of mindfulness, and also of other less savory matters

Suddenly that word is everywhere - "mindfulness". There have been debates about its actual meaning. The word has its roots in Pali, and also in Sanskrit. It originates from Buddhist principles. This is how I understood it, after reading a little about it. Mindfulness is "to be aware". To be aware of the moment. Free from judgment. Just to be. It is a presence of mind where one accepts without confusion, what each moment brings - the emotions, the thoughts, the plans for future, the whole experience.

I think that in this age of self-conscious living, 'mindfulness", which is another level of consciousness, can be of great benefit. For instance it can aid in creating an empathetic society, not unlike the Buddhist ideal. Or that of other religions. Where it could differ is that it could in practice go beyond mere religious to- the- letter morality, where  great power is wielded by leaders who soon forget how to be compassionate or humane. Where we covertly do whatever we like without thinking of another's pain or humiliation, while we judge others openly.

( I just had to touch on that "kiss-revolution" going on in my state, Kerala. The older generation and some of the "holier-than-thou" younger generation reproach and condemn that as immoral and against tradition and altogether sleazy. But then that is their way of controlling the progressive youth, especially girls, of any generation. These judging hypocrites (who have done this and much more against true morality in their lives behind closed doors - including rape and murder of women and little boys and girls), conveniently forget that this whole drama started as an act of protest. They want to erase that true spirit behind it and instead focus everyone's attention on the supposed debauchery of these young people, destroy the morale of the activists.What better way to suppress it than to instill fear in the girls' minds by branding them as loose women who were asking for it? And unleash  anti-social elements, like rabid animals into their midst, as punishment? The so-called 'traditionalists" and "culture-ists" should hang their heads in shame.

I remember an incident from long ago during my university days. In our university auditorium, it was segregated seating - boys on one side, girls on the other. There was this program there once which was held by the students. The usual songs, dances, skits etc on the stage. Every time something like this took place, the girls' side would be full and the boys' section half-empty. What more, the girls sitting at the very back had to endure the catcalls and other stuff from the crowd immediately behind them - all men, not necessarily university students. Well, this time, when my friends and I got there, the girls' side was almost totally full. And I could see the hooligans at the back just waiting for us to get there, with unconcealed glee. If we were to stick to our designated sphere, we would have to go to this problem area. And the boys' side was totally empty. So according to my suggestion, my friends and I went and sat in the second row of the boys' side. Well, it was a statement on my part. It was not because I wanted to sit near boys. In fact we were 5 or 6 girls sitting together. and the chairs around us were vacant. And there was no boy there that I wanted to sit near to. Or may be the one that  I would've liked to sit next to, was not there! (not that even if he were there, I would have! )Anyway, before the program started, a Student leader came to us, and called us outside. He told me in a sleazy manner that they all would love to "interact" with girls "closely". He did some insinuating innuendo-filled gesture with his hands when he said that. Then he went on to say that we will not be allowed to sit there for our own protection. Protection from whom? From him? Yes, we would need it. But he should not have assumed that all the rest of the men there were like him. It was a University after all. But then he had a small group of similar-thinking sheepish looking guys with him, who seemed to agree with him. I will never forget the sarcastic tone and the salacious expression on his face when he gave his speech. And he was supposed to be an enlightened student. A leftist revolutionary. I felt humiliated, angry, powerless, and incredibly sad thinking of our society, of our girls.  We walked out of that place that day. So I know  how people can distort the truth, erase the spirit and the ideal behind situations, by degrading and maligning the act of protest, and focusing on incredibly spurious ideas that maintain the status quo. Women are not allowed to step out of the slots handed down to them by the males. They pretend not to understand that women do not want to step out into the world just to sleep with all men. Now if they had practised true mindfulness, they would think differently, with compassion, knowing the plight of women in my country, understanding  the need for change.)

On the other hand, this mindfulness  holds higher and evolving standards.  The advantage of this way of living -- as a mindful subject -- is that even if one does not believe in a God, you can still be a fully evolved human being.Or at least on our way to being one. Because when we  practice mindfulness we begin with our own minds.  We focus on what goes on in there. Each one of us is our own authority. Not some religious leader. We become responsible for our thought and thereby for our actions. We owe it to ourselves to be good and kind. When each person is good and kind to his or her own self, (because it makes him or her feel better on the whole) , then that could extend outward and spread and reach the whole society.

Mindfulness can be practiced, as in meditation. It is being used in many areas of our lives these days. Many government agencies, hospitals, schools, businesses and such have started using it as stress-reducing /healing method. Nothing wrong in that, as far as I can see. There is that fear in many scholars that commercialization of mindfulness will make us forget the real spirit of the whole process. Which is "social harmony" and compassion. They fear that it may just teach people to adapt to stress, for instance, rather than deal with the cause of that stress or strife in a compassionate, wise, and humane manner -- in other words, in the manner of that evolved being. Which is what the underlying ideals of many religions are, but everyone conveniently or ignorantly forgets that part. (And those who are really clever and successful in this world know how to use those ideals without themselves following them, to their advantage. But that is another story).

For me, the immediate step in mindfulness is that I would start with breathing mindfully. anything easy, I can do! Stop. Stand up straight. Shoulders back. Tummy in.  and take that deep slow breath, and exhale. That is centering. And cleansing. And then, I can use mindfulness when I eat.

An Education in Humanity(ies)

Aristotle and Alexander

I just happened to listen to a talk by Professor Leslie Epstein on Youtube. He was talking about the ignorance of the current college students. About their lack of knowledge and of interest in their own culture, history, and art in general, especially the older more “sublime” culture.

I agree with all that Epstein said, however, I also think that some changes are inevitable, and some changes are even necessary evils, necessary to survive in the modern world. Democratization of every cultural factor could lead to a leveling of old hierarchies even in the world of "culture". That is one cause of the end of the interest in the old Humanities. I believe all that knowledge and sensibilities of the past have been absorbed into the very DNA of the current generation, in a collective sense. And some other forms of those have evolved out of those, for better or for worse. Naturally, mutation occurred! Obviously they would tell the older generation that we are ignorant of a thing or two. It is a new world, a young world, and while people like me would keep looking back at the greener times, these citizens will keep looking to the future, sadly, sometimes a bleak one. When you really think about it, that older sublime culture also caused certain evils that are still beyond our understanding. There were wars and destruction well before the ones in video games.( ref. think of  Aristotle and Alexander.) The one difference again may be that what was exclusive to a handful now has been again, democratized, including the retelling of histories.

In spite of all that, another factor that deters the current generation from taking a look at the older forms of culture could be more mundane - finding a job. I see teenagers who are going to college now wondering how to opt out of applying to certain universities that has a mandatory core curriculum in Philosophy, Art, History and Literature. They see those subjects as useless and as a total waste of time. As long as the so called feminine qualities of empathy, forgiveness and selflessness are seen as weaknesses, and "giving in", and when success is measured by how much you earn, and how many you destroy, then the younger generation of any time in history, is going to avoid those, and any things that are related to it, like the plague.

Come to think of it, it is true in my case. All my literary studies haven't equipped me to survive in the real world, the one outside my home. That's what my son has seen. His father who has a professional degree makes a tangible difference in his and others' lives, while his mom with a literature degree (who always tries to think from the other's point of view, who tries to learn lessons from all experiences, who analyzes the tensions and sensibilities of the marginal in every movie and/or news item, while admiring the beauty in the method), remains this ridiculous eternal student. Relegated to the background, trying to win the approval of everyone, while forever tormented by discontent.

 And I can see why these kids have turned to skills and training.  Knowledge for knowledge's sake is not for them -- it is a means to an end -- to make a living.  I cannot dismiss this situation as a simple dichotomy between passion and reason, or art and science. To them people like me are dissociated from real life, life that is measured by fame and success, to which I tend to agree at times. Because where I come from, back then, we, especially girls who studied literature, who read books, were not trained for a job, let alone a career.. We just floated in some rarefied atmosphere, totally out of touch with reality. (Reading this you would think I lived in Victorian England, or in Bronte country. You are not far off the mark -- only thing is, like in the case of love, or just plain friendship with the opposite sex, Victorian women were better off- they had the odd curate lurking about. With us, the nuns monopolized the odd priests.)

The only facts for me were abstract ideas of freedom, truth, love, duty, and loyalty. Abstract being the operative word, especially in the matter of love. It was a hypnotic period where we felt as if we were doing something worthwhile, while all the time we were just being prepared to be docile little housewives. We learned to read books, and some of us learned how to write books, but we were all ineffectual. What we learned, more importantly, is to appreciate knowledge, again, in a theoretical sense. Still, the practical side escaped people like me. Most of us were unaware of the uses of all that knowledge to ourselves, how we could work it to our own advantage. It was always for others, especially those ideas of duty and loyalty to family. Add to that a pair of parents who got their high from giving the shirts off their backs to all in need, and found it very difficult and downright shameful to accept or ask for anything from others, all you end up is as a "good girl". All this, needless to say, was as opposed to the other extreme that is prevalent now. Now if we could have struck a golden balance,that would have been ideal. Instead we got stuck in that ivory tower. Humanities, old and new, are important to us, and an education in the Humanities should enhance the whole life and knowledge experience of the individual.

But what Epstein so rightly pointed out about the loss of that power of empathy, that terrible exaltation of the self, that is truly frightening. Again, this is not new -- ref. Aristotle and Alexander. I wonder how empathetic Alexander was. I wonder how empathetic those great musicians and artists were to the women around them. Or Winston Churchill. I am sure he had a pretty good education in the Humanities. I doubt if that helped his empathetic abilities! Nevertheless, it was limited to a few -- the choice, the education, the power -- now it may not be. Not that everyone would be powerful, but more are, than in the olden days. The mutation of the collective DNA. A natural progression in civilization, probably an apparent regression in “humanity”, which may still evolve into something even better than the old.  

And when we want to build a truly better culture, what better way than any is there but to base it on all that has gone before? Alter it, dismantle it, deconstruct, reconstruct – you have to know the old too at some level - the present experience or product could be  richer for that. For instance, an education in history would make a modern teenager stop and think before they declare that they do not like feminists, or that many issues are just conspiracy theories that grown ups hold on to for no reason. They would realize that the freedoms that they take for granted were won by the struggles of many who went before them. (anxiety of influence on another level in action?), that there is more to be done to cause real progress.Any education should ideally nurture our humanity, and if it fails in that, we are in trouble. Who knows these modern day mavericks may then reinvent the wheel in their own way.

See the video of the TEDtalk here:

College Students know nothing

the trouble with umbrage

The recent riots in Libya by angry Muslims certainly had sad consequences. Many commentators here seemed to be puzzled by the extreme anger at such a little matter.  A perplexing conundrum. Why do these people get so exaggeratedly emotional  about their faith? What makes them go berserk at what they consider slights against their religion? Doesn't matter if the slight is imagined or not. It seems like they cannot take some constructive criticism calmly, let alone a joke. What is their problem?

Well, I have to point out that there could be any number of reasons for their taking umbrage so. For one, when the majority of a group has nothing much except their faith, when they consider it as part of their identity, their dignity, then it kind of becomes pretty important to them. And there is a long, complex history between the West and its religion, and Islam. Losses have been incurred , by one side more than the other-- of wealth, of land, of resources, and after all that, being left powerless. When insulted, they cannot wage "legitimate"wars, only self-destructive unreasonable riots that affect plenty of innocent bystanders too, fatally. But having said that, I am aware of those who exploit the faith of the faithful. Most often, the majority wouldn't even have noticed the slight, they have other things to do. But the dabblers in power will bring it to their notice, and whip them up to a frenzy, blowing things out of proportion. Another facet of that animal called "politics". So, while I can try to understand the reason for their anger, I do not condone their disproportionate reaction. After all, it was a movie, and destroying their own country for that wouldn't do anything, except get some attention, and reprisals. What I am amazed more is at the puzzlement of the  commentators at the very emotions of these people. Listening to them we would think that this was a phenomenon that is very rare, that nobody else gets riled ever, when they think that they have been subject to an indignity.

Actually,  this taking umbrage is not so unusual among cultures. The reactions vary in degree and in kind from nation to nation, community to community. Everyone has a sensitive  point which someone can poke at, knowingly or unknowingly. The use of the phrase " Third  World" by a Westerner puts my back up -- although I don't go bashing the person, I feel insulted.  But then I am always taking umbrage. (Like an umbrella?) I took umbrage at Bourdain's disdain  for my homeland's cuisine. More at the people who said mean things about India, than at him ,but it was there.  In America, try being pro-life or pro-choice. You will get a taste of that umbrage, from all sides! Why does anyone in the West try not to use the N word anymore? Because they know it is not politically correct. And if someone did, he will be made to apologize right away. But "Third World" still does not get any respect. Which is all right too, because sometimes I feel that my country doesn't deserve any respect, in spite of its ancient greatness, when I think of the way it treats its women. that goes for much of the Third World, by the way, not just India. But that doesn't mean anyone else can call my country names!

The other day I read about Romney's son being asked by a reporter about his feelings when his father was called a liar by the President, publicly. (By the way, the President didn't actually call him a liar, but said some not nice things) Anyway, the poor guy said what came to his mind , as a citizen of a free country. As a son, like any son or daughter who loved their father  would say, he said something not nice. And he also added that he wasn't going to do it, that he understood the nature of the whole process. We have to remember that he did not do anything. What did the reporter expect to hear when he or she asked that question? "Oh, yes. my dad is a liar. we all are. and we are proud of it!" ? Of course he could have walked away, saying "no comment", or better, retort " YOU are a liar!", like a teenager :) But he chose to vent his frustration, honestly. But then people took umbrage. again, understandably. This is the President of the USA that we are talking about.  We have a right to take umbrage.But we needn't have really, not very much anyway,  as he had apologized to the President.  I am relieved that the President accepted his apology. (So it seems there's some extra umbrage that was wasted there,  that can be kept on reserve when the next incident of insult occurs hehe) When someone here made fun of Gandhi, Indians took umbrage, and many here were surprised. Why are they being so sensitive? What's the big deal? Can't they take a joke? But isn't it all a bit confusing? when it comes to standards? It is as if some insults and some protests are more justifiable than others, some insults are more punishable than others. As if the self-respect of one group is more valuable than others'. "All are equal, some are more equal". Who is the arbiter of these? Respect, a little bit of that would go a long way in easing that "anxiety of influence" of civilizations, of cultures. And it goes both ways. Along with that, empathy, and moderation.

On the other hand, where do we draw the line with regards to the extent and nature of of these protests against slights, and fights for freedom and faith? For I sometimes feel that a sound thrashing by their sober fellow countrymen would be very effective against these 'fighters" who make their statements by attacking women and children, innocent people, and by destroying public property, and in its extreme, committing murders. The numerous Civil wars, the supposedly ideological political party members' fights, - all these turn so ugly and in the end, hurting and taking the lives of fellow  human beings.

The problem here is not that cozy Wodehousian umbrage-taking really. It is what these protesters do with it, and how they do it. The mad fury that is unleashed at such times. The violence, the bloodshed, most of which are on themselves. and we have to remember that sometimes it is this sensitivity and self-awareness, this taking umbrage, that leads to great revolutions and struggles for independence from oppressive regimes , be in the area of politics or of gender or of race. and sometimes issues that many of us dismiss as silly at the time, can at some point turn out to be dangerous ideas of supremacy which cause holocausts of massive proportions.In any case,there should be more peaceful ways. But then a Gandhi would have to be born. But even then in this century, will it make any change?

Let's just hope that at some point in the future, these old "macho" civilizations will reach a place where they can vent their frustrations in a well-orchestrated, well-rehearsed, well-mannered function where all are dressed in the latest designer wear, sipping champagne. They will watch comedians and talk-show hosts act out the matter and make fun of the insulter in a very funny, endearing and sometimes rebellious manner. They will laugh and roll their eyes and go watch some more Reality TV, look for sales on well-co-ordinated, or mix-and-match, seasonal room decor, and have breaded snacks. Instead of lashing out at everyone blindly, they would have learned to deal with insults,  in a very civilized manner.Oh, and apologize. just apologize -- both sides. And write in their blogs, talk to a reporter if one can, and post on facebook and tweet on twitter and so on - go viral, and go on with more important stuff. forget what that idiot of a cartoonist or movie maker did, with a religion, or what that politician said about women.

For a society to reach that level of disinterestedness, albeit not completely impartial -- which level once we all reach, the world would have truly evolved into a peaceful place, where all are equally equal -- that society has to be at a certain happy place.The larger the number of the  citizens of a nation enjoy a comparatively stress-free life, whose basic needs are met more or less, have a higher standard of living, the less trouble they get into -- usually. (curiously, and very sadly, the number of serial killers seem to increase then). As it is, only those cultures that have that sense of pride, that sense of self-confidence can be really disinterested. And that number now is very low, almost nil. (There are those that have an inflated sense of importance, their superiority -- that is troublesome. )The majority of nations do not enjoy such an elevated status in their own eyes, or in the roster of nations. This disparity appears in other areas too -- gender, class, race -- not just nations. So there will be conflict -- slights, imagined or otherwise. Another side of the Foucaultian power and resistance to power. What I called ' the anxiety of influence of civilizations". And if all the leaders can be bridgers of gaps, instead of touting the differences to feel superior, rather than as an example of complexity,  we wouldn't be talking about this.

ps: are politicians saints? do they all speak the truth all the time? do we? but we don't count. let's talk of politicians. Do they all lie? Can they afford not to? Can they afford to be saints? I think it would be kind of like the great Ashoka's embrace of Buddhism -- which is not conducive to empire-building or maintaining. If all nations were to be saintly, then maybe the saintly politician can exist. Even then there is that fascination with power. How many can resist it? With education in the right manner things can change. But won't that be indoctrination? Looking at our current political atmosphere here, it was only recently that I heard about a candidate who stood for all the right issues . The ideal candidate. But how practical would his ideals be in the real America, in the real world? How would one pigeon fare among all the cats? I have seen how hard it has been for the current President to be the "bridger of gaps" among the people of his country, among nations etc. that he promised he would be. I do not see that humility, the humaneness, and the understanding that shone like a bright hopeful beacon after a dark period of arrogant jingoism, anymore. That is  probably not because he is not idealistic or humane anymore -- but that  he cannot afford to be, if he is to survive and succeed. Priorities changed.(Aside: Are saints politicians? oh well. we all die anyway.) But I do believe that if politicians are saints, then saints are politicians. They are all saints in the strength of their convictions, in their visions, and in  their willingness to work with determination towards their goals. They are all politicians, again, for the same reasons.

"Third world" woes

This is the post-postmodern age. we all know that. in this age, we abhor racism, sexism etc. We are enlightened beings, or on the way to being so. esp. celebs. Almost all of them have causes to work for. and we are grateful that their famous faces bring the attention of people with money to the fate of the underprivileged.
And we hope that that would bring some long awaited changes in the lives of the disadvantaged and the dispossessed.

These celebs of course are compassionate, they want to help these unfortunate people. But at some point, the problem peeps out. the fact that in their heart of hearts, they don't see these human beings as their equal. "all are equal, some are more equal" comes true here. oh, i hear protests.

We hear casual references like  "something that may happen in a Third World country", to denote the speaker's disbelief at a pathetic occurence in a rich country. ( that was the great humane do-gooder George Clooney). Or "showing that even the tall, blonde foreign lady wanted to use it" when a celeb is describing her philanthropic work in a certain Third World country ( this is from an article in Vogue). The funny thing is the lady here doesn't have a clue as to what an average Third Worlder thinks. The Third World woman, for instance, has so many other important immediate matters to think about and deal with -- like her daily bread, her children, and her family to mention a few, that the 'blonde lady" shouldn't have to worry about what we think. We do not have any concept of your blinding beauty just because you are tall and blonde. Well, if you were really beautiful with a loving smile, then, yes. But not if you were arrogant, and condescending. Anyway, most probably, if they are anything like us Malayalis, they will look on you as just an alien, as a totally different kind of being -- not necessarily angelic or intelligent. Some of them may be even laughing behind your back. Of course there will be those who fear you  like they fear ghosts.

So -- What do these unthinking, (maybe)  by the garden-variety philanthropic celebs tell a person like me? that is, someone of average intelligence? I get the idea that the celeb concerned has inadvertently revealed his or her sense of racial superiority. in the second quote, she might as well have added "Aryan"! I do not know why these people think that we like the name-calling? or that we must like it? It is like using the N- word, dear people! That you have deigned  to stop using. Why keep using this? Of course, once you stop using this particular word, another word or phrase will take its place, which for  a while will be fine with us third worlders -- for a time. after a while we may or may not protest against that too. that is our privilege. and dancing to our tunes is your burden. :) after all, third worlds did not appear overnight on their own. we know our faults, our lacks, our situation better than you. we will call ourselves names, you do not have that right.


It is this  uncomfortable, distasteful mixture of compassion and contempt of the white race toward the so-called Third World, that makes some of  us and many of the underprivileged, distrustful of these white good samaritans. this is why the whites see hatred in the eyes of many of the poor,  even as they accept the numerous kindnesses. somehow they know, because they are not stupid. and particularly because the precedents are not that good. Historically, the advent of the  white man into the  Third World countries has not been advantageous to the Third Worlder. In fact, they know that it is this "discovery" by the white man that played a huge role in making them Third in the first place. These modern day human rights activists are the descendants  of people who made grabbing what belonged to others, an art. And no matter how much the outward trappings may change, inside, most of them are the same as their ancestors. Unless they acknowledge this contradiction/self-delusion, and change -- from the inside.

I have seen this in a university setting, where the ideas of equality and justice are accepted as everyone's birthrights. Professors who strive to be fair, non-racist, evolved beings, gay men who try the same thing, but at some point,one can see through the pretense -- conscious or otherwise. They delude themselves into thinking that they are  highly enlightened regarding the race issue, just because they are afraid to be mean to the black students,  or because they are in the field of arts and humanities, or because they are outside the mainstream as they are not heterosexual. But that doesn't naturally make them non-racists.

Now, there is a white man who acknowledges this uncomfortable truth in his writings. Henning Mankell. That is just one thing, and one very important thing -- that makes him better and different from all other great white writers or scholars, in my eyes. and he is an Aquarian too! :)



PS : A variation of this covert racism is parallelled in the area of sexism. Thus we see even educated men stoop to harping on annoyingly inane jokes that make use of outdated notions about women's nature. That there are men who find such types of jokes even remotely intelligent or  funny, in this age, is unbelievable. The basic reason here too is the contempt that they hold in their heart of hearts for women, underneath all that pretense of respect and honor.And also the fear that women are getting ahead, that tradition and mores made by men may not be able to keep women suppressed for much longer.