The luxury of Guruspeak!!

For a few months now, thanks to the forwards from a close friend , I have been watching the slick 8-10 minute productions from the Isha Foundation, where the Sadguru responds to questions from the bold , beautiful and the rich ...

I am impressed and am learning a fair bit from these videos. The Sadguru is a clear thinker with a holistic pragmatic view of life. His message vibes with the mind of the urbane elite ...

Then I wondered: why is it that thinkers like the Sadguru and a few others ( Robin Sharma , Osho, Ravi Shankar  come to mind) attract the upper class english speaking urban mileau ? The answer is quite simple -because this class of financially well off persons now moving up the Maslow heirarchy chain having crossed the esteem level are now seeking guidance  in their quest for "self actualization".

The vast majority of wage earners are busy seeking to go beyond survival stage in the medium term and have no time for "self actualization". Their waking day is spent in the inevitable pusuit of financial stability.

To the seekers who have achieved financial independence and esteem I have a question....Could not self actualization be attempted in the pursuit of helping others in society get up the economic ladder? Take the Gates ,Warren Buffet , Narayanaswamy , Azim Premji or Ratan Tata- I wonder whether these gentlemen have  problems in self actualization?. Their path is simply one  of living actively in the midst of society extending physical and monetary support in upgrading mankind as a whole.

Self actualization or world actualization. ??  An active society centric life or an inward solace seeking one? O would the former lead to the latter ?        

Extra marital Relationships

A few days ago I chanced to read a response from Sadguru Vasudev on the relevance or otherwise of multiple (read extra marital) relationships.

 Let me at the outset admit to being a fan of the Sadguru. I have always benefited listening to him over the years. The response to the relationship question, however, disappointed me. The Sadguru links relationships to the “physical” act of touch, and opines that it is a distraction that is best avoided. The distraction is in the context of ones’ quest for spirituality.  He goes on to build a theory on the perils of the “physical” touch, which hinders spirituality. In all of the 10 minute response the word “sex” appears just once. There was mention of “Namaskaram” as evidence of the ancients understanding of the evils of touch. 

I find the linking of relationship and physical touch as a tad weird. To ignore the mental desires for a relationship and to conclude that the desire is totally physical, in my view, is taking a very limited perspective of relationships. Man is truly a social animal as evolution has proven. Loners are a minority. As a social entity human beings desire to stay in “touch” and find meaning in interacting with those around. ( I got to read the article through a friend in the Facebook- the ultimate social media !! )  .

My own view of relationships ( in the context referred in the first line and restricted to the non homosexual kind) goes somewhat like this . I resort to a series of hypotheses

Hypothesis 1

The need for relationships starts first with the libido …I cannot comment on the female of the species , but men in their teens fantasize and would have sex if there were no social and family issues involved- witness the sexual freedom in many parts of the world – mostly western . In the Eastern world the family and religious sentiments still keeps this out of bounds till marriage. Over time as the sexual energy diminishes relationships take on a “companionship” dimension, with the need to be mutually present together still a dominant factor.

Hypothesis 2

Marriage is a social and cultural act that has undergone a sea change in norms in just the past 200 years. Women have driven the change. Till the early twentieth century, married women were resigned to their husbands having extra marital affairs. These affairs were largely with unmarried women or those in the sex profession. Married women saw their role as that of bringing up a Family and “enjoying” domestic stability and bliss. The man was performing a socially acceptable role of being a Father and providing a living for the family. His extra marital acts never came in for any criticism .

Hypothesis 3

Women have “evolved” in the last 200 years to show a great deal of independence both financially and emotionally. Whilst “motherhood” is a dominant desire it now is not accepted as being a sole purpose of marriage. Women seek the independence that men have ( to use their time and money as they desire) and when that is not given, the stronger of them rebel. I know girls having walked out within a week of marriage! In many countries in the Western world divorce rates are in the 50% + and in some European countries “live-in” couples matches married couples in numbers.

Hypothesis 4

My fourth hypothesis is that human being as he or she ages seeks for companionship. I define companionship as an “environment” where he or she feels relaxed and forgets the trials and worries of daily existence. Such moments of companionship re charges the physical and mental system to face the world. In such moments of companionship the freedom to “converse”, as distinct from a debate or scoring a point is the prime factor.

Hypothesis 5

Unfortunately a spouse does not fit the requirement of companionship. This is for a very simple reason. Living together day to day builds a mindset that refuses to accept the other as worthy of any beliefs or thoughts worth discussing. Owing to years of striving mutually to build a family, both the wife and the husband become immune to varied opinions from the other. Companionship to me is all about sharing the inanities of the world in a “conversational” environment. Why this environment gradually deteriorates and finally disappears in married couples is yet to be clearly enunciated

Hypothesis 5

The “relationship” between a man and a women is bound to turn sexual if one or both parties are so inclined. Is that wrong? Does it go against the vows of marriage? Is in unfair to the spouse- of which ever sex?

The moot point here is the definition of “wrong”. If the sexual act affects the married environment (and I agree, in 95% of the cases it may), then it is wrong. It is wrong because the responsibility to a family can be fulfilled only if both spouses are committed to the family. Commitment takes a knock when an extra marital act impinges on the relationship at home. Two hundred years ago, women were subservient and did not even dream of letting the husbands’ extra marital sex affect them one bit. Not anymore and rightly so.

What about the 5 % of relationships where the man and the women are mature enough to not let their extra marital relationships affect their families? If anything these, people would I think be more committed to their Families, having found a lasting solution to the “relationship” requirement.

Would this 5% proportion increase? I think well before that, the very institution of marriage may change within the next 100 years. The declining population is much of Europe and Japan, is indicative of the changing priorities of both sexes. If the woman does decide to have a child to fulfill her motherhood need, she would put in places covenants that would protect her independence and choice of living.