<p>Kabir is said to have said, ‘<span class="italic"><em>jal bich meen pyaasi, mohi suni suni aavai haansi</em></span>.’ It may cursorily be translated as follows, ‘it makes me laugh, seeing the fish staying thirsty in midst of the water.’ Has the scene changed in the present even a bit? </p>.<p>Before, answering that let me clear a couple of common perceptions a bit. Firstly, why do we quote saints and seers when we want to communicate our own experiences? We quote them to establish that seers see the reality’s essence (<span class="italic">tatva</span>) incessantly piercing the illusion of time.</p>.<p>Seers see that ‘<span class="italic">tatva</span>’ is eternal hence, it is incessantly available across the veneer of the time. We quote seers of yore to retrace the everlasting line of truth a little more conspicuously in the present so that the dimension of the timelessness of truth is noticed by all who seek the truth. </p>.<p>We do it to make it possible for all to realise the aforesaid essence (<span class="italic">tatva</span>) here and now. Moreover, when we consider something worth examining and find it to be true then, it becomes our responsibility to reiterate, assert and keep acknowledging it, so as to keep it within the reach of all. Not reiterating that which is necessary to acknowledge, leaves space for divisive forces to assert that which is unnecessary. This is an act of volunteering carried out by free will.</p>.<p>Is free will (taste and choice) not wisdom in yet another form? Secondly, what should we name this practice of quoting saints and seers? Should we name it agreeing with them, acknowledging their penance, reiterating the principle reiterated by them, asserting their kind of behaviour in the present, or just considering their words before examining how much is the volume of truth in those words?</p>.<p>According to our plane of consciousness as individuals, our answers are likely to vary on this question. However, all seekers of truth invariably pass through all the aforesaid stages of realisation irrespective of their religious, lingual or ethnic backgrounds. One wonders, then, why people keep confining and defining themselves limiting to these backgrounds despite seeing clearly that spiritual seekers/saints/seers never confine themselves to religions.</p>.<p>"Divinity is omnipresent and, despite your being present very much within it, you hardly choose and taste its all-pervasive presence." That’s what Kabir meant. Do you see any change in the scene?</p>
<p>Kabir is said to have said, ‘<span class="italic"><em>jal bich meen pyaasi, mohi suni suni aavai haansi</em></span>.’ It may cursorily be translated as follows, ‘it makes me laugh, seeing the fish staying thirsty in midst of the water.’ Has the scene changed in the present even a bit? </p>.<p>Before, answering that let me clear a couple of common perceptions a bit. Firstly, why do we quote saints and seers when we want to communicate our own experiences? We quote them to establish that seers see the reality’s essence (<span class="italic">tatva</span>) incessantly piercing the illusion of time.</p>.<p>Seers see that ‘<span class="italic">tatva</span>’ is eternal hence, it is incessantly available across the veneer of the time. We quote seers of yore to retrace the everlasting line of truth a little more conspicuously in the present so that the dimension of the timelessness of truth is noticed by all who seek the truth. </p>.<p>We do it to make it possible for all to realise the aforesaid essence (<span class="italic">tatva</span>) here and now. Moreover, when we consider something worth examining and find it to be true then, it becomes our responsibility to reiterate, assert and keep acknowledging it, so as to keep it within the reach of all. Not reiterating that which is necessary to acknowledge, leaves space for divisive forces to assert that which is unnecessary. This is an act of volunteering carried out by free will.</p>.<p>Is free will (taste and choice) not wisdom in yet another form? Secondly, what should we name this practice of quoting saints and seers? Should we name it agreeing with them, acknowledging their penance, reiterating the principle reiterated by them, asserting their kind of behaviour in the present, or just considering their words before examining how much is the volume of truth in those words?</p>.<p>According to our plane of consciousness as individuals, our answers are likely to vary on this question. However, all seekers of truth invariably pass through all the aforesaid stages of realisation irrespective of their religious, lingual or ethnic backgrounds. One wonders, then, why people keep confining and defining themselves limiting to these backgrounds despite seeing clearly that spiritual seekers/saints/seers never confine themselves to religions.</p>.<p>"Divinity is omnipresent and, despite your being present very much within it, you hardly choose and taste its all-pervasive presence." That’s what Kabir meant. Do you see any change in the scene?</p>