Pure giving

The ego is interested in its own nourishment.

Because the ego wants only that what the ego values, not which is absolutely valuable.

Getting tired of getting hurt is a rare happening. Man is extremely resilient. We keep on getting hurt again and again, at the same place and yet we are hardly ever tired of repeating the same processes, the same actions that bring us to hurt.

You can call it a stage of demolition. The old patterns are seen as worthless and hence given up.

In the first level, the ego gives, and this giving is of a nature that strengthens the ego. In the second level, the ego gives up its trust in itself and hence gets diminished.

In the third stage giving up does not happen. The third stage is of pure giving.

You just give. Meaninglessly, purposelessly, reasonlessly. You don’t even give, you are just being what you really are.

And when you just start giving, since you are giving to yourself, you start receiving a lot.

Tremendously bored we are with everything, that even an invitation to get rid of boredom sounds boring.

Your mind is already afraid of death, and Rumi is just exposing, or at worst exploiting that fear.

Given the way we are, fear is our reality. Wherever there is body identification, there would also parallely be the fear of the loss of the body.

Everything is done for a purpose, for a reason, with the expectation of gain. And where there is the expectation of gain, there is also the parallel fear of loss.

Because an action that arises from fear can never eliminate fear.

Take care of the ‘first’ in the ‘first place.’ Do not let the disease guide your actions. Rather, the first action should be to eliminate the disease. And these are the only two ways of living.



Read the complete article: Acharya Prashant on Rumi: The three levels of giving

Acharya Prashant on Rumi: The three levels of giving

IMG-20180628-WA0017 

Before death takes away what you are given,

give away what there is to give.

Rumi

Acharya Prashant: Here is something from Rumi: “Before death takes away what you are given, give away what there is to give.”

The question says, “Statements like these are interpreted as being pleasure aversive, and we already are pain aversive, so together it means being life aversive. Is Rumi really talking about being life aversive?”

I’ll repeat the quote, “Before death takes away what you are given, give away what there is to give.”

‘Giving’ is the keyword. Let’s go close to it and understand it. ‘Giving’ happens at three different levels. All three are connected to each other, yet there is a dimensional difference between the three. The three appear to be progressively leading to each other, yet there is also a quantum jump from the first to the second and from the second to the third. The first kind of giving is the giving that we are all very familiar with.

You give somebody a hundred rupee note and then you expect in return a value of at least hundred rupees, right? And it is great if you give hundred rupees and are in return given a value of two hundred rupees. If you just look at the event partially, then giving is happening. Is it not? You are giving something, right?

Similarly, we give gifts to each other. We give compliments to each other. We give advices to each other. We even give help to each other. We see that happening all around us. What is common between all these types of givings? We are talking about the first level of giving. What is common between all these types of giving?

Listener: It’s given to someone else.

AP: Yes, and?

L: Expectation of a return.

AP: Expectation of a return. Now what kind of return do you expect? When you give something to somebody, what do you expect in return?

L: Something of same value.

AP: Something of value at least, or do you expect something valueless? Be with me, do you expect something valueless or something you deem as worthy?

L: Something we deem as worthy.

AP: Who decides whether what you are getting in return is indeed valuable?

L: Me.

AP: You decide. So you are the one who decides that you are giving away something that has value, let’s say a note or a compliment. And you are also the one who decides that what you are getting in return too is valuable, correct? Who is this ‘you’, who is this ‘me’ who decides what to give and what to get? And whether to give and whether to get? And whether the given and taken has value? Who is this entity that decides all this? That entity is called the ‘ego.’

The ego is interested in its own nourishment.

So, whenever it enters into a transaction with the world, whenever it enters into a transaction in a relationship, its objective is always to enhance itself. Which means that if it is giving hundred, it wants hundred and fifty in return. This is our normal day-to-day giving, which appears like giving but is actually a business transaction in which the ego wants to benefit and hence enhance itself. Are you getting it?

If you give something but get something in return which the ego does not like, then you will say that this is not a fair transaction. Take an extreme example. Let’s say you have become habituated to substance abuse, drugs. You take one thousand rupees and you give it to a drug peddler. And what you get from him instead is some sane advice and a copy of the Upanishads. An entire set of the principal Upanishads, that’s what he gives you the moment you hand over your thousand bucks to him. Will you say that you have been given a fair deal? Would you?

L: No.

AP: No,

because the ego wants only that what the ego values, not which is absolutely valuable.

It has to be valuable in relation to the ego’s configuration. I want that which I think is good for me. Now even if what you are giving me is beautiful advice and a copy of the scriptures, yet I reject it because I do not value it because this is not what I expected. Give me that which I want.

Continue reading

Dancing emerges from nothingness

The dance of the jungle, the dance of the waves, the dance of the stars, the monkey’s dance, the elephant’s dance, the dance of the toddler that is the dance that a Rumi loves.

When a movement, when an action arises from nothing in particular, then it is called dance.

Dancing emerges from nothingness.

Perfection is not something that you aspire for or wait for. Perfection is not the opposite of imperfection. If perfection to you is the opposite of imperfection, if perfection for you is the end of imperfection or the transcendence of imperfection, then you can keep waiting for perfection as long as time lasts. Perfection is there in the middle of imperfection. In life as it is, nothing that appears, nothing that happens would ever be perfect. Now that can either make you cringe, or you can still dance in the middle of the disorder.

To dance in the middle of the disorder you must be able to look at the essence of things directly. Things are imperfect, their essence is perfect.

Imperfection if seen from the heart, if seen from clarity, itself shines as perfection.

Dance in the middle of chaos. Dance in the middle of deprivation. Dance in the middle of death and destruction. Dance exactly when there is no reason to dance.

When Shiva dances the world collapses.

Real dance then is so similar to madness.

Stay with the truth and know that the world, the situations, howsoever good or bad they are, are nothing but an expression of the truth.

The existence of a thing indicates truth. The existence of the opposite of that thing also indicates the truth.

In imperfection lies great beauty.



Read the complete article: Acharya Prashant on Rumi: Dance amid your own blood!

 

Acharya Prashant on Rumi: Dance amid your own blood!

IMG-20180609-WA0155

Dance, when you’re broken open.

Dance, if you’ve torn the bandage off.

Dance in the middle of the fighting.

Dance in your blood.

Dance when you’re perfectly free.

(Rumi)

 

Acharya Prashant:  What is dance? Why is dancing such a favorite of the poets, the saints, the worshipers of freedom? Why? First of all, in the spiritual sense when one uses the word dance, then dancing does not refer to any kind of organized movement of limbs or the body. That would just be a rehearsed system of pre-scripted action, having very little to do with the heart. So we are not talking of the kind of dance one learns in dance classes. We are not talking of organized and named dance forms. We are talking of the dance of the butterfly. We are talking of the dance of the winds. We are talking of the dance of the stars. You look at the stars, how they all have been unevenly scattered on the dark plate of the sky, that dark canopy up there. No organization, no pattern, and yet they are so beautiful. One looks at the way trees, plants grow in a jungle. They have not been planted there in an order. They have not been planted in an order. And yet there is an intrinsic beauty. Probably the absence of order itself contributes to the beauty. Are you getting it?

The dance of the jungle, the dance of the waves, the dance of the stars, the monkey’s dance, the elephant’s dance, the dance of the toddler that is the dance that a Rumi loves.

Continue reading

Acharya Prashant on Hafiz: Who is the lover the saint sings for?

Presentation7

The subject tonight is love and for tomorrow night as well.

As a matter of fact, I know of no better topic for us to discuss, until we all die.

(Hafiz)

 

Acharya Prashant: Rumi, Hafiz, Meera, Bulle Shah, they sing of love, and in their poetry the lover often appears like a person. They talk of the lover, to the lover, in language that appears known and worldly. It is almost as if the man next door is composing and singing for his beloved who lives in the same town or somewhere afar. The whole ambience appears beautiful but not unknown. It is very easy therefore, to think that one person is singing for another person or one person is calling God, God as we know God. And is doing this lyrically, nicely, beautifully, heart fully. But the song, is something that we are familiar with. Continue reading

That which you desperately seek is made distant by your seeking

Mind makes God a problem. By keeping God away, it makes God a problem. Do you see this trick of the mind? It uses even God to sustain itself. It is such an ugly thing to do. You have made God into a problem.

You come and ask, you sit here and ask, “Sir, how to reach God?” What a problem. Now if reaching god is a problem then certainly you, the valiant one, you the intelligent one, you the heroic one are required to tackle the problem.

And then you also require some Guru or some shopkeeper to suggest the way to beat that problem. “You come, I’ll tell you how to attain Moksha in eight steps. It’s a three month course. And that’s the enrolment desk.”

Now unless there is a problem, how can a solution be sold? So if you want to sell something, first of all it is necessary to convince the other that there is a problem.

The wise ones who loved us, in their compassion have always told there is no problem, there is no separation. What are you trying all these methods, techniques, tricks, acrobatics for? They are not needed. You are making a fool of yourselves by keeping Love, God, Truth, Essence, Core – distant.

That which you desperately seek is made distant by your seeking.

Stop seeking and you are there. Instead you have been told that you must seek intensely so that you get it. I assure you that the more intensely you seek, the more intensely you remain the seeker. There is pleasure in remaining the seeker, there is respectability in remaining the seeker.

It depends on you, what do you want. The real thing, or the pleasure and respectability of remaining the aspirant.


Read the Complete Article: That which you desperately seek is made distant by your seeking

That which you desperately seek is made distant by your seeking

33612849711_a30e7da07d_o

“If the beloved is everywhere, the lover is a veil. But when living itself becomes the friend, lovers disappear”

~Rumi

Acharya Prashant: It is popular, conventional, and sweet to talk of the Truth, the God as the beloved and the mind, or the ego as the lover. That has been the norm in various traditions. That is how a lot of poets have expressed themselves. And the mind delights in thinking that way.

Here we are being challenged to look again and look sharply at the lover. When you say that you are the lover, or the seeker, or the aspirant, what is it that you are saying? I repeat, the lover is the one who wants it. The seeker is the one who is seeking liberation. When you say that you are the lover, or the seeker, or the aspirant, what is it that you are saying?

We like to say that, don’t we? We like to say that we are fond of the Truth, we like to say that we want the Truth. We like to say how is it possible to reach or achieve God or Truth. And that sounds nice, that sounds nice as an intention. It sounds nice. Because morality says that we are trying to do something good, we are trying to reach God; it ought to be nice. But in having that as nice, something important is being missed. What is that?

Continue reading