Showing posts with label Social Psychology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Psychology. Show all posts

Sunday, September 9, 2012

Marriage and Mythologies

Campbell: Read myths. They teach you that you can turn inward, and you begin to get the message of the symbols. Myth helps you to put your mind in touch with this experience of being alive. It tells you what the experience is. Marriage, for example. What is marriage? The myth tells you what it is. It's the reunion of the separated duad. Originally you were one. You are now two in the world, but recognition of the spiritual identity is what marriage is. It's different from a love affair. It has nothing to do with that. It's another mythological plane of experience. When people get married because they think it is a long time love affair, they will be divorced very soon, because all love affairs end in disappointment. But marriage is recognition of a spiritual identity....it is a mystery.

Moyers: If marriage is this reunion of the self with the self, with the male and female grounding of ourselves, why is it that marriage is so precarious in our modern society?

Campbell: Because it is not regarded as a marriage. I would say that if the marriage is not a first priority in your life, you are not married. The marriage means that two that are one, the two become one flesh. If the marriage lasts long enough, and if you are acquiescing constantly to it instead of to individual personal whim, you come to realize that that is true - the two really are one. One not only biologically, but spiritually. Primarily spiritually. The biological is the distraction which may lead you to the wrong identification.

Moyers: Then the necessary function of marriage, perpetuating ourselves in children, is not the primary one.

Campbell: No, that is really just the elementary aspect of marriage. There are two completely different stages of marriage. First is the youthful marriage following the wonderful impulse that nature has given us in the interplay of the sexes biologically inorder to produce children. The second stage is more spiritual.
Marriage is a relationship. When you make the sacrifice in marriage, you are sacrificing not to each other but to unity in a relationship. A single self that is formed by a spiritual union between you and your partner. Marriage is not a simple love affair, it is an ordeal, and the ordeal is the sacrifice of ego to a relationship in which two have become one.

Moyers: So marriage is utterly incompatible with the idea of doing one's own thing.

Campbell: It is not simply ones own thing, you see. It is, in a sense, doing one's own thing, but the one is not just you, it is the two together as one. And that's a purely mythological image signifying the sacrifice of the visible entity for a transcendent good. This is something that becomes beautifully realized in marriage, which I call the alchemical stage, of the two experiencing that they are one - spiritually, mythologically.

In the above excerpt from the book, "The Power of Myth", Campbell beautifully puts forward Archetype of marriage. Today, in India it takes 4 days to get married. There are several rituals, Vedic oaths taken infront of Fire and Spirits, and Blessings bestowed from elders, both from the physical world, and the world of the dead. Similar mythic rituals ordain this special even in one's life in various ancient civilizations. Unfortunately, in most of the cases, the mystic invisible holiness of the occasion has been lost or defiled. This disappearance of the mythical essence of marriage is even more visible in the modern developed societies. Marriage seldom transcends beyond a means of achieving personal ends, individually. Here Campbell stresses on the concept of true union, where individuals are no more different, but are the same. It is important to recognize that the state is not about graduating from a "I" to a "We". Rather it is about embracing the other in I. That is important. Only then, each individual can really related to the other, and be in harmony. It is only then, both the individual sees a new world - which they were unable to see when there were separate. So truly expressed by Campbell, marriage is not just an institution for genetic proliferation, and social order. Rather it is a sanctification of a person to a different order - an order in which they see things differently, they understand the world differently. 
Marriage is an opportunity to transcend one's individual ego. It is about going out of one's own needs and whims, and relating to the other. Not only it is about relating to the other, but also appreciating the other as the self. This philosophical exercise to achieve oneness is the starting step to get an Idea what is God. God is not an entity out there, as most of the ancient traditions have repeatedly proclaimed. Rather God is one's own self, from a different vantage point. It is about appreciating unity with one's life, circumstance, people around, challenges, and also God at the same time.
Marriage is about gaining a perspective. It is about coming closer to the Truth.
______________________________________________
Copy Right © All rights reserved - Samrat Kar

Saturday, April 14, 2012

Don't Kill. Just Listen

At a time when most of the humanity is very busy in the race to have more and better, to be more productive, to do more in less time, to devour more and more, to produce more, to get the best deal - not only in the commodity market, but also in the realm of relationships, - the words like patience, perseverance, beingness, reasoning, love, compassion, relating to, etc are scoffed by many. Today man is eager to kill, not having any time to listen. When I say, "eager to kill", I not only point to the increasing terrorism determined to kill peace, love and solidarity, but I also intend to point to people in this society who are always eager kill others with the ammunition of hatred, superstition, prejudices, narrowness, close-mindedness, impatience, and an deep seated unwillingness to listen to the other, and understand the other. Man is slowly losing out his innate humane faculty to understand, empathize, express his solidarity and to connect to others being in love. Loving the other looks like a huge task. People do not sometimes even are able to relate to the other, forget about loving. Most of us are busy building up our guards to protect ourselves, our ego, our self-importance, in the name of individuality. We are busy doing the same with ourselves, and the other is busy too doing the same with himself. Most of the time is spent creating the separateness, creating those dis-integrated silos to save oneself, and then life fizzles out in ones own dungeon, either alone, or grouped with similar thinking diseased souls. Man misses out the opportunity to be able to really see the Truth, woven in the plurality and appreciate the inherent unity. It is not religion, culture, God which divides man from man. But a deep seated psychoanalytical disorder in man, which hinders his inherent capacity to love others, is the root cause of the dis-integration prevalent among men. 

Already having tough guards built around our ears, eyes, and minds, most among us tend to super-impose our own autobiography onto the other. The only way of life for most among us, is to quickly apply a borrowed or a quickly arrived at theory or framework and rationalize humans, relationships, work, circumstances, institutions to fit into a bias as per the framework. The idea is to find a quick fix, to be "productive", to be "smart", to be able to "do a split second decision", to be able to "lead". The same busyness and eagerness to produce results have been fuelled by the big capitalistic corporate environments, where the basis of all ethics, values, meaning, and existence of one is just - results, and value for the share holders. This predilections of modern man to find quickies, have shown its colors in the way people relate to men and women in their lives too - both in personal and professional realms. People so easily fall in love, and also fall out of love for that matter. A one night stand is considered to be the most in-thing and fashionable. Strangely, a weird existence is being propagated among most which is grounded on lack of patience, depth, creativity, authenticity, loyalty, courage and love. And most unfortunate thing is that each of these are definitive factors which make us humans. Inventing new machines, and making the existing machines and computers faster and better, as days pass to months, and then to years and decades, man being surrounded by machines, computers, networks, commodities, have slowly started identifying other fellow humans, including himself as a commodity. Having reduced to just a commodity, it is obvious that the human qualities of love, compassion, beingness, will be inevitably missing in the society. 

We can choose to continue to be in the state of trance, gradually relinquishing our core human values, or rather step back and think for sometime, what we are doing, and where we are going. Certainly before killing again - an idea, a person, a hope, a potential, a love, an understanding, a compassion, a concern, an affection, we need to stop and listen. We need to listen to our entire being, listen to the stars, listen to wind, listen to the stream, listen to the Earth, the sky and the moon. We will have to start reclaiming that lost awareness of the forgotten language - the language of being, where in its pristine form, man was able to relate not only his fellow men being in deep love, but also to nature, to flora and fauna. 

The Greatest Masters of yesteryears - Jesus, Buddha, Vedic scholars, Kabir, Rumi, to name a few, had always stressed on love and being-ness as the way to realization of man, his real essence and the real essence of this universe.
______________________________________________
Copy Right © All rights reserved - Samrat Kar

The Right Action - On Beingness

There is one profound dimension to the right action that I would like to bring to the attention of the reader. This is the aspect of "Being" over "Having". Action as related in the contemporary society is mostly from the realm of "having". It is when wants to have something, he takes an action. That having might be material or more sublime. It might be related to experience, emotional needs, or more exterior oriented to achieve a worldly goal. In the realm of "Being" action is more of an internal activity which one undertakes just to observe, understand, accept, know and be silent, in the meditation of inaction, but keeps growing internally to increase one's level of appreciation of life as a whole. I can give an example on 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 her actions to the universe. She also does not go and stop the mindless human when he exploits her and hurts her. 

Please note that I am not pointing out to sacrifice, forgiveness of un-conditionality. I am going beyond that. I am pointing to a place where there is a silent but throbbing state of is-ness. Mother Earth 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, Mother Earth 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. It allows a man to be really free. He is for the first time would be able to live his life without the added heavy baggage of expectation, judgment, fear, or heartbreak. For the first time he would be able to love freely. This idea of being is not a trick to save oneself from the unavoidable misfortunes and helplessness of life. If the reader is going into this direction, I would be pained that the idea is not understood at all. I am coming from a point of being in a state where a person will be for the first time 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 is the only way to see God. The private space of silence that one creates in the gaps of one's thoughts, ushers one into the way to the understanding of life in a much more deeper and true way. That way man is more closer to the truth. 

I try to implement this state of being every moment of my life. That helps me better to integrate myself with the diverse realities of life. There are mishaps that happen. Most of the times the harsh realities of life look so overwhelmingly against man's wish and desire. Many a times life brings man face to face with situations that one is embarrassed to core to confront. There are people one loves to the core, but they hate them more than anyone. Men are most hurt by people they love the most. But 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 dies. Only what stays is what "is". 

There might be many other deeper levels of understanding the idea of "Right Action" in the Gita. But to the level I have come up with years of my own internal activity, and help and guidance from my friends, teachers and people around me, I have come to relate to just this level of understanding of the "Right Action" from the Bhagavad Gita. There is a long way to go for me before I can try to even fathom so many uncharted avenues this profound work of art can take us.

PS - Please note that reference to "man" in my essays are meant to stand for "mankind". I don't intend to be patriarchal in my expressions. This is done more from the point of view of simplification of the expression.
I have been delving into the aspect of "Right Action" in last few articles of mine. In these, I have tried to synthesize from my various readings, contemplations, innumerable synthesis, experiences and understanding of myself and life, the essence of right action. An initial treatment of the topic has been done the my previous articles on Bhagavat Gita as follows -
In this current essay, I have tried to touch upon the idea of Being inherent in the attitude of the "right action". I have added this essay as the last part of the earlier article - "The idea of right action", for completion sake. So that the reader can separately contemplate on this idea, without any distraction of other aspects, I thought it would be better to bring this out as a separate essay. Hope you enjoyed it.

______________________________________________
Copy Right © All rights reserved - Samrat Kar

Friday, March 16, 2012

Authority, freedom, will and whim

The contemporary society is obsessed with freedom. Freedom is most of the times mistaken to being restricted by one's whim. There is deep difference between whim and will. Beautifully articulated by Erich Fromm in his book, "The Art of Being", he says - 

"Following whim is, in fact the result of deep inner passivity blended with a wish to avoid boredom. Will is based on activity, whim on passivity..A whim is any desire that emerges spontaneously, without any structural connection with the whole personality and its goals...The desire itself - even even the most fleeting or irrational one - today requires its fulfillment; to disregard it or even to postpone it is experienced as an infringement of one's freedom!.....The chief rationalization for the obsession of arbitrariness is the concept of antiauthoritarianism. To be sure, the fight against authoritarians was and still is of great positive significance. But antiauthoritarianism can and has become a rationalization for narcissistic self indulgence, for a childish sybaritic life of unimpaired pleasure. Fear of authoritarianism serves to rationalize a kind of madness, a desire to escape the reality. Reality imposes its law on man, laws that can only escape in dreams or in states of trance - or in insanity" 

In my inclination to personal freedom, and my abhorrence to authority, it might have appeared to the reader that I vote for that arbitrary relativism. This article is to clarify that confusion. It is not that the ideal way of being is to do what subjectively one feels. It is not about basing our thoughts and action by our own value judgement, totally devoid of the laws of nature, or the "truth". One has to first know the truth, using his reason, to snap himself free from the illusions of the mind, society and other conditionings. Once a man is able to see the truth, then it is his prerogative to express his unique potentialities through spontaneous activities, based on love. 

So, to some extent authority is mandatory. This is because unless man knows what is truth, he has to be directed to the truth. This has to be done through proper education, contemplation, and practice - using his reason, emotions, and the whole personality. This is a personal process which man has to undergo. It is about knowing the truth, and following the same. Once man is centered with this central axis, he is eligible to exercise his will. It is very important, as Fromm has put forward, to develop the sense of discrimination between whim and will. To be able to develop this understanding one needs to undergo a directed process. 

The essence is to find the balance, and develop the discrimination where and in what dose authority has to be applied with total freedom to exercise one's own will. This typically is very relevant in the realm of leadership in any form - either parenting, or in a typical corporate world, or in say a social context. Man has to be aware when and what form of authority that needs to be exercised. The bottomline is that authority might be needed to nourish, develop and grow a person to be able to enable that person to know what is right and wrong. The idea is about educating and guiding a person to lead him to the truth. Doing this, the leader has to be aware that he does not stifles and chokes to death the individuality of the person being led.

Leadership is about being like an artists trying to make a clay sculpture. He knows how and when and where the right pressure has to be put on the clay to mould it to a beautiful idol. In doing so, he allows the unique characteristic of the clay to add that special sheen and texture to the idol. Although the conception of the idol is the imagination of the artist, he does not kill the individuality of the clay, and allows the clay to express its own self. In no instance does the clay-smith disdains the existence of the clay, and collaborates with the unique and independent existence of the clay, to bring to form his imagination.

Mankind has to defend himself and his offsprings from this whimsical fantasy which is termed as freedom and independence, in the contemporary world. Imagine what will happen if a sharp sword is handed to a baby. Having said that one also has to keep in mind that one cannot act as a sadist, trying to control, subdue and manipulate the subordinate using him just as a means to his own personal ends. The idea is not about being soft. None of the masters of the like of Buddha, Spinoza, Socrates, Plato etc were softies. They were ruthless to be centered with the ideal. But at the same time, they gave space for the optimum development of the unique faculties of humanity. It is of prime importance to understand and appreciate this balance between authority and freedom, between will and whim.
______________________________________________ 
Copy Right © All rights reserved - Samrat Kar

Thursday, March 8, 2012

Happy Women's Day!

Today is international women's day. On this auspicious day, I take this opportunity to express my respect, gratitude, appreciation and affection for Women in form, and in spirit.

I celebrate the following forms of a woman, which makes womanhood so very venerated in this world. I have tried to depict these forms through the ancient Greek Goddesses.

1. VENUS - 
Venus is an ancient Greek Goddess. She stands for Beauty. Beauty is that what inspires life. To experience the same one can see the role played by a flower for instance. A beautiful flower placed on the table lifts the consciousness of one, to touch the ethereal world of beauty and inspiration. You remove the flower, things are not the same again. Beauty inspires mankind to take that extra step, do that bit more, make that unique difference, try to be be that bit more. It stretches life, and lifts it up to an exalted place. 

2. ATHENA - 
Athena is also an ancient Greek Goddess. She stands for strength, courage, wisdom, inspiration, just warfare, mathematics, skill, and art. Minerva is the Roman incarnation of Athena. Saraswati is the Vedic incarnation of Athena. She stands for that woman of wisdom, who has more to give to the world than just inspiration of beauty. She is that nourisher of the mankind with the knowledge, and wisdom. She also stands as the warrior - for a cause. She is the next level of relating to women. She is power - Shakti.

3. DEMETER - 
Demeter is the ancient Greek Goddess of harvest. She presides over the grains and the fertility of the earth. Her Roman equivalent is Ceres. She stands for the Mother. In Vedic framework she is also known as Durga. Woman has been primarily related as the Mother in most of the Vedic Myths. This is the most exalted state of womanhood, which gives it the highest place in creation. In this symbol, woman is related to as Earth, the provider, the nourisher, the acceptor. This is the next higher level of relating to women. Here she stands for the unconditional love of the Mother.

4. HERA - 
She is the ancient Greek Goddess of destruction of what is not as per the natural laws. She destroys the ignorance, and creates the place for the birth of new form in wisdom. Kali is the Vedic equivalent. She is the elder. She knows what is right and what is wrong. She destroys the wrong. She does not allow the sin to flourish. 

In the current material and male dominated world, hardly there is even a will to relate to women beyond the level of Venus. This has its skewed ramifications. Most of the times women are related to just a thing of beauty and fragility. Although no one voices these prejudices against women vocally, but this attitude is very clear in the sub-conscious state of humanity. That is unfortunate. More than any cunning ploy of the bastion of males, I feel it is just ignorance of the majority. Humanity is just too much tied with what it can see and touch. In that physical realm it is next to impossible to even relate to anything as divine as womanhood. One needs to really grow up, to relate to women as women, and give them their rightful respect, affection and gratitude.

Womanhood has not only to be acknowledged and respected in forms - as people around us as Mother, sisters, friends, colleagues, wife, daughter, etc, but also she has to be related in the realm of non-form, as the spirit of womanhood, in the form of nature, earth, acceptance, being receptive, understanding, caring, giving, nourishing, mentoring, protecting, guiding, loving etc.

Today is not just another day. Today is the day when the entire planet stands in ovation for that indomitable spirit of womanhood! 

I bow before thee on this auspicious day!
______________________________________________ 
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

Love and Productive Reason.

One can be productively related to the world by acting and by comprehending. Man produces things, and in the process of creation he exercises his powers over matter. Man comprehends the world, mentally and emotionally, through love and through reason. His power of reason enables him to penetrate through the surfaces and to grasp the essence of his object by getting into active relation with it. His power of love enables him to break through the wall which separates him from another person and to comprehend him. Although love and reason are only two different forms of comprehending the world and although neither is possible without the other, they are expressions of different powers that of emotions and that of thinking.

Productive Love


Genuine love is rooted in productiveness and may properly be called, therefore, "productive love". Productive love is rooted in care, responsibility, respect and knowledge.

Care and responsibility denote that love is an activity and not a passion by which one is overcome, nor an effect which one is "affected by".
It is believed that to fall in love is already the culmination of love, which actually it is the beginning and only an opportunity for the achievement of love. It is believed that love is the result of a mysterious quality by which two people are attracted to each other, and event which occurs without effort. Indeed, man's loneliness and his sexual desires make it easy to fall in love and there is nothing mysterious about it, but it is a gain which is as quickly lost as it has been achieved. One is not loved accidentally; one's own power to love produces love - just as being interested makes one interesting.
To love a person productively implies to care and to feel responsible for his life, not only for his physical existence but for the growth and development of all his human powers. To love productively is incompatible with being passive, with being an onlooker at the loved person's life; it implies labor and care and responsibility for his growth.
Love for mankind is looked upon as an achievement which, at best, follows love for one individual. To love one person productively means to be related to his human core, to him as representing mankind. Love for one individual, in so far as it is divorced from love for man, can refer only to the superficial and to the accidental; of necessity it remains shallow. All men are in need of help and depend on one another. Human solidarity is the necessary condition for the unfolding of any one individual.
Love is the productive form of relatedness to 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 the preservation of each others's integrity.


Productive Thinking


Most of our thinking is necessarily concerned with the achievement of practical results, with the quantitative and superficial aspects of phenomena without inquiring into the validity of implied ends and premises and without attempting to understand the nature and quality of phenomena.

Reason involves a third dimension, that of depth, which reaches to the essence of things and processes. While reason is not divorced from the practical aims of life, it is not a mere tool for immediate action. Its function is to know, to understand , to grasp to related oneself to things by comprehending them. It penetrates through the surfaces of things in order to discover their essence, their hidden relationships and deeper meanings, their "reason". It is, as it were not two dimensional but "perspectivistic", to use Nietzsche's term; i.e., it grasps all conceivable perspectives and dimensions, not only the practically relevant ones. Being concerned with the essence of things does not mean being concerned with something "behind" things, but with the essential, with the generic and the universal, with the most general and pervasive traits of phenomena, freed from the superficial and accidental aspects.

Characteristics of Productive Thinking -

1. In productive thinking subject is not indifferent to his object but is affected by and concerned with it. On contrary, the subject is intensely interested in his object, and the more intimate this relation is, the more fruitful is his thinking. It is this very relationship between him and his object which stimulates his thinking in the first place. To him a person or any phenomenon becomes and object of thought because it is an object of interest, relevant from the standpoint of his individual life or that of human existence. A beautiful illustration of this point is the story of Buddha's discovery of the "fourfold truth". Buddha saw a dead man, a sick man, and old man. He, a young man, was deeply affected by the inescapable fate of man, and his reaction to his observation was the stimulus for thinking which resulted in his theory of nature of life and the ways of man's salvation. His reaction was certainly not the only possible one. A modern physician in the same situation might react by starting to think of how to combat death, sickness, and age, but his thinking would also be determined by his total reaction to his object. In the process of productive thinking the thinker is motivated by his interest for the object; he is affected by it and reacts to it; he cares and responds. This aspect of productive thinking expresses the subjective aspect of being related to the object of thought, in true sense.


2. Productive thinking is also characterized by objectivity, by the respect the thinker has for his object, by his ability to see the object as it is and not as he wishes it to be. The point 1 and point 2, expresses the polarity between objectivity and subjectivity is characteristic of productive thinking as it is of productiveness in general. To be objective is possible only if we respect the things we observe; that is, if we are capable of seeing them in their uniqueness and their interconnectedness. This respect is not essentially different from the respect we discussed in connection with love; in as much as I want to understand something I must be able to see it as it exists according to its own nature; while this is true with regard to all objects of thought, it constitutes a special problem for the study of human nature.


Another aspect that must be present in objective thinking about living an non living objects : that of seeing the totality of a phenomenon. If the observer isolates one aspect of the object without seeing the whole, he will not properly understand even the one aspect he is studying. This point has been emphasized as the most important element in productive thinking by Wertheimer, "Productive Processes", he writes, "are often of this nature: in the desire to get a real understand, re-questioning and investigation start. A certain region in the field becomes crucial, is focused; but it does not become isolated. A new, deeper structural view of the situation develops, involving changes in functional meaning, the grouping, etc, of the items. In this entire way of thinking, tow directions are involved : getting a whole consistent picture, and seeing what the structure of the whole requires for the parts".


Objectivity requires not only seeing the object as it is but also seeing oneself as one is, i.e. being aware of the particular constellation in which one finds oneself as on is, i.e., being aware of the observer related to the object of observation. Productive thinking, then, is determined by the nature of the object and the nature of the subject who relates himself to his object in the process of thinking. This twofold determination constitutes objectivity, in contrast to false subjectivity in which the thinking is not controlled by the object and thus degenerates into prejudice, wishful thinking, and phantasy. Objectivity does not mean detachment. It means respect; that is, the ability not to distort and to falsify things, persons, and oneself.


3. Integration of objectivity and subjectivity - All productive thinking is stimulated by the interest of the observer. It is never an interest per se which distorts ideas, but only those interests which are incompatible with the truth, with the discovery of the nature of the object under observation.


4. Crippling of productive activity results in either inactivity or overactivity. Hunger and force can never be condition for productive activity. On the contrary, freedom, economic security, and an organization of society in which work can be the meaningful expression of man's faculties are the factors conducive to the expression of man's natural tendency to make productive use of his powers. Productive activity is characterized by the rhythmic change in activity and repose. Productive work, love and thought are possible only if a person can be, when necessary, quiet and alone with himself. To be able to listen to oneself in prerequisite for ability to listen to to others; to be at home with oneself is the necessary condition for relating oneself to others.


5. One has to save oneself from symbiotic attachments in the name of love. While symbiotic relationship is one of closeness to and intimacy with the object, although at the expense of freedom and integrity.


6. One has to guard himself from withdrawal and destructiveness. The feeling of individual powerlessness can be overcome by withdrawal from others who are experienced as threats. To a certain extend withdrawal is a part of the normal rhythm in any person's relatedness to the world, a necessity for contemplation, for study, for reworking of materials, thoughts, attitudes. Its emotional equivalent is the feeling of indifference towards others, often accompanied by a compensatory feeling of self-inflation. Withdrawal and indifference can, but need not, be conscious; a matter of fact, in our culture they are mostly covered up by superficial kind of interest and sociability. Destructiveness is the active form of withdrawal.
______________________________________________
PS - This is an abstract from the book - Man for himself - An enquiry into the psychology of ethics, by Erich Fromm.

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

Sunday, December 18, 2011

The darker side of capitalism

The gradual evolution of the society since the middle ages to the renaissance has witnessed a stark change in the character of the society, from a more connected, secure and related community to a society with an increased amount of individual freedom, but at the same time an increased sense of insecurity, loneliness, and fear. In his book – “The Fear of Freedom”, Erich Fromm articulates this dual aspect of the new gained freedom, out of the modernization of society, in a beautiful and elaborative fashion. Following excerpt from the book, tries to touch upon the new found vulnerability of mankind, as a result of increasing capitalistic outlook on life. It gives a better perspective on our work life situations. At this season of performance appraisals, I found this part of the book pretty relevant.

..But although man has reached a remarkable degree of mastery of nature, society is not in control of the very forces it has created. The rationality of the system of production, in its technical aspects, is accompanied by the irrationality of our system of production in its social aspects. Economic crises, unemployment, war, govern man’s fate. Man has built his world; he has built factories and houses, he produces cars and clothes, he grows grain and fruit. But he has become estranged from the product of his own hands, he is not really the master any more of the world he has built; on contrary, this man-made world has become his master, before whom he bows down, whom he tries to placate or to manipulate as best he can. The work of his own hands has become his God. He seems to be driven by self-interest, but in reality his total self with all its concrete potentialities has become an instrument for the purposes of the very machine his hands have built. He keeps up the illusion of being the center of the world, and yet he is pervaded by an intense sense of insignificance and powerlessness which his ancestors once consciously felt towards God.
Modern man’s feeling of isolation and powerlessness is increased still further by the character which all his human relationships have assumed. The concrete relationship of one individual to another has lost its direct and human character and has assumed a spirit of manipulation and instrumentality. In all social and personal relations the laws of market are the rule. It is obvious that the relationship between competitors has to be based on mutual human indifference. Otherwise one of them would be paralyzed in the fulfilment of his economic tasks – to fight each other and not to refrain from actual economic destruction of each other if necessary.
The relationship between employer and employee is permeated by the same spirit of indifference. The word “employer” contains the whole story: the owner of the capital employs another human being as he “employs” a machine. They both use each other for the pursuit of their economic interests; their relationships is one in which both are mans to an end, both are instrumental to each other. It is not a relationship of two human beings who have any interest in others outside of this mutual usefulness. The same instrumentality is the rule in relationship between the business man and his customer. The customer is an object to be manipulated, not a concrete person who0se aims the business man is interested to satisfy. The attitude towards work has the quality of instrumentality; in contrast to a medieval artisan the modern manufacturer is not primarily interested in what he produces; he produces essentially in order to make a profit from his capital investment, and what he produces depends essentially on the market which promises that the investment of capital in a certain branch will prove to be profitable.
Not only the economic, but also the personal relations between men have this character of alienation; instead of relations between human beings, they assume the character of relations between things. But perhaps the most important and the most devastating instance of this spirit of instrumentality and alienation is the individual’s relationship to his own self. Man does not only sell commodities, he sells himself and feels himself to be a commodity. The manual laborer sells his physical energy; the business man, the physician, the clerical employee, sell their “personality”. This personality should be pleasing, but besides that its possessor should meet a number of their requirements: he should have energy, initiative, this, that, or the other, as his particular position may require. As with any other commodity it is the market which decides the value of these human qualities, yes, even their very existence. If there is no use for the qualities a person offers, he “has” none; just as an unsalable commodity is valueless though it might have its use value. Thus, the self-confidence, the “feeling of self”, is merely an indication of what others think of the person. It is not he who is convinced of his value regardless of popularity and his success on the market. If he is sought after, he is somebody; if he is not popular, he is simply nobody. This dependence of self esteem on the success of “personality” is the reason why for modern man popularity has this tremendous importance. On it depends not only whether or not one goes ahead in practical matters, but also whether one can keep up one’s self-esteem or whether one falls into the abyss of inferiority feelings.

There are factors to help him overcome the overt manifestations of this underlying insecurity. In the first place his self is backed up by the possession of property. “He” as a person and the property he owns cannot be separated. A man’s clothes or his house are parts of his self just as much as his body. The less he feels he is being somebody, more he needs to have possessions. If the individual has no property or lost it, he is lacking an important part to his “self” and to a certain extent is not considered to be full-fledged person, either by others of by himself. Other things backing up the self is the prestige and power.

Such is the petty state of the so called modern civilization with all its advances. Most of these aspects are interestingly hidden from conscious realm of humanity, and the society behaves as a herd of sheep, intoxicated with such capitalistic propensities.
______________________________________________
Copy Right © All rights reserved - Samrat Kar