Winning with emotional intelliigence 2 – Social competence through relationship management

[Seminar at Microsoft, Seattle, USA]

Podcast

Podcast Summary

PPT:

Video:

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Am I audible behind? Okay. Okay. So thank all of you for coming today evening.
I know Friday is weekend so it’s, you’re all eager to go home. Thank you for waiting till the program today. And maybe some of you might just come a little ahead.
The volume seems to be a little lower here. So yesterday I spoke on personal competence through self-management. And we talked about how we need to understand what happens in our inner world in terms of what is flashing on our inner screen and respond to it appropriately.
Today we’ll take the discussion forward and we’ll talk about social competence through relationship management. And in this when we are relating with people, it may be in a family, relating with family members. It may be in a job relating with our colleagues.
It may be in a social setting relating with our acquaintances. And there are times when we need relationship management primarily because the relationship doesn’t seem to be going well. The interactions are unsatisfactory.
And the first set of basics in relationships is that what can we change? What is in our power to change? Most often we feel this person needs to change. They are behaving responsibly, they are being insensitive, they are being careless, whatever. But we don’t have the power to change others.
So when we begin with the basics, what is it that we can change? From there we can progress and then we can see how we can influence others in changing. So when there is an interaction between A and B, if A finds the interaction unsatisfactory and wants that to change, then there are three primary things which A can do. That is change the vision of B. We can look at how am I viewing this person.
Sometimes we have a habitually negative attitude towards people because of which we just can’t see good in them. So we can change our vision of that person. Second is, we can change our understanding of our role in that relationship.
If I don’t have the position of authority, either through appointment or through affection or whatever, then if I am trying to take the role of an instructor or a corrector, that may not work. So first I have to understand what am I thinking is my role in this relationship and what is the other person thinking? So what exactly is my role in this relationship? And a third is that how am I acting in this relationship? So to the extent we process these three things appropriately, to that extent we’ll find that we will be able to increase our input in the relationship or improve our input and thereby we can increase the probability of having others’ inputs become better. So now what makes what shapes these three things? Our vision of others, our conception of ourselves in the relationship and our input in that relationship.
Yesterday I talked about how different things keep flashing on our inner screen. And sometimes the outer scene flashes but sometimes many other things also flash in the inner screen and they distort us. So the Bhagavad Gita, which is a book that talks about self-management and on that foundation it talks about social management also.
It says that what flashes on our inner screen is affected by subtle forces in nature called as modes. Modes in Sanskrit is called as gunas. So let’s first in a generic sense understand the modes and then after that we will look at a little more conceptual sense.
So there are three modes. These are correlated with three behavioral types. People think and act in particular ways.
So these three modes are called as goodness, passion and ignorance. Satvaguna, Rajoguna and Tamoguna are the Sanskrit words. Now in goodness we contemplate before acting.
In passion we act and then we think. Now some people speak to express their thoughts. Some people speak to discover their thoughts.
They speak something. I didn’t mean to speak that. What happened? So in the mode of passion the urge to act at the physical level is so great that we act first and then think of the advisability of the action.
And in the mode of ignorance there is neither action nor contemplation. There is just delusion. If only this way like that, if only that way like that, if only that way like that.
Just go off into a world of day dreaming if it is all positive or it can go off into a world of self pity if it is all negative. So these are three broad behavioral types. Now to understand what are the modes and how they influence us let’s look at two metaphors.
Suppose this floor had three small ridges within them. Or three small pathways for water to flow. So if water falls on it, the water will flow either this way or that way or that way.
Now if there are different rooms in which there are three pathways, three channels like this. But in one particular room, one channel is thicker and broader. In another room another channel is broader and thicker.
And in third room another channel is broader and thicker. So when the water falls depending on how the channel is the water will naturally flow through that particular channel in that particular direction. So we could say the modes are channels within our consciousness.
So for some people whenever any thought comes in their mind the first thing they want to do is act. I have to do something about it. They feel if they are not doing something physical, they are doing nothing.
They don’t see the value of inner contemplation. So in their case the passion channel is very broad and deep. And as soon as consciousness comes, thoughts come within them, it just flows along that channel.
Some people we may all know that whenever anything bad happens to them, the first reaction is they get depressed. They start feeling sorry for themselves. They start complaining.
So for them this ignorance channel is very strong. They start feeling that there is nothing in my power. So these are channels along which our consciousness flows.
For all of us, based on the way we have functioned in the past, one particular channel may be broader than others. And the breadth and depth of these channels is not static. It is also dynamic.
If in the morning we are fresh and energetic, at that time, some event happens to us, at that time we may think, I’m calm, I’m reflective, I’ll think, I’ll analyze and then I’ll act. So at that time the goodness channel might be broader. If in the heat of the day something happens, our whole mode is, get things done, fix it.
So we just start acting and doing something. Hey, I didn’t think about that. So at that time the passion channel might be stronger.
And in the evening when we are just tired, we are dealt with a dozen problems, and then the 13th problem piles up. Just get exasperated. We feel like quitting.
Just feel depressed, feel sorry for ourselves. So at that time the ignorance channel is broader. So these channels, how influential they are in our consciousness, that keeps varying.
A simpler example to illustrate this would be that say somebody, this is the house of some person, this is their office. And there are two people who stay here. Both of them are going to the office.
Now one of them is an alcoholic. And the other is a sober person. And along the way, there is a bar.
So now the sober person may not even notice the bar. Just go straight to their office and do their work. For the alcoholic, as they are passing the bar, maybe I should drink.
No, I should not drink. No, just one drink won’t harm. No, but last time I said the same thing and a lot of trouble happened.
No, I want to drink. So they will go through an inner tug of war. Why? Because in their consciousness, the channel which flows through alcohol has become deep and broad by their past actions.
In the other person, there is no channel flowing towards alcohol at all. So they don’t think much about it. So basically, our past behavior shapes our present behavior.
Because our mind is often functions in a self-replicating way. Whatever we have done in the past, it keeps proposing those actions again and again. Another example for understanding the modes would be, this is the alcoholic’s example.
In the alcoholic’s case, it is not just the thoughts flowing in that direction. Those who are addicts, they feel as if something is pulling me. I want to say no, but I just can’t say no.
I just get pulled. I feel as if I am enslaved. So the modes are like ropes that pull our consciousness in particular directions.
So, the modes affect us in different ways and they shape how we will relate with others. Now, going back to the starting point, let’s understand this from the context of the modes. So, if we interact with others, as I said, there are three aspects.
How we perceive them, how we process their actions and what course of action we perceive. So, three Ps. Perceive, process and pursue.
So, if somebody is just, like yesterday I said, somebody has shown the credit for what we have done. Then, how do I perceive it? This person is a liar, this person is a cheater, this person is a exploitative person. We may perceive them that way.
How do we process it? If we are in the mode of ignorance, we just feel sorry for ourselves. If that’s the mode in which I am functioning, then how will I process it? Nothing can be done. This world is rotten.
All that I can do is escape from the world. So, how do I escape? If, say, somebody has been an alcoholic who drinks regularly, for them, immediately the course of action they will pursue is just drink. There is no problem in the world whose solution does not lie at the bottom of a bottle of alcohol.
That’s how they think and they just get dragged along that. So, how we perceive, process and pursue is shaped by the modes within us. And, that’s why in the same situation if B does something to irritate A, A may respond in a particular way and C may respond in a different way.
Or, A may also respond at one time in a particular way and another time in a different way. Because the modes influencing us are different. Now, broadly speaking, I have a whole three-part seminar on how the modes say how we perceive, how we process, how we pursue.
But, I’ll focus on one part of it, perceive, and then we’ll talk briefly about pursue. So, in the Bhagavad Gita, in the 18th chapter, Krishna talks about these three modes and how they shape our knowledge acquiring capacity. So, when we are in the mode of goodness, we see things as they are.
That means we see there is a material dimension to things and there is a non-material dimension to things. Like yesterday I talked about the outer scene and there is an inner seal. So, we see people as combinations of matter and spirit.
In the mode of passion, we see people primarily based on their external characteristics. We see only the material side. In the mode of ignorance, we don’t even see their material side fully or properly.
It’s one fragmental aspect of the material side we see and we reduce the whole person to that particular feature of theirs. So, as I said, in the mode of ignorance, we reduce people down to one attribute of theirs. Last year when I had come to America, I was doing some programs in a college.
So, I was talking with one boy and he told me that he grew up in a foster home. So, then I asked him, what happened? Did your parents pass away in an accident or something? He said, no. Both my parents are alive.
Then, why were you in a foster home? He said, when I was 5, my parents had a divorce. And when they divorced, they both told me that, you know, marrying my spouse, my husband or my wife, that was the biggest mistake of my life. And, you remind me of that mistake.
So, I don’t want to have anything to do with you. So, both the parents, they abandoned the child. And the child became a ward of the state and he was placed in a series of foster homes.
So, now, it’s a tragic misdirection. The child is a person in his own right. The child is, they have their own connection with the child, as a mother or as a father.
But what happened, all they could see is, this child is a product of my mistaken relationship with that person. So, we see only one aspect of the person and become blinded to everything else. Prejudice is often a result of perception in the mode of ignorance.
When there is racism. So, what happens is, we see people only in terms of their race. Only in terms of the color of their skin.
And everything else, it becomes irrelevant. And this is a universal human evil. In India, we have casteism.
But we see people simply based on their birth. And everything else about them, that just becomes something which is of no importance. This person is from this caste or this race or this social group.
It can even be this religion. Then, they must be bad. So, there is this fragmental perception that can sabotage our capacity to work with people.
So, in our day to day interactions, somebody may have done something, acted in a particular way, or we have heard something about this person is like this. And that one memory or that one interaction becomes the definer of our perception of them. And then, even if they have many other good attributes, they have many other things, we just don’t see them at all.
If our perception is in the mode of ignorance, we cannot relate with people in a responsible or mature way. Because that particular thing that happened, or that particular thing which we have heard about them, or which they did, or whatever it is, that one feature becomes the filter through which we perceive everything about them. And this is something which, if our perception is in ignorance, then it’s almost impossible to have a healthy relationship, to even have a working relationship.
We may have a tense working relationship, but there cannot be even cordiality, or to speak of trust. So, then we have to find out, if we have a particular perception about people. Whenever we meet people, our mind likes to take the path of least resistance in dealing with people.
In everything, the mind likes to take the path of least resistance. So, in dealing with people, how does it take the path of least resistance? By affixing quick labels on people. So, the world around us is filled with a lot of complexity.
And it’s difficult for us to take in all the complexity and process it. So, some amount of categorization is important for us. But, if that categorization becomes a permanent label that we affix on people.
So, people from this caste, they are always like this. People from this caste, this regional group, they are dumb. People from this religion, they are fanatical.
So, that becomes the filter. Now, what is happening? The mind is choosing the path of least resistance. And these labels may seem convenient.
But, they actually become obstacles. So, this is perception in the mode of ignorance. In the mode of passion, which is somewhat higher, where we see, here we don’t even see the material reality fully.
We only see a fragmental material reality. In the mode of passion, we see people’s only external attributes. So, men treat women like sex machines.
Women treat men like ATM machines. So, basically that’s just one way of looking. But, the whole idea is that we just look at people’s externals and that’s all that we see.
Nothing more. So, the whole beginning and the end of the relationship is based on some material perception. Now, beyond that, if we come to the mode of goodness, there we see that people are like us, actually.
They are combinations of strengths and weaknesses. Their strengths may be different for us and their weaknesses may be different from ours. But, they are just like us.
And when we see this, then we can learn to complement and complement. Complement means appreciate people’s strengths. And complement means that we cover for their weaknesses.
Okay, you are weak in that, but I am strong in this. Let’s work together. So, it’s only when we can do this, then we can have a proper team.
But, say when we are working with somebody, I’ll come to this point a little bit later, when we come to the pursue part. But, in general, when we see somebody who is weak at something and they are weak at something which we are strong at. And if we are ourselves not secure, if we are insecure, then we try to get security by proving their inferiority.
By showing their inferiority in their face. Now, that may make us feel a little secure, but that does no good for the relationship. But, if we are secure in our own identity, yes, I have some weaknesses, but I have some strengths also.
Then, we don’t have to show our superiority on them. We acknowledge they have this weakness, but we learn to complement it. So, now here, when we talk about other’s weaknesses, as I said, all of us have some weaknesses and all of us have some strengths.
And quite often, our mind simply just gravitates towards the weaknesses in others. And, we look at those weaknesses and we obsess over them. And especially, if we are good at something and they are not good at that, then it just sticks to our mind.
Why is this? If I am very particular about keeping things clean and somebody else keeps things disorderly, just find it completely unbearable. If I am very organized and somebody is disorganized, I say, why are you like this? So, here, and whenever they do that, we start feeling angry with them. We feel as if they are doing it simply to irritate us.
So, here, we need to understand the difference between being insensitive and being desensitized. Insensitive means that we, that somebody doesn’t care at all. Desensitized means that the person doesn’t have that sensibility itself.
Say, if we consider music. Some people have just great musical instincts. The first time they pick up some instrument and they start playing it and they just get it.
Somebody else, just pick up and they try to play and they just don’t get anything. And the worst people with respect to music are those who don’t get it and they don’t get it that they don’t get it. That means they may come to a musical performance and they pick up an instrument and they are playing it all wrong.
But they don’t understand they are playing it wrong. They think they are playing it and they are happy in their world. And everybody around them is miserable.
What are you doing? And especially somebody who is very sharply musically sensitive, they just can’t bear it. Why are you doing this? But in this case, some people are tone deaf. They just can’t sense tone.
It’s like some people are colorblind. So, like that, some people are tone deaf. They just don’t sense music at all.
So, in this case, they are not being insensitive. They are simply desensitized. If you want to talk with someone, they are looking in the other direction, you tap them on the shoulder.
And they don’t turn around. You tap them more. And they don’t turn around.
You tap them more, still they don’t turn around. And then, maybe just get angry and give them a big punch. What happened? I was going to talk with you.
Why didn’t you turn around? But, suppose they have got some paralysis or something because of which they are desensitized. So, I am touching them, I am touching them, but they are not feeling sensation at all. They are not rude.
But, they are just desensitized. With respect to physical attributes, if somebody has desensitized a particular part of the body, we easily understand it. Okay, they couldn’t respond.
But with respect to certain qualities or behavioral features, if somebody is desensitized, it is very difficult to understand it or accept it. I get it so easily. Why can’t you get it? But, it is just that some people just don’t get it.
So, as I said earlier about cleanliness, some people are very particular about cleanliness. And, some people, they come into a room and within 5 minutes, it appears a storm has hit the room. Everything is disorganized.
Why did you make a mess? Did I make a mess? They don’t even notice it. Okay, there is a mess. Okay, I will fix it.
And then, if we go into that room, we can’t sit without fixing up things. But, they may sit in that room for days together and they don’t fix anything. So, it can just enrage us.
So, in this case, we have to recognize that they just are desensitized over here. So, expecting them to change in this field or holding it against them because they are not changing, it’s simply like beating our head against a wall. It may just not happen.
Because, of course, some features can be changed and we can work to help others change. But, in some cases, just over expecting that something is so easy for me, so natural for me, so essential for me, why can’t you do it? But, they just don’t think that way. So, it’s going back to the earlier example of the, yesterday’s example of the inner screen, there is an outer scene, there is an inner screen and there is an inner seer.
So, every one of us, based on what our instincts are, for us, those things pop up on the inner screen immediately. So, for example, if somebody is good at language, so, then, say, for me, writing is very important. So, I am very sensitive about language.
As soon as I go into a room, if there are any notices, my eyes just go to the notices and I do instinctive proofreading of everything. And then, this spelling is wrong, this spelling is wrong. And if any spelling is wrong, it’s just unbearable for me.
Now, so what has happened, there will be hundred details in that room, but on my inner screen, something pops up. It just insistently stays there. But for somebody else, if I tell, you know, this spelling is wrong, why don’t you correct it? See, you know, everybody understands it.
Why don’t you understand? So, for them, the mistake that is there, it doesn’t pop up on their screen only. It doesn’t register to them. So, when it doesn’t register as something important for them, they don’t feel the need to correct it.
Now, of course, this doesn’t mean that everybody has to just continue the way they are. We all need to have some objective standards of competence, objective standards of performance. And people have to improve themselves.
But, you know, people can work for improvement only when we and they accept where they are. So, if somebody is just not, they just, we could use language of genes. We just don’t have a gene for grammar.
Of course, grammar cannot be reduced to a gene. But, I’m just giving this as a metaphorical usage. Then, for them to learn that will take much more time.
And we need to be patient over that. Otherwise, these small things can become very big and we just don’t appreciate others because they are doing something which we can’t relate with. So, this is, I talk about perceptions and ignorance, passion, goodness.
Beyond this, there is spiritual perception. So, now, how we perceive spiritually? Perceiving spiritually means that we understand that all of us are on a journey of spiritual evolution. All of us, this is a journey, the soul is different from the physical shell, the body.
And the soul is going on a multi-life journey. And we all are at different levels. Even if parents have two children, both the children are products of the same gene pool.
The mother and the father are the same. But, one child might be so good in maths. The other child may struggle in maths.
One child may be so good in language and the other child may struggle in language. So, why is that? Because the children’s characteristics are not determined just by the genes of the parents. Genes of the parents do affect.
But that is not everything. There are examples of monozygotic twins. Monozygotic twins means that when the sperm and the egg unite, normally when twins are formed, there are two sperms which unite with two eggs.
And two zygotes are formed. And then twins are born. But in some cases, there is one zygote which is formed and that splits into two.
So, there is one sperm and one egg which is united. One zygote is formed and then split into two. In this case, the genes are not just similar to a large degree.
They are identical. 100% identical. So, I was in London and I was speaking on science and spirituality.
And I was talking about this top point. And then, there was one British who was there in the audience and he said that I and my brother, we are monozygotic twins. And I was telling how genetically there is absolutely no reason for any difference in the two people.
But they are different. One person may be introvert, the other may be extrovert. One may be very ambitious and planning 100 things.
The other may be phlegmatic and not so emotional or expressive. So, he said that our personality is so different. And till now, I just could not understand.
At a genetic level, there is no explanation. The genes are identical. Why is the behavior different? Sometimes you may say socially different.
But socially determined. But both the two have the same parents, the same upbringing, the same school. So, there is not much significant difference in the influence of society on them.
I am giving this as an example to convey that each one of us brings certain baggages with us. The baggage which we accumulated, not just during this life, but also in previous lives. And this baggage shapes what pops up on our inner screen.
So, for us, some things may just pop up immediately and they may be positive. That is related with our instincts. Instinct to language, instinct to music.
But for somebody else, that may just not pop up. Because on their spiritual evolution, the impressions which are formed in their psyche, in their mind, they are very different. So, when we perceive in this way, we learn to be patient.
Because we see the whole universe to be like a university. And it’s normally in a university, one student may be in say 10th grade, another may be in 5th grade, one may be at a doctorate level, another may be at the kindergarten level. So, but in our case, it is that, especially with respect to relational attributes, in one particular attribute, say in cleanliness, I may be at the PhD level.
And somebody else may be at the primary level, grade 2. But, that alone doesn’t define us. The same person, it may be that the person is in a PhD at the cleanliness level, that person may be, say with respect to mathematics or logical processing skills, they may be at the intermediate level, and this other person may be at the very high level, at the doctorate level. So, we all are at different levels.
And that’s why, now, if I understand, okay, this person is at a lower level, what can I do? Okay, let me help them. Wherever I can, if they are stumbling at some point, if I am very good at maths and this person is struggling at maths, let me help them. And if they are good at organizing things, let me learn from them.
So, rather than the critical attitude towards others for their deficiencies, or the envious attitude towards others for their strengths, we can have a cooperative or even a symbiotic attitude. Because we all are on the same journey. But, with respect to different attributes, we are at different levels.
So, now, with this background, I am not going to go too much, I talked about perceive, process, and pursue. So, I am not going so much into process, that’s a whole elaborate subject, but I will jump to pursue now. Okay, we try to change our perception, or at least understand how we are perceiving people.
And then after that, when we are to process a particular course of action. So, broadly speaking, when there is a conflict, that something has gone wrong, or some person is behaving in an unreasonable way, we have three courses of action. I like to call them as tolerate, mitigate, and emigrate.
So, for example, if we get a job in a place which is very cold, say somewhere in Toronto or Montreal or somewhere like that, very cold place, then we go there and we have to work, it’s freezing cold, but if you stay there, maybe our body develops that tolerance capacity, we tolerate it. If we can’t tolerate, then we have to get as many warm clothes as possible, we have to make sure that our home, our car, everything is properly heat conditioned, and we try to mitigate that. But if neither works, then what do we do? We emigrate.
We just have to go somewhere else, I can’t work over here. So, similarly, with respect to relational conflicts, we have these three broad alternatives. Whenever there is a conflict, we either tolerate, or mitigate, or emigrate.
So, now, in general, there is broadly a western civilization and there is an eastern civilization. So, the eastern civilization’s ethos is broadly speaking, tolerating. Okay, difficulties are there, difficulties will come, they will stay, just tolerate.
On the other hand, the western civilization’s ethos is change. Why should you tolerate any difficulty? Change it. So, now, both of these have their advantages and disadvantages.
The western ethos of changing leads to progress. It can lead to progress. Okay, it’s so cold, it’s so hot, we need to develop something to change it.
But, on one side, this is good, but when this is carried to extreme, if we don’t, if we just, if we don’t have the capacity to tolerate, the whole emphasis on changing that which is difficult, and this we carry not only in interaction with things, but in our interactions with relationships also. So, then, if I find that I’m working with someone and if I have a relationship with someone that doesn’t work, then rather than trying to adjust and fix, just change it. Just quit it.
So, this leads to a lot of instability in relationships. The inclination or the inability or the unwillingness to tolerate can lead when taken to extreme to a lack of commitment. Because no situation in the world is perfect.
And if you’re always looking for the perfect situation, you will never situate ourselves steadily anywhere. Just change, change, change, change, carried to excess is bad. On the other hand, just tolerating carried to an excess also is bad.
Tolerating carried to an excess leads to, it opens one to abuse, it opens one to exploitation, and it can lead to stasis, the opposite of progress. So, the approach of changing things internally and tolerating and the approach of changing things externally, both have their virtues. But to decide what to do when, we need to have a sense of purpose.
In general, purpose brings perspective. Say, if we are going in a crowded metro train, say in Mumbai, there is a metro train which has a capacity of 100 people and 300 people are squeezed in it. People are jam-packed.
And then somebody, some people just want to throw their weight around, make their presence felt. So, we are standing and that person is standing and that person starts pushing us. How dare you push me? I push back.
And then they push, and we push back. And we get so caught in pushing each other that our station comes and we forget that our station has come. We just keep going on pushing and pushing and pushing.
This is silly. I am in that train for a short while. This person is pushing, I will just move somewhere else.
And let them have their space. So, if my goal is clear, my goal is not to take a claim on this place over here. This place is simply a transitional place I occupy till I get to my destination.
So, that purpose brings perspective. So, tolerance does not mean that we just passively accept anything that anyone does. Tolerance means that we keep small things small so that we can focus on big things.
So, a person wanting more space in a train is a small thing. Our more important purpose is to get to our work or get to our place where we are having a meeting. So, keep this small so that we can focus on the big things.
On the other hand, if that person starts pushing us out of the train itself, then we can’t tolerate that. Then we have to take a stand. Because when they are trying to push us out of the train, they are obstructing us in our purpose itself.
Our purpose is to get to the destination. So, if we have a purpose clear, purpose brings perspective. And then we can pursue.
Should I tolerate or should I not tolerate? Should I tolerate or should I do something to mitigate it? So, we have a league who is disagreeable, who is irresponsible. Now, if in one particular thing they are responsible, but other things they are doing well, okay, this is a behavioral quirk they have, I can live with it. But, not only they have that quirk, but they are also sabotaging our work.
Then, we may have to take some action. We may have to complain to someone or report to someone. Maybe ensure that they don’t have that much control over us or our access to our data or whatever, so that they don’t sabotage us.
So, basically we can choose any of these options, tolerate, mitigate or immigrate. Now, we are working in a particular job and we have difficulty working with our team, with our team leader. We may tolerate or we may mitigate.
We may, as I said, complain to someone, take some action, escalate the matter somewhere. If it doesn’t work, we mitigate. We go somewhere else.
We take up some other job or go into some other team. Now, all these three can be done with a positive attitude and all these three can be done with a negative attitude. When I do it with a negative attitude, say, let’s consider immigrate.
If I do it with a negative attitude, then I am simply running away from the issue. And, if I am running away, then my mind is still obsessed with this, you know, how could they have done this? Why didn’t they treat me like this? So, I have physically gone away but mind is still there. And if my mind stays stuck over there, okay, whatever happened over there that wounded me, but my mind staying over there means like I am scratching the wound and worsening the wound.
But, if I walk away from the situation, that means I understand that I have bigger things to do in my life. I don’t want to get caught in this. So, I just leave this and move on.
We all need to sometimes move on in our lives. But, if our purpose is clear, then when we are moving on, we are not running away. We are moving towards some higher purpose in our life.
So, having that purpose clear is very important in order for us to choose the right course of action. And, how do we get that purpose? That purpose comes, it requires a key change in vision. For our interactions with others to be changed or rather for us to interact in the most effective way with others, we need to change our own self-identity.
We usually define ourselves in terms of our social roles and our social relations. So, for example, I may define myself as a software engineer. I may define myself as a father.
I may define myself as a mother. I may define myself as a husband. I may define myself as a wife.
When we define ourselves by particular roles, then if any problem comes in that particular relationship or that particular role, then that appears like a devastating threat to us. Because we have rooted ourselves to that identity. And then it feels as if our whole life is being wasted.
Somebody defines themselves as a software engineer and then they are fired from their job. They just don’t know what to do. And if they can’t get some other job as a software engineer, okay, who am I? What am I supposed to do? So, the identity crisis came and they are themselves, they are individuals, they are persons, they are different attributes.
They tied their whole identity to a particular role. Now, we have to play roles and we have to be responsible in our roles and relationships. But our identity is higher.
Our identity is not just this. We have functional identities. Functional identities, I am an Indian, I am a South Indian, I am an engineer, I am male.
All these identities, from an operational point of view, they are important. But beyond these, we have a fundamental identity. And a fundamental identity is that we are souls, we are spiritual beings.
And as spiritual beings, we are a part of the whole. So, the whole is known by different names and different traditions. In the Bhagavad Gita, that whole is identified by the name Krishna.
So, we have an eternal spiritual relationship with the infinite. And that relationship is our defining identity. It is, we are eternal parts of the whole.
And, in our service to the whole, we interact with different people. So, Svakarmana tam abhyarcha. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says, through your work, worship Him.
Sometimes people translate this as, work is worship. But that is not what the Bhagavad Gita is saying. The precise Sanskrit truth is, Svakarmana tam abhyarcha.
Svakarmana is, by your work, tam abhyarcha. Worship that absolute truth. Worship that infinite.
That means, we see our work as a means of connecting with the absolute. Similarly, we see our social responsibilities, our familial responsibilities, as means of connecting with the absolute. So, if one connection doesn’t work, if one role, one relationship, one interaction, one responsibility is not working out, I’ll try my best to do it, but I won’t let that define me.
If this doesn’t work, I’ll find some other path to keep functioning. So, to the extent we wed ourselves to a particular identity, to that extent we suffer when that identity doesn’t work out properly. Or when the interactions according to that identity don’t work out.
So, we can’t change other people’s behaviors. But, if they are doing something which is wrong, if we are too wedded to that, then, we lose our capacity to respond properly. And then, they are doing something wrong, but our reactions make the things worse.
So, it is dependent, independent and interdependent. Sometimes, we tie ourselves to a particular identity too strongly, then we become dependent on that relationship or that role. And then, that takes away our ability to respond actually.
So, I’ll conclude with one last example of this focus on spiritual evolution. What does it mean practically speaking? We may be interacting with different people at different times, but we see every interaction as ultimately an opportunity for growing in our spiritual evolution, for growing in our relationship with the infinite, for evolving spiritually. Suppose, there is an attendant in a cloth shop.
And, there are different dresses which are being shown by the attendant. And some customers, they are just so demanding. They will look at hundred dresses and they will not take anything after that.
And, the attendants may just get irritated. I have to fix all this, I have to keep all this. So, normally, when a customer comes into a shop, the attendants, all of them want to serve their customer because they will get some credit because they made the sale.
But, some customers, they don’t want to be demanding. When that customer comes, no attendant comes to them only. It says, some people bring happiness wherever they go.
And, some people bring happiness whenever they go. Laughter Laughter Laughter So, some people, they just don’t want to serve them at all. They don’t want to have anything to do with them.
When they go, they feel as if now they can breathe freely. Now, suppose, there is a disagreeable, demanding customer like this. And, now an attendant is courteously trying to serve this customer.
And, the customer is just nagging, this is bad, this is bad, this is bad. At a normal level, the attendant may feel irritated. The attendant may behave rudely or may just not serve properly, even if they don’t speak rudely.
But, if the attendant knows that there are cameras everywhere and my boss is watching. And, my boss knows what I am going through. The boss also knows this customer is not a very pleasant customer.
And, if the attendant keeps their cool, then, even if the disagreeable customer doesn’t take anything, just go away, the boss may appreciate. You know, you are a cool guy. You know how to deal with tough people.
And, the boss may elevate this attendant. You take care of this whole wing and you guide the other attendants how to deal with tough customers. So, the success of the interaction is not just in terms of making the sale.
Yes, making the sale is important. But, along with that, behaving courteously and pleasing the boss is equally, if not more important. Similarly, if you understand that we have a relationship with the infinite and we are interacting with different people in different situations.
And, sometimes some people may just behave unreasonably. So, you do like this, I’ll do like this. If we simply go in for a tit-for-tat or vengeful mentality, then, we won’t grow much.
We’ll simply aggravate the conflicts. But, if we see, okay, how can I act in this situation in a way by which I can please the infinite, by which I can grow spiritually. That doesn’t necessarily mean that we tolerate any nonsense that somebody is doing.
But, our actions are not simply reactions to their actions. Our actions are responses based on our principle choices. So, we may choose to tolerate, we may choose to mitigate, we may choose to immigrate.
But, we do that in a mood of service. In a mood of fostering our spiritual evolution. And, this understanding, becoming situated in the spiritual understanding is not just a matter of intellectual analysis.
Intellectual analysis is very important to understand. But, it is only when we have spiritual practices, when we internalize spiritual truths through our meditation, through our sadhana, through our application of spiritual practices in our own life, then this will become a part of our very being. And then, we will naturally make choices that are healthy.
Conflicts will never go away in relationships. But, our aggravating the conflicts can decrease. And rather, our resolving the conflicts in the most amicable way, our capacity to that will increase more and more.
And that is how we can become more socially competent. So, I’ll summarize. I spoke today about social competence through relationship management.
And, I talked that when we are dealing with others, others may be behaving in a problematic way, but we can’t change them. We can inspire them to change, but for that, we need to change ourselves. And, in that, we can change how we, our vision of them, that is, how we perceive them, how we envision our role in that relationship.
That means, how we process what they are doing, and what course of action we pursue, what actions we do in that relationship. So, perceive, process, and pursue. And, I talked about what determines these three modes.
The goodness, passion, and ignorance. In goodness, there is contemplation before action. In passion, there is first action, then contemplation.
In ignorance, there is neither action nor contemplation. There is simply delusion. So, two metaphors.
Modes are like channels through which our consciousness flows naturally. Our modes are like ropes which pull our consciousness in particular directions. And, on our inner screen, what flashes up more insistently, that is determined by the particular mode that is infecting us at that time.
So, with respect to how we perceive others, I said that, in the mode of ignorance, we just take one attribute of the person and define or reduce them to that thing only. Like seeing a child as a product of the biggest mistake of my life. Not my own child.
Or, equating a person with their race or their caste or whatever. Like that. In the mode of passion, just look at their external attributes and if they are attractive, good.
Otherwise, just dispense them. In the mode of goodness, we see them holistically. See that they have strengths and they have weaknesses, just as we do.
And, just as we would want them to understand us, we try to understand them. So, understanding them means that people may not always be being insensitive when they are doing something that is irritating us. They may be desensitized.
Like a person being tone-deaf or like a person who is paralytic or desensitized. So, when we touch them, they don’t sense it. So, rather than criticizing others, we learn to complement them for their strengths and complement their weaknesses.
So, in spiritual vision, we see that we are all works in progress. We are on a multi-life journey of spiritual evolution. In some subjects, we are at the PhD level.
In others, we may be at the kindergarten level. But others, we may be at the kindergarten and they may be at the PhD level. So, I talked about how monopsychotic twins are also different behavior.
We are not determined just by our genes. We are determined by the impressions which we have formed in this life as well as in previous lives. So, when we act with the spiritual self-understanding, then when we are pursuing a course of action, broadly, we can tolerate where we just endure, we can mitigate where we correct the situation or we can immigrate, we can go away from the situation.
So, the eastern approach is more towards tolerance and self-adjustment. The western approach is more towards mitigation or emigration, external adjustment. Tolerance taken to a extreme can lead to perpetuation of abusive behavior or passivity.
Changing to excessive level can lead to lack of commitment and constant constant great insecurity because there is no stability because of constant change. And for choosing wisely among these tolerate, mitigate, immigrate, we can see that every interaction is not just that interaction. Every interaction is a way for our spiritual growth.
So, if our defining identity is not based on our particular role in the relationship, but it is that I am a spiritual being in a relationship with the infinite and all these interactions that I have, roles, relationships, they are ways in which I am serving and I am growing in my spiritual journey. Then if one particular thing doesn’t work, we don’t let that define us. Our defining identity is that I am a spiritual being, part of the infinite.
And then just as a attendant can coolly deal with a disagreeable customer by looking beyond the customer to the boss who is watching, similarly, we can deal with difficult people by looking beyond them to see the infinite with whom we are trying to connect through service. And that way, we will be guided towards making mature choices. Thank you very much.
So, are there any questions or comments? Sir, you said a little bit about spiritual growth. So, my question is, is spiritual growth and career growth possible? Can they coexist together? And can both be possible? Yeah, good, very good question. So, can spiritual growth and career growth go together? Yes, if we see spirituality holistically and we see the career in terms of spiritual vision.
If we want to see our career growth in terms of say, I need to have more money, more power, more accumulation. I want to get this, I want to get that, I want to get that, I want to get that. Then that can obsess our mind and say that every possession possesses us.
When I buy something, when I own something, if I am attached to it, that takes a place in my consciousness. And if our career growth we are defining in terms of getting more and more material trappings of success. That is also not a problem but if that obsesses our mind, as I said, if that becomes the sole driving force of our life, then that will not leave our consciousness available for spiritual growth.
But if we see instead that we are spiritual beings on a multi-life journey and at this junction we have been given a particular body mind, we have been given a particular social position and whatever abilities, whatever resources we have, they are ultimately gifts given by the Supreme for us and they are meant to be used as resources in our spiritual growth, in our contribution. So the Bhagavad Gita was spoken to Arjuna and Arjuna was the foremost archer of his times and although he had a great talent in terms of archery but still he rigorously disciplined himself, he rigorously practiced and he did not simply dismiss his archery skills as mundane. But he ensured that his archery skills were used for a spiritually harmonious purpose.
So if we see our talents, our resources as gifts with which we are meant to make a contribution in a mood of service. So, yes, I have been given some talents and with these, let me develop those talents, let me do justice to those talents, let me make a contribution that I am meant to make. So if our vision is more in terms of making contribution rather than seeking accumulation, the two can go together also.
When we make a contribution, we will also get something. But if our vision is based on what I get externally, then we will get materially our consciousness will get materially consumed and it will not be spiritually available. But our focus is on making a contribution according to our abilities, according to our position.
Then, that mood of contribution is a mood of service. Yes, I have been given some abilities and I need to do justice to them, develop them. So then even the material success that we pursue, that can become a part of our spiritual growth.
So it’s only when the material success consumes, pursuit of material success consumes our mind so much that we have no time, no energy, no inclination even for pursuing the spiritual growth. That’s when it becomes a problem. So if we broadly give amount of time for our spiritual growth, through studying sacred texts, by cultivating some spiritual practices, having some spiritual association, because growing spiritually is not just a concept.
We need periodic reminder and reinforcement of the spiritual inclination within us. So we need to give quality time for that and at that time we are wholeheartedly seeking spiritual growth directly. And other times if we give due time for this spiritualization of our consciousness, then we will carry that spiritualized consciousness into our work also, into our family responsibilities also.
So we can grow in our career in a mode of contribution. So it can be said that what we are is the divine’s gift to us. What we become is our gift to the divine.
So in this way if we see our growth, career growth as a reciprocation with the divine, then it can be a part of our spiritual growth. Yes? Ok. Ok.
Ok. So if we like to read a lot, but others say you just keep reading and don’t do anything. So how do we get them to change their point of view? Basically we have to know that there are people who have different interests.
And if we like to read, we can become close friends with people who like to read. And with others, it may not be possible to be that close friends. So actually if we consider how much time do others spend with us or we spend with them.
It’s not that we are unless they are family members. And even if they are family members, it’s not that they are 24 hours with us. As we grow, we’ll go to schools, we’ll go to different places.
So if we find that this is my circle of interest and this is someone else’s circle of interest. And if one particular activity, say my reading, that occupies a prominent place in my circle of interest. But they have no interest in that.
Then while interacting with them, we can downplay this. So if we are interacting with someone who just keeps saying you read too much, you read too much, you don’t do anything else. Then when we meet them, if we take up a book and start reading, then we are simply perpetuating their conception about us.
But if at that time, if that relationship is important for us, then we may at that time talk about something which is in their circle of interest. Ideally, for relationships to function, these circles of interest need to have some intersection point. Say, okay, I like to read, but they don’t like to read.
But maybe, they may like some information about some subject. Say, if they have interest in some facts about some subject. And in our reading, we read about that.
Say, if they have some interest in history, geography or whatever subject. And we read a little bit about that and speak that with them. So, we find out what is their circle of interest.
And then keep our interactions with them in that circle of interest. Then we can have some connection with them. And if both people want to have a healthy relationship, then both will be ready to expand their circle of interest.
So, if they have lot of interest in sports, then I may want to expand my circle of interest. Okay, what is it that you like so much about sports? And maybe by talking with them, we will understand. Oh, okay, okay.
I never knew this is so exciting. And we say, oh, you learn so much. And we tell them, and they are also eager to learn.
Then, we tell them, you know, I read this. This was so interesting. Oh, really? Reading is so good.
So, that way, if both of them are ready to start with the point of intersection and expand their circle of interest, then the relationship can grow. But, if they are only going to stay in their circle of interest, and they are not at all interested in expanding their circle, then we can try to expand our circle as much as possible for us to take interest with them. But, sometimes it may just be that the two of us are so dissimilar that it may be difficult for us to have a very close relationship.
So, then we just have a cordial relationship with them whenever we meet. We just talk a few cordial words and we move on in our own way. So, sometimes if that person is important for us and what they are saying is important for our development holistically, then we may try to expand our circle of interest.
But, if it is not possible, then just we understand that we are different individuals and we go on our way and they go their way. It’s the easiest way to become insecure and become miserable is to try to please everyone. So, okay, I may not be able to please this person.
They have this impression. That’s okay. During my talking with them, I’ll try to talk something of interest.
But, otherwise, let’s keep this interaction brief and move on. Does that answer the question? Thank you. Good question.
Any other questions or comments? Yesterday, there were a lot of questions I was told. So, if any of the questions from yesterday are also there, we can take that. Yeah.
So, when the mind goes on the path of least resistance and labels and judges others, what can we do to avoid that? Yeah. I’d say three things. First is that if that person has done something which our mind interprets in a particular way, this in psychology is called as attribution error.
That means if I see somebody eating a lot, such a glutton. If I don’t like that person, if I have negative conception of that person, such a glutton. If I like that person, must have been hungry.
The action is the same, but the motive that we attribute is different. That is shaped by our conception of others. So, usually if we have a negative conception about others, it’s good to try to see if I had been doing that thing.
If I eat a lot, somebody says, I’m hungry, I didn’t take my meal. We would explain that. Usually when we have to explain our actions, we give a very charitable explanation.
So, we have to separate the action from the motivation or the label. Okay, I’m seeing this. This may be an explanation, but there may be some other explanation also.
So, if instead of that person, somebody whom I like had been doing the same thing, what would my reaction have been? I would, at the very least, given them the benefit of doubt. So, if somebody tells me, this person spoke like this about me. What? They spoke like this about me? I knew this person is a backbiter.
Do like this only. But then, if somebody whom we like and know well, they spoke like this. Then maybe, did they really exactly speak that or what was the context? Or maybe you misheard.
We will give them the benefit of doubt and then we will try to clarify. The first step is, just replace the person who is doing something objectionable with someone whom we like in that place and then think how we would respond. The second step would be, generally, we like to talk about others rather than with others.
That means, B has done something to A and then why B has done that? So, we just go to B and in a respectful but a candid way, we ask them. Clarify. But instead, A will go and tell B what he did.
And then C, you know, he did like that. And C tells D and D tells E. And then somebody E goes and tells B, you know what A said about you. And then, the whole thing becomes more complicated.
So, we tend to talk about others rather than with others. Now, of course, we cannot go and talk with every single person. But especially if a relationship is important, if a person plays an important role in our particular position, situation in life, then it’s best to talk with them.
Find an appropriate time but just talk with them. That way, there can be at least clarification. Okay, this is what happened.
And there might be some misunderstanding which can be resolved. Or there might also be a possibility that we just understand. This person is going to think this way.
And I have to learn to live with it. Third is, if it is somehow not possible to talk with them because the relationship is so too hostile or whatever, then it is good to try to talk with someone whom we trust and who is also connected with them. I have this perception of this person.
that A has a negative perception of B and B has done something which is reinforcing that perception. But then we know that B and C have a very good relationship. So, we may or may not mention that particular incident.
But we just talk with C about B. If they have a good relationship, then C will speak this. You know, he helped me in this situation. He did this, he did that.
I didn’t know about all this. So, earlier when I said that some people bring happiness wherever they go and some people bring happiness whenever they go. Actually, this is not just about those people.
It may also be about us. Some person, when they go away, I feel happy. But when that same person goes and meets someone else, they feel happy.
So, it may well be not just a problem with that person. It may be my perception. So, sometimes by talking with the third person, we can get a healthy, a broader picture of that person.
Yes, they may have this weakness but they have these strengths also. So, generally speaking, prejudice, how does it occur? Prejudice occurs by a broad extrapolation from a narrow observation. So, for example, I may say that a particular people from a particular community, they are very stingy.
And now, in that community there are millions of people. But I have interacted with one or two and based on that narrow observation, I make a broad extrapolation. People in this community are like this.
So, generally speaking, the way to counter prejudice is to broaden our observation itself. But what happens? From that narrow observation, we have made a broad extrapolation and that broad extrapolation becomes the filter with which we see everything about these people. So, if we just try to broaden our observation, then we will get the necessary inputs by which we can revise our extrapolation that we have done.
Does that answer your question? Thank you. So, we will stop. Thank you very much for your attention and participation.