Category Archives: Self Help

Anger Management (in Hindi)

गीता मे लिखा है की क्रोध मनुष्य का सबसे बड़ा शत्रु है जानिए क्रोध से जुड़े कुछ महत्त्वपूर्ण तथ्य और इससे होने वाली हानियों को
——————-
1. क्रोध को जीतने में मौन सबसे अधिक सहायक है।
——————-
2- मूर्ख मनुष्य क्रोध को जोरशोर से प्रकट करता है, किंतु बुद्धिमान शांति से उसे वश में करता है।
——————-
3-
क्रोध करने का मतलब है, दूसरों की गलतियों की सजा स्वयं को देना।
——————-
4-
जब क्रोध आए तो उसके परिणाम पर विचार करो।
——————-
5-
क्रोध से धनी व्यक्ति घृणा और निर्धन तिरस्कार का पात्र होता है।
——————-
6-
क्रोध मूर्खता से प्रारम्भ और पश्चाताप पर खत्म होता है।
——————-
7-
क्रोध के सिंहासनासीन होने पर बुद्धि वहां से खिसक जाती है।
——————-
8-
जो मन की पीड़ा को स्पष्ट रूप में नहीं कह सकता, उसी को क्रोध अधिक आता है।
——————-
9-
क्रोध मस्तिष्क के दीपक को बुझा देता है। अतः हमें सदैव शांत स्थिरचित्त रहना चाहिए।
——————-
10-
क्रोध से मूढ़ता उत्पन्न होती है, मूढ़ता से स्मृति भ्रांत हो जाती है, स्मृति भ्रांत हो जाने से बुद्धि का नाश हो जाता है और बुद्धि नष्ट होने पर प्राणी स्वयं नष्ट हो जाता है।
——————-
11-
क्रोध यमराज है।
——————-
12-
क्रोध एक प्रकार का क्षणिक पागलपन है।
——————-
13-
क्रोध में की गयी बातें अक्सर अंत में उलटी निकलती हैं।
——————-
14-
जो मनुष्य क्रोधी पर क्रोध नहीं करता और क्षमा करता है वह अपनी और क्रोध करने वाले की महासंकट से रक्षा करता है।
——————-
15-
सुबह से शाम तक काम करके आदमी उतना नहीं थकता जितना क्रोध या चिन्ता से पल भर में थक जाता है।
——————-
16-
क्रोध में हो तो बोलने से पहले दस तक गिनो, अगर ज़्यादा क्रोध में तो सौ तक।
——————-
17-
क्रोध क्या हैं ? क्रोध भयावह हैं, क्रोध भयंकर हैं, क्रोध बहरा हैं, क्रोध गूंगा हैं, क्रोध विकलांग है।
——————-
18-
क्रोध की फुफकार अहं पर चोट लगने से उठती है।
——————-
19-
क्रोध करना पागलपन हैं, जिससे सत्संकल्पो का विनाश होता है।
——————-
20-
क्रोध में विवेक नष्ट हो जाता है।

In Good Faith: A secular ethics for our times -Dalai Lama

Source : Indian Express

Time is always moving forward and no force can stop it. At every moment, we have the option of using our time constructively or negatively. The choice we make will determine whether our world becomes a peaceful one or continues to be engulfed in conflict and tension.

All human beings are basically the same, whether Easterners or Westerners, Southerners or Northerners, rich or poor, educated or uneducated, from this religion or that, and whether they’re believers or not. Emotionally, mentally and physically (except for minor secondary differences in appearance), we are the same. We all have the same potential to undergo both positive and negative experiences. Common sense shows us that negative actions always bring pain and sorrow while constructive action brings us pleasure and joy. Therefore, it is important to recognise that each of us has the potential to transform ourselves into a better, happier person, leading to a better and happier society.

The way such a transformation can take place is through adopting a positive mental attitude. We need a new way of thinking that includes provisions for developing our inner world. For centuries, humanity has invested greatly in developing society in material terms, on the basis of science and technology. This has resulted in remarkable improvements in the living standards of people throughout the world. Despite these scientific and technological achievements, however, many problems remain as people continue to cherish an outdated mental attitude.

In the field of international relations, for example, even countries that cherish freedom, democracy and liberty still rely greatly on force and violence. Using force may seem attractive and decisive, but it is counterproductive in the long run. For one thing, violence is unpredictable. Your initial intention may be to use limited force, but once you have committed violence, the consequences are unpredictable. Violence always creates unexpected complications and a violent response.

Violence is also not realistic in today’s world, since every being is so intertwined. Under these circumstances, to destroy your neighbour is actually destruction of oneself. In order to solve a problem, you have to appreciate what is at stake for your opponents. You have to take care of their interests as well as you can, and in that light, try to find a solution. What we need is a kind of inner disarmament. If we cultivate that and an awareness of the effects of violence, then the very notion of military activity will become outdated. We can then think seriously about how to physically disarm. Fortunately, on the issue of nuclear weapons, there are already programmes for dismantling nuclear warheads. We could go further and seek the total destruction of nuclear weapons. Then, the long-term target could be to aim for a demilitarised world.

There is also the mistaken belief that economic growth alone might result in a happier society. But current inequalities in economic development, resulting in a huge gap between the rich and the poor across the globe, as well as within nations, is a source of tensions and practical problems. Unfortunately, not many of us are able to see the reality of our situation, and as a result a great difference separates our perceptions from reality. On the basis of our misconceptions, we adopt attitudes that compound the problems in society.

The future of humanity depends on the adoption of a positive mental attitude by the current generation. This is why education is so important. Knowledge is like an instrument, and whether that instrument is put to use in a constructive or a destructive way depends on motivation. Modern education is very sound, but it seems to be based on a universal acceptance of the importance of developing the brain. Not enough attention is given to the development of the person as a whole, and to encouraging a clear sense of values and a warm heart.

My hope is that our educational systems will pay more attention to the development of human warmth and love. It is important to address moral questions related to the whole life of an individual, including his or her role in the society and in the family. All the way from kindergarten up to university. Through this, there is the potential to make oneself a happy person, to have a happy family, and to live in a happy society.

Parents have a special responsibility to introduce their children to the benefits of basic good human qualities such as love, kindness, and a warm heart. It would also be very useful to introduce children to the idea that whenever they are faced with a conflict, the best and most practical way of resolving it is through dialogue, not violence. If we introduce the idea of dialogue to children at an early age, through their schools, we can train students to discuss different views. In this way, the concept of dialogue will gradually be instilled in them. This is important because there will always be conflicts and disagreements in human society, and dialogue is the appropriate, effective and realistic method of truly resolving them.

Through such education, we can foster the idea that human beings are social creatures, that our individual interests rest on society and that it is in our own interest to be warm-hearted good neighbours to each other. This relates directly to what I think of as basic human values — that is, a sense of caring, a sense of responsibility, and a sense of forgiveness, based on a commitment to the oneness of humanity. We could call these basic human values “secular ethics”, since they do not depend on religious faith. And by “secular” here I mean that whether we embrace religion or not, which is a personal matter, these values still hold true. The very purpose of life is to find happiness, so there is no point in neglecting those very values that are directly related to making us happy.

There is good reason to develop these basic human values, because I believe that human nature is basically gentle. I believe that we are only occasionally aggressive and that generally our lives are very much involved with love and affection. Even the cells in our body work better if we have peace of mind. An agitated mind usually provokes some physical imbalance. If peace of mind is important for good health, that means the body itself is structured in a way that accords with mental peace. We can therefore conclude that human nature is more inclined to gentleness and affection.

On the mental level, too, we find that the more compassionate we are, the greater our peace of mind. In my brief lifetime, I have found that the more I meditate on compassion and think about the infinite number of sentient beings who are suffering, the more I develop an immense feeling of inner strength. As our inner strength and self-confidence grow, fear and doubt are reduced, and this automatically makes us more open. Then we can communicate more easily, because when we are open, others respond accordingly. On the other hand, when we are filled with fear, hatred or doubt, the door to our heart is closed and we relate to others with suspicion. The sad thing about this is that you can develop the impression that other people also harbour suspicions about you, and the distance between you and them increases. This ends in loneliness and frustration.

Younger generations have a great responsibility to ensure that the world becomes a more peaceful place for all. This can happen so long as our modern educational system involves educating the heart along with the brain.

Be Kind on social media

I decided to write this post after witnessing a barrage of abusive comments on social media over politics and ideologies :

All of us are unique. Each is God’s own child.

We all have a different bouquet of beliefs, political inclinations, languages, values, attitudes and norms shaped by our own unique life experiences, upbringing, etc. Moreover these keep on fluctuating with time.

Often I have seen people hurling abuses towards each other and creating anger, hate, frustration on social media mainly over politics. There is no group which enagages in this harmful activity more or less than others. Fanatical supporters of every political group do this.

All this does harm to both the individual and the society. A person who routinely engages in abuse and slander can never be peaceful himself/herself. That such comments create rift in society is another obvious repercussion.

“Violence is not physical alone. It is also what we think and what we speak.” -Mahavir Jain

Let us all learn to be a little kinder towards each other regardless of our differences. Because the one fact that remains despite our myriad of differences is our strongest uniting factor – that we are all particles of the same universe, the same life/soul animates us, the same God creates us. Any amount of differences cannot surmount this greatest of truths in this world. No “us vs them” mentality can break this great unifying factor/bond! Learn from the teachings of great men like Buddha, Mahavir Jain, Adi Shankaracharya, Guru Nanak, Rumi, Zoroaster, Christ, etc.

So be kinder, be peaceful, love every creature of God regardless of his/her bouquet coz who knows if you were in his/her shoes, maybe you would also have been like that. So be a little more empathetic from today.

-Ribhu V.

❤ 🙂

zoroaster-quote-doing-good-to-others-is-not-a-duty-it-is-a-joy-for-it

See temptation as an attack, not as a defeat

Source : http://www.gitadaily.com/see-temptation-as-an-attack-not-as-a-defeat-or-even-as-a-precursor-to-defeat/

Suppose soldiers guarding the national border against a hostile neighbour find bullets whizzing past them. Naturally, they will see the bullets as signs of attack and start counter-attacking.

When we start practicing spiritual life, we enter into a war against the forces of illusion, which attack primarily with the bullets of temptation. So, the rising of temptation inside us is an attack. Unfortunately, if we don’t understand the dynamics of the inner war, we see it as a defeat. We think, “I am so fallen as to have this desire. Its presence shows that I can’t follow spiritual standards. Now that the desire has come, let me just give in to it.” By so doing, we become like soldiers who lay down their arms at the sight of the first bullets.

But such capitulation is utterly unnecessary. The Bhagavad-gita (05.23) urges us to anticipate the lifelong presence of desire and anger. Rather than deeming their presence as a spiritual disqualification, it exhorts us to tolerate them by yoga practice.

Just as gallant soldiers determinedly return hostile fire, we can become spiritually gallant when temptation attacks and return fire by striving to intensify our bhakti practice, thus becoming absorbed in Krishna. Such absorption provides higher satisfaction, thereby increasing our resistance to the pleasure with which temptation allures and attacks.

Moreover, bhakti-yoga grants satisfaction not just through absorption but also through connection. That is, we can taste spiritual satisfaction not just at the end of the war when we are fully absorbed in Krishna but also in the thick of the war when we strive to connect with him through remembrance and service.

If temptation spurs us to increase our focus on Krishna, then it becomes not the precursor of defeat, but the prompter to victory.

Bhagavad-Gita-Chapter-05-Text-23

Emperor Ashoka on free speech

Source : Rajeev Bhargava ; http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/what-emperor-ashoka-knew-about-free-speech/article18591390.ece

Civility in public speech is a perfect antidote to the mutual estrangement between communities creeping into our society

Should members of one religious community have a right to freely criticise other religious communities? Why not? Indeed, they must. Should this right be absolute? No right is absolute, but if our speech never upsets other groups, then why have it as a right? So, does discussion on the subject end here? No, because having a right is different from exercising it. So we need to ask if there are circumstances when it is wise not to, when it is better to waive its exercise instead? And if we feel compelled to criticise others, to ask in what form we should do so?

Should there not be some informal social norms, an ethos that helps us judge when and how to exercise the right to criticise other groups?

One thinker who squarely addressed the issue of norms of free speech was Emperor Ashoka in third century B.C.E. This should not surprise us. For a start, there was great religio-philosophical diversity in his time (followers of Vedic Brahmanism, Upanishadic philosophers, Jains, Ajivikas, Buddhists, to name just a few groups).

Message for the ages

These included those who made ritual sacrifice central to their ethic and those who didn’t; those who believed in gods and goddesses and those who did not; those who thought ritual sacrifice was sufficient for a good life and those who differed; those who believed in the theory of karma and others who didn’t; those who evaluated karma negatively (to act is to acquire demerit) and those who did not; those who affirmed and those who denied radical asceticism; those who linked self-fulfilment to compassion towards others and those who did not. This deep diversity must have generated conflict, particularly because Ashoka tried to ensure that all these groups lived together, sharing the same public domain, rather than live separately in ghettoes.

What form did conflicts take? In Ashoka’s time, writing was virtually non-existent. Everyone lived in a vibrant oral culture. The entire complex of Art, Philosophy, and ‘Religion’ — poetry, our deepest metaphysical thoughts, acts honouring gods and goddesses — were spoken, composed, recited, sung, chanted and heard. Words were believed to have magical potency. They could beckon gods to help us tide over problems, create something out of nothing, empower or disempower others, turn them into stone, even kill them. They could be weapons or an elixir — soothe or cause grievous hurt, bring us together or pull us apart.

In such a strong oral culture, social conflict frequently took the form of verbal duels, speech fights, word-wars, verbal tongue-lashing of adversaries in intellectual combats. Moreover, vitriolic reciprocal name-calling existed alongside fulsome expression of self-praise and excessive bragging about one’s own prowess.

Managing the tongue

If words fall off the tongue effortlessly, tumble out inadvertently and, what is worse, carelessly, it is imperative that unguarded speech be checked, that words be enunciated with great care and thought in public.

And that is exactly what Ashoka advised — free speech must be regulated by vācāgati (the artful management of the tongue), a social norm of a specific kind of samyama (self-restraint). While coexisting religious communities might invariably find each other irksome, this negative response, Ashoka argued, must not be privatised or repressed. It may enter the public but only on meeting certain conditions.

To begin with, speech critical of others may be freely expressed only if there are good reasons to do so. Second, even when good reasons exist for criticism, one may criticise only on appropriate occasions. And finally, even on an appropriate occasion, one must never be immoderate. Critique must never belittle or humiliate others. Only moderate criticism on appropriate public occasions is justified. Thus, there is a multi-layered, ever-deepening restraint on negative speech against others — self-restraint for the sake of others.

With this, Ashoka had evolved an original norm of civility, but he did not stop here. He further asserted that one must not extol one’s religion/philosophy without good reason. Undue praise of one’s community is as morally objectionable as unmerited criticism of the other.

Moreover, even when there is good reason to praise one’s own perspective, it too should be done only on appropriate occasions, and even then, never immoderately. Excessive self-glorification is a way to make others feel small. Indeed, blaming other groups out of devotion to one’s own world view and unreflective, uncritical self-praise, argued Ashoka, damages one’s own community. By offending and thereby estranging others, such speech undermines the capacity for mutual interaction and possible influence. Thus, there must an equally be a multi-textured, ever-deepening restraint on oneself — self-restraint for the sake of one’s own self.

A shared ethos

For Ashoka, our duties towards others cannot be neatly separated from the virtues we cultivate in ourselves. Our moral concern for others can’t be hived off from our ethical regard for ourselves. So, if Ashoka were alive today, he would argue that a crucial precondition of exercising one’s right to the free criticism of other groups is a robust ethos of self-restraint. A social norm of civility in public speech is a perfect antidote to the mutual estrangement between communities now creeping into our society.

In the war of egos, the winner is the bigger loser

Source : http://www.gitadaily.com/in-the-war-of-egos-the-winner-is-the-bigger-loser/

When people disagree on an issue, the disagreement sometimes degenerates into a war of egos, where the issues are pushed into the background. People obsess on proving that they are right, not on determining what is right. In such arguments, the winners often end up as bigger losers.

Those who lose such an argument may be seen by the world as losers. But in the long run, those people grow and flourish who are ready to revise their understanding when necessary, who have the humility to learn what is right. The Bhagavad-gita (13.08) indicates that humility is the first of the twenty characteristics of those in knowledge. This implies that humility is the doorway to knowledge – those who have humility learn and grow. Those who prove that they are right even when they aren’t, bang shut the door of humility. They lock themselves outside the house of knowledge, in the arena of illusion.

The notion that one can do no wrong, that one’s view is the right view, that one’s view is, in fact, the only right view – that is essentially the notion that one is God.

So, when discussions start becoming ego issues, best to bow out and thus stay out of illusion.

Bhagavad-Gita-Chapter-13-Text-08