Life is Relationship

False ideas must produce dissonance. False ideas are based on ignorance and convenience. Falseness is based on self-fulfilling prophecy. One sees only what one wants to see and hears what ones to hear.

To maintain false ideas in the mind is truly hard work. It is a strain on the mind to shut out truth and justify the false. This is the cause of fatigue and lack of energy to bring about a change and live a different kind of life. The lack of initiative is again a reason not to see false as false. For one knows that no change is possible. So one uses ones position in an organization or in a family to block out any possibility of change.

 A Lizard ran out on a rock and looked up, listening
No doubt to the sounding of spheres
And what a dandy fellow! the right toss of chin for you
And swirl of a tail
If men were as much men as lizards are lizards
They’d be worth looking at

                                                           -D.H. Lawrence

Men can imagine what they were supposed to be
But they are not as much men as lizards are lizards
Because they are not free
They have lost their freedom because their own thought
Has imposed upon them a boundary
Beyond which they cannot move
Beyond which they cannot see

Credit: FreeFoto.com

Why are men not as much men as lizards are lizards?  Life of a lizard is determined by innate intelligence.  This intelligence maintains its existence.  Man’s life is mainly controlled by thought.  The domination of thought process has pushed intelligence in the background.  Because of this overpowering influence of thought on the brain man remains bereft of the joy of life.  If there was unconditional joy in man’s life he would not be dependent on so many different kinds of entertainments, he would not get addicted to drugs, alcohol, smoking and so many habits that make the body and the mind dull. 

There is lack of love, compassion and care in man’s life.  If there was unconditional love in his heart he would not get attached to ideas, people and property and live in perpetual fear.  There would be no wars, brutalities, terrorism and senseless killings.  If man was living intelligently he would be eating the right food and living in a healthy and harmonious relationship with nature and fellow human beings.  Then there would be no need to rush to the greedy experts, counselors, priests and gurus to solve the innumerable problems that get created because of his self-centered and individualistic approach to life.    

A lizard does not have conflicting and contradictory wants and desires.  Human beings are fragmented inwardly.  They have opposing desires, opposing wishes, opposing thoughts.  To be humane is to be human.  Where there is ambition, greed, competition, jealousy, violence and fear there cannot be love.  Men know very well that hate is the root of violence and that violence perpetuates fear and antagonism, yet they continue to meet hate with hate and violence with violence.  They do this because of the compulsive conditioned thought which is rooted in the psychological structure created and perpetuated by thought.

A lizard is conditioned to protect itself physically.  Man is the only living being who has put his own physical security and physical well being at risk.  In so many different ways men are harming themselves and harming the society and the environment in which they live.  Instead of being used where it is needed thinking has taken upon itself an added responsibility to protect itself by creating in the mind an illusory idea of the “me”, the “self”.  Being merely an idea the “self” by its very nature is not something stable, secure or certain.  Thinking tries to maintain its continuity and permanency through the process of identification and attachment. 

Identification and attachment to ideas, beliefs, people and property has far reaching consequences.  The person becomes the thing he identifies with.  The “self” protects the thing it identifies with.  The idea and the person become inseparable.  If a person protects himself physically that is natural, but when he starts protecting ideas, beliefs, opinions, prejudices he creates all kinds of problems for himself and for the society.  Identification with ideas may provide a false sense of psychological security but collectively such identification threatens the physical existence of mankind.  

Man moved away from his natural existence when he created in his mind an idea that he is an entity separate from nature and separate from other human beings.  Instead of keeping his curiosity and sense of wonder alive he created an image of God and described in words that which is unknown and indescribable.  After creating the image he started worshiping that image.  Whatever knowledge man may have about God that knowledge is always limited.  Knowledge is expressed in words.  But the word God or any idea about God is not God.  That which has a living quality cannot be expressed in words.  Living quality demands awareness and experiencing from moment to moment.

Psychological structure that thought has created is very complex.  It is full of conflict, contradictions and confusion.  Consciousness contains all the accumulated knowledge of past experiences, past pleasures, pain, suffering, despair, agony, anxiety and feelings of hurt.  It contains numerous images that man has formed about himself and about other people.  It contains many ideas, beliefs, opinions, prejudices that have been formed.  In this consciousness there is element of self-concern and fear of future.  This pre-existing condition determines man’s quality of life and the quality of his relationships.  The nature of his responses and reactions to day to day challenges in life are determined by the content of his consciousness.

If you put a lizard in a cage it will do everything possible to get out of the cage.  Man has lived in the self created prison for centuries.  He has got used to this prison and takes it for granted.  He has devised so many different ways to adjust himself to the deplorable condition.  Man has, however, the ability to set himself free.  This requires seriousness, interest and passion to see the facts as they are.  Self knowledge is an absolute necessity. 

Sardar Singh

Credit : Freefoto.com

It is not very hard to see that self-centeredness is at the root of human problems.  It is, however, not easy to reveal to oneself the true nature of the ‘self’, the ‘me’, the ‘ego’.  Ignorance about the nature of the self exists because of lack of awareness.  There cannot be awareness when the mind is already in the mode of thinking that has its roots in the “self.” That means the mind needs to be absolutely quiet.  Only then there can be choice less awareness, an awareness that is without motive, without direction, without any set agenda, goal or purpose, without any desire to achieve a result because all these are the activities of thought that is rooted in the self.  We can see what is actually taking place in the mind only when there is pure observation, an observation that is not colored by any idea, belief, prejudice, conclusion or a pre-conceived notion.

Each person feels himself to be different and separate from others.  At the physical level the differences are obvious and must be appreciated.  But are we different from each other psychologically?  All human beings wherever they are face the same life of pleasure, pain, sorrow, grief, anxiety, uncertainty, loneliness, conflict and confusion.  People are violent, greedy, jealous and ambitious due to the same psychological reasons.  Our individualistic approach to life is the same.  Why do we ignore the fundamental commonness and emphasize separateness?

The superficial conditioning arising out cultural influences does not allow the mind to penetrate deeply into the cause that affects us all.  The culture in which a person is born emphasizes individuality and separateness on the basis of race, color, caste, religion and nationality.  Person’s financial status in society also creates the feeling of separateness.  But if a person sets aside these superficial differences he will realize that he is not different from other human beings. Psychologically he is as insecure and uncertain as any other human being.  In fact the superficial conditioning is rooted in the deeper conditioning of the mind.

Thinking has created in the human brain the notion of the “I”, the “me”, the “self”.  The ‘self’ treats itself separate from all other human beings.   Being the creation of thought the ’self’ by its very nature is insecure.  The ‘self’ is, therefore, always in need of security.  This need for psychological security is common to all human beings.  Thinking has devised methods to keep the ‘self’ safe, secure, stable and permanent.  Thinking identifies the ‘self’ with something that it feels is secure and permanent.  Faith and belief in God or something greater are born out of the process if identification.  Attachment to people, property, ideas, and beliefs makes the ‘self’ feel secure and safe.  Around this central idea of the ‘me’ thinking has created a vast complex psychological structure of ideas, opinions, beliefs, prejudices and conclusions.

In his book “The Phantoms in the Brain” brain researcher Mr. V.S. Ramachandran writes, “The self as we experience is an illusion.”  He writes, “so here is the greatest irony of all: that the self, that almost by definition is entirely private, is to a significant extent a social construct.”

It does not serve any purpose if we merely say that the self is an illusion created by thought.  Illusion must be seen clearly.  If the mind mistakes a rope for a snake, the mind continues to be fearful till rope is seen as rope. Psychological fears arising out of the self evoke neurological response the same way as the fear arising out of physical danger.  These fears can disappear only when there is a realization that the fears are unfounded and baseless.  There can be transformation only when I actually see the nature of the self and discover that it is an illusion.

With an objective state of mind one can clearly see that the self which is treated by most of us as entirely private, is to a significant extent a social construct.  It is a fact that influence plays an enormous role in our life.  Our brain is conditioned by the culture in which we live.  It is conditioned by our social, religious and economic environment and by the education and family pressures and influences.  Our ideas, beliefs and values have been shaped by the culture in which we are born.  The self is the sum total of these influences.  If you take away influence there is no such thing as the self.

When we actually realize the fact this individualistic approach to life is nothing but the result of our conditioned thinking then our whole perception of life changes. Such realization brings about love and compassion.  It releases energy that is now caught up in a very narrow self-centered approach to life. The moment you realize that your pain is the pain of humanity then you cannot hurt another because the other is you.  Only a profound understanding of the nature of the self can bring about inward revolution.

To be continued.  Your comments and questions are most welcome.

Sardar Singh

Credit : Freefoto.com

Let a relaxed mind travel extensively over human affairs, from his own troubles to international issues he will find that the problems are inextricably interwoven.   It will become immediately clear that the remedies which are being applied from different angles are really of no avail.  A clear of view of the panorama of human misery as a living process will evoke genuine concern.  The ways of degradation will then be perceived with a fresh sense of responsibility and one will not casually reinforce these through his own participation.  Such individuals will set in motion a new trend.  They will pave the way for an altogether different culture.

The crux of the matter is the individuals own involvement in deep and wide-ranging perception.  One can find the right response only when one is passionately concerned about it.  In clarity one is no longer part of the prevailing culture.  With clarity of perception a person can see things as they actually are.  He can see the total picture.  When one realizes the value of clarity one naturally shares with others.

The ultimate source of our problems is in thought.  Our thinking determines our actions and our actions determine the quality of our relationship with each other.  Society is the result of relationships.  Problems arising out of human relationship appear to be intractable.  There is conflict at all levels of human relationship.  There is conflict between husband and wife, between parent and child, between one group and another, between nations, religions and within the same political and religious organizations.  There is enormous confusion, violence, brutalities, the wars, terrorism and endless division of religion and nationality.  Roots of disorder lie in the state of human mind.

Unfortunately we use the same thinking ability to find solutions to the numerous complex and intricate problems that thought has created.  Past history clearly demonstrates that despite all the knowledge and experience accumulated through centuries man has not been able to produce a harmonious and healthy society.  We do make some improvements here and there but the overall situation remains grim.  The momentum at which the problems are being created is quite overwhelming.  It is obvious that there must be a serious flaw in the way we think.

It is amazing that two distinct systems of thought operate within the framework of human consciousness, one that creates the problem and the other that tries to find solution to the problem.  Both arise out of the same source.  That source is self-centeredness.  Thinking arising out of self-interest, self-concern creates numerous problems.  Problems like greed, jealousy, anxiety, anger, hate and violence arise out of the conditioned state of mind.  Any problem that arises in the mind poses a challenge and there is an automatic response to meet the challenge.  This response generates thought process that has no clue as to how the problem got created.

It is extremely important that we should understand the nature of the self because most of our actions spring from this center.  Our perceptions and responses to the challenges of life and our basic urges, desires and demands are determined by the nature of the self.  Human relationship is based on the operation of thought that is self-centered.  Only a profound understanding of the nature of the self can bring about inward revolution.

To be continued.  Your comments and questions are most welcome.

Sardar Singh

In the animal kingdom, a leader’s role is to organize and launch a hunt, to organize and implement community outings for food-foraging, to provide collateral safety for its pack from its predators, etc. Our human society, hard-wired to this behavior acquired in its remote past, has morphed this over time to take care of its production-consumption demands, environmental-needs, political problems, and most of all, to attend to its socio-psychological needs. Not only do we have leaders today for our political identities, actions and agendas, but also for our socio-spiritual wants vested through our gurus and wise-shamans who are alleged to know how to fix our problems that we are beset with.

A leader is incomplete without followers, and a follower needs a leader to guide him to his mission. In any case, both relations depend on the other to sustain and function; a leader, like a follower, is, therefore, never free. Once I’m dependent on another for my being, I’m tethered to that dependency; I cease to become my own. And this lack of freedom, I think, is the crucial element that defines a leader more properly.

Is it possible for an imprisoned person to convey truth to another from the precinct of his prison? This is the question we should look into in anticipating the role of a leader in a community of followers.  Particularly, if “truth” were dynamic, can one ever follow it from an imprisoned mind? It would be like capturing the contour of a flame within a rigid boundary – an impossible task no matter how ardently we try.

When followers expect their leaders to provide them with “correct answers”, “correct solutions to their problems” they are asking their leaders to do precisely that: to provide a definitive boundary within which the solution space would be comfortably nestled in. The followers would be no longer alive with the fire of life burning within them – they would be dead wrapped up in the certainty that a conclusion accords. A dead person is not interested in “discovering” the truth himself; he is interested in “knowing” it from some authority in order to conclude, to draw a closure. He lacks confidence on himself and he relinquishes his human role gladly to a proxy — someone in authority — to provide him with “correct approaches” to life. But “truth” being transcendental unlike a fixed goal or design, one can never “know” it, can never “own” it. Therefore, “truth” cannot be acquired or inherited from another; it must be constantly discovered by oneself interested in it. And, this process of continuously discovering “truth” from one’s life and relationships comprise one’s being. Who am I? I’m what I discover myself daily in my relationship. No leader can inform me of this; I must, on my own, find out and discover what I’m. Therefore, an intelligent being cannot be a follower.

Therefore, a leader, in a socio-psychological realm, is a problem, not an answer even to oneself. Almost inevitably, it would be a system derived on misinformation or contradictions, leaving both leaders and their followers confused and unhappy. Truth, however we attempt it, simply cannot be transmitted to another. How does a mango taste like? No matter how much I try, I’d never be able to verbalize that transcendental understanding to another; the best I could do is to advice him to eat some mangoes, some ripe, some not so ripe, some really tart with differing textures, taste, aroma and sensation.

But followers have no such interest in finding things out for themselves. Who has time and capacity to figure out answers to all these weird questions in life, they would contend. They want an instant answer, the correct answer, the answer that withstands time, mood, and place. They want an answer that is convenient, pleasant, not too much demanding and yet socially respectable. For an average follower, “truth” is fine but not always palatable; something approximating truth may be more livable than the actual truth; therefore, get a leader, a teacher or a guru who would know how to dispense truth in convenient packages with silver lining and bright-colored ribbons for mass consumption. But an “approximate truth” is not truth; a well-crafted opinion is not “truth” – they may be more appealing, but they are not truth.

Let’s take a specific example from our contemporary scene. Gandhiji articulated “non-violence” as a policy to implement his non-cooperation movement to demand self-rule for India. Why was it a policy? Does it mean there is an alternative to “non-violence” equally as good when it comes to living? Is “non-violence” really the opposite of “violence” as a policy, as a means to some end? Could an attentive person live by trying to “become” non-violent? If I’m aware, could I be “violent”, “non-violent”, both, or none of the above? If I’m aware, could I have any “choice” in life as such? Isn’t the process of “choosing” itself a modality in violence?

We all forgot to ask these basic questions. Not that it was circumstantial — even if we were interested to ask these questions to ourselves, we were reluctant to explore them – instead, we waited for our leader, for our new guru, new messiah to answer them for us first. The entire country and the entire world took “non-violence” as a “tool” to accomplish its ambitions, its agendas.

What has happened since? Sure Rev. Tutu and Rev. Martin Luther King Jr both embraced this as the doctrine for their individual missions. The world embraced it; we had it installed on the pedestal as an ideal, something to aim for as a choice, something to die for, and something to be violent for, kill for. And, something was assuredly amiss. Today, the land of Gandhi is as violent and as corrupt as the rest of the world; America and South Africa, the two spiritual progenies of Gandhi, are as violent as ever; it appears, as though, Gandhi’s message of non-violence was simply missed out by most of us; non-violence still remains cocooned as an ideal, it hasn’t become part of our life.

Why did non-violence as a pragmatic policy fizz out so spectacularly? It is because we did not discover it ourselves in the depth of our understanding, it was not real for us; we were told of it and we grabbed it as a working tool to gain our independence, to unshackle the chains of apartheid, to step out from the realm of inequity the skin-color as a paradigm cemented. To us, the ends were important; we didn’t look into the means to find out for ourselves what it meant to be non-violent. We were told by our leaders to accept it as an ideal to work for; this would one day bring forth our Camelot, we’d all live happily ever after once it arrived and settled permanently in our midst. Thus, we had minimally a dichotomy: Our real violent living on one hand, and our ideal life on the other, without any conceivable overlap between the two. Thus, from the beginning, we have been in a fragmented living chasing an ideal based on our incomplete understanding.

Gandhiji would enter into self-imposed fasting unto death whenever events of communal riot or violent reaction to British atrocities would greet the nation in front of his very eyes. Sure, the nation would return to normalcy, not because it suddenly understood why non-violence was worth pursuing, but only out of respect of their Bapuji. Indeed, one could say Mahatma had blackmailed his followers on all such occasions: “Return to normalcy, or I’d embrace death through fasting.” This was violence par excellence; the entire nation would be subjected to such a force to elicit a specific behavior that Mahatmaji wanted. Where is “non-violence” in such endeavors?

Leaders need psychologically “dead” followers to complement themselves, to derive their power. If one is “intelligently alive”, the last thing one would want to be is a leader, a guru, a man of authority, etc. We could always anticipate what a leader “should” be, but such a normative design is only a product of our insecure minds. The “ideal” leader doesn’t exist; what exist as leaders, as channels of authority are what we see in our everyday life in every segment of society. Do we need them except on functional chores? Is there any reason why should one need them?  Can we stand up on our feet and humbly assert that we don’t need any leader as a psychological prop; we can work our way out in solving our own problems rationally without leaning onto “ideals” and it would be fine even if we make mistakes?

Saumen Sengupta

Peace and harmony

In response to Joe Haskins comments, posted under the article Man Made God I had stated that any action based on idea, belief or an ideology creates division.  Thought cultivates prejudice, opinion and judgment and these create division.  Joe feels that thought also has been used for the betterment of society.  Leaders like Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Desmond Tutu produced results that were beneficial to the world as a whole.

To better understand the role of leaders in solving human problems we need to carefully look at the total human situation.  Generally we are accustomed to look at things partially through the medium of our beliefs, ideas and concepts that we have already formed.  This way our perception gets distorted.  The best thing would be to imagine that you are coming from a different planet.  You have the power of observation but you are not a participant in the human drama.  This way your attention is focused on facts only.  In order to keep the perception objective you should not form any opinion about the facts.

It is a fact that human beings are endowed with the ability to think.  Thinking ability has helped man to make tremendous progress in the field of science, technology and other areas.  But thinking also is responsible for creating numerous problems.  No one can deny this fact. It has been known to man that selfishness and self-centeredness are at the root of human conflict, misery and sorrow.  Yet human beings remain in the same predicament as they were centuries ago.  Basically, fundamentally, psychologically their thought process remains the same. The mechanism of thought by which they create, maintain and perpetuate differences remains the same.  Although it is evident beyond a shadow of doubt that the process identification with ideas creates divisions on the basis of religion and nationality, yet attachment to beliefs remains at the core of their thinking process.

Love birds

People continue to operate on the basis of violence, greed and jealousy because of strong psychological reasons.  What actually takes place in the mind has lot of energy  and momentum behind it.  Human beings talk of love, but their minds are not free from hate and prejudice.  They proclaim that all human beings are born equal but each one feels to be more than equal.  They know that hate is the root of violence and that violence perpetuates fear and antagonism, yet they continue to meet hate with hate, anger with anger and violence with violence.  All over the world this process of thinking has created a chain of cause and effect.  Cause produces effect and the effect becomes the cause of another effect.  The roots of disorder in the world lie in the state of the human mind.

What do humans do when problems arise?  They use the same thinking ability to solve the problems.  Unfortunately when they try to solve the problems they do not look at the mechanism of thought that creates the problems in the first place.  Even if they intellectually grasp the source of the problem they either ignore it, avoid it or feel totally helpless about it.  They rely on some outside authority who they think can take care of the mess.  Leaders, like other human beings, have a framework of mind within which they operate.  They too lack clarity of perception about the intricacy and the complexity of the problem.

Leaders are intellectually brilliant and impressive speakers.  They are very good organizers.  Majority of these leaders exploit the situation for their own self-interest in order to gain more power, position and prestige.  But there are some who are driven by the desire to serve the society and make the world a better place to live.  These leaders pursue great ideas in order to achieve positive results.  They bring within their circle other great thinkers who are equally keen to make a difference.  People applaud such leaders who are willing to make sacrifices in order to protect and safeguard their interests.

Unfortunately leaders deal only with manifestations without perceiving the malady.  They fail to realize that all problems are interrelated and spring form the same source.  The source is the cultural composition of man.  Attention is focused only on specific issues and solution of a particular problem becomes the goal of life.  Desire to achieve results motivates their action.

Gandhi appeared on the world stage when there was lot of resentment against the British occupation of India.  Gandhi mobilized public opinion and started a non-violent struggle against the British rule.  It was non- violent because the British had army that was equipped with sophisticated weapons.  Violent struggle would lead to bloodshed without producing any results.

Gandhi asked people to set aside differences and fight for the common cause.  Struggle for India’s independence stretched for a long period of time.  Ultimately the British decided to leave India.  But they were still the puppeteers holding in their hands the strings of the puppets – leaders of India including Gandhi. They were planning to divide and weaken the country.

The inner psychological demands and urges of the leaders and their followers came to the surface.  Ideals like non-violence and peace, unity and brotherhood, equality and justice blew away in the wind.  Mountbatten connived with Jinnah who readily agreed to the proposal to partition the country so that he could become the ruler of the country where Muslims would be in majority.  He was, however, willing to oppose the partition if he was made the Prime Minister of undivided India.  But Nehru too was an ambitious person.  He was very anxious to become the Prime Minister.  So he rejected Jinnah’s proposal and persuaded Gandhi to agree to the partition of the country.

Although Gandhi had publicly declared many times that he would not accept the partition of the country, yet he succumbed to the pressure of his close associates who were eager to grab power.  If Gandhi had insisted on doing the right thing there was no power on earth which could have stopped him from disassociating himself from these leaders.

The moment declaration was made about the partition of the country riots erupted in different parts. There was mayhem, bloodshed, looting, destruction of property and killing and suffering of millions of people.  Was Gandhi aware about the consequences of partition? If he was, then accepting the partition was the most irresponsible act.  Most likely he was not aware of the repercussions.  He was also not aware of his own inner weakness.  Although he was working with his close associates on a daily basis he did not have any clue about their inner desires and compulsions.  The behavior of the top leaders might have come to him as a shock. Fate of the whole country was decided by the egocentricity of its leaders.

After the partition there was supposed to be a government by the people for the people, but the politicians soon forgot their obligation and responsibility and started behaving the same arrogant way as the British who were ruling the country for their own selfish reasons.

Martin Luther King and Desmond Tutu fought for equality and justice in their respective countries.  But is there any change in human nature?  Improvements and modifications made here and there by enacting new laws are soon engulfed by the new problems that crop up due to man’s inability to deal with the most basic and fundamental issues that determine the quality of life.  Laws can be enacted to end segregation but laws cannot take away the feeling of superiority.  The feeling can arise due to different reasons.  Beside race, color, religion, nationality a person’s educational background, material wealth, talent etc can make him/her feel superior to others.  This feeling is one of the main causes of inequality and injustice in the world because it creates division between “me” and “you”.

Throughout his long election campaign Barack Obama focused his attention on the major problems facing America.  He blamed the Bush administration for pursuing wrong policies and thereby creating mess and chaos.  The word ‘change’ became the mantra that was repeated at all the election rallies.  When he became the president all the problems about which he had talked so extensively became an actual challenge and needed urgent attention.  Human greed was at the source of many of these problems.  Neither the people nor their leader asked why human beings are greedy.  Greed is being treated as part of human nature.

For most of the people life as they actually live remains unexamined.  For example there is blind and mechanical pursuit of ‘progress’ and ‘success’.  Achievement of power, position, prestige and status is considered as the aim of life.  All struggles for personal pleasure, competition in all spheres of life and the system of reward and punishment are part and parcel of present day existence.  Faith and belief in God and reliance on some or the other authority, including religious and political leaders, are never questioned.  It has been assumed that rules and regulations, imposed discipline, ideals, gospels will solve the problem.  Attitudes and habits formed as a result of various influences are taken for granted.  Obviously such a way of life produces numerous problems both at the individual and collective level.

People have relied on political and religious leaders to solve the problems that they themselves have created.  Such reliance has made them complacent as they have never looked inwardly and become aware of the irrationality of their own thought process.  No leader or an outside authority can give freedom and intelligence and no leader can teach a person how to love.  Ideals cannot bring about love, care and affection because they do not take care of the complexity of the problem.  There can be no relationship without love.  Each person has to discover this quality that is not the product of thought.

Sardar Singh

FreeFoto.com

One picks up the morning paper and he finds that so many terrible things are happening in different parts of the world.  There is enormous confusion, violence, brutalities, the wars, terrorism and endless division caused by organized religions and nations that are driven by their own interest.  There are divisions within the same religious groups due to differences in beliefs, ideas, and values.  There are divisions within the countries due to power struggle between political parties. 

We do get upset by what is happening in the world but vast majority of people shut out the impact by disowning responsibility for the sordid state of affairs, assigning it to the leaders in various fields or to the care of the Almighty.  There are, however, serious people who continue to be disturbed by the events in varying degrees but do not find an adequate response to this ugly human situation. 

The way things are at present it appears almost impossible that a drastic revolution can take place.  This feeling, however, is based on our past experience. We have seen that human beings have not changed during the past thousands of years in spite of so much misery and sorrow arising out of conflicts between religions and nations.  We, however, do not realize that this feeling itself prevents us from looking at the problem with a fresh and open mind.  Past experience is based on past thinking.  If our thinking is the root cause of the problem we cannot rely on past experience to guide our actions.   We need to directly look at the thought process that creates the problem.

It is true that there are sharp differences between one person and another and these differences appear to be irreconcilable but we need to see clearly that deeply, inwardly, psychologically human beings are the same. The factors that are common to humanity are very crucial and cannot be ignored.  We all face the same life of sorrow, pain, grief, anxiety and uncertainty.  We all suffer loneliness, conflict and confusion.  Thinking creates problems for human beings the same way.  The process, the modus operandi and the mechanism are the same.

People may have different ideas and they may have different opinions but the reason why they believe in something or the other or the reason why they form opinions, prejudices etc are the same. The process of identification and attachment to a particular group or nation is the same.  When a person realizes the fact that we are all fundamentally the same his approach to the whole problem drastically changes.  He is no longer caught up in superficial differences.  

Question has been asked, how is it possible for people to deny their cultural identities?  It is not a question of accepting or denying personal cultural identities.     We need to ask why human beings have divided themselves into so many different cultural, religious and national identities and what are the implications of this whole divisive process?   The fact is that these identities have been imposed on the human mind and we stick to these identities due to psychological reasons.

Faith and belief provide some kind of a false sense of psychological security.  If I defend myself physically, that is natural, but when the psychological entity the “me” tries to protect itself psychologically through the process of identification, it creates all kinds of problems for the individual and the society.  The feeling that I am separate from you is the beginning of deception, the beginning of illusion.  This illusion is the cause of human ignorance.

When we look at the human history and also at what is happening now the problem of attachment to labels appears to be quite formidable and one asks how does it matter if individuals here and there drop the labels?  There is a feeling of helplessness because one thinks that an individual cannot do anything to change in the world?  This, however, is not true.  Human beings share the same consciousness.  This consciousness is the result of our relationship with each other.  Individual and society are inextricably linked with each other and are constantly feeding each other.  Any change in the mind of an individual is bound to affect the human consciousness.   The idea that “I will change only when others change” is negligent postponement of an urgent needed action.  The real challenge of change does not lie somewhere outside; it lies in accepting the responsibility for the mess that our own thinking has created. 

Realizing the fact that all human beings are in the same predicament and that we share the same consciousness we must set aside our own particular ideas, beliefs, opinions and prejudices, likes and dislikes and also our desire for self-improvement,  self-enhancement and self-fulfillment, because these also distort perception.  Only then can we go deeper into the nature and structure of thought which is creating problems for all human beings the same way.  Only profound understanding can bring about inward revolution.

 When one realizes the significance of clarity one naturally shares with others thus enlarging the circle of individuals who are keen to respond in full measure to the whole human situation.  An individual who has insight becomes part of the blazing movement of understanding.

Sardar Singh

Credit: FreeFoto.com

A person who is really interested to find out if there is something sacred in life, something that is eternal, beyond matter and beyond cause and effect must ask himself the following questions:

Am I, the seeker, different from what I am seeking?  How do I define the two separate entities, the “me” and “God”?

What is the purpose of my search?  Do I want to discover something new for the love of it or is there a specific motive behind the search?

What is the role of belief and faith in my search?

Will I be able to recognize what I am seeking?  In what way my thinking, my knowledge, experience and memory that I have acquired so far is helpful in my search?

What are my criteria of selecting a particular method or a particular path to truth?  Is God some kind of a goal to be achieved in life and if so, what is the role of desire, effort and will in order to achieve that goal?

Is it possible for the mind that has been conditioned to think in a particular way to act independently and objectively without any bias?

These questions need to be explored in the light of the following facts. Our thinking is conditioned by the culture in which we are born.  It has been shaped by tradition, religious dogmas, education, and social pressures.  A wide range of influences, pouring in from various directions, ensemble for each one of us an outlook, a view of life; not just a theoretical view but an operational one which affects, to a large extent, our perceptions and responses.  We are shaped quite firmly by the cultural mould.

Our concept about God and belief in God are part and parcel of the conditioned mind.  Concepts are passed on from one generation to another. Concepts formed at an early age are taken for granted. Generally the image of God is created by assigning to it qualities and attributes that are just the opposite of the qualities of the human mind.  If I am fearful, then God is fearless.  If the mind has the qualities of hate, anger and violence, then God is love and peace.  Human beings create inequality on the basis of race, religion, caste or nationality, but God stands for equality and justice.  Any concept of the unknown is the product of our own thinking.  Thought creates God and then thought worships the image that thought has created.

Belief and faith in God are born out of man’s need for psychological security.  Psychologically the “self”, the “me”, which is also the creation of our own thought process, is insecure. “Self” identifies itself with something that it thinks is permanent, secure and stable.  That is why people cling to their respective beliefs.  There are so many beliefs and ideologies but the reason why human beings believe in something or the other is the same.

At present we have so many religions in the world.  In each religion there are several groups, each having its own particular belief system.  Each religion has its own set of dogmas and rituals.  Each belief system promises the followers bliss, happiness, security and peace.  Each religion has laid down its own particular path to Truth.  The followers are expected to follow different methods to obtain the desired result.

Our thinking is rooted in self-interest.  It is goal oriented.   Motive decides our action.  Anything that caters to our self-interest appeals to us.  Thinking always seeks pleasure and avoids pain. Belief offers hope for a better future.  The urge for the fulfillment of our desires is the primary reason for our attachment to God.

Thinking functions within the area of the known.  The fact is that the future is unknown.  Thinking, however, projects the future from past memory, knowledge and experience.   Same way it creates in the mind an image of God which actually is unknown.  Any kind of image of the unknown is nothing else but an illusion and self-deception.

Knowledge is always limited.  Therefore, our thinking is limited.  It can have no relationship with that which is unknown and unlimited.  Thinking functions within the domain of the known.  It cannot describe that which is indescribable.  Thinking is a material process in the brain.  It can never know that is beyond matter.

God is not a fixed entity sitting somewhere in the sky.  God is living energy that can be experienced from moment to moment.  Thinking, being entrenched in the past, has no clue about the living present which is beyond time.  Thinking can recognize that which it already knows.  There is no way that a person can approach God through thought.  Unfortunately at present man’s relationship with God is based only on thought and this relationship, therefore, has no validity whatsoever.

Truth can operate only when the mind is free from everything that is false.  Without Truth life has very little meaning.  Concepts about God are based on irrational thinking.  We talk about oneness of God, yet our thinking creates separation and division on the basis of ideas and beliefs.  The process of identification with a belief is the root cause of so much conflict, misery and sorrow in the world.  Deep understanding of our own thought process is an absolute necessity.

Your comments are most welcome.

Sardar Singh
sardarsingh@msn.com

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