Personal mastery requires deep awareness — of what our internal gaps are how they impact our ability to function effectively. We discuss various levels of functionality and how they are related to our capacity to think, feel, act and be in the world. In another article, we discuss a unique concept called “Core Incompetence” and how that is connected with our signature strength. Finally, we bring wisdom from Indian spirituality — Vedanta perspective on change and personal mastery.

While the major gift giving season is behind us in the United States, we are always giving and receiving gifts on various occasions. How much attention do we pay to wrap and unwrap our gifts? What could we add to communicate our care and love in putting together and receiving gifts? I learned from an old friend Harrison Owen that it is not the gifts that make the most difference but the engagement with the person who gives or receives. We put together a slide show on exploring the spirit of gift exchange and would love to hear your response to it.

URLs mentioned in this post:

Interview
with Peter Senge

Levels
of Functionality

Core
Incompetence

Continuous
Change, Discontinuous Life

Wrapping
& Unwrapping Gifts

We were 7 people today and began the session with a meditation. During check in, Manikantan asked about the law of karma (i.e., every action has a consequence/effect): Is there a way to predict when the effect will occur?

Prasad elaborated on the concept of karma. As long as you feel that you are the one who is doing what you are doing or enjoying what is happening to you, you do accumulate its effects. In other words, your actions and your attachment to your role determines your karma. By dropping attachment, by playing your role as an instrument of the divine, you can drop the karma all together. It is possible to do what is called ‘Nishkama Karma’.

To elaborate, there are three types of karma (Note: the definitions below are by Baba Hari Dass):

1) Prarabdha (detained) karma refers to the result of karma already worked out in a previous life which appears in the present life in the form of fate;

2) Sanchit (accumulated) karma refers to the unfinished mass of actions of past births, both good and bad, yet to be worked out and which appear in this birth in the form of desires — in other words samskaras;

3) Agami (present & future) karma refers to the karma we are continually making in our present actions and will be making in our future actions.

When you are fully detached from karma phala, you do not accumulate karma. Similarly, If you do the karma, but you are not the owner of the action (no pride, no ego), you are just an instrument, and you do not accumulate such karma.

You can also pass “karmic credits” for your good karma (punya) to others by wishing so. However, it is difficult to predict the timing of the consequences of a karma reliably.

Vijay wondered about the importance of simplicity in creating a happy life. Since simplicity is supposed to be a key attribute of happiness, why do people complicate their lives by seeking more material wealth, i.e., why do they try to earn ten times what they admittedly need for themselves.

Prasad gave an example to illustrate the concept of simplicity. When he is shooting a picture, he eliminates everything from the frame that is not part of the essence of the picture. Once you reduce to the essence, you can reduce no more. That is simplicity.

Prasad (and most attendees) thought that having more material wealth than needed would not per se complicate life or adversely affect happiness. Pursuing wealth on the other hand, depends on your attachment. If it comes without extra effort, you can earn it and the extra money could be donated for a good cause (a la Warren Buffet).

Manvi recently attended the 10-day Vipassana course. She thinks the course has helped her become more compassionate and less paranoid.

Deepak talked about the Christmas party he attended where Rev. Heng Sure mentioned three kinds of giving: giving money or material things, giving courage, and giving dharma. He has done the first two, but not the last one.

Prasad said that according to Buddhist point of view, when you are empty (i.e., you have nothing) you give away even dharma that you accumulate so that you are left empty at the end of meditation. Otherwise, even accumulated dharma becomes ‘something’ and you are no longer nothing or empty.

On the general question of making a change in behavior, Prasad mentioned the Beckhard change formula from the theory of organizational development:

Change occurs when: D x V x F > R

That is, change occurs when the product of Dissatisfaction x Vision x First Steps is > (greater than) Resistance to Change.

All the three components D, V, and F must be present to overcome the resistance to change in an organization: Dissatisfaction with the present situation, a Vision of what is possible in the future, and achievable First steps towards reaching this vision. If any of the three is zero or near zero, the product will also be zero or near zero and the resistance to change will dominate.

Jay commented that one could also have aspirations (that could change behavior) that are not necessarily motivated by dissatisfaction with the current circumstances.

We ended at 9 pm and enjoyed wonderful meal that was brought by Manvi.

This question emerged due to the stories shared by five participants that seemed to indicate that often we tend to act out of confidence but lack courage, which, if present, would have changed the action.

Deepak said that he stated correcting Manvi’s grammar and the more he did it, he said the more faults he was finding in her language. While he had a reason to suddenly start correcting her (as she is applying for her medical residency) he said that he wasn’t sure whether that fully justifies his corrections.

Manju said that she attended a workshop where a younger person started offering her opinions in areas where she doesn’t have experience. Manju kept her cool and did not make a bid deal out of it and let it go. But later at the time of group-sharing the other person felt that Manju was not clear about herself! So, she said that while she had the confidence to not be taken in by another person’s naive opinions (I know better, so why should I fight), she lacked the courage to tell that person that it would be better if she asked questions instead of offering opinions.

Prasad said that after many years, he discovered that some people close to him did not take his jokes (on them) very well. Whereas, he said that he had been thinking all along that they were enjoying his jokes and he was helping them have a good time.

Jay said that one of his younger relative is not an extrovert who talks freely. But he discovered over a period that actually so much is going on in that person’s mind. And the few words that he did speak, if properly responded to, would make a huge difference to not only the conversation but the relationship and his well being.

Sangeetha said that she too, like Prasad used to indulge in edgy humor until she discovered recently that some people were perpetually ‘on guard’ with her. And when she decided to check herself in a recent phone conversation, she said that she could feel that other person being at ease and enjoying the conversation.

In all these stories, thanks to Jay, we identified that the participant’s intelligence (head) was giving that person confidence to do something. But their feeling (heart) was missing which would have given them courage to care for the other person and be vulnerable oneself.

Prasad said that if we look into the etymology of courage, it comes from the root coraticum in which ‘cor’ means heart. So while our knowledge, skills etc give us confidence, it is our ability to empathize, to care, to open up ourselves and be vulnerable that allows us to have courage along with confidence.

So in each one of the story share by the participants, what each person did came from a space of “I know it is the right thing to do.” But if their hearts were to be present, each person might have acted differently taking into account the feelings and growth of the other person (which two of them did eventually).

The practice for this week is, “Next time you are confident about yourself in a situation, ask yourself whether your heart is present. If not try to bring your heart and see how it changes your action.”

Prasad appreciated Srini’s commitment to his two-hour practice added a caution: He said that while we take practices, it is important to define its boundary to a short period (say, a week) and not project it into long-term future. The way a practice becomes long-term, he said, is by continuing to expand the ‘now’. The ‘now’ could be one second, one day, one week or one month depending on the kind of practice one undertakes.

In other words, it is important to take a practice “one now” at a time, otherwise any slip that happens or any changes that are required will appear as a failure which will result in a guilt-trip. Or, if one is able to continue the practice for a reasonably longer period (say six months), it might result in pride. Or, if one lies to others that one is practicing because one has made it public, then it results in shame. That is, having a long-term expectation from a practice has the danger of pushing one into the Guilt, Pride and Shame – GPS trap.

What I understand from what Prasad said is that, if one takes up a practice only for one week, then what works and doesn’t work in that week can be applied to the next week. It allows one the flexibility to make changes and refine ones practice and be kind towards oneself when one fails. And when one is successful, it reminds one not to take too much pride as it is only for a week.

Srini’s request to his kids reminded me of what a friend of mine, Ashish did to reduce his daughter’s TV time. He said that one day, his daughter was watching TV and instead of asking her to stop it or turning off the TV, he picked up her bag and sat across her and quietly started reading her books. As he expected, in two seconds, she ran to him and peeped into the book he was reading. When asked whether she wanted to watch TV or read book with him, she promptly switched off the TV and sat next to him to read.

That I found to be a great example of how to direct a child’s energy towards good things and thereby steer them away from whatever is not healthy.

Rudra said that he just came back from a vacation to Italy and the trip was wonderful. He said that after he came back, he faced two tough situations on the same day: In the office, he came to know that several people have been laid off and his team has changed. The mood in the office was tense and no one knew what is going to happen next. At home, a family member was going through a possible health crisis and he had to run around managing it. By the next day, he said, the office situation was getting back to normal and health issue did not escalate into a crisis. So, in reality, nothing bad happened. But, he said, throughout the day he could observe his mind going up and down depending on the information he is looking at. He said that it felt as if reality was happening on its own but his mind kept creating a drama by interpreting reality in different ways as if the interpretation would affect and change the reality. He said that it was a good experience in understanding the nature of the mind.

Fiona said that recently she was asked by her Church whether she could volunteer at a hospital to spend time with senior patients. She said that by the time she was ready to go, they changed the opportunity to something unique: being a Baby Blesser! She said that a Baby Blesser is one who visits all the new born babies and their family in the hospital and talks to the mother to make her feel comfortable after the delivery. And with the mother’s permission, prays for the baby. She said that the role is not as much to impose a prayer on the baby but to just be available for the mother as a caring companion from outside the family and do whatever is needed to make her feel comfortable and enjoy the gift she has received. She said that it has been a great experience.

I said that I have been continuing to think and observe the uniqueness of each situation. I said that I often tend to be in most situations as if there is nothing new there and think and act differently (from what I do usually) only if there is something explicitly new. But I have also experienced many ordinary situations as new and fresh and I have been noticing that that is because I was aware of the uniqueness of those ordinary situations in many ways. The feeling of newness can be equated to generally looking in one direction and suddenly focusing ones attention on what is right in the front. It is like “wa..whaaat?” and waking up.

Rishi said that he had a discussion with friend on whether, at his age (19), it makes sense to invest money for long term or spend it on what is important to him at the present.

He said that his preference is to spend it now because he said that he doesn’t know how his life is going to turn out in the future. And since what he is doing currently is going to decide what his future would be, it makes sense to attend to and invest in the present so that a suitable future can be created. Moreover, he said that he is confident that at any point in the future, he could earn what he needs to survive and hence he does not have to worry about the future.

Rudra said that many times when he reads biographies, he felt that everything looks coherent and logical only retrospectively. He said that he suspects how much of a person’s life is actually the same as what is presented in that person’s biography. He said that by observing his own life, he could see that it is ambiguous, illogical at times and what eventually happens doesn’t seem to have clearly identifiable causes.

Prasad quoted Kierkegaard who said, “Life must be understood backwards; but… it must be lived forward.”

Prasad checked in and said that he has been recently playing tennis with a friend who is far superior to him and it has given him some insights. He said that initially he felt that it is his duty to play well so that his friend doesn’t get bored. This attitude he said resulted in self-criticism and guilt whenever he did not play well. All his attempt to please his friend, he said, did not translate into good shots. Later, he said, he came out of his need to please his friend and just played what came naturally to him. That day, he said his friend commented at the end of the session that that was one of his best work-out session.

Jay asked whether the shift in the attitude significantly improved Prasad’s game. Prasad said that he really doesn’t know whether he is playing well or not due to the shift and knows about the quality of his game only after it is over. That is, he said, while he is playing, these days, he just plays and is not stopping to ask himself whether he is doing something right or wrong. He said that whatever happens, happens and he goes with the flow. But from his friend’s comments, he said that he must have played well.

Jay said that he has been busy applying for jobs and attending interviews. He said that while his is cheerful most of the time, sometimes when he is “in the trench” he feels less-free and more anxious. He said that he is just acknowledging his feelings and moving along without fighting them or artificially forcing himself to be positive all the time.

Manvi said that she has been asking herself why her knowledge of what thinks as inappropriate is not preventing her from indulging in it. She said that not only she indulges in it but the temporary happiness in that indulgence is in turn clouding her sense of what is inappropriate. Just so that no one thinks she indulges in bank robberies, knowing Manvi, her indulgences are likely to be eating sweets, not studying for her exams and the like

Prasad said that what Manvi described is seen in many people. It is called self-sabotaging behavior. He said that it happens when one is not aware of ones conditioned pattern of thoughts and actions. Becoming aware of ones auto-pilot behavior and acknowledging them, he said, is the first step towards managing them.

Rudra asked what is the definition of success and whether there are any guideline in Indian spirituality to be successful.

Prasad said that he had identified six principles from Vedanta that helps a person define success for oneself and take actions to be successful.

1) Clarity of intention
2) Awareness of self and what is going on around you
3) Empathy for one another
4) Appreciation of others and for what you received
5) Stretching beyond your own limits
6) Letting go of what does not work and old mindsets.

Here is an article Prasad had written that describes the six principles.

What does success mean to you? Are there principles and practices that has helped you define and pursue success?

“Intelligence and capability are not enough. There should be the joy of doing something beautiful.”

Seema quoted Dalai Lama: Be selfish. Be generous.

Manju checked in and asked what motivates ego to take over and thereby block love in a relationship?

Prasad said that the highest form of love is larger than the self. It engulfs the lover and the loved and evaporates individual ego.

He said that in Buddhist tradition, there are four ways of relating to others:

Maitri, Karuna, Mudita and Upeksha.

In the article, Four ways of embracing the world, Ranjit Hoskote writes:

“Inspired by this teaching, the aspirant along the Buddha’s path takes up residence in the four states of consciousness celebrated as the brahma-viharas or sublime abodes. These are maitri, karuna, mudita and upeksha: loving-kindness, compassion, joy and equanimity. Elaborating on these states in his commentary, the Visuddhi-magga (The Path of Purification), the scholar Buddhaghosha points out that they are a practical means by which the individual may step out of his narrow individuality to realize the larger oneness of life. Absorbed in meditation, the disciple lets his mind pervade the four quarters of the world with thoughts of loving-kindness. And so, recognizing himself in all, he suffuses the whole world with love beyond measure.”

Also Prasad said that there are five types of love in Indian spirituality:

1. Servant – Master
2. Friend – Friend
3. Parent – Child
4. Spouse – Spouse
5. Illicit love

Joseph Campbell talk’s about the five types of love in his work ‘From Psychology To Spirituality: Kundalini Yoga Part II‘.

Prasad said that unconditional love – the highest form of love has no direction (that is, it is not directed at a particular person or thing). But it flows in all directions. Ultimately, it is about a person truly loving oneself due to the recognition that everyone and everything is the same as ones own self and there is no “other”.

Prasad quoted a small story, ‘Who am I’ from the book Song of the Bird by Anthony De Mello:

Lover knocked at his Beloved’s door.
“Who knocks?” Said the beloved from within.
“It is I,” said the lover.
“Go away. This house will not hold you and me.”

The door opens wide and beloved invites the lover in.

Prasad said there is also a point of view that ‘care’ is higher than love (according to Erik Erikson) because caring need not be reciprocated and can be one sided. He said, “It is easy to love those I care for. But is it easy to care for those I don’t love?”

Prasad sent to me the gist of Erik Erikson’s work from the book Life Cycle Completed:

Erikson lists eight stages of development, spanning the entire lifespan. Each of Erikson’s stages of psychosocial development are marked by a conflict, for which successful resolution will result in a favourable outcome, for example, trust vs. mistrust, and by an important event that this conflict resolves itself around, for example, feeding.

• Stage One Oral-Sensory: from birth to one, trust vs. mistrust, feeding;

• Stage Two Muscular-Anal: 1-3 years, autonomy vs.doubt, toilet training;

• Stage Three Locomotor: 3-6 years, initiative vs.inadequacy, independence;

• Stage Four Latency: 6-12 years, industry vs.inferiority, school;

• Stage Five Adolescence: 12-18 years, identity vs.confusion, peer relationships;

• Stage Six Young Adulthood: 18-40 years, intimacy vs.isolation, love relationships;

• Stage Seven Middle Adulthood: 40-65 years, generativity vs.stagnation,
  parenting;

• Stage Eight Maturity: 65 years until death, integrity vs.despair, acceptance
  of one’s life.

Deepak described a difficult situation he is facing and said that it is hard for him to decide when to let go and asked for suggestions.

Prasad said that when it is hard to let go of something, the difficulty comes from ones attachment to it. If one is already attached to something, then where is the consideration for letting go coming from? He said that the feeling of wanting to “let go” is different from the feeling of wanting to “give up”. The feeling to let go does not come from a sense of failure or dejection. It comes from a higher self that is not attached to the difficult situation and wants to ascend to something higher than the difficult situation. Letting go is a process of surrendering ones ego to rise to a higher place.

I checked in and said that I had an experience a few months back of doing ‘mindful gardening’. I picked a suggestion from an article that said it is easy to be mindful if one tells oneself what one is doing a few times. So, I’d dig the soil and tell myself, “I’m digging, I’m digging.” Initially it sounded silly. But over 45 minutes, I found that this simple suggestion helped me to be very mindful throughout the task. I felt more peaceful, enjoyed the task and overall felt good during and after the task was over.

I said that I am experimenting with finding similar “mindfulness tools” that I could use with other tasks. With physical tasks, I can repeat the task in my head while doing it. But if I am writing an article or participating in a dialogue I can’t tell myself, “I’m writing, I’m writing” or “I’m listening, I’m listening.” I need to invent some other way of keeping my concentration on the task. Any suggestions?

Vijay said that he has been thinking about the need and the positive and negative aspects of comparing himself with others.

He said that though some people suggest comparison is not needed at all, society is organized in a way that comparison is inevitable. From college admission to getting a job to buying a house, a person’s education, skills, experience, wealth etc are compared to others’ all the time. But at the same time, one cannot constantly keep comparing oneself with others and build up envy and anxiety.

Vijay said that a balanced perspective on comparison could be to concentrate on what one is good at and being competitive about it and not much bother about other areas where someone else might be better.

Prasad said that in a larger context, comparison arises due to a sense of duality. While differences (and hence comparisons) exist at the level of knowledge, skills, experience, wealth etc., if a person goes beyond these aspects of ones identity, then it is possible to end the duality of ‘I’ and ‘the other’ and treat both the same and enter a state of non-duality.

He said that non-duality is an interesting word because it indicates the absence of duality on one hand and at the same time points to the apparent existence of duality as we experience it every day.

So, while we may experience differences and compare ourselves with others, it is possible to end the differences and end comparison.

“To the extent one knows god, one becomes god.”

Srini started the check-in. He said that he is discovering that meditation or silence slows down time for him. He said that when many things are going on, being silent for a few minutes makes a big difference to how he proceeds with his tasks. He said that what he does after the silence, while it seems to be slow, actually gets done on time.

I shared a quote by Einstein:

“Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. That’s relativity.”

The kind of time that Einstein talks about in the quote is called ‘psychological time’ – time as it is perceived by a person in a given situation. This is different from ‘physical time’ – time as it is measured by looking at a clock.

We could say the same about space too – psychological space and physical space.

Time and space are ‘apparatus of perception’ and not real entities (as defined by Kant – more here). If the very apparatus of perception itself is experienced subjectively (which means relatively), then surely we need to seriously question the widespread practice of valuing objective entities (say, $20) more than subjective experiences (say, a smile).

Lauren said that sometimes she feels that her life is not real and the observer who is noticing it is the only reality. At other times, she said, everything in a moment feels very real and all sorts of emotions come into play.

Jay said that there is not only a psychological time but also psychological action – activities that we indulge in that give us the satisfaction of doing something while we ignore what is really important.

Examples of such activities are: frequently checking emails, formatting a document before finishing it, attending many meetings, defending ones point of view beyond its usefulness etc.

Seema said that in her experience in practicing music, many times she is bored. But found that unless she stays in the practice long enough through the boring parts, she cannot reach the really enjoyable parts of the practice.

She also said that she just started experimenting with whether it is possible to stay focused on practicing music 24 hours a day regardless of what she is doing throughout the day. That is, she wants to keep the spirit of music in her consciousness even if she is eating or cleaning or reading.

Perhaps one way to do this is to apply some of the principles of practicing music throughout the day: Loving what you do, yielding to the natural pace and rhythm of a task, appreciating silence, repeating for perfection, enormous patience…

This kind of lifestyle could have significant impact on the few hours of actual music practice I guess.

View here a poster I made: Seven Musical Principles for Life. Whoever is interested could print it out and stick in their bedroom and wake up to it every morning (download in hi-res here).

I said that I want to use language (in talking, writing etc) more in service of real actions instead of using it for pure “about talk” – that is talk that conceptually points to some reality without linking it to any action.

Vijay said that he was affected by the recent bomb blasts in Mumbai to some extent. But then, he said, he doesn’t know what to do about it because such events are peripheral to his life.

Manju said that her need to belong to a family, a group, a community etc is at once both fulfilling and limiting. It is fulfilling because a large part of her identity is made of her family and community. It is limiting because the capacity to relate to and contribute to a larger world is greater than what one could build from within a narrow identity.

Jay said that one cannot totally eliminate belonging and the way to overcome the limitations of ones belonging is to expand ones identity by choosing to belong to a larger circle.

It looks like if one keeps longing for more life from a narrow identity, one could never be happy.

Seema asked, “If belonging limits us, we should be detached. But how could one be detached and yet be involved (belong) with ones family and friends?

Prasad said that being detached is not the same as being indifferent. To be detached is to have a choice to engage or disengage with a person, family, friends, colleagues and tasks. This kind of involvement is called detached attachment – a form of engagement where the actor retains the choice to continue the engagement or end it at any time. It is this freedom that enables a person to not get caught up and be limited by ones job, family, friends and community and be ready and open to whoever or whatever might show up in his or her life from outside his or her identity.

Lauren said that she used to identify with her emotions a lot and become those emotions and be limited by them (that is, if she is angry, her choices of actions are limited to those related to anger).

She said that over time, she has learned that there is no such thing called “my anger”, “my fear” etc. These emotions are like a river that has been running from long ago in the past and is running through us now and will run beyond us into the future. The moment we identify ourselves with any emotion, we have no choice but to get carried away by it. But if we recognize this and allow the emotions to pass through us without getting attached to them (detached attachment), then we would have lived with them without being limited by them.

Prasad narrated a story from Mahabharata:

In Ancient times in India, there was a king called Shantanu with his capital named as Hastinapura which is located near the Ganga River (Ganges). This king was hunting one day when he saw a beautiful woman near the banks of the river. He was so overwhelmed by the woman’s beauty that he asked her to be his wife or queen. She agreed, but put forth a condition, that at no stage shall the king question her actions, or she would leave him. He agreed to her condition and their marriage was solemnized.

In due course she bore him a child, but at its birth she flung the baby into the river Ganga and returned smiling to the king. Pained and bewildered as he was by her action, he did not question her, for fear of her leaving his side. This act, of drowning their babies continued for seven more children.

When, at the birth of their eighth child, his wife left to throw the baby into the river, Shantanu, who had so far bore his children’s fates with fortitude to honor his promise, could no longer suppress his anguish. He finally burst out and questioned her as to why she would perform such an act upon the birth of a child. Thus he broke his promise. The maiden revealed her identity. She was Ganga, the goddess of the river. As the king had gone back on his words, she would have to leave him. She told him that she would not kill this 8th child, but would take him with her, and present him to the king in due course.

Shantanu was saddened by her departure and waited many years for the return of his son. As promised, the goddess returned his son, now grown into a young lad. His name was Devavrata and would become famous by the name of Bhishma, a central character of the Mahabharata.

Prasad said that this story is relevant to our discussion on attached detachment. He said that the goddess Ganga agreed to marry the king Shantanu because she had to fulfill a karma: she had to temporarily be a human being in order to liberate seven sages.

She knew that her identity is larger than that of a human being and did not want to get caught up with being human longer than necessary. That is why she puts forth the condition that Shantanu (a human being) should not question any of her actions. With that condition, she makes her attachment to Shantanu a detached one (he can never question her actions and she retains the choice to do what she wants – including ending the marriage, which she knows she has to do).

Some practices we could take from this session are:

- Live here and now and act upon what is important.

- Live life as if it is a song evolving to perfection.

- Be detached with life while embracing it fully.

A new experience seems to help us be in the present.

Sreekanth said that he completed 10 years of his career as a software engineer and was reflecting on how it has been. He said that he has more capacity and confidence now than when he started out and is less anxious and less hyper than he was.

A series of past experiences seem to help us gain capacity and confidence.

I said that I had a conversation with a friend on the nature of self-growth related conversations (like this session). He said that over a number of years, he has observed that speaking from first person (I think, I feel etc) and speaking from a personal example keep the conversation true and grounded and any other way of speaking, however interesting and provoking it may be, does not have as much transformative capacity.

I thought about it and said to myself that in order to speak from first person one needs a lot of confidence in ones point of view. And such confidence usually comes from personal experiences that serve as examples. In other words, one should first experience truth in order to be able to share it with confidence. So, I made a decision that in sessions like this, I will speak only from first person and with a personal example. Otherwise I will use my energy to listen to others. This will persuade me to practice whatever needs to be practiced to see and experience truth.

This surely would limit what I could share with others and it is true that even those things that are not from my own personal examples (like something I read somewhere) could help others. But I find that the more I allow myself to come from an impersonal space, I increase my chances of inventing truths based on some rationale which could have many flaws.

Conversations based on personal experiences seem to help us get closer to truths.

Prasad said that he just came back from a workshop he did on passion, commitment and fears. He said that he is looking at these for himself too. He said that once, the president of a bank in India told him that he has grown largely by helping others to grow. In this sense, he said that doing workshops help him.

On the other hand, he said that he is questioning himself on what does it mean to be a spiritual person. “Am I a pundit or a practitioner?” he asked. And said that many times, he recognizes that he is a pundit. Sessions like this, he said, help him examine his own life in the company of others who have come forward to do that same. Hence, he said these sessions are very powerful for him because every time it forces him to focus on the practices that are suggested in the session.

Sharing ones internal struggles seems to bring awareness and focus to what needs to be practiced (that is, experienced) in ones life to remove the gap between understanding truths and living them.

Manju said that she has been reading a book on Barack Obama, the Illinois Senator. She said that through Obama’s life, she is discovering what does it mean to be black or white in the US. She wondered why some people have more cargo (meaning inherited beliefs, feelings etc) than others.

Looking at others’ experiences seems to give us a sense of life from their perspective and help us to sympathize with them.

Dinesh said that he enjoys coming to these sessions because here, he is more present than anywhere else.

Rishi said that currently, in his vacation time, he is experiencing for the first time what is it to work “for” someone. That is, he is interning in a company and is looking at his hierarchical role of doing what others ask him to do (funny that most grownups don’t even notice being in a subordinate role). He said the he understands that when a person is inexperienced, it is necessary for someone else to decide his or her duties and there is a lot of learning. But he already started wondering how long one should play such a role in ones career.

Inexperience seems to necessitate a person to follow other people.

Seema sang a beautiful song in Hindi. The central theme of the song is that one cannot run away from ones mind at any moment.

Manvi said that she was reading the book Conversations with God and decided that she would be her own teacher and not look to others for answers. She said that for long time in her life, she would pray to lord Hanuman and ‘shift her burden to him’ and believed that he will take care of her. She said that recently she wanted to give Hanuman a break and learn from herself. She asked, “Do I really need a teacher or could I learn everything I need to learn from myself?”

Looking within ourselves seems to help us take responsibility for our life.

Manju said that she believes there is a value in having a guru. She quickly pointed out that for her a guru need not be only a person. She said that some times, Kabir’s poems serve as her guru. In her experience, she said, putting aside ones ego allows her to consider anyone or anything to be her guru.

Manju’s view of who or what is a guru seems to indicate that whoever or whatever that can help us learn becomes a guru and hence, may be there is no such fixed entity called guru but only moments of experience that help us learn – and we could call these moments ‘guru-moments’ – as in, “I was reading this book or listening to this person or walking on this road… and I had a ‘guru-moment’. And perhaps every moment we manage to put aside our ego it could be a guru-moment.

Manvi said that when she is truly listening to herself, there is no question of her ego being present. She said that cultivating that capacity to truly listen to oneself would take care of her ego.

Listening to oneself seems to help one go beyond ones own experiences and touch something that is much closer to truth – a truth that is of the same nature as any external truth. Therefore touching ones internal truth could help us go beyond impersonal concepts and personal experiences and be (and hence think, feel and do) in the world in a way that is true to the given moment.

Mark Krieger said that when he was young, he had an inner voice that would guide him to make his decisions. He said that later he took someone as his guru and after that gradually he lost his inner voice.

He said that the purpose of a guru is to put one in touch with ones own inner guru.

Deepak said that he sees many people around him constantly blaming someone else or some external condition for their problems and unhappiness. This, he said, forces people to find happiness by escaping from reality by watching TV or partying. He said that in his own life, he can clearly see that he is in control of his state of mind regardless of the external conditions.

Both Mark and Deepak seem to say that the awareness of the presence of an inner self could guide our state of being.

Seema said that while she is very confident of her ability to sing a song well, she is also recognizing how far she has to go to perfect her skills.

Vijay asked, “What are the signs of a practitioner?” (as opposed to a pundit).

Seema’s realization that she needs to practice more seems to give some answer to Vijay’s question – One sign of a practitioner is that the person is constantly aware of where she is (with respect to his or her goals/aspirations) and how far she has to go.

Jay said that many times he used to wonder why he is not as much puzzled as many others at what does it mean to be spiritual. He said that he kind of ‘gets it’ when he watches some people in his life who are naturally caring, very aware of the present, who love unconditionally and bring peace and joy to their surroundings – all without ever thinking about how to be spiritual.

He said that watching them, regardless of what they are thinking or doing or simply sitting, it feels like they are “being” fully there. They don’t seem to exist for some other moment, for achieving something else but they are just there – fully engaged and happy. That, he said, that is his understanding of what it is to be spiritual.

Rishi said that he was reading this book, Seven Habits of Highly Successful People and he felt that the book captures what is it to be spiritual without using the word spirituality.

Dinesh said that once he was in a conference where there was a waiter who carried drinks to the attendees in the cafeteria. He would carry the tray and serve the drinks with such joy that everyone noticed him throughout the conference.

At the end of the conference, when everyone sat together to reflect on what they had learnt, he said that they invited the waiter to come and sit with them because they saw him as an embodiment of many things they discussed in the conference. He said that he later learnt that the waiter had a mentally disabled child. That day, he said that he changed his definition of success.

Deepak said that when he was working in India, he used to buy tender coconut from a roadside seller. And he noticed that the coconut seller enjoyed his job a lot. Day after day, watching him do business with joy made his tell one day to his friends that he wanted to be like that coconut seller. This left his friends wondering whether he is saying that selling coconuts is better than being a software engineer!

Prasad said that in Indian spirituality, only a few gods like Shiva and Krishna are called gurus. All the other teachers are called by various other names (like Upadyay, Adyapak, Acharya etc). He said that each name refers to a different level of teacher and each one of them is useful in helping others learn. He said that a teacher is useful in what is called ‘mediated learning’.

For example, he said that once he had to go to the Smithsonian Museum of Arts in Washington with Reuven Feuerstein, the originator of the theory of Mediated Learning Experience (MLE) and other learning theories. Prasad decided to just sit outside until Reuven came back because he did not enjoy western art much and did not understand it.

But Reuven wanted to try to help Prasad appreciate the art. So he asked Prasad to take a look at a painting by Van Gough and asked him what does he see. Prasad said that he saw a few boats and people and the sea. Ruben asked Prasad to go very close to the painting and describe what he saw. Prasad moved closer and said that the people did not have clear faces and in general everything looked like smudges of color. Rueven than asked Prasad to step back ten feet and see the same painting. When Prasad stepped back, he said that he suddenly saw that everything in the painting looked like they are in right proportion to each other and created a perspective as if one is actually on the beach.

Reuven then took Prasad to others paintings by painters such as Monet, Matisse and Picasso and in about forty five minutes, Prasad said he could just see a painting and tell who is the painter, he could start appreciating perspectives, use of colors, lightning etc.

After the tour, Reuven told Prasad that what he just experienced is called ‘mediated learning’. It is a type of learning in which the mediator comes in between the learner and the object or subject of learning (the stimulus) and also comes in between the learner and his or her response to the stimulus. By doing so, the mediator attempts to involve himself in the learner’s thinking process and affects the way the learner comprehends the stimulus. More about MLE.

Prasad said that while we may have to be our own guru, we could have many other kinds of teachers who help us see with new eyes.

Summarizing:

- A new experience seems to help us be in the present.

- Ultimately, we may have to be our own guru. But we could have many other kinds of teachers who help us see with new eyes.

I checked in with a reflection I have had for some time now: I said that when I observe my actions, it is becoming clear that I am constantly evaluating every person and every task to check whether the person and/or the task is worth the effort. I take it to be natural that the external condition is responsible to a large extent for my level of commitment, enthusiasm etc. And hence, I am at my best only when the external condition is highly favorable. Once I am in this mode of engagement, if anything goes wrong, it seems perfectly natural to look for something external to blame (and I usually find one!).

I am wondering what would it take for me to bring the same level of commitment, enthusiasm, creativity etc to everyone I am with and to all my efforts?

Jay said that perhaps it is natural to be selective in our commitments because we have only so much energy and having the same level of commitment towards everyone and everything could be exhausting.

Vijay said that while it might be prudent to select where to put our energy, our biases do play a role in being fully committed to even that which we have willingly chosen. For example, one might promise to oneself not to get angry but might not want to practice it with everyone (because not everyone is worthy of that experiment).

Similarly, I certainly want to be honest, be fully present, be open, etc to whatever I commit to. But in practice, I choose only a few of those commitments to which I will fully offer all my faculties and capacities. Perhaps this selectiveness has more to do with selfish agendas and less to do with how much energy I have.

Vijay checked in and shared a quote:

“A spiritual person is one who does not blame others for his problems.”

Many people resonated with that quote and Deepak shared a corollary to that quote that says, “A spiritual person is one who does everything from his own choice.”

I asked, “If a spiritual person holds himself fully responsible for all his problems and claims to do everything from his own choice, then is there something called sacrifice?”

I asked this question because, from my perspective, throughout history, spiritual people have been portrayed as people who made great personal sacrifices. While no one forced them to make those sacrifices (and they did choose to do whatever they did), should their work be regarded no more than the work of any other person who tended to his own well being?

Manju said that her understanding of the definition of sacrifice is: Work done specifically for the benefit for others or service work.

She said that she does not consider service work as sacrifice. She said that the doer is experiencing a spiritual joy and is thus motivated to continue with his effort. While service is done from one’s personal passion or inner drive onlookers/others (or the receivers) might label/judge it as “sacrifice”.

The benefit of service work to others is a positive side-effect. The recipients are welcome to receive it with gratitude and may choose to be inspired to follow. Whereas, the doer’s spiritual gain and motivation would remain unaffected by the outcome.

Manju further said that, for example, parents or mothers do “No Sacrifice” for their kids. It is a continuous enriching experience that makes parenting a higher priority over the other more obvious potential material gains. Many parents are skilled to do both or bring about the balance between the pursuit of personal material gains and parenting.

The other oft repeated example is Mahatma Gandhi. In Gandhi’s own words, “I am experimenting the truths as I perceive them. Please do not follow me, for I can hardly lead myself. I am no Mahatma.” I respect and (almost jealous) of Gandhiji’s self confidence to be able to follow his personal drive. He was connected with himself. But he did not sacrifice. My last example are the “teachers”. The action itself calls for a higher form of giving as compared to parenting. It is inspirational and God’s work, and it is originated from the parmatma that resides in the teacher… It cannot be done with the “intention to sacrifice”.

Others too echoed similar views.

Prasad said that there are times, when he does something in order to do good, the good deed becomes secondary and HE who is doing the good becomes primary (in importance). His need to be seen as “a person who does good things” then became the main motivation and the value of his contribution is lost. People pick up such vibes easily. Other times, Prasad said, he does what comes naturally without thinking about the effect of his action. He just does what is appropriate and walks away from it without taking anything personal.

At times, he said that it surprised him that others got more value when he did things with no apparent attention but in an easy and effortless manner. In other words, there was no sacrifice or a major contribution from Prasad’s side but it was a huge value as experienced by others. These experiences made him think that sacrifice is something that others experience more than the doer himself/herself. When you just do what is appropriate without any focus on personal benefit, you don’t look at what you did as sacrifice at all. When you do think you have to sacrifice, you do it because you valued the contribution more than what you are losing out. In that respect also, it is “selfishness” that allowed you to do sacrifice, said Prasad.

Vijay said that if he looks at his own action as a sacrifice, then doing more and more of the same action would build a sense of personal loss (look, how much I am sacrificing). Whereas, if he considers his actions (however disadvantageous it is to himself) as a personal choice (for whatever reasons), then he is freed from accumulating losses.

Overall, everyone seemed to be saying that sacrifice, whatever it means, is a social construct that glorifies that which really is an act of choice – the nature of this choice being nothing more than the nature of any other choice.

I raised different questions to explore whether there are other ways to look at sacrifice.

Earlier, Manju said that the receiver could receive the service with gratitude and even be inspired by it. But I kept thinking whether there is more to an act of service (specially one that puts the doer in a great disadvantage or even harm) than gratitude and inspiration. If not, then along with sacrifice, we also have to sweep under the social carpet feelings like indebt-ness, feeling obligated, feeling dutiful etc (from the receiver’s point of view).

Prasad felt that sacrifice leads to guilt, pride and shame more than gratitude, joy and freedom. Sacrifice has more to do with duty, obligation and a no-choice state rather than meaningful choice. Spiritually, more focus you have on sacrifice, more you get caught in the web. When you let go of what has happened (whether it is because of you or others), then you grow. It does not mean that sacrifice has no value. It just should not be glorified because it is connected with the role of a person instead the of action itself.

I thought about the value of sacrifice after the session. Sacrifice, even if it is a social construct (and not a natural feeling), seems to help a deeper purpose.

The way I understand sacrifice, it is to consider others’ well-being over and above ones own well-being. To hold this consideration one must step out of ones identity. And stepping out of ones identity, as I gather from most spiritual literature, is the first step towards self-realization. So, the doer could indeed consider ones action as a sacrifice and be on his way to his next stage of evolution if, and it is a big IF, he does not use such an action to inflate his own ego and thereby achieve the just the opposite objective.

Is it valid to look at sacrifice, from the receiver’s point of view as a means to honor the doer?

Is it valid to look at sacrifice, from the doer’s point of view, as a vehicle to transcend identity?

Or is it valid to look at sacrifice as a social construct that has its limited use (to inspire service) but is also a double-edged sword that could inflate the doer’s ego and force the receiver to feel obligated?

Or is sacrifice a mere space-holder into which we could put whatever meaning we want to put?

I think it will be useful to create a shared-meaning from these questions. And that exercise, I guess would require more than questions. It would require an intention to put aside all definitions we have for the word sacrifice and start from scratch.

Prasad looked at my reflections after the session and this is what he has to say:

If you define sacrifice as considering others well being over and above your own, what is your underlying intention? Why are you sacrificing yourself — is it because there is no alternative but to give up your legitimate need or to get name, fame and recognition? It is not the action that makes a difference but also the intention. In Gita they talk about karma tyaga and karma phala tyaga. Giving up something is easy but giving up the result of your action is even more important.

Similarly, stepping out of your identity is good. Letting go of ones ego is also good. The key is why are you doing it? If you are doing it because you want to get some result — even if it is for gaining self realization or getting to heaven through acquiring Punya, is selfish. In other words, if you are feeling that you are holier than others because you are sacrificing your needs and putting others needs first — then it is more of psychological issue than spiritual evolution.

By the way, the receiver might feel gratitude and might feel the need to honor the donor. It is the receiver’s prerogative — not the donor’s right! For me, the whole idea of sacrificing in order to transcend identity is weird…

I would go with sacrifice having a limited and appropriate value and treat is as a double-edged sword. Finally, even though “to sacrifice” is to give up something, one could get attached to the idea of sacrifice itself. Let it go.

Knowledge is objective and is about the external world. Wisdom is subjective and is the knowledge of the knower.

Prasad said that a repeated experience he has been having brought to his attention the difference between being knowledgeable vs. being wise.

He said that he had to deal with four incidences of minor car accidents that did some damage to his cars in a period of 6 months. In each incident, he said he took a decision in a way that would be favorable and convenient for the other person who hit his car. He was trying to be nice, friendly and helpful to others and tried to take decisions that would have the least impact on them.
On the external level, he said those decisions and actions could be described as “compassionate”. But many of them did not pan out that way and he ended up having to pay for repairs and others took advantage of his attitude.

Internally, when he checked within himself, he said that he detected a seed of selfishness in favoring others and a need for approval and he wanted to be ‘nice’ to others. He said that he had a need to appear generous in his own eyes because he has been trying to practice generosity.

Reflecting on these incidents, he recognizes that he needs to discriminate when to be helpful and when to be quiet, when to be generous and when to be stingy. When he uses generosity as a filter, it is like using ‘generosity’ as a baseball bat to hit others or being mechanical and mindless. In other words, any knowledge, attitude or process — when they become a recipe — are not very useful. When you begin to know yourself and how you have created a recipe, then you have hope to be wise someday. The discrimination and awareness of ones role are critical in developing wisdom, he said. When I do things to get what I want without looking at what others want, then I am being very selfish even though the act might appear generous. People notice that and they reject your generosity because they don’t want your charity. It is demeaning for them, he said.

“In most of my actions,” Prasad said, “I” am present (that is, my ego) without any awareness of the total context. How do I remove “I” from the equation and how do I gain perspective on the scenario? If wisdom is the knowledge of the knower then the first step to wisdom is to be a sakshi (witness) of oneself. A sincere, unwavering observation of oneself shines light on the ego and it disappears being an issue because the light of self-knowledge and darkness of ego cannot co-exist at the same time. Of course, once I am out of that scenario, the wisdom is forgotten and the ego is back. So it is not having memory or knowledge that helps but being aware and being present as a witness is critical.

Jay checked in by saying that he is looking forward to his last day in his current company. Though he quit is job and knew this is coming, he said that the actual last date is creating a little bit of discomfort but otherwise he is largely relaxed. He said that he has been curious about what is creating that discomfort and how he could deal with it.

Rudrasen checked in by saying that he is on a two month sabbatical and is going on vacation to Italy with his wife and son. Originally, he thought that he would go to a place like Italy much later in the future. But when he looked at when that future might happen, he suddenly realized that if he doesn’t go now, the chances in future is very less.

He said that he has also been re-looking at his career and feels it is time to put all the cards on the table – including his degree and experience. And find out what he really wants to do.

Ten years ago, he said, because he took a firm decision to go to the US and work in a big firm, he could overcome all the odds and do it. Now he said that it is time for him to take another firm decision related to his career.

The way he decided to go to Italy for vacation seems to be indicative of the way he is looking at his career too.

I said that one of things I have been thinking for a week is the difference between conceptual clarity and experiential clarity. When I come to a conceptual clarity, usually I am able to extend that clarity to other concepts, see connections and expand my clarity. But when I have had a clear experience of something, usually I find it difficult to transfer that clarity to another experience.

It is as if, every single experience is highly unique and one cannot extract a generalized lesson from it that one can apply in other situations.

For example, I started following a practice of setting up multiple alarms in my cell phone to alert me throughout the day. Every time it vibrates, I decided to check whether I was mindful in whatever I was doing.

When I started practicing this, I came across many problems. Since each time it rings I find myself doing something different, there is no one way for me to check whether I was mindful. It looks as if I could easily cheat myself that I was mindful by looking for a standard set of indicators of mindfulness.

So I asked, “How do I reliably check whether I have been mindful every time my cell phone vibrates?”

Prasad, Jay and Rudra all of them said that I should take it easy and not analyze my mindfulness. They all seemed to be saying that is it probably ok to ask oneself “Am I mindful” but after asking, one should just move on and not stay to analyze it. Because, staying to inquire whether I have been mindful or not would take me towards the conceptual realm and away from being mindful. Prasad also mentioned about being mindful is very different from being “full of mind” and when I analyze the situation, I am no longer in the present, no longer mindful but fully in my past, judgments and expectations. The present moment is long gone.

A few days after the session, I received ‘thought of the week’, a meditation email that I subscribe to. In it was this thought by Alan Watts:

Now the great deal of talk about the difficulty of action, or the difficulty of concentration, is sheer nonsense. If we are sitting together at a meal, and I say to you, “Please pass the salt” –- you just do it, and there is no difficulty about it. You do not stop to consider the right method. You do not trouble yourself with the problem of how, when you have picked the saltshaker up, you are going to be able to concentrate on it long enough to bring it to my end of the table. Now there is absolutely no difference between this and concentrating the mind’s attention to see into the nature of reality. If you can concentrate the mind for two seconds, you can do it for two minutes, and you can do it for two hours. Of course, if you want to *make* this kind of thing horribly difficult, you begin to think about whether you are concentrating, about how long you have concentrated, and about how much longer you are going to keep it up, All this is totally off the point. Concentrate for one second. If, at the end of this time, your mind has wandered off, concentrate for another second, and then another. Nobody ever has to concentrate for more than one second –- this one. [...]

If you try to watch your mind concentrate, it will not concentrate. And if, when it is concentrated, you begin to watch for the arrival of some insight into reality, you have stopped concentrating. Real concentration is therefore a rather curious and seemingly paradoxical state, since it is at once the maximum of consciousness and the minimum of ego-feeling … The only way to enter into this state is precipitately –- without delay or hesitation, just to do it.

Well, talk about divine intervention!