If beauty lies in the eyes and eyes see what the mind knows, then there are as many beauties as there are minds. Minds being what they are, we have countless beauties. So how come we are intolerant to ugliness? After all the ugly duckling is someone's sweetheart too.
ఏదొ చెప్పాలనుకుని ఏదో వాగేస్తున్నాను.
బాబాగారి బ్లాగులోని ఎప్పటిదో టపాలోఅ కవిత్వం గురించిన చర్చ బావుండింది. అక్కడ నేను తెలుసుకున్నది ఏంటంటే నిజంగా "ఇది కవిత కాదు" అని అంటానికే ఆస్కారం లేదు మనం సత్యశోధన చేస్తే. ఒకరికి క్లుప్తత మూలం, ఇంకొకరికి భావోద్వెగం, ఒకరికి భాష చెక్కే నగిషీలు రచయిత ప్రయత్న గాఢతకు చిహ్నమైతే ఇంకొకరికి పెల్లుబికి మీదకురికే నగ్న సత్యం కొండపల్లి బొమ్మ. ఒకరికేమో సామాజిక ఫలం లేని అస్క్షరం నిష్ఫలం, ఇంకొకరికి వైయుక్తికం కాని నిజాయితీ లేని సత్య శోధన లేని కవిత్వం ...ప్చ్ పెదవి విరుపే. అసలు నాకు నచ్చలేదు అనే చెప్పాలి కాని ఇది కాదు అని చెప్పటానికి కవివమంటే ఇదమిధ్ధమైన నిర్వచనమే లేదు అన్నది అర్థమయింది....భైరవభట్లగారనుకుంటా అన్నారీ మాటా నిజంగా నూరు వరహాలు చేసే మూట.
And then I understood you veeru, why you and the rest of spiritualists say and try, to see good in everything and every body. Inherently there is nothing good or bad right? Yes, there may be a personal or societal ramifications to any action thereby leading to judgement of being called good or bad. But nothing, nothing is inherently bad when you look at it.
Or may be I am going a bit too far...yes, may be there is nothing wrong in a tiger eating a deer but there must be something wrong in a man raping a woman...there must be something inherently wrong in it ...says my heart....so yes there may be rights or wrongs.
So, let me rephrase my thoguhts....it's not that there is nothing to hate...we must only be celebrating goods...right? If you are a saadhaka-ok let me rephrase it since saadhaka smacks of religion and in this day and age nothing that even has a little hue of religion smacks of bigotry....so let me put on my pseudo secular hat and rephrase it....if you are a truth seeker...if you are looking hard at things to understand...then you will not hate anything.
I wrote yes you get angry, you get hurt but you will not hate and then I erased them. Actually, I was escaping from truth when I erased those sentences. For, if I write them or acknowledge them, then I must admit that hurt, anger, hate etc are all emotions and hate is no more a different emotion than anger or hurt. If they are all emotions equally and their presence means that a truth seeker is not being truthful enough, then I insistinctly knew that I can not escape the inescapable truth that even love is an emotion and a truth seeker who experiences love is also not acknowledging the truth.
For, love in our sense, our narrow sense, means an intense liking, a possessive feeling, wanting to care for someone (yes yes, I agree that I have narrowed it down to the male female love as is my wont) and in turn wanting ourselves to be similarly emoted. We can not bear if the same emotions are not reciprocated nor are they distributed to others. We feel choked. We gasp out for breath, away from that truth. And then a truth seeker, or a pretender of being a truth seeker, conveniently ignores these positive emotions as being emotions as well and wants only the negative emotions to be gone and tries to do a pseudo saadhana.
But alas, he forgets that as long as the sun shines and you purport to be one of the few seeing to stand in e sun, then we are bound to have a shadow. The positive emotions might be what you hint are good and want to retain, but alas, he has to recognise that as soon as you step out into the sun or seek truth, the negative emotions are there like your shadow, shadow of the positive self that you try to bring forth in the shining sun. You can not have your self and not have a dark shadow in the light of the sun, we forget.
So, we retrieve,into the solace of darkness, unable to bear the shadows of our selves nor able to bear the fact that as long as we purport to be a sun worshipped we cast darkness, just by being us.
So, is there no solution? Why not? The solution lies in not conveniently forgetting our shadows by being in shadows but being brave enough to be in the scorching sun and yet try not to cast shadows. And the way to do that is to loose self, be as transparent as possible, to let the sun's rays pass, through and through.
No need of a Mr India nor is there a need to be invisible.
The trick is in being transparent.
Let not anything hinder the sun...no samskara from the past.
Have no schemes from the past as skeletons in the cupboard.
Do not react to events, have NO emotions.
BUT THAT IS THE DIFFICULTEST PART cries the rasika in you.
Yes, it is a difficult path and a long path as well.
And hence, we come again to your assertion veeru, that Bhakti yoga, though as equal as that of other togas, is a bit lesser equal yoga, if I may borrow the pun from mullapoodi venakataramanaa.
But my bhaavoadvega, tries to defend this veeru. You say that it is a lesser yoga as it takes a loooooonger time to reach the state of eternal bliss/moksha if you don't give up emotions. But my svaroopa says, to me your efforts at controlling your emotions seem to be more longer and more arduous than giving in to one of my emotions and combining it with the real truth seeking to achieve that eternal bliss. To me, your way of living, the amount of effort you put in, the extent to which you go to control your emotions, the amount of disconnect that you purport to active with the world and yet by being in the same world, the amount of paradoxes you sadhakas of the "real yoga" ( i don't know which type of yoga says that achieving equanimity is the real basis for attaining the moksha) show Being in this world when you should have left everything and gone away to attain the equanimity..(my firm belief is that a sadhaka who does not do the strongest effort at the onset itself will not achieve what he wants to and that there are thousands of barriers by being in this bhava sagara)................all these to me are not any less arduous. To me, these are more harder, that too, to continually try and do this on the basis of "let me try this as my guru says so" and not because or the you know this method works.
So, the fact that bhakti yoga is a bit lesser equal of all the togas because it is harder and longer path, is a non starter. Particularly, as you feel that it may take births for a sadhaka to attain moksha or can be finished in few ghadiyas.If that is the case, then there is no measure of how harder and longer Bhakti yoga is than others. So, am still not convinced veeru.
I try to understand all these so am I a Gnana yoga sadhaka?
The attempt to understand rests on the foundation of emotions, so am I a bhakti yoga sadhaka?
(come on, you of all the people, can not say that My love towards a mere mortal makes my love or bhakti (for what is Bhakti but the highest form of love which automates self effacement or atleast the effacement of the boundaries between the self and them/him/her) lesser than that of meera towards the blue hued one of dvapara or that of any other bhaktaagresara towards his deity?)
(As a small digression, what is Rama or Krishna, if not a mere anchor to understand the eternal omnipresent, omnipotent and the omnisscient one? Are they not mere sangnas for the poor sadhakas to fix their efforts on something that they like? If sadhana or chitta sudhdhi is what makes a saadhana easier, than Rama or Krishna or Allah or jesus or the five namazas a day or the trials sandhyas or any other religious symbols, including and equal to the mere stone idols or the wooden or the golden crosses or the non imagified images of the crescent star etc etc etc ............these are nothing but the anchors to achieve the unachievable......to grahya the agrahya......are they not?
If the babas, the legends, the myths, the past can all be anchors, then why can not a fellow human being? If I fixate on her and yet seek the truth what is blasphemy? If I pray to her and equate her to the supreme goddess, where is the sacrilege? Is a fellow human so worthless that she or he can not equate a basil leaf or a stone carving or a pictorial representation of a certain time of the year in a certain geograpahy? Come on, don't make me laugh..any anchor, is anchor enough, if it is to stabislise us in the bhavasagara. .............I did say this was a digression, did I not? :))
I want to go through the asramas, I feel I have not moved onto the next asrama...so I do my best in this asrama itself....does that make me a karma yogi? And is this way of sadhana any less than being a reluctant asramavaasi as you are?
I don't know and I wonder again, is there not an artificialness in these separations? Are the raja, Bhakti, karma and Gnana yogas really distinct? Are these not like our personality disorders, where you have every kind of personality trait (the mail adaptive ones I mean) thrown into the mix and the label takes on the hue of the predominant one? Does the visible dominant hue makes the underlying invisible and humble hues any less true or nonexistent? Don't think so.
So, yes.......after a long winded self congratulatory discourse, I am happy to discover that my lack of hating of others is not a bad thing, that it may also mean that I am may be doing the sadhana without consciously labelling it and finally, YES, HATE IS NOT AN EMOTION WORTH IT'S EFFORT.
I agree with you veeru and thanks baabaagaaru and all others who took part in that discussion in sahitiyanam about kavita and what it means...... I seem to have understood a little bit more of this jigsaw puzzle.......there is nothing to hate in this world...I might not like it, I might to agree with it but hate.....why should I ?
Love, is infinitesimally better.
No comments:
Post a Comment