Meaning of life

Sat chit and Ananda  or often stated as sachchidananda has a very frequent appearance in Hindu philosophy and religion.

Sat stands for being (that expresses itself in becoming through maya – sambhavami atm-mayaya  – sat unfolds itself and this unfolding is becoming). The consciousness of sat through becoming – because one can only visualise/see/feel, becoming and not the being – leads to bliss, what was described by Arjuna in hrishyami cha muhurmuhuh. Merely awareness of becoming, without a consciousness of being, may not lead to bliss.

Look at some partial glimpses of this sachchidananda. Darwin became conscious of the being expressing itself through the will to survive – to continue – and in so expressing itself taking to various genotypes and phenotypes. Newton became conscious of the being in expressing itself in balancing. 

Every scientist, every philosopher, attempts to be conscious of the being (by studying its becoming) and whenever he gets a glimpse of the being, he experiences bliss, the bliss that brings out a simple smile on his lips. This smile, howsoever momentary, is bliss. For some, this bliss may be long-lasting and for the others it may be extremely short.

Experiencing that bliss, even for a moment, is the meaning of life. Aspire for that blissful moment.

Satyam chara, dharmam chara

Today I will tell you something about ‘satya’, often translated as ‘truth.’

There are well known instances in which one is likely to be confused. For example, Krishna suggests Yudhishthira to speak a lie to get Drona killed. How can the Lord, who is Himself the embodiment of satya and dharma insist on asking someone to speak a lie?

Satya has in fact two meanings, the one that is in currency (rudha) and the other that may be derived from its etymology : the composition of words - sat + ya.

The current, popular, meaning centres on speaking of a thing as it is (known to the speaker). If a speaker knows that ‘something’ is A, telling to others about that ‘something’ to be B while B is at a deviance from A  is speaking a lie, while telling A about that ‘something’ is truth. In this sense, truth is contingent upon being of that ‘something’, ‘knowing’, ‘others’, and speaking. Knowing is a problematic issue. Knowing ultimately becomes believing. I know of something means I believe that such and such thing is correctly associable with ‘something’. Also, one cannot lie to oneself.

The other meaning is related to sustenance (protection) of being and becoming. I am and I am becoming every moment. You are and you are becoming every moment. There are trees and insects and thunder and rain – the entire society and the ecology and the cosmos – and all of them are becoming every moment, evolving every moment. My thought or action towards supporting and sustaining that unfolding is satya and hindering that unfolding is asatya. That is why satya is dharma and dharma is satya.

Then if my speaking A about ‘something’ goes against the said being and becoming, it is not satya indeed. In this sense, satya is not limited to speaking. If I do not speak, but think or do something that goes for or against the said being and becoming, it would be satya or asatya accordingly. Then, not ‘satyam vada, dharmam chara’, but ‘satyam chara, dharmam chara’, because satya and dharma are the one and the same.

How do I know whether my thought or action would support or arrest the said unfolding?

Our prakriti supports that and vikriti makes us deviate from that knowing. All the vikaras (kama, krodha, etc) are the signs of vikriti. To balance these vikaras is to set ourselves to prakriti. That is why ‘yogah chitta vritti nirodhah’. That is what is said in Gita: sthitadhee – ‘nabhinandati, na dweshti’ neither loves nor hates. “dukheshu anudwigna mana, sukheshu vigata spriha’.

To attain the state of a sthitadhee is difficult, but continued practice may lead us towards that.   

विराट रूप पर

There are two ways of looking at the world: (1) individualistic, (2) cosmic

From the first viewpoint, there are gods (like Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, etc) who are individuals, there are hell and heaven, there are people like you and I who live and die, who have sole and body, etc.

From the second viewpoint, which is called Advaita, all these individuals - gods, men, animals, inanimate objects, etc. - are nothing but temporary formations of the same eternal being, like temporary formation of various wavelets of water that are seen on the surface of a river or ocean - of different shapes and sizes as well as durations - but having same content, that rise for a moment and mingle into the larger whole forever. This rise is called birth and mingling into the eternal whole is called death of an individual wavelet. The sole, the content, was finite at a moment (individual) and mingles into the infinite (cosmic) after some moments. The content remains, either in the limited form or in the unlimited form. The entirety of this content (the eternal unlimited ocean) is called Brahma (not Brahma the god in the first view, but the eternal one, the virat rupa). The temporary wavelet is called jeeva. 

In my opinion, the first view is unreal, meant for those who cannot think abstract. The second view is real.

That which knows to grow into a big banyan tree - with all its details - from a minute seed, that which knows to become a fully grown up human being from a minute protozoa, those charges, called the quarks, which know to make electrons, protons, neutrons and thereafter the entire world, that which is energy and matter and both - is the Brahma. Birth and death are only changing forms of wavelets.

On spirituality and ethics.

All religions have two parts, (1) spirituality, and (2) ethics.

The basic purpose of the ethical codes (that, in details, may vary from community to community and from time to time) is to provide thumb rules for the individuals that guide them in leading their own personal as well as interpersonal (at the family as well as community) levels so that the society is stable and growing with likable traits. This is what 'dharma' means - the network of duties that holds a society together and therefore protects it from falling apart. Note that the ethics is a complex of thumb rules. If the individuals follow them, they save a lot of energy and time to determine as to their conduct in different settings. Moreover, the individuals’ conducts are reliably predictable. That saves the society  (and the individuals) a lot of time labour and energy. That keeps the society going on. Hence, ethics is a part of all religions. It has instrumental value. Also note that 'dharmo rakshati rakshitah (धर्मो रक्षति रक्षितः). It everyone observes his/her duties, then only the duties remain self reinforced and the society is upheld.

However, societies are dynamic. Material conditions change. Population has been increasing. Resources and technologies have been changing. Cultures are changing. These changing things require changes in the ethical codes to uphold and efficiently run the societies. So, over time, ethics also changes, sometimes coolly and silently and at others violently. It takes some time to fit the ethical codes to suit the need of the time. But they ultimately stabilize. This dynamical adjustment is always on.

Now let us turn to spirituality. Note that of the two (reasoning and faith) faith is cheaper – to grow, maintain and spread. It is based on feelings, instincts, etc. A child, or a baby, feels warm and safe in the laps of its mother. This feeling is more basic than reasoning. Reasoning comes later, feelings come first. That is why feelings are easier to grow, maintain and spread. It affects the subconscious and springs out from the subconscious. Spirituality is there in feeling and subconscious where reasoning cannot go. It is futile to seek for rationality and reasoning in spirituality. This innate aspect of spirituality is used as a core – foundation – to establish ethics. Ethics, therefore, is often founded in spirituality.

These together make religion. Different communities have different  views of spirituality and also different views of ethics.

Unfortunately, this conjoint of spirituality and ethics has often become the tool for acquiring power – dominance of the one over the others. That breeds communal egotism and finally war, disaster and  so on. The desire to acquiring power sometimes uses the one type of tools and at others a different kind of tools. No religion is free from the people who have (and are) using religion to acquiring power.

Look at the ten commandments in the Bible (Old Testament). None can be denied even by a Hindu or Muslim or Jew. Was it not enough? But, no. The stories from Moses to Joshua to Kings to Job were needed. Then Christ, who wanted to change some of the fossilized conventions of the Jew. Was crucifixion a part of religion in its purest sense?

The conflict between God and Satan is the conflict between smooth running of the society and the lust for power.  And Satan so much vilified. If you think appropriate, read the Book of Enoch (it is free downloadable). All that you call technology – from houses to machines to cosmetics – were invented by Satan/Lucifer and his friend angels. We – and more so the religious ones among us – all hate the Satan and love his (and his friends’) inventions. Let us not use reasons. It is a matter of faith. Consistency is a characteristics of reason and not of faith.

Hinduism is no exception. Why so many sects? Why so many gods? Why so many stories? Perhaps Marx was right when he considered religion like opium.  But his comment is applicable to that part or application of religion which is used to acquire power. And no wonder, soon Marxism was turned to a religious sect.

It is fair to keep religion limited to ethics for smooth running of the society. If that purpose is lost, if religion starts destabilizing the society, interpersonal relations, family, etc., keep it at bay.

कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते

कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन।
मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भूः मा ते संगोऽस्त्वकर्मणि ॥  (गीता)

Meaning: Your domain is action, not its results. Do not consider yourself fully responsible for the results or do not act with a belief that you will surely obtain the results commensurate to your action; nor should you therefore shrink or run away from doing your work (on account of uncertainty with which the results show up).

Interpretation: What, perhaps, Krishna wants to tell us that in between the doer's action and the results there is a long chain of other conditions. Since the cause (scholastically described)  of the result is all the negative and positive conditions taken together - the collocation and the moving power -  (including the action directed to obtain the result), there is a stochastic (in a very general sense that includes all types of measurable and not-measurable uncertainty) or unpredictable relationship between action and the result. Results are in a stochastic (so to say) range with unknown probabilities and possibilities. Therefore, one should not arrogate upon oneself either bravado or the undue blame for success or failure. One should only concentrate upon the domain of one's action. Nevertheless, one should not indulge in inaction simply because the results are uncertain. 

In a lighter vein the equation that describes results with action is: Results = f(A) + f(E), where f(A) maps the action (A) to the results and f(E) maps the environment to the results. E contains many forces with unknown probabilities and possibilities (in a fuzzy sense and a content of ambiguity and fundamental uncertainty). There are no well-known procedures to find expectations (of results).
Under this situation, the doer cannot solely be responsible for the results. However, if the doer does consider himself/herself so, either arrogating ego or a damaging discouragement will occur which would lead him/her astray.


I wonder what is there to disagree! 

यज्ञात् भवति पर्जन्यः

यज्ञात् भवति पर्जन्यः पर्जन्यात् अन्नसम्भवः।   

अन्नात् भवन्ति भूतानि (भूतानाम् जायते प्रजाः)/(यज्ञः कर्मसमुद्भवः)  ॥ (गीता)

What Krishna conveyed (to us) is perhaps as follows:

Definitions: 

Yagna (यज्ञ) : as elaborated in Gita,  yajna is any action (physical or mental) that has four components: a purpose (devata), a medium (agni, havyavah), the stuff to be sacrificed (havya) and the person (hota) who sacrifices the stuff into the medium for attaining the purpose. 

Parjanya (पर्जन्य): Environment  - Everything that surrounds.

Anna (अन्न): That (or those) which supports (not only life but the being). A being consumes and grows on the support. 

Bhuta (भूत): being (living beings in particular).

Prajah (प्रजाः): The collective of beings and their derivatives.      

  

The meaning follows: 

Any action (physical or mental) with a clear purpose pursued through a proper medium and suitable (enough) resources creates a surrounding environment that supports life (also people) as well as the state of being and the process of becoming.

I wonder what is there to disagree! 

वह क्या था ?

यह तब की बात है जब मेरी उम्र लगभग पाँच साल की रही होगी । मेरा एक छोटा भाई था, मुझसे कोई ढाई साल छोटा। कुछ दिनों से बीमार चल रहा था। 

मैं अपने घर की बनावट बतला दूँ । बीच में आँगन और आँगन के पूरवी किनारे पर एक कमरा और एक बरामदा । आँगन के पच्छिमी किनारे दो कमरे और एक बरामदा । उत्तरी किनारे रसोईघर और दक्षिणी किनारा खुला, जिसमें सब्जियों के पौधे लगे रहते थे । 

शाम  का वक्त। आँगन के पूरवी किनारे, बरामदे की ओहारी (छप्पर का निचला हिस्सा) के नीचे एक खटिया लगी थी जिसपर मैं उत्तर की तरफ पैर किये लेटा था। माँ मेरे सिरहाने की तरफ के कमरे में मेरे छोटे बीमार भाई की देख-रेख कर रही थी। उसकी हालत बहुत खराब थी । मेरे पिता घर पर नहीं थे और मेरी बड़ी बहन (जो लगभग आठ साल की थी), पिता जी को मुहल्ले में ढूँढ कर बुला लाने गयी थी । 

मैं गुमसुम आकाश की तरफ़ ताक रहा था । अचानक मैंने देखा, दो लड़के, एक तो गहरे नीले रंग का और दूसरा हलके बैंगनी रंग का, खुले लम्बे छरहरे बदन, उमर करीब तेरह-चौदह वर्ष, हाथ में हाथ जोड़े, समान्तर, आकाश में उत्तर से दक्षिण की ओर उड़ते, गुजर गए। 

माँ  के  जोरों से रोने  की आवाज आयी । में खटिये पर उठ बैठा। बहन लौट कर नहीं आयी थी, न ही पिता जी। पीछे मैंने जाना कि मेरा छोटा भाई मर चुका था । 

तब से आज तक तक़रीबन साठ साल गुजर चुके हैं। लेकिन मैं अब भी साफ़-साफ़ याद कर सकता हूँ उन उड़ते लड़कों को। अगर मैं चित्रकार होता तो उन्हें अच्छी तरह आँक सकता। 

वह क्या था ? वे लड़के कौन थे ? मेरे छोटे भाई के मरने और उन लड़कों को देखने में क्या संबंध हो सकता है?     

                  

क्या वह भूत था ?

क्या वह भूत था ?

यह उस समय (1982) की घटना है जब मैं आई आई टी खड़गपुर में पीएचडी कर रहा था और अपनी पत्नी और बच्चोँ के साथ विश्वेश्वरैया निवास गेस्ट हाउस में रहता था।  लेक्चरर होने की वजह से मुझे दिन भर क्लास के लिए पढ़ने और पढ़ाने से फुर्सत नहीं मिलती थी । इसलिए मेरे अपने रिसर्च का काम शाम व रात में ही डिपार्टमेंट में करना पड़ता था। मैं तक़रीबन रात के एक बजे साइकिल से गेस्ट हाउस लौटता था। डिपार्टमेंट से गेस्ट हाउस की दूरी (साइकिल से) कोई तीन मिनटों की थी।  मेरा  एक बजे रात में डिपार्टमेंट से गेस्ट हाउस लौटने का वह सिलसिला महीनों से चल रहा था। रात के एक बजे सड़क तो जरूर सुनसान होती थी, लेकिन सबकुछ कैम्पस में होने की वजह से कोई डर या खतरा नहीं था। सड़क पर पूरा उजाला रहता था। 

इंस्टिट्यूट के मुख्य द्वार (मेन गेट) से जो सड़क विश्वेश्वरैया निवास को जोड़ती है वह एक चौराहे से गुजरती है।  चौराहे से एक सड़क डाइरेक्टर के बंगले की तरफ जाती है और उसकी प्रतिगामी (ऑपोज़िट) सड़क एग्रीकल्चरल इंजीनियरिंग विभाग की तरफ जाती है। तीसरी सड़क इंस्टिट्यूट के मेन गेट से आकर चौराहे में मिलती है और चौराहे को काटती हुई, चौथी सड़क बनकर, विश्वेश्वरैया निवास को जाती है।  विश्वेश्वरैया निवास उस चौराहे से एक मिनट का रास्ता है (साइकिल से)।     

तो यह उस रात की बात है जब मैं डिपार्टमेंट से लौट रहा था। जैसे ही मैंने चौराहा पार किया कि एक मज़बूत हाथ ने मेरी साइकिल की हैंडिल को बीच से पकड़ लिया। मुझे लगा, लो गए आज काम से, और बाएँ पैर को रोपकर मैं साइकिल की एक ओर (सीट से सरक कर) एक पैर पर खड़ा हो गया; जबकि मेरी दाँई टांग साइकिल की टॉप ट्यूब के सहारे लटकती रही। उसी क्षण मैंने एक आवाज सुनी जो मेरे सामने से आ रही थी। शायद यह आवाज उस व्यक्ति की थी जिसका  हाथ मेरी साइकिल के हैंडिल पर था।  कहा गया था "व्हाय डू यु रिटर्न होम सो लेट एट नाइट?" अनजाने में ही मैंने जबाव दे डाला "आई वोंट डू इट अगेन"। ऐसा कहते ही वह मजबूत दायाँ हाथ हैंडिल पर से गायब हो गया । 

मैंने सर उठाकर सामने देखा तो वहाँ कोई नहीं था। चारों सड़कें सुनसान थीं, और मैं अकेला ही साइकिल थामे बायीं पैर पर खड़ा था।    

आज यह सब कहने में तो बहुत समय लगा, लेकिन उस रात इस को घटने में दो-तीन सेकेंड से ज्यादा न लगा होगा। मैं यह भी नहीं देख सका कि वह हाथ किसका था, किसने मुझसे पूछा और मैंने उत्तर किसको दिया। मैंने अपने को केवल पसीने से तर पाया। 

जल्दी-जल्दी मैं साइकिल पर बैठा और पसीने से सराबोर सरपट गेस्ट हाउस चला आया। उस रात के बाद मैंने देर से लौटना बंद कर दिया। फिर कोई घटना नहीं घटी। 

वह क्या था? मेरा भ्रम था ? भूत था ? मुझे भविष्य के किसी सम्भावित खतरे से बचाने वाली कोई आत्मा थी? मेरे अवचेतन के डर से उपजा कोई  हल्युसिनेसन था? काश, वह क्या था, इसका उत्तर कोई दे पाता।