Material Success and Happiness Through Yoga Principles

by Swami Kriyananda
(J. Donald Walters)

Copyright © 2005 Hansa Trust
All rights reserved.

Lesson Fourteen
Working with Others
The Principles
An old Western folk tale tells of an old man who, as he lay dying, called his six stalwart sons around him to give them final words of advice.
“My sons,” he said, “fetch me seven thin sticks, about three feet long.”
When they did so, he took one of the sticks and, weak as he was, broke it easily in half. He then asked them to tie the remaining six together. “Now,” he told them, “each of you see if he can break that bundle.” One by one they all tried; none of them could do so.
“My sons,” the old man said, “let this be my parting counsel to you. If you remain loyally united together, no one will be able to break you. But if each of you goes his own way, you may meet some people who, wanting to break you, will succeed in doing so.”
Success at anything seldom comes easily. Even people who work alone—artists, writers, or the way-finders in science—usually, to be successful, meet many obstacles on their way. I have frequently quoted in these lessons the ancient Sanskrit saying, “Yata dharma, tata jaya”: “Where there is adherence to right action, there is victory.” The path of dharma is in no way compatible with merely passive righteousness.
A few months ago I watched a movie based on Tolkien’s Trilogy. It tells a great story, as does the literary work it is based on. The author pitted the mighty forces of evil and darkness against human goodness. I was dissatisfied by this one-sided evaluation, however. The story depicts persuasively a single, over-arching power of darkness, but it portrays goodness as merely human and relatively weak. The good people in the story strike one as average, well-meaning Englishmen, best exemplified in good old Frodo, the hobbit hero, honest and kindly, who manages almost by chance to stumble into heroism, and deserves to win because he is a fine fellow and wishes no one harm. Frodo is virtuous almost by default. His glory is entirely his own. The goodness he demonstrates is something of which most of us might at least feel capable. Tolkien offers no suggestion that any greater power supports Frodo or might support us. He seems to have wanted to show that human goodness, frail reed though it is, presents the best antidote there is to the world’s evil. Goodness, he implies, is not powerful, and good people shun the idea of exerting power over anyone and of controlling others by power, even as they reject the idea of being controlled by others in return. This concept displays the sweet innocence of a fairy tale. Tolkien failed to understand the potential grandeur of his own theme. Indeed, Frodo, too, represented a greater force than he himself knew. The issues involved here, which Tolkien himself missed, relate to the very nature of free will.
The war between good and evil is, for one thing, cosmic in nature; it is far subtler than people usually suppose, and than anything Tolkien suggested. True freedom can be won only by heroic effort; it grows, however, in nourishing soil that has been plowed and fertilized in that perennial struggle.
There can be no stirring plot in any play, novel, or other work of fiction that doesn’t contain at least a suggestion of the two cosmic forces, forever pitted together. The beauty of Tolkien’s epic is its semi-grandeur: the great sweep of the dark forces on earth. It depicts life as few ever trouble to see it, yet in part as, behind the scenes, it really is: a war between cosmic forces of good and evil. If the story fails, ultimately, as a true epic it is because the understanding it reveals isn’t of two well-matched forces in the universe, but only of the Will to Evil, reduced to temporary impotence by blind luck, or by sheer pluck.
Valmiki’s Ramayana—one of the great epics of ancient India—describes goodness, by contrast, in a vast and more balanced struggle against evil. Rama wins the war against Ravana after a heroic struggle, but does so not because he is a “good fellow” merely, but because he, together with his supporting army, express the cosmic power of goodness. Frodo wins also, smiling gamely to the end, but only because he is a “first class” fellow, and not because of any alliance with a greater power of Goodness. He is not a human (that is to say, a Hobbit-like) expression of infinite Kindness, Truth, and Love. He is simply well-meaning, and deserves to win for that reason alone. A vast power of conscious evil and darkness lurks behind the evildoers in Tolkien’s story. They influence, and perhaps even direct the actions of the villains. No greater consciousness, however, animates Frodo and his friends.
Tolkien was, as I have indicated, not able to understand the nature of free will and cosmic freedom. The truth is, no one could even think a single thought unless some greater consciousness were moving within him. Scientists have predicted that computers will someday become sophisticated enough to be conscious. That is a baseless dream. What could be less conscious than a worm? Yet the worm is obviously conscious enough to squirm away if it is pricked. Consciousness is the cause, not the effect, of everything in existence.
The human ego expresses, however minutely, the infinite, eternally conscious Self. Man’s will can be free only to the extent that he is able to attune himself to the divine consciousness. God alone is free, for he is not compelled to be or to do anything.
The story of Rama shows goodness as a force ultimately greater than evil. In human life, indeed, not only is the potential for goodness ever-present as an influence for self-awakening: Goodness is a higher truth which the law of karma forces us in the end to accept. We learn, in the process of erring, suffering, and correcting our errors that right action puts down roots in a greater good, whereas wrong action roots us in a greater evil. Everything we do expresses realities greater than those we know consciously. Whether the expression is of light and truth, or of darkness and untruth, is consequent upon the degree to which our will is actually free. Free will is the ability to act for our own highest happiness. Man’s lack of freedom lies in his bondage to delusion.
The mighty consciousness that created the universe is even above good and evil. Goodness is simply a clearer reflection of that Supreme Will; it triumphs in the end because, for Absolute Perfection to be realized, the gift of discrimination is required, and discrimination is acquired only by goodness.
Two notable qualities of cosmic maya-delusion are the will and also the power to divide the underlying truth of conscious oneness into innumerable appearances of separate “realities.” Maya fragments the one Infinite Spirit ever-increasingly—in appearance only, to be sure. It separates cosmic manifestation into seeming opposites. The more specifically it seems to divide, the more toweringly do these oppositions appear—even as tall ocean waves seem more distinct from one another than little ripples, although they have, in common with all waves and ripples, the fact that they are made of the same ocean water.
In the business world, as in everything we do to achieve success, competitiveness is commonly considered necessary to achievement. The president of a large corporation many years ago made a practice of telling the executives under him, “I expect you to try to out-do one another in your struggle to get ahead. The plum of promotion will always go to him who shows the most competitive spirit.” Essentially, his philosophy was, “Survival of the Fittest,” a teaching which, as I firmly believe, must lead eventually to self-destruction, not to victory.
I have not made a deep study of the history of modern corporations. Yet I have done some reading on the subject that has been, for me, enlightening, though some of it for the disastrous results it produced! According to another story, the president of a large firm—it might for all I know have been the same man I just mentioned—made it a practice every year to invite the senior class of a prominent business college to visit him in his office. His purpose was to give them a brief glimpse of his “view from the top.” Every year he proposed to them the same hypothetical question:
“Suppose your business has a supplier who has served you loyally for twenty years. You know that his business depends wholly on yours—to such an extent, in fact, that without your firm’s orders you know he would go bankrupt.
“Now then, suppose another supplier someday offers you the same product at a better price. What should you do?”
I was appalled by his own answer to that question: “Of course you should go with the lower price. Business is business. As a businessman, you must never let sentiment rule you.”
Well, I assume that this self-serving “amoralist” would at least give his loyal supporter of many years a chance to counter that newly competitive price. From the way he formed his question, however, it appears to me that he’d have shunned even that solution as too “sentimental.” Let us then look at the matter from another angle altogether. Isn’t it highly probable that this “new kid on the block,” with his lower price, would in fact have lowered that price on one item simply to lure your business away from your long-time supplier? In this case, isn’t it also probable that, once your friend had declared bankruptcy, your new provider would raise his price again to reflect the product’s actual market value?
This sort of thing happens all the time in the business world, and people’s heads, in the process, are constantly being lopped off. I would call that president’s hypothetical “solution” naive in the extreme!
For assuming that he continued—always in the name of “hard-headed realism”—to get the best prices, make the shrewdest deals, and beat out all his competitors so that he became at last—oh, wow!—a millionaire: What then? Leaving aside all the enemies he’d acquire like fleas in the process, wouldn’t he also reap another, and increasingly bitter, harvest: self-hatred? How could it be otherwise?
Anyone who sets himself against others must inevitably steel himself to receive their opposition in return. Joseph Stalin (that self-assumed surname meant, “Steel”; thus it was that he deliberately presented himself to the world) was a classic example of my point. Inwardly he lived in a hell of constant tension, heightened by his awareness of the animosity he’d awakened in others. Those who knew him have described him as paranoid. Tension was his constant companion. It would have been the inevitable inner reflection of his own cruelty. From what one reads, paranoia destroyed Stalin’s peace of mind, and, along with it, any chance he might have had for happiness. Similar attitudes will do the same to anyone who lives a “dog-eat-dog” philosophy.
The purpose of these lessons is to help you to achieve success in life at every level. Let us for present purposes, however, accept the common definition of worldly success as achievable only through competition. In fact, let us assume that, up to a point, competition actually works.
To begin with, I must emphasize that competition is not necessarily, in itself, a bad thing. Business monopolies have shown repeatedly over the years that their goods diminish in quality when monopoly permitted them to become complacent. They’ve been able to foist onto their customers the claim that their way was the only right way of doing things. The customers themselves had no option if they wanted those goods but to accept what that company made.
The best kind of competition, however, is a striving for improvement over one’s own norms. The drive toward excellence reflects, in fact, a constant desire to improve oneself. A truly creative spirit is self-rejuvenating. Even outward competition, if it inspires outward self-improvement rather than driving one to attempt to defeat his opponents, is a good thing. For few people are creative by inclination. Most of them follow the lines of least resistance. In the marketplace, however, too much reliance on habit produces mediocrity. Most people who work for a living, unless they are constantly inspired by others to improve, slip quietly into a rut of habit.
On the other hand, in a company where the employees are competitively at one another’s throats—or, as is more often the case, where greedy ambition is the ruling passion—the overall focus becomes obscured by dust-clouds of infighting. I have seen groups that were so intent on winning their little office disputes that the company’s larger aims were all but forgotten.
Whatever your work is, never lose sight of its true goals. Ask yourself always, “Will what I do serve those goals?” Every business should aim higher than mere wealth. Indeed, when profit is the sole motive, customers end up seeking their goods elsewhere. How many people, after all, really care about other people’s profits? What they want is anything that will serve their own needs. Infighting is the very worst way, surely, for any company to fulfill its very reason for existence!
I have often thought that these simple—indeed, obvious—facts reveal a major weakness in modern democracy also. How can any president or national leader accomplish alone everything his position demands of him? Society is far too complex these days, with international questions looming ever larger on all fronts, for any one person to decide everything that needs deciding at an executive level. A national leader cannot govern effectively without an efficient team. Under the present system, however, he himself is elected for his own abilities, strictly. Throughout much of his tenure he must work with a cabinet selected on personal merit, but not as a group. Few of its members have ever worked together before. They may view one another as rivals. They may even dislike one another. Under such conditions, how much constructive work is possible? Wouldn’t it be better for a whole team to be elected to the highest office together—a group of people with proven ability, from years of harmonious cooperation, to work together? This scheme would, I admit, need more—in fact, considerable—clarification. It is a novel concept, and certainly not one for elaborate discussion in this lesson. Still, it suggests a principle that applies to businesses also. For the more that people learn to work together, the more productive they will be.
Working with others is a vital necessity for almost every kind of success. The concept of cooperation does come with a caveat, however: The people you work with must be united creatively in a good cause. I do not at all mean to say, then, that togetherness itself is necessarily a good thing. Drinking buddies may, in their “togetherness,” commit acts of great folly. Unity in error can be dangerous. Such unity is, moreover, more difficult to penetrate with the shafts of common sense than a veritable free-for-all of conflicting opinions.
Ultimately, what determines the effectiveness of any group effort is the creative support it receives from the person in charge. This person must himself be creative; it is not enough for him to support the creativity of others.
I have emphasized repeatedly the importance of dharma (right action). What concerns me most here is the fact that, where issues of deeper right and wrong are concerned, group thinking can sometimes obscure them.
When working with others, be aware always that the decisions reached must be supported sincerely by every individual in the group. Each should consult his own understanding, and not let himself be swept away by group fervor. Each should consider calmly within himself every subject that is proposed to or by the group. For there usually exists in such groups a certain pressure toward conformity.
Realistically speaking, what the need for consensus usually means, especially in important matters, is that teamwork functions best under the guidance of a good leader. Seldom is it true that many heads are better than one—folk “wisdom” to the contrary notwithstanding. In creative endeavors especially, what usually happens is that teamwork can empower an idea and carry it through to completion, but the idea itself begins with an individual. That person need not necessarily be the leader, but certainly the idea must have the leader’s endorsement; otherwise, dissension may be the result.
What I suggest for committees and for any group working together is that only those be invited to serve on them who have specific areas of responsibility. Otherwise, what I’ve observed is that members without such responsibilities tend to talk excessively, if only to show that they, too, are carrying their weight. Responsible solutions, in such cases, are difficult to reach.
In committees where every member has a specific responsibility, a subject can first, before it is introduced, be given to the concerned member. He can offer his informed opinion, or study the matter further and knowledgeably, then return to the committee with a carefully thought-out proposal based on considered opinion. No problem should be simply dumped in the committee’s collective lap. It should first be considered carefully by someone who is already, if possible, informed on the subject. Endless hours may otherwise be wasted as each member tries to speak authoritatively simply because he thinks opinions are expected of him. A committee’s time is best spent, usually, in appraising solutions that have already been considered.
The role of a leader is important to effective group action. His leadership, however, should be supportive, respectful, and impersonally friendly to all. Only such leadership will draw out the best in others. I should repeat that, in my experience, creative ideas almost always come from individuals: It is in the implementation of the ideas that group effort may be required. Group discussion serves best as a means of evaluating an idea that has been already worked out carefully.
The Application
People in groups are always rushing heedlessly, like lemmings, over a cliff to disaster because no one dared to raise a warning finger and declare, “Let’s be sure this is a wise decision and not a mistake!”
Group effort can be a wonderful thing, when everyone works with a joint purpose, understands what needs to be done, and is committed to achieving something worthwhile for all concerned. In most of the situations one faces in life, people find it necessary to work at least part of the time with other people. Individuals who work alone—creative artists, for example, and inventors—may also find it helpful to keep in mind the benefits they envision for others through what they do. In my own writing, for instance, even though I work alone, I find it helpful to visualize my reader—many readers, that is to say, condensed into a single person—seated before me, listening to my words and discussing silently with me whatever I am committing to paper.
The first thing to do is, if possible, to gather around you people who you believe will work well together in creative harmony. Such a combination is not always easy to find. When you cannot do so, and when you find you have little in common with your co-workers, take this fact as an opportunity provided by your own karma to work on self-development. You may even decide to leave that workplace and seek a job elsewhere. That solution, however, may not always be so easy or felicitous as it seems. A friend of mine afforded me a glimpse, many years ago, into this aspect of karmic law. It was something I have never forgotten.
“Do you remember,” he said, “how I used to hate J——? [He named someone we both knew—not an easy man to get along with.] I couldn’t stand working with him. It was owing partly to him, in fact, that I left this work. Well, where I work now there are six men exactly like him, all grating on my nerves in the same way!”
I’ve never forgotten this story. It is an excellent example of a very simple truth: Karma cannot be simply avoided. Often, indeed, it is simply wiser to square off bravely and accept it, while concentrating on developing whatever attitude is needed to keep one’s own peace of mind.
Troublesome people cannot always be worked with: they may have to be worked around. It is indeed laudable to try to win them over, but usually the demands life makes of one necessitate working with people with whom it is relatively easy to get along. People whose negativity is ingrained will slip back, more often than not, from whatever plus you hold out to them into their habitual minus zone, as soon as the positive energy you’ve pumped into them is exhausted. Everyone has his own specific center of gravity. To rise to a higher level, one must himself want to change. It may be possible to motivate him to rise, but to do so necessitates, first of all, a focus more on people than on projects. If the important thing, for you, is outer accomplishment, then you will have to make that your primary concern. In that case try first, if possible, to work with those with whom you already feel a certain harmony.
The important thing, always, is to be harmonious first in yourself. Working with others, especially if your place is over them, demands that you give more of yourself to the job than you ask of anyone else. Give others support before you demand support of them. Express a cooperative attitude toward them before demanding cooperation from them. In all likelihood, they will then be happy to cooperate with you. Don’t expect the world to change for you; it never will. You can always do your best, however, to change yourself.
Meditation
Imagine a field of tall wheat grass. You are the breeze bending the grass one way and the other. Reflect: What it takes to make the grass lean as you would like: not a dominating force so much as an influence.
People can’t forever be driven. They must be influenced from within—in your case, from your own inner self to theirs. Only thus will they bend willingly to your wishes. The grass they represent will stand tall again once that influence ceases. Let your influence in this world be one of kindness and support, not of driving force or coercion. Leave to everyone his free will. When you try thus to help others, they will always be with you.
Affirmation
“I am one with all. 
I work with all toward our common goal: 
success and happiness.”

Points to Remember
1. Success in work rarely comes without effort. The path of dharma doesn’t indicate a merely passive righteousness.
2. Right action puts roots down into a greater good, whereas wrong action puts roots down into a greater evil. Goodness triumphs in the end because it takes discrimination, acquired by goodness, to reach Absolute Perfection.
3. Anyone who sets himself against others must inevitably steel himself to receive their opposition in return. 
4. The best kind of competition is a striving for, not against. The drive toward excellence reflects a constant desire to improve oneself, as well as what one offers. 
5. Most people, unless they are inspired constantly to improve, tend to slip unobtrusively into the muddy ruts of habit. On the other hand, where greedy ambition is the ruling passion—the overall focus becomes obscured by dust-clouds of infighting. 
6. Ask yourself always, “Will my work serve an over-all purpose?” The true aim of every business should consist of something loftier than money-making. 
7. Working with others is a vital necessity for almost every kind of success if the people you work with are creatively united in a good cause. 
8. Ultimately, what determines the effectiveness of any group effort is the creative support received by the group from the person in charge. This person must himself be creative; it is not enough for him to support others in their creativity.
9. When working with others, individuals should calmly consult their own inner understanding on every issue, and not let themselves be swept away by group fervor. 
10. Creative ideas almost always originate in one individual. That individual need not be the leader, but certainly he must have the leader’s full endorsement.
11. For committees, invite only those people to serve on them who have specific areas of responsibility. Any subject that requires further study can be given to the responsible individual, who then returns to the rest with a carefully thought-out proposal. The committee’s time is best spent in appraising solutions that have been considered already.
12. The leader should be supportive, respectful, and impersonally friendly to all. Only such an attitude will draw out the best from others. 
13. Group effort can be a wonderful thing, when everyone works with a joint purpose, understands what has to be done, and is committed to achieving benefits for everyone concerned. 
14. The first thing to do, if possible, is to gather around you people who you believe will work well together, in creative harmony. 
15. Troublesome people usually can’t be worked with: they must be worked around. 
16. The important thing, always, is to be harmonious first within yourself. Working with others demands giving more of yourself to the job than you ask of anyone else. Give them support before demanding it of them. 
17. You must influence people as it were from within—from your inner self to their inner self. Let your influence be one of kindness and support. If you try in this way to help others, they will always be with you.

Workbook Ideas – Working with Others
by Joseph Bharat Cornell
Cooperation vs. Competition

Some Navajo children once taught a school teacher a valuable lesson in human relations. During his first week at their school, the teacher asked one of his Navajo students to answer a simple question. The young boy couldn’t answer correctly, so the teacher asked if anyone else knew the answer. The other Navajo children, however, stared straight ahead and wouldn’t respond. 

The teacher was puzzled by their silence because he felt that most of them knew the answer. Later, the teacher learned why: the young Navajos didn’t want their classmate to lose face. Their friend’s self-confidence and well-being was far more important to them than impressing the teacher.

In Eastern Siberia, the 19th Century Russian scientist, Peter Kropotkin, eagerly sought proof of evolution’s “survival of the fittest” premise. To his surprise, the young scientist discovered that the most successful animals weren’t the most competitive ones, but those who coped with the harsh environment primarily through cooperative behavior. Applying his Siberian experience to humans, Kropotkin asked rhetorically, “Who is the fittest, those who are continually at war with one another, or those who support one another?”  

The benefits of cooperation are shown by the success of Japanese car manufacturers. In Japan, automakers and suppliers are true partners. Companies like Honda and Toyota have long-term relationships with their suppliers, and go to great lengths to ensure their survival. 

Meanwhile, U.S. automakers often have an adversarial and short-term relationship with suppliers, who are often forced to sacrifice quality and their own bottom line to meet automakers demand for rock-bottom prices. Working with their suppliers has helped Japanese car companies thrive; American brands have struggled to maintain market share.   

According to Alfie Kohn, author of “No Contest: The Case Against Competition,” competitive environments increase anxiety and inefficiency, and shift one’s focus to victory over others, and away from intrinsic motivators such as curiosity, interest, and excellence. Cooperative environments encourage sharing resources and knowledge, and become more important when tasks are more complex, creative or challenging.

Action Idea

The ego, like the sun’s gravitational pull, draws everything back to itself. Contractive, me-first attitudes expressed in the work place undermine group harmony and purpose. 

Create more unity at work by thinking of the needs and perspective of your colleagues or employees. Choose a time each day this week to practice one of the following:

1.	Listen to others. Practice not dominating the conversation and concentrate more on drawing out others. 
2.	Take the time to learn from others. Find out their concerns and insights. 
3.	Deepen your sense of gratitude and appreciation for others by reflecting on how each colleague contributes to the overall health and dynamism of your organization. 
4.	Let other people shine. Give credit to others whenever possible. See your colleagues as part of your Greater Self. Enjoy their victories as you would your own! 
5.	When you are with another person, ask yourself, “How can I help him do his job better? 
6.	When a colleague is experiencing work-related or other challenges, ask, “Is there something I can do or say that will lift his spirits? Free his energy?”