Ego is like a continuous uninterrupted thirst, pining for disappearance

That, which you see appearing as sex after a particular age until a particular age, is nothing but the fundamental drive of the ego expressing itself. In a human being, the ego is very closely associated with the body. When the child is small, the chief concern of the body is just nourishment and security. So, the body seeks the mother, and when the body is seeking of mother, the ‘I’ tendency attached to the body which is actually the real seeker, is just trying to gain total fulfillment through the mother. The hope is not answered. The hope that mother will prove to be the one who brings total contentment proves futile.

Intimacy with the mothers brings deep joy to the kid, but only for a while. The kid also discovers that the intimacy is not unconditional. The kid discovers that the mother may sometimes ignore him that another baby may come and affection may get a little divided. The kid also discovers that the relation really does not have perfect understanding. There is still distance. There is still confusion, conflict.

Even if of a small magnitude, yet it is still there.

The child moves ahead. The ego now must find another means to the ultimate. The child now places his hopes upon looking at the world, gaining a relationship with the world, using the world as a playground. But, new discoveries, new relationships, fun, frolic, all kinds of sports and games, they also only partially and intermittently relieves his misery. He finds that it is great fun to be adventurous, to know what this world is all about. He finds that the great fun to make new friends and keep playing with them. Mischief, naughtiness – all have their own attraction. But none of them comes even close to the total, absolute, perfect, unconditional bliss that the ego is looking for.

This attempt, the second attempt too fails. The mother fails, the world fails, the friends also proved to be failing. Fun and frolic prove no good either. Now, the age of puberty arrives. Another door opens for the kid. His search for the total, his search for peace, his search to go into the most relaxing lap, his search for security, now is able to find another expression.

All this while, what has remained unchanged is the ego’s search, longing for peace, for settlement. The ego is like a continuous uninterrupted thirst, pining for disappearance. That is a permanent background. In the foreground is the theater, the podium of all human activity.

In the foreground, actions keep happening, characters keep changing. There are differences. Sometimes there is light on stage, sometimes there is shade, sometimes characters are weeping, sometimes they are laughing, somebody is making an entry, somebody has just found an exit. People are getting related, people are getting separated. All this is happening in the foreground of life.



Read the complete article: What is the energy behind sex?

Advertisements

What is the energy behind sex?

gen 1The fundamental energy of sex is man himself, mind himself. There is the source, the core, then there is the ‘I’ tendency, and then there are the various forms that the ‘I’ tendency takes. Whatever be the form that the ‘I’ tendency takes, the form is utilized for the fundamental purpose of the ‘I’ tendency.

The ‘I’, the ego, has just one purpose, to satiate itself, to come to a completion. The ‘I’ is like a burning mass. It’s a thirsty unit. It wants to somehow quench itself. That is one thing.

Second thing is, the ‘I’ knows only one way of satiating itself, that is, through association with objects. The ego tendency, the ‘I’, believes that the route to fulfillment passes through the world, through objects. So, it keeps on getting associated with one object after the other in order to get fulfilled. The objects keep varying, the tendency does not vary. The objects keep varying, the intention of the ego does not vary. The intention is the same. The intention is to gain total fulfillment through the object. The intention is to use the objects as a means to come to the ultimate, to come to closure. Continue reading

You will never be able to find love in action

When it comes to peace, peace is not a choice. Peace is the only way. Peace ‘is’ the only way. It is another matter that when you are driven by peace, and when you are going towards peace, often your actions may appear to be violent. Often your actions may appear to be violent. What do you think, was Krishna doing something that would be different from peace? Krishna is peace personified. But when you look at the sharp arrows of Arjun, the word, ‘peace’ does not come to your mind.

When you look at the image of Krishna, rushing towards Bheeshm to attack him personally, going beyond his brief as a charioteer. You don’t think that this is peace. You feel as if Krishna is being violent. The expression of peace often looks very much like violence. Here is a hint for you – Truth, peace, love, freedom, these must never be searched in actions. But because we do not have the subtle eye to really look at Truth or freedom, we start acting as per the protocols of Truth and freedom.

Truth is an unsaid thing in the heart. You can speak in Truth, you can never speak The Truth. Love too is a silent music in the heart. You can act in love, but love itself can never be the action.

But what have we done? We look at somebody’s action and then we say, “Oh, what a loving action!” Now how do we manage to say that? By tallying that action with our image of a loving action. So, you come over and offer a chocolate to someone here, most people will say, Oh this is a loving action. Two people are seen hugging each other. And that looks like?

Love.

One appears to be stating the facts, and that looks like?

Truth.

You will never be able to find love in action. The action can originate from love. It must originate from love, but do not try to judge on the basis of action alone. Otherwise, you will totally misread everything.



Read the complete article: Is it violence when Krishna is asking Arjun to fight?

Is it violence when Krishna is asking Arjun to fight?

gen 1Questioner: Does Spirituality ask us to be non-violent? And Spirituality also asks us to fulfill our duties. So, in today’s world when we are subjected to any kind of violence, it may be physical, emotional, and mental; how best can we fulfill our duties along with non-violence?

Acharya Prashant: A lot of images are there in your statement. First of all, non-violence is not just a particular code of conduct. Non-violence is just about not seeing oneself as limited. Not unnecessarily building boundaries for oneself.

Allow me to clarify. I said, “Nonviolence is about not seeing oneself as limited and not building boundaries around oneself.” How is that non-violence?

What is violence?

Listener: Seeing other as separate from oneself.

AP: Wonderful. Seeing other as separate. And whenever somebody is separate, what you are saying is, “I am this much and you are outside of me. So, my interests then do not include you. Whatever I have to achieve, in whatsoever ways I have to live, I have to live, be, achieve, and die, all by…?”

Continue reading

How to remain non-violent?

 

gen 1

Questioner: Does Spirituality ask us to be non-violent? And Spirituality also asks us to fulfill our duties. So, in today’s world when we are subjected to any kind of violence, it may be physical, emotional, mental, how duties can be fulfilled along with non-violence?

Acharya Prashant: A lot of images are there in your statement. First of all, non-violence is not just a particular code of conduct. Non-violence is just about not seeing oneself as limited. Not unnecessarily building boundaries for oneself.

Allow me to clarify. I said nonviolence is about not seeing oneself as limited and not building boundaries around oneself. How is that non-violence?

What is violence?

Listener: Seeing other as separate from oneself. Continue reading

There can be no controller and no controlled

Few things about the dualistic nature of mind, of existence, probably needs to be seen.

First, there is no control ever – in the sense, that there can’t be a controller and a controlled. There would always be a controlled one and another controlled one, out of which one would appear to be the controller. But no one is really the controller.

Similarly, there can never be an exploiter and an exploited. There would always be the exploited and the exploited. And out of the two exploited, obviously, one would appear to be the exploiter. And the one who appears like the exploiter, need not be a definite one. Among these two, the role of the exploiter would keep changing hands. So, sometimes the man would appear like the exploiter and other times a woman would appear like the exploiter.

Whenever, the natural harmony of things, of movement, of existence is upset then there is disease; disease on both sides – the man and the woman. When things are healthy, then, nobody controls anybody. Neither the man controls anybody nor does the woman control anybody. When things are diseased, then both parties control each other.

It is not as if, because we have named it a patriarchal society, which it does appear on the surface, right? That it is dominated by man; the man is the head of the family; the man controls 97% of the wealth; the man is at the top in most organizations, so the man does appear to be the controller. Which, I would like to submit, is just an illusion.

Man controls in his own way. But because, there can be no controller and no controlled, so the woman controls in her own way. Both are at war with each other. Both are trying to enslave each other. Both are trying to get on top. It’s the exploited and the exploited, just that their ways are different because their respective constitutions are differently from a woman. A man is constructed differently from a woman. So, the way the man tries to control has got to be different from the way a woman tries to control.



Read Complete Article: Is the man-dominated society fearful of women?

Is the man-dominated society fearful of women?

Slide2

Question: We come from a society which is patriarchal in nature, everything around revolves around a man and there is a general subjugation of a woman in the sense that the laws, the rules and regulations around whatever woman can do, not do; things like that. My question is that, is there a general fear of a woman in the man’s mind and society at large? Because we control things, we subjugate a thing to rule or regulation only when we feel a threat, may be inferiority, if I may say. So, that is my question – “Is there a fear of a woman?”

Acharya Prashant: So, you see you are already in hold of something important. At one end you see that it’s a patriarchal society that we are coming from. On the other end your question is – “Is the man afraid of woman?” 

Firstly, we are saying that the man is the controller and then we are asking that is the man afraid of woman. Continue reading