facts vs. truth

divine coincidence or not, i find that all of my quests for greater clarity are (one way or another) addressed with surprising promptness. various trains of thought that seek greater depth find it one way or another, and every finding appears to add an iota of light within. as for the subject of this post, i've been meaning to record the quote below for a while, but had been unable to (re)locate it thus far. with all the reading i've been doing, it has (perhaps understandably) become a challenge to keep track of where which thought process was born. today i decided to re-read sadhana, and there it was - on the second page i read (though perhaps it would've been more exciting had it been the first page :)). here it is:

Facts are many, but the truth is one. The animal intelligence knows facts, the human mind has power to apprehend truth. The apple falls from the tree, the rain descends upon the earth--you can go on burdening your memory with such facts and never come to an end. But once you get hold of the law of gravitation you can dispense with the necessity of collecting facts ad infinitum. You have got at one truth which governs numberless facts. This discovery of truth is pure joy to man--it is a liberation of his mind. For, a mere fact is like a blind lane, it leads only to itself--it has no beyond. But a truth opens up a whole horizon, it leads us to the infinite. That is the reason why, when a man like Darwin discovers some simple general truth about Biology, it does not stop there, but like a lamp shedding its light far beyond the object for which it was lighted, it illumines the whole region of human life and thought, transcending its original purpose. Thus we find that truth, while investing all facts, is not a mere aggregate of facts--it surpasses them on all sides and points to the infinite reality.

a powerful expression, yes? it speaks to the repetition of posts that i wrote about yesterday. it also speaks to a thought process i had on my walk earlier today - how can life, in all its intricacies, be simplified? can it even? a friend had once said to me, "it is incredibly hard to keep life simple". at that point, i had disagreed with him, for i used to think that the people for whom life was simple simply did not choose to plunge into the reality of it, and the people who did could not possibly keep it simple anymore. at this point, i disagree with my own views then. true that there are many complexities to consider should one make an effort to comprehend 'life'. but perhaps these are the 'facts' that tie themselves together as we progress in our quest for 'truth'? perhaps life must get more complicated before it gets simple? indeed, it is incredibly hard to keep it simple. and yet, it is the only way....

retail. therapy?

i've had little desire to go shopping for a while now, but on ma's insistence, i went with her to the bay street mall. it was a great experience for all of the good music, pleasant ambience, 'fall' trees, and christmas spirit. i enjoyed it thoroughly (minus the illness which troubled me only toward the end). with every potential purchase i was amused to see how i carefully assessed my joy at the thought of acquiring it, and if i could put it aside just as well and feel no pain (thankfully, that was easy). i now own a few more things than i did before, but as my rule of sustainable consumerism goes, i now get to give away as many previously owned items.

i shall give thanks today then for having discovered a cute, little mall with everything one needs to have in a mall :). also convenient, easily exhaustible, and very cosy. i pray that you survive this economy, mall.

another wednesday

it's the day before thanksgiving, and my break has begun. it was a cloudy morning, as i walked to school. i haven't been well lately, and wondered if i could/should use that as an excuse to start my thanksgiving break early... but class was not to be missed, i decided. good decision. the roads were emptier than usual, and the birds still chirped. i attempted to keep my pace constant as i walked, uphill and down. the walk is beautiful, and one encounters all kinds of people/things as one walks. there are varied stimuli that attract us, some perhaps that repel - can we keep our pace steady in light of each of these? this was my point of focus for those 20-25 minutes. it was a rewarding exercise, and offered its own insights toward the effort to treat life with just that equanimity.

the walk back was even more pleasant. the illness didn't matter, in fact it was much improved. it was raining as i got out of south hall, and i was surprised to learn that my umbrella was on me. the umbrella did happen to be red-and-white, and as i sheepishly carried it (thankful it wasn't big game week anymore), the self-consciousness attracted my attention to the abundant variety of umbrellas around. the proliferation of green, the leaves on the ground, the cobbled paths wet and cleaned - all these sights were brilliant and rejuvenating (are there no limits to rejuvenation, i wonder?). as i tend to on some of my more cherished walks, i let the air 'go through' me. it was blissful.

but what is it that brings about that blissfulness? why does nature enthrall me so? why do i find such joy in the cracks on the pavement, in the water that flows through the creek, in the trees that are stripped clean of their leaves, in the grandeur of the campanile, the wetness of the streets? why must my heart sing with joy as i walk through this campus, on these roads? why is there such joy to be found in the colors of the varied umbrellas? what is it, really? perhaps it is this oneness with the world that makes every encounter joyful... but that's a mere guess, i'm not really sure. thoughts, again, would be welcome. when i have a better answer, i will write in.

must get on with my life now - there are showers to be had - but i am oh, so thankful for the extended four i moments i was blessed with today. i'm just not sure where they come from, entirely....

justice and mercy

just yesterday, a and i discussed the jung typology test (that we both took recently). a question in it asks if one values justice higher than mercy. i've been thinking about this for the past couple of days. i had answered no, but wondered how i'd arrived at that answer and if i could be sure. i came to a conclusion that in the personal realm, i.e. where the situation involved my personal stance on a matter involving another being, i valued mercy higher than justice. (there is also a question about what justice means in the personal realm in the first place.) however, when one enters the social sphere, where there are certain laws in place, certain rules that society would like us to conform to, i do value justice higher. that is, if person x steals my car, for instance, i consider it worthwhile to forgive x for doing so. if the law states that x be put in prison for a month for that act, then from the social perspective, i would wish for that law to be enforced. does dichotomizing one's values thus make sense? is there even a dichotomy? i will continue to ponder, but any thoughts are welcome.

as always, i consider it a divine coincidence that just as i wondered about justice and mercy, i unintentionally stumbled upon the following. thank you, n, for adding so much perspective to my life :). portia's speech to shylock in merchant of venice:

The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That, in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy.

the good, the bad...

chapter 11 of the gita talks of the glory and the terror of lord krishna's form, as he reveals it to arjuna. a asked me yesterday: "what does this mean for us as living beings?" indeed a pertinent question to ask - for everything that we read and attempt to learn - what do these teachings mean to convey to us that we may incorporate in our lives in order to progress on our path of dharma?

all wisdom is entirely welcome, solicited even. here is my humble take on answering a's question - that the lord is (in) both the good and evil alike. and what does that mean? the way i see it is three-fold: first, this helps us learn to forgive the 'evil' around us by accepting that god exists in the evil as well as the good; second, when we encounter troubled times, we learn to accept that god is with us in that strife; and third, when we feel the 'evil' forces of anger, jealousy, etc., we need not give up hope of self-improvement, because god is with us in these emotions as well.

a's next question was, "what is the need to make the distinction between good and evil?" i see two sides to that answer: first, it is helpful to recognize the good and the evil within us, especially for those commencing on their spiritual journey, so they may learn to focus their energies on their 'higher' nature, and not on 'baser' emotions. for example, i find it is helpful to recognize anger, jealousy, etc. that i may learn to transform destructive energies into more constructive ones. second, if one is so spiritually evolved so as to no longer need the distinction (please allow me to escape lots of writing to explain what i mean here precisely), they need merely continue along their path with the knowledge that there is no good, nor evil, only maya.

the hardest question for me to answer was, "how do we know what is good and what is evil?" my best attempt involves a summoning of the inner consciousness. i cannot articulate my meaning here, but there exists an inner self that just knows. this inner compass can guide us in the 'right' direction, and it knows to differentiate between 'good' and 'evil'; between the 'higher' and 'lower' natures, if you will. the real task, then, is to bring out this inner self and make room for it to live, breathe, and voice its thoughts. if each of us can build a healthy communication channel whereby we can speak to our inner voice and hear its response, i am confident that we will find ourselves on our 'intended path'.

this is as far as a's and my conversation went, so now would be an appropriate stopping point. (otherwise, i might have gone on forever :).)

thoughts on reading (and writing)

the last few days were spent thinking about various things. one among them was the 'repetition of posts' :). do my posts repeat themselves? hopefully, because there is only one truth :). since i am not at the truth yet, however, it manifests itself in isolated and segmented trains of thought that yearn for cohesion. slowly, steadily, they aim toward it. at this point, can i ask for more? no, of course :).

reading the gita, i wonder the same - do not several shlokas repeat the same ideas? again, yes, because is there not only one truth? but if multiple spiritual texts advocate the same ideas, is there a point to reading them? indeed, is there a point to repetition? i believe there is. first, because every text (and every author) has a different thought process to offer, wherein we may discover different perspectives we may not have considered. second, and more importantly, it is one thing to read, but quite another to internalize. and one never knows when one will discover a point of view that will suddenly hit home and bring about an epiphany. i have found insights and means of internalization in several different (and sometimes the most unexpected) places. so - read much as you can - is my mantra. there will be repetition; in fact, there should be, but read regardless. and chew until the thought has been fully digested.

rediscovering emily dickinson

more coincidences, more lovely poems to read. here's one. (i think the personification adds greatly.) (also, the more you read it, the more it clicks, and the more it resonates.)

The farthest Thunder that I heard
Was nearer than the Sky
And rumbles still, though torrid Noons
Have lain their missiles by --
The Lightning that preceded it
Struck no one but myself --
But I would not exchange the Bolt
For all the rest of Life --
Indebtedness to Oxygen
The Happy may repay,
But not the obligation
To Electricity --
It founds the Homes and decks the Days
And every clamor bright
Is but the gleam concomitant
Of that waylaying Light --
The Thought is quiet as a Flake --
A Crash without a Sound,
How Life's reverberation
Its Explanation found --

the jung typology test

i'd been meaning to take this test again for a while, just to see if - in the eyes of the test - i have changed/grown at all. the last time i took it, i'd come out as an enfj. today, i'm an infj (56 88 12 56). stark change from moderate e to moderate i. stronger n. weaker f. hmm.

apparently, mahatma gandhi is an example of the infj type - 'counselor idealist'.

the value of waiting

[i've been meaning to post on this for a while now, but sometimes posts do take their time to form, and it is always advisable to allow for that. indeed, there is value in the wait :).]

my dad often says "jaldi ka kaam shaitaan ka". literally, this idiom says that a task done in a rush is the task of the devil. perhaps an english idiom that conveys similar meaning would be "haste makes waste". i have pondered over this off and on for some years, but since it is only now that i am learning to see it only begins to find effect in my daily life now :).

although it may be easy enough to see, a word on why this is true: when we act without thinking, or act in desperation, our mind has not had/taken enough time to communicate with our inner voice. our mind could be hurt, angry, jealous, or afraid, and if we act in this state, we are more likely than not to cause another suffering as well. indeed, as soon as there is enough time for the mind to touch base with the inner self, we regret our actions immediately. true, yes?

so my question, as always, is how do we incorporate this understanding into daily living? again, i believe that all it takes is mindfulness. when we learn to accustom ourselves to and recognize our inner calm so well (through practice) that any disturbance stands out like a 'sore thumb' (what does this simile really mean?), then the task is much simplified. as soon as we detect a disturbance, we must leave all else aside (including the 'irresistable' urge to act) and devote our inner self to resolving this disturbance. again, as the mother drops all her other responsibilities and rushes to take care of her crying child, we should abandon all our responsibilities to take care of our suffering mind. i do not mean that one must stop all one is doing and meditate until the knot is untied within, but i do mean that we should exercise strength and self-restraint (however phenomenal the need) to disallow any action that stems from a suffering mind. the act of desparation is indeed the act of the devil (tie in reiki etc.).

practically, for instance, we should refrain from writing emails to and/or calling people when our mind is hurt or angry on account of them. in fact, all communication with another should be conducted with purity in one's heart (tie in gibran, fourth mindfulness training, emailing with care, reiki etc.). these days, my concerted effort is to act/speak/write out of calm alone, when there is no irresistable urge. in fact, when there is an irresistable urge, however harmless, my rule of thumb has become to let the urge pass (before i take any action). this may take a couple milliseconds sometimes, and sometimes hours or days, but the outcome is (no surprise) always positive. this transformation (to begin with) does require a leap of faith, for we must believe that our urge will eventually translate to wholesome and suitable action. but the self-propelling positive feedback loop kicks in again, and all is well with the world :).

happy birthday!

today is my darling nephew's seventh birthday. remember when he turned six? again, i couldn't wish him in person this year, but i pray dearly that a fantastic year lies ahead of him, that he continues to grow stronger (this year has been tough for him, on a few occasions) and continues to fill the hearts of those around him with joy and wonder.

"i knew we would be friends"

and if i could explain why it were, i'd be the wiser for it... but i have no idea why or how poetry goes so deep. a chord was struck as i saw this poem, posted by c as a comment to another's post. again, a magical find:

I Knew We Would Be Friends
-Hafiz

As soon as you opened your mouth
And I heard your soft
Sounds,

I knew we would be
Friends.

The first time, dear pilgrim, I heard
You laugh,

I knew it would not take me long
To turn you back into
God.

stanislavski

in class today, we talked about personas and scenarios. how do we create scenarios such that we can effectively communicate the usefulness of a new product? this was the main question the lecture sought to address. one of the lecture slides had a quote by stanislavski on it. before i write the quote, stanislavski (for those of you who do not know) was a russian actor and theatre director (who died in 1938). his views on acting are still honored by the artists of today. here's the quote:

“. . . all action in the theatre must have an inner justification, be logical, coherent and real.”

when i saw this quote in class, i wondered, "and why not off-theatre just the same?" if for every second of reel life one must have a "why", indeed why should it be any different for real life? i don't believe it should, but there is hardly enough time to do so, given the pace at which we live our lives. more the reason that we need to slow 'it' down, so we can inculcate the habit of acting only when our action will satisfy the above-mentioned requisites.

reiki etc.

a while ago, an anonymous reader had posted a comment on my blog about reiki. i am glad i allow anonymous posts on my blog because i continue to be grateful for that post and think about it almost daily. also a while ago, i read a comment posted by n and c's friend about praying every morning and, in fact, spending the day with a prayer in one's heart (i bet my recall is entirely inadequate - please correct me if you can).

i've been thinking about both for a few days, and it seems to me they relate to each other considerably. when i am grateful to every object - animate or inanimate - i think and feel with a sincerity towards it. i have tried to incorporate this habit into my daily life (it is not difficult to do, i encourage you to go for it) and find it keeps me more at peace. i fold my towel and clothes neatly when i am done with them, i put on and take off my shoes unhurriedly, putting them in their place when i'm not wearing them. i also toss trash into the garbage gently, and am careful while i open and shut doors so as not to slam them. feeling grateful towards each of these inanimate objects (needless to say, this transfers to animate objects as well) involves a sincerity that is not much different from the sincerity i feel within as i pray. the heart, then, is 'emptied of all but love' (ref). this practice has greatly aided my effort towards the goal of carrying a prayer in my heart through the day. it brings further affirmation that peace comes from making every action, every activity a spiritual practice. no?

on labels

and by the way, to make life a tad easier, i've decided to add labels to my posts. however, i am taking a class this semester on information organization and retrieval, which (contrary to popular belief) does not make categorization easier. after learning all the reality of information organization, i struggle muchly to think of words that might work well as tags. any help would be appreciated. so far, i have "gita", "gandhi", and "pome" :). i then decided to get a little more general and added "excerpts" but it felt a little impersonal, so i think i'll get rid of it now. thoughts you'd like to share? (please don't let this remain a "0 comments" post!)

on food, sort of

i've been thinking about my consumption (i.e. wrt food) habits lately, ever since tnh, in one of his books, mentioned briefly that anger may result from unrestrained eating. then today, i stumbled upon these verses from the gita (chap 6: 17-21) that speak to this thought.

But for earthly needs
Religion is not his who too much fasts
Or too much feasts; nor his who sleeps away
An idle mind; nor his who wears to waste
His strength in vigils. Nay, Arjuna! call
That the true piety which most removes
Earth-aches and ills, where one is moderate
In eating and in resting, and in sport;
Measured in wish and act; sleeping betimes,
Waking betimes for duty.

When the man,
So living, centres on his soul the thought
Straitly restrained - untouched internally
By stress of sense - then is he Yukta. See!
Steadfast a lamp burns sheltered from the wind;
Such is the likeness of the Yogi's mind

i own two versions of the bhagavad gita, and have been deeply engrossed in the newer version which is written in painstaking detail (good for the likes of me who, for instance, would not know what "Yukta" meant). the old one (by sir edwin arnold, quoted from above), i found today, is also the one that mahatma gandhi refers to in his autobiography. this was indeed a special discovery since i just quoted from his translation not knowing that i owned it. life is just brimming with divine coincidences, is it not? :)

sweet darkness

perhaps you can tell, poetry has a special place in my heart. it speaks to me more clearly than prose, most often, and awakens parts of me deep within that have been dormant for a while. c, in her usual kindness, shared this poem with me (what seems like) a long time ago, and every time i read it, my understanding goes a step deeper. i hope that it brings you as much joy.

Sweet Darkness
- David Whyte

When your eyes are tired
the world is tired also.

When your vision has gone
no part of the world can find you.

Time to go into the dark
where the night has eyes
to recognize its own.

There you can be sure
you are not beyond love.

The dark will be your womb
tonight.

The night will give you a horizon
further than you can see.

You must learn one thing:
the world was made to be free in.

Give up all the other worlds
except the one to which you belong.

Sometimes it takes darkness and the sweet
confinement of your aloneness
to learn

anything or anyone
that does not bring you alive

is too small for you.

virtuosity

is not always innate. there is indeed goodness that we are born with. it may be in our nature to shower love and affection on those around us. it may be in our nature to empathize, to listen with a caring ear, to generously give to the poor and the needy. are there characteristics not in our nature that may be acquired? i used to wonder if that was indeed possible. can we become someone we aren't born as? as an earlier post quotes - if we truly believe and act with diligence, the heavens will not stand in the way. no, i do not have proof, but i do believe. it is important - to believe. something gandhi wrote also speaks to this train of thought, and i quote -

A variety of incidents in my life have conspired to bring me in close contact with people of many creeds and many communities, and my experience with all of them warrants the statement that I have known no distinction between relatives and strangers, countrymen and foreigners, white and coloured, Hindus and Indians of other faiths, whether Musalmans, Parsis, Christians or Jews. I may say that my heart has been incapable of making any such distinctions. I cannot claim this as a special virtue, as it is in my very nature, rather than a result of any effort on my part, whereas in the case of ahimsa (ahimsa), brahmacharya (celibacy), aparigraha (non-possession) and other cardinal virtues, I am fully conscious of a continuous striving for their cultivation. (pp. 243)

(nb: yes, i know virtuosity is not the apt word to use, but it should be - no?)

- gandhi

as i continue my reading of gandhi's experiments with truth, i'd like to share with you some of the thought-provoking sections of it:

If anyone doubts the infinite mercy of God, let him have a look at these sacred places. How much hypocrisy and irreligion does the Prince of Yogis suffer to be perpetrated in His holy name? He proclaimed long ago: 'Whatever a man sows, that shall he reap.' The law of Karma is inexorable and impossible of evasion. There is thus hardly any need for God to interfere. He laid down the law, and, as it were, retired. (pp. 215)

Man and his deed are two distinct things. Whereas a good deed should call forth approbation and a wicked deed disapprobation, the doer of the deed, whether good or wicked, always deserves respect or pity as the case may be. 'Hate the sin and not the sinner' is a precept which, though easy enough to understand, is rarely practised, and that is why the poison of hate spreads in the world.

This ahimsa is the basis of the search for truth. I am realizing every day that the search is vain unless it is founded on ahimsa as the basis. It is quite proper to resist and attack a system, but to resist and attack its author is tantamount to resisting and attacking oneself. For we are all tarred with the same brush, and are children of one and the same Creator, and as such the divine powers within us are infinite. To slight a single human being is to slight those divine powers, and thus to harm not only that being but with him the whole world. (pp. 242)

precedents

so often our mind rationalizes prejudices we form based on precedents. precedents are really the attachments the mind has formed and refuses to let go of. why? i wonder. when more often than not, they bring us only fear - the fear that things will not change. but they do, and they will - for change is the only constant. it only takes one chance to break the jinx, no? more the reason to do something than to not do it, so as to step out of a precedent and into the new, beautiful and changed world.

nonattachment, again

the definition that works best for me, at present, is as follows: i know i am attached when a subject of joy, when taken away, causes me pain. conversely, i know i am not attached when i am happy about an aspect of my life, but were i to lose it all of a sudden, i would not be miserable on account of it.

(definitions are for you, a!)