Hari
Om
Each 'Choose-day' we will investigate the process by
which we can reassess our activity and interaction with the world of plurality
and become more congruent within our personality.
Continuing
posts prompted by the prasaadam grantha, "Gita in Daily life" by Sw.
Tejomayananda.
We
have seen how the Bhagavad Gita directs us to act in accordance with guidance.
What, now, does it say about living with things, beings and experiences? The
word which rings out in these regard from its pages is समता /samataa - equanimity,
impariality, benevolence, fairness (and other such nuances).
Let
us first address objects; those things we either possess or desire to possess.
Constantly in this age of untold luxury we feel we must acquire the latest
gadget, the newest fashion, the neatest car. What does Gita say about the
nature of such objects and the objective world at large? Three is one phrase
which applies well here. समलोष्टाश्मकाञ्चनाः /
samaloshtaashmakaancanaaH, which is to show an equal
appreciation towards a lump of clay, a piece of stone, or a nugget of gold. All
arise from the same place and have no intrinsic value of their own. It is we
who place the value. Also, as each thing does have a value, by virtue of its
presence before us, we ought to respect all things with equal reverence. What
is the value of stone, you are wondering? Say you are walking along happily
with an amount of money upon your person. How useful is that purse when you
have to defend yourself. The hand stone which you can through comes into its
own! Value is a functionality, but we have tended to play a greater weight upon
certain items, beyond their true worth and thus beyond their function. Clothes
are there to preserve modest. Fashion has almost reversed that function at
times! Mud can be used to build a home whilst gold is a useless material for
this. You may say that with gold you can build a palace. What has happened acutally is you have used your gold to be turned into mud (bricks) to build the palace. Consider further... Has that made
you happy? Is your daily life improved by having to care for such large
property - or have you added to your stresses and the weight of your sorrows?
Samataa
requires of us that, even if we are endowed by some grace with the greatest
riches, or even if we are the poorest person on the earth, we are to treat all
objects as exactly that. Objects. They have no greater importance than the
function they serve.
Bigger
is not necessarily better. There is a saying that one must not ignore the small
because there is a bigger to be had, for the work of a needle cannot be done
with a sword. Function is as function must. Everything has a purpose and place
in life. Whether the needle is simple steel or the shiniest gold is irrelevant
- all that is required is that it can pierce fabric and draw through the
thread. Conversely, a battle cannot be fought with a needle, the sword now must serve. Give each and every object in your daily life only as much value as it
deserves, whilst respecting that all objects do have some value, even if not
directly to your own requirements. Giving value because we require recognition
of status is an exaggeration of form and function. We must understand the
correct place of objects. Only then are we practicing the equanimity implied by
Gita's 'samataa'. To end, a story given
by Guru-ji in this booklet;
A
man was very rich, but his sister was very poor. He used to host lavish parties
but would never invite her. She thought
that after all he was her own brother and a formal invitation was not
necessary. She went to one of the
parties with her children. However, her
brother insulted her and told her never to come again. In her anguish, she prayed to Goddess
Lakshmii. Slowly, by Her Grace, the sister became rich. Then the brother
invited her to one of the parties. Decked in all her finery, wearing a lot of
jewels, she went to her brother's house.
When the food was served she quietly started feeding her ornaments!
Aghast at this the brother asked what she was doing. She calmly replied that he
had invited them, not her, hence she was giving them the food...
