What a nerve!

Suppose my eyes were placed on the surface of my heart and only the nerve-endings on the heart's surface were active, what would I consider to be the limits of my physical body? I would be looking out at the cavity of my body, the various organs, the inside surface of the skin, and would presume these to be part of an external universe. 'I' would be limited to the organ of the heart and everything else would be 'outside'. 

 What we consider as 'I' is physically defined by where the sense organs are placed. The sensation of touch is the biggest culprit as it reinforces our idea of the surface of the skin as the boundary of 'I-ness'. It is possible to imagine that everything in the universe is also part of me, but the sense organs have been unfortunately placed and activated for only one physical body. Yogis who have enhanced their mental perceptions are able to receive sensory vibrations from any body they choose and understand the universality of their existence.

Proof of the pudding

How do we prove that something exists? The tree, for example. Can we prove it is there? We see it. Good. That postulates a tree. Can a postulate be proved? Being the first point of reference, it never can.

Let's look again. The cricket ball is red in colour. Can you prove it? Impossible. The sensation of redness is as much our property as that of the ball. Can we prove that a rose smells sweet? No, but it does. Or rather, the way it affects our nose is called a sweet smell.

Relative things can be proved. Your are taller than your brother. This can be proved or demonstrated. Three is greater than two. This can be proved. But can you prove two? No.

Existence is absolute. What is there is there. As of the moment, the set of objects we perceive around us, our jagath, is absolutely in existence, a sensory existence. It is a direct proof by itself; it is pratyaksha.

It is only a small step to understand that this whole universe therefore exists standing on our five senses. And our senses are also part of this world! Amazing, isn't it? If the senses shut down, no way the physical world can exist.

Abracadabra......

To forgive is not divine

When does the issue of forgiveness arise? First there is a hurt. A friend's behaviour has hurt me. (He acted in a way that reduced my value in my own eyes or in others'). 

Obviously the action was unexpected. It has given rise to resentment, which is a feeling. Resentment never goes away, and finds outlet in either of two actions. If I am confident of having the upper hand, it is revenge. If I am not, it is so-called forgiveness. 

This may sound sarcastic, but deep down, in most cases forgiveness is a decision. A decision is a prelude to action (or inaction). Any action is involved in ego-protection. If you ever hear anyone say: "I have decided to forgive him", please laugh in his face. Forgiveness is a state of mind. It is a quality with different strengths in different personalities, like other traits - generosity, straightness, empathy etc. If some situation challenges the level of forgiveness a person possesses, resentment arises. One cannot 'decide to forgive' after that without going through an emotional process that first raises the threshold level of forgiveness in the person as a whole and not related to the particular issue. That is why a challenging situation often leaves a person 'a better man'. He becomes a 'better man' first and then uses it to handle the challenging situation, being left with a 'growth'. . Therefore, decision to forgive cannot be issue-based. 

If you find someone who accepted a great hurt, it is either because he had the capacity to start with. Otherwise the only way he could absorb this great boulder of hurt was by increasing the reservoir of forgiveness itself. That is why it is good to go through a variety of adverse situations. .

God's breath

We all feel babies are divine. Why? because they are innocent, they respond the way they actually feel, they do not know right from wrong, they are so helpless, and so on.

.

Are these divine traits? That way even animals are divine. There is hardly any difference between an animal and a baby. Or between a cute little puppy and a cute little baby, if that sounds better.

.

I have a different take on the matter. I do not think babies are divine. Divinity is a collection of qualities, of emotional responses, a wish to act in a way that protects others fully. When we look upon a baby and feel 'so good', it is we who are feeling divine at the moment. We are looking at the baby without inhibitions, without strategy, without judgement, with no expectations, full of love, with a will to protect this helpless person to the fullest, with a desire to make him happy, willing to undertake the silliest of antics publicly to win a smile, not disappointed with lack of response.

.

Aren't these the traits written in all scriptures as divine traits? When the scriptures say, the divine exists in all of us and we wonder how do we realise that, how do we bring it forth, just think of this example of your own behaviour when you interact with a baby or a child. Personality changes when faced with a baby. It changes to the divine.

.

If we behaved like that with everybody, we would be considered unhinged. We know that the baby would not consider us cuckoo, so we indulge in our 'free' behaviour to the fullest with him. Why not be free inside at least, when dealing with an adult? Why not try to think of him as an overgrown baby, much much younger than you. We will be giving the divine inside us more opportunities to appear in the 'real' world and spread the lightness.

.

Who is a friend?

‘Mitra’ is a word in Hindi (sanskrit). So is ‘Sakha’. The love a friend bears towards another is of a very sweet kind. 

 Who is a friend to another? When we look at another person, we focus on two things. (a) Are his/her feelings okay? and (b) Is his/her behaviour okay? A ‘friend’ is highly focussed towards his friend’s feelings, less towards his actions. He is more into empathy than into judgement. Just as a mother’s emotional balloon envelopes her children’s jagged feelings, a friend seeks first to soothe, then to advise.

 Nowadays we use the word ‘friend’ loosely, covering a wide range of relationships, from the most casual to the most loyal. The Indian language is more subtle and differentiates between levels. Even between ‘mitra’ and ‘sakha’, ‘mitra’ is deeper and has less expectations. ‘Sakha’ still expects a good time from his association with his friend through common activities and emotions. ‘Mitra’ is just there, even if interactions have reduced greatly. He is always ready to help.

Soft and swift

In the ideal friend or partner, we look for two attritibutes:

• He or she should be sensitive to other's feelings
• He or she should be action-oriented and should take corrective measure

Obviously this is a bit of idealism, as most people are either one or the other - or neither.

The person may be very sensitive, understand what you need, with strong perspective and quick choice of what is the right thing to do but - too lazy to act. After some time the initial euphoria of having an 'understanding' friend wears off and we wish he would get up and do the things he talks about.

Or the person may be action-oriented. A good person overall because he (henceforth 'he' for simplicity) tries to correct whatever comes to his notice and is always circumspect in his dealings. But alas, he understands so little of what is really required in a relationship. He comes forth as a 'good guy' to people who are not close to him, but is an uncaring brute and a disappointment to those who are close to him and need his understanding and care to remain wholesome.

If you by chance get a friend who is both, just do not let go because such people are very rare and precious.

.

The first step

As I grew older in life, passed through difficult times and gained 'wisdom', was able to tell what is the 'right' decision to take in a situation, I found that for me it became more dificult to make out what is right and for whom it is right. It was displayed time and again how absolutely individualistic are our experiences, how self-serving even the simplest decision. Even a great sacrifice for a loved one IS self-serving, because it serves the attachment that we have towards the person. We would not feel like making that same sacrifice for a non-loved one.

Similarly, it is a great past-time to advise people because our experience, in our eyes, is vast, our judgement universal, and the acceptance of our advice mandatory. When I just decide to close my eyes to this whole shebang and look at the bed of the lake, the only person to understand, moderate and deal with is Myself. Approach towards others in our life finally boils down to a few simple emotional directives:

1. Before judging, understand. Simply understand. Accept that what the other person is feeling is TRUE - it is true to him or her, before it becomes right or wrong. Acknowledge that truth of its existence.
2. Before advising, help. Before advising someone to buy a dish-washer, help her to wash dishes by hand, standing beside her. Before asking someone to get a grip on himself and get out of the emotional quagmire he is in, be in that quagmire with him and struggle for some time.

That way, one becomes a soothing influence. We are not here to change the world order. The world changes as a sum total all the time. We are here to ensure that the progression is smooth, that's all.
.