Vipassana and Vedanta

        

I was all of 43 when I attended my first Vipassana program. With absolutely no prior idea of what it entailed, no expectations, no mental baggage; when I arrived at the venue in Igatpuri, one monsoon day of 2005, it was more with trepidation than questions. Vedanta took root thereafter; with constant reading and introspection, the mind developed equanimity in thought; and with regular practice in meditation, the mind developed equanimity in emotions. Years later, recently, when I went for the latest short session in Vipassana; there was a predominance of Vedanta in thoughts. Set me thinking on the title of this blog post.

Ignorance is bliss; we have learnt. We have also learnt that half knowledge is dangerous!!

   

Vipassana is a technique in meditation; at least that is what I will believe; although we were taught that it is Dhamma (religion). Vedanta says Dharma is the essential characteristic of a given thing. For instance, dharma of fire is heat; dharma of sugar is sweet and so on. Latin teaches us that Religion is that which takes us nearer to ourselves; i.e. that which reconnects. In that respect, I believe that both teachings take us nearer to our Inner Self.

Vipassana practice starts with bringing the mind in complete attention to a focal point in the body, without allowing it to digress to any other thought. Everytime the mind wanders, we learn to bring the mind back, with love and patience, towards that focal point of attention within the body. Gradually, as the mind develops concentration and a unitary point of focus, we start observing with equanimity, every sensation that we are experiencing at every given part of the body. With practice, this equanimity at the bodily level is translated into an equanimous mind, balanced and witnessing in nature, at all varied happenings in our life, in the knowledge that everything in life is transitory, ephemeral and rising only to die away.

Vedanta, is the philosophical part of the Vedas and Vedic texts. One of the concise yet detailed; poetic yet prophetic Vedanta treatises is the Bhagavat Geeta. Not surprisingly, our Ex-President, Hon’ble Abdul Kalam, was a voracious reader and believer in the teachings of the Geeta. The Geeta encompasses the entire Vedanta. Although predominantly learning oriented, Practical Vedanta, when applied through right-thinking in our day-to-day living, is a great tool in understanding the intricacies of life, the purpose of our having taken a physical embodiment, the logical reasoning behind every event occurring in the cosmos, our own internal linkages to each event and our relationship with each person in this world, etc. Once having realized these on an intellectual level; the teachings make us reflect internally on these, and realize that everything in life is transitory, ephemeral and rising only to die away. Having realized that, we develop the internal faculty of equanimity at every experience in life; love towards all and a purposeful march towards doing only good with our life.

Whether it be Vipassana or Vedanta, they only lead us on the path of maintaining a balanced mind, a right thinking intellect and a functionally useful body that is used for the good of mankind, always in the principle that we learn to become but a witness to what is happening without the attitude of doership and ownership to anything or any being in the world.

Prem & Om

Suresh

Kabir and Kural

                             

Who in this world does not want to feel good? In every interaction, every conversation, every relationship, every experience that we encounter, we search for goodness and happiness. It is a normal human trait; without exception. I have been a recipient of this munificence of goodness from many people in life.

                                       

Technology can be extolled or criticized, as one may perceive it; but this technology has become my platform for sharing goodness with a diverse set of people over the last 3 months and more. I started out writing on Kabir’s Dohas late in May, and shared that on Whatsapp with a few contacts. Within a few days I added Thirukkural by Thirvalluvar. Alternating between the two, I have been posting a daily thought through Whatsapp, Facebook and Emails, to many known and some unknown people.  I have borrowed the original thought from these Saints’ writings, and made a short interpretation in my own words, to suit present context or match with present times. It has been a fulfilling and enjoyable journey

                         

                        

Both these saints wrote masterpieces on ethics of living, how to be happy, what is good, etc. In short, their works are more a guide to good living than anything else. They lived in different time eras and were geographically apart, but there is great synergy in their teachings. It only goes to prove that values of life haven’t changed with development of society. In fact, as development happened, the need for storing and living those values are far more relevant and necessary.

Thirvalluvar (also called Valluvar) was born in Nagercoil (Tamil Nadu) somewhere between 2^nd century BC and 8^th century AD. Even if we assume 8^th century AD, that is about 1300 years ago. Kabir was born in Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh) in 15^th century AD, i.e. about 600 years ago. Two spiritually evolved literary stalwarts, set apart by 7 to 10 centuries, couldn’t be more nearer to teaching values of life, as they were.

Valluvar wrote a treatise called “Thirukkural” which contains 1330 stanzas of 7 words each, in short, “Kural”. Kural means voice. Literally this treatise was the voice of goodness and ethics. It was written in Tamil, which has a history of being probably the only non-sanskrit originating language in India. The Tamil he used is very difficult to decipher, but once understood, they are rich in suggestive meanings.

Kabir wrote poems, songs and couplets. His couplets, called Kabir Dohas, are the most popular of his writings. He used a mix of various local dialects of colloquial Hindi, therefore his language was very easy to understand, although in using Avadhi and Bhojpuri words, he preferred using satire. He believed in drawing the attention of his audience through a negative criticism of people with wrong tendencies; which enabled his audience to draw inference on the opposite positive side, as to how to live life.

As a closing tribute to this piece, I am sharing their sayings and my commentary on those, on one common point. I hope to do a compare on what these masters say on a few other topics, in the course of the next few months.

              Sant Kabir                                                                Thirvalluvar

                              

        Prem & OmSuresh

Time and Punctuality

What is time? 

What is Punctuality?

Punctuality, as we normally understand, is to do with honoring a commitment at an agreed time. But there is another aspect to punctuality; and that is about honoring your commitment, per se. We will not deal with the second part here, because there’s probably a school of thought which believes that should not be called punctuality. We’ll let that rest for the time being.

“Time” has no definition in any dictionary. Time is what time does or that which is. If I were to ask five different questions with “time” in it, I am sure the answers in each would be different. For instance: -

1.       What time is it?          - This speaks about clock time

2.       Give me some time     - This is a request for some attention/involvement

3.       My time is not good     - This is about the situation in life at the moment

4.       My time has come       - This is a terminal situation

5.       When time is no more - Does this talk about doomsday?

Punctuality, in the way we are dealing with, means, when I give a commitment to arrive or depart at a given clock time or do a task within an agreed clock time, I honor that commitment. In that respect punctuality is only a measure of how one person has used clock time to accomplish a given commitment. Viewed in that perspective does punctuality as a concept, become “robotic”? Food for thought, isn’t it?

Many years ago, when I wasn’t qualified, one of my future clients, who had an association with Germans, chided me for coming late for an appointment. As a youngster, I took his admonishments to heart and in my immaturity, told myself that I’d not work for him ever. It is quite a different thing that over 2 ½ decades of practice, we became so close that we learnt off each other, and in the bargain, grew ourselves internally. Later in practice, as I tried to keep up my commitment to be present at meetings within the agreed clock time, I developed irritability at others keeping me waiting. It is then probably that I realized, punctuality means differently to different people.

Returning to Time, Vedanta says, Time is born in the interval between two thoughts. 

When there are no thoughts, there is no time. Think. 

Actually our lives are nothing other than a basket of past, present and future moments. Regretting over unhappy or unpleasant past moments, anxious about yet-to-be-born future expected moments and excited about what we are engaged in the present moment, we forget who we are and what are capable of; leading our lives without knowing the purpose for which we have arrived in this world. Drawing a Balance Sheet of our Life at the end, we wonder, where am I and what did I do? This introspection is a necessary part of our lives, in day-to-day living, to enable us to become happy and contented.

Concluding, I would say, Time, as we understand in daily living is only a tool of measurement. Punctuality’s sole intent is to maximize the happiness at the present moment, which is the only moment available with us, until Time with us, shall be no more.

Prem & Om

Suresh

Pain and Suffering

I return to blogging after almost 3 months. A rather innocuous body condition resulted in restricting my mobility for over 10 weeks. This impacted my work schedule, obviously my time available for blogging reduced. I wondered whether the physical condition ought to have affected my writing, but in some strange way I was restrained.

Pain is inevitable; suffering is optional. Many of us have heard this seemingly simple phrase many times. How many of us are able to experience this into practice?

                                                     

Pain occurs when any part of our body or our mind is disturbed or hurt in any manner. When the wound is physical and a festering one at that, the pain is acute and many times unbearable. When the injury is emotional or mental, the memory of the hurt creates a longing for relief, which aggravates the pain further. At these moments of acute pain at the physical or mental level, our overriding desire is to somehow get rid or get over the affliction. This desire, when not fulfilled within the time of our expectation, ends up in suffering. We suffer the acuteness of the physical pain; we suffer the unending pangs of the emotional drain it creates.                               

 Centuries ago, there lived a scholarly writer named Narayana Bhattadiri, a devotee of Krishna, in Kerala. At a very young age, he was afflicted with Arthiritis. An otherwise devoted scholar became insufferable with pain, and during one of his prayers, he got advice from another poet/scholar that he should sing praises and stories of the Lord, starting from the Lord’s incarnation as “the fish”, to relieve himself of his suffering. Thus was born in his mind, the idea of Narayaneeyam, a classic treatise on Narayana’s various incarnations and stories associated with them. It is known as one of the most outstanding Sanskrit literary works, if only for the sheer use of poetry and language in a divine combination. When the scholar initially set out in his work, he assumed that a few lines would suffice; and he very nearly stopped with the opening stanza, which meant that the Lord is the form of Bliss and Supreme Consciousness, incomparable, without limitations of Time and Space, verily impossible to reveal through scriptures, yet shines in front of us immediately on Realization, and blesses people all around. Once he realized that his Lord was too much in love with him to allow the luxury of being happy with such a short narrative; he got about writing a humungous volume of 1036 stanzas, at the end of which he was blessed with a healthy body by the Lord. 

Identification with pain sows the seed for suffering. The craving for an early relief leads to strengthening this identification, ultimately resulting in suffering. Deliverance from suffering comes with dissociating the mind from the pain and attaching it to a Higher purpose. All suffering ends when we realize that pain is but the other side of pleasure; that the pairs-of-opposites have been enchanting us to the extent of deluding our discriminating intellect. 

Prem & Om
Suresh

Parochialism vs Universalism

Dear Friends

Oxford Dictionary defines “Parochialism” as a limited or narrow outlook, especially focused on a local area; as narrow-mindedness. Merriam Dictionary also calls it petty selfishness, although according to me that definition is far extreme compared with my own understanding of the term. The opposite of parochialism is called “Universalism”.

Recently I have been interacting amongst two association of people, in one of which I am a little active in communication whereas in the other, not so much. In the interaction with people in the former, I have observed some preference to interact with a few chosen ones more freely, than others. However in the latter, I have observed openness, a welcome approach to assimilating emotions of all who come in contact, without any chosen preferences.

In many organizations, there are policies geared towards welcoming new members, familiarizing and engaging them in participation with different work-groups etc. In certain other organizations, the new members are left to fend and find their way. Over a period of time, the newcomer, in either case, becomes a part of the various activity groups and finds his or her moorings. Having said that, we find that in almost all organizations, there are “cliques”, i.e. a group of people who prefer to maintain a “closed association” amongst themselves, where “outsider entry is prohibited”.

Why am I using these examples? What am I trying to get at? Let me explain.

We Hindus are fond of saying that our religion is ancient. Actually our ancient religion was called “Sanatana Dharma”. Translated to English, this means “Universal Religion”. There was nothing sectarian about it. All beings were considered equal. Differences based on birth, gender, wealth, caste, etc were not found in Sanatana Dharma. People who worked in different activities, did so because they were adept or experts at that nature of work. This ancient religion is claimed to be over 7500 years old. There were no deities, no forms or names of worship. Nature was God manifested in a beautiful form.

Nowadays, as people have become more learned, somewhere down the line, they have lost their education. Knowledge is plenty but Wisdom is scarce. We differentiate people and have created groups to identify them. In the process groups of “WE” and “THEY” have been created. These differentiations are on the basis of work, workplace, groups within works, schools, classmates, colleges, clubs, etc etc. Although these differentiations are necessary to make our living more organized and less chaotic, somewhere, we have lost the “WE” collectively and become “ME” centric. Our differentiation has led to an unconscious “Parochialism”. Without realizing it in our day-to-day actions, we have lost the Universal Vision.

Among the teachings in Bhagwad Geeta, this Universalism is explained by Lord Krishna to Arjuna in Chapter 7, Verse 10 as follows:-

Beejam Maam Sarva Bhootanam; Viddhi Partha Sanaatanam

Buddhirbuddhi Mataamasmi Tejastejasvi Naamaham.

(This is translated by Swami Chinmayananda as follows: -

Know me, O Partha, as the eternal seed of all beings. I am the intelligence of the intelligent. The splendor of the splendid I am)

Let us celebrate togetherness, embrace Universalism and shun Parochialism.

Prem & Om / Suresh

Science and Religion

Dear Friends

Albert Einstein, probably the greatest modern scientist, said “science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind”. Swami Chinmayananda, a contemporary spiritual master, said “Religion is a science of improvement in the inner nature of man”. Bafflingly, each master is equating his field with the other. Leads us to the question, “Is there a connect between science and religion?” Recently, when I had been on one of my annual pilgrimages, I entered into a discussion with one of my co-pilgrims, an engineer by profession, on this subject.

The most common representation or belief about religion is that, it involves a set of practices where some ceremonies, rites or actions are performed, trying to invoke some unseen or unknown power, to enable mankind in overcoming their obstacles in life.  The most common representation of science is that, it involves a set of experiments where a theory about matter performing in a particular manner, in given circumstances, is proven. While these representations may sound superficially correct, we need to understand the deeper significance of these two fields.

Every science, including mathematics, has what is called “pure science” and “applied science”.  Pure Science deals with the theory and research in observing how various elements or matter, and establishing reasoning about why they behave in a certain manner when they come in contact with other matter. For instance, there is a scientific explanation for why the fire turns yellow in a closed area whereas in the open, the fire looks colorless? In direct contrast, Applied Science deals with the practical everyday aspects of applying the pure knowledge to live situations. For instance, the phenomenon about the fire’s behavior is explained through experiments in a laboratory.

Likewise, Pure Religion is based on acquiring knowledge about what is the purpose of our life, why have we taken this human form, what is God, is God limited to forms and names or is it a cardinal principle which goes beyond name and form etc. For instance, our ancient scriptures (Indian), teach us about the benefits of meditation / contemplation etc. They impart knowledge, that we are composed of the body, mind, intellect equipment but our Pure Self is the one Inner Principle which is the same for all beings. In Bhagawat Geeta this is called Jnyana Yoga (the Knowledge Domain). In contrast, Applied Religion deals with our transactional behavior in the world, rooted in the knowledge of one Superior Being, unseen and unmanifest, who is the doer of all our actions and deeds. This is expressed in the form of selfless action and good deeds or words that we speak, in each of which, we manifest ourselves as children of the same God. In Bhagawat Geeta this is called Karma Yoga (the Action Domain).

Obviously there is synergy between Science & Religion, a fact accepted and taught by great masters as well. It is the synthesis of the Pure Science and Applied Science that leads to all development and progress in the material world. Likewise, it is the synthesis of Pure Religion and Applied Religion that leads to all happiness, joy and contentment to mankind in the spiritual world. This synthesized version of religion is called devotion, manifested as our daily prayers, remembering Him as the driving force of our lives at all times and as all music and dance that we play, hear, sing etc. This devotion in Bhagawat Geeta is called Bhakti Yoga (the Devotion Domain).

For is it not true that God is in all small things, viz: - the flowing river, the singing bird, the playing kitten, the crying child, the loving mother, the hand of friendship and many such things that we encounter daily

Prem & Om

Suresh

Why do people marry?

Why do people marry?

The last fortnight has been a great time for dance, music, feasts, laughter and reliving old memories. You see, there were two mega weddings in the family! Participating in these, enjoying every bit of it, I got a funny thought. Why do people marry? I am happily married, silver jubilee fast approaching, with two fine children; yet the thought was strange.

Invariably, when someone is eligible to get married and looking for the right partner and the right moment to tie the knot; we have habit of ‘advising’ them, that marriage is indeed the right thing to do; it makes one complete. The poor guy or girl, sincerely wanting to enter matrimony, takes our ‘advise’ seriously. As soon as the “candidate” is away from earshot we say “when you are single, you are incomplete; but when you marry, you are FINISHED”

The philosophical way of explaining the creation of the world is that “God created the world and called it the Garden of Eden. Into that garden he sent Adam, who was meant to be the pinnacle of his creation. He found Adam wandering and lost in the garden and then realized that the poor guy felt incomplete. So he sent Eve to join him. Now God felt happy, Ah! My man is complete now with his woman, he exclaimed” From that free garden, the man and his woman roamed, enjoyed, procreated and multiplied. We all owe our origins to that Garden, where Mr Adam and Ms Eve, first landed!!

But man (woman included) is a funny creature. He felt the need to institutionalize this relationship; therefore he created an association called “marriage” because it was a democratic thing to do. And God, because he had abdicated his responsibility to this man/woman combine, left them to fend this battle themselves. Since that day, every man or woman who has married, goads, encourages, analyses and justifies the need for others to marry. The “candidates” of their encouragement tie the sacred knot; only to end up doing the same for their successors and this way the great institution is kept active and dynamic. And whenever the wedded ones turn to God for an answer to their mutual disagreements, God only looks down and winks at them saying; “I only gave you the garden, why did you make it an institution!!!!!!!!!!!!!”.

In the western society (now even in India), “live-in” relationships are pretty common. The partners, probably wary of entering into a commitment, decide to live together, to test their minds. Once their choice is firmed in their minds, some of them decide to formalize it. In the west, we have heard of many couples actually marrying after child-birth. Obviously therefore, the emotional or mental quotient that decides marriage is “commitment and compatibility”. Couples, who find themselves emotionally or intellectually compatible, choosing to spend the better parts of their future lives together, decide to institutionalize the relationship for posterity.  To enable that happening, the society, including parents, relatives, friends etc are made witnesses, and in turn they bless and wish the couple well. Thus this institution, which provides feasts, celebration, merry-making for others, is kept vibrant and relevant, atleast in the Indian context.

There are of course those who choose to remain single. They are not the subject for this article. They can read the opinions that are obviously going to fly across, once this article is posted. Happy reading!

Prem & Om

Suresh