the evolution. The lower self are the limbs of man, helping him to climb up to the Idea - the Nous. The lower self has to be guided by the “Krishna”, to win over the existential battle of mankind - “The battle of Kurukshetra”. The higher self is already present in the lower self, in potential. All that is good, and close to the ideal, which is represented by Pandavas is the potential already present in man. Same is true for the Kauravas. All the lower propensities are also potential in man. By nature, man is in potential - both the God and the demon. It requires the education of the Krishna to realize man his real potential - the potential of being the God. Krishna plays the role of the “Partha Sarathy” - the charioteer of the Arjuna - the disciple, guiding him to the realization of the real potential of being human. 


One very subtle but profound premise of the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita is about the way to achieve victory over the lower self. It is neither in the form of suppression (using will to stop oneself to act as per lower instincts), not in the form of repression (removing the stimulus itself from the awareness, which can entice man to fall for his lower instincts). The former method is too superficial and stress-full. That reduces man to be a guard of himself, who is forcibly trying eternally to lock up the evil monster inside. The latter method is about creating a pseudo surrounding by avoiding the realities of life. This way might guard the conscious self from lower propensities. But the sub-conscious mind will have its own ramifications. The effect of the repressed impulse on the person is not even necessarily smaller than if it were conscious; the main difference is that it is not acted upon overtly but in disguise. so the person acting is spared the knowledge of what he is doing. Krishna formulates a third method in which the life-furthering fores in a person fight against the destructive and evil impulses. The more aware a person is of the latter the more is he able to reat. Not only his will and his reason take part, but those emotional forces in him which are challenged by his destructiveness. This relieves a man of being his own watchdog and of using his will power constantly for self-control. In this method, the emphasis is not on one’s feeling of badness and remorse but on the presence and use of productive forces within man. Thus, as a result of the productive conflict between good and evil, the evil itself becomes a sources of virtue. It is not about repression of man’s evilness but the productive use of man’s inherent primary potentialities. Virtue is proportional to the degree of productiveness a person has achieved. This productiveness is being termed “karma” or the “right action” by Krishna. Action is treated as a means to self realization by Krishna. 


The figure of Krishna holding the four horses (symbolising our senses going hey where) tight, and leading the chariot of Arjuna to the right direction symbolises not an authoritative vigilance of the guard who has to shut in the evil prisoner; rather, the vigilance of the rational being who has to recognize and to create the conditions for his productiveness and to do away with those factors which block him and thus create the evil which. Bhagavad Gita is based on the premise that man is a potential God, and not a potential evil. The evilness in man do arise due to presence of barriers which stop the real self getting manifested. And Krishna through his song tries to put forward the idea of productive usage of man’s inherent potentials through productive activities, both internal and external, to be able to realize his Godliness. 


This battle of Kurukshetra, the fight of man to reach the ideal, is what our philosopher forbears intended to convey when they wrote Bhagavad Gita. On that problem, every genius has planted the seed of his talent. It is the problem and for man: there is no other. It was the inspiration for the mysterious hierophants of the Nile and their hermetic tablets. It was contemplated by Plato when he wrote his Dialogues. It was in the heart of the first being who questioned the Infinite about his own essence. 


One very interesting thing about Bhagavad Gita is its settings. Here we have the Lord singing to his disciple amidst a ferocious battle. Weapons flashes in sunlight, clutched by tensed Kaurava warriors. Animals snort andneigh; the mystical conch-shells sound; life trembles, and death smiles expectantly. Amidst all this noise, confusion and destruction all around, we are shown an afraid and confused Arjuna, who has surrendered to Krishna, and is listening with all intent and discipleship to the song of the Lord! It demonstrates Arjuna’s virtue of being centered to the axis and his attention on the dim melody of the divine song, not letting the distractions of the battle move him out of his center. He is not stunned by the noise. All that matters to him is to seek the eternal Silence within him in order to hear the Voice which sounds above the din of battle. To have that silence is to have everything. 


Bhagavad Gita is one of the most profound treatise on ethics ever formulated by the ancients. With all its literary adornments this book goes to bring forth the optimism, the faith, the feeling of certainty that the day of final reunion will come after the long journey across the dark seas, where no one should remain but as stranger returning to his homeland. It reminds man to exercise his reason, faculties and virtues of being human, to transcend his inherent Kaurava propensities, which although appear sensuous and attractive, but are transient and illusion of the world of maya. The treatise is like a mine of wisdom. Written succinctly, it is like an eternal fountain of wisdom. It offers man in every level to find for himself, the nourishment for his soul. For a common man still grounded on material realm, it offers the apparent story which he can follow with interest, with hidden symbolism. For a philosopher this treatise challenges his mind to interpret the symbolism to go deeper into the laws of nature. This is the most beautiful aspect of the Bhagad Gita. It has something every every one, based on individual needs. This nature of the treatise, itself inspires. Can we be someone who has something to give to all - irrespective of the level from which one is coming from? Can we be able to stick to the art, note and meter of the “song” amidst the bustle of the every day material life? Can we focused in the path of dharma? The book comes up with such challenging questions, which inspires man to realise who he inherently is - The God - The Ideal.
______________________________________________
Copy Right © All rights reserved - Samrat Kar

Friday, March 2, 2012

The Most Important Philosophy of Life

If man wants to know the sole and universal secret of a meaningful and happy life, he is to be aware such a life is possible only through the determined resolve to walk in the path of pure love. It is imperative to have an unshakable resolve to be in love every moment of the day, no matter what. The crux of every philosophy is jut one - be in love, active love, Manas Love, Love emanating from Nous, from Buddhi. 

At the same time, beware of the disintegrated form of love coming out from the physical levels of Kama Manas and below (Linga, Prana, Stula). They are disintegrated form of that once pristine love of the Nous, of Buddhi. They have lost their erstwhile wings. They will just flutter and then die in a moment. They are transient. They have an inherent ego, frustration, pain, needs, and other lower propensities, which primarily belong to the realm which are lower in the evolution line than that what is present as an opportunity for man in his life. These lower forms of love although attractive on surface, pulls down man backwards and retards his growth in his journey. They just dissipate time and energy of man, and steal away his opportunity to really live. 

What is the truth is just that one love - The love emanating from the Nous - The Manas Love. Be grounded in that every moment of your attention.

The Manas love is based on the premise of Love as an art. Erich Fromm in his book - "The art of loving" has tried to identify characteristics of Manas love. He says Love is an active effort, grounded on the human potentials of objectivity, humility, courage, active faith, discipline within, concentration and meditation, patience, supreme concern, the indirect nature of love, relaxed awareness, sensitivity, right education, overcoming narcissism, universality of love. 
Glimpses of The Manas Love - Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr, Jesus, Moses, Buddha, Mohammad.

Victor Frankl has expressed another important aspect of Manas Love in his book - "Man's search for Meaning" as follows - 
Love is the only way to grasp another human being in the innermost core of his personality. No one can become fully aware of the very essence of another human being unless he loves him. By his love he is enabled to see the essential traits and features in the beloved person; and even more, he sees that which is potential in him, which is not yet actualized but yet ought to be actualized. Furthermore, by his love, the loving person enables the beloved person to actualize these potentialities. By making him aware of what he can be and what he should become, he makes these potentialities come true.

Sri. N. Ram articulates the ideal of Mans Love as follows - 
"Only as we go out in love which seeks to help and serve, do we transcend ourselves and develop that consciousness which embodies the awareness of our essential unity with others."

One has to be grounded in Manas Love every waking moment. This love has to extend to his fellow humans and to the nature. This is the secret of a meaningful and happy living. This is the only way out of the existential problems infront of man. This requires constant attention, will, memory, nurturing, intelligence and the resolve to bring into form that wisdom of the idea of Manas love in everyday life. Only then man can know who he is, and who others are, and what nature is - in reality. Any other way is a way in illusion - Maya.

Having said all this, it is very important to understand that an abstract idea is real only when it is applied. Similarly, Manas Love will remain as a dead word, unless it is actually lived, implemented and applied in real life - in the life which is alive in the realm of Kama Manas, Linga, Prana and Stula. The physical life is grounded in these physical realities. These are the realm of forms. The ideal of Manas Love has to be grounded to the framework of physical forms. Unless that is done, its all fluke and over intellectualization. It is very important to discern and have the power and resolve to play with Manas Love in the stage of the world of Maya, and not get lost in the illusion of the disintegrated forms of love so very popular and present everywhere around.

______________________________________________ 
Copy Right © All rights reserved - Samrat Kar

Friday, February 24, 2012

Idea of Self Interest from Humanistic Philosophy

To Spinoza self-interest or the interest to "seek one's profit" is identical with virtue. He says, "The more each person strives and is able to seek his profit that is to say, to preserve his being, the more virtue does he possess; on the other hand, is so far as each person neglects his own profit he is impotent". According to this view, the interest of man is to preserve his existence, which is the same as realizing his inherent potentialities. This concept of self-interest is objectivistic inasmuch as "interest" is not conceived in terms of the subjective feeling of what one's interest is but of what the nature of man is, objectively. Man according to Spinoza has only one real interest and that is the full development of his potentialities, of himself as a "human being". Just as one has to know another person on his real needs in order to love him, one has to know one's own self in order to understand what the interests of his self are and how they can be served. It follows that man can deceive himself about his real self-interest if he is ignorant of his self and its real needs and that the science of man is the basis of determining what constitudes man's self interest.

In the last three hundred years the concept of self-interest has increasingly been narrowed until it has assumed almost the opposite meaning which it has in Spinoza's thinking. It has become identical with selfishness; and instead of its being synonymous with virtue, its conquest has become an ethical commandment.

This deterioration was made possible by the change from the objectivistic into erroneously subjectivistic approach to self-interest. Self-interest was no longer to be determined by the nature of man and his needs; correspondingly the notion that one could be mistaken about it was relinquished and replaced by the idea that what a person felt represented the interest of his self was necessarily his true self-interest.

The "fallacy of self-interest" in modern man has never been described better than by Ibsen in his play Peer Gynt. Peer Gynt believes that his whole life is devoted to the attainment of the interests of his self. He describes his self as:

"The Gyntian Self!
- An army, that, of wishes, appetites, desires!
The Gyntian Self!
It is a sea of fancies, claims and aspirations;
In fact, it's all that swells within my breast
And makes it come about that I am I and live as such"

At the end of his life he recognizes that he had deceived himself; that while following the principle of "self-interest" he had lost the very self he sought to preserve. He is told that he never had been himself and that therefore he is to be thrown  back into the melting pot to be dealt with as raw material. he discovers that he has lived according to the Troll principle: "To thyself be enough" - which is the opposite of human principle: "To thyself be true". He is seized by the horror of nothingness to which he, who has no self, can not help succumbing when the props of pseudo self, success, and possessions are taken away or seriously questioned. He is forced to recognize that in trying to gain all the wealth of the world, in relentlessly pursuing what seemed to be his interest, he had lost his self.

The failure of modern culture lies not in its principle of individualism, not in the idea that moral virtue is the same as the pursuit of self-interest, but in the deterioration of the meaning of self-interest, not in the fact that people are too much concerned with their self interest, but that they are not concerned enough with the interest of their real self; not in the fact that they are too selfish, but that they do not love themselves.

The issue in hand then is how to distinguish from the "subjective self interest" and "objective self interest". The question is how to know that a course of action expresses the real self, and at the same time is what is right and good - ie. expresses the true human nature of man. Putting it in other way how to discover one's own real self - own real conscience?

There is no prouder statement man can make than to say: "I shall act according to my conscience." Throughout history men have upheld the principles of justice, love and truth against every kind of pressure brought to bear upon them in order to make them relinquish what they knew and believed. The prophets acted according to their conscience when they denounced their country and predicted its downfall because of its corruption and injustice. Socrates preferred death to a course in which he would have betrayed his conscience by compromising with the truth. Without the existence of conscience, the human race would have bogged down long ago into its hazardous course.

One's conscience has to be developed such that it manifests the state of really being a human. That is the highest state of being for a man. In scholastic philosophy, conscience is considered to be the law of reason implanted in man by God. It is different from habit of faculty of judging, and of willing the right.

The issue becomes even more difficult when man accepts the contents of the Calvinistic doctrine. He makes himself an instrument, not of God's will but of the economic machine or the state. He has accepted the role of a tool for industrial progress. Not only do the authoritarian ideologies threaten the most precious achievement of Western culture, the respect for the uniqueness and dignity of the individual; they also tend to block the way to constructive criticism of modern society, and thereby to necessary changes. The failure of modern culture lies not in its principle of individualism, not in the idea that moral virtue is the same as the pursuit of self-interest, but in the deterioration of the meaning of self-interest; not in the fact that people are too much concerned with their self  interest, but that they are not concerned enough with the interest of their real self; not in the fact that they are too selfish, but that they do not love themselves. 

Canalizing of all human energy into work and the striving for success was one of the indispensable conditions of the enormous achievement of modern capitalism, a stage has been reached where the problem of production has been virtually solved and where the problem of organization of social life has become the paramount task of mankind. Man has created such sources of mechanical energy that he has freed himself from the task of putting all his human energy into work in order to produce the material conditions for living. He could spend a considerable part of his energy on the task of living itself. 

The idea is about realizing one's own self, i.e. the ideal nature of man - and use the opportunity of this life to use the unique power endowed to man, being his real self.

______________________________________________
Copy Right © All rights reserved - Samrat Kar

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Unconditionality – A Farce

Some people (including me) are most of the times driven by what they call “unconditional love”. They do not practice that from the standpoint of freedom. Rather they are driven unconsciously to be unconditional. They force themselves into the space and lives of others, even when the other person does not need them. They neurotically are driven to “be of help”. They use the socially acceptable rationalizations presented in the phrases like, “being a means”, “being relevant”, “being a giver” to justify their precarious way of relating to the world.

From birth to death, they have the same repeating pattern – “being a saint”, to others. Going deep into the nature of such men, one is surprised to discover that there is a deep sense of lack in their inner psyche. They are vexed with “having” from others (actually from everyone in this world), an acknowledgement, love, respect, understanding, and above all – affirmation of who they are. This crops out from that deep seated inferiority complex, and lack of self. They do not know their own self worth, and who they are, and look for affirmation of the same from others. Even if they have an inkling of their self, they want to re-affirm the same by hearing it from others.  This propensity of man is driven by the deep seated drive to “have”, rather to “be”. Such men are “takers”. It has been the biggest insight of my life to realize that I have been a person of this sort most of my life, till date. This insight cropped to me by myriad of my personal experiences, interactions with people in my world, books I have been reading, and contemplations I have been doing.

I have been reading and contemplating on the works of Erich Fromm, since last few months. I have been trying to be able to really go deep into the mind of Fromm, with help of his books – The art of loving, Fear of Freedom, and the one I am reading now – “Man for himself”. I also have been reading and listening to him over the internet from the archives. The most concrete synthesis of the personality type I have been discussing has been very succinctly postulated by Fromm in his book – “Man for himself – An inquiry into the psychology of ethics”, as follows. He calls such people – “Receptively Oriented”

“…They feel “the source of all good” to be outside, and believe that the only way to get what they want – be it material, be it affection, love, knowledge, pleasure – is to receive it from that of the outside source. In this orientation the problem of love is almost exclusively that of being loved and not that of loving. Such people tend to be indiscriminate in the choice of their love objects, because being loved by anybody is such an overwhelming experience for them they “fall for” anybody who gives them love or what looks like love. They are exceedingly sensitive to any withdrawal or rebuff they experience on the part of the loved person. Their orientation is the same in the sphere of thinking: if intelligent, they make the best listeners, since their orientation is one of receiving, not of producing. If religious, these people have a concept of God in which they expect everything from God and nothing from their own activity. If not religious, their relationship to person or institutions is very much the same, they are always in search of a “magic helper”. They show a particular kind of loyalty, at the bottom of which is the gratitude for the hand that feeds them and the fear of ever losing it. Since they need many hands to feel secure, they have to be loyal to numerous people. It is difficult for them to say “no”, and they are easily caught between conflicting loyalties and promises. Since they cannot say “no”, they love to say “yes” to everything and everybody, and the resulting paralysis of their critical abilities make them increasingly dependent on others.
This receptive type has great fondness for food and drink. These persons tend to overcome anxiety and depression by eating or drinking. The mouth is an especially prominent feature, often the most expressive one; the lips tend to be open, as of in a state of continuous expectation of being fed.
By and large, the outlook of people of this orientation is optimistic and friendly; they have a certain confidence in life and its gifts, but they become anxious and distraught when their “source of supply” is threatened. They often have a genuine warmth and a wish to help others, but doing things for others also assumes the function of securing their favor.”


Certainly the above postulation from Fromm is not a description of one person, rather a personality type. A human being is far more complex than one template of personality type. There are other aspects which synthesize together to give a unique nature to a person.

But, it was really very fulfilling for me to catch myself red handed. I have been always very proud of being “unconditional”. Of late I have been discovering that it is just a façade, inside which I have been hiding that longing to be “accepted” and be “loved”. This have been driving me to force myself to others, either rendering an un-solicited help, or over graciousness, showing of excessive concern for others, expressing forced solidarity with one and all. Obviously this propensity cuts across all the spheres of my life, and the way I relate to the outside world. In reality, there is need, this sense of poverty, always trying its best to get that signal of acknowledgement and affirmation of who I am, from the outside world.

Being brought up in an environment of a Roman Catholic mission school in childhood, I have been strongly influenced by the preaching of Jesus on unconditional love. I got this socially acceptable rationalization of “unconditional love” presented to me in childhood, to hide the weakness of my inner self. And the most interesting thing is that, it is all unconscious!

I am aware many people in my world have been feeling claustrophobic due to this peculiar drive in my personality. Nevertheless, it helps to build a false mask of being positive. Interestingly I have been getting awards for being the most positively oriented person in my department at work, for the last 3 years in succession. But it is now that I realize what is the source of my being so receptive and positive!

It is certainly important and highest of human virtues to be unconditional and loving to the world. But the whole philosophy crumbles down when it is just a farce, a façade hiding something else. The problem is when such high virtues are practiced being “driven” by these deep seated vulnerabilities – the aspects of under developed personalities – as in the case of mine. Such divine virtues has to be practiced from the firm foundation of being grounded in dharma, and no real need for the self.

This insight about my own self, has been a difficult and most excruciating process of last 10 years of my life. I always had an inkling to this, but was looking out for a concrete synthesis for the same, I guess. Thanks to the numerous books and people in my life, who have so genuinely contributed to me, enabling me to discover this weakness of my inner self.

This insight has helped me to understand the idea of spontaneous productive activity, that Fromm has been putting forth repeatedly in his various books, to overcome separateness. It is certain that man has to resolve his separateness with himself and his outer world – both other men, and nature. But the drive to resolve this separateness is not about forcing myself into the space of others, who really do not need me. That is the case of a typical sado-masochistic craving. Resolving separateness is not about closeness and intimacy with the object (man or nature), although at the expense of freedom and one’s own integrity. It is not about losing one’s own self, and being a doll of salt, dissolving in a bowl of water. That way the doll has been able to resolve its separateness with water. But, in this process has lost his real self – of being a doll. This never leads to happiness. A horse will be happy only to be the best horse. It will never want to be a tiger or a rabbit. It is important for man to realize that self integrity, and affirmation of one’s own uniqueness and individuality is of prime importance for man to find happiness and fulfillment.
When Fromm talks about resolving one’s separateness, he speaks about understanding the other. It is about entering into an inquiry, a state of concern, respect, objectivity, care, responsibility, and love. Love is the productive form of relatedness to others and to oneself. It implies responsibility, care, respect and knowledge, and the wish for the other person to grow and develop. It is the expression of intimacy between two human beings under the condition of preservation of each other’s integrity.  

So, the process of resolving the separateness starts with preserving one’s own integrity, and at the same time integrity of the other. This will stop a man to force himself into the other, thereby dissolving his own integrity and expressing a ruthless attitude to swallow the other. This drive is often hidden in various socially acceptable ways - either being too nice to people, or showing extra care to others, or calling someone by loving names, though totally un-solicited! At core of all this, there is a deep seated sado-masochistic craving. The person expresses both sadism and masochism simultaneously.

A place of freedom would be resolving the separateness from the place of total understanding of the needs of the other. It is also about knowing someone at his core. It is about being able to really discern what is superficially apparent, and go in search of the truth about man and nature. This requires lot of productive orientation, contemplation, concern and vitality. Once that truth is found it is interesting so observe the unity in otherwise ostensive diversity prevalent in this world. The one-ness of the world overwhelms one in joy and pure bliss!

It is so true when H.P.Blavatsky mused in her book – The Voice of Silence –
“The biggest illusion of all is the illusion of separation”. 
______________________________________________
Copy Right © All rights reserved - Samrat Kar

Thursday, January 5, 2012

The discovery of my real self – Creative Spontaneous Activity

The following article is inspired from the book – “The Fear of Freedom” by Erich Fromm.

In the quest of the truth, this is another threshold I am crossing, while I am continuing my research, contemplation and synthesis of the ideas of Erich Fromm. Most of his ideas related to social psychology are captured in his following books – The Art of Loving, The Fear of Freedom, The Sane Society, Man for himself, an enquiry into the psychology of ethics, To have or to be. 

In the book – “The Fear of Freedom”, Fromm delves into the post industrialized world, and analyses the overwhelming impact of the rising capitalism, modernization and materialism on human psyche.  He explains in detail how with rise of freedom and individuality in the post modern world, there has been an increase of loneliness, separateness and split in human nature. He shows that freedom from the traditional bonds of medieval society, though giving the individual a new feeling of independence, at the same time made him feel alone and isolated, filled him with doubt and anxiety, and drove him into new submission and into a compulsive and irrational activity. This compulsive and irrational activity to which man has been driven into out of this feeling of fear, separateness and discontent, take the form of either sado-masochism, or a total submission.

Sadism is a form of being which is totally authoritative. A sadist kills the individuality of others, and forces his thoughts and ideas on the other. This way he overcomes the separateness he has with the other. An example might be an old fashioned father, who in the name of love for his child, decides what is best for the child, and does not allow the child to grow and realize her real self.

Masochist is a person who is totally submissive to an authority. By being so, the person succeeds in resolving the separateness, by discarding his real self. A masochist derives pervert pleasure out of being in pain, being mutilated by the Sadist. A typical example might be one’s masochistic relationship to his idea of God, as an all powerful entity, punishing him when he behaves against His will, and loving when he behaves as per His will. In this relationship, God takes the place of the Sadist individual, and the follower becomes a masochist.

In the case of total submission, the person forgoes his real, authentic self, and submits to the pseudo thoughts and philosophies from external sources. For example, if a person who does not have any training and interest in visual arts, visits a world famous museum, and looks at a classic painting, he appreciates it. But the appreciation is a pseudo one. He neither has the authentic appreciation of the painting, nor is interested in it. He appreciates it just because he should appreciate that. This certainly is different from one’s intellectual quest to learn more and experience more, from outside sources; in which case the person learns, reflects, contemplates and synthesizes the truth for himself. That is more about discovering one’s own real self, being informed from the works from the exponents in the past, in the related domain. But an in-authentic submission is about just aping outside ideologies superficially. Submission helps the person to be a part of the crowd, and hence resolve his separateness.

But most of these mechanisms – sado-masochistic cravings, and submission to the external world, are in-authentic and temporary methods to cover up that fear. Modern man is starved for life. But since, being an automaton, he cannot experience life in the sense of spontaneous activity he takes a surrogate any kind of excitement and thrill: the thrill of drinking, of sports, of vicariously living the excitements of fictitious persons on the screen. Fromm goes ahead to investigate the real solution to overcome the fear.  He terms it as freedom and spontaneity.
Fromm says that man can be free and yet not alone, critical and yet not filled with doubts, independent and yet an integral part of mankind. This freedom, man can attain by the realization of his self, by being himself. He continues -

Idealistic philosophers of the guild of Plato and the neo-Platonists, have believed that self-realization can be achieved by intellectuality, so that man’s nature may be suppressed and guarded by his reason. The result of this split however has been that not only the emotional life of man but also his intellectual faculties have been crippled. Reason, by becoming a guard set to watch its prisoner, nature, has become a prisoner itself; and thus both sides of human potentiality, reason and emotion, were crippled. From says that he believes that the realization of the self is accomplished not only by an act of thinking but also by the realization of man’s total personality, by an active expression of his emotional and intellectual potentialities. These potentialities are present in everybody; they become real only to the extent to which they are expressed. In other words, positive freedom consists in spontaneous activity of the total, integrated personality.

While spontaneity is a relatively rare phenomenon in our culture, we are not entirely devoid of it. In the first place, we know of individuals who are or have been spontaneous, whose thinking, feeling, and acting were the expression of their selves and not of an automaton. These individuals are mostly known to us as artists. As a matter of fact, the artist can be defined as an individual who can express himself spontaneously.

Spontaneous activity is the one way in which man can overcome the terror of aloneness without sacrificing the integrity of his self; for in the spontaneous realization of the self man unites himself anew with the world – with man, nature and himself. Love is the foremost component of such spontaneity; not love as the dissolution of the self in another person (masochism), not love as the possession of another person (sadism), but love as spontaneous affirmation of others, as the union of the individual with others on the basis of preservation of the individual self. The dynamic quality of love lies in this very polarity: that it springs from the need to overcoming separateness, that it leads to oneness – and yet that individuality is not eliminated. Work is the other component; not work as a compulsive activity in order to escape aloneness, not work as a relationship to nature which is partly one of dominating her, partly one of worship of and enslavement by the very products of man’s hands, but work as creation in which man becomes one with nature in the act of creation. What holds true of love and work holds true of all spontaneous action, whether it be the realization of sensuous pleasure or participation in the political life of the community. It affirms the individuality of the self and at the same time it unites the self with man and nature. The basic dichotomy that is inherent in freedom – the birth of individuality and the pain of aloneness – is dissolved on higher plane of man’s spontaneous action.

In all spontaneous activity the individual embraces the world. Not only does his individual self remain intact; it becomes stronger and more solidified - for the self is as strong as it is active. There is no genuine strength in possessions as such, neither in material property nor in mental qualities like emotions or thoughts. There are also no strength in use and manipulation of objects; what we use is not ours simply because we use it. Ours is only that to which we are genuinely related by our creative activity, be it a person or an inanimate object. Only those qualities that result from our spontaneous activity give strength to the self and thereby from the basis of its integrity. The inability to act spontaneously, to express what one genuinely feels and thinks, and resulting necessity to present a pseudo self to others and oneself, are the root of the feeling of inferiority and weakness. Whether or not we are aware of it, there is nothing  of which we are more ashamed than of not being ourselves, and there is nothing that gives us grater pride and happiness than to think, to feel, and to say what is ours.
This implies that what matters is the activity as such, the process and not the result. In our culture the emphasis is just the reverse. We produce not for a concrete satisfaction but for the abstract purpose of selling our commodity; we feel that we can acquire everything material or immaterial by buying it, and thus things become ours independently of any creative effort of our own in relation to them. In the same way we regard our personal qualities and result of our efforts as commodities that can be sold for money, prestige and power. The emphasis thus shifts from the present satisfaction of creative activity to the value of the finished product. There by man misses the only satisfaction that can give him real happiness – the experience of the activity of the present moment – and chases after a phantom that leaves him disappointed as soon as he believes he has caught it – the illusory happiness called success.

If the individual realizes his self by spontaneous activity and thus relates himself to the world, he ceases to be an isolated atom; he and the world become part of one structuralized whole; he has his rightful place, and thereby his doubt concerning himself and the meaning of life disappears. This doubt sprang from his separateness and from the thwarting of life; when he can live, neither compulsively nor automatically but spontaneously, the doubt disappears. He is aware of himself as an active and creative individual and recognizes that there is only one meaning of life: the act of living itself. This way he gains strength as an individual and he gains security.

The idea of spontaneous activity needs more explanation. It is not the mindless act of giving up to one’s irrational whims and fancies. I feel Fromm should have qualified his spontaneous activity as Creative Spontaneous Activity. By adding the extra qualifier – creative, I would want to stress on Fromm’s idea of originality, constructive and positive aspect of one’s own action. Through his spontaneity man has to realize his real self, engaging into an activity which affirms goodness – both within and outside. It is not enough just being spontaneous in certain private and spiritual matters, but above all in the activity fundamental to every man’s existence, his work. It is about engaging in a creative enterprise, which not only helps the person to express his real self, but also that activity should uplift humanity per se.

The Creative Spontaneous Activity should come from the place of love, compassion, dignity, respect, beauty, positivity, growth, freedom, joy, courage, decency and kindness. It should be firmly grounded in the belief of human equality and individual uniqueness. At the same time, there has to be the perspective of general good – that insight of positively impacting people and institutions.  The only criterion for realization of freedom is whether or not the individual actively participates in determining his life and that of society, and this not only by the formal act of voting but in his daily activity, in his work, and in his relations to others. Modern political democracy, if it restricts itself to the purely political sphere, cannot sufficiently counteract the results of the economic insignificance of the average individual.

I have tried to express this philosophy using the following diagram -
http://criativ-mind.blogspot.com/2012/01/copy-right-all-rights-reserved-samrat.html

______________________________________________ 
Copy Right © All rights reserved - Samrat Kar

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Life is just a means; not an end.

Of late I have come to realize that my life is just a means, and not end to itself. So is everything in my life, including myself. Let me explain.
My life comprises of the following major components –

1.    My Persona –
The identity of mine, my personality, my personal ego, that aspect of my existence that I call as “I”, is just a means, and not an end to itself. It is a means to explore, learn, grow, make a positive difference to the community I belong, to make a meaningful contribution to the place I work, to create a safe, nurturing and warm ecosystem for my family, friends, and colleagues, to create a legacy that enables mankind to think, conceive and act better in some way or the other. I have earlier in some of my poems and essays, have termed this aspect of mine as being a “link”; a link between the problem and a possible inspiring and effective solution; a link between the higher self and lower baser emotions. Persona acts as a vehicle to implement the higher ideals, the divinity, in the world of form. It is a means, ofcourse!

Many a time I have a propensity to slip down to consider the persona as an end. This is exactly when I expect things for myself, or when the ego is at play, trying to establish its self importance.  It also raises its ugly head when I tend not to understand others, and their perspective, when I hate someone, or envy or feel jealous of someone. Also the same thing is visible when I expect someone to behave in a particular way, and feel sad to find them behave totally contrary to the expectation. All these are various forms of holding the self importance – viewing my persona as an end. Certainly this brings an avalanche of sorrow and causes an immense leak of time and energy.

Hence I keep reminding myself that who I am, is just a means, and not an end. This gives me a lot of freedom, and lightness. It appears to me as a big baggage is out of my shoulder. I feel more in harmony with life.

2.    My Family –
The same thing holds good in the context of my family. Family for me is a means to create a loving and nourishing ecosystem for growth, fulfillment and well being of all the people associated. It is an avenue to feel and provide that un-conditional care, affection, love and bond. It is the starting point for the bigger goal of universal love and compassion.

This perspective provides that space for things going against what I expect or would like to. There might be points of disconnect and discontents among family members. There might even be certain misunderstandings. But putting the context in place, things become easier to handle. The ego is kept at bay. Certainly this level of thinking is based and built over the point 1, explained above.

3.    My Friends –
Friends for me are those few people in my life whom I like, without any judgment, or conditions. These people understand me for who I am. They know my follies, and shortcomings, but still love me. We get together and create things beautiful and creative. We converse together and stimulate each other intellectually. We are always available to each other whenever we need each other’s support. There certainly is an intersection between this group of people and the Family. For example my wife is my best friend, who knows me and understands me more than anyone in the world. Friends are, in my view, angels from heavens. They are the shadows of God, who help us to live life more optimally, for each other.

Now, coming to the means and ends. The moment you consider friends as an end, life becomes a prison. You get attached and possessive about the person. You have strict set of expectations from the other person. But the problem is that humans evolve. They change. And more importantly we are all different and unique. It is just not possible for any other human being to mould in the typical slot of my expectation. That attempt would be trying to fix a square peg in a round hole.

In his most openly philosophical work, “Civilization and its Discontents,” Freud maintained that our psyches are layered. As he explained it, much as Rome is built upon the ruins of past Romes, our emotions are stratified: what is past and below lives on and informs what is above, even if we refuse to acknowledge it. This law of the inner life also applies in telling ways to how we relate to so-called cold-facts. Given the pasts and social conditionings of all humans are different and unique, they tend to understand things differently. It is a lost game to expect people to behave in a particular way.

Psychologically every person has a very personal and unique way in looking at things in life. I have tried to explain the same in my previous essay - http://criativ-mind.blogspot.com/2011/08/no-every-man-is-island-entire-to.html
Given so many things so very unique, private and exclusive in each of us, it certainly is a lost game considering humans and relationships as “ends”. They should rather be considered as a dynamic means to express out what is inspiring and beautiful for one and his life.

Extrapolating the same context, the philosophy works even in romantic relationships. Moment the people involved consider the other as an end, the demise of the warmth in the relationship is eminent. Most the cases of divorce, heart breaks, and stresses involving romantic relationship is an inability in the part of the people involved in considering the relationship as a means, to a different end – an end to evolve, grow, learn, provide for each other, creating expressions of beauty and inspirations, support each other, help each other to express themselves differently, the way each wants. See, it is crucial to move the focus of the “end” away from the needs of the self, and consider the relationship as a means of self awareness, growth, and nourishing of the self and also the other. It is about providing that space to each other. Being able to do this is not a luxury. It is a necessity.

4.    Institutions –
Institutions in my life include my work place, other institutions I attend to, either for pursuing a hobby, or for some other social activities. Each of these institutions is again a means for me to learn, grow, contribute and create a meaning for my life. It is about an effort to increase the relevance of my being alive.

Not considering these institutions as an end also involves not expecting anything from them, for my efforts give towards them. My actions in service of these institutions are whole and complete by themselves. They are not done in an expectation of any reward or recognition. This is because my actions are way to my wisdom. They help me grow, learn, and fulfill the meaning of my existence. These institutions provide a framework for my actions. The visions and missions these institutions stand for, give meaning to my life. These inspire me, so I am part of these institutions. They invoke certain actions from me, which makes me fulfilled.
The point is not just about fulfillment. It is also about providing an ecosystem to act. Action for me it the way to self realization. I have tried to explain this aspect of action in my essay - http://criativ-mind.blogspot.com/2011/10/musing-from-marcus-aurelius.html

5.    My Emotions -
Emotions are earthly. They have evolutionary connotations. They are hardwired in our brains and body, and have their own finalities. Those finalities might not be the most optimum or inspiring. Emotions are the calls of the ancient genes we carry. They at most times are gross, and inappropriate at a particular contemporary situation.

Emotions should also be taken as a means, and not as an end. Emotions can be a beautiful means to express one’s true self. It can be a means to create a work of art, or an astounding scientific work. Emotions help us to bond with others, create communities, and play bigger games. Emotions enable us to leave a unique legacy behind, which leaves imprints of beauty when we are no more.

But, the moment emotions are taken as an “end”, problems arise. A self indulgent pursuit of hedonism neither helps the subject involved, nor the bigger community. Being a slave to emotions enslaves the persona to be puppetted by the selfish genes. In the long run that causes distress for humanity as a whole.

Emotions have to be transmuted, beautified, sanctified, and shaped to create works of art and inspirations. They cannot be mutilated. But certainly can be transmuted and transformed.

6.    My Possessions –
I consider the worldly possessions I have, also as means, and not an end in themselves. For example owning a car, is not an end to itself. It is rather a means to safe, fast and comfortable travel from one place to other. A house is not an end to itself. Rather it is just a means to create a safe, secure and peaceful ecosystem for the family and friends.

This helps to create an un-attached perspective on one’s own possessions.


This idea of viewing life as a means and not as an end, to me, is a practical approach to an age old teachings of the scriptures of not being attached. Life and all its aspects are transient. They change. They are dynamic. Hindu philosophy names it as “Maya”. Buddhism calls it “Mara”. And other major schools of philosophies have their own labels to the same. Suffering is caused in the human world, when people get attached to illusion. All the aspects of life, including life itself is not permanent, and is destined to end in near future. It certainly is a lost game to be attached to the worldly matters, and considering them as an “end”. Having said that, I just want to clarify myself that I am not advocating austerity or solitude. It is just a reminder that all enchanting worldly matters are transient, and they need to be viewed as a “means” and not “ends”.
______________________________________________ 
Copy Right © All rights reserved - Samrat Kar