edited by AI
Part One
Thanks to all those who responded to this brainstorm on bhakti. Although I completed the topic, the supplement that I attached, ‘Critiquing the Critic,’ received a few comments that were shared with me through personal emails.
So, this is my response to all those comments, which I have amalgamated into my response in another discussion related to it. Before proceeding, I want to make it clear that I don’t have anyone particular in mind in this response. I am just sharing a general thought that I had when I reflected on those responses that were sent to me personally.
Someone wisely said, “When discipline degenerates, it becomes legalism.” Similarly, when critiquing degenerates, it becomes criticism, and it will end up in fault-finding.
But as a normal human being, I too ‘reacted’ strongly in the early days of my walk with the Lord when I was also criticized too much in the name of critiquing. This resulted in me becoming a fault-finder. Living Water and Indian Bowl are good examples. But as I began to understand the will of God in my life, I gradually realized that even those who ‘criticize’ are the ‘unpaid guardians of my soul.’ Initially, I too struggled a lot to handle it properly. But the Lord taught me one good thing: “Accept those who are genuine and ignore those who are irritating you.”
When I began to learn to respond with a sober mind, I stopped reacting. This also helped me to ignore abuses and fault-finding. I am not sure if when I began to ignore, it brought any change in my critic or not, but at least it helped me overcome my unhealthy anger that affected me.
But unlike Buddha (see the notes), as shared by one bhakta in a personal email to me, I didn’t reject any criticism or fault-finding. Buddha, in responding to the person who continuously abused him, said that the unaccepted gift remains with the person who wants to give the gift, since he refused to accept the abuses. Whereas our Lord set the example by ‘accepting the abuses when he was accused.’ The one question I ask the Lord in every adverse situation in my life is: WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO LEARN? And when I began to learn that lesson, the Lord showed how sometimes God has to sacrifice my critic (misunderstood by many) in order to correct some mistakes in me. In other words, to correct my faults, God used another person to become the victim by criticizing me. As I don’t have the inner strength to learn through my own life, God arranged a critic to criticize me, for which he is blamed. What I mean here is this: God, in order to mold me as per His will, makes a mature person a victim by making him my critic.
Then I treat that person as the ‘unpaid guardian of my soul.’ Here I would like to share what I think about the diverse views among us and how we should learn to make progress in our bhakti by allowing ‘iron to sharpen iron,’ when we are not mature enough to accept even healthy criticism.
Part Two
Thankfully, this movement of Hindu bhaktas is neither an organization nor does it have organic unity. Each bhakta is an entity in her own capacity. Each bhakta has to live out her life within the context of her organic unity with her birth family. In this sense, we even accept caste identity, though it has several evil connotations. Not upholding the evils or promoting them, but accepting the social context of our life, we continue to remain a part of our birth family and community.
When a bhakta tries to live in that organic unity with her own family/community, we cannot create any uniformity in our actions, though we can evolve some common minimum principles to guide her in making decisions in a given situation. But sometimes circumstances force her to violate the proposed principle, which she may not be in a position to explain to all. Then others might think that there is a contradiction in her action compared to her thinking. In such a scenario, how should we respond?
In this movement of Hindu bhaktas of the Lord, there are various circles. Some are at the center with clear thinking and actions along the same lines. God bless them. Around those individuals, there will be some keeping in touch with that mature person for their need and strength in intellectual and emotional areas of life.
In the second ring, there are others who keep in touch with the center to learn more through the first circle. The next one [3rd] might be some standing a bit away with much empathy to understand and support by all means. The next one [4th] could be those who have sympathy but are not in a position to be involved with us in any way. And next to that ring [5th], a few will stand to watch, thinking that what we are doing is another evangelical experiment and not really life as Hindu bhaktas. And in the final round [6th], some will be there watching with some interest to know all our mistakes and failures to warn others not to attempt “this kind of experiment.” One way or another, we all keep in touch with each other. But in my personal journey, I never reject anyone from any circle, though I won’t voluntarily seek their fellowship, but I won’t say ‘no’ when they reach out to me for some issues or points of common interest in life and in our bhakti.
For some reason, sometimes the person who is in the first ring touching the center might move to another ring, and the person who is in the outer ring might come much closer. For me, each bhakta is that center in her own right, and others will be around her according to their rapport with her.
As a digression, I would like to share one more (favorable) thought. We all keep ourselves at the center of our life and view others in relation to us. For example, I will think ‘this is my mother,’ ‘my brother,’ etc., and naturally, I expect them to understand and adjust to me in their relationship with me. Those who do not have maturity will expect others to dance according to their own tune. But the reality of life is that others keep themselves at the center of their life and view us in the same way. Once we understand this reality, though we all know and accept it, the statement, “Nobody understands me,” will never come.
So each bhakta of the Lord is the center in her life where her thinking and actions go with minimum contradiction. But for an outsider, the contradiction will be visible. So in this movement, we all have unity in Spirit but not uniformity or organic unity. But we keep in touch with each other as we all strive to live our lives with mutual learning and teaching based on some common minimum principles. That center could be anyone who is sought by others to learn from and give an opportunity to serve them. That is why we don’t have any permanent leader or head to look to for all our needs. The person who learns would become a leader to the same person from whom she learned or to another, and vice versa.
So each bhakta is an entity in this movement—thank God we are not organized as a denomination or even with any organic identity. Remaining as separate entities, I am not sure whether we can claim any organic unity among ourselves. Not all have the same caliber to understand and reflect on their personal bhakti and Muktivedic principles. But each one is unique in their thinking and action. But here I am not promoting some postmodern individualism by saying ‘I am complete’ in myself. Even to feel that I am complete in myself, I need another person to compare it. This is my strong conviction that as a social animal, there is no place for any kind of ‘INDIVIDUALISM’ of any kind.
Part Three
As a second digression, let me share about the so-called “You are part of the family.” I tell all my shishyas that I can never be a part of your family. This does not mean that there is no example to prove this. Yes, there are some individuals who become part of another family, other than their own, and live with them till the end of their life. But my point is about the so-called “family unity” like ‘Sangh Parivar’ or Karunanidhi calling ‘Kazhagam oru kudumbam’ (கழகம் ஒரு குடும்பம்—his party is a family), whereas everybody knows that only his family is his party (குடும்பமே ஒரு கழகம்)—and others have no place in it. Several staunch members of the Sangh Parivar, for various reasons, changed their camp—Sri Shankar Singh Vaghela of Gujarat (now in Congress) is the best example.
And my principle is this: I will never change my conviction and position in the Lord as a Hindu bhakta of the Lord—accepting the fact that I remain a contradiction when it comes to my relationship with others as per the principle: agreement in the essence, concession on the peripheral, and charity in all. The level of others’ involvement with me, choosing the ring in which they feel comfortable, is left to them. Sometimes, they will be in the first ring and then will shift to the outermost one. Severing anyone’s relationship with me, then, according to this illustration, cannot be decided by me (as I am surrounded, I have no choice, and I voluntarily allow others to surround me, not floating as an isolated bubble on the water). It is left to them; each one does his due to various reasons—understanding, compulsion in life, social pressure, personal conviction, etc.
Due to human weakness, it will never remain static. I can produce a long list of people who were once very close to me and served and protected me. But they all disappeared into thin air. Many left not agreeing with me and a few for various compulsions. But I never cut them away from my life. This is part of life, as Mahabharata asserts:
–all collections end in dissolution, all tall things end in falling down, unions end in separation; life ends in death—P. V. Kane, History of Dharmasastra, Shanti Parva, 57.7, also in Shanti 140.48, Udyog Parva 178.48, Vol. I, part I, Ch. 32. The Two Epics. Fn. 404. P. 372
So though clear thinking and doing are essential in life, this principle is possible for me to uphold only in my life, and I cannot impose it on others. All the seeming contradictions between thinking and acting are a process towards maturity which each one attains according to their own ‘pravruti’ (nature, aptitude, etc. Gita 3:33). And if they seek my seva in this journey towards maturity, I will do my best. But in the name of doing this seva, I cannot step into their life as I know that there is a Lakshman rekha for everyone not to cross. Above all, considering my own limitations, I won’t dare to do it, because as Muktiveda clearly warns, “Let one who thinks that she is standing, be careful not to stumble.”
Part Four
Section Two: Dialogue and Responses
“Agreement in the essence, concession on the peripheral, and charity in all”—what constitutes essence and peripherals?
Every human movement has one essence (or a few core essences) around which people unite. As the movement evolves, there will be changes and amendments, but the core issues will remain consistent. For example, in the Sangh Parivar, nationalism is the core principle, while for communists, it is socialism (though this has been hijacked by many parties). In our movement as Hindu bhaktas, the essence is that Muktinath is the Lord and Savior, Muktiveda is the Word of God, and Mandali is the channel through which God carries out His will and purpose for the world.
There are concessions within this framework. If you prefer not to use the name ‘Muktinath,’ you can use any other name with which you feel comfortable. Muktiveda is the Word of God, but if you believe that even punctuation marks are inspired by God, that’s acceptable too. Agreeing to disagree is charity for me.
In the name of doing this seva, if one cannot step into the life of another bhakta because of the Lakshman rekha , then we cannot even advise her/him on crucial events in her/his life (like marriage, funeral, etc.). Therefore, there cannot be any Lakshman rekha for us in this movement. We must cross them to help, as she/he might not be in a position to think properly. It is up to people to take it or leave it, but our position should be stated clearly.
Regarding the Lakshman rekha, I believe it exists for everyone. Even between a husband and wife, there is a Lakshman rekha, though I cannot endorse this from my personal life. However, I have heard it discussed among several couples and in various TV debates. With moral authority granted by another person, I can express caution about doing or not doing certain things as a Hindu bhakta, particularly regarding social obligations towards our parents. If a bhakta voluntarily seeks my opinion on a crucial issue, then, with great concern for her bhakti and her relationship with her birth family, I can offer my opinion. This is done with principle in mind, considering both her identity as a Hindu bhakta to her community and as part of the Mandali.
Of course, in cases where we are deeply involved (like parents with children), sometimes crossing the Lakshman rekha is necessary. Due to our deep involvement, we communicate that even this crossing is done solely for their benefit. I sometimes cross this Lakshman rekha with a few individuals, but they understand that my actions are motivated solely by their welfare and not by any selfish interests. This is feasible with close friends, but it is uncertain whether this can be applied universally in the name of ‘stating our position clearly.’
If each one can go their own way, what is the use of conducting meetings or arranging gatherings to learn and teach?
Gatherings and meetings do not force anyone to follow our way. Every gathering fulfills the basic human need for physical fellowship. No matter how much you communicate over the phone or through virtual meetings, nothing compares to meeting face-to-face. The human touch is a fundamental psychological need. Gatherings serve not only for teaching but also for personal interaction.
Many issues that cannot be resolved in writing or over the phone can be addressed more effectively in person. Body language conveys more than words alone. That’s why I often say the true purpose of every gathering lies not in the sessions themselves but in the informal moments—tea/coffee breaks, lunch/dinner, and late-night discussions. In my experience, I have learned many things not during sessions but in conversations outside them. People may not remember everything they heard or learned, but the personal human touch will remain significant in their lives. Our actions, body language, and service at gatherings often teach more than formal classes. Gatherings are about ‘sat-sangh’ rather than just teaching or learning. While one can study a subject through various means, understanding a person requires meeting them in person.
Let me give an example. We had a gathering at the ashram this summer. One bhakta mentioned he needed to leave in the evening due to a prior commitment, so he took an early lunch and prepared to go. Two hours later, I returned to the dining hall and saw him deeply engaged in discussion and sharing with another bhakta. I almost reminded him of his evening commitment, but another bhakta signaled me to let them continue without interruption.
This summary consolidates insights gathered from various emails and discussions. Here’s a synthesis of the key points:
1. Critics as Guardians:
– All critics serve as unpaid guardians of our soul, providing invaluable feedback for personal growth.
2. Movement Unity:
– In our movement, where we connect based on shared minimum principles, fault-finding should be avoided, even if disagreements arise.
3.
– Everyone has a Lakshman rekha to safeguard their own and others’ interests. If it’s not evident, create one to maintain boundaries.
4. Principles for Growth:
– Adhering to the principles of agreement on essence, concession on peripherals, and charity in all aspects helps us mature.
5. Handling Irritation:
– It’s better to ignore rather than react when feeling irritated. The golden rule is to avoid responding when in a bad mood or with a carnal mindset.
6. Righteous Indignation:
– While there is a place for righteous indignation, ensure that your anger is genuinely righteous, as it should reflect God’s righteousness, not personal frustrations.
7. Unity in Spirit:
– Understand that our unity is spiritual rather than organic or organizational.
Principles Shared at the Conference:
– Muktinath-Centered Families:
– Aim for Muktinath-centered families within every community, including Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, and Christian contexts.
– Relationship with Family:
– Maintain our identity as Hindu bhaktas without severing ties with our family, particularly in the name of our bhakti.
– Denominational Membership:
– We do not hold official membership in any denominational church but engage in friendship and fellowship with various people, excluding those involved in immoral or illegal activities (with moral views varying among individuals).
– Self-Sufficiency:
– Encourage each bhakta to be self-sufficient and act as a witness to others. While we are not opposed to full-time workers supported by their church or mission, we do not have official full-time workers within our movement.
Revised on 22-7-2024
Gurukulam
Date: 9-12-14
Notes on Criticism and Sarcasm
1. Buddha’s Response to Abuse
– Story: Buddha faced a man who traveled to abuse and challenge him. Buddha remained unmoved and responded with a question: If someone offers a gift and it is declined, to whom does it belong? The man answered that it belongs to the person who offered it. Buddha then stated that if he declined to accept the man’s abuse, it still belonged to the man.— https://beingraluca.com/someone-doesnt-accept-gift-gift-belong/
– Lesson: This story illustrates how one can choose not to accept negativity or abuse from others. By refusing to take on the negativity, it remains with the person who offers it.
2. Why Some People Are Critically and Sarcastically Inclined
– Criticism and Anger:
– Insight: When people are angry, they often become more critical and sarcastic. This behavior can stem from past experiences or unmet goals.
– Example: Those who have been emotionally abused or faced life’s injustices may direct their anger towards others, leading to a habit of critical and sarcastic behavior.
– Being Overly Critical and Your Inner Child:
– Insight: A person’s tendency to be overly critical may stem from their childhood experiences. Children who are constantly criticized might adopt a similar critical mindset as adults.
– Example: Constant negative feedback during childhood can lead to a pattern of negative thinking and criticism in adulthood.
– Criticism and Lack of Self-Confidence:
– Insight: Individuals who are overly critical may have low self-confidence. Their own negative self-view is projected onto others through criticism.
– Example: Those with a lack of self-confidence often have a mind full of negative messages, which they express as criticism towards others.
3. Muktinath’s Response to Accusations
– Insight: The Lord often remained silent in the face of accusations, understanding the nature of people’s hearts and spirits. His silence and lack of reaction demonstrate a higher understanding of human nature and the futility of engaging in contentious debates.
These notes emphasize the importance of understanding the underlying causes of critical and sarcastic behavior and suggest a mindful approach to handling such behavior, both in oneself and others.—I am not sure these are my own words. Or I took it from some other source. Or it was edited by someone else based on my original writing. Because the style of writing does not reflect that this is the way I wrote in the original. Of course this is edited now by AI.
Leave a Reply