All Comments By

On Jul 21, 2022 Somik Raha wrote on Error Of Perception, by Ramana Maharshi:

David, this is beautiful! Thank you for posting a second time.

On Aug 19, 2021 Somik Raha wrote on Only Stillness Can Change Us, by Jean Klein:

Nilesh, thank you for this comment. Our team did review the source and we have reproduced it faithfully here. We added the link to the source on this piece so you can check. As an aside, sometimes these passages do make us reflect more than usual. :)

On Nov 28, 2019 Somik Raha wrote on How Can You Live In This World And Yet Be Innocent?, by J. Krishnamurti:

Thank you for sharing these sentiments. Some adjustments were made to this piece (in parenthesis), but I didn't get to all of the places that could have been done. This would have been easy to do, and I wasn't being diligent. You will see this piece adjusted now.

On May 17, 2018 Somik Raha wrote on Death Connects Us To Life, by Somik Raha:

After attending the circle at Santa Clara on this topic last night, I came away with a feeling of wonder. What if the circle is actually its own entity? We may be listening to each member of the circle when they share with words or stillness, but what if we are really listening to the circle? The circle felt beautifully complete, with deep sharings, exploration of edges, and counterpoints. If the circle were a person, that would be one heck of a wise person! And how beautiful that one cannot listen to a circle without also deeply listening to the individual. And how doubly beautiful that this circle can only emerge as a result of a process, and can never be replicated in the same way again!

Reading the comments here, I feel that our circle wasn't limited to just one physical space - every one of the commenters here are part of a bigger circle, and we are literally dotting the circle that is the shape of our planet. Thank you for making this possible.

On Jul 20, 2017 Somik Raha wrote on The Grandest Vision For Humanity, by Riva Melissa Taz:

Dear David,

Thank you for that feedback -- we have updated the author's bio. :)

In Service,
Somik

On Sep 29, 2016 Somik Raha wrote on What is Meditation?, by Vimala Thakar:

Dear David,

Thank you for that catch! We have corrected the typo. :)

Regards,
Somik

On Jan 7, 2014 Somik Raha wrote on Aliveness and Harmony, by Christopher Alexander:

Jodi, unfortunately, when this was written (in 1979), it wasn't politically incorrect to use the male gender for generalizing humanity. This is true for many thinkers and writers who wrote earlier than a decade(for instance, Martin Luther King Jr, Mahatma Gandhi and others). Kudos to you for taking the time to rewrite it in a way that made it more resonant for you.

On Dec 17, 2013 Hindi Translator wrote on Beauty Harmonizes Law and Liberty, by Rabindranath Tagore:

On Oct 30, 2012 Be Happy wrote on A Servant Leader, by Vinoba Bhave:

Vinoba wrote in English at a time when it was common to use the sweeping "men" to refer to both men and women. This has only recently changed. English was not his mother tongue. In the Indian languages, there tends to be an emphasis on "humans" over "men" and "women" - if he were communicating in his own tongue, this issue would not have come up as he would have used the term "manushya" for human. Be that as it may, I totally agree with the sentiment that women have tended to be our unsung servant leaders. No less a leader than Gandhi admitted that he had learned ahimsa from his wife. In my own life, my hero has been my grandmother, who was the rock of our family. Having her in my life has been my blessing. She would support my grandfather, who felt he was the star. He would write lots of books on spiritual matters, and she would be his humble typist. I took a summer vacation to go live with them when I was 15. I still remember that one day he got annoyed with her and told her, "You are not fit for me." She remained calm and equanimous, while I broke down, horrified. Both of them comforted me, with my grandfather feeling ashamed, and my grandmother telling me not to mind it. While my grandfather had a lot of intellectual clarity, my grandmother lived it. She not only supported her own family's journey but those of her neighbors and anyone else who crossed her path. Her prayer would not be, "may their suffering be alleviated," rather, it would be, "may their suffering leave them and come onto me." That kind of prayer requires a level of strength that I am yet to develop. Toward the end of her life, she called my grandfather on her deathbed, and told him that she was here so he could complete working out his own journey. He did not realize it, but that is what she had focused on all her life. He had to complete for her sake, and he had very little time left. For completi... [View Full Comment] Vinoba wrote in English at a time when it was common to use the sweeping "men" to refer to both men and women. This has only recently changed. English was not his mother tongue. In the Indian languages, there tends to be an emphasis on "humans" over "men" and "women" - if he were communicating in his own tongue, this issue would not have come up as he would have used the term "manushya" for human.

Be that as it may, I totally agree with the sentiment that women have tended to be our unsung servant leaders. No less a leader than Gandhi admitted that he had learned ahimsa from his wife. In my own life, my hero has been my grandmother, who was the rock of our family. Having her in my life has been my blessing. She would support my grandfather, who felt he was the star. He would write lots of books on spiritual matters, and she would be his humble typist. I took a summer vacation to go live with them when I was 15. I still remember that one day he got annoyed with her and told her, "You are not fit for me." She remained calm and equanimous, while I broke down, horrified. Both of them comforted me, with my grandfather feeling ashamed, and my grandmother telling me not to mind it.

While my grandfather had a lot of intellectual clarity, my grandmother lived it. She not only supported her own family's journey but those of her neighbors and anyone else who crossed her path. Her prayer would not be, "may their suffering be alleviated," rather, it would be, "may their suffering leave them and come onto me." That kind of prayer requires a level of strength that I am yet to develop.

Toward the end of her life, she called my grandfather on her deathbed, and told him that she was here so he could complete working out his own journey. He did not realize it, but that is what she had focused on all her life. He had to complete for her sake, and he had very little time left. For completion, he had to forgive everyone who he felt had wronged him, and let go of all grudges. Hearing all this, my grandfather, who always thought of himself as her teacher, broke down. He spent the next six months after her passing a changed man, following her advice and withdrawing from the world, after which he too passed on.

Vivekananda used to strongly say that it was a terrible idea to discriminate between genders in spirituality - the spirit has no gender, and women don't need the permission of men to access their own spirituality. A beautiful and inspiring story comes to us from the Yoga Vashishtha, which tells us of King Shikhidhwaj and Queen Chudala. The queen was far ahead in spiritual matters. One day her husband announced that he was done with the material world and would go to the forest for enlightenment. She told him to go right ahead and she would take care of the kingdom. This being an Indian story, and that too a Yogic one, she could see in meditation that her husband was totally miserable in the forest, being bitten by flies and far away from renunciation. She knew that if she went and instructed him, he wouldn't take it. So, she changed her form to that of a male hermit, and then told him, "You are doing it all wrong." His mind opened up enough to receive instruction from his wife, who then helped him to realize that waking up required separation from the ego, and just by virtue of being in a forest, he wasn't going to get there. This is a remarkable story, quite unparalleled in the Yogic tradition.

I feel that modern efforts for gender equality in language are good as far as they go, but they don't go far enough to celebrate the unique strength and wisdom that women servant leaders have shown us. I must end by celebrating CFMom, who (along with CFDad) serves as a rock for Wednesday meditations, no matter what her health is, so we may all further our journey. It is no easy task to cook for so many people, and she has done this for 15 years now! Her gratitude at being of service deepens our own commitment to servant leadership.
[Hide Full Comment]

On Apr 4, 2012 Somik Raha wrote on Science As Spiritual Practice, by Adam Frank:

Lovely reflection, Jim! Very inspired to read it.

On Mar 13, 2012 Somik Raha wrote on Nothing Left to Fight Against, by Zenkei Blanche Hartman:

Mira, what a great sharing!

On Nov 17, 2011 Somik Raha wrote on Pilgrimage to Nonviolence, by Martin Luther King, Jr.:

Catherine wrote: However, I can say with a certaintly, that I have NOT found that "kindness begets kindness" as you say. Did the "kind" and innocent Jews receive "kindness" at the hands of the Nazis, or did they all "deserve it" somehow via acts of karma? That's where all this falls down for me. Along with the reaction and problems I am having with this current nonprofit, who apparently has something to hide. Did I bring that on myself by asking for information? Was I not "kind" enough in my simple, factual request? If we go deep into the Nazi regime, we find two things. First, people, Nazi or otherwise, have a strange tendency to bow down to authority (and you refer to this). So, when given an order from above, they mindlessly follow it. People during that time in Germany were at the pinnacle of culture, and yet, their ethical apparatus failed them. How do we know if that is a whitewash, or if they really felt something was wrong? All you have to do is look at how many people either committed suicide or died every day with their guilt. And those that didn't were hounded all around in society (as Nazi war criminals). There should be no doubt in your mind that most people of that time paid a big price for being a part of the regime. Getting to the Jews, we may presume that many were kind to others and led lives of service. The test of whether that brought back kindness is how much loved they were in their own communities, and there too you will find that many well-respected and loved people existed and were sent to the gas chambers. Second, the Nazi phenomenon was a unique event in our history, made possible by a tremendous concentration of power and dehumanization. You might be surprised that the first counting machines were developed in Germany to tabulate the census, which was used to identify where all the Jews where. Massive deception made it possible to hide the brutality that was t... [View Full Comment]

Catherine wrote:

However, I can say with a certaintly, that I have NOT found that "kindness begets kindness" as you say. Did the "kind" and innocent Jews receive "kindness" at the hands of the Nazis, or did they all "deserve it" somehow via acts of karma?

That's where all this falls down for me. Along with the reaction and problems I am having with this current nonprofit, who apparently has something to hide. Did I bring that on myself by asking for information? Was I not "kind" enough in my simple, factual request?

If we go deep into the Nazi regime, we find two things. First, people, Nazi or otherwise, have a strange tendency to bow down to authority (and you refer to this). So, when given an order from above, they mindlessly follow it. People during that time in Germany were at the pinnacle of culture, and yet, their ethical apparatus failed them. How do we know if that is a whitewash, or if they really felt something was wrong? All you have to do is look at how many people either committed suicide or died every day with their guilt. And those that didn't were hounded all around in society (as Nazi war criminals). There should be no doubt in your mind that most people of that time paid a big price for being a part of the regime. Getting to the Jews, we may presume that many were kind to others and led lives of service. The test of whether that brought back kindness is how much loved they were in their own communities, and there too you will find that many well-respected and loved people existed and were sent to the gas chambers.

Second, the Nazi phenomenon was a unique event in our history, made possible by a tremendous concentration of power and dehumanization. You might be surprised that the first counting machines were developed in Germany to tabulate the census, which was used to identify where all the Jews where. Massive deception made it possible to hide the brutality that was to unfold. If the local Germans had known what was up, I wonder what would have happened. As an example, when German society found out that autistic and mentally challenged children were being killed under a program for that was deceptively labeled. When the public found out, the government had to stop it. The extent of secrecy was so massive that not until World War II ended did people find out what went on at the camps. Mass cruelty is possible (I find) when massive secrecy is at play.

More later...

[Hide Full Comment]

On Nov 17, 2011 Somik Raha wrote on Pilgrimage to Nonviolence, by Martin Luther King, Jr.:

AtoZ, Catherine and Thierry, thank you so much for your comments!

AtoZ, I agree with you on many counts, and will focus on the differences. Darwin's ideas have been interpreted in the mainstream as "survival of the fittest," but when we are talking about the social sphere, an alternate hypothesis is "survival of the kindest." From at least my limited personal experience and evidence I've recieved from others, it seems to me that those who are kind to others, don't manipulate others, and love unconditionally get back what they give. So do those who don't. Perhaps you can validate if you feel like harming those who are kind to you (my bet is you are inclined to reciprocate). A much broader principle than Darwin's seems to be, "What goes around, comes around." Even our planet is shaped that way :).

Catherine, I can tell you where that monk story came from, but I am not sure that you would find that satisfactory. I find it much more helpful to test how far I can go than get wowed by legends of others. In that sense, I am totally with you. I find it helpful to locate my edge, and then test if I can go beyond it.

To me, nonviolence is a practice that does not have prescriptive solutions (like being vegetarian or staying away from physical violence). It is far more subtle. If I take an act of violence, and claim that my mind is nonviolent, how do I know that I'm not fooling myself? One useful test I've found is this: Is my action a reaction beyond my control, or did I select that option amongst several as the wisest thing to do, grounded on the principle of seeing unity with all?

Most of the time, my answer to this question has been the former, but the latter is an important aspiration.

On Nov 17, 2011 Somik Raha wrote on Pilgrimage to Nonviolence, by Martin Luther King, Jr.:

AtoZ, I half-agree with you. I totally agree with you write that protesting with physical nonviolence while hating those we protest against is not really an example of nonviolence. Gandhi's nonviolence was at the level of the mind - even a thought of negativity or hatred against another had to be watched carefully and not allowed to take hold. For that thought is the grandfather of action.

On trying nonviolence with animals, in India's age-old tradition of monks, we have heard of monks who have offered themselves to hungry animals out of compassion. Turns out the animal refused to eat em at times, and at others they did. Made no difference to the monk.

The reason one would practice nonviolence, according to MLK and Gandhi, is not to strategically manipulate others, but to fill oneself with love and transcend the "us vs them" duality. Gandhi himself wrote that he was mistaken when early on, he proclaimed nonviolence as a weapon of the weak and the coward. Later on, after he had experimented with it, he remarked that nonviolence is a weapon of the bravest of the brave. Cowards should resort to violence, according to him, so that they get brave enough to try nonviolence.

In my mind, the action is secondary - it is the thought that is primary. The surgeon's knife performs violence on a patient but with the intent to heal. Sometimes in life, we may be called upon to resist with our bodies. The real test of nonviolence is whether, whatever action has been in front of us, was carried out without a trace of hatred. That is what the ancients refer to as "fight like a yogi." Practically speaking, most of the time, when I uproot hatred, a larger repertoire of actions becomes available that do not involve physical violence. Of course, I remain open about this, as it is an ongoing experiment.

On Oct 6, 2011 Somik Raha wrote on Fool Realization, by Steve Bhaerman:

Yoghio --> I would be inclined to agree with your comment if Swami B was saying, "The joke is on Jesus." However, it seems to me that he is saying the exact opposite, "The joke is on the persecutors of Jesus, who inspite of their huge efforts, could not suppress him."

I once asked a monk, "Sir, we all like to think we are following Karma Yoga (Finding unity through action), but how do I know that I am not fooling myself, and just performing egoistic action?"

The monk replied, "When all your projects fail, and you still have the ability to laugh with authenticity, then you will know that you are following karma yoga."

The humour that allows us to develop a deeper awareness of who we are is no less a path than others in the journey of self-development

On Oct 4, 2011 Somik Raha wrote on Fool Realization, by Steve Bhaerman:

Great reflection, Susan!

On Aug 20, 2011 Somik Raha wrote on You Are Not a Prisoner, by Andrew Cohen:

This is in response to James' comment. Some years back, my professor shared a gem with me. The context of our conversation was Ayn Rand, and someone had praised Rand.Me: I find it very hard to follow Ayn Rand's philosophy, after learning that she died insane. I was very influenced by her writing, but decided to throw it all out after knowing about her personal life. (I was wrong about her dying insane, don't know how I came to believe that)Prof: I used to know a Buddhist teacher many years back, who was very high up in this country. He used to give wonderful enlightening sermons. Then one day, he was found to be a pedophile. I found myself questioning whether the knowledge I'd received from him should be thrown away. It was clear to me that whatever he had said about truth, compassion and love was invaluable, and had helped me in my own life. Nothing he did changed the value of his message for me, so it made no sense to throw out what he said because he could not live up to it. The value was for me to keep.This was an eye-opening conversation for me. Prior to this conversation, I would leave gold behind just because it was offered with dirty hands. The moment I learned of some weakness that someone had, I'd throw out all the value I had received from that source. After this conversation, there was a great sense of freedom. It didn't matter to me what the person had done. We are all human - and we make mistakes all the time. I don't care who is carrying gold in their hands - I will take gold when I see it. I know that my life is so much richer because of this change in my mental operating system. I am happy to learn from all. (Of course, it took some years to format the system, and the work is still in progress).Stepping it up, this philosophy has big implications. What if someone tells me that Krishna/Rama/Jesus/etc. were mythical characters - never existed! Suppose all of modern science backs up this assertion. The real test of whether I... [View Full Comment]

This is in response to James' comment. Some years back, my professor shared a gem with me. The context of our conversation was Ayn Rand, and someone had praised Rand.

Me: I find it very hard to follow Ayn Rand's philosophy, after learning that she died insane. I was very influenced by her writing, but decided to throw it all out after knowing about her personal life. (I was wrong about her dying insane, don't know how I came to believe that)

Prof: I used to know a Buddhist teacher many years back, who was very high up in this country. He used to give wonderful enlightening sermons. Then one day, he was found to be a pedophile. I found myself questioning whether the knowledge I'd received from him should be thrown away. It was clear to me that whatever he had said about truth, compassion and love was invaluable, and had helped me in my own life. Nothing he did changed the value of his message for me, so it made no sense to throw out what he said because he could not live up to it. The value was for me to keep.

This was an eye-opening conversation for me. Prior to this conversation, I would leave gold behind just because it was offered with dirty hands. The moment I learned of some weakness that someone had, I'd throw out all the value I had received from that source. After this conversation, there was a great sense of freedom. It didn't matter to me what the person had done. We are all human - and we make mistakes all the time. I don't care who is carrying gold in their hands - I will take gold when I see it. I know that my life is so much richer because of this change in my mental operating system. I am happy to learn from all. (Of course, it took some years to format the system, and the work is still in progress).

Stepping it up, this philosophy has big implications. What if someone tells me that Krishna/Rama/Jesus/etc. were mythical characters - never existed! Suppose all of modern science backs up this assertion. The real test of whether I've understood the Gita/Ramayana/Bible at all is if I can say, without batting an eyelid, "Makes no difference! I have read and consumed the Gita/Ramayana/Bible, and it helps me every day of my life. My thanks to whoever concocted it- it is most helpful." This test can be applied to every religion, every sect, every order, and yes, even to science. It should not matter to us if Darwin or Galileo ever existed, or what indiscretions they indulged in.

What they have left behind is for us to experience in our own lives, and if we find value in that, why should we impoverish our lives by throwing it away?

In this piece, it seems to me that the value lies in reflecting on our "conviction in no-limitation," a grand idea that is entirely worthy of our time and attention. There may be edges - many people don't meditate and are yet convinced about their limitlessness. But the idea of our limitless creativity is an empowering one, notwithstanding our personal failings in living such an idea.

[Hide Full Comment]

On May 25, 2011 Somik Raha wrote on Paradox of Noise, by Gunilla Norris:

Very interesting thoughts from Ganoba. It brought up for me the notion of levels of awareness. At a gross level, I live in a dual world, where I am not you and you are not me. At a subtle level, my sharp dual boundaries blur, and this is where I start noticing paradoxes. At an undifferentiated level, there are no boundaries, and I cannot ask any rational questions, because there is no "I" to begin with. While some philosophies advocate for the undifferentiated level as the elixir of human achievement, I find a lot more depth in India's ancient Upanishads that makes me think twice before making a black-and-white judgment. For instance, the Isha Upanishad has the following in it (verse 9, quoting Aurobindo's translation): Into a blind darkness they enter who follow after the Ignorance, they as if into a greater darkness who devote themselves to the Knowledge alone. This is one of the most mysterious verses that unpacks its meaning when examined in the three dimensions of reality. The Vedas call all rational pursuits "avidya" or "ignorance," including the Vedas themselves, ascribing rationality to the gross level. :) Knowledge, or "vidya," is about direct experience, and exists at the level of undifferentiated reality. The subtle realm is where we dance from one to the other - there is nothing supernatural about it, or as Chris would say, it is "super" natural. Whenever we've felt love for someone, we've reached though the gross and into the undifferentiated. What this sloka seems to be saying is that those who pursue gross reality (which also includes intellectual spiritual inquiry, such as this comment) are in darkness. And those who pursue undifferentiated reality (direct experience) are in even greater darkness! How can that be? That can only be if the underlying reality (or darkness) between the gross and the undifferentiated are one and the same, and it is a deep mistake to thin... [View Full Comment]

While some philosophies advocate for the undifferentiated level as the elixir of human achievement, I find a lot more depth in India's ancient Upanishads that makes me think twice before making a black-and-white judgment. For instance, the Isha Upanishad has the following in it (verse 9, quoting Aurobindo's translation):

Into a blind darkness they enter who follow after the Ignorance, they as if into a greater darkness who devote themselves to the Knowledge alone.

This is one of the most mysterious verses that unpacks its meaning when examined in the three dimensions of reality. The Vedas call all rational pursuits "avidya" or "ignorance," including the Vedas themselves, ascribing rationality to the gross level. :) Knowledge, or "vidya," is about direct experience, and exists at the level of undifferentiated reality. The subtle realm is where we dance from one to the other - there is nothing supernatural about it, or as Chris would say, it is "super" natural. Whenever we've felt love for someone, we've reached though the gross and into the undifferentiated.

What this sloka seems to be saying is that those who pursue gross reality (which also includes intellectual spiritual inquiry, such as this comment) are in darkness. And those who pursue undifferentiated reality (direct experience) are in even greater darkness! How can that be? That can only be if the underlying reality (or darkness) between the gross and the undifferentiated are one and the same, and it is a deep mistake to think one is different from the other. As Tagore so explicitly states in his poetry, there is no meaning in undifferentiated reality were it not for the gross.

On that note, when I was bringing Prof. Howard over to last Wednesday's guest talk, he commented, "Even reading the most boring book in the world is more interesting that being God." "God" is the term many cultures have ascribed to undifferentiated reality, and in that light, there is just infinite potential, but no expression.

In summary, the mind that perceives paradoxes is just as right as the mind that perceives duality, as the mind that does not exist. Time for a good laugh now. :)

[Hide Full Comment]

On May 23, 2011 Somik Raha wrote on New Atoms Doing the Same Dance, by Richard Feynman:

For some who've asked me about follow-up resources on Prof. Ron Howard's talk last Wednesday, here is the mail I sent out to those who attended.

Really loved reading the comments, especially PK's note, pointing out that we have the good and the bad in us. Also enjoyed Manasi's comment:

It seems to me that knowlegde conventionally is the pursuit of certainty rather than a willingness to open into the mystery; and very often is the product of an intellect than seeks constant validation of it's usefulness.

Unconventional knowledge is then the pursuit of uncertainty of the subjective kind (as if there's any other). :)

On May 21, 2011 Somik Raha wrote on Paradox of Noise, by Gunilla Norris:

The biggest paradox is that life is an unfolding joke meant for my entertainment, and yet, I forget to laugh. When we watch a comedy, a spectacular failure is thoroughly enjoyed, both by the audience, and the actors who enjoy making the audience laugh. Yet, as an actor in life, I forget that I am my own audience, and the spectacular failures are the whole point of my drama for myself, and I ought to be ROFL. Now that's funny by itself! :)

End of Search Results