Are you jealous?

                                                         

Click Here for Photo credit

Are you Jealous? - Exploring Ahimsa, Hinsa and the Stick & Hole Theory


“To conquer the inner self and the outer world, we do not need weapons, wars, greed, malice or exploitation, but we need to practice ahimsa, aparigraha (non-attachment or trusteeship of worldly possessions, as against, hinsa, or appropriation of all possessions) and anikant (multiplicity of views.)”

I found this written on a little card given to me, with the hope that I would send in some donation towards the upkeep of the Sri Sumatinath Jain Swetamber Temple, inside naughar, at Kinari Bazar, Old Delhi, while taking a walk written about in Delhi: 14 Historical Walks, by Dr Swapna Liddle.

Of late I have been contemplating deeply on the three words, “Are you jealous?” and while it is true that multiple answers have arisen, as a true seeker of yet another question, Who Am I, the aforesaid, three words, have taken on a status of high priority to me, in my quest for the root question, Who Am I.

Yog Sutra of Patanjali which dates back to 400 CE, talks substantially on ahimsa as the first most important path to follow for a seeker of Truth. When Jainism and Buddhist borrowed heavily from this, it became a way of life.

As an ardent student of Buddhism as taught by S.N Goenka, I have tried to incorporate the practice in my daily wakeful life, personal and professional. The challenge of a 10 – 21 Days Vipassana retreat is now a luxury, I can’t afford, in terms of time, hence, it is wiser to practice in wakeful everyday life. That certainly does not mean that one is not at all times struggling with the inner kurukshetra/war of emotions and their resultant affect on my own life. It is all too well to say that avarice (greed) is the root of all evils and the resultant Hinsa, or appropriation of all possessions is the cause of the war within and without our living experience of life.

As fellow beings, we tend to share each others’ histories and get included in our shared experiences. This forms the foundation of bonded relationships.

While Vipassana may help me introspect and be watchful, the answer to Are you jealous, I think lies with Freud.  A young man of Indian origin, and a Kolkattan, that too, although living in the US has propounded and made the world very simple taking cue from Freud’s Oedipus and Electra complex. He is kind to explain to us that all of Freud is all about ‘Kathi aar phooto’, which translates from Bangla to English as ‘Stick & Hole’ theory. I would say, that the answer to the profound question, Are you jealous lies in this simple theory that classifies the entire human experience into two simple facts – (a) kathi/stick (b) phooto/hole. Why then bother about the dangerous last requirement of practice of ahimsa, that being celibacy. It would be impossible to achieve higher values of this life, both Buddhist and Jains say, without achieving celibacy. Freud would duly put celibacy, which he hadn’t the vaguest idea of, in the context of our higher philosophies in India, into the realm of failed sexual interaction causing the vibrant, compulsive sexual energy to find its escape in Art etc, such as the case of Van Gogh.

Thus, no matter where I look for an answer to that profound question, Are you jealous, I prefer to take the middle path.

- Yes, I would be jealous, if in the first place, I owned or possessed that which I now have lost to someone else.

- But, if for all reasons, that which I have lost, was not what I possessed or owned in the first place, then i cannot be jealous about what I do not and never had.

- But if the ‘Stick & Hole’ Theory is true, then what i do not have in my possession now, I might aspire to possess it in future.

- But if what I aspire for is not my possession now and never has been, I cannot own up to be jealous, because, right here and now, they never were or are my possessions in the first place. Nor have I lost what I never owned in the first place.

Hence, putting aside the question ‘Are you jealous,’ to the shallowness of Freudian Psychoanalysis brilliantly illustrated by the ‘Stick & Hole’ Theory, I prefer to continue to focus on the questions in my quest for Truth, that being ‘Who Am I’.

Returning now, to the main subject of Jainism in Delhi, the leaflet I picked up, says,

“The prime significance of this place, which is the period of Sri Neminath Bhagwan (22nd Thirthankara, out of twenty-four) is that it was established as the capital city of India by the Pandavas who were the chief followers of Prabhu Nemirath Bhagwan, the cousin brother of Lord Krishna.”

Wikipedia has said that the first Digambar Jainas arrived in Delhi during the Mughal era, when the Agarwals were invited by Emperor Shah Jahan to come and set shop here in Delhi. This was very late but we are aware that Jainism spread widely in Gujarat and Rajasthan, including the south. But in the north, we know that there were temples, even as close or thereabouts in Meherauli, for there is evidence in the stones that made up the Qutab Minar built in 1192. In her book, Delhi: 14 Historical Walks, the author, Dr Swapna Liddle writes about the Qutab Minar Complex:

“Around much of the perimeter runs a pillared colonnade. The pillars are mostly elaborately carved and on close inspection one can see many humans, animals and divine figures. Such sculpture seem out of place in a mosque, since depiction of human or animal figures is unacceptable to orthodox Islam as being akin to idolatry. The answer to this mystery lies in the fact that these are re-used material from twenty-seven Hindu and Jain temples that had stood in the vicinity and were mostly destroyed by the invading Turks as an act of war.”

Indeed, before the Delhi Sultanate was overthrown by the Turks from Central Asia, in 1192, the Rajputs, also called the Tomar dynasty in the north, who finally were overthrown by Prithviraj Chauhan, also a Rajput reigned. It is expected that Jainas spread wide in Rajasthan during that period and even before or else the Qutab Minar would not have pillars with Jain Temples.

There are so many histories on the same thing and perhaps all are right. Like anekant (multiplicity of views) one must bear at heart that history is truth told by the historian from his view point which so many times was dictated by the ruling king and dynasty, who wanted history written with them as the centre of the world.

Thus, too with ‘Are you Jealous?'

Pussy Love and the Subconscious

Doctors recommend a pet if you are alone or depressed. They say having pets is good for the heart. There is a constant yearning among humans to share love and affection, to become a provider and a nurturer to life, whether they come in the form of animals, plants, trees, dogs or cats.

I once had such a friend who was passing through some really bad time. Her dachshund filled her every moment of life with his constant presence. Like her, he was alone, never allowed to have a mate, never let out in the open without her leading him on the leash. He even went to work with her as she was self-employed.

As many stories you want to hear about animals and their human bonding, that many stories and more are available for you.

But I was interested in Freud and his interpretation of cats in relation to man and women.

It is not surprising that dogs seem to be a man’s best friend and status symbol, as a cat may be a woman’s best choice.

Looking up straigtdopedotcom HERE  I came across some very interesting answers. Let me quote in Dogs VS Cats – A Freudian Theory.

Spoke said: “I have this theory that women tend to prefer cats as pets because cats exhibit "typical" or "stereotypical" male behavior: emotionally detached, independent to the point of being distant, cuddly - but only when they want to be, etc. etc. Similarly, I think men prefer dogs as pets because we see in dogs various "female" (or idealized female) traits: nurturing (always there for you when you need 'em), unconditionally loving, plus they will fetch things for you! 

Now maybe I'm wrong about my basic premise, that women (with exceptions) tend to prefer cats, and men (again with exceptions) tend to prefer dogs. But just based upon my own observations that seem to be the trend.”

Cher3 said: “I think statistics would probably bear out your observation about preferences, but you could just as well argue that women like cats because they are graceful and fastidious ("feminine" traits)and men like dogs because they are hierarchical animals who like to hang around in packs ("masculine" traits). Of course, it's typical of Freudian explanations for things that you can twist them to come out anyway you want.”

Further Cher3 continues: “I think statistics would probably bear out your observation about preferences, but you could just as well argue that women like cats because they are graceful and fastidious ("feminine" traits)and men like dogs because they are hierarchical animals who like to hang around in packs ("masculine" traits). Of course, it's typical of Freudian explanations for things that you can twist them to come out anyway you want.”

Mangeorge argues: “I think it may be simpler than that. Continuing the generalities; Dogs do as they're told. Men like that, women don't care. Cats are peaceful. Women like that, men don't care. Peace!”

Amen!

But really where the cat deification came from was Egypt. Freud might have got his inspiration from there, with four daughters of his own too.

Check this video

Photo Credit HERE

See not; hear not; do not!

From the net 

See not; hear not; do not!

The three monkeys of the mind must of course do exactly the opposite of what they are asked not to do.

Take the example of Ms Polly Outrageous. Having lived a fairly open life, swing in the 60s and stretching it to the 90s, she has finally found her peace in a life of discipline and one-centeredness. She is presently involved with reviewing her colourful life in the past and drawing, painting and writing stories of that past. But lately, she has ventured on facebook, and the first thing that hits her is the picture of couples kissing each other, which has gone viral. Needless to say, Ms Polly Outrageous has unwittingly looked at that video with much interest. Yes, of course it is possible to kiss and even love strangers, just like it was possible and still is, to love many, like they did in the 60s. Ms Polly Outrageous is now engaged with her imagination and like a tourist in London, having left all their identity in India, may engage in indeed the very outrageous, because in London, nobody knows her, Ms Polly Outrageous is really living out her name on facebook, but with dire consequences.

Only the other night, in her dream, she has been kissing someone, trying very hard to avoid kissing the lips. Even in the dream, she is prompting herself to not venture into the absolutely real, which will then cause her to accept that the near flirtatious pastime is becoming a serious preoccupation. As long as her kisses land on cheeks, forehead and other so called safe places, at least she is ‘safe’. This, after all is not one of those nights she is alone, she knows in her dream.

All that we want, we deny first. All that shows up in the dreams is a reflection of a shade of reality, which could be exactly as the dream or something that has a hidden meaning. In the above case, at face value, Ms Polly Outrageous, is certainly flirting with an idea of including ‘someone’ else; of breaking the cast and expanding the parameters. On a deeper level, she is merely trying to ‘kiss’ something new. It might even be a new life, a new job, a new love, a new life she is seeing in the offing, with which she is toying in her mind, flirting with the idea, but not wanting to get too close to it. A deeper mouth to mouth kiss would shift the position in her mind totally.

On a philosophical level, there is too much ado about nothing! The picture of the kissing couples has excited the impressions left behind in her mind, by kisses in the past.

The real, is the experience of impressions, which in themselves are not identical in every case, even with the same thing. A kiss may cause my mind to retain some impressions which may not be identical to what is left in your mind of the same experience of kissing. Hence, the real, philosophically can only be called unreal, for impressions are not scientific residual matter that appear in the same way, every time. Yet, one cannot deny their existence, because, if they did not exist, they would not revisit.

Where psychology ends, philosophy begins. Where the desire dynamics is a source of perennial discourse, philosophy gives step-motherly treatment. Where desire is a life giving force, philosophy is quick to douse water saying, memory of impressions is not truth. Indeed, impressions are not real at all.

But the take home for Ms Polly Outrageous is only one, that being See not; hear not; do not!

Where are you?