ON BUILDING RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD

      How can we build a relationship with God, who is not strictly a ‘person’? If he is not a ‘person’, then why bother about a relationship with him? If there is no relationship, he as well does not exist for me. But I ‘believe’, though do not ‘know’, that his existence and mine run into each other. If I have to support what I ‘believe’, I must have a working relationship with him. And the relationship has to be personal. Therefore, I have to build a ‘person’ in God. Besides, he has to be a person I have a reason to relate to. This reason can’t be ‘because’ or ‘therefore’. If this reason has a reason to exist, it can also have a reason not to exist. Neither will have any impact on my life. If God existing, or not existing is like a thousand others existing or not existing, like a well-paid job in Minnesota, like a certain person called Ramesh in Mumbai or Chennai, my life can go on, or stop, irrespective of God. He becomes either a pastime, an idle curiosity, an idea, or a showpiece in my collection! We don’t build a relationship with the unessential.

           Therefore, if I have to relate to him, I have to divest him of his ‘unessential’ dress, and give him an ‘essential’ robe, which has to be stitched to need, not a branded robe fashioned by habit, custom, tradition, or convenience. This relationship doesn’t have to be ‘justified’, or regarded as a protection. It has to be part of my living reality, not religious reality. My relation with God need not be defined by my religion, which can change by a conversion. Just as I am more than what others think I am, or what I would believe I am, my relationship with him too will be more than a relationship manual might suggest. So, we come the same conclusion, God has to be a person, a very special person. We are made for each other, ‘mere to Giridhar Gopal’.

             God has to be a person, like you and me, like my neighbour, or my enemy, for me to relate to him. There can be another worrying question here: if I relate to God, because it is my existential need, does God need this relationship as well? Does God need me as much as I need him? A bridge cannot be built on one side of the river. If God does not need to relate to me, my need cannot draw any response from him. But why should he need me? He is self-sufficient.

             I once saw a 60 year old man crying over the death of his 80 year old mother. He was wailing that he was orphaned. Surely, he did not ‘need’ his mother, like a child needs a mother for sustenance. He was used to see the old lady around for years, and now, when she is gone, he feels he would miss her as a familiar face, one of the many faces which have built his family. He might feel an emotional void when she is gone. Then I began to ask myself, can there be a relationship which is not need based? We relate to God generally because we can depend on him, we believe, for our needs of a difficult cure, of escaping a financial breakdown, of resetting a relationship gone haywire etc.  Can we relate to God without expecting a needed intervention from him? Can we relate to him on the basis of love? Love is not asking anything of each other, but giving each to the other. Swami said very beautifully, “Love does not ask for anything except itself”.

             Therefore, instead of asking, ‘Does God need me?’, I should ask, ‘Does God love me?’ Swami has also said, “There is no reason for love, no season for love”. He points out that the most secure relationship does not hunt for a ‘reason’, or a ‘season’, it is spontaneous, it does not recognize boundaries (’expansion is my life’), it is self-effacing. Avatars accept human limitations, human pains and sufferings to relate to the human predicament on the human level. Sri Rama’s life had been a long saga of denial and suffering not because he wanted to justify that he was God, and nothing really affected him, but to live a life of limitations and denial so that we can, out of our love for him, do the same thing. Swami also reiterated several times he has come ‘to love, and be loved’. Therefore, a love-based relationship with God is very much possible.

           In our spiritual manuals nine types of relationship with God are described, and all of them are listed under ‘Bhakti’, loosely translated as devotion. Beginning with ‘sravanam’, listening to the stories of God’s exploits, to ‘atmanivedanam’, merging your identity in God, bhakti covers all aspects of relating to God. Relating to God can be similar to any type of human relationships, a friend, a servant, parent, a lover, an enemy, a seeker of wealth or wisdom, on any level we can relate to God, and all these relationships are equally acceptable to him. Even birds and beasts are not denied access to him. It looks like he is hungry to relate to all that exists, and be part of it. He is so open minded that even Kamsa and Sishupala were allowed fierce relationships, and were redeemed. Sri Ramakrishna had ‘theatre star’ bhakta called Girish Chandra Ghosh. He alone was allowed to come to him with a bottle of liquor. When Ramakrishna’s devotees complained about it, he said, “He is a veera bhakta; now he drinks wine, but when he drinks the wine of God, he will throw it away”. And this happened. This means that God has no bias towards our relating to him. He has kept all doors of his house open for anyone’s entry, a gale or gaana, a whirlwind, or a song. Swami even says, ‘just keep your doors unlocked, I will enter your home uninvited’. Even a loving relationship is not a precondition.

            This might create a little confusion in our minds: we started wondering how to build a relationship with God, as if it is our sole responsibility. Here we notice that God is more eager to relate to us, and whichever way we do that it is okay for him. Even an indifference, or a denial he takes with a smile, for, denial or acceptance are our vocabulary, not his. We cannot run away from relationship with people or things around; so also, God is inescapable. We of course notice that our relation with people or things has a single dimension; a parent can only be a parent, a son only a son, a lover only a lover, but with God it is multi dimension, roughly nine dimensions. But the beauty of it that these relationships have no defined boundaries. They have animated boundaries, merging in each other, and breaking away to confront another next moment. God as a friend in one moment can become a teacher next moment, a lover a little later, or the all-pervading God in a while. Arjuna has demonstrated that. He fulfills all our needs of various ways we relate to people.

            I may face a difficulty here; maybe there are nine or ninety ways to connect with God, but I cannot go on experimenting with all of them. I must know which relationship will work best for me. If I connect with God as a friend, and after some time feel I want to see him as a parent, or a teacher, or when I am utterly lonely, want him replace my lost love, or get angry with him because he is not responding to me, what will happen to me? But that can happen with a human friend too, he can walk with me, joke with me, stand by me when I feel lost, serve me as a nurse when I am sick, advise me like a teacher, and when I get angry with him, and throw things at him, he can pretend he has left me, while hiding in the next room. Then I know he does not deserve this hurt, and call out to God to return him to me. God too is playing this game with us. The basic relationship is love and intimacy with him irrespective of his many faces. 

           Now I come to the last part of the proposition I started with, that we have to build a relationship with God. It has to be personal, and with no boundaries. He is my own, closer than anybody else, because he has come for me, he is connected to me all the time, not as an outside agent, but as part of myself. He accepts to suffer for me, deny himself all that he naturally is, complete and full, to show me how I can wade through my own incompleteness, my own incompetence in order that I can face life, my unwillingness to restructure myself. I may deny him, he will not deny me; I may hurt him, he will not hurt me; I may try to run away from him, he will not run away from me. Everyone else might desert me, he will not desert me. Can we have a purer basis, a surer incentive for building a relationship with him?

 

 In fact, I don’t have to build a relationship with God, I have only to recognize that it pre-exists, and post-exists me. I have only to realise that I don’t have to find a ‘reason’, a ‘way’ to connect with him; the relationship is only a recognition of whatever exists forever.

                                                                                                                    - Oct, 22

                                                     -----------------------------------------

                   

                       BHAGAVAT GEETA AND HUMAN RIGHTS

            

               When Arjuna lays down his arms between the armies poised on the brink of a huge war, and refuses to participate in the ‘meaningless homicide’, he is not asking his ‘friend, philosopher, and guide’ Krishna what he should do, he is informing him of a momentous decision he has taken at the moment. Then he goes on to elaborate on why he is doing so. Krishna quietly listens to him without interfering, or raising an eyebrow in surprise. Arjuna wants an appreciating nod from his lifelong friend for his wise decision which would end the war without shooting an arrow, and save the lives of hundreds of thousands. But when Krishna remains nonchalant Arjuna is disappointed and irritated, and asks him how he is taking it. Krishna just smiles and says his work is not to participate in the war, and therefore he cannot say anything to influence his decision. But when Arjuna persists, he says it is a foolish decision.

              Krishna tells Arjuna that the fight is his, the spoils are his, and therefore, the decision is his. If he wins, he would inherit the largest kingdom on earth of those days, and if he loses, he would have the right to enter the heaven where such warriors, who die for the sake of truth and justice, go. As a good friend, and a close relative, he has only agreed to drive his chariot, and help him in organizing his forces. Arjuna has to take complete responsibility of his own action. Why should he interfere? But if he is asked to offer an advice, he would freely give it, and Arjuna is also free to accept or reject it. He had earlier mentioned in the Kaurava court, when he went there as a peace ambassador, that he had no special attachment to the Pandavas; he is with them because they are with Dharma, codes of rightful living, and he is always with Dharma.

            Here begins the most unusual dialogue between a warrior and his charioteer, at the most unusual place history has ever recorded, about a wide range of areas concerning life and living. Krishna analyses Arjuna’s decision, his freedom of choice, and at the end of the dialogue, he tells him, “Now, Arjuna, tell me what you want me to do”. He doesn’t tell him, “Now, Arjuna, I am sure you understand the jnan I gave you, and you are ready to pull the string of your bow”. Krishna confirms it is completely within his rights to choose his own road. It is another matter that Arjuna takes a U-turn, and declares he is going wherever his charioteer is taking him.

            What Krishna said to Arjuna is a great manual for the advocates of human rights today. Krishna analysed Arjuna’s decision on historical perspective, personal perspective, and telescopic perspective, in a complete coverage of the question of human rights.

Historical Perspective:

          He reminds Arjuna of the position of the Pandavas in the Kuru family. Though they are the rightful rulers of the Kuru kingdom, their cousins, with the help of some elders hand-in-glove with them, and some keeping unholy silence, have done all they could not only to deprive them of their natural rights, but also destroy them. They poisoned Bheema, built a wax palace to burn them alive, and when they built a prosperous kingdom on an arid land by sheer grit, goodness and power, they cheated them out of it. Dhritarastra is only a caretaker king, not anointed to kingship. By all moral, traditional, and royal standards, his children have no rights to the throne, yet they have consistently claimed it, and what is more surprising, and disgusting, even their guru and grandfather haven’t stood up in their support. And to top it all, under their chin, while they all sat there without a protest, the most civilized royal assembly of those times witnessed at the dice game the most abominable incident at which history would hang its head in shame, attempts were made to disrobe the royal queen. Arjuna and his brothers of course cannot sweep it under the carpet to forgive them. That would mean throwing overboard the social balance which must ensure everyone has the right to live with dignity. Was Arjuna prepared to look away to exercise his right to withdraw from the war and retire to the forest, Krishna asked him.

Personal Perspective:

         Krishna also reminds him that no one can escape their social obligations constructed into their individual talents, generally spoken of as special gifts to achieve personal goals. But Krishna says they have a social relevance which is equally important. A talent for acquiring knowledge has a responsibility towards all those who want to do so, and a talent for weapons has a social responsibility for using it to protect the society from wild powers. Arjuna has been a very talented warrior who has amazing skill with weapons. He has worked hard for years to practice them, earn a very high degree of perfection, and win divine weapons. He is regarded as the greatest archer of his times, and the mainstay of his brothers in any battle. He has punished many evildoers to ensure safety for people who want to live in peace. What would happen if he chooses to flee the evil and hide in the forest? Can he digest to be called a quitter? Can he bless himself in the forest that he allowed his brothers to perish in the hands of Duryodhana in order to exercise his right to quit? Does he acknowledge he has no responsibility towards his father, the great Pandu, their mother Kunti, the devoted and fiery wife Princess Draupadi who has made a very unusual decision to marry the five brothers to keep them together? Her sacrifice has no value for him? And his brothers? The eldest, the saintly Yudhistir has been like father, Bheema the most protective giant forever behind him, the twins who dote over him, does he have no obligation for them?

          You may say, Krishna is blackmailing him to force him do what he wants Arjuna to do. But what interest does Krishna have in a bloody war? He is not going to stay in Hastinapur. He has his own Dvaraka, a more prosperous kingdom to rule, and he is going to return there. Isn’t Arjuna himself being blackmailed by his own misplaced compassion? Is anyone really free from history and personal situations? How is one free that he can claim free rights? Krishna explains to him that true freedom is not freedom from actions, but doing actions for a cause, the cause of public good, over-riding personal attachments. Isn’t it a great lesson for today’s loudmouths, those who shout from treetops about death of human rights? Krishna convinces Arjuna that he is not fighting to settle a family feud, to establish the rights of one set of cousins over another, he is fighting for a cause, the rights of humanity who cannot defend their own rights. If Duryodhan is allowed a free run of the powers that he has grabbed, with the three great pillars of power in his support, that would be a practical death of right living, and no one would have any rights whatsoever. Can Arjuna close his eyes to all that because he does not like the outcome?

Telescopic Perspective:

            Krishna in his dialogues presents to Arjuna an expanded view of his action, the extended consequences. The historical and the personal perspectives analyse the historical and personal impacts which define his response to it the war. But he opens out another view of the past and present which would build their future. He tells him, he is no doubt free to withdraw from the war, but look at what would be the consequence. His brothers would not fight the war, Duryodhan would arrest them, and may put them to death. Kunti would be heartbroken, and her heart might actually break. The valiant queen Draupadi might go back to fire where she came from. Bheesma, Drona, and Karna would be forced to support the evil plans of the Kaurava brothers to spread terror in the world. The friends of the Pandavas would curse Arjuna, and some of them might look for him in the forests to kill him. Even the Kauravas might succeed first in eliminating him. Grandfather Bheesma might consider his entire life a total failure in the face of the anarchy that would follow, and might utilize his gift to die at will. Dharma would have failed, the whole tradition of the Kurus would have failed, and they would have failed Krishna too. Is that what Arjuna wants to achieve by his right to choice, Krishna asked his friend. Arjuna can use his right to choose quitting the war at the cost of everyone else being denied any rights, any freedom to exercise.

           But Krishna feels pity for the great warrior. No one can be as much personal as they want to be, and no one can escape their obligations to the family and society where they have grown up. It is often a double-edged sword. Arjuna, Krishna understood well, was caught in a whirlpool of feelings. He was a great man, a kind and just man, and a very loving man too. He loved his grandfather, his guru, his brothers, his mother, and Krishna as well. Krishna’s irrefutable wise words convinced him of the terrible implications of his choice at this crucial moment, but his heart was torn between his yearning for a united, loving family and his historical responsibility. He was a very sensitive, creative man, a poet, who wanted to build a new world of beauty, of brotherhood, of love, of respect, a world where everyone could live with dignity to fulfill themselves. But now what stares in his face is total hell, and he is going to be one of its builders! Krishna understands how hard it is for his best friend to judge either way. He knows now he has to touch his heart to save him from this confusion. Hasn’t Swami said so often that when the mind fails, it is the heart which reaches out to truth.

            Krishna knows he has to be more personal with his friend. He has to create that magic Arjuna secretly needs. So, he shows him how he has always been with his friend for ages, living together, fighting together against evil for making life safe and meaningful for the common man. He is the father, grandfather of all life; all sweetness comes from him, all goodness flows from him, he is the source of all light, of all power, of all wisdom. Then he makes a great announcement, “Arjuna, give your emotional burdens to me, and I will bear the consequences, nothing will ever touch you.” The awe that Arjuna feels in his Friend’s presence does the magic, his weakness vanishes, his confusion melts away, and he feels as if he is purified in a divine stream. His mind is clarified, and he understands rights and responsibilities as he did never before. It dawns on him at that moment that he had made a wrong decision driven by misplaced loyalties.

           Krishna’s assurance was not an empty assurance, he actually accepted the curse of Gandhari, who was preparing to curse the Pandavas, and allowed the yadava clan instead to be destroyed. And he himself fell to the arrow of a common hunter. Though his endgame and Gandhari’s curse coincided, it also reflected the fulfillment of a promise he made to Arjuna at the beginning of the cataclysmic war.

          This question of human rights and responsibilities appear in the Ramayana too. When Kaikeyi exercised her right to demand fulfillment of Dasaratha’s promises, she thought she was defending her constitutional rights, but did not negotiate the consequences. That was the beginning of the great epic of pain and denial! Rama knew Sita was as pure as crystal, but the responsibility of a king to set an emotional model was so telling on him that he was forced to deny Sita a wife’s rights to a husband’s protection. As a result, he denied himself all his rights to royal prerogatives, and the rest of his life chose to live a lonely man. Rama the Prince had to sacrifice himself at the altar of Rama the King, and his wife, the purest jewel in his diadem, had to be exiled to the forest when she was pregnant with his son! Sri Rama lost more than he gained in his Ramarajya to ensure that people have full access to their rights. Sri Ram was the last king of an undivided Ramarajya. Ayodhya had become too sacred and too painful a memory for him, and he did not want to leave the protection of this memory on any one of the young shoulders, his and his brothers’ sons. He divided the huge kingdom between his and his brothers’ sons. With the division of the kingdom, and the family, the memory too was divided.

          And yet how glibly we talk of human rights. When we claim human rights, we have to judge it historically in the context of individual situations, not without focusing the telescope view on it. The implications can affect an individual, a country, or even the history. The human history is replete with instances of some ambitious people developing a fancy that they have rights to alter the essential lessons of history, and redefine it! Even religious faiths have been used to kill religious freedom! New political philosophies have been developed; new borders have been drawn to pretend they have the rights to do so. In fact, Bhagawan very wisely says, no one has any independence, they have only interdependence. We are all tied together, tied with our individual and social past, tied with the inevitable present, tied with the planet with all its limbs. It is for each of us to decide if we are living to make claims from each other, or fulfill each other.The entire question is a wise choice between Sreyas or Preyas, the good and the pleasant, which has a huge role to play in your rights and mine.

 

                                                        -------------------------------------------            Oct.22