सहज जीवन

यह पोस्ट फिर से प्रकाशित कर रहे हैं . नीचे से दूसरे पैरा में दिया लाल रंग का वाक्य पिछले पोस्ट में न जाने कैसे छूट गया था. अंग्रेजी वाला ठीक है.

सहज जीवन

Ordinary Life  पर चल रही यह बहस अगर हिंदी में चलाना हो तो ‘सामान्य जीवन’ की जगह हमारी राय में ‘सहज जीवन’ शब्द का प्रयोग करना अधिक सही होगा. ‘सहज’ शब्द जीवन के प्राकृतिक रूप के निकट ले जाता है और जीवन के स्व-भाव को समझने में मददगार हो सकता है. हमारे देश में सहज पर तो दार्शनिक चिंतन की एक लम्बी परंपरा भी है. किसी भी काल में सहज जीवन अथवा सरल जीवन जीने का प्रयास करना यानि जीवन के स्व-भाव को हासिल करना माना गया है, और यह किसी तपस्या से कम नहीं है. यह मुक्तिदायी जीवन है.   

एक बार की बात है हम कुछ महिलाओं से मिलकर बच्चों के पालन-पोषण पर बात कर रहे थे तब किसी महिला ने कहा “बच्चों को पाला नहीं जाता, वे पलते हैं ”. यह कथन ‘सहज जीवन’ के कुछ पक्षों को उजागर करता-सा मालूम  पड़ता है. सहज शब्द के अर्थ में सामूहिकता, साथ-साथ, सहित, मिलकर, सहोदर, पैदा होना शामिल है. सहज होना यानि अपने मूल रूप अथवा मूल स्वभाव पर आना है. मनुष्य को अपने जीवन को सहज बनाना यानि उसे अधिकाधिक सुविधापूर्ण बनाना नहीं है और न उसकी सक्रियता को घटाना. यह एक ऐसा जीवन है जो सहजीवन और सहअस्तित्व को आत्मसात करता है.

हमारे यहाँ कबीर के समय सहजिया पंथ का प्रभाव व्याप्त था. सहजिया, सहज पंथ, सहजधारी, सहजयान, सहज समाधी, सहज ध्यान आदि की लम्बी परंपरा है. हजारी प्रसाद के अनुसार सहज साधना में ध्यान की अवस्था मन्त्र, आसन और तंत्र साधना के बिना भी हासिल होती है. ‘सहज जीवन’ साधन, धन, तकनीकी, विचारधारा पर निर्भर नहीं है. 

सहज बुद्धि का अर्थ है सभी जीवधारियों में प्रकृति से प्राप्त वह चेतना जिससे वे कुछ करने के लिए प्रेरित होते हैं और सही-गलत का बोध कर पाते हैं. सहज का आग्रह यह नैतिक शक्तियों को अर्जित करने का मार्ग रहा है. सीता का अशोक वन में घास की पाती हाथ में लेकर रावण का मुकाबला करने की कथा सहज का आग्रह है. गांधीजी द्वारा सीता का खादी पहनने का उदहारण सहज होने का आग्रह है. सहज यानि सादगी नहीं है, बल्कि न्यायपूर्ण होने का आग्रह है.

समाज का नेतृत्व करने वालों को सहज होना, उनके विचारों को सहज होना, उनके तरीके सहज होना यह एक अनिवार्य गुण साबित हुआ है. कला की गुणवत्ता में सहज एक कसौटी रही है. माताओं का सहज होना बच्चों के सर्वांगीण विकास का आधार है. यह गौर करने की बात है कि इन सभी क्रियाओं में नेतृत्व और लोगों के बीच या कलाकार और रसिक के बीच या माँ और बच्चों में सम्प्रेषण हो पाए यह ‘सहज’ को अंगीकार करने का कारण नहीं है. इनके बीच ऊँच-नीच का सम्बन्ध नहीं है बल्कि एक ही हो जाने का प्रयास है. कला दार्शनिक नीहार रंजन राय के अनुसार सृजनकारी नेतृत्व या कलाकार जो विचार और कार्य सामने लाते हैं, उन्हें सामान्यत: समाज के अधिकांश स्त्री-पुरुष पहले से जानते हैं.

समाज में बदलती परिस्थितियां मनुष्योचित कार्य के मार्ग में तरह-तरह के भ्रम जाल फैलाती हैं. जैसे आज तकनीकी आधारित जीवन के चलते यह मान्यता हो गई है कि इनके बिना कैसे जिया जा सकता है? सहज कला और सहज साहित्य इन जैसे भ्रम-जालों को सरलता से हटाने का कार्य है. सहज कला-साहित्य अपने समय के सत्य को सरलतम रूपों में सामने लाता है. कबीर का ‘ज्ञान का हाथी’ सहज का दुशाला ओढ़े है, गाँधी की दृष्टि में विद्वत्ता की तुलना में ‘सहज बुद्धि’ श्रेष्ठ मानी गई. प्रेमचंद की ‘सहज शैली’ और हजारी प्रसाद का ‘सहज भाषा’ का चिंतन ज्ञान-मार्ग को नैतिक और सरल बनाता है. चंद्रधर शर्मा ‘गुलेरी’ का ‘बोल-चाल की भाषा’ को शुद्ध भाषा का दर्जा देना और नामवर सिंह का सामान्य पाठक की ‘सहज दृष्टि’ को सृजनशील समीक्षक का दर्जा देना, यह ‘सहज जीवन’ के कुछ महत्वपूर्ण पहलुओं को सामने ले आता है.

चित्रा सहस्रबुद्धे

Sahaj Jeevan

If this debate on ‘Ordinary Life’ is to be carried out in Hindi then in my view the appropriate word would be ‘sahaj jeevan’ and not ‘samanya jeevan’. The word ‘sahaj’ takes one close to natural forms life and it may be helpful in understanding the swa-bhaav of life.  In our country there is a long tradition of philosophical reflection on ‘sahaj’ , the ordinary. In any period attempts at ordinary life or simple life were seen as trying to be one with swa-bhav of life, and this was no less than tapasya. This is emancipatory life.

Once we were discussing with some women the question of upbringing of children and one of them said “ children are not brought up, they grow”. This statement seems to bring into light certain aspects of ordinary life, sahaj jeevan. The meaning of sahaj includes being natural, unhampered by extraneous influences, togetherness, inclusiveness, joining together, brotherhood etc. To be sahaj is to gravitate towards basic forms, instincts or the swa-bhaav . To make one’s life more and more sahaj is not to add conveniences to one’s life , not to reduce one’s activity. Living together and being together is intrinsic to ordinary life.

In the times of Kabir there was a popular sect called Sahajiya Panth. There is a long tradition of Sahajiya, Sahaj Panth, Sahaj Dhaari, Sahajyaan, Sahaj Samadhi, Sahaj Dhyan etc.  According to Hazari Prasad Dwivedi in Sahaj Sadhna the state of dhyan is achievable even without mantra, aasana and tantra.  Sahaj jeevan is not dependent upon resources, wealth, technology, ideology.

The meaning of sahaj buddhi for all creatures is, that consciousness obtained from nature which inspires them to do something and enables them to differentiate what is right from what is wrong. Sahajagrah (सहजाग्रह), that is  insistence on sahaj, is a way to obtain moral strengths.

Sita’s taking into her hand petals of grass as weapon to defend her against Ravan is an instance of sahajagrah.  Gandhiji’s  reference to Sita wearing khadi is also for sahajagrah. Sahajagrah is to insist on what is just.  

Leaders of society need to be sahaj, their thought needs to be sahaj, their methods need to be sahaj.  Sahaj is part of the criteria of art appreciation. Mothers need to be sahaj for all round development of children. It is not for communication between leadership and the people or between artists and audience or between mother and her children that the need for being sahaj is felt, for there is no hierarchy in these relationships, they strive for unity. The philosopher of art Neehar Ranjan Ray says that the thoughts and creations brought forward by the creative leaderships or the artists are ordinarily already known to most men and women in society.

The changing situations in society sometimes create confusions while performing tasks appropriate for human beings. For example the spread of technology has given currency to the thought that life would be very difficult without technology. Sahaj art and sahaj literature remove such confusion. Sahaj art-literature presents the truth of its time in very simple form. Some examples from the towering figures of Hindi literature illustrate the point. Kabir’s ‘elephant of knowledge’ wears a shawl of sahaj. For Gandhi, sahaj-buddhi has preference over scholarship. The ordinary style of Premchand and the ordinary language of Hazari Prasad Dwivedi make gyan-marg, the path of knowledge, simple.  Chandrdhar Sharma ‘Guleri’ gave spoken language the status of  correct and pure language  and Namawar Singh gave the natural stand point of an ordinary reader the status of a creative critic. These bring forward some important aspects of sahaj jeevan, Ordinary Life.

Chitra Sahasrabudhey

Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times

Ordinary Life

"Ordinary life is life without condition. It assumes no science, no technology, no religion, no methods of organisation and communication of knowledge, it assumes nothing. It is not true, austere or moral life, for there is falsehood, extravaganza and immorality in ordinary life. But it has the criteria of truth, morality, justice, wisdom etc. in it." (https://vidyaashram.org/lokavidya-standpoint/)

We cannot ever have words which are more apt to describe what is ordinary life. Ordinary life is not always true, good and beautiful, but it has the standards of truth, beauty and goodness.

There can be excellence and appreciation of excellence in ordinary life - excellence of knowledge, art, ethical behavior. Everything is not 'ordinary' in ordinary life.

Ordinary life has always existed. It was taken for granted. Everything else came and then passed away - political systems, religions, technologies, philosophies appeared and disappeared. But ordinary life was always there. One did not need to speak of it, it was taken for granted.

Threat to Ordinary Life

Now we are living in an age where 'ordinary life' has become the most extraordinary thing. This is because the conditions necessary for ordinary life are threatened.

Earth itself is under threat. The rivers, forests, land, mountains, seas - all are under threat. There is no ordinary life without the bounties that earth provides. And the knowledge that lives in ordinary life is threatened. There is no regard for such knowledge. All activities of life from birth to growing up, from disease to cure and healing, work and play, from food to entertainment etc. etc. are under threat. From what does this threat come we do not know for sure - technology, capital, political systems, science etc. They used to operate taking ordinary life for granted. Now they threaten ordinary life itself.

Life without Ordinary Life

One response to this situation that is taking shape now in the front rank of dominant classes is that ordinary life is beyond redemption. We have to prepare for a future without ordinary life. We have to build technologies, systems of knowledge and control, systems of finance, etc. etc. that will equip human beings to construct a form of life that will survive the destruction of ordinary life and this planet for the foreseeable future.

There is an understanding and a conviction associated with such attitudes that this can't be done for the whole of humanity. This new form of life will necessitate not only exclusion of large number of people, but even their destruction cannot be ruled out.  This is not a conspiracy. The belief is that this is the only realistic way out unless we want to go back to a pre-technological phase of life. There is an underlying sense of the hard decisions that have to be made, and sentiments that have to be curbed.

This can be seen in the policy circles in the form of 'converging technologies' agenda, in certain attitudes to loss or possible loss of life in adoption of certain courses of action by politicians, in proposals of intensive virtualisation of life, in utopian zeal of new-age capitalists like Elon Musk, in currents of thought called 'post-humanism'. Names do not matter. This is not going to be an overt political project. My sense is that this vision of our future has been explored again and again in science fiction both in dystopian and utopian manner.

All this of course is in the name of the next ultimate step for humanities' progress where the humanity is emancipated from its dependence on natural processes of earth and reproduction of living creatures.

No Life without Ordinary Life

The other response is that life without ordinary life is no life.

It is perhaps such recognition which is the source of affinity among certain kinds of ideas, organisations, and movements. For example, Lokavidya, Sacred Economy, Food Soveignty, Rights of Mother Earth. There will be others.

It seems to me that 'the political' today gets defined by ordinary life, and not by the knowledge question. The questions of knowledge and lokavidya remain important in this 'politics', but my sense is that they do not define the political. In fact, 'the political' itself will have to be redefined in this extraordinary situation, where ordinary life is under threat of destruction.

There is another thing about ordinary life. We cannot banish 'dukha' or suffering from ordinary life. It seems to me that the project of banishing all suffering from life has in some way resulted in this threat to ordinary life that we face today.

-Avinash Jha

Ordinary is Emancipating!

The post on ordinary life and emancipating transformations by Lalit K. Kaul was nice!

Just one small comment ... about the last paragraph.
I think the word 'ordinary' in 'ordinary life' is quite fitting. If you look up synonyms of this word you come up with these: everyday, natural, normal, traditional, typical, familiar, general, humdrum, public, routine, standard, stock, accustomed, customary, established, frequent, habitual, popular, prevailing, quotidian, run-of-the-mill, settled, usual, wonted. I think the concept of "ordinary life" embraces precisely all these shades, and, of course, much more. The connotation of ordinary as "lowly", or "inferior" is not implied by the word, or these synonyms ... Although this connotation is very much there in regular use of the word ordinary among the 'parasites' ... but that is expected!

It sounds much more fitting to end the blog-note by something like "Ordinary is emancipating!"

- Girish Sahasrabudhe

Life ordinary Life and Emancipating Transformation

Written and posted by Lalit K Kaul, LJA, Hyderabad. 

Life Ordinary Life & Emancipating Transformation:

This question always hangs around in my mind: Why was I born? The more I look at the animal world, animal life and put it on 1:1 scale with my world and life, the more this question disturbs me. The similarity being that like any animal I am born, learn ways of the world and life within it; marry (animals do not), raise a family and provide for the same; finally merge with the Mother Earth.  Can this be termed as ‘ordinary life’ or do I qualify to be an emancipated being?

The difference being that being a part of the ‘modern world’ that prides in the ‘scientific temper’ of the man I am trained to devour the resources of the Mother Earth, which animals are not trained to do; to exploit human resources; to perpetuate miseries on the human race that animals do not do in their kingdom. Does this difference make me more liberated than animals? In the last 500 years has this Man been emancipated? Transformed: Yes; Emancipated:?

If I say that there is no need to determine the exact date of the birth of this universe; no need to philosophise on how and why it was born; no need to speculate on the purpose of its existence and its ultimate destiny; does this make me an ordinary man with ordinary thinking and therefore associated with ordinary life? If I say that such quests are not material for human societies and therefore waste of time and resource; is it primitive thinking; an under developed skull; and if I choose to live on these precept, am I in urgent need of ‘emancipating transformation’!

If I live by the precept that I am the child of the Mother Nature, ever dependent on it for my existence/ survival and therefore it is my solemn duty to live as a member of its family and not exploit it to harm it, does it get classified as a primitive thought in urgent need of transformation? If I decide to restrict my reach to the geographical area around me where my legs can take me and understand my surroundings, discover the natural resources available therein, invent means to make use of them (without hurting the Mother Nature) for my existence; does this qualify to be an irrational thought in urgent need for rationalisation?

If I say that societies/communities/races living in geographical regions different from each other in terms of the surrounding environment, climatic conditions, and natural resources should be free to make use of their wisdom, knowledge (vidhya) to devise methods to integrate their lives with their immediate Mother Earth & Nature; does it qualify to be an emancipating thought for civilised living or a primitive one deserving its place only in a garbage tin can?

The choice may lie between exploitative and non exploitative ways; exploitative means are those that hurt Mother Nature & Earth. Emancipation is not the absolute term and so may not be the definitions of exploitative and non exploitative means; the moot point is that if the societies are allowed to figure it out for themselves and no thought process/ philosophies alien to them are thrust upon them then and only then shall emerge multiple definitions of ‘being emancipating’, ‘being ordinary’, ‘being exploitative’, and ‘being non exploitative’, in the extant context. 

This is in the nature of a man to dislodge a thought process, an idea or a scheme from his mind if it is not going to be useful to him (in his domain of things); given the freedom to do so.  The sense of right and wrong is also imbibed in every human being, if only there is freedom to practise it. From among the things relevant to life, most of them every individual learns from interactions with the external world; these are not taught in any school, college and/or university. Does the information so acquired, assimilated and put to use not qualify as ‘vidhya’/ ‘knowledge’? Some things that I learnt by whatever means I learnt & for whatever reasons I learnt that help me not only in living my life at my terms, but guiding it through a course, do these not qualify to be ‘vidhya’/’knowledge’? The bigger question is: Why do I care whether the ‘emancipated’ ones recognise my world of ‘vidhya’/’knowledge’ or not so long as it enables my life dynamics and steers it through a course and also imbibes within me enough strengths to face oddities of life ? Nature is so diverse and societies are born in to it with all kinds of diversities around them, therefore how there can be one & only one yardstick to certify some one’s ‘vidhya’ as ‘avidhya’ or vice-versa! When parents cannot sermonise their child in to believing that theirs is the only way life could be lived, how any ‘emancipated’ society can sit on judgement on the ways and means of others? The moment I decide to seek cognisance for my ‘vidhya’ from a knowledge system based on totally different precepts, I attempt an absurd comparison. It’s me & only me  who shall decide the relevance of the ‘vidhya’ in regards to the necessities of my life and only I am qualified to enhance my ‘vidhya’ in certain direction if I find it insufficient for my endeavours; and only I am qualified to set the priorities vis a vis enhancements in the domain of my ‘vidhya’.

Constitution of India provides for 1) right to live, 2) right to freedom, 3) right to work; it therefore concedes that during colonial rule these rights were nonexistent. The catch here is that someone/ somebody/ some holy book has taken upon itself to grant me such rights which I indeed acquire naturally by birth because I am the baby of Mother Nature & Mother Earth; so every ‘right’ is not only predefined (even for yet to be born), but also restricted by the wisdom of a few. So life gets defined before one is born because freedom & work are defined. Right to livelihood based on ones ‘vidhya’ is not provided for because then the grip is lost. More cleverly what was done was to recognise only one knowledge system which encompassed everything including ‘life’, ‘freedom’, ‘work’ etc.; this recognition rendered everything ‘guaranteed’ by ‘Constitution’ irrelevant, because my birth right to acquire ‘vidhya’ in my own way and within my own means was snatched from me. There cannot be a better way than this one to enslave minds.

The irony however is that the ‘recognised’ knowledge system churns out such ‘servants’ of the Nation that are ever dependent on somebody/ some organisation employing them for, they are neither qualified nor competent to fend for themselves, whereas an individual empowered with Lokavidhya does not hanker after jobs, but has the wherewithal to fend for himself under all possible situations. The ‘legitimately’ educated migrate to greener pastures for their ‘good’ & ‘carrier’; the unrecognised ‘vidhya’ holder contributes to the GDP, no matter what! No expenses incurred by anyone for someone to acquire Lokavidhya and yet this individual contributes a lot to the society & the Nation; efficiency: quantum of output divided by ZERO input costs equals ‘∞’.  Efficiency of ‘legitimate’ knowledge holder equals (output burdened with costs) divided by (input costs as borne by the exchequer) tends to near ‘0’. For those who migrate they become the parasites for the Nation; of course the apologists will say that NRIs contribute dollars to our country in later stages of their life.

The moot or may be ‘ordinary’ question is: which of the two is more appropriate ‘vidhya’ for a society, not forgetting the problem of unemployment.

India houses two civilisations: one parasitic in nature & content, devouring all possible resources and blaming the ‘population explosion’ for all the ills; the other one productive, non-parasitic in nature, non-devouring type; not accusing existence of others for whatever hardships & discomforts its populace go through. Of these two civilisations which one is ‘emancipating’ and which one is ‘ordinary’? In my understanding, one who gives despite hardships is emancipated and ‘emancipating’ & the other who is insatiably devouring is ‘ordinary’. 

Debatable!!