Recently I received an e-mail from my youngest daughter. She is the most vivacious of my four daughters, which in a way, is good for me. Whenever I intend to slouch under the pretense of advancing age, she gives me a shake, in her own way. This time it is in the form of an e-mail. She writes: I have been thinking these days that if we let the things the way they are, instead of fighting for our rights / the way we want things done / our personal views etc., is this wrong?...It will be easier to just sit back and let things happen. I had sent her a muted response, though in my heart I knew it needed elucidation because it is a question that touches upon everybody's life.
Walter Bradford Cannon, an American physiologist had defined fight/flight/freeze as the reflexes of an animal in times of threat. All these are kneejerk responses acquired out of the compulsion of living insecurely all the time, with predators. They hold good for us also, because a part of us is still animalistic. Though we live securely in our homes, without any threat from predators, there exists a lurking fear in our subconscious, perhaps as a remnant of the past, when we too lived without the walls of safety around us. As part of a species that is still evolving, it is indispensable for us to understand the mechanism behind the reflexes of fight/flight and freeze , so that we may upgrade our choices.
Fight/flight/freeze are all parts of a strategic reflex. I am tempted to call fight/flight, a kind of reactive reflex or re-action, in short. In a similar vein one can experience the state of freeze, which may be called retro-active reflex or retro-action, in plain English. My daughter is at a loss to understand whether she should fight back or sit back, if she finds herself in a spot. That is to say whether she should re-act or retro-act, in a quixotic or prickly situation. It is in no way less than a Hamletian dilemma. In this article I intend to put forth some popular approaches which aim at finding a resolution of this most common conflict, that overwhelms most of us, most of the time.
Edward de Bono, the Maltese physician, author, and inventor, introduced the concept of lateral thinking in 1967. He summarized his concept in the maxim: you cannot dig a hole in a different place by digging the same hole deeper. This is another way of saying that you have to change your antiquated concepts and perceptions, by getting rid of your conditioned responses. As the epithet lateral suggests, you have got to sidetrack the banal, as if it didn't exist, to usher in the fresh and the creative. So according to de Bono, instead of falling back into the timeworn ruts of re-action, and retro-action, one must charter an innovative way to resolve the crisis.
In total contrast to this approach, the Hegelian Dialectics aims at bringing the two opposite poles together, and strike a balance between them. Hegel calls the proposition, thesis, and its antipode, antithesis. Resolution comes in the form of a synthesis of the two. There is no question of either/or. You are not supposed to choose one against the other. The resolution must come out of keeping the elements of both sides in mind. You cannot drop either of the two. Ergo, it is obvious that for the resolution to come about between re-action and retro-action, what we need to seek is the common ground between the two. So we sideline the prefixes re- and retro- and vote for action. It will be a kind of pure action, devoid of any devolving ligatures.
We don't have to re-act, nor do we have to retro-act. All that we have to do is act. That will constitute our action. Here it will be obligatory to know what we understand by action, or more strictly, by pure action. Imagine a pair of scales having re-action in one pan and retro-action in the other. When the beam shows no deflection, it means, it is centered at the fulcrum. The fulcrum is the point of rest. It appears to be actionless, but still it is performing the actionless action of balancing re-action against retro-action. It is tilted neither towards re-action, nor towards retro-action. It is established in itself. This is pure action, that is, action without re-action or retro-action. Pure action is action on itself; rather, action by itself.
When we are close to our true self, pure action happens. When we are close to our ego self, re-action or retro-action happens. Being close to one's true self is called being awake, or being in meditation. To be in meditation mode does not necessarily mean to sit alone and close one's eyes for a particular length of time. We can be in a meditative state any time and all the time. With a little awareness it can become our natural state, just as the strategic state has become natural to us. We don't have to do any stratagem to stay in the strategic mode. We just work that way. So also we don't have to do meditation to remain in a meditative state. Let me tell you how.
Scientists say that there are large voids in the multiverse. Every moment new universes are born out of those voids, as the old ones vanish into them. So also there are voids inside each one of us. To slip into one of those voids gives us the taste of meditation. Indira Gandhi, one of the most powerful woman of her time, who was loved and loathed, feared and adored, like that other powerful woman, HPB, reminisces about these voids in her memoirs, Remembered Moments. She writes: I have always felt that within you, within a person, you have such voids, and you can retire into them without disrupting yourself. You may be doing anything. You may be having a conversation or you may be in a crowd. But if you want to retire into yourself, you can retire and you can do almost anything you like...that is why you can't get tired because you are automatically relaxing yourself.
Perhaps without being aware, she has given a fine elucidation of the meditative state. As such we don't have to fight back or sit back. We have simply to roll back to our original space. Call this space your heart, your God, your void, or your inner sanctum sanctorum. When we are in that space, there is no conflict within us. We are at peace with ourselves. As a result of it, pure thoughts issue forth which translate into pure actions. Some people call these thoughts intuitive thoughts and such actions, God- induced actions. However it is a very tricky situation, because ego is so wily, you may take ego-self to be your true self. Ego masquerades under different guises and so there is always the danger of mistaking ego-propelled thoughts to be God-induced thoughts.
It has been, therefore, a frontline endeavor of seekers to find out certain ways which ensure an unassailable capability to generate pure thoughts. In Vijnan Bhairav, which is an ancient treatise dating back to 4000 years or more, we find a compilation of 112 practices that are supposed to ensure success in an otherwise iffy domain. These practices are meant to suit all types of practioners such as avadhoots, aghoris, tantriks, householders, kapaliks, and myriad others. Again people of different temperaments would gyrate to different types of practices. However regular guys have all been found to opt for the science of breath. It is commonly practiced even now because it gained immense credibility, having been championed by no less a personage than Gautam, the Buddha.
Buddha called it anapanasati. Buddhists who do it nowadays, follow a very rigorous regimen which may balk most of us. Shorn of all frills, I call it conscious breathing. Just be aware of your breath. Watch it constantly. If you find it difficult, start counting your breaths. Counting sheep, you have fallen asleep countless times. Counting breaths, you will waken up like you have never woken up before. Before you have counted 100, something will stir up inside. Just don't get distracted. Continue counting. You will notice some changes taking place inside. If you continue with the practice for sometime, you may not like to abandon it, after all. Why? Well, because you may have passed into a meditative state, for good!
Thich Nhat Hanh, perhaps on his first visit to the US, was greeted with unseemly rudeness. He simply took a deep breath, smiled, and said: I have come to seek your goodwill. I am sure the Dalai Lama would have done it with a sky-high laugh. What the Vietnamese monk does with his deep breath, the Tibetan Guru does it with his laughter. The idea is to collect oneself and become centered. When we are centered, it means we are in the meditative state. And when one is in the meditative state, only the right kind of thoughts will generate. Consequently only the rightful actions will take place. So there is no need to fight back or flee back or sit back. We should roll back to our center, instead.
I would now like to recapitulate the story of Elias as told by Leo Tolstoy. The story is as much of Elias as that of his wife Sham-Shemagi. Elias was a Bashkir who had inherited a modest fortune from his father. However the couple's managerial skills, and industry made theirs the richest household of the region. They had every thing in abundance and people envied their lot. Both worked hard and hired extra hands to tend to their flocks and herds. Women workers were hired to milk their cows and mares and make kumiss, butter, and cheese. They were honest and modest and were known for hospitality, far and wide. Whoever visited them was served kumiss, or a drink, or sherbet, and a hearty meal. People of position sought their aquaintance.
They had two sons and a daughter. One son got killed in a brawl early on. The other son took a self-willed woman for wife, and ceased to listen to them. So Elias gave him a house and some cattle and parted ways with him. They married off their daughter, who also died early on. Now only the two of them lived together. As they advanced in age, events started taking a turn for the worse. Once an epidemic took a toll of their cattle. Then successive bad harvests reduced them almost to a state of penury. As if this was not enough, neighbouring Kirghiz stole away their herd of best horses. By the time Elias was seventy, he was selling off his furs, carpets, saddles, and tents. Now he and his wife had nothing on them except the clothes they wore.
Their neighbour, Muhammad Shah, was a good man, neither rich nor poor. He was well aware of the generous nature of the couple and the cruel turn of events. So with a view to helping the couple, he offered them jobs in his household. Elias would work in his melon fields in summer, and tend to his cattle in winter. Sham-Shemagi, would milk the mares and make kumiss. In return, Shah would feed them and clothe them. He exhorted them not to work beyond their strength. Also he asked them to be free to ask for anything they needed and he, Shah, would get it for them. It was fair game and the couple started working for their neighbour who was their master now.
Once Shah's relatives came to visit him from a far off district. After meals they were drinking kumiss with their host when Elias passed by the open door. Shah asked them if they had heard of Elias, to which they said 'yes', as his name was known far and wide. Shah told them that the old man, just gone by, was Elias. He then narrated the whole story how Elias and his old wife Sham-Shemagi were working, at present, as his servitors. The guests clacked tongues in disbelief. How the wheel of fortune goes on moving, touching zenith and nadir in its course, they murmured. When the guests asked Shah if the old man grieved over his loss, he replied: Who can tell? He lives quietly and peacefully, and works well.
One of the guests wanted to talk to the couple. So Shah summoned Elias and his wife over a cup of kumiss. After the initial greetings, the guest broached the subject. He questioned Elias if he felt sad over his lot. To which Elias said he had better ask Sham-Shemagi, his wife. She is a woman, and what is in her heart, is on her tongue, thus spoke Elias. The man turned to Sham-Shemagi who sat behind a curtain with her mistress. Well Granny, tell me how your former happiness compares with your present misfortune, he posed his question. She answered from behind the curtain: My old man and I lived for fifty years seeking happiness and not finding it; and it is only now these last two years, since we had nothing left and have lived as labourers, that we have found real happiness and we wish nothing better than our present lot.
The guests and the host were astonished and so must be you, my dear readers. But the woman is speaking from her heart and the heart never lies. It is a case of total reversal of fortune, but the couple does not resent it. They are neither bitter, nor diffident. They are not playing the blame game, either. What the deep breath did to Thich Nhat Hanh, and laughter does to the Dalai Lama, penury did to the Bashkir couple. We are accustomed to living at the periphery. All re-actions and retro-actions happen at the periphery. As long they were rich, they were obliged to live at the periphery. They hardly had time for each other. She continues: When we were rich,...we had no time to talk to one another, or to think of our souls, or to pray to God.
Their loss sent them to the center. Now, when my husband and I wake up in the morning we always have a loving word for one another, and we live peacefully having nothing to quarrel about...We work as much as our strength allows, and do it with a will, that our master may not lose, but profit by us., continued Sham-Shemagi. They are neither fighting back their lot, nor sitting back resignedly. They are just doing their new job with the same spirit with which they had done their old work. Now they are happy. They have catalyzed misfortune into good fortune. If you like you can bypass the misfortune part. Just by counting your breaths, you can be rich and happy at the same time. So don't you fight and don't you sit back. Just count your breaths and embark upon a new path.
Wish you Godspeed.
Om Shantih
Ajit Sambodhi
Walter Bradford Cannon, an American physiologist had defined fight/flight/freeze as the reflexes of an animal in times of threat. All these are kneejerk responses acquired out of the compulsion of living insecurely all the time, with predators. They hold good for us also, because a part of us is still animalistic. Though we live securely in our homes, without any threat from predators, there exists a lurking fear in our subconscious, perhaps as a remnant of the past, when we too lived without the walls of safety around us. As part of a species that is still evolving, it is indispensable for us to understand the mechanism behind the reflexes of fight/flight and freeze , so that we may upgrade our choices.
Fight/flight/freeze are all parts of a strategic reflex. I am tempted to call fight/flight, a kind of reactive reflex or re-action, in short. In a similar vein one can experience the state of freeze, which may be called retro-active reflex or retro-action, in plain English. My daughter is at a loss to understand whether she should fight back or sit back, if she finds herself in a spot. That is to say whether she should re-act or retro-act, in a quixotic or prickly situation. It is in no way less than a Hamletian dilemma. In this article I intend to put forth some popular approaches which aim at finding a resolution of this most common conflict, that overwhelms most of us, most of the time.
Edward de Bono, the Maltese physician, author, and inventor, introduced the concept of lateral thinking in 1967. He summarized his concept in the maxim: you cannot dig a hole in a different place by digging the same hole deeper. This is another way of saying that you have to change your antiquated concepts and perceptions, by getting rid of your conditioned responses. As the epithet lateral suggests, you have got to sidetrack the banal, as if it didn't exist, to usher in the fresh and the creative. So according to de Bono, instead of falling back into the timeworn ruts of re-action, and retro-action, one must charter an innovative way to resolve the crisis.
In total contrast to this approach, the Hegelian Dialectics aims at bringing the two opposite poles together, and strike a balance between them. Hegel calls the proposition, thesis, and its antipode, antithesis. Resolution comes in the form of a synthesis of the two. There is no question of either/or. You are not supposed to choose one against the other. The resolution must come out of keeping the elements of both sides in mind. You cannot drop either of the two. Ergo, it is obvious that for the resolution to come about between re-action and retro-action, what we need to seek is the common ground between the two. So we sideline the prefixes re- and retro- and vote for action. It will be a kind of pure action, devoid of any devolving ligatures.
We don't have to re-act, nor do we have to retro-act. All that we have to do is act. That will constitute our action. Here it will be obligatory to know what we understand by action, or more strictly, by pure action. Imagine a pair of scales having re-action in one pan and retro-action in the other. When the beam shows no deflection, it means, it is centered at the fulcrum. The fulcrum is the point of rest. It appears to be actionless, but still it is performing the actionless action of balancing re-action against retro-action. It is tilted neither towards re-action, nor towards retro-action. It is established in itself. This is pure action, that is, action without re-action or retro-action. Pure action is action on itself; rather, action by itself.
When we are close to our true self, pure action happens. When we are close to our ego self, re-action or retro-action happens. Being close to one's true self is called being awake, or being in meditation. To be in meditation mode does not necessarily mean to sit alone and close one's eyes for a particular length of time. We can be in a meditative state any time and all the time. With a little awareness it can become our natural state, just as the strategic state has become natural to us. We don't have to do any stratagem to stay in the strategic mode. We just work that way. So also we don't have to do meditation to remain in a meditative state. Let me tell you how.
Scientists say that there are large voids in the multiverse. Every moment new universes are born out of those voids, as the old ones vanish into them. So also there are voids inside each one of us. To slip into one of those voids gives us the taste of meditation. Indira Gandhi, one of the most powerful woman of her time, who was loved and loathed, feared and adored, like that other powerful woman, HPB, reminisces about these voids in her memoirs, Remembered Moments. She writes: I have always felt that within you, within a person, you have such voids, and you can retire into them without disrupting yourself. You may be doing anything. You may be having a conversation or you may be in a crowd. But if you want to retire into yourself, you can retire and you can do almost anything you like...that is why you can't get tired because you are automatically relaxing yourself.
Perhaps without being aware, she has given a fine elucidation of the meditative state. As such we don't have to fight back or sit back. We have simply to roll back to our original space. Call this space your heart, your God, your void, or your inner sanctum sanctorum. When we are in that space, there is no conflict within us. We are at peace with ourselves. As a result of it, pure thoughts issue forth which translate into pure actions. Some people call these thoughts intuitive thoughts and such actions, God- induced actions. However it is a very tricky situation, because ego is so wily, you may take ego-self to be your true self. Ego masquerades under different guises and so there is always the danger of mistaking ego-propelled thoughts to be God-induced thoughts.
It has been, therefore, a frontline endeavor of seekers to find out certain ways which ensure an unassailable capability to generate pure thoughts. In Vijnan Bhairav, which is an ancient treatise dating back to 4000 years or more, we find a compilation of 112 practices that are supposed to ensure success in an otherwise iffy domain. These practices are meant to suit all types of practioners such as avadhoots, aghoris, tantriks, householders, kapaliks, and myriad others. Again people of different temperaments would gyrate to different types of practices. However regular guys have all been found to opt for the science of breath. It is commonly practiced even now because it gained immense credibility, having been championed by no less a personage than Gautam, the Buddha.
Buddha called it anapanasati. Buddhists who do it nowadays, follow a very rigorous regimen which may balk most of us. Shorn of all frills, I call it conscious breathing. Just be aware of your breath. Watch it constantly. If you find it difficult, start counting your breaths. Counting sheep, you have fallen asleep countless times. Counting breaths, you will waken up like you have never woken up before. Before you have counted 100, something will stir up inside. Just don't get distracted. Continue counting. You will notice some changes taking place inside. If you continue with the practice for sometime, you may not like to abandon it, after all. Why? Well, because you may have passed into a meditative state, for good!
Thich Nhat Hanh, perhaps on his first visit to the US, was greeted with unseemly rudeness. He simply took a deep breath, smiled, and said: I have come to seek your goodwill. I am sure the Dalai Lama would have done it with a sky-high laugh. What the Vietnamese monk does with his deep breath, the Tibetan Guru does it with his laughter. The idea is to collect oneself and become centered. When we are centered, it means we are in the meditative state. And when one is in the meditative state, only the right kind of thoughts will generate. Consequently only the rightful actions will take place. So there is no need to fight back or flee back or sit back. We should roll back to our center, instead.
I would now like to recapitulate the story of Elias as told by Leo Tolstoy. The story is as much of Elias as that of his wife Sham-Shemagi. Elias was a Bashkir who had inherited a modest fortune from his father. However the couple's managerial skills, and industry made theirs the richest household of the region. They had every thing in abundance and people envied their lot. Both worked hard and hired extra hands to tend to their flocks and herds. Women workers were hired to milk their cows and mares and make kumiss, butter, and cheese. They were honest and modest and were known for hospitality, far and wide. Whoever visited them was served kumiss, or a drink, or sherbet, and a hearty meal. People of position sought their aquaintance.
They had two sons and a daughter. One son got killed in a brawl early on. The other son took a self-willed woman for wife, and ceased to listen to them. So Elias gave him a house and some cattle and parted ways with him. They married off their daughter, who also died early on. Now only the two of them lived together. As they advanced in age, events started taking a turn for the worse. Once an epidemic took a toll of their cattle. Then successive bad harvests reduced them almost to a state of penury. As if this was not enough, neighbouring Kirghiz stole away their herd of best horses. By the time Elias was seventy, he was selling off his furs, carpets, saddles, and tents. Now he and his wife had nothing on them except the clothes they wore.
Their neighbour, Muhammad Shah, was a good man, neither rich nor poor. He was well aware of the generous nature of the couple and the cruel turn of events. So with a view to helping the couple, he offered them jobs in his household. Elias would work in his melon fields in summer, and tend to his cattle in winter. Sham-Shemagi, would milk the mares and make kumiss. In return, Shah would feed them and clothe them. He exhorted them not to work beyond their strength. Also he asked them to be free to ask for anything they needed and he, Shah, would get it for them. It was fair game and the couple started working for their neighbour who was their master now.
Once Shah's relatives came to visit him from a far off district. After meals they were drinking kumiss with their host when Elias passed by the open door. Shah asked them if they had heard of Elias, to which they said 'yes', as his name was known far and wide. Shah told them that the old man, just gone by, was Elias. He then narrated the whole story how Elias and his old wife Sham-Shemagi were working, at present, as his servitors. The guests clacked tongues in disbelief. How the wheel of fortune goes on moving, touching zenith and nadir in its course, they murmured. When the guests asked Shah if the old man grieved over his loss, he replied: Who can tell? He lives quietly and peacefully, and works well.
One of the guests wanted to talk to the couple. So Shah summoned Elias and his wife over a cup of kumiss. After the initial greetings, the guest broached the subject. He questioned Elias if he felt sad over his lot. To which Elias said he had better ask Sham-Shemagi, his wife. She is a woman, and what is in her heart, is on her tongue, thus spoke Elias. The man turned to Sham-Shemagi who sat behind a curtain with her mistress. Well Granny, tell me how your former happiness compares with your present misfortune, he posed his question. She answered from behind the curtain: My old man and I lived for fifty years seeking happiness and not finding it; and it is only now these last two years, since we had nothing left and have lived as labourers, that we have found real happiness and we wish nothing better than our present lot.
The guests and the host were astonished and so must be you, my dear readers. But the woman is speaking from her heart and the heart never lies. It is a case of total reversal of fortune, but the couple does not resent it. They are neither bitter, nor diffident. They are not playing the blame game, either. What the deep breath did to Thich Nhat Hanh, and laughter does to the Dalai Lama, penury did to the Bashkir couple. We are accustomed to living at the periphery. All re-actions and retro-actions happen at the periphery. As long they were rich, they were obliged to live at the periphery. They hardly had time for each other. She continues: When we were rich,...we had no time to talk to one another, or to think of our souls, or to pray to God.
Their loss sent them to the center. Now, when my husband and I wake up in the morning we always have a loving word for one another, and we live peacefully having nothing to quarrel about...We work as much as our strength allows, and do it with a will, that our master may not lose, but profit by us., continued Sham-Shemagi. They are neither fighting back their lot, nor sitting back resignedly. They are just doing their new job with the same spirit with which they had done their old work. Now they are happy. They have catalyzed misfortune into good fortune. If you like you can bypass the misfortune part. Just by counting your breaths, you can be rich and happy at the same time. So don't you fight and don't you sit back. Just count your breaths and embark upon a new path.
Wish you Godspeed.
Om Shantih
Ajit Sambodhi
