Love Your Enemies

In the serene Shantisadan Siddhashram (Abode of Peace Center for Realization) where I live, generally peace reigns. Seven paid helpers of the ashram appeared to work cooperatively and harmoniously for years. However, some recent events that had their origin when I was away marred the ashram atmosphere. One of the workers quit after getting another job. After about 10 days a police officer arrived at the ashram door to inquire about a complaint against an important ashram member. The complaint resulted from a false accusation. Soon the ashram atmosphere became saturated with vicious toxicity. I was also reminded of the false accusation years ago in the USA that could have dragged my name in the dirt. At that time I was a very responsible and prominent psychologist doctor on the staff of a children’s psychiatric hospital. As I was not arrested after the complaint and inquiry, I asked the police detective why I was not arrested, his spontaneous but simple response was that he did not believe the story of the complainant. 

The question really is how to forgive the unforgivable. How does one forgive those who out of some kind of vindictiveness attempt to ruin others’ reputation or assassinate their characters? In short, how does one love one’s enemies? This was the question put to me in last night’s satsang (gathering of saints) in the ashram.  In a world of the law of talion (“an eye for an eye”), forgiveness is not in vogue. I tried to look into the teachings of the World’s Best Masters. The truly satisfying spiritual answer that came to me was from the teaching of Christ. “But I say to you that hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you” (Luke 6: 27-28).  Sri Krishna in the Bhagavad  Gita also  exhorts us who are on the path of liberation to go beyond hatred and revenge. Because those who hurt us are not different from us. They are really us. When Christ tells us to love our enemies, I do not interpret it to mean that we like them. Liking comes from our feelings. Loving is a commitment that comes from our will. That kind of loving is in our control while liking is not. So we can love someone we dislike. Eventually we get consciously into the habit of loving everyone. 

Loving everyone also paves the way to the unity of humanity that is so necessary in a world of fragmentation and divisiveness. Moreover, we do not make others’ problems our problems. The energy we spend in hating others will eventually destroy us as we do not have that energy for our own development. Thus not hating or taking revenge is in our own enlightened self-interest in the long run. I do not by any means suggest that we suppress or repress our legitimate emotions coming out of our hurts, that can harm us. We definitely need to vent those feelings in appropriate settings to be emotionally healthy.

Swami Snehananda Jyoti 

The Mystery of Success

All are born naked but some departs dressed in praise. In October 2011, we read the obituary reports of two middle aged Americans, Steve Jobs and Dennis Richie. Dennis Ritchie was a computer scientist. He began his career at the famous Bell Labs in the United States. By 1973 he developed the C programming language for use with the then-fledgling Unix operating system. Without Dennis Richie there would not have been any Windows, any Unix, any C, any Generic text languages and we would not have read in Binary. Steve Jobs was co-founder of Apple, who later influenced modern technology with undisputed status marks. Interestingly, Jobs was neither a computer scientist nor an engineer.

While Dennis Richie worked hard with dedication utilizing all his expertise, Jobs was focusing on expertise he could mobilize from outside. Once when Jobs was working at Atari, Atari gave Jobs the task of designing a simpler circuit board for its Breakout game, offering him a bonus of $100 for every chip he could eliminate from the design. Jobs’ took the work to a long-time friend and electronics hacker Steve Wozniak, offering to split the $100-per-chip bounty with him. Woz is reported to have cut more than four dozen chips from the board. Jobs recognized opportunities, then got the best people he could find to work on them. That’s why Jobs could grow to a charismatic showman. Without Jobs’ there would not have been any iProducts.

Who among them was more important to technology? Certainly it was Dennis Richie. I don’t think that we require a long analysis to ascertain why Steve Jobs is more honoured. The difference is simple: Jobs was an organizer and a leader who democratized technology while Richie was a lone flower in Bell gardens. The adage says that it is how much we are shared that counts. 

Joseph Mattappally 

Be Trustworthy

‘Trust is a treasured item in relationship. Once it is tarnished,

it is hard  to  restore it, to  its original  flow’. -  William Arthur Ward

Trust is the single most important factor in building personal and professional relationships. Warren Bennie calls trust “ the emotional glue that binds followers and leaders together”. Trust implies accountability, predictability and reliability. Trust must be built day by day. It calls for consistency.  More than anything else, followers want to  believe  in and trust their leaders. People first must believe in you before they will follow your leadership. One of the ways to  become a person whom leaders trust is to  tell them the truth. Good leaders want the truth-even if it hurts. Developing trust is like constructing a building. It takes time, and it must be done one piece at a time. When two people trust each other completely, the relationship can grow to  a  level of friendship that is as rewarding as anything in life.

To  be trusted is a greater compliment than to  be loved. People whom we trust tend to  become trustworthy. A man’s trust in God diminishes in direct proportion to  the growth of his power over people. D.L.Moody says “Trust in yourself and your are doomed to  disappointment; trust in your friends and they will die and leave you; trust in money and you may have it taken from you; trust in reputation and some slanderous tongue may blast it; but trust in God, and you are never to  be confounded in time and eternity.

A little girl and her father were crossing a flimsy, weak bridge. The father was kind and  concerned, said to  his little daughter,” Sweetheart, please hold on to  my hands so that you don’t fall in to  the river”. The girl replied, “No, Daddy, you hold my hand! “What is the difference”? asked the puzzled father. “There is a big difference, Daddy, “replied the little girl. “If I hold your hand and  something happens to  me, chances are that I may let your hand go. But if you hold my hand, I know for sure that no matter what happens, you will never let my hand go”.

Sr (Dr) Lilly Thokkanattu SJL

Shankara, Tilak on action & Gita!

Shankara the monk and philosopher and Tilak the freedom fighter and scholar of India have their say on Gita and Karma theories of Krishna; let us have a look into it. Shankara can be described as supra moralist in some ways. A moralist is action – oriented: he says do this and don’t do that. Shankara says every action is illusionary; whether we practice asceticism or indulge in immoral activities does not make any difference. In sleep, either we dream to be robbers or saints, it does not make any difference in our wakeful state. On waking, we say that both robber and saint are dream stuff, they are meaningless. Just like this and for the same reason, nothing is moral or immoral for Shankara. There is no way to choose between morality and immorality, just as there is no way to choose between two dreams. Choice is possible only between two realities, because the world is an illusion for Shankara. Shankara’s vision is supra- moralistic; it transcends morality. The principle of inaction is bound to go beyond morality.

When Shankara’s commentaries on Indian philosophy were translated into western languages, they were thought to be supporting immorality. Certainly Shankara’s thinking is not immoralistic, because immorality is a choice against morality. Shankara stands for choicelessness and for this reason he is supra-moralistic.  He does not ask us to become anything. He is for being what we are. In fact, he is for non being. This is really a trans-moral vision.

Tilak (Bal Gangadhar Tilak- Freedom fighter and scholar), on the other hand, was a moralist. He believed that there is choice between a good action and a bad one, between what one should do and what one should not. According to him, religion tells us ‘should and should not’. He really was for action. For this reason he did not call the world unreal. In the midst of this reality we have to decide the right and wrong. And religion simply means that choice of right, virtuous, good. It is true that Tilak holds a wholly contrary view point to that of Shankara on Gita and Karma.

We ask whether it will make the thing complete if we combine Shankara’s supra-moralism with the activism of Tilak. No, it will not be complete that way, and there are reasons for the same. (More comparative and analysis comes forth)

Wishing you all good health and happiness,

Dr. Dwarakanath, Director, Mitran foundation- the stress management people

Jealousy is Natural

Our five greatest enemies are said to be desire, anger, greed, attachment and ego. All these give rise to jealousy, which is the root of all evils and the most difficult one to conquer. It is said that a jealous man poisons his own food and then eats it. It should, therefore, be gotten rid of at the earliest. But to do so is a great challenge.

However, if we proceed bit by bit starting from its genesis, it becomes easier to win over this enemy of ours. Once I was addressing the students of a public school in Noida. The occasion was the distribution of prizes to the winners of a quiz contest. There were about 500 young boys and girls who came from different family backgrounds. They were not only smart but also intelligent as well as responsive. My address to them centred round values and positive thinking. They were listening to me very attentively. During my address, I told them that when we have negative traits in us, we ourselves are the first and biggest victims of it. While this logic appeals to all, sustaining it all the time is a different task. Knowingly or unknowingly, we somehow get carried away by our lower nature and start nurturing the evil traits in us, be they anger, greed, desire or jealousy. The need, therefore, is to be on guard all the time and in due course our negative traits will fade away.

After my address there was an interaction session with the students. Many of them asked very searching questions which I tried to answer to the best of my ability. One girl very innocently raised a question about jealousy and asked whether it was not natural to be jealous. She was right in the sense that almost all of us feel jealous whenever we see any of our colleagues going ahead of us, whether in riches or position or fame. Perhaps, no one can make a claim that he or she has never felt jealous of others at one time or the other. While I appreciated her question, my answer was that if jealousy is natural, then our suffering on account of it is also natural. Once we focus on this aspect of jealousy, our efforts to get rid of it will be more effective. Thus, this negative trait of ours can be won over by this reverse process of contemplation. The girl was satisfied with this answer and so was I.

The same is true for all such inner enemies of ours like anger, attachment, desire, greed, ego, etc. When we allow them to prevail upon us, we become their first victims. On the other hand, when we practice virtues like compassion, pardon, humility, patience, contentment, charity, etc., again, we are the first beneficiaries. Once we start looking at evils and virtues from this perspective, we can advance towards purity. Accordingly, our peace and harmony will also increase. Eventually, we become positive and remain motivated at all times. Thus, the whole interaction with those young students became so rewarding that I thought of sharing it with others. 

Rakesh Mittal I  A S

Muslim Army Attacked

They considered that the Muslims were celebrating their victory and it was the most appropriate time to attack them. Malik Ibn Ous tried to organize Halasins and along with a few other tribes.  A few of them refused to join. Duraib was an old man belonging to Inushen tribe. He was too weak to actively participate in the operation but he was very intelligent and had rich experience in the tactics of war. Their consolidation of army consisted of even women and children and they camped at Mutab valley. Duraib, who was blind asked Malik why he had brought women, children, cattle and other properties to the battle field.  He replied that it was done to confuse the army. Duraib asked what would happen if they were defeated in the war. Could anything be done by the defeated party to protect anything which was brought to the battle field. He added “If we win the war credit should go the men who are fighting. Ladies and old cannot contribute anything in this. And if you are defeated in the war that properties will be taken away by the enemy as booty and we shall be humiliated.”

Malik did not agree with the opinion of Duraib. Others also endorsed Maliks view. Thinking that his conduct should not weaken them Duraib also joined them. Malik ordered his army to shatter the enemy army when they reached the valley of Umain hills. He thought that this unexpected attack would shatter the Muslim army and they could easily defeat them and the tribes of Umain will gain fame for crushing the Muslims and put an end to their onward march.

Muslim army camped at the valley of Umain in the night. On the morning they resumed their journey. At that time tribe under the leadership of Malik suddenly attacked them. The army started sending arrows one after another towards the Muslim army. The Muslim army was shattered and they started running away. Abu Sufian  also was there with the Muslim army. He saw the defeat of the Muslim army who were under the pride on the conquest of Mecca made and said and the victory of Muslims end. There upon Sheeba Ibn Usman who lost his father at the battle field of Uhd swore to take to vengeance on Mohammed. 

Justice P K Shamsuddin

Effective Communication

Good communication gains, bad communication loses. Marshall McLuhan, a great philosopher of communication theory, considers any communication as an extension of oneself. For him the medium is the message.  The focus needs to be on the medium rather than the message. In my over 45 years of counseling, psychotherapy, mediation and conflict management, I have experienced it is not what I said but how I said that had the most desired effect. It is not really the content of communication but the process of communication that really mattered. The process of communication relates to one’s non-verbal language such as body-language, tone, pace, emotional intensity, and a healthy detachment. Body language may involve facial expression, posture, and general demeanor.

A loud and trained strong voice of mine was an advantage for me in my younger days, especially in public speaking when a  loudspeaker was rare. Now my strong, loud voice is a disadvantage. When I talk in my natural, loud voice my wife and others sometimes ask me if I am angry when I am certainly not angry. I was certainly intensely involved and passionate in advocating for my cause.  There are times when in the midst of our communication my wife tells me that I am putting her down, and why am I yelling. As I do not like to put anybody    down or yell at anyone, and as I in my hurt challenge her to tell me what it is that I said that made her feel put down, her invariable response is: “It is the way you said it”. She is definitely talking about some intangible medium or often inscrutable expression that, for me anyway,  does not easily lend to any kind of rational analysis.

I wanted to find out how Mahatma Gandhi was so effective in his communication with the British. I listened to a rare specimen of his recorded speech. I watched several times  Attenborough’s precious Oscar winning movie “Gandhi “ wherein Oscar-winning Ben Kingsley acted beautifully as Gandhi. In his conversation or talk Gandhi spoke in a dispassionate way. His tone was low; his pace was slow. He was certainly engaging. He did not lack in conviction. He certainly was not an orator. His speech almost said let the truth of his cause stand. He was resigned to whatever happening. He was not there to score a point or win an argument or make a particular impression. He was plain in his un-adorned speech as he was unshakable in his resolve. His communication coming from his un-daunted spirit and his strength continuously fed by his spiritual source prepared him to be the one-man army on the border of then East Pakistan while millions of persons, both Hindus and Muslims, were slaughtered on the western border.  Shall we then pay more attention to how we say what we say? Many times the way we communicate with empathy makes the difference between winning and losing.

Swami (Dr) Snehananda Jyoti