Credit: FreeFoto.com
May there be peace among the gods in heaven and among the stars; may there be peace on earth, among men and four footed animals; may we not hurt each other; may we be generous to each other, may we have that intelligence which will guide our life and actions; may there be peace in our prayers, on our lips and in our hearts.
- Rigveda
Some of the points in the article “Prayer for Peace” need further elaboration and clarification. According to the common usage and according to the dictionary the word “prayer” means an act or practice of praying to God. To pray means to make a request in a humble manner. In this kind of prayer there are two entities, the one that prays and the other that is prayed to. In the Sanskrit Chant there is no individual entity praying to God or some outside agency for the fulfillment of a particular desire.
There is no mention or indication of the word “I”. The word “we” has been used. “May WE not hurt each other, may WE be generous to each other, may WE have that intelligence which will guide OUR life and actions; may there be prayer in OUR lips and in OUR hearts.” The feeling “I” being separate from “you” is totally absent. This is not a prayer by petty little “self” that is feeling helpless, lonely, isolated, dejected, caught in some self created turmoil and therefore wanting some comfort, solace, hope and assurance or a prayer by some egocentric person wanting more money, power, position, prestige or seeking some personal gain.
The word ‘prayer’ brings to mind the meaning we are accustomed to. In the Chant, however, the word has been used in quite a different way. What has been said in the chant is not addressed to any outside agency. But it is an understanding that is taking place inwardly. We need to make a clear distinction between the word ‘prayer’ as commonly used and the way it has been used in the Chant. If we can feel the essence of what has been said we can assign the proper meaning. Only by assigning proper meaning can we see the truth of what has been said. The chant is arising out of intelligence that generates action for the common good.
The word ‘may’ used in the chant makes it appear as if there is a gap between what is happening and what should happen so that there is peace. This is not actually the case. This prayer is not for some goal to be achieved in the future. “Peace is in our prayers, on our lips and in our hearts” This means that the action is taking place in the now. Thought is not the instrument that is creating peace “among gods in heaven and among the stars.” That peace already exists.
If you go to any place of worship you find people are begging for something or the other for tomorrow. A person who is celebrating life in the now behaves righteously in the present moment. There is no postponement of right action. Not to hurt each other, not to entertain fear, not to create fear in each others mind, not to deceive oneself and deceive others and not to live a contradictory life is the right action which can happen only in the now. Action born out of understanding is peaceful. It is not violent, aggressive, assertive and dominating.
Prayer in our hearts means that the prayer is happening all the time. Heart beat is going on when a person is alive. Prayer is, therefore the very breath of life. Prayer is going on when one is awake and when one is asleep. How can one even for a split second afford to forget that one is part and parcel of the whole existence? The understanding of the wholeness of life brings into being the action of prayer which is not to hurt each other and to be generous to each other. Action born out of intelligence is the right action. To see the truth, to abide by the truth and to act out of the truth is the right action for peace.
Where there is ego there cannot by prayer. Prayer and ego cannot co-exist. Prayer is for universal peace. The action of ego is always self-centered. Prayer is not an egotistic affair. It is not like sometime you pray and at all other times you remain greedy, jealous and violent. Action of egotistic prayer brings about isolation. Thinking by its very nature is fragmentary and limited. Therefore thinking is not the instrument through which any one can come upon the prayer in our hearts that is the basis for universal peace.
Thought always operates in the area of the known – knowledge, memory and experience. It can never touch the unknown. When thought tries to bring that which is unknowable into the area of the known it creates self-deception. When thinking makes a concept of Truth, it distorts Truth. The world in which we live peace is just a concept and prayer also is a concept because it is based on another concept. Thought creates a concept of God, some supernatural power or authority and worships that authority because it needs psychological security. This need is born out of insecurity that thought itself has created. There is obviously a fallacy in this kind of prayer.
Because of so many different concepts of God we have numerous organized religions, groups and sects. Identification with a particular religion or group creates divisions between man and man. Conflicts and wars arising out of these divisions have created so much misery and sorrow in the world. In the midst of conflicts and wars we create concepts of peace. One can see how politicians all over the world continue to generate ideas about peace and continue to pursue the shadow created by thought. It is like dog (thought) chasing its own tail (ideas about peace created by thought).
When the cause of the problem (thought) creates an idea of peace it strengthens the cause because the idea is the total denial of the cause. To see this thing actually happening we need not go far back in history. During the past ten years the politicians have sown seeds for more and more violence in the name of peace. Not knowing that we ourselves moved away from peace when we created divisions on the basis of religions and nationality, thinking starts creating ideas about peace without getting rid of the cause that creates the problem.
When thought creates an idea of peace it is always in the form of opposite to what it already knows. Thinking is very much familiar with violence so it creates an idea opposite of violence. Violence is the fact, whereas idea is a not a fact. When thinking creates an idea of peace it always puts its own conditions and establishes its own criteria for peace. Those conditions and criteria must meet its self-interest. We think that we can achieve what we want through the process of reward and punishment. But this clever and cunning method has not worked so far.
We treat hate and violence as natural. When we respond to hate with hate and to violence with violence we call this a natural response. We give all kinds of nonsensical, stupid and irrational reasons to sustain violence and then create ideas about peace. Ignoring the basic criteria for peace we placed peace behind our backs and started our journey towards self-destruction. In the name self-defense we created nuclear bomb and now we are all afraid of the same bomb. We are now saying to each other, “We can have it but you cannot have it.”
Is it possible for human beings to look at their own thinking process and their own actions and realize that they are cutting the same branch of the tree on which they are sitting? In the documentary “March of the Penguins” we heard the prayer that was loud and clear. In the harshest of weather conditions the penguins were saying, “ Let us stick together, it is OUR life, it is a question of OUR survival.” Can human beings see the interconnectedness and interdependence of life? Can we feel in our hearts that we need to care for each other and we need to care for the planet?
Can we get rid of superficial labels – “I am a Hindu, a Muslim, a Christian, a Jew or I am an American, an Indian etc”- imposed by the culture that has always encouraged separateness and self-centeredness? No peace is possible without love and love cannot exist as long as we continue to create and perpetuate divisions born out of our own ignorance and stupidity. There can be order and peace on earth if human beings live in a healthy and harmonious relationship with nature and with each other, if they do not hurt each other, if they are generous to each other, if they have the intelligence that guides their life and actions and if they have love in their hearts.
Let us explore together why are we not living that way? Please do send your response to what has been stated above so that by talking to each other we can discover the right action for peace.
Sardar Singh
sardarsingh@msn.com
This is a refreshing narration touching man where he is: His being, the very foundation, the spirit that connects him beyond his own perceived boundary. Thank you Saradrji for this wonderful excursion! This is evidently another way to look at a man, and, my mind rejoices in this design as outlined.
A child, a toddler still in her pristine innocence, would, perhaps with equal probability, point to her Ma, or to someone else closed to her, when enquired about Munni, the identity of the toddler within the formal framework of her society. In her innocence, the entity Munni is ALL she interacts with: Her doll, her small chair, her mother, the other toddlers playing on the sand-heap. Only when she begins to differentiate, existence appears in parcels: Munni is here, Munnabhai is that one, Aunt Uma is different from Ma, Dad disappears to some place called office every day, …
In the innocence, even “we”, “us”, “they” are all meaningless labels. It is all ONE existence: Not many, not two, but ONE. We are not just interconnected as distinct dollops of interconnected “multiple” existences, but just ONE existence with zillion manifestations through music, poetry, expressions, and movements. When you are hurt, it’s the same as when “this I” is hurt, no different! The joyous eyes of a child, watching in elation the acts of a magician unfolding before her, are the same ones you were blessed with when you were at that age.
Anthropologically, the Vedas saw their world in terms of “us” and “they”. The distinct nuances were part of their existence: This is good, this is bad, this is death, this is immortality. Even the Upanishads couldn’t rid off all these much as they tried since the language used and the very attempt to describe the indescribable had to be couched in terms of artificial contrasts and concepts. For instance, the prayer, “Mrityor Ma Amrityam gamaya” (Lead us from death to immortality) is a perfect one in the realm of duality, but it is meaningless when there is but ONE existence. Who could possibly be touching death or immortality in the ONE? If “I” never knew how to ‘die’, how could “I” possibly know “death” that I want to avoid? If I have never embraced “immortality”, isn’t that a concept in my mind?
The RigVeda longs for “peace” in its prayer: “May there be peace in our prayers, on our lips and in our hearts!” What is this “peace” that it calls for? If it doesn’t know this “peace”, how could Vedas talk about it? So, what happened? Such a longing became a part of a daily ritual, to be repeated day in and out as a mantra without its own blazing momentum of understanding. Thus, for years, for millennia, people had been chanting this, as a slogan, as a means to achieve an end without knowing the end they are after, creating “us” and “them”, partitioning what is indivisible. As a result we lost our ‘innocence’ of the toddler; our identity is now bounded where we are.
But, mind you, this is just another way of looking into it!
Can we describe the state of mind of a toddler as “pristine innocence”? When the brain matures the child starts exhibiting inherited conditioning. The brain is already conditioned to think in terms of “me” and “you”. The society encourages this inherited conditioning through comparison and through the elaborate system of reward and punishment. This is the actual state of our mind. Words like “me” and “you” are not meaningless labels but play an active role in our relationship with each other. When “you” are hurt it is not the same as this “I” gets hurt. We do not know what ‘innocence’ is. If one forms a concept of this word that only strengthens his conditioning. What is the right action that can move a person from this state to the state you have termed “innocence”?
You said that Vedas did not know what peace is. It does not matter if Vedas knew or did not know what peace is, the fact is that after talking about peace for the past so many centuries we still do not have any clue about peace. When we actually stop hurting each other and when we actually are generous to each other can we discover peace? The question is why do we hurt each other and is it possible to end this whole process of hate, violence, greed and jealousy?
Hi Sardar, good points throughout the whole article. I do indeed agree that prayer should forsake the desires of self and should always be a “selfless” action for the benefit of others and the world entire. As far as rejecting “superficial labels” which you spoke of in your response, well, I suppose that could happen if perhaps the entire human race is prepared to deny their own personal cultural identity- indentities that some cultures have relied upon since the dawn of the human race. So yeah, maybe the Jews would be willing to forget about their 5000 year history and move forward and proclaim that they just want to blend. Also maybe native continental Africans would also be willing to give up a history that dates back thousands of years-which they have spent perhaps the entire 20th century getting their history documented in world history books and not written off as being insignificant. Maybe the recognition of cultural identity and celebrating diversity does more harm than good. In fact, practically all world societies have a dark blot on their history in one way or another (except maybe the Australian Aborigines-who to date, cannot historically be linked to committing any notable acts of injustice but have themselves suffered almost two centuries of injustice). Nevertheless, maybe they too (the Australian Aborigines) would be more than happy to say enough… “We are no more distinct from anyone else in the world and preserving our history and identity is the root cause of strife and conflict in the world, nevermind the fact that the majority of our people have never even left the Australian Continent to cause any trouble.” Honestly Sardar, I’m not writing this to be sarcastically contrary to your article. I’m merely seeking to shed a differnt light upon the subject of superficial labels. Do feel free to comment back my friend…
Dear Joe, the problem appears to be gigantic because the individual thinks that he is separate from the society. The need for psychological security arises out of this feeling. The moment one realizes that this feeling is not confined to an individual and that it is arising out of consciousness that is common to all mankind, the mind becomes free from this false sense of security. Such an understanding obviously affects the human consciousness. May be the seed for change in the psychological nature of man has already been sown. By asking these questions and critically going into these questions there may be an awakening of intelligence that can wipe away the illusions that the mind has created. Please read the article entitled ‘Blazing Movement of Understanding that has been posted in the website: http://www.lifeisrelationship.com