A person entrenched in the material world is often busy being busy and is overwhelmed rather than being productive. He goes to the workplace with a nervous excitement and comes back home with enough money and few ulcers.
Contrast this to person living a slow-paced life. Slow-paced living is highly recommended in spirituality. It allows for more contentment, enjoyment and mindfulness – the golden trio that makes spiritual growth rocket.
Then there is the life of a saint who has almost retired from the world and lives extremely slow, almost in ‘no time’. He is the literal akarma-yogi.
Juxtapose that life with the life of an almost selfless visionary or a leader living with missionary zeal. This person burns the candle at both ends and appears feverishly active like the first person but at the same time is reasonably detached from outcomes. He is the typical karmayogi.
Then there is the typical socially active saint, who is happily alternating between the two extremes, pursuing one of the two modes at any fixed point of time. He is the literal akarma yogi some times and the typical karma yogi at other times.
Lastly, there is another archetype of the socially active saint who is often capable of harmonising the two modes on a moment-to-moment basis owing to his serene inner climate, sense of detachment and equanimity. He is perhaps a higher akarma-yogi than the literal akarma-yogi.
While there is no strict pecking order between the above scenarios, the same have yet been stacked up as if they are in a proposed ascending pecking order.
The much-touted ‘Work Life Balance’ in corporate circles is about integrating the second option with the first option in the best possible way. To that extent, most human beings do validly grapple with and contemplate about the pecking order between the first two options.
However, as one advances in consciousness, one should ideally contemplate about all the six scenarios mentioned above and figure out what scenario appeals to him and what he is realistically capable of, at a particular point of time.
How does one decide?
There are two particular lenses that would be helpful to choose one’s approach as regards which scenario suits one the most. The first is the lens of spiritual contentment and the second the lens of spiritual warriorship.
The lens of spiritual contentment would find every goal worthless if it costs one even the fraction of what’s colloquially called ‘one’s arm and leg’. The lens of spiritual warriorship would find every goal worthless that wouldn’t move the needle for humanity, so what if it costs one’s arm and leg.
In philosophical terms, this is the typical debate – as seen in Buddhism – between being an ‘Arhat’ or a ‘Bodhisattva’. The former crafts his complete enlightenment and disappears from the Earth plane (and supports humanity through his exalted vibrations and blessings). The latter postpones complete enlightenment for himself, lives in the messy world and supports the enlightenment journey of the weary and ripe souls on the Earth plane, only to be enlightened and exit way later when most of humanity has found its footing through his support.
One can adopt either of the two lenses and decide one’s commitment levels to one’s own personal vocation or mission in life. To each his own because each is at a different point in the spiritual journey. Nobody should inherently judge or perhaps decide for another as to which lens is more appropriate. That said, adopting the lens of a spiritual warrior feels more integral and full-spectrum than adopting the lens of spiritual contentment. Fear could masquerade as contentment and only readiness for warriorship allows one to figure out whether fear is ruling the decision subliminally or genuine contentment is.
