Anyhow, I feel that when we talk to people, even and perhaps
especially to those whom we consider narrow minded or conservative (its tough
perhaps with strongly fundamentalist people) to interview them in ways that
create an environment of exploration and pause and the fearless-ness that nothing
is judged and so we can together go into a question, a quest. That in fact
there is a possibility of a quest of knowledge, of thought and feeling… a manthan of sorts. This itself is a
capacity that lies right at hand and is repeatedly lost… we fill the silences of reflection, when the
images/implications of our own words are being reflected back on us, and so we
keep stating what we state, with all its contradictions and emptinesses. Surely
contradiction is not a problem, but yet a freer person is more integrated, even
while we may accept that there are a million ways of being integrated… in all
this the challenge I encounter most is keeping my own mouth shut and allowing
such spaces to emerge. And also I wonder, the data that emerges from such
conversations, is it sociology? Can sociology capture a person in movement,
rather than a person revealed? Is sociology interested? We think of sociology as
therapeutic, assuming that its content will do the therapy. Perhaps sometimes
sociology has to take a backseat to therapy, better still, to ‘lived freedom’.
Thursday, April 23, 2015
Monday, September 15, 2014
Questions Hindus must pose...
As a tradition that I am soaked in "H'm" is something that I like thinking with. Which is not to say that I see as any sort of unified tradition or as an Ism. In the public sphere, it may be treated as one, by some more intense kinds of followers, but that 'as such' is not my interest, though it informs my thinking about H'm.
With this as a sort of starting idiom, I find it wonderful to plunge into all other forms of religious and non religious thought, perhaps in a sense loosing the very category of H'm which perhaps was never there from the beginning!
As against the wonderful tradition of Christianity, which combines effectively with modern reason and science is some of its forms, what is H'm relation and response to modern times. Apart from somewhat simplistic celebrations of seeing all science in ancient Hindu thought?
Of this too is symptomatic of the particular position of Hinduism. As a spiritual tradition that was concerned with direct encounter with truth and reality it does offer another kind of access to objective truth (objective not as 'object' related). in this manner H'm is both contesting and in agreement with science. That discoveries in recent science seem to agree with several eastern knowledges is not incidental surely. But how then can Vedantic forms of H'm work with science and more importantly with democracy, equality, emancipation and justice? Can they at all? In sofar as H'm and even Buddhism to some extent see what happens in the world as a larger working of destiny, cause and effect and the natural ebb and flow of consciousness what form of intervention can they take. How does the image of un-grounded, creative, modern man work with an approach that effaces the social, wordly self? How also does H'm seem to talk quite comfortably with the well-to-do, saying that wealth can co-exist with spiritual life - that those with money can share it and thus spread the fruits of wealth in the world? How is it that Hinduism doesn't seem to propound simple, ethical living? simple living is immediately associated with ascetic withdrawal. there is an acceptance that 'in-the-world' one must lives with the elements, with the gunas, with imperfection, with inequality, war and violence? Why for instance does Krishna see War to be Arjuna's legitimate duty and path to glory? (of course, we know that this is also somewhat rhetorical, one of the many means of convincing used by Krishna; and also when seen allegorically the war can be seen as an inner war. Yet the fact remains). How, when we have different ideas of people at different levels of spiritual development, can we treat all in the same manner?
This is not to deny that there is a strong bhakti tradition etc.. wherein it is clear that spiritual attainment and ability and even propensity at birth has little to do with caste or family background. and in fact this is not just the bhakti tradition but perhaps was always so... Then is it that we just interpreted Hinduism very selectively in modern times? Obviously, social justice was not an explicit concern in earlier Hinduism as far as we know. But perhaps that is the form of the tradition which in one sense IS quite individualistic? those who were interested in spiritual inquiry were always a class of their own. but precisely this, again meant that while in-the-world, one would remain caught in a system of distinction. But yet again, this realm was one of Maya and worldly attachment, which itself without fail will create gunas, difference, dispersion, inequality.
Meanwhile, I wonder, and think that there may be a strong possibility to bring together ideas of strong freedom and moving away from social norms in Hindu liberal thought and modernity that posits not paternalistic, rights based, social justice based liberalism but precisely a post-rights bases concept of universal man. Of course this is a tall idea, and perhaps a bit conceited. Because, i do think that this cannot be done without infusing ethical thinking in Hinduism - something that is mostly in thin supply today. in an unequal world, the rich hindu or the middle class hindu must accept that his wealth mostly does not come without a price to someone else, that he must not simply celebrate merit or hard work without looking into the actual content of his work. without this, the talk of the oneness of all consciousness seems somewhat hollow.
more later...
Meanwhile how does one understand the strong sense of the rasa of life, the image of Shiva who is the highest in the spiritual domain but yet precisely the god of dance, music, is less ritualistic and lives with snakes and sundry spirits and ghosts and in graveyards. At once relating to death and life, to rasa and yet a victorious against kaama. Is not rasa, also indicating that real spiritual understanding does not hold by distinctions, even in-the-world? Shiva Bhaktas - for instance as shown in the recent Mahadev serial are actually simple and ethical even if they may be affluent. of course the recent serial comes in the context of modern ideas of social justice as well as a complex engagement with Christianity and Islam already having occoured historically. So is this a H'm already assimilated with the Others, that some fundamentalists are fighting? and then havent they already lost the battle, because they precious religion is already, beautifully corrupted, assimilated? The magnanimous H'm that is attacked for engulfing the identity of all other religions, by several 'left-liberals', is also utterly infused with other sensibilities...? Can the ultimate assimilator escape this wonderful destiny? In the end as thinkers of H'm we can perhaps only talk of traditions of thought, that abound in this pantheon but not of any Ism that can or must be defended. Perhaps the only Ism that remains then does dissolve into world spirituality that conducts many conversations with science, reason and wit other religions.
Yet maybe some unique traditions, stem from its situated tendencies in the subcontinent. The form of spirituality that emanates from this churning, relates most strongly to what could be called psychological freedom - the ability of self awareness, watching, inquiry, that lays bare the working of the mind and flow of thought. Lays bare in utter simplicity - not through psychological categories but through a falling away of knots and complexity. Accompanied by an openness to love - for the self yes and also a generalised love, best not opposed to rasa (though not necessarily overtly relating to it) this allows a powerful grounding in the ungrounded self... form where the fears that relate to social distinction can slowly reduce. where one can relate to the world as, is commonly said in motivational messages these days, 'being yourself'. Where one behaves with people in a manner that welcomes them without judgement and thus also opens the boundaries that they have reconciled to live with... a free, alive, univeral human (and if fact beyond human too) relation is thus possible.
With this as a sort of starting idiom, I find it wonderful to plunge into all other forms of religious and non religious thought, perhaps in a sense loosing the very category of H'm which perhaps was never there from the beginning!
As against the wonderful tradition of Christianity, which combines effectively with modern reason and science is some of its forms, what is H'm relation and response to modern times. Apart from somewhat simplistic celebrations of seeing all science in ancient Hindu thought?
Of this too is symptomatic of the particular position of Hinduism. As a spiritual tradition that was concerned with direct encounter with truth and reality it does offer another kind of access to objective truth (objective not as 'object' related). in this manner H'm is both contesting and in agreement with science. That discoveries in recent science seem to agree with several eastern knowledges is not incidental surely. But how then can Vedantic forms of H'm work with science and more importantly with democracy, equality, emancipation and justice? Can they at all? In sofar as H'm and even Buddhism to some extent see what happens in the world as a larger working of destiny, cause and effect and the natural ebb and flow of consciousness what form of intervention can they take. How does the image of un-grounded, creative, modern man work with an approach that effaces the social, wordly self? How also does H'm seem to talk quite comfortably with the well-to-do, saying that wealth can co-exist with spiritual life - that those with money can share it and thus spread the fruits of wealth in the world? How is it that Hinduism doesn't seem to propound simple, ethical living? simple living is immediately associated with ascetic withdrawal. there is an acceptance that 'in-the-world' one must lives with the elements, with the gunas, with imperfection, with inequality, war and violence? Why for instance does Krishna see War to be Arjuna's legitimate duty and path to glory? (of course, we know that this is also somewhat rhetorical, one of the many means of convincing used by Krishna; and also when seen allegorically the war can be seen as an inner war. Yet the fact remains). How, when we have different ideas of people at different levels of spiritual development, can we treat all in the same manner?
This is not to deny that there is a strong bhakti tradition etc.. wherein it is clear that spiritual attainment and ability and even propensity at birth has little to do with caste or family background. and in fact this is not just the bhakti tradition but perhaps was always so... Then is it that we just interpreted Hinduism very selectively in modern times? Obviously, social justice was not an explicit concern in earlier Hinduism as far as we know. But perhaps that is the form of the tradition which in one sense IS quite individualistic? those who were interested in spiritual inquiry were always a class of their own. but precisely this, again meant that while in-the-world, one would remain caught in a system of distinction. But yet again, this realm was one of Maya and worldly attachment, which itself without fail will create gunas, difference, dispersion, inequality.
Meanwhile, I wonder, and think that there may be a strong possibility to bring together ideas of strong freedom and moving away from social norms in Hindu liberal thought and modernity that posits not paternalistic, rights based, social justice based liberalism but precisely a post-rights bases concept of universal man. Of course this is a tall idea, and perhaps a bit conceited. Because, i do think that this cannot be done without infusing ethical thinking in Hinduism - something that is mostly in thin supply today. in an unequal world, the rich hindu or the middle class hindu must accept that his wealth mostly does not come without a price to someone else, that he must not simply celebrate merit or hard work without looking into the actual content of his work. without this, the talk of the oneness of all consciousness seems somewhat hollow.
more later...
Meanwhile how does one understand the strong sense of the rasa of life, the image of Shiva who is the highest in the spiritual domain but yet precisely the god of dance, music, is less ritualistic and lives with snakes and sundry spirits and ghosts and in graveyards. At once relating to death and life, to rasa and yet a victorious against kaama. Is not rasa, also indicating that real spiritual understanding does not hold by distinctions, even in-the-world? Shiva Bhaktas - for instance as shown in the recent Mahadev serial are actually simple and ethical even if they may be affluent. of course the recent serial comes in the context of modern ideas of social justice as well as a complex engagement with Christianity and Islam already having occoured historically. So is this a H'm already assimilated with the Others, that some fundamentalists are fighting? and then havent they already lost the battle, because they precious religion is already, beautifully corrupted, assimilated? The magnanimous H'm that is attacked for engulfing the identity of all other religions, by several 'left-liberals', is also utterly infused with other sensibilities...? Can the ultimate assimilator escape this wonderful destiny? In the end as thinkers of H'm we can perhaps only talk of traditions of thought, that abound in this pantheon but not of any Ism that can or must be defended. Perhaps the only Ism that remains then does dissolve into world spirituality that conducts many conversations with science, reason and wit other religions.
Yet maybe some unique traditions, stem from its situated tendencies in the subcontinent. The form of spirituality that emanates from this churning, relates most strongly to what could be called psychological freedom - the ability of self awareness, watching, inquiry, that lays bare the working of the mind and flow of thought. Lays bare in utter simplicity - not through psychological categories but through a falling away of knots and complexity. Accompanied by an openness to love - for the self yes and also a generalised love, best not opposed to rasa (though not necessarily overtly relating to it) this allows a powerful grounding in the ungrounded self... form where the fears that relate to social distinction can slowly reduce. where one can relate to the world as, is commonly said in motivational messages these days, 'being yourself'. Where one behaves with people in a manner that welcomes them without judgement and thus also opens the boundaries that they have reconciled to live with... a free, alive, univeral human (and if fact beyond human too) relation is thus possible.
Saturday, August 16, 2014
The Only Real Education
I spend my day reading and
thinking about the meaning of education, about how best are people
taught and liberated, can anyone ever teach anyone, is education
liberating at all or is it a mere socialisation.
I read theorists who argue
that teachers, academics and philosophers present knowledge as
obscure and unreachable perpetuating the divide between the knower
and the ignorant. I read other thinkers who want to free man, free
him from the disciplinary practices that define truths for them and
want man to finds other ways out of the truths that enframe him.
This restless energy sends
us forth on journeys of emancipation. They are especially restless
because now we are told that there is not truth to be found anyway. F
celebrates the modern present in which man can invent himself again
and again. With Man and not God as the center of this modern time,
there are not moral bases to live life. Perhaps there never were. We
then must strive to be free, but to what end!
A recent incident threw a
very different light on this. In the death of a distant relative, one
saw a related kind of pain and journey. At the death of a 92 year
old man, his wife, who has been married to him since perhaps her teen
years, is completely lost. They were both teachers in the village
school, respected, disciplined and decently settled couple who lived
all their life in their ancestral village home in Haryana. Their
children are elsewhere and visit at intervals. The couple were
traditional but close and very much in love and affectionate.
They were a couple typicial
to the self-made, disciplined variety of those early 1900s in India.
Their children are not like them - they are dissipated, taken to a
more consumerist lifestyle. The village around them has changed over
the years, overrun by nearby Delhi culture. The two teachers taught
all their life. Our lady, was given to lay philosophising and also
gave spontaneous talks on the Gita to women of the community. She
always spoke a lot and was quite 'forward' for her times. Believing
that children should do, marry as they please and study well and
develop good minds and thoughts. She still thinks that way. Compelled
to speak, perhaps more so now, to fill her immense pain and silence,
she talks on. But now the positive and strong words, are mixed with
slippages into helpless meaninglessness. The house that was kept in
complete order earlier by her husband, as she sat with a recently
semi-paralysed body, is now taken over by her children and
grandchildren. 'Sacred' places that were not mishandled by others are
now helter skelter. She faces a life that is lonlier and will most
probably not be on her terms. As the village moves along, although
remembering the well-regarded couple, their teachings may have borne
little fruit. Perhaps some seeds lie somewhere, slowly waiting their
time. But for her, for now, the teaching is turned back on herself.
"I used to give so many
discourses and talks. Look now, i must give these teachings to myself
now"! she exclaims. The soul in torture speaks of its own pain
and its path in such clarity. But the pain remains yet.
Saturday, August 2, 2014
Scribbles...
The world of words and ideas, or confessions and sharings, of advices and travel experiences is so proliferated. You can loose yourself in the becoming of others!
New Mythologies
I wonder what the latest spew of videos on the loving and non-violent behavior of animals towards humans and towards animals of other species mean?
Since some time on Whatsapp, facebook, youtube, there are videos of dogs and cats being friends, dogs teaching puppies to climb stairs, a pigeon passing titbits to a dog, a bear saving a crow and a dolphin rescuing a dog from a shark! Oddly, the camera is always already present in these wonderfully serendipitous discoveries.
Are they simply cleverly crafted videos? If so, why are we crafting these videos in this age? As humans display increasing violence in their own lives and natural tragedies, sometimes driven by human activity, pile up in daily news, is this our final refuge? To see animals doing unexpected acts of kindness, even against their own nature? Or are we actually forming new mythologies to recover modes of non-violence that can overcome difference - if a bear can rescue a crow, overcoming his 'nature' surely two religious communities can overcome their 'culture' and find common ground... Of course it is not as literal, but is there actually an exploration of a more fundamental common ground for togetherness in these 'real' myths? Are we remaking quietly, and in the most mundane way of sms and whatsapp forwards, a new sensibility?
If these videos are really real... then were they always real? and that with new technology we simply have learned and found means to capture them? in that case, how do we successfully find them and record them? In the video age, we seem to have an odd expectation and future driven life is it not? Where one is already thinking two steps ahead- I have the camera ready before my child does his first walk, or before my dog runs to nuzzle my cat! In its charismatically enigmatic way is life simply giving us the vision we have projected? In a more direct way, if these videos are real, then it means that the world was always a 'better' place than what our 'survival of the fittest' pop sociology indicated and that even humans could think of other models to design political and social life. Or can we actually even hazard the view that with humans going nuts, animals have decided to undergo a shift in consciousness?
All these are perhaps crazy ruminations, but the surreal-ness of these multiple videos leaves one willing to imagine the remotest possible. Perhaps my reading the news about the NASA's new successes with non-fuel satellite propellers is also pushing such wild theories!
Since some time on Whatsapp, facebook, youtube, there are videos of dogs and cats being friends, dogs teaching puppies to climb stairs, a pigeon passing titbits to a dog, a bear saving a crow and a dolphin rescuing a dog from a shark! Oddly, the camera is always already present in these wonderfully serendipitous discoveries.
Are they simply cleverly crafted videos? If so, why are we crafting these videos in this age? As humans display increasing violence in their own lives and natural tragedies, sometimes driven by human activity, pile up in daily news, is this our final refuge? To see animals doing unexpected acts of kindness, even against their own nature? Or are we actually forming new mythologies to recover modes of non-violence that can overcome difference - if a bear can rescue a crow, overcoming his 'nature' surely two religious communities can overcome their 'culture' and find common ground... Of course it is not as literal, but is there actually an exploration of a more fundamental common ground for togetherness in these 'real' myths? Are we remaking quietly, and in the most mundane way of sms and whatsapp forwards, a new sensibility?
If these videos are really real... then were they always real? and that with new technology we simply have learned and found means to capture them? in that case, how do we successfully find them and record them? In the video age, we seem to have an odd expectation and future driven life is it not? Where one is already thinking two steps ahead- I have the camera ready before my child does his first walk, or before my dog runs to nuzzle my cat! In its charismatically enigmatic way is life simply giving us the vision we have projected? In a more direct way, if these videos are real, then it means that the world was always a 'better' place than what our 'survival of the fittest' pop sociology indicated and that even humans could think of other models to design political and social life. Or can we actually even hazard the view that with humans going nuts, animals have decided to undergo a shift in consciousness?
All these are perhaps crazy ruminations, but the surreal-ness of these multiple videos leaves one willing to imagine the remotest possible. Perhaps my reading the news about the NASA's new successes with non-fuel satellite propellers is also pushing such wild theories!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)