Friday, 31 August 2018

Jagadeesh Krishnan psychologist and International Author

That Third Point is Advaita
Man is Janus-faced – animal and divine both. Animal belongs to his past, divine belongs to his future, and this creates the difficulty. The past has passed, it is no more; just a shadow of it lingers on. And the future is still the future, it has not yet come; it just a dream, just a possibility. And between these two exists man – the shadow of the past and the dream of the future. He is neither and he is both.

He is both because the past is his – he was animal. He is both because the future is his – he can be divine. And he is not both, because the past is no more and the future is yet to be.

Man exists as a tension between these two: that which was and that which can be. This creates a conflict, a constant struggle to realize, to be something. In a sense, man is not. Man is just a step from the animal to the divine – and a step is nowhere. It was somewhere and it will be somewhere, but right now it is nowhere, just hanging in the air.

So whatsoever man is doing – whatsoever I say – he is never satisfied in it, never content, because two diametrically opposite existences meet in him. If the animal is satisfied then the divine is in discontent. If the divine is satisfied then the animal is in discontent. A part is always in discontent.

If you move to the animal, in a way you satisfy part of your being, but immediately in that satisfaction dissatisfaction arises, because the opposite part, your future, is just contrary to it. The satisfaction of the animal is the dissatisfaction of the possibility of your future. If you satisfy your divine possibility the animal revolts; it feels hurt. A definite discontent arises within you. You cannot satisfy both, and satisfying one, the other is dissatisfied.

I remember one anecdote. One sports car enthusiast reached the pearly gates, and St. Peter welcomed him. He had come with his Jaguar, and the first thing he asked St. Peter was this: "Are there beautiful highways in heaven?"

St. Peter said, "Yes, they have the most beautiful highways, but there is one difficulty – in heaven they don’t allow automobiles."

The speed-fiend said, "Then it is not for me. Then please arrange for me to be sent to the other place. I would like to go to hell. I cannot leave my Jaguar."

So it was arranged. He reached hell, he came to the gates, and Satan welcomed him and said that he was very happy to see him. He said, "You are just like me; I am also a lover of Jaguars."

The speed-fiend said, "Fine, give me the map of your highways."

Satan became sad. He said, ‘Sir, we don’t have any highways down here – that is the hell of it!’

This is the situation of man. Man is Janus-faced, a double being, split in two. If you satisfy one thing, then something becomes frustrating to your other part. If you do otherwise, then the other part is dissatisfied. Something is always lacking. And you cannot satisfy both, because they are diametrically opposite.

And everyone is doing this impossible thing, trying to do this – to have a compromise somewhere so both heaven and hell can meet; so body and soul, the lower and the higher, the past and the future, can somewhere meet and have a compromise. We have been doing that for many lives. It has not happened, and it is not going to happen. The whole effort is absurd, impossible.

These techniques are not concerned with creating a compromise within you. These techniques are to give you a transcendence. These techniques are not to satisfy the divine against the animal.

That is impossible. That will create more turmoil within you, more violence, more struggle. These techniques are not to satisfy your animal against the divine. These techniques are just to transcend the duality. They are neither for the animal nor for the divine.

Remember, that is the basic difference between other religions and tantra. Tantra is not a religion, because religion basically means: for the divine against the animal – so every religion is part of the conflict. Tantra is not a struggle technique, it is a transcendence technique. It is not to fight with the animal, it is not for the divine. It is against all duality. It is neither for nor against really. It is simply creating a third force within you, a third center of existence where you are neither animal nor divine.

For tantra that third point is advait, that third point is non-duality.

Tantra says you cannot reach the one by fighting through duality. You cannot come to a non-dual point by choosing one thing in the struggle in duality. Choice will not lead you to the one; only a choiceless witnessing.

This is very foundational to tantra, and because of this tantra was never really understood rightly. It has suffered a long, a centuries-old misunderstanding; because the moment tantra says it is not against the animal, you start feeling as if tantra is for the animal. And the moment tantra says it is not for the divine, you then start thinking that tantra is against the divine.

Really, tantra is for a choiceless witnessing. Don’t be with the animal, don’t be with the divine, and don’t create a conflict. Just go back, just go away, just create a gap between you and this duality and become a third force, a witnessing, from where you can see both the animal and the divine. I told you that the animal is the past and the divine is the future, and past and future are opposed.

Tantra is in the present. It is neither past nor future. Just this very moment, don’t belong to the past and don’t hanker for the future. Don’t long for the future and don’t be conditioned by the past. Don’t allow the past to become a hangover and don’t create any projections in the future. Remain true to this very moment, here and now, and you transcend. Then you are neither animal nor divine. For tantra, to be such is to be God. To be such, in this suchness of the moment, where past is unrelated and future is not created, you are free, you are freedom.

These techniques are not religious in this sense, because religion is always opposed to the animal. Religion creates a conflict. So if you are really religious you will become schizophrenic, you will be split. All religious civilizations are split civilizations. They create neurosis, because they create inner conflict. They divide you into two, and one part of your being becomes the enemy. Then your whole energy is dissipated fighting with yourself.

Tantra is not religious in that sense, because tantra doesn’t believe in any conflict, in any violence. And tantra says don’t fight with yourself. Just be aware. Don’t be aggressive and violent with yourself. Just be a witness, a watcher. In the moment of witnessing you are neither; both the faces disappear. In that moment of witnessing you are not human. You simply are. You exist without any label. You exist without any name. You exist without any category. You are without being anyone in particular – a simple amness, a pure being. These techniques are for that pure being
By
K. Jagadeesh

Wednesday, 29 August 2018

Jagadeesh Krishnan psychologist and International Author

”திரும்பத் திரும்ப பிக் பாக்கெட் அடிச்சிட்டு ஜெயிலுக்கு வர்ரியே, நீ திருந்தவே மாட்டியா?” என்றார் ஜட்ஜ் ஜவர்லால்.

“எவ்வளவு தரம் பிக் பாக்கெட் அடிச்சாலும் அதே தண்டனையே தர்ரீங்களே, நீங்க சட்டத்தைத் திருத்த மாட்டீங்களா?” என்றான் பிக் பாக்கெட் பக்கிரி.

ஜட்ஜூக்கு சுருக்கென்றது.

பக்கிரியை ஜெயிலுக்கு அழைத்துப் போகச் சொல்லிவிட்டு ஜெயிலரைத் தனியாக அழைத்து ஏதோ பேசினார் ஜட்ஜ்.

ஜெயிலர், பிக் பாக்கெட் அடித்த பத்துப் பேரை ஒரு பிளாக்கில் வைத்தார். பக்கிரியைத் தனியாக அழைத்து சொன்னார்,

“இந்த பிளாக்கில் உனக்கு நேரப்படி சோறு கிடையாது. இந்த பிளாக்குக்கு ஒரு கேண்டீன் இருக்கிறது. செய்கிற வேலைக்கு தினமும் இருநூறு ரூபாய் கூலி. அதைக் கொண்டு போய் காசு கொடுத்துச் சாப்பிட வேண்டும். ஒரு டிஃபன் ஐம்பது ரூபாய். ஒரு சாப்பாடு நூறு ரூபாய். மிச்சம் பிடிக்கிற காசு உனக்கு”

பக்கிரி சந்தோஷமாக ஒப்புக் கொண்டான்.

ஜெயிலர் மற்ற ஒன்பது பேரைத் தனியாக அழைத்தார்.

“பக்கிரி கூலியை வாங்கிக்கிட்டு செல்லுக்குப் போகிற வழியில அவனை பிக் பாக்கெட் அடிக்கிறது உங்க வேலை. அவனுக்குத் தெரியவே கூடாது. தினம் ஒருத்தரா இந்த வேலையைச் செய்யணும், யார் எப்ப பண்றீங்கன்னு தெரியக் கூடாது. தெரிஞ்சா உங்க யாருக்கும் சோறு கிடையாது” என்றார்.

அவர்கள் இந்த தொழில் சவாலை ஏற்றார்கள்.

முதல் நாளே பக்கிரி பிக்பாக்கெட்டில் காசை விட்டான். எவ்வளவு கெஞ்சியும் அவனுக்கு இலவசமாய் டிஃபன் தரவில்லை. பசியில் அவனைத் துடிக்க விட்டு கெஞ்சோ கெஞ்சென்று கெஞ்ச விட்டு அப்புறம் துளியூண்டு சாப்பிடத் தந்தார்கள்.

அவன் சாப்பாடு கிடைக்காமல் தவிப்பதை மற்ற ஒன்பது பேரும் பார்த்துக் கொண்டிருந்தாலும் வேறு வழியில்லை. ஆட்டத்துக்கு ஒப்புக் கொள்ளா விட்டால் ஒன்பது பேர் பட்டினி! அதை விட ஒருத்தன் பட்டினி பரவாயில்லையே!

எல்லோரும் விடுதலை ஆகும் அன்று ஜட்ஜ் ஜவர்லால் வந்தார்.

“சட்டத்தையோ, தண்டனையையோ கடுமையாக மாற்றுகிற அதிகாரம் எனக்கில்லை. ஆனால் ஜெயில் வழக்கங்களை முன் அனுமதியோடு பரிட்சார்த்தமாக மாற்றும் அதிகாரம் ஜெயிலருக்கு உண்டு. உங்கள் மனப்பாங்கு இப்போது எப்படி இருக்கிறது?” என்றார்.

“ஒரு நாள் முழுக்க கஷ்டப்பட்டு சம்பாதிச்சதை ஒரு செக்கண்டில தட்டிக்கிட்டு போறது எவ்வளவு அக்கிரமம்ன்னு இப்போ புரியுது, இனி பிக்பாக்கெட் அடிக்க எனக்கு மனசு வராது” என்றான் பக்கிரி.

“பிக் பாக்கெட் கொடுத்தவன் பசியில துடிக்கிறதைப் பார்க்க சகிக்கல்லை. செத்தாலும் இனிமே பிக்பாக்கெட் அடிக்க மாட்டோம்” என்றார்கள் மற்ற ஒன்பது பேரும்.

ஜட்ஜ்  ஒரு திருக்குறள் அபிமானி. வள்ளுவர் சொன்னதைத்தான் அவர் செய்தார்.

தக்காங்கு நாடித் தலைச்செல்லா வண்ணத்தால்
ஒத்தாங்கு ஒறுப்பது வேந்து

குற்றம் செய்யப்பட்ட சூழ்நிலையை ஆராய்ந்து, குற்றவாளி மீண்டும் அத்தகைய குற்றத்தைச் செய்யாத வண்ணம் தண்டனை வழங்குகிறவன்தான் சிறந்த அரசன் ஆவான்.
By
K. Jagadeesh

Friday, 24 August 2018

Jagadeesh Krishnan psychologist and International Author

How would you compare the top 3 religions: Christianity, Islam and Hinduism?
I will just write the Gist of Christianity, Islam and Hinduism and leave the judgement to the readers.

CHRISTIANITY:

According to the Christian God Yahweh, Sin is hereditary and is passed down to all humanity, as Adam sinned by eating the apple. So God created his own Son Jesus and made his Son hang on a Cross to wash away the Sins of all humanity. But only those who believe in what Jesus did will be saved and go to Paradise, while the rest will be barbequed in Hell forever.

Christian God and his son Jesus are NOT as peaceful as is commonly believed.

Deuteronomy [2:34] God: And we captured all his cities at that time and devoted to destruction every city, men, women, and children. We left no survivors.
Isaiah [13:15-16] God: Whoever is found will be thrust through, and whoever is caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes; their houses will be plundered and their wives raped.
Matthew [10:34] Jesus: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I come not to send peace, but a sword."
Matthew [10:35–36] Jesus: I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
Also, as only Men have souls, only they can go to Paradise. This is because there is not even 1 verse about women going to Paradise. So they are just for companionship and pleasure.

ISLAM:

God is Allah. Last prophet is Muhammad. Allah wants every human to be muslim. So it orders muslims to wage JIHAD (Holy War against non-muslims) till the whole world becomes Islamic. The one who die fighting will go to Jannah and have sex with Houries forever who will always remain virgins.

Sahih Bukhari [2946]: Muhammad: " I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' and whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah, (either to punish him or to forgive him.)"
Sahih Bukhari [2785]: Narrated Abu Huraira: A man came to Allah's Messenger and said, "Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward)." He replied, "I do not find such a deed." Then he added, "Can you, while the Muslim fighter is in the battle-field, enter your mosque to perform prayers without cease and fast and never break your fast?" The man said, "But who can do that?" Abu- Huraira added, "The Mujahid (i.e. Muslim fighter) is rewarded even for the footsteps of his horse while it wanders bout (for grazing) tied in a long rope."
The Tafsir of Quran 55:72; Book of Sunan, Vol IV, Chapter 21, Hadith 2687 : These black-eyed beauties will be true virgins, ever violated “by man or jinn” (genie). And, miraculously, each of the millions of times a Muslim man in Paradise copulates with them, they will be again virgin. They will remain eternally youthful and fresh.
If the non-muslims don’t convert, they can be killed, their properties plundered, their women and children enslaved and the women used as sex-slaves. The only way out is for non-muslims is to accept subjugation and pay Jizya (religious tax).

Quran [33:26-27] Allah: And He caused you to inherit their (non-muslims) lands, and their houses, and their riches, and a land which you had not trodden (before). Some ye slew and ye made captive (enslaved) some. And Allâh is Able to do all things.
Killing, enslaving them and their women, plundering, looting and seizing everything that belongs to non-muslims is halal in Islam.

Quran [9:29] Allah: Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
Anyone who denies Muhammad is an apostate and should be killed. Women are like domestic animals and most of them are believed to go to Hell along with non-muslims and be roasted in HellFire forever.

Sahih Bukhari 1:6:301; Sahih Bukhari 7:62:124-126: Narrated Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri: Once Allah's Messenger went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) of `Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Messenger?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Messenger! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion."
Sahih Bukhari 1:9:493: Narrated 'Aisha- The things which annual prayer were mentioned before me (and those were): a dog, a donkey and a woman. I said, "You have compared us (women) to donkeys and dogs. By Allah! I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in (my) bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I disliked to sit and trouble the Prophet. So, I would slip away by the side of his feet."
Tabari, Vol IX, p.113: Women should be treated well, as they are [like] domestic animals ('awan).
HINDUISM:

God is beyond Time, Space and Causation, Infinite, Eternal, Formless, Genderless, Omnipresent, Omniscient etc. The whole Creation is a manifestation of this Parabrahm, including Gods, DemiGods, animate & inanimate beings. So everything is Divine and has the capability to attain Moksha (realize Parabrahm).

The Vishnu Purana [Book1:Ch4:p29]: Hail to thee, Spirit of the Param Atman (Supreme Spirit); to thee, soul of soul; to thee, who art discrete and indiscrete matter; who art one with the elements and with time. Thou art the creator of all things, their preserver, and their destroyer, in the forms, oh Lord, of Brahmá, Vishńu, and Rudra, at the seasons of creation, duration, and dissolution.
Bhagavad Gita [13;13-18]: Sri Krishna to Arjuna: [It is] the Supreme Brahma having no beginning, who is said to be neither existent nor non-existent; whose hands and feet are on all sides, whose eyes, heads and faces are on all sides, who dwells pervading everything in the world, who is possessed of all the qualities of the senses (though) devoid of the senses, without attachment (yet) sustaining all things, without attributes (yet) enjoying (a) all attributes, without and within all creatures, immobile and mobile, not knowable because of (his) subtlety, remote yet near, undistributed in all beings, (yet) remaining as if distributed, who is the sustainer of (all) beings, the absorber and the creator (of all); who is the light of all luminous bodies, who is said to be beyond all darkness; who is knowledge, the Object of knowledge, the End of knowledge and seated in the hearts of all.
Srimad Bhagvatam [Canto1:Ch3:26]: Maharishi Suta: The incarnations of the Lord who appeared from the ocean of goodness are as innumerable as the thousands of streams we have from inexhaustible sources of water.
Srimad Bhagvatam [Canto2:Ch6:39]: Sri Brahma: He, the Primordial Original Personality, millennium [Yuga] after millennium [Yuga] creates within Himself, by Himself, His Self [the universe] maintains Himself [for some time] and absorbs [Himself again].
Every human is governed by Karma (conduct) and Guna (qualities) and has to follow (Dharma). Good Karma gives you freedom from Rebirths and bad Karma will make you keep coming back and endure more pain and suffering until one learns the right lesson.

Dharma is explained as below:

Srimad Bhagvatam [Canto11:Ch19:33-35]: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Nonviolence, truthfulness, not coveting or stealing the property of others, detachment, humility, freedom from possessiveness, trust in the principles of religion, celibacy, silence, steadiness, forgiveness and fearlessness are the twelve primary disciplinary principles called yama.Internal cleanliness, external cleanliness, chanting the holy names of the Lord, austerity, sacrifice, faith, hospitality, worship of Me, visiting holy places, acting and desiring only for the supreme interest, satisfaction, and service to the spiritual master are the twelve elements of regular prescribed duties called niyama. These twenty-four elements bestow all desired benedictions upon those persons who devotedly cultivate them.
Mahabharata,Shanti Parva, 60:7–8: Truthfulness, to be free from anger, sharing wealth with others, forgiveness, procreation of one’s children from one’s wife alone, purity, absence of enmity, straightforwardness and maintaining persons dependant on oneself are the nine rules of Dharma of persons belonging to all the varnas.
Women should be treated better than men, as fame and fortune leaves the family where women are ill-treated.

Manusmriti 3.55. Women must be honoured and adorned by their fathers, brothers, husbands, and brothers-in-law, who desire (their own) welfare.
Manusmriti 3.56. Where women are honoured, there the gods are pleased; but where they are not honoured, no sacred rite yields rewards.
Manusmriti 3.57. Where the female relations live in grief, the family soon wholly perishes; but that family where they are not unhappy ever prospers.
By
K. Jagadeesh

Thursday, 16 August 2018

Jagadeesh Krishnan psychologist and International Author

Is it true that Kalaignar Karunanidhi is anti-Tamil in his actions?
The question is true, Karunanithi is Anti-Tamil politician.

In my point of view Former president of Singapore Lee Kuan yew did good things and support Tamil more than Karunanithi.

I also claim Mr. Lee Kuan yew as a greater leader than Karunanithi.

The reason because, Mr. Lee made the Tamil language as one of the official language in Singapore. But, Karunanithi only did a Politics on Tamil Language.

Mr. Lee made Singapore the least corrupt Country. But Karunanithi made our Tamil Nadu a highly corrupted state in India.

During Eelam war, Mr. Lee kuan supported and sided with Tamil Eelam and told that only a separate could deliver Tamils from the hold of Sinhalese hegemony. He openly condemned Mahinda Rajapaksa and stated that Tamils were the original citizens of Sri Lanka. He also justified the armed struggle of the LTTE on the ground that it was against the majority Singhalese’s attempt to wipe out the Tamils.

Did Karunanithi at least Condemn Rajapaksa who was the master player of Tamil genocide in Eelam? My point is that Why he did not even utter a single word from his mouth against Rajapaksa.

But, Power Hungry karunanithi played dirty politics during the final stage of Eelam war. No one forget that.

Also, Don't forget that during his reign, our native land of Tamil Nadu, Katchatheevu was annexed to Srilanka.

Recently, Last month, Over 2,000 Tamil Nadu fishermen were chased away by Srilankan navy personnel for allegedly fishing near Katchatheevu, also they have brutually attacked our TN fishermen. These incidents which have affected the fishermen’s livelihood.

In my point of view, He developed his family more than the Tamil Nadu. Also, Many People continuously Claiming that Tamil Nadu is the well developed state when compared to other Indian States like bihar, Uttarkhand…. Moreover, I suggest them to better compare Tamil Nadu with Kenya, Bolivia, Zimbabwe.. then only Tamil Nadu stand more higher when compared to these poor countries. Why don't you people would not compare Tamil Nadu with developed country like South Korea. Is it sin to compare with developed country?

Indeed, Tamil Nadu stand higher now because of Kamaraj perhaps not because of Karunanithi. Kamaraj laid the strong foundation for Tamil Nadu in the past. For example, in recent survey, Tamil Nadu topped 2nd place in Governance according to Public affair index 2018. Just think that the state without proper government overtake the other state, Also without held of Local body elections, Tamil Nadu topped 2nd place. This credit goes to Kamaraj.

Don't forget that it was Periyar who fought for equality and succeeded in getting reservation for backward class people. But during Karunanithi reign, Caste tensions are high and boiling over Tamil Nadu because of his caste politics.

Don't forget that it was Aringar Anna who legalized Self respect marriages for the first time in the country. It was Anna who renamed Madras state as a Tamil Nadu. It was Anna who instrumental in organizing the world tamil Conference. Also, it was Annadurai's government which introduced Two language formula Tamil and English.

So each and every credits goes to King Maker Kamaraj, Thanthai Periyar and Aringar Anna. Even Bharatha Ratna award has given to most popular leader Dr. M.G.R. But, it is not been possible to give highest civilian award Bharatha Ratna award to the most corrupted leader and 5 time CM of Tamil Nadu Karunanithi.

Finally, Karunanithi made Tamil Nadu state addicted to Alochol by opening Tasmac at everywhere,then introduced cash for votes, and made Tamil Nadu state as the most corrupted state.
By
K. Jagadeesh

Tuesday, 14 August 2018

JAGADEESH Krishnan psychologist and International Author

ஐயோ..??!! 😯😯😯😯😮😮😮😮😮😔😔😦😦

** அக்கிரமம் செய்தவன் நன்றாக இருக்கிறானே" என்று ஆண்டவன் மேல் நம்பிக்கை இழக்காதீர்கள்**

🌼இதோ அதற்கு ஓர் உதாரணம்:

🌼அந்த நாட்டு அரசன் தன் மக்கள் நலப் பணிகளைச் செயல்படுத்த மூன்று அதிகாரிகளை நியமித்து, அவர்களுக்கு வானளாவிய அதிகாரங்களையும் கொடுத்தான். ஒரு அமைச்சருக்குச் சமமான ஊதியத்தையும் அந்தஸ்தையும் வழங்கினான்.

🌼மக்கள் நலப் பணிகளில் ஊழல் நடப்பதாகப் புகார்கள் குவிந்தன. அதிகாரிகளைக் கூப்பிட்டு விசாரித்தான் மன்னன்.

🌼""ஐயோ நாங்கள் உத்தமர்கள் மன்னா! மக்களுக்காகவே தியாக வாழ்க்கை வாழ்ந்து கொண்டிருக்கிறோம்'' என்று சிந்து பாடினார்கள் அதிகாரிகள். "செய்யும் ஊழலை மிகவும் திறமையாகச் செய்திருக்கிறார்கள். இந்த மூவருமே ஊழல் பெருச்சாளிகளா அல்லது விதிவிலக்குகள் ஏதாவது இருக்கிறதா என்பதை அறிய வேண்டும்,'' என்று நினைத்தான் மன்னன். அவர்களை அனுப்பி விட்டு யோசனையில் ஆழ்ந்தான்.

🌼இரண்டு நாட்கள் கழித்து அதிகாரிகள் மீண்டும் அழைக்கப்பட்டார்கள்.

🌼""மக்கள் பணியில் இருக்கும் உங்களுக்குக் களப்பயிற்சி தரப் போகிறேன். உங்களிடம் ஒரு பெரிய சாக்கு தரப்படும். அதை எடுத்துக்கொண்டு நம் நாட்டின் எல்லைகளில் உள்ள காட்டுப் பகுதிகளுக்குச் செல்லுங்கள்.

🌼உங்களிடம் கொடுக்கப்பட்டிருக்கும் சாக்குகளை காய், கனி, கிழங்குகளால் நிரப்ப வேண்டும். அப்படி நீங்கள் நிரப்பும் பொருட்களை வைத்துக்கொண்டு ஒரு மனிதன் இரண்டு வாரம் சாப்பிட வேண்டும்.

🌼நீங்கள் கொண்டு வரும் சாக்குகளை நாங்கள் யாரும் பரிசோதிக்க மாட்டோம். அதை அப்படியே ஒரு ஏழையிடம் கொடுத்து விடுவோம். அவன் அதை உண்டு உங்களை வாழ்த்த வேண்டும்..

🌼இந்தப் பயிற்சி திட்டம் வெற்றி பெற்றால், மக்கள் நலப் பணியாளர்களை இந்தப் பணியில் அமர்த்தி மக்களின் பசி போக்கலாம்.''

🌼மறுநாள் மூவரும் வெவ்வேறு காடுகளுக்கு அனுப்பப்பட்டார்கள். காடுகளில் காய் கனி கிழங்குகளுக்குப் பஞ்சமில்லைதான்.  ஆனால், அவற்றை அலைந்து திரிந்து சேகரிக்க வேண்டியிருந்தது. மேலும் அதை சேகரிக்கும் வரை அதிகாரிகளுக்கும் காட்டில் கிடைக்கும் காய் கனிகள்தான் உணவு. மூன்று அதிகாரிகளும் அரண்மனை போன்ற வீடுகளில் சொகுசாக வாழ்ந்து பழகியவர்கள்.

🌼அதனால் அவர்களுக்கு அந்த வேலை மிகவும் கடினமாக இருந்தது.

🌼முதல் அதிகாரி நல்ல பொருட்களைச் சேகரித்தார். நாம் துன்பப்பட்டாலும் இந்தத் திட்டம் வெற்றி பெற்றால் மக்கள் பசியாறுவார்களே என்ற நினைப்பே அவருக்கு உந்து சக்தியாக இருந்தது.
சாக்குப்பையை நிரப்ப அவருக்கு மூன்று, நான்கு நாட்கள் தேவைப்பட்டது. ஆனால், உள்ளே இருந்தவை எல்லாம் தரமான பொருட்கள்.

🌼இரண்டாமவர் கொஞ்சம் குறுக்கு வழியில் யோசித்தார். பையை யாரும் சோதிக்க மாட்டார்கள் என்று மன்னரே சொல்லிவிட்டார்.  சோதித்தாலும் மேலோட்டமாகத்தான் பார்ப்பார்கள். மேலே நல்ல தரமான பொருட்களை வைத்துவிடலாம். கீழே அழுகிய பழங்கள், கொட்டைகள், என்று வைத்துவிட்டால் யாருக்கு என்ன தெரியப் போகிறது? என்று எண்ணி அப்படியே செய்த அந்த நபர், ஒரே நாளில் தன் பணியை முடித்துவிட்டார்.

🌼மூன்றாம் அதிகாரி அந்த அளவிற்குக் கூடச் சிரமப்படவில்லை.பைக்குள் என்ன இருக்கிறது என்பதை யார் பார்க்கப் போகிறார்கள் என்ற நினைப்பில் காய்ந்த இலைகளையும் சருகுகளையும் போட்டு பையை நிரப்பி அரண்மணையில் சேர்த்துவிட்டார். ஒரு நாழிகைப் பொழுதில் வேலையை முடித்துவிட்டுத் தன் மாளிகைக்குச் சென்று சுகமாக உண்டு உறங்கிவிட்டார்.

🌼மன்னன் மூன்று அதிகாரிகளையும் அழைத்தான். அவர்கள் முன்னிலையில் தன் காவலர்களுக்குக்கட்டளையிட்டான்.

🌼""இந்த மூவரையும் தனித்தனியாகப் பாதாளச் சிறையில் அடையுங்கள். அவரவருடைய சாக்குப் பைகளை அவரவரிடம் வைத்துவிடுங்கள். சிறைத்தண்டனை இரண்டு வாரங்கள் தொடரும். அந்த இரண்டு வாரங்களில் அவர்களுக்கு வேறு எந்த உணவும் வழங்க வேண்டாம். அவர்கள் சேகரித்த காய் கனி கிழங்கு வகைகள்தான் அவர்களுக்கு உணவு.''

🌼மூன்றாம் அதிகாரியால் காய்ந்த இலைகளையும் சருகுகளையும் உண்டு உயிர் வாழ முடியவில்லை. ஐந்தே நாட்களில் அவர் பசி தாங்காமல் மாண்டுவிட்டார்.

🌼இரண்டாமவரோ அழுகிய கனிகளையும் நல்ல கனிகளையும் கலந்து உண்டு எப்படியோ இரண்டு வாரங்கள் உயிர் வாழ்ந்துவிட்டார். ஆனால், அவர் உடல்நலம் கெட்டுவிட்டது. மன்னன் அவரைப் பதவியிலிருந்து நீக்கிவிட்டான்.

🌼முதலாம் அதிகாரி இரண்டு வாரங்களையும் தனிமைச் சிறையில் மகிழ்ச்சியாகக் கழித்துவிட்டு வெளியே வந்தார். தான் சேகரித்த தரமான காய் கனி கிழங்குகளை உண்டு இன்னும் அதிகமான தெளிவுடன் வெளியே வந்தார்.

🌼மன்னன் அவனுக்குப் பல பரிசுகளைக் கொடுத்து அவனை முதலமைச்சர் ஆக்கிக் கொண்டான்.

🌼இந்தக் கதையில் உள்ள வாழ்வியல் தத்துவத்தை நச்சென்று விளக்குகிறது மகாபாரதத்தில் வரும் ஒரு ஸ்லோகம்.. அதன் உட்பொருள் இதுதான்.

🌼ஒரு இடத்தில் ஆயிரம் பசுக்கள் இருக்கின்றன. தன் தாயைத் தேடி வரும் ஒரு கன்று அந்த ஆயிரம் பசுக்களில் தன் தாயைச் சில நொடிகளில் கண்டுபிடித்து அதனிடம் போய்ச் சேர்ந்து விடுகிறது.

🌼அதேபோல், ஒருவன் செய்யும் வினையின் பயனானது அவன் எங்கிருந்தாலும் அவனைக் கண்டுபிடித்து அவனைச் சென்றடைந்துவிடும்.'' வினையை விதைத்து விட்டு அறுவடைக் காலத்தில் சாமர்த்தியமாக வெளியூர் சென்று விட்டாலும் வினையிடமிருந்து தப்ப முடியாது.

🌼வினையை விதைத்தால் வினையை அறுவடை செய்தேயாக வேண்டும். உப்பைத் தின்றவன் தண்ணீர் குடித்தேயாக வேண்டும்.

🌼நாம் அனைவரும் நன்மை செய்கிறோமா, தீமை செய்கிறோமா என்று இறைவன் கண்காணிப்புக் கேமரா வைத்துக் கொண்டு பார்ப்பதில்லை. நீங்கள் என்ன வேண்டுமானாலும் செய்து கொள்ளுங்கள் என்று நமக்குப் பூரண சுதந்திரத்தைக் கொடுத்துவிட்டான். ஆனால் உங்கள் செயலின் பலனை நீங்கள்தான் அனுபவிக்க வேண்டும் என்ற நியதியையும் அழுத்தமாக வைத்துவிட்டான்.

🌼நீங்கள் உங்கள் பையில் நல்ல பழங்களைப் போடுகிறீர்களா..  இல்லை.. சருகுகளையும் அழுகிய பழங்களையும் போடுகிறீர்களா என்று யாருமே கண்காணிப்பது இல்லை.. ஆனால் நீங்கள் சேகரித்ததை நீங்கள் தான் சாப்பிட வேண்டும் என்பதை மட்டும் மறந்து விடாதீர்கள்.

🌼"ஐயோ அக்கிரமம் செய்தவன் நன்றாக இருக்கிறானே' என்று ஆண்டவன் மேல் நம்பிக்கை இழக்காதீர்கள். அக்கிரமம் செய்பவன் இப்போது தான் காய்ந்த சருகுகளையும் அழுகிய பழங்களையும் தன் பைக்குள் போட்டுக் கொண்டிருக்கிறான்.

🌼விரைவில் தனிமைச் சிறையில் அவற்றை உண்ண வேண்டிய காலம் வரும். அப்போது அவனுக்குப் பசியும் மரணமுமே பரிசாகக் கிடைக்கும்.

🌼இது மனிதன் இயற்றிய சட்டம் இல்லை; இறைவன் வகுத்த நியதி. இதற்கு விதிவிலக்கு இல்லை
By
K. JAGADEESH

Saturday, 11 August 2018

Jagadeesh Krishnan psychologist and International Author

Question 1:

BELOVED JAGADEESH

OF MY MANY FEARS, THE ONE OF WHICH I AM MOST AWARE IS THAT OF
INTIMACY. I AM LIKE A HIT AND RUN DRIVER IN MY RELATIONSHIPS WITH
PEOPLE. COULD YOU SPEAK TO ME OF MY FEAR OF INTIMACY?

Ramaprem, everybody is afraid of intimacy. It is another thing whether you are aware of it or not. Intimacy means exposing yourself before a stranger. We are all strangers -- nobody knows anybody. We are even strangers to ourselves, because we don't know who we are.

Intimacy brings you close to a stranger. You have to drop all your defenses; only then, intimacy is possible. And the fear is that if you drop all your defenses, all your masks, who knows what the stranger is going to do with you?

We are all hiding a thousand and one things -- not only from others but from ourselves -- because we have been brought up by a sick humanity with all kinds of repressions, inhibitions, taboos. And the fear is that with somebody who is a stranger -- and it does not matter, you may have lived with the person for thirty years, forty years; the strangeness never disappears -- it feels safer to keep a little defense, a little distance, because somebody can take advantage of your weaknesses, of your frailties, of your vulnerability.

Everybody is afraid of intimacy.

The problem becomes more complicated because everybody wants intimacy. Everybody wants intimacy because otherwise you are alone in this universe -- without a friend, without a lover, without anybody you can trust, without anybody to whom you can open all your wounds. And the wounds cannot heal unless they are open. The more you hide them, the more dangerous they become. They can become cancerous.

Intimacy is an essential need on the one hand, so everybody longs for it. But he wants the other person to be intimate, so that the other person drops his defenses, becomes vulnerable, opens all his wounds, drops all his masks and false personality, stands naked as he is. And on the other hand, everybody is afraid of intimacy -- with the other person you want to be intimate with, you are not dropping your defenses.

This is one of the conflicts between friends, between lovers: nobody wants to drop his defenses and nobody wants to come in utter nudity and sincerity, open -- and both need intimacy.

Unless you drop all your repressions, inhibitions -- which are the gifts of your religions, your cultures, your societies, your parents, your education -- you will never be able to be intimate with someone.

And you will have to take the initiative.

But if you don't have any repressions, any inhibitions, you don't have any wounds either. If you have lived a simple, natural life, there will be no fear of intimacy, but tremendous joy -- of two flames coming so close that they become almost one flame. And the meeting is tremendously gratifying, satisfying, fulfilling. But before you can attempt intimacy, you have to clean your house completely.

Only a man of meditation can allow intimacy to happen.

He has nothing to hide.

All that was making him afraid that somebody may know, he himself has dropped. He has only a silence and a loving heart.

You have to accept yourself in your totality -- if you cannot accept yourself in your totality, how can you expect somebody else to accept you? And you have been condemned by everybody, and you have learned only one thing: self-condemnation.

You go on hiding it. It is not something beautiful to show to others, you know ugly things are hidden in you; you know evil things are hidden in you; you know animality is hidden in you. Unless you transform your attitude and accept yourself as one of the animals in existence... The word "animal" is not bad. It simply means alive; it comes from anima.

Whoever is alive, is an animal.

But man has been taught, "You are not animals, animals are far below you. You are human beings." You have been given a false superiority. The truth is, existence does not believe in the superior and the inferior. To existence, everything is equal -- the trees, the birds, the animals, the human beings. In existence, everything is absolutely accepted as it is; there is no condemnation.

If you accept your sexuality without any conditions, if you accept that man and every being in the world is fragile... life is a very thin thread which can break down any moment. Once this is accepted, and you drop false egos -- of being Alexander the Great, Mohammed Ali the thrice great -- if you simply understand that everybody is beautiful in his ordinariness and everyone has weaknesses... They are part of human nature because you are not made of steel.

You are made of a very fragile body. The span of your life is between ninety-eight degrees temperature and one hundred and ten degrees temperature: just twelve degrees of temperature is your whole span of life. Fall below it, and you are dead; go beyond it and you are dead. And the same applies to a thousand and one things in you.

One of your most basic needs is to be needed. But nobody wants to accept it, that "It is my basic need to be needed, to be loved, to be accepted." We are living in such pretensions, such hypocrisies -- that is the reason why intimacy creates fear.

You are not what you appear to be. Your appearance is false. You may appear to be a saint but deep down, you are still a weak human being with all the desires and all the longings.

The first step is to accept yourself in your totality, in spite of all your traditions, which have driven the whole of humanity insane. Once you have accepted yourself as you are, the fear of intimacy will disappear. You cannot lose respect, you cannot lose your greatness, you cannot lose your ego. You cannot lose your piousness, you cannot lose your saintliness -- you have dropped all that yourself. You are just like a small child, utterly innocent. You can open

Who is preventing you? Join the dance!

yourself because inside, you are not filled with ugly repressions which have become perversions.

You can say everything that you feel authentically and sincerely. And if you are ready to be intimate, you will encourage the other person also to be intimate. Your openness will help the other person also to be open to you. Your unpretentious simplicity will allow the other also to enjoy simplicity, innocence, trust, love, openness.

You are encaged with stupid concepts, and the fear is, if you become very intimate with somebody, he will become aware of it.

But we are fragile beings -- the most fragile in the whole existence. The human child is the most fragile child of all the animals. The children of other animals can survive without the mother, without the father, without a family. But the human child will die immediately. So this frailty is not something to be condemned -- it is the highest expression of consciousness.

A roseflower is going to be fragile; it is not a stone. And there is no need to feel bad about it, that you are a roseflower and not a stone.

Only when two persons become intimate are they no longer strangers. And it is a beautiful experience to find that not only you are full of weaknesses but the other, too... perhaps everybody is full of weaknesses.

The higher expression of anything becomes weaker. The roots are very strong, but the flower cannot be so strong. Its beauty is because of its not being strong. In the morning it opens its petals to welcome the sun, dances the whole day in the wind, in the rain, in the sun, and by the evening its petals have started falling. It is gone. Everything that is beautiful, precious, is going to be very momentary.

But you want everything to be permanent. You love someone and you promise that "I will love you my whole life." And you know perfectly well that you cannot be even certain of tomorrow -- you are giving a false promise. All that you can say is, "I am in love with you this moment and I will give my totality to you. About the next moment, I know nothing. How can I promise? You have to forgive me."

But lovers are promising all kinds of things which they cannot fulfill. Then frustration comes in, then the distance grows bigger, then fight, conflict, struggle, and a life that was meant to become happier becomes just a long, drawn out misery.

Ramaprem, it is good that you are aware of your greatest fear, that it is of intimacy. It can become a great revelation to you, and a revolution, if you look inwards and start dropping everything of which you feel ashamed. And accept your nature as it is, not as it should be. I do not teach any "should." All shoulds make human mind sick.

People should be taught the beauty of isness, the tremendous splendor of nature. These trees don't know any ten commandments, the birds don't know any holy scriptures. It is only man who has created a problem for himself.

Condemning your own nature, you become split, you become schizophrenic -- and not just ordinary people, but people of the status of Sigmund Freud, who contributed greatly to humanity, about mind.

His method was psychoanalysis, that you should be made aware of all that is unconscious in you. And this is a secret, that once something unconscious is brought to the conscious mind, it evaporates.

You become cleaner, lighter. As more and more unconscious is unburdened, your consciousness goes on becoming bigger. And as the area of the unconscious shrinks, the territory of the consciousness expands.

That is an immense truth.

Who is preventing you? Join the dance!

The East has known it for thousands of years, but to the West, Sigmund Freud introduced it -- not knowing anything of the East and its psychology; it was his individual contribution.

But you will be surprised: he was never ready to be psychoanalyzed himself. The founder of psychoanalysis was never psychoanalyzed.

His colleagues insisted again and again: "The method that you have given to us -- and we all have been psychoanalyzed -- why are you insisting that you should not be psychoanalyzed?"

He said, "Forget about it." He was afraid to expose himself. He had become a great genius and exposing himself would bring him down to ordinary humanity. He had the same fears, the same desires, the same repressions.

He never talked about his dreams; he only listened to other people's dreams. And his colleagues were very much surprised -- "It will be a great contribution to know about your dreams" -- but he never agreed to lie down on the psychoanalyst's couch and talk about his dreams. Because his dreams were as ordinary as anybody else's -- that was the fear.

A Gautam Buddha would not have feared to go into meditation. That was his contribution -- a special kind of meditation. And he would not have been afraid of any psychoanalysis, because for the man who meditates, by and by all his dreams disappear. In the day he remains silent in his mind, not the ordinary traffic of thoughts. And in the night he sleeps deeply, because dreams are nothing but unlived thoughts, unlived desires, unlived longings in the day.

They are trying to complete themselves, at least in dreams.

It will be very difficult for you to find a man who dreams about his wife, or a woman who dreams about her husband. But it will be absolutely common that they dream about their neighbors' wives and their neighbors' husbands. The wife is available, he is not suppressing anything as far as his wife is concerned. But the neighbor's wife is always more beautiful; the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. And that which is unapproachable creates a deep desire to acquire it, to possess it. In the day you cannot do it, but in dreams at least, you are free. Freedom of dreaming has not yet been taken away by the governments.

It won't be long -- soon they will take it away, because methods are available, already available, so that they can watch when you are dreaming and when you are not dreaming. And there is a possibility some day to find a scientific device so that your dream can be projected on a screen. Just some electrodes will have to be inserted in your head. You will be fast asleep, dreaming joyously, making love to your neighbor's wife and a whole movie hall will be watching it -- and they used to think that this man is a saint!

This much you can even see; whenever a person is asleep, watch: if his eyelids are not showing any movement of his eyes inside, then he is not dreaming. If he is dreaming then you can see that his eyes are moving.

It is possible to project your dream on a screen. It is also possible to enforce certain dreaming in you. But at least up to now, no constitution even talks about it, that "People are free to dream, it is their birthright."

A Gautam Buddha does not dream. Meditation is a way to go beyond mind. He lives in utter silence twenty-four hours -- no ripples on the lake of his consciousness, no thoughts, no dreams.

But Sigmund Freud is afraid because he knows what he is dreaming.

Who is preventing you? Join the dance!

I have heard about one actual incident. Three great Russian novelists -- Chekhov, Gorky and Tolstoy -- were just sitting on a bench in a park and gossiping... and they were great friends. All were geniuses; all created such great novels that even today, if you want to count ten great novels of the world, at least five will be from the Russian novelists -- before the revolution. After the revolution, they have not created a single novel which has the quality of genius. Now, it is under government instruction. The government is the only publisher; the government scrutinizes, and the people who scrutinize know nothing of art. They are bureaucrats.

The police commissioner was just asking that before my lectures are published, he should scrutinize them -- and what does a police commissioner have to do with meditation?

-- but that is happening in Russia, and because of that, in seventy years' time after the revolution, they have not been able to produce a single great novel. But before the revolution, Russia was at the top in creativity. These three people are still to be counted as great novelists.

Chekhov was telling about the women in his life. Gorky joined; he also said a few things.

But Tolstoy remained silent. Tolstoy was a very orthodox religious Christian... you will be surprised to know that Mahatma Gandhi in India has accepted three persons as his masters, and one was Tolstoy.

And he must have been repressing so much... he was one of the richest men in Russia -- he belonged to the royal family -- but he lived like a poor beggar, because "blessed are the poor and they shall inherit the kingdom of God," and he was not willing to give up the kingdom of God. It is not simplicity, and it is not desirelessness -- it is too much desire. It is too much greed, it is too much instinct for power. He is sacrificing this life and its joys because it is a small life... and then for eternity he will enjoy paradise and the kingdom of God. It is a good bargain, almost like a lottery, and certain.

He was living a very celibate life, eating only vegetarian food... he was almost a saint.

Naturally, his dreams must have been very ugly, his thoughts must have been very ugly, and when Chekhov and Gorky asked him, "Tolstoy, why are you silent? Say something!" he said, "I cannot say anything about women. I will say something only when one foot is in the grave. I will say it, and jump into the grave."

You can understand why he was so much afraid of saying anything -- it was boiling within him. Now, you cannot be very intimate with a man like Tolstoy.

Intimacy simply means that the doors of the heart are open for you, you are welcome to come in and be a guest. But that is possible only if you have a heart which is not stinking with repressed sexuality, which is not boiling with all kinds of perversions, which is natural -- as natural as trees, as innocent as children. Then there is no fear of intimacy.

That's what I am trying to do: to help you unburden your unconscious, unburden your mind, to become ordinary. There is nothing more beautiful than to be just simple and ordinary.

Then you can have as many intimate friends, as many intimate relationships as possible, because you are not afraid of anything. You become an open book -- anybody can read. There is nothing to hide.

Every year, a hunting club went up into the Montana hills. The members drew straws to decide who would handle the cooking and also agreed that anyone complaining about the food would automatically replace the unlucky cook.

Who is preventing you? Join the dance!

Realizing after a few days that no one was likely to risk speaking up, Sanderson decided on a desperate plan.

He found some moose droppings and added two handfuls to the stew that night. There were grimaces around the campfire after the first few mouthfuls, but nobody said anything.

Then one member suddenly broke the silence. "Hey," he exclaimed, "This stuff tastes like moose shit -- but good!" He is not complaining. In fact, he is appreciating!

You have so many faces. Inside, you think one thing; outside, you express something else.

You are not one, organic whole.

Relax and destroy the split that society has created in you. Say only that which you mean.

Act according to your own spontaneity, never bothering about consequences. It is a small life and it should not be spoiled in thinking about consequences here and hereafter.

One should live totally, intensely, joyously and just like an open book, available for anybody to read it. Of course you will not make a name in the history books. But what is the point in making a name in the history books?

Live, rather than think of being remembered. You will be dead.

Millions of people have lived on the earth and we don't know even their names. Accept that simple fact: that you are here for only a few days and then you will be gone. These few days are not to be wasted in hypocrisy, in fear. These days have to be rejoiced.

Nobody knows anything about the future. Your heaven and your hell and your God are most probably all hypotheses, unproved. The only thing that is in your hands is your life -- make it as rich as possible.

By intimacy, by love, by opening yourself to many people, you become richer. And if you can live in deep love, in deep friendship, in deep intimacy, with many people, you have lived rightly, and wherever you happen to be... you have learned the art; you will be living there, too, happily.

I am reminded of one English philosopher, Edmund Burke. He was very friendly with the archbishop of England. Whenever Edmund Burke used to deliver a talk in the university, the archbishop used to come and listen to him. It was worth listening -- each of his statements was coming with his wholeness, with great authority.

But he never went to listen to the archbishop on Sunday in the church. The archbishop said, "At least you should come one time. I always come to listen to you."

Edmund Burke said, "You come to listen to me because whatever you know is not your knowledge -- it is all borrowed, and you are not certain of it. Whatever I say is my experience, and I give every evidence and proof and argument for it. I can stake my life for my statements.

You are just a parrot. But because you have asked, I will come next Sunday."

So the archbishop prepared a really beautiful sermon, thinking that Edmund Burke will be present, so the sermon has to be as great as he can make it. But he was surprised. Edmund Burke was sitting in the first row but there was no emotion on his face. He could not judge whether he liked it, disliked it, agreed with it, or disagreed with it. He was very much puzzled.

As the sermon ended, Edmund Burke stood up and he said, "I have a question to ask, a very simple question. Your whole sermon was, in a condensed form, that the people who live a virtuous life according to your Christian ideology, and believe in Jesus Christ, will go to

Who is preventing you? Join the dance!

heaven after this life. Those who do not believe in Jesus Christ and live the life of a sinner, will fall into eternal hell after this life.

"My question is," said Edmund Burke, "that if a person is virtuous but does not believe in Jesus Christ, what will happen? He is good. His life is a life to be praised but he does not believe in Jesus Christ -- where is he going to be? Or, a man who believes in Jesus Christ but is a great sinner -- where is he going to be? You missed mentioning two very important points; your sermon was half. And I was waiting to see whether you were aware of these two possibilities or not."

The archbishop thought for a moment -- the question was really dangerous. If he says the good people are going to heaven whether they believe in Jesus Christ or not, then Jesus Christ and the belief in him become superfluous, non-essential. And if he says those who believe in Jesus Christ -- even if they are sinners -- will go to heaven, then sin is being approved by the church itself.

He was in a very muddled situation. He said, "Your question needs some time for me to think it over. Just give me seven days. Next Sunday, I will answer it."

For seven days, he tried all the scriptures, tried this way and that way, but... the question was simple... and he was caught in a dilemma. He could not sleep those seven days, because how is he going to face Edmund Burke and his congregation? And whatever he says seems to be wrong: either it goes against Jesus Christ or it goes against a virtuous life. He repented that he ever invited that fellow to come to the church!

He went early in the morning to the church, before the congregation came. He still did not have any answer. He thought, "In the early morning, when there is nobody in the church, I will pray to Christ himself to just show me the light, give me the answer. Because not only my prestige is at stake, his prestige is also at stake."

Seven days, continuously worrying, not sleeping... he was bowing down before the statue of Jesus Christ. He fell asleep, and he saw a dream. Naturally, because for seven days only one thing had been in his mind, the dream was also connected with it.

He saw himself sitting in a train, and he asked, "Where are we going?" Somebody said, "This train is going to heaven." He had a great relaxation, and he said, "That's perfectly good.

Perhaps this is Jesus Christ's doing, so that you can see for yourself who goes to paradise and who does not go."

As he reached the station of paradise, he could not believe -- it looked so rotten. He entered inside paradise. The people he met were almost corpses, walking. He recognized a few saints and he asked them, "I want to ask one question: where is Gautam Buddha? because he never believed in Jesus Christ or in God, but he was one of the most moral men you can conceive of."

The saint said, "He is not here."

"Socrates? He was also not a believer in any god, but was a man of great virtue."

"He is also not here."

And he said, "Why does this whole paradise look like a ruin? And saints look like the dead; there seems to be no joy. I used to think that angels go on singing with their harps. I don't see any angels, any harps, any song, any dance -- just a few dull and dead saints are sitting under the trees."

Who is preventing you? Join the dance!

And whoever he asked, said: "Don't bother us. We are tired."

Just an idea came into his mind at that moment that perhaps there is a train going to hell, also. So he rushed back to the station, and the train was standing at the platform, ready to leave for hell. He entered the train, and as the hell started coming closer, he was even more puzzled. The wind was fragrant with flowers. There was so much greenery, lush green. The station was so beautiful -- he had never thought that a station could be so beautiful. And people looked so happy, so joyous. He said, "My god, is there something wrong or what?"

He enquired, "Is this really hell?"

They said, "It used to be. Before Gautam Buddha, Socrates, Epicurus, Mahavira, Lao Tzu, people like these came here, it used to be hell. But now they have transformed the whole place."

He entered hell and he could not believe -- it was sheer joy! The very air was full of blissfulness. And there was dancing and there was singing, and he asked somebody, "Where is Gautam Buddha?"

They said, "Do you see in the garden, he is watering the roses."

"And where is Socrates?"

And they said, "Socrates is working in the field."

"Where is Epicurus?"

They said, "He just passed by you. The man who was dancing and playing on the guitar was Epicurus."

At that very moment, the shock was too much -- he woke up. He said, "My god! What a dream!"

And people had started arriving -- particularly, Edmund Burke who was sitting in the front seat already, waiting for the answer.

The poor archbishop said, "I have not been able to find the answer. But I have seen a dream which I will describe to you, and you can conclude the answer from the dream."

He described the dream. Edmund Burke said, "Now you conclude also! The conclusion is clear: that wherever good people are, there is paradise. It is not that good people go to paradise -- wherever good people are, it becomes paradise. And wherever stupid people and idiots are -- they may be great believers in God and Jesus Christ and the HOLY BIBLE, it does not matter -- even paradise becomes a ruin. It becomes a hell."

I have loved this incident very much because this is my approach, too. If you are simple, loving, open, intimate, you create a paradise around you. If you are closed, constantly on the defensive, always worried that somebody may come to know your thoughts, your dreams, your perversions -- you are living in hell.

Hell is within you and so is paradise.

They are not geographical places.

They are your spiritual spaces. Ramaprem, cleanse yourself. And meditation is nothing but a cleaning of all the rubbish that has gathered in your mind. When the mind is silent and the heart is singing... just listen to these birds.

Who is preventing you? Join the dance!

You will be ready, without any fear but with great joy, to be intimate. And without intimacy, you are alone here amongst strangers. With intimacy you are surrounded by friends, by people who love you. Intimacy is a great experience. One should not miss it.

But before you can become unafraid of intimacy, you have to be totally clean of all the garbage that religions have been pouring into you, all the crap that for centuries has been handed over to you. Be finished with it all, and live a life of peace, silence, joy, song and dance. And you will transform... wherever you are, the place will become paradise.
By
K. JAGADEESH

Thursday, 9 August 2018

Jagadeesh Krishnan psychologist and International Author

What are the major differences between Tamil and Hindi languages?
Sorry for the length, the answer is a bit lengthy.

Antiquity:

Tamil: More than 8000 years of history.
Hindi: Born in 19th century for political reasons. Just 200 years of history. The name ‘Hindi’ itself is an Arabic word, which means ‘Indian’. It can be easily renamed as ‘Nagari Urdu’ (Urdu written in Nagari script.)
Literature:

Tamil: Millions and millions of written books, poems, songs, dramas, street plays, and in the modern times, films. The literature has touched every aspect of human life. The writings in Tamil are neutral in their nature; i.e. no patriarchal, no feminism. In Tamil, you find no literature or poems written to praise the foreign invaders.
Hindi: The written literature in Hindi (whatever is available) does not discuss anything much beyond love, females, wine, and marriages, and the writings are patriarchal in nature. Most of the literature praises the invaders. and poems were composed to please the Persian, Turkish and Afghan Kings.
Individuality

Tamil: The quality and character of Tamil distinguishes it from other languages. You can’t say Tamil-Telugu or Tamil-Kannada or Tamil-anything because Tamil is distinctly different than other languages.
Hindi: Hindi is often referred to as Hindi-Urdu or Hindusthani as it can’t be separated from Urdu. The uniqueness of Hindi is that it cannot distinguish itself from its’ own dialects.
Official Status in the past:

Tamil: In the past, Tamil has always enjoyed the status of official language in the Courts of various Indian Kings. Many Indian royal kingdoms (Cholas, Cheras, Pandyas and many others) officially worked in Tamil, and used Tamil for official communications.
Hindi: In the past, Hindi has never enjoyed the status of official language. The areas where Hindi is spoken today were always ruled by foreigner invaders, and their official language was Persian. That way, Hindi has always been looked down by the Moguls as well.
Purity:

Tamil: In Tamil, you can easily express any idea or concept without using any loanwords from any other languages in the world. You can easily avoid using loanwords, and still even a layman will totally understand what you are saying. That way, Tamil is high class pure language.
Hindi: Even Hindi scholars don’t call it a pure language. The entire vocabulary of Hindi is based only upon loanwords from Persian and Arabic. If you consciously remove these loanwords, Hindi loses its expression. If you replace the Persian, Turkish and Arabic loanwords with Sanskrit and Prakrit (desi) words, then even a Hindi speaker cannot understand Hindi. That way, Hindi is often called as a fallen language by Hindi scholars themselves!
Inter-Learning:

Tamil: Tamil speakers can learn Hindi easily. There are many Tamilians who are well versed in Hindi as well. Subramaniam Swamy, Hema Malini, Sridevi, are the examples. Many Tamil artistes have worked in the Hindi film industry, and have dubbed for their own selves.
Hindi: It takes HUGE efforts for Hindi speakers to learn Tamil. Unless they’re born / brought up in Tamil Nadu, (like Rangaraj Pandey) and unless they put tremendous efforts, they can’t manage learning it in their entire lifetime. Many Hindi actresses have worked in Tamil films but they’ve often recruited dubbing artistes because they can’t dub in Tamil for themselves.
General Knowledge:

Tamil: Even if many Tamilians do not know how to speak in Hindi, still they usually know that there exists some language called Hindi. Tamilians can easily make out the difference in between Marathi, Gujarati and Hindi languages, just with a little effort.
Hindi: Hindi speakers in general can’t even differentiate in between Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam and Marathi. (Yes, Marathi too! One Hindi person had once asked me if ‘Sairaat’ was a Tamil movie!! In fact it is a Marathi movie!!! But it seems for the Hindi speakers, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam and Marathi are the same!!!!)
History:

Tamil: Tamil students study the indigenous history of their own kings like Chola, Chera, Pandya etc. because it is very well documented in Tamil language. They also have a fair knowledge of the history of invasions and rule upon the Hindi belt.
Hindi: Hindi students have no option but to study the history of their invaders: the Arabs, and the Persian, Turkish and Afghan Kings. Unfortunately our education system is such, that the Hindi students do not get to know even an iota of the lively history of South India.
Update 01:

Script:

Tamil: Tamil has its’ own script called Tamil script.
Hindi: Hindi has adopted Devanagari script in circa 1930s. Before that Hindi used to be written in a modified version of the Pero-Arabic script called Hindustani script. (Now that script is called as ‘Urdu’ script.) Mahatma Gandhi and several other leaders advocated the adoption of Urdu script but one man called Purushottam Das Tondon insisted on the usage of Devanagari script and the rejection of the Urdu script. Tondon was introduced to the Devanagari script by the Deshastha Marathas. Devanagari was taken to the Northern India by the royal Marathas. That is how Purushottam Das Tondon came to know about it.
Linguistic Relativity Theory: (The hypothesis of linguistic relativity holds that the structure of a language affects its speakers' world view or cognition.)

Tamil: A large number of Tamil population is more process oriented. You can see this in all walks of life. Put same goals before Tamil and Hindi speakers, and you’ll notice that generally the Tamil speakers adhere to the procedures to achieve the goal. (This is a only a general observation and there may be exceptions.)
Hindi: A large number of Hindi population is more result oriented. You can see this in all walks of life. Put same goals before Hindi and Tamil speakers, and you’ll notice that generally the Hindi speakers will tend to do twist (they call it ‘jugaad’) the procedures in order to achieve the goal. (This is a only a general observation and there may be exceptions.)
Content Consumption:

Tamil: Tamil films, songs, books, and all forms of arts; in short; Tamil content is loved by Tamil people all over in India. Tamil content is also liked by Telugu, Malayalam, Kannada, Marathi and some Odia speakers too. (Hindi people also like Tamil content, that’s why we have TV channels dedicated to dubbing Tamil films in Hindi!) In other countries, Tamil content is loved in China, Japan, Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Germany, UK, USA, and many other countries. And I am also counting the non-Tamilians here.
Hindi: Hindi films, songs, and other forms of arts are loved by Hindi people in India, UK, USA, and many other countries. Not many Hindi movies are dubbed in Tamil, although a good number of Hindi movies have been remade in Tamil with small changes. When you count the non-Hindi people, Hindi content has a huge fan following in the countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bangladesh etc. After independence, Hindi books are now printed in Devanagari script, and therefore the books may not be popular in all these countries.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER:-

A few commenters have asked if I hate Hindi / Hindi speaking population. Some commenters have concluded that I do hate Hindi/Hindi speakers. No dears, I don’t hate Hindi/Hindi speakers. Why would I? In fact I have utmost respect for Hindi speaking people and I love Hindi and Hindi speakers.

Can you imagine how a great grandfather feels looking at his great grandson? It is sheer joy watching youngsters grow. I get that joy watching Hindi. And well, Hindi can also become 8000 years old in the future after several thousands of years, no? :)

Secondly, I am not a Tamil fanatic. I know both Tamil and Hindi very well (speak / read / write / express scholarly thoughts) therefore I feel comfortable in doing this analysis. You can understand the analysis only if you know both the languages very well, not otherwise.
By
K. JAGADEESH