By Arundhathi Subramaniam September 2006 Is Community living all that it is cracked up to be? A skeptic investigates. It’s not a sanctuary as much as a laboratory where the subject is the self. First, a confession. I have a deep and visceral sympathy for Sartre’s line about hell being other people. I see the point of community, of course. The sangha – a fellowship of seekers committed to living in harmony with shared ideals – makes sense to me. It certainly seems saner than the individual groping for meaning in a state of splendid isolation. But. And there’s definitely a but. Community living, judging by the historical grapevine, has always been a mixed bag. There are the inevitable concomitants – a pecking order, regimentation, self-abnegation. And those daily irritants – mismatched chemistries, ego collisions, complacency, pettiness, partisanship. In any case, isn’t a community that’s discovered or chosen – however blunderingly – preferable to one that’s imposed or designed? (A bit like preferring a serendipitous love over an ‘arranged’ marriage, I figure.) The notion of a spiritual kibbutz appeals, but I have misgivings about its workability. So it’s not without apprehension that I embark on my visit to the Isha Yoga Center in Coimbatore. My feelings about its founder aren’t particularly ambivalent, however. Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev remains one of the most alive people I’ve met. I’m drawn to his ability to combine a sharp intellect with compassion, an irreverent wit with gravitas, intensity with gentleness. Above all, his understanding of spiritual tradition is keen but non-puritanical – a vital stance in times of growing religious fundamentalism. I still have reservations about guru figures. The equation with them is often too totalitarian for comfort. But I’m awed by this man’s ability to give of himself without being patronizing. And I do acknowledge a certain urgency about my interactions with him. A growing trust as well. I don’t quite understand it. I figure that it’s based on some primal hunch that he represents a live connection with a power source into which it makes sense to plug. But that’s another story. I tell myself I should logically have few problems with an ashram that’s an embodiment of his vision. When I first visited the place a couple of years ago, I was impressed. Set against the cloud-smudged magnificence of the Velliangiri hills, the ashram, with its stark stone and wood decor, exuded an austere beauty. Nothing ostentatious here, but nothing joyless either. There was also an air of naturalness and self-containment that so many of the residents seemed to radiate. There was no impression of ‘having arrived’, no self-important need to prove a point. Bondage or Freedom?And yet, living out one’s entire life in obedience to someone’s diktats – however visionary – sounds stifling to me. A couple of days into my recent visit, and I find myself chafing just a little, an irrational spirit of rebellion rekindled. It’s not just the Guru Pooja and yoga at 5.30 a.m. It’s not just the lack of access to my daily dose of caffeine. I know my creaky adjustment to these rules could just be a process of city-slicker-detox. What unnerves me somewhat is the sight of the orange-clad, tonsured brahmacharis. I find myself self-conscious about referring to every second person as ‘Ma’ and ‘Swami’. Something about the uniformity of their appearance also strikes me as cheerless (though I know this could well be the illusion of ‘out-group homogeneity’). And I’m unsettled by the looming persona of the guru – even in his absence. Love and gratitude towards him I understand, even share. But there seems to be a disquieting air of glazed-eyed adoration and hushed reverence. Does my disquiet say more about me than my environment? Perhaps. But the questions start fermenting nonetheless. How do the inmates of a collective negotiate their space? Is there no simmering discontent? Open protest? While dismantling the ego is the aim of any spiritual community, do people get homogenized in the process? What exactly is the difference between a faceless mob running on auto-pilot and a sangha of renamed monks and nuns running according to a guru’s strictures? Does a realized master end up becoming something of a Big Brother? I am curious. Skeptical? A little. But also willing to be surprised. Swami Abhaya is an ashram stalwart who’s been here over 12 years. Something about his wry humor makes me suspect a mind complex enough to see that dissent needn’t spell disloyalty. He tells me of how his inadvertent exclamation (‘Oops!’) once started a discussion on whether there ought to be a systematized code of conduct for brahmacharis. (Nothing ever came of it though. And he still says ‘oops’ on occasion, though he sees that his role, as a sanyasi, has a certain public significance.) He also assures me that there’s more of an inner party democracy at work than I suspect. ‘There’s always been room here to question, to disagree,’ he says. After a Masters degree in computer science and engineering, he taught at an alternative school in Ooty before joining the ashram at age 25. It was in college that he first met Sadhguru, however, and remembers him as ‘clean-shaven and jeans-clad, still an awesome and inspirational presence, but not yet explicit about his future role as guru’. From ashram inmate to brahmachari was a journey that took a year. ‘One day, Sadhguru called me. We talked for around 10 minutes. At the end of that conversation I knew I wanted to take brahmacharya. I don’t remember all he said, but I do recall this: he reminded me of my college days when my friends were always going to see Rajnikanth films. I never did. ‘Did you ever feel you were missing out on something?’ Sadhguru asked.’ The implication was clear: renouncing the householder’s life need be no more dire than abstaining from a certain genre of cinema for life! Have there been crises of faith over the years? ‘There’ve certainly been moments of frustration,’ he concedes, with the candor that is more credible than any dewy-eyed rhapsody. ‘But I see brahmacharya as a process, and not an irrevocable one. That helps. Besides, the big advantage of this life is that your spiritual process, your interiority, is entirely taken care of by Sadhguru. Why would anyone in their right mind give that up?’ Is there no resentment at being subjected to a life of obedience? ‘What makes me trust Sadhguru,’ says Swami with quiet logic, ‘is the fact that he’s a man who values his freedom. That makes me confident that he’d never do anything to compromise mine.’ Life on the EdgeFor Kavita, an intense 27-year-old who recently plunged into brahmacharya, life at the ashram is about adventure, rather than bovine placidity. ‘It’s about living on the edge, walking consciously. It challenges you to be conscious, alert, every moment. I’ve always dreamt of a situation where everyone is fired up and dedicated to dissolving the limitations of their personality. And here it is. The people here are without agendas, vested interests. They don’t merely offer support; they offer themselves.’ Raised in Detroit and subsequently employed as a schoolteacher in Arkansas, Kavita decided to spend time at the ashram after doing some courses with Sadhguru in the US. ‘I was already experiencing heightened levels of energy, clarity and vibrancy, and I thought I’d turn myself into Superwoman here and go back! I was also struck by the volunteers here – their dignity, grace and gentleness. Trying to emulate Sadhguru seemed ambitious. But trying to emulate these people was an inspiring prospect.’ Before she knew it, she’d enrolled for a Teachers’ Training program and found her grand ambitions punctured. ‘It was humbling. I thought I had to climb, conquer, and be the best. But becoming a teacher is about unlearning, melting, becoming a conduit. I found myself growing more childlike, playful, unrestricted. I liked the change and decided to stay on.’ The challenge is now different. ‘Earlier, I wanted to make myself a person of worth. Now I want to unmake myself so something worthy can shine through me.’ And does she never yearn for color, I ask curiously. Does she never wake up with the urge to wear turquoise blue, for instance, instead of the prescribed orange or white? Even the thought is unsettling, says Kavita. ‘There’s nothing wrong with blue, but I know it isn’t for me. That’s how deep the transformation goes.’ And that proves to be one of the recurrent motifs of my conversations with people here: the silent interior transformation initiated by the alchemist guru. Each one I talk to vouches for it. That remains, they say, one of the chief reasons underlying their allegiance to Isha. This is not an easy place to be. It shows up one’s warts with more clarity than one might care for. It’s not a sanctuary as much as a laboratory where the subject of experiment is the self. But it’s a place committed to growth. And that makes the discomfort worthwhile. As Sadhguru once remarked, the growth of all Isha meditators was assured; their only choice was to mature willingly or unwillingly. The other subject that keeps surfacing is the paradox by which commitment (to a spiritual process or guru), actually fosters a process of inner freedom. Each of them seems to feel this sense of participation in a common journey – a voyage from compulsion to growin
Life Positive follows a stringent review publishing mechanism. Every review received undergoes -
Only after we're satisfied about the authenticity of a review is it allowed to go live on our website
All our healers and therapists undergo training and/or certification from authorized bodies before becoming professionals. They have a minimum professional experience of one year
All our healers and therapists are genuinely passionate about doing service. They do their very best to help seekers (patients) live better lives.
All payments made to our healers are secure up to the point wherein if any session is paid for, it will be honoured dutifully and delivered promptly
Every seekers (patients) details will always remain 100% confidential and will never be disclosed