On Anger

Like desire, anger is probably a favourite topic of discussion for the philosophically oriented. In the Bhagwad Gita, it has been said that anger leads to a sort of hypnosis, which destroys memory and thereby intelligence. Even in common discussions, educated people mostly do not disagree that this kind of deep and/or persistent anger is to be avoided. That brings us to the question of whether anger is fine in smaller bits - especially where it can help you keep healthy (or, preserve your sanity).

Here, at least a few situations come to mind where the answer might still be "no". Firstly, say this smaller anger was a cause of hurt to some people, maybe on a recurring basis. Kind-hearted people would naturally want to reduce instances like these. Another situation is where the "small" anger has become a habit. Once a tendency to get angry everywhere is developed, the angry person is likely to feel depleted of energy every now and then, simply because of the frequency and the intensity of the emotion. Even if the anger is not always expressed, the fatigue is likely to show up because the "energies" are being depleted anyway. A third is a situation where the person feels that the anger is always justified by his/her logic. This might not deplete as much energy, but even here, the person could be creating more isolation for himself/herself, so it might be better to be cautious even in these cases.

In a few situations, where both parties ensure that the anger does not drain so much energy and actually try to clear the atmosphere, we might end up with a great solution to the particular situation even after getting angry. However, simply because of such experiences, we might further strengthen our general tendency to get angry, or, we might be strengthening the bonds of maya (seperate egoistical consciousness), and who knows what the final effect might be?

Now let's make the jump I want to make here and accept for now that we want to avoid anger. The few scriptures we read don't clearly define the situations where anger is good or the extent to which it should be encouraged, so we go with an overall feeling that it is better to avoid it than indulge in it. Even when teaching small children how to behave in day-to-day situations, it is not clear that deep anger helps - what they need is some clear direction, and not our deep resentment towards their mischief or their laziness on that day. 

So for now, let's assume that the scriptures do ask us to overcome anger because it is in the interests of higher spiritual development. Is there a method that works? Of course, no method works without our will, and if the will is very strong, maybe no method will be needed. Yet, some of us, I'm sure, would have felt that techniques and methods also help where the will is strong but not perfect yet. It is mainly for this group that I would like to share a set of two ideas which I gathered from some articles written by someone who is highly revered in my family. I am not giving the name here - let's just call him Swamiji for now. However, his revered status in my eyes is important because that further helped me pay attention to the words.

In one article, Swamiji says that while the total cessation of "prapanch" (worldly life, or the "street-smart" activities we have to sometimes pursue to lead a worldly life, or to elaborate, the delusional activities done under the influence of "maya") is not possible (probably said for the practitioner, not for the self-realized), it is still important (for the practitioner) to control its "saamraajya bhaav" (i.e., aggressive or overwhelming role in daily life). In a different article, he says that while the ego (ahankaara) is multi-faceted, it has four main "branches" or manifestations. Since that essay was written in Hindi, let me mention the four manifestations in Hindi itself. They are:

(a) cheezon ke milne se hone waalaa sukh (the pleasure of getting things),
(b) na milne se hone waalaa dukkh (the displeasure at not getting them),
(c) apamaan (insult), aur (and)
(d) apayash (infamy).

Now let us put these 2 together. If anger is our problem, the first idea tells us that even if it is impossible for an ordinary practitioner to completely eliminate it, we would do well to bring its overwhelming influence under control.

The second idea then tells us that the insult or displeasure we feel is one of the four main manifestations of an over-sized ego (over-sized for the spiritual aspirant at least), and hence is good to control and down-size it. Together, they make a super recipe for controlling anger and other toxic emotions which can all too often sway us, if we choose to stay that way. 

I am sure there would be many other such sayings and teachings in all the well-known scriptures, but today, I do not have a ready compilation of such teachings from those well-known sources. Needless to say, whatever we respect a lot, we can pick and try to emulate. In that sense, the power lies in our own mind and not in the words. Then again, from a different point of view, the words really need to carry that power too!

Sadanand Tutakne

The Place of Knowledge in Transformation (as per J. Krishnamurti)

As per J. Krishnamurti (in conversation with Dr. Alan W. Anderson), the place of knowledge in human transformation is, quite simply, that of an inhibitor - although the word "inhibitor" is just my one-word summary and not a word used by Krishnamurti. 

This kind of summary would shock many of us at some level, but no hurt is intended here. With a little explanation, the shock will disappear and be replaced by a simple and serious understanding of what Krishnamurti is asking "responsible" people to look into. Some of these themes recur in Krishnamurti's discussions and books, but let's accept that repetition has an important role in self-improvement. Repetition is required for the forgetful, isn't it? The Hindu father is far from "wrong" in asking his child to repeat the Gayatri mantra 108 times in a day. Mantras need to be repeated by the forgetful! Otherwise, knowledge will not be available for use when the need arises. That was the curse Karna carried, because his guru (as the story goes) got angry with him for a lie he told. That is also the curse mankind normally carries on itself - to forget the knowledge when the need arises. Jokes apart, repetition is helpful at times.

J Krishnamurti's dialoge with Dr. Alan W Anderson is in a set of 18 video-recorded conversations, and it seems all 18 are available on YouTube. The link to the first dialogue is - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RPAJ6Sp1VA and this essay is based only on the first four. I need to watch the others again before I can write about them.

When listening to J. Krishnamurti, we should remember that he always accepted the place of "technological memory" (like how to drive a car, how to get to one place from the other, etc.) as being essential for people to function in daily life. In these videos too, he dismisses that kind of memory as being "essential" and makes it clear that that kind of memory is not being talked about here. Apart from that kind of technological memory, which creates no sorrow or misery in life, there is another "psychological memory", which makes for the continuation of the past in human life and is the topic of many of Krishnamurti's dialogues and conversations. Once again, before going into the relationship of this memory with human problems, he emphasises more than once that knowledge has a role to play. Perhaps what he means is that the right place for that knowledge needs to be found by each person in the context of the surroundings he/she is situated in.

This "psychological memory" is the content of the individual observer (who feels separate from the observed), who carries the impressions of the past with him and views the present mainly through the colored glasses of those impressions. This heavily colored glass prevents people from meeting the present "as it is" and makes it impossible for people to react adequately to the "challenge of the present". The present is forever new, but viewed through the knowledge of the past, it is viewed as a continuation of the past and by constant repetition  of the same pattern, the past carries on, even if sometimes in a slightly modified way. Ultimately, there is no relationship to the actual, images battle with other images, the past clashes with the present and the result has to be a continuation of the misery of the past. This burden of psychological memory is called knowledge here. Its content is the impressions gathered from experience. These
memories and the related desires and emotions are the essence of the observer who feels separate from the observed and has no relationship to the observed. 

Radical change will not happen by modified continuity of the past. The observer must realize that he is not separate from the observed, but very much an integral part of it. In actuality, as Krishnamurti says, the observer is the observed. As long as the observer is an outsider with no actual relationship to the observed,
he will continue with the same mischief of pursuing his own continuity - even if in a modified way sometimes - and thereby allow misery to repeat itself. This does not mean that there is place for dogma in Krishnamurti's style of discussing. Krishnamurti asks responsible people to look into the matter for themselves, so that they can themlselves understand the complex created by this kind of memory, this kind of observer and this kind of experiential knowledge in life. When danger is clearly seen as danger, transformation is instantaneous. For
example, if there is fire near us, we put it out immediately - no time is involved in that kind of simple "seeing". If man could truly see the ruthlessness of "success", he would not need to slowly modify his behaviour and painfully work towards a cherished end. The seeing is the doing. The recognition of the dangers of some of these human behaviors is the end of those behaviors. However, the past, the observer and the knowledge inhibit this seeing and even seeking a way out of this mess can be merely a modified continuity of the past, because the seeking might be more verbal, and not actual. Truly seeking means truly knowing the problem created by the past, and it is the ending of the past - to use Krishnamurti's kind of language.

There is clearly a whole lot common to Krishnamurti and Patanjali, to Krishnamurti and the Vedas, etc. For example, his idea of the observer being the observed is what Patanjali defines as the state of "sabeeja samaadhi" (samaadhi with a seed of thought, idea, object etc. being present, but the observer being as though absent). However, perhaps even more important is the emphasis of both Krishnamurti and the ancient teachers on learning by doing, on implementing and testing out in one's life each of these ideas, lest they remain as merely ideas in our mind with no substance behind them. This "nididhyaasana" in daily life is
the cure for forgetful mankind which keeps answers conveniently classified in large libraries, so it would become easier to forget them in daily life. 

Nididhyaasana is not dogmatic following, though. Recall that no less than Shankara has said in his commentaries that "mere action" is not enough because action is not directly opposed to ignorance. (Ignorance is the forgetfulness of the essential unity in Spirit.) Only knowledge is directly opposed to ignorance. So nididhyaasana also does not mean dogmatic following of words not understood, but rather implies an understanding based on both intellectual and experiential testing. It is a way to understand what Krishnamurti means by saying that the word is not the thing, the description is not the described. The hungry man needs to go beyond descriptions of food and the man in conflict and misery needs to end the cause of the suffering. Only that in these cases, the seeing is the doing and so the revolution is instantaneous in that sense.

Sadanand Tutakne

The Life Divine, Chapters 11-15

Ch.11: Delight of Existence: The Problem
Ch.12: Delight of Existence: The Solution

In chapters 11 and 12, Sri Aurobindo deals with a very common question mankind has - namely, if the Universal One created this world without any need or want, purely for the delight of finding Himself through the play of multitudes, then how can we ever explain the presence of pain and sorrow, injustice and insensitivity, etc., in the world which the Perfect One created for only for delight (Ananda)?

In one chapter, he elaborates on the problem in some detail and begins answering the paradox, and in the next, he elaborates further on the explanation. Part of the answer is that the concepts of justice and morality which we hold (typically) are themselves limited and rooted rather too deeply in the body/mind experiences of the individual. Therefore, if the world seems unjust, it is also because the individual's concept of justice is limited. Another equally important part of the answer is that our understanding of the words "delight of existence" is often incorrect. Delight of existence refers to the "background of all backgrounds", something like the normal satisfaction of being alive and conscious - not to the waves of ecstasy we sometimes feel when the ego or some other individual desire is fulfilled. This normal satisfaction of existence is the background on which all our mental waves of pleasure and pain are superimposed and the background is
very much present even when these crests and troughs are being experienced. So, delight of existence is not contradicted by the presence of pain or sorrow - rather, these are but positive and negative currents of the same delight of existence. Through training in neutrality and equanimity, says Sri Aurobindo, it is possible to slowly transform even painful experiences into neutral sensations first and later into the "equal delight" of existence. In fact, he adds, it is also possible, though much more difficult for human beings, to directly
(immediately) transform painful sensations into the equal delight of existence (Ananda) - and here, we are not talking of drug-induced sleep or external hypnosis. The possibilities seen under hypnosis point to the fact that these capabilities lie dormant in the human body, and for Sri Aurobindo, these possibilities are not conjectures but a reality.

Ch.13: The Divine Maya

Even then, if all existence were to be of the same nature as Brahman (Universal Consciousness), then no suffering could be felt. So to even feel limitation, something lesser than Brahman must have been created. Obviously, this is the role of Maya, the power of veiling and projection, which ultimately makes the individual forget his/her divine origin, omnipresence and omniscience, and cling to separate existence which serves only the limited body and ego. Maya is the power by which the Universal "hides" Himself into seemingly separate parts.

However, as Sri Aurobindo points out in many places, we are fortunate that the One and the seeming many are not poles of existence without any link. Rather, creation is very much a continuum, with intermediate states like the Supermind, which has created the world of multiplicity by unequal distribution of consciousness (which leads to division between the knower and the known, etc.), but retains the understanding that it is actually one and the same everywhere. In fact, in Supermind, one can realize that Consciousness is not just involved or hidden within matter, but is rather the creator of the material world and "holds" the multiplicity of forces within itself in an overall harmony, which is not seen by the ordinary individual who has not risen above Maya.

Even human knowledge, which is all about division between the knower and the known and the will of the knower at a practical level, suggests the idea that there is something beyond these seeming divisions - that these are all ultimately one. However, says Sri Aurobindo, it is only when we delve deep into ourselves, into "that secrecy where the activity of the mind is stilled", that this universal consciousness becomes manifest to us.

In the essay, Sri Aurobindo makes some other points too, for example, that the philosophies which accept mind as the creator can be divided into the purely noumenal and the idealistic. The purely noumenal philosophies see the world as purely an interplay of mind forces, which have no relation to the essential principle which created them in the first place. These philosophies, therefore, lead to Nihilistic or Chaotic views of the world. The idealistic philosophies, on the other hand, postulate that mental forces (which play in the world) do retain some relationship with the essential Truth underlying them - and the relationship is not merely that of opposition. The Integral Vedantic view goes even farther along this idealistic path, in which the world is not just an imaginary idea in the universal Mind, but a birth of something beyond mind into forms of itself.

While all these details in the essay are helpful, I would here like to especially point out the quotations given from the Rig-Veda by Sri Aurobindo at the beginning of this chapter on Maya. There are two - (i) from Mandala 3, verse 38, 7th mantra and (ii) Mandala 9, 83rd verse, 3rd mantra.

The literal meaning of the first is something like "by milking this bull (Indra) along with his Kamadhenu and other cows, the lords of Maya found Him (Indra) in newer and newer (several different) forms." According to the 1930s translation by Pt. Jayadev Sharma, there could be one materialistic interpretation, that the intelligent and knowledgeable people could create several new and useful things by working with different forces of nature. However, even Pt. Sharma adds that as soon as we interpret Indra as the Universal One (Indra being the king of the Gods and the most revered of Vedic gods), the interpretation is that the lords of Maya created several different forces by working with the One original force in different ways. In fact, another mantra in the same verse advises people to rather ask the great rishis who had the power to create worlds about this Indra (i.e., Indra is no mere ordinary power which can be comprehended by people
simplistically). Now, see the clarity in Sri Aurobindo's translation:

"By the Names of the Lord and hers they shaped and measured the force of the Mother of Light; wearing might after might of that Force as a robe, the lords of Maya shaped out Form in this Being".

Similarly, the second quotation from the 9th Mandala can be more materialistically translated as "This Soma Himself creates the entire world by His own power. By His powers did the great ones who teach others get the true knowledge and accept their disciples like children in their womb." Or, as another translator puts it "By His orders did the great ones establish the womb in the medicinal herbs and plants". Upon reading Sri Aurobindo's translation, we can see that both these translations are trying hard to arrive at a material interpretation where a slightly more subtle interpretation seems more suited.

"The Masters of Maya shaped all by His Maya; the Fathers who have divine vision set Him within as a child that is to be born."

The point here is that the idea of the universal One is not just found in the Upanishads but also in the Samhitas, which are often discarded by people as being merely mantras for collective ritualistic worship, in which people pray for their more basic needs and desires like for food and protection. This mantra is only one example. Sri Aurobindo has a whole large book called "The Secret of the Vedas" in which he explains how these slightly hidden meanings are indeed more important and more in line with the overall message of the Vedas.

Ch.14: The Supermind as Creator

The main theme of this chapter is that at the level of the Supermind, all is One and the Supermind retains that knowledge even when it starts concentrating itself in an unequal way to create diverse forces, including knower, known and the will of the known. So in the Supermind, the division of Existence, Consciousness and Bliss (or Will) is known, but these 3 aspects of the divine are still integrated, despite the recognition that they are different aspects of the One. As a result, the Supermind does not carry the limitations of the individual who is subject to the Great Ignorance (Avidyaa), although the Supermind knows the process by which it has created the individual forms from itself (or, from the universal One). The Supermind is the level where consciousness "holds" nature in a higher, overall harmony. So at this level, consciousness is not merely involved within matter, and not merely subject to all the limitations of separative existence. A few more steps down the line, the same individualized concentrations of consciousness which the Supermind creates lose their knowledge of the universal harmony, and at that level, the division is more real than the unity. As a result, there is a "paralyzing" self division of knowledge into the Will, the Knower, the Known, etc. This is the world of the Great Ignorance, or Maya. The reality of the Supermind which creates these forms out of itself but retains the knowledge of the true underlying Unity is the "justification of the current religious notions of the omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence of the Divine Being".

Ch.15: The Supreme Truth-Consciousness

This "God" or Supermind is indeed the creator of the worlds just like in religious ideas but religions sometimes try to create too human a picture of this Universal One. We should not exclude the personal aspect of God - it is equally true, but the Supermind is both personal and impersonal. We are concerned in this Chapter with the Supermind, and not just with its personal aspect.

The Supermind views all of space and time as a whole, not as a succession of events or objects. However, the same Supermind concentrates itself unequally into individual forms, thereby creating the basis for the play of the multiplicities and moreover, also repeats this divisive play in all its creations. At the material end of this spectrum lies the separated ego which is born within duality, but at the level of Supermind, there is a stage prior to this complete loss of knowledge of the Unity - a stage which forms the basis of our individual minds but retains the knowledge of the essential unity. There are separate forms here due to the unequal concentration of consciousness, but the knowledge of the Unity and equal presence of Brahman everywhere is not lost either. This "apprehending Truth-Consciousnes", says Sri Aurobindo, is much easier for the individual mind to grasp because of its nearness to us (relative to the even deeper realizations of complete unity). Therefore, the "barrier that has to be crossed is less formidable."

Sadanand Tutakne

Satyameva Jayate Naanritam (Truth alone wins, not untruth)

There is the lower truth and there is the higher truth. The lower truth is that the following of disciplines prescribed in the scriptures with the right desire (for true knowledge) produces pleasant results like heaven after earth, but getting deluded by such temporary good results and thinking of these results as the highest leads to further bondage via attachment to the fruits of actions. The higher truth is that of the Imperishable One - the formless, all-knowing source of all, which cannot be grasped or perceived the way we can grasp and perceive the objects of the senses. To know that Highest, the taintless (the unerring, those who follow the right disciplines with the right attitudes) should make the Pranava (Omkar) a bow and the (individual) soul an arrow sharpened by meditation, hit the target (the eternal One) and stay merged with it the way an arrow does after hitting its target. The universe itself (including its pleasant and unpleasant things) is but like a web woven by a spider, which the spider (God) projects out of Himself and later withdraws back into himself every now and then. The lower truth of the individual soul working its way in this universe is very much a creation of the Higher Truth, and merges back into the Higher when it truly sees (realizes) the Higher. The Higher One, while being omnipresent and farther than the farthest for the individual, nevertheless remains closer than the closest too (by being seated in the very heart of the individual). This bright self, the reflection of the One Above, is attainable through truth, concentration, and purification of the intellect through the right austerities and the right knowledge. In fact, truth alone wins, not untruth. Truth opens for the seeker "the path of the Gods" so to speak. This is the path by which the desireless seers (rishis) ascend to that highest abode where lies the greatest treasure attainable through truth (the Supreme Reality, God).

Such is the purport of the various sections of the Mundaka Upanishad, which very much talks of the supreme search of man, i.e., the search for the Eternal. Indeed it is my objective here to bring out this first meaning of "satyameva jayate", which seems evident upon going through the translations of the mantras of the upanishad. Truthfully following practices learned from the enlightened teachers is required for realization of the Higher Truth. However, what many people might not know (as I did not until recently) is that in interpreting these verses, no less a teacher than the great Adi Shankaracharya says that "it is a familiar fact in the practical world that the untruthful man is defeated by a truthful one" and therefore, the way truth is a higher power in practical life, so is it here, on the path to true spiritual progress. This remark by the great teacher should be enough for us to get away from the nagging thought that truth is perhaps "only" for the spiritual path and not for practical life.

As a prescription for life, fine, but isn't "satyameva jayate" also supposed to be a "fact" of life too? The upanishad says clearly that it is a fact of spiritual life, but who can attest to the same for practical life? Could not the lifestyle of a liar (untruthful person) be sometimes better that that of an honest person and in that sense, could not the liar be said to have "won"? Could not a liar have "won" a court case by producing false evidence?

Well, yes and no. No, because a slightly wider definition of "winning" would make it clear that the statement is almost impossible to test and verify in the world. If winning in life includes peace of mind, health, respect from the learned, etc., then there is no surety that the untruthful winner of the court case has truly won in life. Yet, if we insist on focusing purely on that one "game" - that particular court case where the untruthful got away with false evidence - then yes, under that very specific definition of winning, the untruthful would be called the winner of the battle.

In his essay on the nature of "karma", Shrimat Swami Hariharaananda Aaranya has conceded this point openly, and has in fact clearly stated that when a seemingly innocent person gets robbed, etc., we cannot automatically put the blame on a past life where the innocent man had committed an equivalent crime. In fact, he says, the main reason behind losing that particular battle is the huge effort made by the robber in developing the power and proficiency to steal, in planning and executing the same, etc., relative to the somewhat smaller effort made by this innocent person in taking preventive steps. Even an alert person cannot be expected to make efforts in all such directions, and therefore, a "loss" on some such dimensions should in fact be expected by the innocent, who organize their efforts based on their own priorities and understanding as of that time.

Yet, says the Swami, the moment we realize that the simple meaning of "winning" or "losing" is to win or lose what we "really want", it is clear that in this very simple sense, the truthful really never lose - even in the face of such events as the robbery mentioned above. When we speak of the righteous, he says, we are speaking of people whose true desires are to live a life of truth, knowledge, renunciation, dedication to higher spiritual endeavors, etc. Despite the outward loss - the successful robbery, etc. - these righteous people continue to lead their lives in pursuit of their true desires. The robber fails to win what the righteous person really wants and is not a winner of the game in this simplest sense. The righteous therefore, simply never lose, says the Swami, and "dharma" always wins.

Extolling spirituality is not a step in downgrading the importance of the political system or the police. Rather, it is a tribute to all these forces that so many of our farmers want to focus on farming and teachers on teaching. Policing is about protecting ourselves, not about giving in to frenzy created by a wild imagination.

Therefore, in closing, consider this “game”:

Pranavo dhanuh, sharo hyaatma (The Om is the bow and the individual soul is the arrow),

brahma tallakshyam-uchchyate (the Supreme (Brahman) is the target),

Apramattena veddhavyam" (It is to be hit (should be hit) by an unerring man - i.e., by the taintless one who follows the right disciplines with the right attitude),

sharavat tanmayo bhavet" (hitting it, the taintless seeker should stay merged with it just like an arrow does after hitting its target). (Mundaka II.ii.4)

Sadanand Tutakne