It's all about the Essentials, Bhaaya!

Pk is a movie worth watching.  And giving some attention to.  As I sat watching it, there was initially a question: is the movie trivialising issues? Then, as I continued, I felt, "wow, brilliant!" What a plot and what characterisation.

Image from Indian Express.com

I do not know whether the movie intended this, however the character Pk is at the same time, both a caricaturisation and a questioning of that caricature. To hold both aspects in the same character, and in the same movie, and to be saying it within the usual 2 and 1/2 or 3 hours is something indeed. 

Pk's journey is that of a Hindu's, albeit a caricature. (It may or may not be that of individuals of other religions in India, I cannot comment on it. I am a Hindu and want to only speak of what I think I know of a Hindu's experience) - this journey of encountering the idea of God, trying to make sense of the drama around this idea, his passion and near fanaticism when he unquestioningly accepts the given and said, (sometimes) eventual disillusionment and swinging all the way to the other end - disbelief and questioning, and fewer times, resolution and clarity.  A journey of a lifetime, or many perhaps, has been fitted into about 3 hours.  It will obviously be intense and not a little, overwhelming.  It will obviously garner the heated reactions that it has.  And also because it has not stopped with the caricaturisation of popular status quo.  In Pk's radical shift towards the initial disbelief, and asking difficult questions, and then later arriving at understanding for himself, the movie has used the innate intelligence of the character.  This type of an intense shift, and an intelligent observation of all that is happening, as they are happening, and within the short duration shown, occurs rarely.  It is usually a much slower journey for the ordinary human being, and in such traumatic conditions (of having no way of returning to one's own familiar world and being lost in absolute alien surroundings without any way of fending for oneself), the said human would most probably freeze into the shock of the trauma.  And hence, it makes sense that the character is way, way beyond even a high intelligence quotient of an earthling, and has honed his mind to such sharpness, of being able to pierce through the cobwebs and see a clear picture, even as the picture unfolds or very soon thereafter.  

His journey has all the elements that an ordinary Hindu encounters in his / her tryst with the idea of God.  Many get to the point of questioning and examination as well.  And so cleverly, the movie has not left it at questioning.  The plot has been taken to its fruition - Pk's unique experience also resulted in resolutions of some sort, and action.  It is not necessary that each one's journey, even in the same ideas, has to have the same result.  Each one's would be different according to their questions, their actions and intentions.  Sarfaraz got his lady love, Jaggu found the damn good story that she wanted to tell, Pk got great raw material for research, discovered earthling-type romantic love and managed to reclaim his ticket to return home.

Image from indiatoday.intoday.in

And what of us, the audience? Pk offers his understanding on national (I am guessing) television, no less, while also managing to find a way to unite the lovers (come on guys, this is bollywood, we have to get the lovers together, even if the stereotypes of 'hero' and 'heroine' is getting blurred here) And their case is also intricately connected to the main plot, which we will get to a little later.  

Pk's offering is very clear.  Its about the essentials.  Nowhere does his narrative indicate that we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  There is a culture that gets built around each religion, and which is constantly also changing, getting added to, getting reduced and whatnot. All that he is saying as I see it is that let us not allow this to become the reason for our division. A true religion (he talks of this as God, I am calling it true religion) is one that unites, harmonises, and not that which divides us.  What divides us is of our making.  Let us see this clearly.  That is the essential.  If we derive further from this essential, each of us would be true to our native religion while at the same time holding each other in respect and love.  There is no question here of talking of this religion or that.  This essential would be true of every individual, every entity.  Anything can be divisive in nature or otherwise, it is how we treat it.  So let us not give into the division.  Clearly, the matter of how vibrant and intricate culture is, and what goes into understanding this, is not within the scope of this movie. However I do not see anywhere, it deriding any culture per say.  

The other plot of the lovers finding each other is actually well connected to the main running theme. (In fact the plot is quite tightly and well put together).  Sarfaraz and Jaggu had to find each other and had to discover the case of the mistaken identity of the letter writer, for it to be proven that the god-man was a fraud pretending to talk to God.  And this part of the plot highlights so clearly that this kind of conditioning is so insidious and we don't even know that it is a part of us.  Jaggu is an educated, intelligent, rebellious journalist (student earlier), who has gone and done the unthinkable. And yet, it is the fear and conditioning that had her leaving the church in haste. She didnt even think for a moment to have faith in her love, and to question the letter and its contents as meant for her.  It is this subtle point in the plot that is important for each of us.  It is not as much the loud noises and the direct lures and conditioning that we need to question, but our own hidden fears and resulting assumptions.  It plays such a huge and significant role in the lives of the protagonists.  Just imagine, what if she had taken a breath, taken a step in, and thought of Sarfaraz for a moment.  Let us just for a moment, step into ourselves and take an honest look: how many such assumptions and fears do we carry within our selves all the time? And how they limit us and our actions. 

A collector's item, this one. 

Notes:
1. The "Bhaaya" in the title of the post, means "brother" in Bhojpuri dialect and this is the way in which the character of Sanjay Dutt addresses PK in the movie
2. I realise you need to have watched the movie to get some of the details mentioned in the post. Do watch it. :)

Satsangam

Satsang is usually the word used when people gather to hear a talk by a Swami / Swamin (what do we call a woman swami, besides 'mother'?), or a regular meeting of people reading / discussing religious / spiritual texts and matters. The word 'satsangam' means 'associating / union with good / truth' (sat + sangam). 

- There are some people with whom each moment spent or thought about is a satsangam. 

- One could feel, think and act in ways such that, as much as possible, it is satsangam for others to be with one. 

- This means that one needs to practice, practice and practice some more! 

- Sage Patanjali spoke about how such a practice should be in his Yoga Sutra (स तु दीर्घकाल नैरन्तर्य सत्कारादरासेवितो द्रुढभूमि: ।  - Practice, (which is the constant and repeated effort to remain with the object of focus) sustained for a long uninterrupted duration with the right mental focus and with conviction and devotion carried out in a proper manner becomes firmly established. (Verse 1.14)

- When such a constant and unyielding practice towards an ideal of satsangam is carried out, then it could be called satyagraha(!) which means 'holding onto truth'

The above were some of the thoughts that have taken some space since yesterday because we had a sudden satsang, and what a satsang it was. Swami Tyagananda is someone who is near to the truth of matters and even a short duration spent in terms of physical time space with him becomes timeless. I still remember an earlier satsang several years back when something he had said just stuck to me, and I had written about it in the introduction to this blog. 

He spoke a few powerful words yesterday, despite being jet-lagged and tired. They just have to be recorded somewhere and so here they are: 

1) Since he met my 10-month old daughter, the conversation naturally turned to children and growing up. So he shared this anecdote: A child is asked how old he was and he said that he was 5 years old. He was then asked how old his parents were, and he said "5!" much to the questioner's chagrin. Well, "they weren't parents before I was born, so they are 5-year old parents". As much as the child is new, the parents are new too!! This was such a new way of looking at the world from a child's perspective. 

2) He spoke of a book called Zen mind, the beginner's mind while talking about what it is to look at everything freshly, like a child. How many of us can look at that road, or the car on it, and look at it as if we are looking at it for the first time? How many of us can look at the same thing every time for the first time? Imagine, for that child, that car is altogether a new thing, she is looking at it freshly. Can we do that? 

3) Looking deeply into things led him to pointing at the table and asking, "what is this?" So we look at him dumbly, perplexed, and thinking, "Table, but of course! What about it?" Then, "isnt table a name and a form given to God? Isnt anything in the world a name and a form to identify it? What if we remove the name and form, dont we get God? This is knowledge blinding us. When we first see the table, God stands before us, however after that nanosecond, our knowledge puts the name and form on it and blinds us." This was a double whammy. 

So, what if we were to imagine all our categories as names and forms, and lump them all into one category called God, or Eternal bliss, or Light, or Self or Highest Source or whatever it is that one wants to call it. And teach students based on this category. What would we get? 

Two Heroes - One Legacy

Two leaders;

two giants of knowledge, work and compassion - both my heroes and having such uncanny parallels in their lives and message. And what a legacy of work and ideas they have built for us, independently and yet to my mind very much together.

India has had the very great blessing of experiencing these two personalities within the last 150 years.  They were contemporaries in a sense – there was just a gap of six years between them.  One was a political leader, and the other a monk. Both were intense patriots, but manifested their patriotism in their lives and work very differently.  What is striking is that amongst all the obvious differences, are the similarities, not just in their life experiences and some of their core qualities, but also in the fundamental truths that they saw and spoke about, and many a time even in expression.

Swami Vivekananda, born 1863, acquired a modern education, almost studied law, went abroad to spread the message of India, came back to serve his Motherland a public figure.

Mahatma Gandhi, born 1869, acquired a modern education, studied law in England, practiced abroad, struggled for an Indian movement in a foreign land and came back to serve his Motherland a public figure.

There are many points of difference in the way each one's education was acquired and the process of each one's making.  But the purpose of this piece is not to dwell on these as much as to look at what each one of them having made men of themselves, saw as truth and spoke.

Their patriotism was not ordinary. It was a different quality of patriotism that understood the faults and weaknesses of the land, but looked beyond, to the strength.  Indeed, 'strength' – a growing from within was something both emphasised constantly. Both Swamiji and Gandhiji did a Bharath Parikrama before the beginning of their major work in India. The parikrama gave each of them the knowledge and authority to say that his land is of immense Ideal and strength.  Neither failed to connect the people and their practice, to their own reading and understanding of the scriptures and shastras.  Another meeting point was their thorough reading of their own traditional scriptures.  We know from their lives how well-read each of them was in their own tradition.  What’s more, both of them acquired knowledge not just of their own tradition, but also of other cultures and civilisations.  Both of them mastered the intricacies of alien cultures as well and won many admirers, friends, followers from other countries and cultures as much as from their own land. 

However, neither was merely a man of books alone.  They thrived and learnt from life, living and people.  Each came into direct contact with his land, her strengths, weaknesses, diversity, oneness during his tour on foot across India's length and breadth. 

It is a fascinating combination of opposing forces that they worked with, or perhaps – worked on that "thin edge of a sword"[1] where the extremes met on a middle path and were balanced.  Each never stopped dwelling and speaking at length, of and about Ideals.  They thought, meditated, lived and breathed idealism; which is what made Swamiji say that he preaches the message of the Upanishads, "strength, a growing from within"; and made Gandhiji declare in almost the same words that the ultimate goal for each man is to reach the strength within himself – 'swaraj' or self-mastery as he called it.  Nothing is higher than this potential.  Neither was ready to lower this ideal to every day circumstances, but each was also intensely practical and looked at the smallest details in routine daily life worked to bring quality into each moment and action. 

This way, their own lives served as examples for their followers though differently.  On this point they differ that Gandhiji as a political figure sought to be completely transparent and hence explained in great detail every word and action of his; he wrote his autobiography, 'The story of my experiments with Truth'.  On the other hand the position of a monk who has renounced everything personal in the world, holds the highest regard and devotion in the Indian psyche – so Swamiji following the traditional path and emphasised the ideas that he preached rather than his own life, words, and actions.  His life as a lesson comes down to us only from his direct followers who were blessed enough to have heard of it from the original source.  He himself only talked and wrote of ideas, Indian tradition and her path.  Here, we see one of the very core values of India that both saw and declared the place of religion in Indian life and movement. 

The very essence of Swamiji's teaching is Religion, i.e. moving Godward.  He said that each country had a goal and that of India is religion, i.e. renunciation.  Gandhiji constantly maintained in the very same vein that each civilisation had a purpose and Indian civilisation was not excess, but a giving up of wants, and that without religion, or the central thought of God, any life/work stream of India would be valueless, unethical, moral-less, lifeless.  Both advocated religious education should start at a very young age towards the overall development of the individual. 

The development of the individual is a significant meeting point for these two Teachers.  Both talk of the individual and how all growth start from within him.  Neither stops there.  Swamiji said, how if each individual tries to manifest the strength (divinity) within him, we will have a society and nation full of noble struggle and achievement.  Gandhiji takes off on the same note, and brought forth his concept of the oceanic circles, i.e. how the strength of each individual radiates outward to become the strength of the village – and so on to the strength of the nation.  This is no different from Swamiji's, 'Expansion is Life'.

Even with respect to an individual's conviction and commitment to one ideal, they both paid allegiance to "Truth", and both saw their work as their Truth.   Swamiji had an "uncompromising regard for Truth" even from his childhood and intensely sought to discover the ultimate truth all truths, with which you would know the self, the world and all creation.  He also simultaneously spoke of how the greatest philosophical truths can be found in the practical spirituality of ordinary people and ordinary things. 

We find Gandhiji declaring his life to be a "story of his experiments with truth" – and always struggling for an intangible, unseeable abstract truth.  And he continues to say till the end that he "worships the God that is Truth or Truth which is God through the service of his millions", and that he "recognises no God except the God that is to be found in the hearts of the dumb millions"  It awakens the same chords of response, as when one reads Swamiji's "would you worship the shiva in the images and temples alone? Worship and serve the shiva in his poorest and weakest children." This unshakeable devotion to Truth makes both of them be seen as rebels in their younger days.  Both challenged blind conventions, and persistently resisted the status quo if it was for nothing but the mere virtue of being status quo for years or centuries, in their own ways.  This challenge to conventional, dogmatic beliefs continues all their lives for both of them. 

It was not of their lot to acknowledge defeat, but to throw down the gauntlet every time.  Each rose with a challenge every time he encountered blind, empty ritual, conventional thought without meaning and fanaticism.  And yet, we find that both were the friendliest of people.  Both were brilliant conversationalists with quick ready wit and humour, and overflowed with compassion.  (Both of them also had sharp sarcasm ready at hand to use if needed).  It is said of each of them that he had a Mother's heart, the tenderest of hearts.  But for their own purposes, both kept it away from public view and under a veil of intellect.

Digging deeper into the friendliness and compassion, we find each one's ability to synthesise and harmonise contradictory thoughts and belief systems and function from common denominators.  Both, Swami Vivekananda and Gandhiji could bring together people with extreme viewpoints and beliefs to work together based on common ideals.   

This synthesis of ideas and a deeper insight into the nature of things that they shared, also extended to their ideas on the East and West, their respective values, strengths and weaknesses.  They differed on the point of expression in that, one was a political leader and saw in the West a system of force and civilisation, a tangible enemy to the well-being of his countrymen, and the other, a monk who deliberately kept away from politics and began at the points of strengths of every entity, be it individual or nation.  Brilliant is how each could relate profound philosophical concepts to everyday routine activity and bring them closer to practical life, and their very same idea of the Means and Ends of action - wherein both maintain that one is the same as the other, there is no separation. 

In the sphere of ideas, a very significant relevant meeting of these two great men is their vision of India and her work in the world.  Both saw India as the harmonising force of the world, as the teacher of religion (a godward movement) and Ahimsa (love) to the world.  Not a theoretical or bookish religion that would dry up social life and activity, but a strong, vibrant, active religion, or spirituality, the essence of which would reverberate in every sphere and activity of this land.  Herein, lies our lesson and how well we are able to stand on the towering strength of our own legacy, be prepared to take it on, learn from it, strengthen it, add to it and act on it.    

---

[1] In the words of Mahatma Gandhi

A Date to Keep

I went on a nature walk this morning,
And discovered that I am on a date with You.
They gave you all these exotic names
Paradise flycatcher, warbler, purple heron, dab chick…
That I cant remember much of–
But oh! You beauty!

You are all around me,
In blue, white, black, yellow, brown, violet, green…
You are calling out to me,
Through myriad bird calls-
Sweet, raucous, musical, whispery, screeching…
I am drowning, filled.

Then I look around,
To see You shimmer, evaporate from the lake’s surface,
And I am in a classic romantic duet.

Even as I rush to catch that elusive glimpse of colour,
You pull at me with your prosopis hands.
I laugh at my whimsical self,
And fight with it to brush You off my clothes;
But oh! You beauty!

They are talking of a civet –
How it helps in dispersing seeds.
I see only Your design.
I turn to my companion to ask about-
Oh! You are grinning down at me!
They are lamenting about the disappearing landscape,
I watch You jump across the wall,
To chop trees for firewood.
I look up – the length of You,
Standing tall, fluttering your leaves for the wind.
Vulnerable and euphoric is the moment.

And then its time to leave you behind,
You bursting with riotous colours,
And You devoid of colours.
You of the rich and scaling sounds,
You of the invariable electric-saw drone.
I leave You,
Whooshing in my ear, ruffling my hair, kissing my cheeks –
Calm, still and nourishing, not a ripple to be seen.
You beauty!

We head to a hotel for breakfast,
And what’s this?!
You are serving me my cup of nirva-
Oh, what’s that You said?
That I have time yet to conquer You?
You of my laughter!
No hurry at all,
As long as I am on this date with You.