An argument against meditation

Between all the dejection on the job hunt front, I had a private moment of glory today - a moment too menial to be shared with anyone else yet too special to be not saved for my future reference.

I have had an internal conflict against the entire idea of meditation for it offers you only a temporary haven not a permanent abode. And the concept of sitting and observing my thoughts just bores me. My argument has been that if meditation is just about observing one’s thoughts and actions, I could as well try to do it consciously day and night, instead of a periodic ritual. And I have been trying to do that, to some extent at least. But I hadn’t found a supporting theory to my idea so far. None of the gurus or philosophies seemed to be talking about extending meditation to all walks of your life.

J Krishnamurti is by far the most inspiring philosopher to me, for he doesn’t answer my questions but inspires me to admit that I don’t know a lot. He doesn’t offer a path like a guru; instead renders me as the strongest entity in my life. I saw a JK video for the first time today where he discussed meditation with Dr Allan Anderson. And he talked about the thing I had unheard of anywhere else but my mind - futility of the meditation that does not involve your entire being. Hence, my favorite philosopher has become the only person so far who voiced out this irrationally significant thought of mine. And as an imperfect individual, I seek incredible pride and joy from this fact.

Reference:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsqWkJ8fNWE

Pursuit of the ultimate

My love for books… It’s not like the desire of a sculptor to create beauty, the fascination of a poet for romance or the devotion of a dancer to rhythm. It is simply like the passion of imperfection for perfection.

I love new ideas. A single page of meaningfully written text can have an explosive effect on me. It can take me over completely, offering so many perspectives that mercilessly intrude into the continuous dialogue inside me - a philosophical dialogue so abstract and subconscious that, with time, is becoming more difficult to share even with my conscious self. I wonder if anyone who reads much more than me can possess any less curiosity and awe. I do not know if I represent a section of low intellect beings that get overwhelmed with the most menial thoughts or if the ability to savor the minor ripples on my surface is just a gift of proof to myself of my depth. I am not sure if it matters either way. Books, after all, represent to me not a proud collection, but an infinity of ideas that have the potential to form a whole new universe - one that can hold my consciousness for eternity. Books represent to me a key to overcome the horror of stagnation; a path to ultimate truth.

Recently, though, it has dawned upon me that this obsession of mine seems purely pretentious to some. And obsession is so often judged in black or white. Perhaps, the world isn’t worthy of sharing one’s true self. Or does it matter at all?

Heaven and hell

I had an interesting conversation with one of my new friends today. He shared a thought that moved me profoundly. And I wonder why it never occurred to me before!
Are heaven and hell just different states of our post-life conscience or ethereal liberation? Do they only refer to the way we feel when we die and come to terms with our true selves? Is heaven the sense of satisfaction or serenity that's experienced by a compassionate and guilt-free soul? Is hell nothing but the remorse of a sinful spirit?

Seems plausible...

Bhagavad Gita - My favorite shloka

Karmanye Vadhikaraste Ma Phaleshu Kadachana,
Ma Karma Phala Hetur Bhurmatey Sangostva Akarmani.

(Your right is only over the actions; never over the results. Don't let the results of the action be your motive; neither let there be any attachment to inaction.)

Inarguably, one of the most well-known shloka from Bhagavad Gita! Very few people understand its depth and the weight though. Some say it's wierd; some believe it's meaningless. I feel that it's the essence of life.

From the perspective of a lost corporate:
The shloka says that I must passionately pursue my job to the level that's in my hands. It means I must deliver my project to the best of my capability, not for the joy of appreciation or promotion, but for the 'pleasure of doing and achieving'. It suggests that the appreciation/promotion should not be my motive to work and that the detachment from the results should not make me any less committed than I should be.

It may sound very impractical, but has great applicability. Einstein or Vinci did not struggle all their lives to win a place in the history. They could not have reached that stage of enlightenment by chasing fame. They succeeded because they discovered their joy in what they did. They became great by falling in love with their work.

Of course, long term success, if at all, can be attained only by dedicating oneself to work. The learning, experience and growth follow from there. Also, practising detachment from positive or negative results, while maintaining the perseverance takes us to the highest levels of mind-control. Wouldn't that be victory in true sense!

I seriously believe that Gita is an ocean of wisdom. Successfully digesting even a drop of it changes my attitude naturally. Worth a try people!!