Action or contemplation - which is better?

It's not unknown for many of us, engaged in the daily hustle-bustle of life's responsibilities, to get hassled beyond a point, every once in a while.  At such moments is it alright, for a conscientious believer in the value of relentless work and discharge of responsibilities (we're not counting the conscientious shirkers here!), to drop whatever they're doing and rush to the comforting arms of whatever be their inner sanctuary (whether reading or meditation or whatever)?  That's a question which has probably plagued a lot of people since long.

The guidance provided by the usual sources seems equivocal at such times (but is not: read on...).  For instance, Bhagvad Gita, the great Indian holy book, seems to place equal importance, among others, on Karma Yoga (the value of work, of the nishkama karma or 'work without demanding returns' variety) and Bhakti Yoga (devotion).

Say, you're engaged in some mundane work (maybe signing a few cheques, or cooking dinner), but something which is bound to be of some benefit to someone (maybe settlement of dues to a former employee? or providing nourishment to the family), when suddenly you feel like you're at the end of your tether.  You long to stop the 'productive' work and have a few minutes (hours?) of quiet contemplation, probably with some reading of/listening to your favourite peace-inducing material.  But here's the dilemma: at what point does it become justifiable (quite apart from the disciplinary and 'paying your dues' aspect, if the mood hits you while at office!) to 'take a break', and for how long?

In this respect, probably a better source of guidance could be the life experiences of our past masters.  Swami Vivekananda, of the World Congress of Religions fame (and the foremost disciple of Ramakrishna Paramhansa, the 19th century sage of Bengal), is believed to have said something to the effect that 'if you can't do anything, steal, for work is above everything' (now, now, don't try this at home...!).  Many seekers have found the value of work through their personal experiences with both a 'no-work' and 'happily engaged in work' situations.

On balance, it seems that the value of work in our life is paramount.  After all, you could say that we were probably put on this earth to be of some use!  The least we could do is to 'pay our dues' to mother Earth and rightfully 'earn our living' (beyond the usual material sense).  Even in this, the best kind of work could be the one carried out without any longing for the fruits thereof (I know, I know, easy to preach...) - now we are back to the core teaching of Bhagvad Gita!.  This kind of work/service seems to have the potential to free us of the cycle of desire, fulfillment (including ego fulfillment) and more desire (as someone rightly said, our needs are limited but our wants are unlimited).  But of course this is an inner journey which each one of us has to travel in our own way...

The title of a movie made on the life of Ramakrishna Paramhansa was 'Joto Mot Toto Path', loosely translated as 'That many paths, as many views/faiths'.  So as long as our chosen path leads us to the ultimate objective of selflessness...

The culture of 'Jugaarh'

A recent article in New York Times described how entrepreneurs in the city of Gurgaon, near the Indian capital city of Delhi, had risen to the challenges faced due to the utter lack of basic infrastructural facilities.

While presenting a balanced and realistic picture, one interesting aspect in the article was that it seemed to eulogize and romanticize, in tune with the growing tendency across India and the World, something called jugaarh, the ability of people in India to rise above their circumstances using any means available. This is lately becoming a subject of case studies across campuses, here and abroad! 

What this romanticization may be doing (among other effects) is: (

a) Absolve/let off the Government of its primary duty to provide and maintain essential services like roads, water, power, minimum nutrition and law & order; and (more damagingly perhaps) (b) encourage an unhealthy lack of respect for law, the manifestations of which we can see in everyday life in the form of traffic mess (nobody seems to minds the traffic policemen, many of them prone to bribes), infractions of laws & regulations (see the massive 2G telecom spectrum scam still unraveling), people taking the law in their own hands (look at the 'khaap panchayats' - village-level kangaroo courts), and myriad other things. 


Publicly, we all like to criticize these things.  But at pesonal level, we indulge in the same unhealthy practices whenever faced with the slightest bit of discomfort - paying bribes when required, throwing our garbage outside in the open, taking a 'wrong side short cut' (against oncoming traffic!) when faced with traffic jams. 


As a first step, for India to reach the 'tipping point' of graduating into a 'wholesome' democracy, it first has to put in order its delivery of the minimum basic infrastructure and services to all citizens.  Without this, the differences between the haves and have-nots (both in terms of facilities & wealth, and the means to break the law with impunity!) may only get accentuated, reflecting in the rising tide of more of the types of 'class clashes' and individual crimes we're witnessing today.

Geeta, 'bhakti' & psalms

A dear friend shared some psalms she listened to at a Sunday sermon (Scientology church?).  As she rightly remarked, it's amazing how all religions lead to the same theology and God.  Read on...

There is no life, truth, intelligence, nor substance in matter.  All is infinite Mind and its infinite manifestation, for God is All-in-all.  Spirit is immortal Truth; matter is mortal error.  Spirit is the real and eternal; matter is unreal and temporary.  Spirit is God, and man is His image and likeness.  Therefore man is not material, he is spiritual.
- Shades of the essence of Bhagvad Gita, and of the ancient Indian concept that this world is but a dream (Maya) of God.

Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.  Fear thou not, for I am with thee; be not dismayed, for I am thy God; yea, I will help thee.


And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not; for I came not to judge the world, but to save the World.
- Striking resonance with the chapter in Geeta where Arjun asks about the fate of those who, having started on the spiritual journey, 'fall' from their belief and are not able to carry on; and Krishna replies that even they are not 'doomed', since anyone who has an iota of spiritual yearning will 'get there', sooner or later.  This view of the cyclical interplay of good and evil resonates throughout Indian epics, like Ramayana and Mahabharata.


I have glorified thee on earth: I have finished the work thou gavest me to do.
- The ultimate purpose of our life.  There may be quite a few different approaches to this purpose of the soul than traditionally thought.  While on the road towards this objective, improving one's 'soul characteristics' (for want of a better term) may be one of the 'purposes', possibly by exposure (serendipiteously or intentionally) to hardships - physical, mental and emotional.

It is of the Lord's mercies that we are not consumed, because His compassions fail not.  They are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness.


Some trust in chariots, and some in horses; but we will remember the name of the Lord our God.  They are brought down and fallen; but we are risen, and stand upright.
- Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall.  Also resonates with the 'bhakti' (devotion) tradition, which holds that everything moves as per His desires, and man is only an instrument of His will.

The temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.  And be not conformed to his world; but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is good, and acceptable, and pefect, will of God.
- Obviously the 'temple' referred to here is the human mind-body, as frequently talked of in spiritual literature all across including Jesus's life episodes.


He shall cover thee with His feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust; His truth shall be thy shield and buckler.  For He shall give His angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.
- The idea of guardian angels is quite common among various readings.

Just goes to show the essential spiritual unity among different faiths.

End of words...

Was going to drop my child for the school bus this morning, when something struck me.  Small children have so much to share!  And they are so open to the idea of sharing.  It could be the smallest of things (from us 'adults' point of view).  How he 'touched' another child with the foot at the Taekwondo class, or another one 'touched' him, to get more points.  Or how he whacked the ball with the cricket/baseball bat at the neighbourhood game yesterday.  Or the latest jokes he heard.  But children are full of beans while sharing such things.

Then why is it that as children get older, they tend to clam up about many aspects of their life.  At the least, they don't seem as enthusiastic while sharing.  Part of it could be due to the emotional (and physical changes) children go through, especially when they enter the teens.  The need to 'keep secrets', perhaps.  But for the other, large part, is it due to a level of 'disconnect' with parents or older relatives.  Seems so, given that many parents/older relatives may tend to try to impose their own worldviews on the children, without first appreciating (or, at least, trying to appreciate) the children's own views.  Though it seems the age gap may be more of a myth than reality. Many children are seen to be closer to their grandparents than parents, for instance.

Is the main factor then the perennial listening ability and skills.  After all, as we ourselves grow older, there is no denying the fact that we tend to become more 'opinionated'.  Coupled with this is the typical mid-life crisis among parents of teenagers, which propel them to try and get traction for their own views over others, at any cost!  So is it this 'controlling' attitude which may be putting off children from openly sharing, while they perhaps feel safer sharing their thoughts with grandparents or other relatives/acquaintances, without the baggage of having to 'conform'?  If so, this puts renewed emphasis on the need to inculcate that most important of skills, ability to just listen, which is so necessary in so many professional pursuits as well.  And not just in the traditional spheres like practicing psychology, but in as diverse arenas as business analysis and internal audit (how the times have changed!).

Which brings us to the theme that while (learning to!) interact with our children in a wholesome way, we may be becoming better persons (and professionals) ourselves.  If only many of us would give adequate importance to our interactions with our children, instead of dismissing it as just an intrusion into our 24x7 professional lives.  Even without filtering such interactions through the scientific prism all the time (which would be a pity and rob the interactions of the essential ingredient of spontaneity), the concepts of transactional analysis can point us towards the associated skills of negotiation, open listening, etc.  Look at it this way: children are perhaps (though maybe not always!) more transparent than people in business settings; so if you can't mould your interactions with children towards win-win solutions, you've hardly any chance of doing the same when confronted with hard-boiled business executives!

But shorn of all business-like jargon, the point is that we should keep enjoying our 'small talk' with children the  best we can.  Who knows when they 'grow up' (suddenly, as it sometimes seems) and stop talking to us except in monosyllables...

Influential Competence - the 'new' skill to have...

Using Influence to Get Things Done

Japan earthquake and the tsunami across Pacific coasts

Watching coverage of the tsunami following the 8.9 Richter quake in Japan, one small thing that struck me is how secure (perhaps delusionally so) are at least some people in developed countries like Japan.  If a quake hits here in India, we'll drop whatever we're doing and just run!  But the BBC/CNN footage shows people in offices in Japan swaying but holding on to things, not really trying to run (perhaps that's by training, Japan being the most quake-prone country in the World).  A woman in a footage is actually talking on a (fixed) phone and trying to type on her computer keyboard, while crouching near her office desk!  Commendable courage under extreme stress, or misplaced trust in man's power to withstand nature - your pick?

A tale of two cities (or many)...

Was reading a review today of a book, 'Invisible City: The Hidden Monuments of Delhi' by Rakshanda Jalil, which brings out how urbanisation is slowly pushing the hitory of the city into the background.  Got me thinking.  Say someone (say, someone from out of India) lands up at Delhi Airport, and commutes to either one of the business hubs (Connaught Place, Nehru Place, South Extension, et al) or, if here for a longer stay, goes to check into one of the tony hotels.  All s/he gets to see during the commute is a 'modern' Delhi (especially in the post-Commonwealth Games era), with all traces of the 'old' face of Delhi neatly tucked away behind facades.  Except, maybe, for some 'World Heritage' monuments like Humayun Tomb which are duly showcased.  But how many casual or business travellers (not counting tourists who may come here specifically to see the real face of the city) pass through the areas where such monuments are situated?  Perhaps not many.

But monuments are just one aspect of history and heritage; the other may be the living communities.  If one is moving across much of South Delhi, all one gets to see is tony residential areas or concrete edifices.  Nothing wrong in that, but is it essential to obliterate all traces of the 'old' feel of Delhi in order to join the 'league of world cities'.  Ironically, if one were to go to any of the big European cities of note, one could see that the history there is meshed into the modernity, and not swepts under the carpet apologetically.  Be it London, Paris, Madrid, Berlin, Rome or Venice, the history seems to co-exist peacefully with the modernity, the cobbled streets branching off from the metalled roads, the lively 'squares' providing an alternative to the glitzy malls, and the 'gates' standing tall amidst the traffic of whizzing cars (even in a more 'recently habitated' city like Frankfurt, you may find the old town hall area being the hub of Christmas fair).  Closer home in Asia, while historical sites like Angkor Thom (in Cambodia) and Ayuthya (in Thailand) are of course preserved separately, even modern Bangkok also flows side-by-side with peaceful Buddhist temples and monasteries.

Coming back to India, some cities like Hyderabad seem to have been able to preserve a large part of their heritage by meshing it in with the growing metropolis (though the modern 'Cyberabad' is more of a concrete jungle).  Even, surprisingly, in Mumbai, the business capital of India, one can see the 'two eras' co-exist to a large extent.  Moving from the airport, say, to Nariman Point, the business hub (admittedly a long commute), the scene alternates between modernity and the traditional.  One moment you could be zipping across the gleaming Sea Link bridge, the other moment passing through a cozy 'mohalla' (residential locality) of low slung houses with peaceful Parsi gentlemen (and women!) taking a stroll.  Even in the Apollo Bunder area (leading on to the famour Gateway of India), so close to Nariman Point, the 'galis' (side streets) could be full of Old Delhi style shops. 

Of course, I'm sure many Mumbai residents would say that taking such a romanticised view may be easier for a casual visitor, and only those living there day-to-day would be aware of the actual difficulties, and probably they'd prefer more modernisation like in Delhi!!  But at some level, it may all come down to appreciating what we have (including a passing era) and being thankful for it, and sometimes an 'outsider' may be better placed to point out such things to an 'insider' whose senses may've got enured to such things due to daily exposure.

And talking of Old Delhi, I still fondly remember how, when we were staying in the Delhi Cantonmment area, when someone came asking after our father, instead of saying that he had gone to Karol Bagh or Chandni Chowk, we would go "Dilli gaye hain" (he's gone to Delhi), indicating that the 'real' Delhi was centred around some older localities and the area outside was 'not really Delhi'!  What a contrast with the present day, when the extension of Delhi Metro (the underground mass transit) to Gurgaon seems to provide an avenue, after a long time, to people to actually go and visit 'Old Delhi' after ages!  Because that 'feel' of Delhi is not visible any more in the places we live in day-to-day.  And to think that Delhi may be an older, more historical city than many of the above cities in Europe or Asia!

This is not a lament against modernisation of cities.  Of course we need to keep on modernising the cities, to provide living spaces and better civic facilities for the exisitng residents as also the people flocking in all the time in search of better economic opportunities.  But alongwith that, it'd probably be good to take care that the 'new' city does not obliterate all traces of the old one.  Maintaining a few defined sites as national or international monuments may be one way, and being done commendably by the relevant bodies.  But meshing in the new with the old may be a slightly better way for us to live our modern life while being aware of our heritage.

Think about it.

Life - a prism?

Sometimes it seems that the core of our being is quite like a glassy prism (for those not inclined to math/geometry or physics: a three-sided solid block, sometimes made of clear glass-like substances): it receives light on one surface and (depending on some factors, read on) projects a somewhat changed light through another surface, a process known in physics as refraction.  The important thing is, the light going into the prism and that coming out is almost never the same - it may be at a different angle, or a different colour, sometimes a rainbow of colours.  To maintain this prism of life so it serves the purpose, we seem to have two duties:

One, to keep polishing the surfaces.  If the surface facing the source of the light is not clear, it wouldn't be able to let the light through to its innards, and thus perhaps be unable to give out any light.  The cleaner the receiving surface is, the more light it can perhaps receive (and give out!).  On the other hand, if the surfaces transmitting the light out are not clean, they wouldn't be able to give out the light either, regardless of how much light they receive and of what quality.  Some may be tempted to embellish the transmitting surfaces, to represent to the possible recipients of the light a different face than the actual.  However, remember that too much embellishment can actually affect the transparency of the surface and block the light going through.  Ideally, when the surfaces are smoothly polished, they almost act like mirrors, giving out the light inside but at the same time reflecting back the true image of the one who looks at it.

The second duty, it seems, is to control what goes inside the prism.  Yes, the surfaces of the prism are permeable, able to absorb outside material and vibrations (a process known in physics as osmosis), especially through the surface which is in touch with the base.  Some things going inside can improve the ability of the prism to act as a true transmitter of the refracted light.  However, other things can adversely affect this ability or, in extreme cases, react violently with the material of the prism, causing it to decay and eventually disintegrate.

And once the prism disintegrates, whether due to efflux of time or due to reactions as above, what is left is just a useless mess of particles.

Children and truth

Was reading a novel, set in Ireland, about a drug addict, Tony, and his struggle to regain his footing in life.  One of the main characters is his wife Allie (Alisha) who attempts to bring the hubby onto the right path, while taking care of her two sons, one pre-teen and one a toddler.  There is one scene where Allie returns home devastated, having just learnt that Tony, who was off drugs for a few months after rehab, has taken a 'slip' again, after having left home in a huff having quarrelled with her on learning that it was she who had got him thrown out of his job when she first learnt he was an addict (to keep him off money...  a long story).

Once she's home, she starts thanking the old neighbour who's been babysitting her sons (assisted by his own son, a comic TV artist) for a few hours.  But then she's told by the old man (goaded by his son into the 'confession') that he has been pretending to be Santa Claus to her elder son, who's been writing him letters asking for help on all sorts of things (some of which he helps the child with).  This provokes her to full fury - 'How dare he do this to my son' - and she screams at him "Get out...".  She forgets all the favours the old man has been doing for her family (besides babysitting) - protecting her son from local bullies, getting him a car ride with his famous son, etc.  She also goes on to dutifully check, discreetly, whether the old man 'had interfered' with her son (thankfully, not)!

Got me thinking.  Is the commitment to absolute truth really so high in the Western World?  Not being judgmental, but if something like this had happened with one of us, we would probably have brushed it off as an innocuous incident, at most with the remark that at least it gave the child a few days of innocent happiness.  Part of this attitude may be based on the rich Indian tradition of 'pari katha' (or 'roop kahini') fables, narrated by our grandparents and also published, where children were encouraged to delve into the dream world of fairies and kings, learning some good values in the bargain - the Panchatantra tales and Chandamama magazine may be good examples.

But another part may also be based on the Indian philosophy which seems to hold that truth is only what you perceive (there is only one absolute truth: God), and is dependent on circumstances.  Some scholars hold that even the venerable Bhagvad Gita seems to propound this philosophy of a 'context for the truth'.  And the epic Mahabharata has a famous incident where the God incarnate Krishna encourages the eldest Pandava brother Yudhishthira, known as the upholder of absolute truth, to be 'economical with the truth' ("Ashwatthama hata iti gaja") so that the Kaurava commander (and the guru of both clans) Dronacharya could be killed.  Even in our daily life, and perhaps especially when it comes to children, we seem to hold the view that only that part of truth need be shared which would do no harm to anyone, and truth which harms anyone is probably not worth sharing.

Back to the story.  It turns out that the old man's truth (about pretending to be Santa) was the last straw - the child learns during the evening that his mom had been lying to him about his dad being in 'America' (while he was actually in rehab), the mom had been lying to (or at least not sharing the truth with) dad about having had him thrown out of his job, and now this!  Even when the old man tries to explain that the whole thing started when the child presumed he was Santa 'coz he looked like Santa, and that he went along just to keep him out of his lawn (and he didn't pretend to be all powerful: he does tell the child when he asks Santa to keep his dad off drugs that he can't help and his dad has to find the 'magic' in his own heart), he gets no buy in for the argument.  So what's the big issue here?  Why is the old man's lie such a big deal, among all the other lies flying thick and fast?

And what about the effect of the truth on a child?  The story also tells us that Tony took to drugs while in teens because he could not 'fit in', because he was the adopted child of his parents (he keeps arguing with his adoptive mom Tess that it was she who was at fault, not he! - though he also makes up with her later).  Just wondering: would it have been better for Tony to NOT know the truth about his being an adopted child, at least till he gained the wisdom and stability to handle that truth?  Takes us back to the hit '70s Hindi movie 'Kabhi Kabhi' where the adoptive parents of Neetu Singh (Parikshit Sahni & Simi) decide to tell the daughter (ostensibly a teenager) about her adoption and the identity of her real mom (Waheeda Rehman) - a difficult decision (much crying by Simi!), but one taken 'in the best interest of the daughter'.

Of course, there can be two sides to the coin.  Some may say 'Who are you to decide what is the right age to learn the truth?'  Fair point, but don't we as parents make such decisions - as to what is good for our child and what is not - on a day to day basis?  The argument can go on.  But the point that strikes me is the difference in the World-view in this respect between Oriental and Occidental cultures, as pointed out above.  It also has some relation to the importance given in the Western culture to treating children 'with respect' from a young age - an honorable motive but sometimes abused by the recipients of such favour!  Some would say this is treating kids 'with kid gloves'(!) - look at the huge controversy generated by the book 'Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother', even when the author Amy Chua stated later that the book was a kind of self-parody memoir.

There are of course no right or wrong answers to this debate.  Each of us has to take a view based on our own judgment and in the best interest of our children.

Remembering Cambodia

I received a query at an online forum recently, for tips to someone visiting Cambodia.  I don't remember whether I've written here before of my visit to Cambodia back in '04, so thought I'll fill the gap now.  The account below is based on my experiences there at that time, and many things may have changed since then.

Phnom Penh National Museum

There are many things to do at Phnom Penh, the capital city. For a start, you could visit the palace (now more of a museum) - besides the intricate carvings, frescoes and panels, if you're lucky you may see the King waving to the visitors from his quarters nearby! In the markets, there are a number of quaint little eating places with quintessential French food, and you may enjoy a healthy breakfast at one of these. If you're historically inclined, you could go visit the quarters where Khmer Rouge tortured & killed hundreds of thousands (some say millions) during their reign - a sad effect is that you'd see most of today's citizens are pretty young!  

For the evenings, one can go to one of the restaurants on the 'riverfront', which overlooks the giant Mekong river which meanders through many countries in that region.  Many of the restaurants are built on 'stakes', on wooden platforms over the marshy area.  The food is a mish mash of local and continental (mostly French) delicacies.  One tip: Cambodia may be one of the countries where the US Dollar is almost legal currency - you can pay for everything with the dollar, and local businesses actually prefer the dollar (the exchange rate being what it is).

The multicoloured plane!

But I guess most people go to Cambodia for the Angkor Wat temple.  The magic at Siem Reap (a short flight from Phnom Penh) starts the moment you land there.  If you're lucky, you'd have been travelling in one of those multi-coloured small aircraft with traditional Cambodian designs painted all over. Siem Reap itself is a pretty laid back town, with old French-style vistas and a narrow canal.  

Siem Reap town

Entry to the famed Angkor Wat temple complex

Angkor Wat totally deserves its status as a World Heritage site. The main structure itself, as well as the surrounding grounds, are full of history, and you feel as if you're yourself standing right amidst ancients! And, be careful about coming down one of those steep open stairways with narrow steps (going up is easier) - don't try it unless your calves are strong, else they'll cry out for mercy.

Stranded midway on the stairs!

What I found interesting at Angkor Wat is the evidence of different period of history strewn about. You can of course see the prominent Buddha images throughout, some still being worshipped. But if you look closely (sometimes behind the life-size Buddha statues), you can see remnants of the Hindu culture and religion which existed before Buddhism, for instance relics of Hindu gods and goddesses. 

Ramayana at Angkor Wat!

A bird's eye view of Angkor Wat

Budha at Angkor Wat

Entry to Angkor Thom

But of course you can't come back from Siem Reap after just seeing Angkor Wat. The real treat, in my personal opinion, lies at Angkor Thom, a whole city in ruins. It takes your breath away the instant you get there, with the phalanx of a neat line of stone images (demons?) welcoming you at the very entrance. Inside the 'city', a whole lot of historical structures beckon you to explore the life of the kings of that period.  Apparently, before the ascendancy of Vietnamese empire (which at one time occupied much of South East Asia and part of China), it was the Khmer kings of present day Cambodia which held sway over that part of Asia.  Quite a contrast with the condition in which Cambodia finds itself now, made worse by the evil reign of Khmer Rouge in the '70s.

Angkor Thom ruins

What leaves one amazed is the giant stone faces (made famous by countless movies), some with long trees growing right on top! Actually, Angkor Thom is more like a jungle now, with the faces and structures strewn about. 

The 'Faces'

Back in the town, you may like to explore the nooks and crannies of local alleyways, while being careful of your belongings (not much organised crime, I guess, but it's always useful to be wary of locallised petty crime). And once done, one can spend the evening at FCC (Foreign Correspondents Club) - at a nice buildinging overlooking the main vista with a canal - and start supper with some nice tomato soup! After that, the choice is endless... (well, for that place!).