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…