Sri Ramakrishna Math : The Vedanta Kesari, May 2003

'Personality Development' is a very hot topic nowadays. The word 'personality' implies a relationship; the word 'development' refers to our dissatisfaction about the quality of our existing relationship with others; and the project on the whole envisages improvement in our relationship with others, though in a reverse way--we want appreciation or admiration of our traits by others. [Are we so concerned about others that we value their appreciation?] Paradoxically enough, though we have preferred to live in nuclear families with a tendency to withdraw ourselves from group-concerns, we, as social beings, could not come to deny the reality about our being social. We gather all news about the world through telephone, Internet and TV that bring the entire universe into our nuclear dwelling places. In other words, we are afraid to lead an isolated life. This reveals a dichotomy in our wisdom and a compromise with the yearning of our own inner self. Such an aroma of our personality does draw others' attention to us but in a negative way: people may get attracted to our money, our status and our person, but not to our personality.

In seminars, symposia, workshops, etc. the topic of Personality Development evokes quick verve in the young minds, mostly because they believe that they alone have a hope (because they are still in their formative years) to develop this special quality. Whatever be the rationale behind such enthusiasm, the youth are not heedless about acquiring a noticeable stature in society which they must have misunderstood as 'personality'. As a direct upshot of this wrong understanding, they fail to reap the results guaranteed by the advocates of Personality Development. They are also frustrated by the outcome of their efforts; so they discard it all as sham. This happens due to two simple factors:

(i) The propagandists promise that the 'crash courses' (or in some cases, we may term them as 'lightning courses') will bring about the most wanted result. The thrust is given on teaching the tricks by which others could be easily bamboozled, and we can make a show of an image about ourselves that we dream we should have. There are manipulative and even deceptive formulas, like, influence techniques, power look strategies, lip service communication skills and positive approaches on the surface, to achieve the purpose. These are all based on a social comparison motive which makes all standards conditional. We also choose them because we look at the world with our own conditioned mind, with our paradigms. If we take a penetrative look into the influences under which we are born and raised, we will not fail to see that our ideas are based on what we are. The ideas themselves flow from the conditioning and conditions that stem from a wrong understanding of the truth about ourselves.

Sri Ramakrishna has said: 'A jaundiced eye sees everything yellow.' Therefore our estimation of the personality is based on the instrument with which we really see the society and all relations. We ignore to reckon that dress and cosmetics are not personality enhancers; that there is no world personality contest as such. As if it were true that a Socrates, a Vyasa, an Einstein had handsome features to charm humanity which they did with their intellect; a Helen Keller, a Homer, a Braille had penetrative eye-sight to have a vision; a Beethoven had powerful ears to compose enchanting tunes; a Napoleon, a Hitler had very tall figures to conquer nations! Swami Vivekananda (hereafter, Swamiji) once admonished an American youth, who teased Swamiji because of his unusual dress, saying: In your country tailors make a gentleman, in our country character makes a gentleman.

However, we do not intend to underestimate the utility of the education in the field of personality growth, influence strategies etc. These are also essential ingredients for success, but only of secondary importance, as they do not produce enduring results. Neither do they have permanent worth in long-term relationship. Our true motives come to surface in course of time and the initial sky-rocketing success nose-dives in a mass of ruin. It may also be true that people with the strength of character may not succeed in their communication skills, but still they have a lasting impression of trust and goodwill on their allies. Swamiji analyzed the point with remarkable insight, 'The world is one of influence. Part of our energy is used up in the preservation of our own bodies. Beyond that every particle of our energy is day and night being used in influencing others. Now to take a concrete example: A man comes; you know he is very learned, his language is beautiful, and he speaks to you by the hour; but he does not make any impression. Another man comes, he speaks a few words, not well arranged; he makes an immense impression. So it is evident that the words alone cannot always produce an impression. Words, even thoughts, contribute only one-third of the influence, the man, two-thirds.'

(ii) Ironically, the learners also believe in a magic formula for achieving great results with even less or no commitment. The massive appeal and glitter of the phrase 'Personality Development' is in essence dependent on the idea that quick and easy ways are available to develop our personality! Thus the confusion (buddhi-bhedam) in both the trainees and the trainers leads to the inevitable result--'development of a confused personality'.

Having this confusion in view, we may clarify the caption of the write-up a little. It would mean, 'Integrity works as self-discipline to manifest the Personality'. Those who are in the working field carrying out or taking part in group-responsibilities are in a better position to appreciate this elaboration. Sri Krishna taught the Gita in the battlefield, a situation in which the message was sure to have direct effect. The youth, who are not immediately facing a practical problem, will hardly understand the hollowness of tall promises. And when they are in a practical situation ultimately, they would see that it was too late. But, hopefully speaking, there is nothing as 'too late' in this regard provided one tries to be aware of a different factor called 'integrity'.

There is a difference between the implications of the words integrity and personality. Integrity addresses the very class of the tree and personality the leaves. The class and quality of the tree determines what fruits it is going to bear and how they would influence the taste of people. The inherent quality of the fruit decides its reputation, whereas personality envisages borrowing which shackles us with dependence on others' formulas. This breeds weakness in us, which cannot sustain us in the long run, and finally mars our co-operation, relationship, etc. Swamiji, of course, draws our attention to the harmony of these two words: 'The idea of all education, all training, should be this man-making. But instead of that, we are always trying to polish up the outside. What use is polishing the outside when there is no inside? The end and aim of all training is to make the man grow.'

The following phenomena will vouch for the genuineness in our analysis: People fail to get along in their participation in life; people with high managing capabilities fail to manage a small family; a young man or woman sees all dreams falling apart; a retired person helplessly looks back into the by-gone days with lamentation; highly regarded, highly positioned officers fall from their status; scams affect the most fabulous companies in the world; corruption mars all growth in a country; match-fixings devastate sportspersons' psychology; so on and so forth.

What are the reasons for these deplorable things? These cannot be attributed to fate. These are not facts that 'just happen' as auto-incidents. To speak the truth, we have a greater share of responsibility in these happenings. These happen due to the loss of the feeling of our self-worth. Deep within the mind somewhere there is an impression that somehow our own resources are basically inadequate to face the challenges of life while some others are privileged with a gift of abundant adequacy. This paradigm has to be reversed with the awareness of our self-worth or integrity, for our own good.

The word 'integrity' has been defined as: quality of being honest and morally upright. There are many similar definitions or interpretations of the word. But none can match the all-comprehensive definition given by Sri Ramakrishna. He says, 'They are humans who have the awareness of their limitations and possibilities.' The integration of both these awarenesses, of empirical limitations and transcendental possibilities, is called 'integrity'. Self-discipline comes first through the awareness that we are limited in many ways on the surface, for beginning with the physical body up to the psychological existence, all end with death. Unlike animals we have also the capacity, in spite of ourselves, to overcome our limitations, and we should be aware of this depth dimension or unlimited possibilities in us.

In short, integrity means self-respect or self-esteem, sve mahimni, in one's own dignity or glory, which holds us back from acting below ourselves. The voice from within tells us, as it always does, 'don't do it; it's below your dignity'. This control from within one's own self is called self-discipline. Stephen R. Covey, the celebrated management guru, believes that 'a life of integrity is the most fundamental source of personal worth.' Swamiji's assessment is almost the same; the only difference being that he elaborates it to help us understand the 'how' about it: 'Every work that we do, every movement of the body, every thought that we think, leaves such an impression on the mind-stuff and even when such impressions are not obvious on the surface, they are sufficiently strong to work beneath the surface, subconsciously. What we are every moment is determined by the sum total of these impressions on the mind. This is really what is meant by character; each man's character is determined by the sum total of these impressions. If good impressions prevail, the character becomes good; if bad, it beomes bad. When a man has done so much good work and thought so many good thoughts that there is an irresistible tendency in him to do good, in spite of himself and even if he wishes to do evil, his mind, as the sum total of his tendencies, will not allow him to do so, the tendencies will turn him back; he is completely under the influence of the good tendencies. When such is the case, a man's good character is said to be established.'

The Kathopanishad calls it Shraddhâ or faith in one's own stateliness. Sri Ramakrishna would say, 'A prince always enters the palace through the main gate.' There may be many other gates to enter the palace. But a prince has no reason why he should prefer these to the main gate to enter his own house. This is the very basis of self-discipline, because it stands firm like a light-house where the light is held up high on top of everything to give direction. Weirdly enough, discipline is not always welcome, at least, in one's own life. Because we fail to appreciate the fact that self-discipline is not any compulsion or oppression or abandonment imposed on us by some external agency, but is a saving choice of ours; that of the two alternatives, organized life and licentious life, we have happily chosen the one that is convenient for us. If we follow the organized way of life, we are able to integrate it by gaining self-mastery. But the way is through hard work that we take nonchalantly and try to by-pass. Swamiji says, 'Road to the Good is the roughest and steepest in the universe. It is a wonder that so many succeeded.'

The Chhândogya Upanishad draws our attention to the fact that Satyakama earned a divine lustre through disciplined labour, through his natural communion with Nature. Somebody objected to this treatment meted out by the Guru to a disciple. His objection is: Satyakama approached the Guru to be taught the Vedas, the Guru deprived him of his heart's desire by sending him to tend the cattle! Well, we do not debate the question with the help of speculation now because we know the end of the story. Our question is: 'Did Satyakama come to the Guru to be a theoretical scholar?' Even if it is true, have we not got a better Satyakama who fulfilled a greater goal by becoming a Knower of Brahman? It is amusing to conjecture that the student who went to read the Vedas realized the essence of all the Vedas instead! If Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, the stalwart in the field of Indian space and missile programmes, who initially wanted to become a fighter pilot, Mr. Verghese Kurien, the father of the white revolution in India, who wanted to have a job of a mechanical engineer, and a host of such others followed, or, were allowed to follow their initial choices, we might have lost so many Messiahs of greater values and achievements. It is through their commitment, zeal and hard labour that they achieved the visions, not for themselves as such, but for a whole country of one billion people. Here we get a glimpse of how a mere person transforms into a personality.

Our actions, disciplined labour and not lacklustre performance, will, in this way, have a direct reference to the self within us, which is nothing less than divine. In this way work, being an expression of the divine reference, becomes worship. Then people who are in business also will treat their employees with the attention exactly as they want the employees to treat their customers with. Money may generate profit for a short-term, but it is the people, none less important in the chain, who produce the goodwill for long-term survival.

People around us do appreciate such developmental changes in us, which, as a direct effect of this understanding, brings about the much-coveted radiance of our personality. It seems, the aura that is said to encircle a personality is the divine lustre (cf. divâ jyotih, the Chhândogya Up, 4.1.2) of our own self, percolating in and through our persons [cf. sarva-dvâreshu dehe asmin prakâshah upajâyate, i.e, through all the doorways of senses the effulgence manifests; the Gita, 14.11]. William George Jordan says, 'Into the hands of every individual is given a marvellous power for good or evil--the silent, unconscious, unseen influence of his life. This is simply the constant radiation of what man really is, not what he pretends to be.'

So, it is in and through our actions (karmajâ), not through the withdrawal from it, that 'integrity' expresses itself. In all activities, we come face to face with a crucial challenge to uphold this integrity. They alone are able to face such challenges, who have laboured hard to remove the obstacles from the path of manifesting their integrity. 'Satyam vada or speak the truth' is the foundation for identity, morality or integrity. 'Dharmam chara or perform duties justly' is the expression of integrity through ethics, discipline, etc. In short, integrity is a point of reference or measuring rod. One tests, consciously or unconsciously, every situation and emotion against this touchstone and calculates one's strides accordingly. Stephen Covey describes it as an 'inside-out congruence, from living a life of integrity in which our daily habits reflect our deepest values.' When our works create negative effect on our 'personality' it is verification by itself that somewhere there has been a compromise with our 'integrity'. People around us will not fail to detect it and will comment: this person is not honest or moral. Sri Krishna warns Arjuna against such consequences saying: 'Your enemies will use all abusive words against you to denigrate your strength.' We thus defeat the very purpose of developing our personality.

Individual integrity should also blossom in group-activity, outside one's family. We must realize that our life has also a meaning in the societal context. It is not only the personal freedom concept, but also the social inter-dependence concept that is important in the manifestation of integrity. Swamiji speaks about this balancing factor in his inimitable language: 'be free as the air and obedient as a dog.' Freedom and obedience (or inter-dependence) can go hand in hand; because they are not mutually exclusive. People can become obedient if they are free from the control of their ego and senses, if they own enough of themselves, if they have the sense of integrity. Shankara defines (the Gita, 4.2) durbalân, weaklings, as ajitendriyân, who have not controlled the senses. Freedom does not come by forsaking responsibilities or flouting laws, but by carrying out responsibilities and rising above the applicability of laws.

In any group-activity, some agreements or codes of conduct are developed so that members may not infringe each others' rights, disturb others in carrying out their responsibilities and obstruct others' possibilities. There may be unwritten codes called traditions to serve the same purpose. A tradition is one in which the 'mission' or objective is reinforced by the followers by the observance of rules. The Vedas remind us of many lines of the Rishis termed Vamsha Rishis, who have augmented the realizations of their predecessors.

Codes are working disciplines formulated by the authorities to see that none in the group suffers from acting below his/her integrity, and all outgrow the need of rules. Codes should be regarded as aids to develop one's personality with a little investment of one's own energy and resources. Rules and regulations are actually meant for providing us with ample scope to outgrow them. But we fail to take advantage of it. It is in this context that Swamiji observes: it is good to be born in a church but it is bad to die there. A healthy code of conduct envisages moulding of an individual into a leading character, an inspiring personality. There is the story of crabs: though, having caught each other securely with their jaws, they have a strong bond as a group, they would never allow any of them to get out of the basket (so easy an act for a single crab)!