denial of "I am the kartA" concept [was: Free will and sadhana]

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Greg Goode wrote:

> Greg Goode <goode

>

> I've known some people who practice

> Western-style non-dualism(1) say that the "I am kartA" feeling has

> disappeared. But they still feel like they are a receiver who suffers.

> They never complain about having to do anything, but they complain about

> what God/Source gives them. In other people I've known, when the "I am

> kartA" feeling disappears, the "I am an entity" feeling disappears as well,

> then there's no one to claim a result, and no complaining ever happens.

>

> --Greg

>

> ===============================

> (1) Like Jaldhar Vyas has said elsewhere, some Western non-dualism is

> New-age-like.

>

 

namaste.

 

Greg brought up this very interesting point. Again, BhagavadgItA has

an explanation for this in various chapters. Chapter 18 explains it

in terms of sattva, rajas and tamo guNAs. As per my understanding:

 

One can deny him/herself to be a kartA, in two guNAs.

 

(a) in tamasic mode, due to laziness, due to being afraid to face the

world, and finding refuge in the scriptural statements. Such a personality

can deny being a kartA, but then complains about God not giving adequate

support.

 

(b) in sAttvic mode, with the full knowledge about the world, seeing the

world for what it is, an illusory superimposition on the Consciousness.

Characteristics of such a person: (i) the desires would not be there,

and hence the desire-propelled karmAs would not be there; (ii) there

is a complete satisfaction with the world; (iii) the person is in

permanent bliss; unhappiness will not touch this person.

 

The world is rajasic, full of action. From a worldly perspective,

both sAttvic and tamasic types "lag behind" in the so-called

"progressing-forward" world. The sAttvic type do not care about

the "lagging-behind", because that does not concern them. The

tamasic type do recognize they are "falling behind", feel uneasy

about it, yet due to inertia refuse to even move to rajasic mode

by not initiating any actions, either the assigned or the

desire-propelled. It is easy to identify the two types.

 

Surprisingly, while BhagavadgItA has explanation to this in various

chapters, the upanishhads touch them only minimally. (I would be

grateful for any reference in the upanishhads where similar concept

is discussed). May be, the reason is, the upanishhads are catering

to an intense mumukshu, a sAttvic personality, while BhagavdgItA is

much more worldly. Is this a reasonable explanation?

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------