IS THERE ANYBODY?

Are we sure that our accumulative way of living is the meaning of our existence?

Rajendar

CONTENTS

1. Introduction 2. Psychological security posing itself as Physical 3. Why arent we doing anything when people are starving? 4. Dominator model and Partnership model 5. Economy for Development and Economy for Peace 6. How does Education happen in this situation? 7. What has prevented us from seeing this all along? 8. Are we shielding others from experiencing their world? 9. Relationship with Earth

3 5 8 11 13 16 18 22 25

Introduction

his is not written to tell others what I have known already. This is more of writing to myself. This is a fearless, no-holds-barred exploration of a typical human being. No strings attached, no hidden agenda, a genuine attempt to understand human life.

We are aware of the role of millions of plant and animal life in this integral world, they are all part of a sustainable/sustaining cycle. What is the role of a human being in this? What is the meaning of human existence? After all, we are all part of the sustainable whole. Being an integral part of the whole, our activities are supposed to be in harmony with the whole. Have we swayed away from our original function? How far? Is it possible to undertake our naturally assigned role from this moment onwards? Our whole life is oriented towards accumulation. Somehow, this way of living has come about. Can we explain the coming into being of a mind of religious fanatics who happily kill children and women or the mind of those who kill in the name of caste or religion? Same way, this way of living has come about. But, nothing sacrosanct about it. Our preference for the comfort zone and reluctance to raise disturbing questions makes us continue this superficial life. Is it possible to eat a sumptuous meal in the midst of starving children? Yes, of course, that is exactly what we are doing. May be to hide this ugly sight only, we built walls. Is it possible to make our fellow beings feel totally worthless? Yes, of course, that is what we do, a tactic employed to win the game of life. Our insensitivity doesnt know any bound.

We know that material objects are limited and natural resources, which are used to make material objects, are limited. Natural resources sustain itself cyclically. It needs time to regenerate itself. But, as the human demand is unlimited accumulation, they are not waiting for nature to regenerate itself. So, they started exploiting nature massively, much beyond its sustainability. Nothing much is left to exploit now. We are on the brink. 15 to 20% of people have benefited materially from this exploitation and majority of people are still struggling for survival. This way of living is inherently flawed and destructive. Is money everything? Can we measure relatedness and peace in terms of money? Is there any meaning in living the way we are living now? Do we get any benefit at all in this process of living? Poverty (nearly half of world population is affected by poverty and one billion children, roughly one in two, live in poverty), suicides (every 8 hours, there is a farmer suicide in India), migration (there are 200 million migrant laborers in China alone), violence, wars, overexploitation of land, water scarcity, deforestation, global warming and benefits in the form of unlimited material objects in the hands of few (associated with broken marriages, lack of intimate relationship with children, neglected youths pushed to extremes, stress and other health problems) are the consequences.

In spite of so much agony and sufferings, human beings got stuck to this competitive and exploitative way of life in pursuit of accumulation as if there is no other choice. On the other hand, cooperation, caring and healing is the way of nature. The Sun cares. The trees, plants, soil, rain, birds and animals and millions of living beings care for each other, thats how the universe survives. It is all part of the sustainable process, the unintended, self-evolved sustainable rhythm of life. The incomprehensible universe, with its millions of stars, lives this rhythm of life. We dont have faith in this life of caring, healing and cooperation but we die, kill, rob, cheat and hoard to be truthful to our accumulative way of life. Only for this, we go to work and only for this, we educate ourselves. What is our choice in this to be part of accumulation and exploitation or to be part of the life of cooperation, caring and healing?

This is our only life. Right beginning is very important, once we are in a certain dynamics, its own law will be active and it will be difficult to extricate and move, we have enough of that experience. Our life, the way we live, is a great opportunity, a new beginning; exploring oneself should be the only guiding principle. Living life without understanding its meaning and so being part of the herd is a colossal waste of human energy. Let us explore ourselves to find the meaning of life. Meanwhile, let us dont do any damage to nature and our fellow beings. Let sustainable living, being related, being responsible, exploration of body and mind be the priorities of life. Let us explore together.

Psychological security posing itself as Physical security

hysical survival is the basic instinct for all living beings. The movement of physical survival activities enters the psychological field and it becomes psychological security. Activities, which are the result of seeking psychological security, are actually responsible

for all the problems facing humanity today. But calling them as physical survival activities and justifying them that way, we continue these activities without any restraint. And this is our accumulative way of living. Food, shelter and clothes are the physical necessities. Beyond that, what we amass is because of this psychological insecurity. When the entire humanity is into this unlimited accumulation, what are the effects of this on natural resources and on our relationship with each other? We are all becoming aware of the massive destruction wrecked on nature and its resources by us because of this accumulative living. We have become isolated human beings and are not related anymore as we are all engulfed by fear, anger, jealousy, hatred, insecurity, violence and wars.

It seems that thinking is the outcome of feeling insecure in a given situation. I am talking about the thinking, which originates from the subconscious and keeps coming all the time, I am not referring to the deliberation, the conscious thinking we do to consider something. We dont meet a situation fully as this subconscious thinking is operating, typically like doubting whether what we did is right or wrong or evaluating whether it is prudent to contest what the other person said, that is, the insecure feeling is getting reflected in one form or other, that is how the subconscious comes into play. As we didnt meet a situation fully, the response being incomplete, that paves the way for subsequent subconscious thinking, an attempt to provide completion. As this subconscious thinking is waiting restlessly for an opportune moment to raise its head, when we are not actively engaged, it comes into play immediately. We are caught in a kind of vicious circle, the seed being the psychological insecurity. As we are occupied with the insecure feeling, evaluating defensively what we did is right or wrong, we fail to act intelligently and fully. When this insecure feeling continues, it gives rise to a psychological person. This psychological insecurity is acting all the time and actions emanating from this insecure feeling lead to accumulation of resources in the hands of few and others are left just with this insecure feeling and a miserable life of poverty. From being an integral part of a sustainable whole, psychological insecurity has become a separate entity and this psychological insecurity seeking security is our way of

life.
Is it a problem to get the physical necessities, food, shelter and clothes, for everybody in this world? Not at all, it is our accumulative way of living, the product of psychological insecurity, which comes in the way. One group of people is accumulating massively and the rest is living in the dream of doing that. So, everybody is caught in this. In the process, billions of people are suffering from poverty and other associated problems. Poverty is just not about hunger, its much

deeper than that, it means being treated like dirt, living with overt and covert insults, humiliation, diseases and untold miseries and agony. They are all suffering silently. The cry, because it is silent, is not reaching us.

United Nation's publication, UN Chronicle, in its article on poverty titled "Staying Alive for Another Day" reports, For over 3 billion of the global population of 6.45 billion, poverty is a way of life. It has many faces for those who live amidst its clutches-the two most visible are the faces of hunger and

lack of shelter. An estimated 1 billion children, worldwide, live in poverty, with over 10 million dying each year before the age of five. Poverty is also the fear of uncertainty, of not knowing when the next meal will come or how to care for a sick child when there is no money to buy food. Entire generations live and die with no idea of how or where to seek help, often wondering if anyone would listen anyway to their hardships.

A report prepared by UN-HABITAT for the Forum, states that 2007 will mark a turning point in history, when for the first time half of the global population will be living in cities. It will also be the year when the number of slum dwellers around the world will reach 1 billion. 30 per cent of all urban dwellers lived in slums in 2005. Diseases arising from poor sanitation kill up to 1.6 million slum dwellers annually.

This is the magnitude of the problem facing humanity but we are all caught in our accumulative living, cheating ourselves that we are doing it in the name of physical security.

When people are starving, why arent we doing anything effectively about it?

here are more than 48 million child-orphans in Africa alone, we dont know how many millions are added to this from various conflicts happening all over the world. A caregiver in South Africa says, People talk about rights of the child, doesnt the child have the right

to three meals a day? We have children often going to bed hungry. These children go through extraordinary painful life. We dont know the agony of an orphan or a migrant laborer or a slumdweller? There are 200 million migrant workers in China alone, 1 billion slum dwellers in the world and 1 billion children living in poverty. If you want to know the ruthless efficiency of market economy and its effect on people even in rich countries, here it is: in U.S, medical treatment is not affordable without health insurance and 43.6 million people in U.S are uninsured and so dont get treated for their illness as insurance premium is beyond their means, yes U.S only, this is the effect of globalization. Poverty, migration, orphans, suicides, diseases and life without any respect and dignity are few of the problems faced by a huge mass of poor people in the world. Why dont we do something about this? We, the human beings, as a race are extremely ruthless and numb, isnt it?

We evaluate globalization from growth rates and GDP but do we measure its effect on poor people? Do we compare the condition of lower segment of people before and after globalization? Let us look at India, the second populous country in the world. It has a vibrant democracy, functional legal and education system. It is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. The globalization in India has created number of billionaires and millionaires and large number of youngsters are drawing huge salary. The world is looking at Indias huge upper and middle class, 380 million people, and their purchasing power with awe. Compare it with the population of USA and Western Europe, which is 298 million and 186 million respectively. This 380 million, which is 35% of the total Indian population, who can read, write and study well, has one of its family member employed in a well paying job and it has a deep pocket. These people put together are having mammoth purchasing power, which resulted from their skills and intelligence. As India is seeking to provide outlet to the skills of these people by offering solutions in IT, HealthCare and few other sectors to other countries, those countries are demanding unrestricted access to this huge market. Instead of the partial liberalization, if India decides to liberalize its economy fully, this segment will benefit immensely and it will meet the demands of the International community also. What does this mean to rest of the people in India and will it eliminate the wide spread poverty in India in due course? No, it cannot.

The rest, 65% of the population, 715 million people, is uneducated or undereducated and they are employed in agriculture, agro related and other marginal jobs. But what is the effect of globalization on this lower segment? Government says there is reduction in the poverty level. But, what is the ground reality in villages? We never heard about farmer suicides in our villages 10 years back, it is a recent phenomenon. If we recollect our younger days in our villages, villagers starving were never heard-of. But, today if any of the village poor has three meals a day, that is an exception. Actually, I was shocked when I heard 5 years back that villagers are selling their 1 gm / 2 gm gold ornament for their survival as they were not getting enough work. Those were the days of villagers started feeling the heat from liberalization and it is worse presently. And the resultant mass migration from villages to cities was also never heard-of. This is what 10 years of globalization has done to the lower segment in India. This is the ground reality. The conditions were worsened and problems are mounting. Even upper-middle class people would find buying a house unaffordable in cities today and healthcare is prohibitively costly for everybody. For whose benefit these are all happening, are we nuts?

The globalization has created many rich people and made life miserable to live for poor people. Why is the Government not effective in their action against poverty? Huge amount of money is spent on Poverty Alleviation Programs, but its not solving the problem, it is only getting worsened. Poor people are always there, a huge segment of them. That means we are not able to identify the exact problem and may be attacking the wrong end. Does the intricate maze of our economic model hold the key? Is it inherent in moneymaking, when one makes money, it is out of many peoples loss? It is obvious in stock market, lottery, race and in all speculative activities. In sports, it is true. In education also, it is so, for one first ranker, there are many left behind. Let us take agriculture. The farmer and farm-labourer cultivate paddy and through the mill owner, wholesaler and super market, it reaches the consumer. The farmer and farm-laborer gets paid marginally while the supermarket owner, wholesaler and mill owner makes huge money out of this activity, that is out of the farmer and farm-labourer. It is the same in manufacturing sector also. Is it true for all other economic activities also? That is, one gains out of many. That is, when one makes money, it is necessarily out of many others. Is it inherently structured in the economic system prevalent today, the economy for development? Let us leave it to the experts. But, it appears that it is true. That is why poverty remains a never-ending problem. We are barking up the wrong tree all along, that is why in spite of the huge money spent on it, it keeps its presence all the time. So, a solution has to be found outside of this economy for development.

At the same time, upper and middle class people, who are benefiting from this economy for development, would like to continue this. So, let the Government liberalizes fully, opening

out even trading and banking sectors. Let the educated class be happy totally. Let them make money out of their effort, on their own, but not out of the lower segment. If they do, that is looting, isnt it? So, let the government also protect the lower segment from being expended and exploited like this and open up for them an economic model that will give them respect, dignity, food, shelter and all their basic necessities a model called economy for peace. Let the government open communes in all the villages. There is no financial outlay for the Government. It is going to be a facilitator, if possible it can allot land for the communes. Communes will have activities like cultivating food crops, vegetable farming, fruit farming, dairy, woodworks, weaving, cloth making and other necessary activities to make it self sufficient. Anybody can become a member of the commune. Members own the commune, its land and produces. Members reside inside the communes and have common kitchen and dining. The commune will be financed by financial institutions and the commune will repay the loan from its operations. All the massive resources deployed by the Government now for Welfare Schemes can be utilized to help the communes, if they get into difficulties.

There is nothing new about this, 250 years back throughout the world, people in villages put in their labour and got their needs, nobody is left out of this process and everybody got whatever is their needs through work and barter. It is not easy to act differently when everybody is going in one way; that is why we had only one Mahatma. Is there anybody who has the courage to do this?

Dominator model and Partnership model

obin Martin justifying the necessity of bringing in the alternate model of living for those who are not able to survive in the present model, says, There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of ways in which one can examine the patterns of culture and why societies

choose, consciously or unconsciously, the directions that they do. To simplify some of the pivotal issues of social transformation, I shall examine two modes of thought for viewing life that greatly impact how we live our lives and the growth of institutions such as education that support our life styles. The first and dominant mode of thought is often labeled "Materialism." The other mode of thought goes by many names as it is still in the process of being defined. For the purposes of this paper, this evolving mode of thought shall be called "Holism."

Rooted in an objective (or object-oriented) reality, Materialism underlies a set of cultural practices that leads to the continual and unquestioned acquisition of more and more material objects by individuals as well as by groups. Due to the history behind Materialism, it is primarily associated with Western development and capitalism. The society that evolves from Materialism is what cultural researcher and author Riane Eisler calls a "dominator model" where half of society outranks the other half, and persecution and violence are considered a "normal" part of human nature. When our views of reality are determined primarily by objects and scientific facts that are outside of us, this leads to a scarcity for meeting human needs because those needs are also perceived outside of us. In the material world, there are always limits on what or how much each community member can

have, which leads to a "dominator model" in which certain groups of people attempt to control the scarce resources to their own benefit. In the material world of achievement, power is based on what you have, what you know, or what you can do; it is not an inherent part of who you are. As such, power can be abused as society breaks down into the "haves" and the "have nots."

Holism allows people to conceptualize the world beyond a materialistic focus on mind and body. It values the internal world of spirit where meaning is not derived from the logic around the scarcity of objects in the world, but from one's personal interpretation of the world. The type of society that derives from this mode of thought is what Riane Eisler calls a "partnership model" of society. When a society places its primary values on internal processes rather than external objects, then the need to dominate scarce resources is eliminated; people can work in partnership toward common goals such as community peace and well being.

While those who are benefiting from the development economy, the Dominator Model, may not give up that way of living because that is what they have prepared

10

themselves to be. The rest have unwittingly become exploited in this model and this role-play, particularly by the majority, is a necessary element in the structure of development economy and their dream to become the beneficiaries is keeping them in this. They should become part of the Partnership Model as it not only takes care of the individual needs but also brings in equity and peace.

11

Economy for Development and Economy for Peace

W
hopes.

e all know Einstein, the great scientist, but the lesser-known side of Einstein, a passionate champion of socialism, is equally radical. Analyzing human problems at fundamental level, he said, Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a

social being. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career. Offering a solution to the problems faced by majority of people in the world, Einstein suggested establishment of a socialist society while cautioning that there are certain conditions, which we cannot modify. I would infer from this that to guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child, we need to establish communes for the lower segment of people, while the upper strata of society continues in the present model of living in which they are prospering. Einstein said, If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

The primary objective of the present economic model, the economy for development, as pointed out by Robin Martin and Einstein, is unlimited accumulation of material objects. But

12

material objects are limited. And everybody, as individuals and as groups, is trying to control these limited materials and the highest accumulator is the victor in this model. So, the result is conflicts, violence, wars and destruction of natural resources beyond restoration. There is destructive exploitation of soil, water, plants, trees, forests and other natural resources in this economy for development. Whoever finds meaning in this, let them continue in this. Let everybody else embrace economy for peace.

Let us peacefully coexist with each other and with nature. If possible, let us live in communes. If there are community settlements all over, where everything is shared equally amongst the members, the land, the work, the yield from the land, the revenue from various crafts which are all part of the

settlement, that will put an end to suicide of farmers and the large-scale migration happening from rural to urban areas. Let us bring about these collaborative mechanisms to eliminate poverty totally, instead of waiting for them to be saved by trickle down effect.

If communes are not possible, let us live in land & land related activities. Even if the land is not large, let us make the place whole and sustainable. Let us be responsible to the land, lack of it only brought the world to the brink of collapse. We had millions of plant varieties and thousands of food crops but the monoculture has brought widespread cultivation of only 12 prominent species, we have lost all that diverse plant life. Let us have an integrated land with forested area, ponds and lakes to store rainwater, topsoil cultivation, diversified food crops and other sustainable practices to make the place and activities integral with sustainable cycle. Let us be an integral part of this and learn.

Without the accumulative occupation, with space and leisure, as we understand our integral role in the sustainable whole and as we see that we are able to relate with everything around us if we are unoccupied, there is possibility for remaining open.

13

How does Education happen in this situation?

ccumulative life is the most predominant and all pervading force in the world. Almost everybody is into this. It causes massive damage to nature and its resources. The person who is into this accumulation, what is he gaining from this, other than the material

objects, the pleasure of owning that and the security derived from that. Is this only his life? Could it be the meaning of human life, occupied all the time with this accumulation, no leisure, no silence, no space and no openness? Surely, it cannot be. Look at the flowers, why do they have honey, it is for the honeybees, and in this process the honeybees propagate flowers, its the sustainable cycle in action. If we dont have cats, the world will be full of rats. Let us assume that the cats decided to accumulate rats required for their entire lifetime, may be for their childrens and grandchildrens lifetime. Imagine about the consequences. That is whats happening in reality, that is what human beings are doing. We are accumulating for our generations. The consequences are there for all to see. We are not integral part of the sustainable cycle anymore. Accumulating and being with material objects cannot be our life. We need silence, space, and openness. We need to be related, to the land, to the nature.

But, we prepare our children only for this accumulative life in the name of education. Is this really the function of education in this situation? Mainstream schools will make the child caught in the accumulative life. The formal classroom based education is a mainstream accumulative activity. Education need not be formal as such, say in a classroom. Why should we confine the children, anyhow they have been learning all along right from their

childhood wherever they are? Why should we pluck them from these learning contexts and confine them in a room to learn? Let them start from the basics, the fundamentals of life. Let them learn about soil, they will understand, as they are interacting with the soil, the necessity for topsoil cultivation if they want to grow food crops on it. Water, plants and forestation are integral part of this. As they interact, they will know what to do. Understanding that soil, water, plants, trees, forests and themselves are all integral part of the sustainable cycle is their education. Let them visit places which practice sustainability, live there for few months and learn. It could be a commune in Auroville or Sholai School, a self-sustaining community and a school run in the spirit of J.Krishnamurti's teaching where children learn by experimenting, building roofs and furnitures or Gurukula Botanical Sanctuary, Wyanad where along with self sustenance children can learn sense based education. Let them live in a village for few months. As they have leisure, let them explore their body and mind. Exploration of body could be through yoga, pranayama, kalari, music, games, dance, hand skills like drawing, clay work, woodwork, spinning, weaving or cooking. Exploration of mind could be through silence, questioning the social norms, behavior

14

and habits. These explorations again are not to achieve or accumulate anything. This again is part of the sustainable cycle. Let them learn basic history, geography, math and science and good communication skills. Again this is not an accumulative process. All these experiences will make them feel that they are integral part of the sustainable cycle and there is an alternative to the accumulative life.

15

What has prevented us from seeing this all along?

hat has prevented us from seeing that by nature we are integral part of a sustainable cycle? And there is an alternative to the accumulative life. We are seeing right from our childhood all around us that everybody is deeply into accumulative life. Our

parents, uncles, neighbors, teachers, leaders and the whole world is into accumulative life, that is what education is and that is what our education prepares us for. This only prevented us from seeing this. When the whole world is going in one direction, who would have had the courage to question it. One man has seen it all, long time back J.Krishnamurti. He says that human problems cannot be solved at conscious or unconscious level and that a change must begin at a level which the mind cannot reach and he asks whether we can be free of society society being all the education, the culture, the norm, the values, the standards. This is what he is saying about this, "We are quite familiar with this process, it is what we are doing all the time; all our social structure, our moral structure, our adjustments, and so on, are based on that. But does that bring about a change? If not, then must not a change come about at a totally different level, which is not in the field either of the conscious or of the unconscious? Surely the whole field of the mind, the conscious as well as the unconscious, is conditioned by our particular culture. My whole being is the conscious as well as the unconscious. In the field of the unconscious are all the traditions, the residue of all the past of man, inherited as well as acquired; and in the field of the conscious I am trying to change. Such change can only be according to my conditioning. So transformation, obviously, is something which is not of the mind at all; it must be at a different level altogether at a different depth, at a different height".

"I see the truth that a change, a transformation, must begin at a level which the mind, as the conscious or the unconscious, cannot reach, because my consciousness as a whole is conditioned. So, what am I to do? If I may put it differently, can my mind, the conscious as well as the unconscious, be free of society? - society being all the education, the culture, the norm, the values, the standards. Because if it is not free, then whatever change it tries to bring about within that conditioned state is still limited, and therefore no change at all. If I see the truth of that, what is the mind to do? Can my mind exist without any incentive, without any motive to change or not to change? Because, any motive is the outcome of the reaction of a particular culture, is born out of a particular background. So, can my mind be free from the given culture in which I have been brought up? This is really quite an important question. Because if the mind is not free from the culture in which it has been reared, nurtured, surely the individual can never be at peace, can never have freedom. His gods and his myths, his symbols and all his endeavors are limited, for they are still within the field of the conditioned mind.

16

Whatever efforts he makes, or does not make, within that limited field, are really futile, in the deepest sense of that word".

"So, what is the mind to do? I see the importance of change. And I see that any change at any level of the conscious or unconscious mind is no change at all. If I really understand that, if I have grasped the truth of it - that so long as there is the maker of the effort, the thinker, the `I' trying to achieve a result, there must be a division, and hence the desire to bring about an abridgment, an integration between the two, which involves conflict, - if I see the truth of that, then, what happens?"

"Do

I see

that

any effort

I make within

the field

of

thinking, conscious

as well as unconscious, must entail a separation, a duality, and therefore conflict? If I see the truth of that, then have I to do anything? Please, this is not some oriental philosophy of doing nothing, or going into some kind of mysterious trance. On the contrary, this requires a great deal of thought, penetration, and inquiry. One cannot come to it unless one has gone through the whole process of understanding the conscious as well as the unconscious. That is why it is very important to have self-knowledge. Not self-knowledge according to some philosopher or some psychoanalyst, great or little, that is mere imitation, it is like reading a book and trying to be that book; that is not self-knowledge. Self-knowledge is actually discovering in oneself the process of one's thinking, feeling, motives, responses, - the actual state in which we are, not a desired state".

"That is why it is very important to have self-knowledge, - of whatever we are, ugly, good, bad, beautiful, joyous, the whole of it, to know one's superficial conditioning as well as the deeper unconscious conditioning of centuries of tradition, of urges, compulsions, imitations, - to know, to actually experience the whole totality through self-knowledge. Then I think we will find that the conscious as well as the unconscious mind no longer makes any movement to achieve a change; but a change comes about, a transformation comes about, at a totally different level, at a height, a depth, which the conscious as well as the unconscious mind can never touch. The transformation must begin there, not at the conscious or unconscious level, which is the product of a culture.

17

That is why it is very important to be free of society, through self-knowledge. And I think then, when this whole process of recognition by society has ceased, when the mind is no longer concerned with reform of any kind, then there is a radical transformation, which the conscious or the unconscious mind cannot touch, and from that transformation a different society, a different state, can be brought about. But that state, that society, cannot be conceived of, it must come from the depths of self-discovery. So it seems to me that what is important is this inquiry into the `self', the `me', and to know the self as it is, with its ambitions, envies, aggressive demands, deceptions, the division as the high and the low, - to uncover it, so that not only the conscious mind is revealed but also the unconscious, the storehouse of past tradition, the centuries of deposits of all kinds of experiences. Knowing the totality of that is the ending of it. Then the mind, not being concerned with society, with recognition, with reformation, even with the changing of itself, finds that there is a change, that there is a transformation, which is not the outcome of a purposeful effort to produce a result".

18

Are we shielding others from experiencing their world?

es, we are shielding others from experiencing their world, having their own experience, which is real for them. Everybody acts out of whatever is his or her understanding, there may be limitation in the understanding but he/she acts out of his/her understanding.

Otherwise, he/she will not be doing what he/she is doing. If he/she acts contrary to his/her understanding, he/she is a hypocrite. If I criticize the other person for his actions, I am preventing his experiencing and delaying his learning process; I am doing injustice to him. We justify our criticism by imagining that we prevent the danger, that otherwise would have happen to him. Actually, our intervention only worsens the situation. Whatever may be the action of the other person, it may be social activism, misbehavior, so called undesired or inferior interests, if that irritates us, the conflict is in us, not in the other person. Our irritation only is vitiating the atmosphere. In our relationship with children also, its the same. By limiting their experience, we come in the way of their freedom and make them closed. By criticizing them, we bring in the value system and conflict in them. The problem with the value system, becoming good, is that it stipulates, brings in what should be against what is. It assumes what is is a problem. When we approach a situation, we brand it as a problem and immediately the demand for solution arises along with it. The situation we are in may not be a problem at all. We could experience the situation only when we look at it in total silence without any movement from that reality. This is true for me, for others and also for children. When we intervene and criticize others for their action, branding it as a problem, not only we prevented the other person seeing it as a simple situation, not a problem situation, we are also seeing it that way. The other

person can see it as a simple situation only out of his experiencing; for that to happen, we should not intervene. Many of our problems in our relationships will come to an end when we look at this reality. Silence only allows the exploration of reality.

19

Relationship with Earth

o we have any relationship with the earth, the trees & flowers, the birds and the air we breathe? Do we see the regeneration capacity of the land when we produce so much out of it? When we consume produces, which is the result of such careless production,

are we also not responsible for making our lands barren? Forests are cleared for urbanization, coffee, tea and vanilla cultivation, paper & packaging products manufacturing, and various other industrial activities. Being beneficiaries, are we not responsible for this? Concentration (camps!) of vast number of people in urban areas puts lots of stress on resources, particularly on land and water. Lakes were converted into housing colonies, one street, which had 40 houses, now has 400 families in flats, greenery has given place to concrete. Lakes, ponds and wells were holding the rain water and they were given place to bore wells, rainwater is let into the sea and we are pumping out water from aquifers, we were augmenting and using aquifers earlier but now we are depleting it very fast. Through the process of rain, saltwater was converted into fresh water and that was stored in lakes, ponds and wells and seeps into aquifers. Now, as this is not happening, seawater, that is salt water, is intruding into aquifers. Another aspect of this is the reduction of moisture content both in the surface soil and air. We dont know what are the effects of all these? The burnt fossil fuel and industrial emissions are playing havoc with the atmosphere to the extend of getting warning like this, Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb. If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced. We dont know the magnitude of the effects. We are only talking about global warming reluctantly; we are not even aware of the damage done to our soil, plants and water. What is our responsibility in all these? Are we going to wait for governments to act? Or is it the time for individuals to act? The immediate question would be what an individual can do? Let us see what we could do.

If we are involved in primary (land & land related) activities, we could act. But, when we are indulging in activities, which are far removed from the primary activities and at faraway locations, and which are in a way responsible for all these damages, then the demand would be to give up these activities for which we have prepared ourselves from our childhood. Can we live just doing primary activities? If we do so, what are we missing? We will miss our money, comforts and fame but we will also miss the irreparable damages we do to the nature. We will also miss the feeling we get when we do a job satisfactorily and when we put in hard work. But does it really matter in comparison with the damages these works have wrecked on nature? Instead if we do just the primary activities, taking care of earth, plant and trees, then we are related to the earth,

20

the trees & flowers, the birds & animals and the air we breathe and so we will not be doing any harm to them, instead there will be harmony.

We care so much for our studies, job, money, properties, name and fame. This is all our life. It is all for our security; pleasure and sense of achievement are part of that. Our security inherently creates insecurity for others. When I am first, there are 99 others who are not, when I get the job, there are 70 others who didnt, when I make money, it is out of others loss. So, when I secure myself, I create so much insecurity around me. Injustice is inbuilt in this process of life. That is why it leads to violence, war, murders, anger, fear, jealousy and frustration. Apart from the harm this process brings to human beings, it wrecks so much damage to nature also. We are kind of closed when we have only these priorities (job, money, etc.,) in life. Silence, peace and leisure are rarity in this life. We are not open to explore our true self, meaning of our existence and such fundamental questions. If we are in primary activities, we care for the land, water, plants, trees, animals and air. If this is our life, we will have so much leisure, silence and peace. We will be open to explore. The silence will bring forth exploration.

21