Find the part one here:Part 1
The gentleman (trainer) who got the feedback that after the lecture yesterday I felt mentally tired, exhausted tried hard to keep his emotions in check (which he intended to teach us) while dealing with me throughout the day.
As you all must know the topic was ‘Rediscovering self & others’, I was very curious to know what these three words meant.
He started with his usual technique of throwing big words like mind, body, awareness, life force, consciousness and the audience, as typically happens in their own ignorance or whatever reasons, were comfortably nodding.
One of my colleagues asked him how to find the ‘self’? What is the self? He would again throw self-made stats and researches never done to sound authentic. She said she was still not able to get an answer.
I raised my hand and asked him can the self exist in isolation? He promptly denied. Then I quoted Bishop Berckley’s words about the self, “To be is to be perceived” and asked if he agreed to that? He again said he might be a philosopher but he doesn’t agree, he needn’t agree.
I said fine, please tell me what I am? What my ‘self’ is? How do I define myself, as without knowing it I won’t be able to discover it, let alone rediscover.
He, who was annoyed from the last day, asked me to come on stage, thinking I might crack or change my stance or give in to whatever he says because of the compulsion generated by the fear of the intellectual crowd and me thinking I am an intellectual as well.
He asked my to tell me about myself. I said about my family, education and professional experience. He said that was one dimension of myself. What about personal stuff. I said quite a few like my editing, writing, sense of humour, bluntness, honesty etc. And he went on asking and I kept answering.
He now said that was what composed my ‘self’. I again quoted Berckley and said how this construction of my ‘self’ is not a perception of others? How am I not saying what they want to hear? How can I not say what my conditioned behaviour doesn’t allow? And how your asking me these things doesn’t amount to agreeing with ‘to be is to be perceived’ which you said you don’t agree?
He was now at back foot seeing the response of the crowd in my favour. He said I somewhat agree to the quote. I asked how much?
And please answer my question that what do the three words in the topic mean: rediscovering self & others.
Another colleague jumped in and asked him what was that element which governs us? He had an Upnishad with him (the trainer was attributing many of his words to Upnishads yesterday). He asked him in Sanskrit, translated and said what is that ‘self’?
Now the man was looking for places to hide himself, “I am no expert on Upnishads, you tell me the answer…” The colleague read the answer which was too philosophical to comprehend an so the trainer said, “See this is ambiguous! All the Texts are ambiguous!”
And we left him there itself by not arguing too much given his competence on his own expertise.
The problem with him and likes of him is they think throwing random percentage, quoting researches (he quoted a research on ‘thoughts’ done by NASA!, one research said 47% of cancer is due to anger!), using heavy words can impress everyone and let them assume he is a competent person.
Well, no. This simply shows how hollow he was. When he was fenced in the practical aspect of the topic, he escaped to use philosophy and when people started with philosophy he escaped with saying, “We are not talking about the ‘higher self’, we are just concerned about the self!”
Sitting there, doing all the exercises was akin to wrapping up shit in a beautiful box. All clapping, as it is good for brain, all raising hands in submission, all agreeing. That’s the ideal audience. But the moment one questions your pattern, in fact not even question it but asks to clarify your self you are at a loss. What kind of a trainer he is!
At the end of the day the HR was taking feedback and everyone, as the chairman was sitting or may be they were speaking the truth, started with good adjectives like: enriching, enlightening, great, want to have it more often etc.
It was my turn and I said, “If I speak politically correct, I feel awesome. But that’s not me. Let me be honest and politically incorrect. At the end of two days I am still not able to get what the topic means. I am more confused. And it is a good place to be because I can start a new search from here and seek the truth my self. Jab self ko Baba Bulle Shah, Nanak, Buddh, Ved hi define nahi kar paye to Mai to ek kshudra manushya hoon. Meri khoj jaari hai.”
After some more feedback another colleague who told him the Upnishad summarised his experience after being personally asked as: “Thank God it’s over andI survived!”