The power of positive thinking and its perils.

I have just finished reading " Supersuvivors-the surprising link between suffering success".It is a compilation of stories of people who overcome some major adversity and then completely turned their lives around. While on the face of it ,it is easy to dismiss this as a set of "rag to riches" stories which will tug on our heart strings and stoke our desire for success. Well you will dismiss it like this only if you have not read the book. It does try to go deeper into those success stories and try to come up with some common links in those stories which may help  other people .Of all the things mentioned in the book the one that struck me was the authors attempt to debunk  the over use of the phrase " The power of positive thinking".

Whenever we are low, handling some major blow that life has dealt us or it could be due to some minor adversity in the day to day running of our lives, we are told by everyone and everything around us that we should think positive. By thinking positive and staying positive we will be able to overcome any problem that we might be facing. The authors call this way of thinking a myth.In fact they go on step further and say baseless positivity will only take away from our power to handle the situation.if we just want to stay positive it can be away of drugging ourselves that there will be some divine intervention and life will improve by itself. it can incapacitate us from facing the actual crux of the situation . To solve anything we need to first understand it completely,break it down to its bare bones and then see where we are,where we need to be and whats the way to get there. All that can only happen if we are truly one with our problem-when we go deep into its heart and internalise its mechanism before we begin to try to resolve it.I found this portion of the book in line with my way of thinking though of course it was much more articulate and well thought out than anything i could have come up with.

The book does not dismiss the use of positivity completely. The authors want us to face our situation- the reality of it all and then work on it. As we do that work we stay hopeful our efforts are in the right direction. They call this grounded hope.Much better than mindless positivity.

The Lost river-The lost civilization.

I have been reading "The Lost River" by Michel Danino.It is a book which tries to trace the now "dead" river-Sarswati. It combines quotes from   religious texts which mentions Sarswati along with archaeological finds since early 20th century and ratifies it with satellite imaging to draw a persuasive image of the river flowing from the Himalayas  and then through the Indian mainland to the Rann of kutch before meeting the sea.Lot of the facts in the book are well known but i dont think anyone has done such a good job of bringing together all those facts and explain it to a layman.Having said that this book will really appeal to keen students of history and may appear too dry for some.

The revelation that really hit me from this book( though this book is not the first one to make that claim) was the contribution of Sarswati to what we popularly know as the " Indus Valley Civilization". The contribution was to such an extent that the author uses the term "Indus-Sarswati valley civilization' to describe the Indus valley civilization. The contribution of Sarswati is borne from the fact there are more sites found now on what is now recognized as the Sarswati bed as compared to the sites found in and around the Indus.More research is needed to draw out the details but the big picture on the path of Sarswati and its contribution to the pre historic civilization seems to stand the test of scrutiny.

The book goes into the details of  life of people who lived in that great civilization. Those details were the real triggers for today's blog. One thing that stuck the author is the lack of too many grand structures-either as residences of the rich and powerful or as places of worship. There definitely were some structures which could have belonged to the people who ran the city or were merchants but the were not ostentatious as compared to other dwellings in the city.This is stark contrast to corresponding dwellings in Mesopotamia or Roman civilizations which had remarkable  structures build for the rich and powerful but the poor lived in rather abject conditions.In contrast the Indus valley folks had private bathrooms in each home which was a luxury in the other  peer civilizations.There are even traces of a private bathroom on a first floor of a house which is  a pointer to the engineering marvel of our ancestors and  also to the quality of their life.

The other startling point is the lack of any traces of an army. There are not many weapons that have been found. The ones that have been found can largely be classified as hunting weapons.The Kshtriya clan is completely missing from the scene. Who was guarding the borders? who was  implementing the writ of the state? infact who was running the state? where was the state-since there are no structures which denote that the powerful leaders lived or met and decided upon things important for the city? Was the civilization a utopia?. The author goes on to argue that the idealism and utopian lifestyle aided and abetted other far reaching natural phenomenon is ripping apart the civilization . It is a fascinating thing tot think about. We were able to create such a society and then where have we landed today?

Second hand lives

K says "X" is admirable,worthy to be looked up to.Not to cast any aspersions on her ability to choose role models but It makes me think about how we consistently compare ourselves to others.Everyone around us propagates this comparison-our parents compare us to our siblings,our cousins,other children,Our school  is full of teachers who compare us to each other-in fact thats what our whole education system is-a giant grading system..It seems to exist to just compare and grade and sort of codify for each one of us as to what we can become,what,we should become.

Then we grow up .but the comparison continues.we compare to see who has the better spouse/gf/bf.We may not say it out loud but we do. We compare our jobs,our cars,just about everything. Its as if we will be able to enjoy what we have only if it is better than what others have.Our liking is contextual.Our dislike also ofcourse is then contextual. When what we have compares less favorably with what others around us, we feel inadequate.Our liking  for what we have lessens.We make ourselves miserable over it and/or we then run around like mad hares caught in a washing machine   trying to "fix" our life and acquire what others covet.We dont really know if we actually want the thing or need the thing but "the thing" sure sounds important to have.Maybe if we stop and consider for a moment about our actions we may,just may, lead ourselves to a different outcome.Do i really need a new car?Do my kids really need/want/desire that toy/activity?  Am i just doing it because everyone else is doing it?

I think questioning oneself is critical.We seem to know ourselves less and less as we grow up. As we are kids we have some clue of likes and dislikes.A child left to itself will figure out what it likes. Its thought process tends to be simple and transcational -just about the question in hand right now. the child is not caught up in the past or too worried about the future. But then the world around us takes over as we grow up..It tell us what to like,what to pursue. The set positions which define what one should go after in life.even those who rebel to this view and decide what the world is saying is good is  actually bad are only reacting to those set positions.We can only be happy or sad based on what makes others around us happy or sad .That kills individuality.It takes away the use of the one thing which we have over other animals-the ability to use our mind and brain to enjoy the present moment and plan for the future and reminisce about the past.To know that life more than just a mere game of survival.If all we want to do is compare and conform then what is the use of that ability to think.

Krihsnaji talks about the second handness of our lives.He is talking here in the context of being free-complete freedom-physical, intellectual.

"A follower then, is a second-hand human being; and most people are completely second-hand. They may think they have some original ideas with regard to painting, writing and so on, but essentially, because they are conditioned to follow, to imitate, to conform, they have become second-hand, absurd human beings. That is one aspect of the destructive nature of authority.

As a human being, do you follow somebody psychologically? We are not talking of outward obedience, the following of the law - but inwardly, psychologically, do you follow? If you do, then you are essentially second-hand; you may do good works, you may lead a very good life, but it all has very little meaning."

The word is not the thing!

The word is not the thing.

I have been thinking about the importance of language and how it may impact our thoughts.or is it the other way round?. We have thoughts and we express them using our language?.

well I have hit upon the first bottleneck in the relationship between thoughts and language even as I type this.Do we use words to express what we think or do we think in words?

The word is not the thing. Krishnaji said that. Someone said that before him.I forget who.That would be besides the point.We need to get to the crux of what it means.Essentially means we should not mistake the name of something with the thing itself. The name " tree" is different from the thing it is trying to give a name. Now why is it important to differentiate with the word and the thing?

If I see a tree and I find it beautiful with all its majestic leaves  and the sounds of birds chirping  ,the mind and its thought process wont simply be satisfied just by enjoying the beauty.it may let us watch the tree and be immersed in its beauty for few moments but slowly it will move into its process of naming and labeling things.It would think about how old the tree might be,about what kind of tree it is,does it bear  any fruits.we would want to label all of it. The sensory pleasure or simply going through an experience is not enough for us. Just wanting to label things and experiences may not be bad in itself but the tool used is flawed-language.Words are singularly inadequate to completely encompass what they are trying to describe.

I say I love K, Then I compare that statement with whenever I hear the word "love" mentioned in any context.The word "love" comes up so much in our popular culture. We seem to say it in so many ways .But are they all trying to describe the same thing?i don’t think so.There seems to be different kinds of love or different things which are all described by the word "love".

So words can stop us from going through experiences and they can also be inadequate in trying to define those experiences.

In trying to delve deeper into this subject I did some reading and landed up on a topic called "General semantics"

Wikipedia defines it as

General semantics is a discipline and/or methodology intended to improve the ways people interact with their environment and with one another, especially through training in the critical use of words and other symbols.

It can be described with three metaphors  a)the map is not the territory b) No Map can depict the entire territory  c) no map can be accurate unless it depicts itself in the map

Let look at the metaphors.

 a)The map is not the territory. As my example of  the word "love" shows, the word can mean different things to different people.it is not a true representation of the feeling it is trying to describe.

b)The map can never entirely depict the territory. At best the words we use are an approximation of what what we are trying to describe. Unless we are linguists by profession it is highly unlikely we are using the most appropriate words all the time and even then some of them are just indicators of what we are trying to describe.

c)No map can be accurate unless it contains itself within the map:There is an interaction that happens between our nervous system and the world and then we create a map( our verbal description) based on the territory(  our perceived reality). We use  old labels to describe our current  percived reality.but the labels we use should be reflecting of the changes in our perceived reality. Our perceptions change as we have more experiences and gather more knowledge.Our language at times is inadequate to describe or reflect that dynamic nature of our perception.

Stimulating thoughts..need to read up more… 

Language and how it shapes our thoughts.

One thing that I have stumbled upon recently has been the issue of language and words we use and how it affects our thoughts. It has primarily come about by listening to and reading Bohm who also was a linguist and had an obsession about finding out the origins of a word and going to the root of it and then more importantly comparing it with what that word is trying to describe and see if it fits. Well he didn’t try to see if it fits. He raised the questions and leaves it to the reader to make up his or her mind. A true philosopher who was not strait jacketed by any belief system and bogged by concepts and steadfastly believed in dialogue and arguments to talk things through and see if things can be made clearer.

Apart from using the correct word at the appropriate time, Bohm also shed light on problems the Subject-Verb arrangement of words does in our thought process. In English we have to have a subject who needs to be doing something or something needs to be happening to it for there to be a complete grammatically correct sentence. This happening or doing is denoted by the verb.

So for e.g. we can have a sentence like:

  Ram   Laughed

Subject+ Verb.

So a two word sentence( subject  and verb) would be the shortest possible sentence in English. IN such a format the subject takes exaggerated importance. There has to be a doer of action for there to be action. This is in contradiction to lot of eastern philosophy( hindu,buddhist) where we  say there is action. The Verb is all important in that set up.

Bohm then  gives the example of a common  English  expression " it is raining".

What is this "it" that is raining. Logically we should say  "Rain is falling of "There is rain"

Bohm says this is due to our contrived way of thinking and giving so much importance to the subject and not being able to think wholly and just seeing things in parts.

While it may seem as an extreme example, you can see the point he is trying to make from a larger philosophical point of view. If we accept that language shapes our thoughts then surely when we learn to make sentences where the doer of the action is going to be paramount that shapes in our mind an image of the importance of the individual. The "I". The "ego' .That becomes our default setting if you will.the way we look and interpret things and event.

if some ill luck befalls us and we are in rut we think of people to blame it on or blame ourselves for it. We find difficulty in accepting that things just happen and there maybe no one to blame for it. There was no grand cosmic plan to fail us on that day .Things happen. You handle the present moment and then you move on to the next moment. Or maybe you don’t move on anywhere, the next moment happens and  you react in it

So stuff to munch on,,this subject verb thing and on a wider scale how language shapes our thoughts.

David Bohm-Wholeness

I have been reading about David Bohm and his theories off late. David Bohm was a theoretical physicist who also had a long association with Krishnamurti. He had come up with lot of interesting theories or looked at existing theories and gave some out of the box takes on them.

Some of it has been heavy reading as one needs some basic knowledge of physics to make sense of it all which I don’t have. but once you can look through and beyond some of the technical scientific words used you do come upon some profound stuff.

He talked about wholeness in the universe and beyond. Everything  is connected or has a relationship with everything else. While we talk about this as a philosophical concept it just looks words to us in this increasingly fragmented world. But to have a man of science explain this concept of wholeness as a scientific concept was a new experience for me and probably gives it more legitimacy in my mind  .

My rudimentary explanation ( taking some liberties with the science )would be that everything is made up of matter. Matter in turn is made up of particles and when you study the movement of particles you see a few patterns:

a.       Particles move discontinuously i.e the tend to jump from point A to point B rather than a continuous movement. this movement of the particle without leaving a trace suggest that they have some relationship to the particles nearby and to the overall eco system in which they are operating. There seems to be an indivisibility in that relationship  which allows these particles join together and take form

b.       Particles( or the sub parts;atoms and electrons)  also respond to the environment that they are in. they break up and again take up some shape based on changes applied to them.There again is a relationship between them which allows them to act interdependently.

Electrons which influence each other non-locally must both be regarded as  in Bohms words as “projections of a higher dimensional reality:” i.e., these particles do not simply interact between themselves but rather are projections of the same higher dimensions. There seems to be an order in this relationship in which particles function and Bohm calls this relationship as the implicate order.

The movement of the particles is based on the theory of relativity and the Quantum theory which Bohm then develops  into this concept of wholeness.

Bohm basically says in this theory that everything is enfolded into everything else and everything unfolds to take shape of things that we see with our eyes. There is no separation due to this enfolding.

He then goes on to suggest this particle movement properties also is how our thoughts work. we have one thought and then we have other thoughts. Sometimes one thought leads to another thought but most times we seem to jump from one thought to a completely unrelated thought. Because our mind works at a very fast speed we feel its been a discrete movement i.e one thought leading to another inter connected thought. While that may happen at times ,it does not happen at other times. The thought process is capable of or is designed in way where it jumps from one thought to the other.

This is were probably understanding of Bohm and his theory of wholeness and implicate order can help us.It could be laying a good explanation for how our thought process works. we probably need to understand the process and observe the process rather than spend so much time trying to control our mind or thoughts. The thought process is not designed to be controlled. It moves discontinuously . This is where Krishnaji and Bohm meet in their  theories /philosophy also. Instead of trying to control our mind we need to observe it. In that observation we will get to a quiet mind.. or atleast a quieter mind.

Defintely food for thought.We don’t have to agree with Bohm or Krishnaji.but enough there to try and test out.There is a lot more of Bohm which I will touch upon later.

More on Duality

I have been thinking more about the duality of opposites concept specially from a emotions or feelings perspective .If we accept the concept we can say seemingly opposite emotions actually co exist like two sides of the same coin-one is the harbinger of the other..The seeds of sadness are embedded in happiness,hate includes love and so on.My thoughts have been centered how to deal with emotions or feelings we dont like-i am staying away from the value judgement of good or bad but for practical purposes in life i may encounter a situation where i hate  a person and the sight of that person makes me sick.So how do i deal with this situation assuming just avoiding the person is not a solution since that person is  a relative or someone i work with.So if i accept the duality of opposites theory how to deal with this situation within that theory.

The way i look at it i can think of the following options.There may be other ways which someone with a superior consciousness may be able to guide me towards.

Accept/Surrender to the emotion: We can tell ourselves that this emotion is part of my consciousness and i accept that right now i am going through it and i let it go through its natural ebb and flow inside of me without fighting it or beating myself over it too much. So going to our original example where i hate someone i accept my hate of that person as part of me and deal with that person on a worldly basis without trying to eradicate the hate.

Analyse the cause of the emotion:i work on the assumption that there has to be a reason for every emotion and i try and deal with that material reason.So if i hate a person i delve into myself and my thought process and see if i can come to the reason of hating that person and address that reason


Harvest the opposite emotion:Based on the duality of emotions each feeling or emotion will have a seemingly opposite emotion that co exists with that emotion/feeling.So if he current emotion i am going through is something i want to remove then i try to  harness the opposite emotion.So if i am feeling hate i try to cultivate love for that person.


Drop the emotion: here i work on the fact that feelings and emotions are a product of thought.so if a feeling appears non conducive i know its merely a construct of my mind and i need to observe my mind as that feeling is occurring and feel the process of thought feeding that emotion. In that observation there shall be cessation of that feeling/emotion. This is what Krishnaji is saying  to try and do or what i understand he is saying :-).

Each comes with its pluses and minuses and all may not be practical.but this is what i have thought about so far

Duality of Opposites

I came across this term :duality of opposites" and have been trying to comprehend it in its entirety,I wont say i have got it entirely but it does seem something profound and more importantly useful.i am obsessed to make this quest for a peaceful mind a practical one.I want to put to test every little thing which appears useful or else i discard it.I dont just want intellectual stimulation.Thought for the sake of thought.It should contribute in this journey.But when i say a" quest from a peaceful mind" isnt that problematic too. arnt all these seeking and wanting to become  the root cause of our suffering, of this unrest? ah well one problem at a time. So lets get back to the duality of opposites conundrum.

Duality of opposites basically implies things which look different are merely opposites and not separate. The presence of one implies the presence of other too. For e.g if we have fear it also means the feeling of hope wont be far behind.they are complimentary in nature.They are like 2 sides of the same coin.its a difficult concept to grasp intellectually but if see its use in our daily life and in our thought process we maybe able to make more sense of it.

if we have violence in us, if we see ourselves getting  angry we want to become non violent. We try to cultivate non violence.we read about it,we try to use will power to overcome this desire for violence,we practice meditation. We do what we can to get over this malaise. But if we understand this duality of opposites then we know the presence of non violence also implies that violence is still there within us. we have not really got rid of it. we may have found some temporary method of suppressing it. So instead of trying to become non violent we need to realize violence lies within us and we need to drop it .we have to let it go. If we hate someone we tell ourselves we need to stop hating that person. we dont try to cultivate love for that person.In that trying to love that person we perpetuate the existence of hate inside of us.we just drop the emotion "hate". Well thats how it is supposed to work. Lets try and see where we get with it. I certainly will.

Quest for a quiet mind

Came across another thought provoking passage from the book " Krishnamurti's Notebook"

"The brain is nourished by reaction and experience;it lives on experience.but experience  is always limiting and conditioning;memory is the machinery of action.without experience,knowledge and memory,action is not possible but such action is fragmentary,limited."

The starting point of a calm self is a calm mind. It is in this context that i am thinking about the above quote.before we try to have a quiet brain we need to understand a bit of its functioning. Krishnaji uses few terms which he has defined at various places. The definitions are based on my rudimentary understanding and and are my own words.

Experience: whatever happens to us as we go through life. the decisions we make,the decisions made for us, the job we do,the person we marry,the toothpaste we use all are experiences.

Knowledge:is derived from experience as we go through life we pick up ways to deal with those experiences ways are the sum total of our knowledge.

Memory : all this knowledge is stored in the part of brain known as memory.

Thought or our thinking process is a result of our experience,knowledge and memory.

To get on with life we obviously need to think.we also need  knowledge,experience and memory.Going to school is an experience. we need education to give us the knowledge to do a job.we need to store that information in our memory which we can use from time to time.So on the face of it this intellectual process,this interplay of knowledge,experience and memory is good for us and probably essential for our existence.

So thinking is good but what about excessive thought? what if we fill our brains with incessant thought? worry about the future/Laments about the past? What if the brain is so filled up that it is not present with us in the present? what if it is always ticking and never quiet? Quite chaotic isnt it?

So to have a quiet mind,we need to study this interplay of knowledge ,experience and memory. I intend to do that the next few days.

On Love-excerpts from Krishnamurti's notebook.

I have been reading the book " Krishnamurti's notebook". It is a book in which he tries to capture the internal processes that are affecting him as he goes about in this quest of stillness and peace.it is a daily journal which he did not intend to get published initially. I came across a passage where he talks about what he thinks love is.

" Love is not attachment.Love does not yield sorrow.Love has no despair or hope. Love cannot be made respectable,part of the social scheme.when it is not there,every form of travail begins

To possess and to be possessed is considered a form of love.this urge to possess,a person or a piece of property,is not merely the demands of society and circumstances but springs from a far deeper source.it comes from the depths of loneliness"

The passage made me think .Lets try and go a bit deeper into his words. firstly what kind  of love is he talking about? Just the man-woman relationship? or does it encompass all sorts of love? The love a human feels for a dog and also the love the human can feel for a material possession?.I think we can assume he is talking about all kinds of love because he talks about the "urge to possess,a person or a piece of property"So he is not limiting himself to talk about just the man-woman kind of love or evn just love between humans.

So what the characteristics of love? He approaches it from saying what love is not.

Love is not attachment:just missing someone and not being able to do without him/her or it is not love. we are attached to our phones. we keep messaging,chatting what not with it all day. We really cant say we love our phones though. its one of the many ways our mind tries to trick us into filling our void with "stuff".Being attached is servile.it has a negative connotation.
Love has to be pure

Love does not yield sorrow: Love at no point should be the cause of sorrow.love os bliss.The love when a mother feeds a kid and watches it look satisfied and happy,that is love. Later on when he doesnt do well in school she sits and worry about his future.she says she worries out of love.But again love has degenerated into something else. Worldy needs and societal demands have clouded the mother's love.Love at no point can be the cause of sorrow.

Love has no despair or hope: we can call it a corollary of the previous characteristics. The desire to see the person you have affection for is again a worldly desire.The hope that both of you together will have a blissful time together is borne out of the mind needing comfort and meaning in everything.When that person does not come to meet you you feel despair.all this is not love.Love is a spiritual connection with another outside the realms of space and time and away from desire and despair.the moment either creeps in it ceases to be love.

Love cannot be made respectable:Here Krishna ji is trying to elude to societal norms which set the standards for our relationships.We marry a person because society tells us to have a family.we put up with evil minded relatives because society tells us to.Love is away from all this.THe love my dog feels for my cat is not taught by society.it is there.he just reaches out to it when he sees the cat and his whole world for that little short while is trying to play with the cat.he doesnt sit and think over this later on nor does he plan what he will do when he meets her next. They just meet and they are happy.That is love-no boundaries,no set of rules to adhere to.

I am trying to document my journey as i proceed and try to get calmer and more peaceful.I want to jot down things i do,things that work,things that dont.I am starting or i have started on the premise that this is a journey for one to undertake oneself.The other important pillar of the base of my quest is that it is an inward journey. It is not a new thought process but a something i have given a lot of my mind to and the idea makes sense to me. Lot of us want a more peaceful existence. Peace with oneself.We all work towards the goals society tell us makes us happy. Money,family, house,vacations,,what not. we go there we get them at varying degress of success. If we dont get them we spend our time  trying to get  all that is defined as worldly success. If we do get success we keep wondering what next. If i have what my neighbour has i will be happier. if i get that promotion i would be blissful.we keep tricking ourselves into believing so.the mind tricks us.When i had a decent job,a job which allowed me to live on my own in one of India's metros i believed i still am not unhappy because my personal life is not good.i dont have my soulmate with me.That pining and longing for her made sure i carried in my heart a lingering  sense of dissatisfaction which affected everything i did or my perception of everything i had.I found a way to poison my present with what i wanted my present to be like,

Now when i think and try to jot down  my reasons of unhappiness i know it isnt the mystery of the missing soulmate.if i indeed had the person i wanted i would have found ways to be unhappy even then.I would have found something to dislike in the city,in my job ,in my siblings and when everything failed i would be blaming the cosmic powers for taking my Dad away from me when i did not know how to handle such a loss. The point being i carry within me my seeds of discontent. Any external change in my environment doesnt really add value or change my internal circumstances too much. There is only one way to stem the internal rot and that is to go into a deeply inward journey.
So i need to go inside of me and i need to go on my own.and why on my own?

Well Society has set up this institutions that should help someone like me.find solace and lasting peace. There are the grand old religions with their traditions and centuries old infrastructure beckoning me and promising me nirvana if i just hang in long enough. My religion is smart. it says one lifetime may not be enough. so hang in there longer. So all these systems should work for poor souls like me. But what happens to me when i try to come close to the religious structures and systems? I see a festival type atmosphere i see people enjoying themselves like a family outing when i go to temples.Its not too dissimilar from the scenes in a multiplex.when i sit down with a priest trying to conform to a ritual i am supposed to do for my bereaved parents,he stops in between and reminds me of the gold my mom had given to him during a similar such ritual she had to undertake.Is this pious? Is this spiritual? . So the system society has set up from me doesnt work for me. Maybe its the fault of the limited capabilities of my mind in understanding them but even then the truth should not be difficult to grasp.it must be simple to understand.yes its a onerous task to undertake-living a truthful life or set out in the search of the truth,but what is truth should be simple to understand. if it is not simple it is not the truth. it is not THE way.So here i am setting out on this journey on my own,inside of me.