I am contemplating
on a poem from Krishna Yajur Veda - the one known as Shanti mantra, starting
with Om Saha naa vavatu. It is a prayer both the teacher and student offer
together when they start the lessons for the day. It roughly translates to
May God protect both
of us
May God nurture both
of us
May we work together
with great energy
May our study together be effective (May it bring internal and external light / illumination )
May there be no
animosity among us
Let there be peace
What struck me was
the last but one line which says "May there be no animosity among
us". Being a coach by profession, I kept thinking deeply about this single
line for more than a month. A coach has to make the coachee think in new
ways, learn, grow to be more effective / powerful than the coach herself. There
are a lot of opportunities for difference of opinions and disagreement along
the way. To make someone think in new ways, the coach has to make them realise
the limitation of their current thinking. To make them learn, the coach has to
help them unlearn many things. The coach also has to push the coachee to
actions outside their comfort zone. Three different dimensions where the
coachee can hate the coach!!! When the coachee becomes more conversant than the
coach herself, the coach has the potential to hate the coachee!! If the coach
has to deal with more coachees concurrently, it gets more complex. Dynamics
between the coachees, and relationship of each coachee with the coach (both
reality as well as perceived by the coach & other coachees) can aggravate
it further. The outputs produced and outcomes created by the coach and coachees
can trigger additional conflicts too. Wow!!
Not only that!!
Though coaching process appears to be linear, it is spiral; that is,
challenging/realising the limitation of current thinking, teaching/learning new
ways, pushing into/applying the new ways and excelling in the new ways happen
multiple times in multiple planes! In fact it is not even a regular or
smooth spiral rather it is a squiggle with a quite number of instances for the
egos to clash and for animosity to build!! Hmm…
The other intriguing
point is the story behind the verse!! The story goes like this - When
Yajnavalkya disagrees with his Guru Vaishampayana, the guru asks Yajnavalkya to
return all that he learnt from the guru. Yajnavalkya vomits his knowledge in
the form of food; the other disciples take the form of tittri birds and consume
the vomited food and then produce what is known as Tittirya Upanishad - a
part of Krishna Yajur Veda. Yajnavalkya quits his Guru and goes on to produce
Shukla Yajur Veda.
I am no scholar who
can say whether this particular poem was written by Yajnavalkya or his Guru
Vaishampayana or his other disciples. But it is interesting to think about who
may have written the poem or at least who may have given the idea for the poem considering
the following clues!! Tittiris don’t fly though they are birds; that is, they
are incapable of being a typical bird!! Tittiri birds consumed what Yajnavalkya
vomited and produced the verse!! What they produced is tagged as "Krishna" and what Yajnavalkya produced is tagged as
"Shukla". Krishna means dark and Shukla means bright!! Yajnavalkya
was the one who had animosity with his guru, so did he think this way?? Did the
Tittiri disciples observe the animosity between their Guru & their teammate
and prayed that they should not end up in such a situation?? Is there a
different way to interpret Tittiri instead of non-flying birds? It is equally
interesting to think about the Guru… what did he mean by return all the
knowledge? How much of it was taught and how much was from Yajnavalkya? Why did
the Guru decide to give the copyright to his other disciples or allowed it to
be called as Tittiriya Upanishad? Why is Yajnavalkya a as popular name as Vaishampayana? Interesting clues and questions…
No comments:
Post a Comment