“I” is the problem

Noted Author Ayn Rand in her bestselling work “The Foutainhead” had written that a man’s ego is the fountainhead of his progress. The contention cannot be generalized without context. Ego can be the fountainhead of the individual’s progress. But only when it is reasonable. For all other situations a man’s ego is the fountainhead of his problems. Sometimes this can create problems for others also. From Mythologies to histories this has been proved time and again. Be it the Ravana in the ‘Ramayana’ or Duryodhana in ‘Mahabharata’ they all led their people and kingdoms to disaster. The history of the Roman kings also tells the same story. In fact, ego is a part of every human personality. From the Psychoanalytic Theory of Sigmud Freud to the more recent Transaction Analysis Approach of Thomas Harris, all acknowledge the presence of ego in the human personality. But on its own ego is not the problem. Rather it is a cause of action. It is responsible for the intensity of involvement of a person in the goal. It gives the driving energy. It is the motivation for action, the positive ego. This ego is the ‘Aham’ which in Indian Philosophical thought is the ‘Self-identity’ that gives self-confidence and which the psychologists call self-esteem. In the ‘Upanishads’ it is this ego that is referred to in the famous Vedantic canon ‘Aham Brahmasmi’. It fills a person with energy and confidence to do something, to achieve. It is referred to in psychological theory as the n-ach, an abbreviation for need for achievement that creates great entrepreneurs and performers. It certainly is the fountainhead of progress. However, there is another side of the ego or ‘Aham’ that is the ‘Ahankara’ or vanity. It is this ego that is root cause of problem of a person. The obsession with I, me and myself. The extreme form of narcissism or self -love which creates a bloated ego and gradually turns a person into a megalomaniac. This is the negative ego. It is the ego that makes one misread the mirror. This ego has to be tamed, because if not properly handled, it makes people go wild. It gives people a false sense of power. It is this power that is referred to in the cliché, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This power gives the pride that always leads to a fall. So what needs to be realized is that too much of obsession with one-self is dangerous. It completely weakens a person’s ability to handle the negative ego and blunts the ability to see reason, the ability to be objective. Why kings turn despots, why leaders get inebriated with power and why they finally meet their nemesis is not far to seek. It is under the influence of the negative ego or the ‘ahankara’. The question is how to tame this negative ego. There is but a simple prescription. See the big picture. Realize that you are just a small part of the big whole which is the world. That, you just have a temporary existence in this eternal world. Understand that whatever you do or achieve was because of the divine grace. It is the God that is the prime mover, not you, who gets consumed in that capital ‘I’. The tragedy is that from great leaders, to even great scholars, all find it very difficult to resist this temptation of the capital ‘I’.

Dispossess for Peace

In many of my training programmes, I often ask the participants about their most valued possession. The answers are almost always related to something material and the reasons given for the possessions being valued are varied. But that is not the issue. The issue is that they all want those possessions to remain. The mere thought of losing those possessions is a cause for anxiety. This is the irony. What you think will keep you at peace are your possessions. And the fear of losing them robs you of your peace.
But thinking more minutely, perhaps the futility of this paradox can be realised. You think you are at peace because of your possessions. But in reality, you are not at peace because of your possessions. This arises from attachment to those possessions. However, there is nothing inherently wrong with the possessions per se. It is the attachment to them, the hankering that creates problems. As long as possessions are used as aids to living, there is no difficulty. The difficulties begin the moment these possessions become the purpose of living.
The true spirit regarding the objects of possession should be that of non-attachment; an attitude of indifference. Using those possessions without involvement. It is this involvement that keeps you tied to your possessions and you become a slave of those objects of possession. One must learn from the nature of lotus, which remains in the muddy waters without actually getting muddied. Often people think of this state with scepticism, deeming it to be an impossibility. They cannot think of possession without attachment. My car, my house, my property — this feeling is the root cause of troubles.
Think of the objects of possession in a detached fashion. To be used, to be enjoyed. But that is all. The trouble is that people start loving these possessions instead of using them. These people do not understand the true spirit of renunciation, which for them is running away from everything. It is not. This kind of understanding makes renunciation a passive state. But renunciation is not passive withdrawal. It is an active state, a conscious detachment. This spirit frees a person from the mental bondage which creates a dependence on the possessions. Dependence creates a weakness. It creates a fear, fear of losing the possession. This leads to a strange predicament, of obsession with the possessions and anxiety of the imaginary loss.
In Bhagavad Gita, this has been explained lucidly. It is some kind of delusions that we become a victim of because of the attachment to possessions. Delusions of grandeur, that the feeling of owning the possessions creates. And delusions of persecution, that someone is going to take them away. Actually, both these states are imaginary. But the problems that arise due to these imaginary states are real. When possessions become an obsession, problems are bound to arise. In fact, obsession for possessions is a sick mental state that makes one accumulate unnecessary things.
Look around you and take stock of your possessions before they start stalking you. Not only does your body need space, your mind and soul too need space. So learn to dispossess. Even otherwise, the possessions do not belong to you. Use them, by all means. But do not get used by them. Free yourself from the trappings of your possession. For that is the way to real happiness.

Thinking Political Ethics

In contemporary context the expression ‘Political Ethics’ may sound rather bizarre, an oxymoron. But it cannot be denied that every profession has its ethics, adhering to which is important. That people are not doing it is a different issue. But the crux is that ethical practices need to be followed in order to maintain the sanctity of the profession. Politics also is a profession. More so, in India where it provides jobs to a large number of jobless. At least during election times. So it may not be a bad idea to develop an ethical frame work for politics. May be some kind of a code of conduct. Yes, people would still defy it. But at least there will be this satisfaction that a frame work is there. Like for business people or medical practitioners or lawyers or advertisers. In fact, a code is most needed for the political class whose credibility in the present times is rather low.
Politics is perhaps the most essential of human activities. And it was millennia ago that Aristotle, the famous Greek Philosopher had averred that man is a political animal. There is no reason to believe that the nature of this animal has changed. And thus the need for a code. Worldwide polls on the confidence of people do not bet high on character of the political class, exceptions like our former PM, Dr Manmohan Singh notwithstanding. There is an old story dating back to around a decade when a US Presidential aspirant was seeking support from the people for his run to the senate.
The comments that was made sums it all. The people told him that he seemed to be a decent person. Why was he meddling in something as dirty as politics? And this can be safely generalised. Former MP and Union Minister Anil Shastri in a speech at a workshop provided sound enough validation of this generalisation while talking on values. He had said that it was rather unfortunate that the first declaration that an MP or an MLA signs after getting elected is a falsehood. He was referring to the money that was spent by the individual on the elections. Well, he was talking about only the first statement made. The big question then is, can ethics and politics go together? The same question, however, is raised for professions like business, law and advertising. And with corporatisation of everything even medicine and teaching professions are coming under cloud. Therefore, it is no longer about trying to figure out if the different professions and ethics are tenable. There is need to make them tenable.
More so, politics which is the mother of all professions. Mythologies suggest that even Gods played politics. So, it is no longer about why make politics ethical. It has to be done. Alfred Nobel once said that second to agriculture humbug is the second biggest industry of our age. Needless to say what this humbug business is all about.
For Otto von Bismarck, politics was the art of the possible and Einstein found it more difficult than Physics. But that apart, it is time to find out how to bring in some ethics in politics. Because that also is possible. Yes it may be more difficult than physics. But there have been people who have done it. Ethics in politics matters more than ever today and it can make a difference. Let us figure out how.

Thinking Political Ethics

In contemporary context the expression ‘Political Ethics’ may sound rather bizarre, an oxymoron. But it cannot be denied that every profession has its ethics, adhering to which is important. That people are not doing it is a different issue. But the crux is that ethical practices need to be followed in order to maintain the sanctity of the profession. Politics also is a profession. More so, in India where it provides jobs to a large number of jobless. At least during election times. So it may not be a bad idea to develop an ethical frame work for politics. May be some kind of a code of conduct. Yes, people would still defy it. But at least there will be this satisfaction that a frame work is there. Like for business people or medical practitioners or lawyers or advertisers. In fact, a code is most needed for the political class whose credibility in the present times is rather low.

Politics is perhaps the most essential of human activities. And it was millennia ago that Aristotle, the famous Greek Philosopher had averred that man is a political animal. There is no reason to believe that the nature of this animal has changed. And thus the need for a code. Worldwide polls on the confidence of people do not bet high on character of the political class, exceptions like our former PM, Dr Manmohan Singh notwithstanding. There is an old story dating back to around a decade when a US Presidential aspirant was seeking support from the people for his run to the senate.

The comments that was made sums it all. The people told him that he seemed to be a decent person. Why was he meddling in something as dirty as politics? And this can be safely generalised. Former MP and Union Minister Anil Shastri in a speech at a workshop provided sound enough validation of this generalisation while talking on values. He had said that it was rather unfortunate that the first declaration that an MP or an MLA signs after getting elected is a falsehood. He was referring to the money that was spent by the individual on the elections. Well, he was talking about only the first statement made. The big question then is, can ethics and politics go together? The same question, however, is raised for professions like business, law and advertising. And with corporatisation of everything even medicine and teaching professions are coming under cloud. Therefore, it is no longer about trying to figure out if the different professions and ethics are tenable. There is need to make them tenable.

More so, politics which is the mother of all professions. Mythologies suggest that even Gods played politics. So, it is no longer about why make politics ethical. It has to be done. Alfred Nobel once said that second to agriculture humbug is the second biggest industry of our age. Needless to say what this humbug business is all about.

For Otto von Bismarck, politics was the art of the possible and Einstein found it more difficult than Physics. But that apart, it is time to find out how to bring in some ethics in politics. Because that also is possible. Yes it may be more difficult than physics. But there have been people who have done it. Ethics in politics matters more than ever today and it can make a difference. Let us figure out how.

The Cup and the Lip

The game is over. The guessing game is also over. The game that kept Indians hooked for a good 42 days and the Kiwis for all 45 finally ended to the disappointment of the fans of the two most promising sides. The Indians looked like capable of making it, but could not. The Kiwis almost made it but could not. That is how it happens. As the saying goes there is many a slip between the cup and the lip. The Indian fans learnt this in the semi-finals. And the fans of the New Zealand team in the finals. As cricketing brains carry on with their post facto analysis of what went wrong or right, one axiomatic truth needs to be revisited – the results do not always depend on efforts. They depend on something more. And this something more is called by many names. Even somebody like Napoleon could also realize this though he was popularly known to be a person who always valued sincerity of efforts over all other things. The story goes that on one occasion Napoleon was looking for an effective person to be his general. A few were shortlisted and his advisors finally zeroed in on one name, citing his qualities. When the name was recommended to Napoleon he asked a question to the advisors – ‘Is he Lucky also’? That sums it all. Not that efforts do not matter. They do, when all other things are equal. But luck or chance is something that matters even when all other things are not equal. So, after the world cup is over, there is little point in debating what would have happened had this or that not happened. In the semi-final between India and Australia, the experts felt the toss was instrumental in the loss. But what happened in the finals? Tosses and Losses are not related. The events are mutually exclusive. Only the human brain in trying to prove its point lends causality to unrelated things. They talk of the law of averages. Well that is what chance is. Or else why would McCullum, the danger man, depart for a duck. In Management theory they talk about the Murphy’s Law – anything that can go wrong, will go wrong. And what about the much touted theory of cricketing experts that it is a mind game where what you need is a lot of nerves. This theory too needs to be revisited in the light of the fact that why those nerves hold on one occasion and give way on another. So the question has to be reframed – whether cricket is about a lot of nerves or a bit of luck? The best course is to think of it as a sport in which there has to be a loser in order to have a winner. And the other golden rule is that you cannot win always. Wins and losses are two sides of the same coin. You have to take both in your stride. The Gita cannon is always reassuring. ‘You have the right to work, but never to the results of the work. Never engage in action for the sake of reward, nor should you long for in action. So after the end of the World Cricket Cup Tournament for India it is ‘well played’ and for the Kiwis – better luck next time.

The Genius of Tulsidas

As the country celebrates Ramanavmi it may not the out of place to take a leaf or two out of Ramcharit Manas the classical work of Goswami Tulsidas. The voluminous text is the description of Lord Rama’s life and time, recording the incidents from the Treta era, the period during which Lord Rama was believed to be living. But the beauty of storytelling of Tulsidas extends much beyond that. The narrative power of Tulsidas can be experienced by reading the Ramcharita Manas with a little bit of concentration. Its significance lies in its contemporaneity as well as its futuristic relevance. Simple, yet full of lessons for living. More than a discourse on what is right and wrong, it offers practical tips on the art of living.

Interestingly, it also provides a rather real time description of the present era, the Kalyug. Particularly in the last section which gives an account of what happens in Kalyug in the conversation between Garuda and Kagbhushundi. The text is a treatise on Philosophy as well as Sociology. Divided into seven major sections RamCharit Manas can be read for learning how to live in peace in these turbulent times, how to cope with pressures, how to make strategies for successful life. The narrative teaches, illuminates as well as motivates the reader in a simple language and lucid manner. Written mostly in couplets the text is to be read with devotion or else the essence will be lost. Some of the couplets are eternal truths that transcend time and space. Universal and everlasting.

Though there are many lessons that can be learnt by reading the Ramacharita Manas a few golden ones are paraphrased below. The greatest lesson perhaps is about the role of providence in life. Call it destiny, call it luck or call it Karma. The implications are clear. Like the eternal Gita lesson that you have right only to your duty, the rest is in the hands of Lord. Tulsidas states this axiomatic truth in the couplet that says, ‘Only that will happen which the Lord desires. It is futile to reason and increase complexity.’ In yet another couplet Tulsi says, ‘Profit and loss, life and death, fame and infamy are all in the hands of the Lord. Providence is supreme.’ This is the golden lesson that sage Vashistha gives to Bharata, the younger brother of Lord Rama when the former is upset at the exile of Rama. In another couplet Goswami Tulsidas says that ‘This world is Karma centric, that is, you are bound to reap the fruits of your deeds.’ While there are many such lessons to be learnt on the role of destiny in the life of human being there are some insightful observations that have significant implications. Like the one that says that no matter how one may try to hide his real face under a mask, in the end the real face shows, like in the case of the demons Kalnemi, Ravana and Rahu. Then there is a classic explanation of Bhakti and love to the god in the stanzas describing the conversation between Lord Rama and the boat man when the Lord requests him to take Rama and his wife Sita across the river. And then in the case of Shabori offering berries to the Lord after biting the fruits to check whether they were sweet or sour. It makes sense to read Ramcharitra Manas even in the so called digital world.