desire

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis,

 

OK, we are whipping a dead horse here. Some other time I will have to take issue

with you over your usage of the word

'ego' --- if you look carefully you will see that all of your constructions

suggest that the 'ego' actually exists up

until 'enlightenment' --- but meanwhile you seem to have other fires to put

out:)

 

Regards,

 

Patrick

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

Pardon me for my late entry into this discussion which

seems to be almost winding down.

 

Patrick seems to be saying that there can be desire

without a desirer. It depends on from what perspective

one is saying this. Just like for a thought there has to

be a thinker, for a desire there has to be a desirer.

The desirer is the jIvA. While we say it is the ego,

the ego, apart from brahman does not have existence.

Thus the desirer has to be recognized as the jIvA,

i.e., the brahman along with the upAdhi, with ego part

of the jIvA claiming to be the desirer.

 

Another point that came up in the earlier discussion is

that there can be desires after realization. That is

against the shruti statement:

 

Yadaa sarve pramucyante kaamaa ye'sya hr^di shritaah

atha martyo'mr^to bhavatyatra brahma samashnute

 

Katha Upanishhad II.3.14

 

When all the desires that dwell in the heart fall away,

then the mortal becomes immortal, and attains Brahman

even here. Where there are no more desires, the mortal

becomes immortal here and now.

 

Also, the ego cannot be present after realization.

VivekacUDAmaNi says " ... ahambhAvodayAbhAvo bodhasya

paramAvadhiH" The absence of the rise of the sense of

I of the ego is the culmination of Knowledge. And the

culmination of Knowledge is moksha.

 

Thus, as I understand, there will not be desires, there

will not be desirer and there will not be ego after

realization.

 

Now, I like to give a hypothetical example and also quote

shri shankara's bhAShya from Br. u. in suport of what I said.

 

let us say the entity that we call shri RamaNa maharShi

is going on a morning walk (this is shri RamaNa after His

realization at AruNAcala). Now, in this morning walk,

is there a desire here and who do we ascribe this desire?

>From our mortals' perspective, that body entity is RamaNa

maharShi. But the SELF, which is the realized, does not

identify with that body. That body is like a serpent skin

that has been discarded. That is like a burnt rope that

still retains its shape. So, we cannot ascribe the desire

to that body entity, nor can we ascribe it to the SELF

which we are mistaking it to be that body entity. So, is

there a desire in that morning walk and whose is it?

Obviously, there is no desire and we, the mortals, the

spectators around see a desire and action and ascribe

that desire and action to that body entity which we say

is the residence of the SELF.

 

shri shankara's bhAShya on Br^ihadAraNyaka upanishad is

a masterpiece. More than any other upanishadbhAShya, shri

shankara seems to have made His major points in the

Br^ihadAraNyakabhAShya. His analysis under Br. u. iv.4.6

is relevant in the present context and I quote from swami

Madhavananda's translation.

 

"Regarding this subject there is also the following pithy

verse: Being attached i.e. with his desire for it roused,

he, the man who transmigrates, together with the work that

he did with attachment to its result, attains the result

to which his subtle body or mind is firmly attached, i.e.

for which it yearns. Therefore, only on account of this

attachment of his mind, he attains the result through

that action. This proves that desire is the root of

transmigratory existence. Hence a knower of brahman who

has rooted out his desires may work, but it will produce

no (baneful) result; for the shruti says 'for one who has

completely attained the objects of his desire and realized the

SELF, all desires dissolve in this very life' (Mu. u. III.ii.2).

 

Further, exhausting the results of work - what kind of work?

whatever work he did in this life, by experiencing them, he returns

from that world to this for work, since work holds the foremost place

in this world. Hence the text says 'For work' i.e. to work again.

After working again, he on account of his attachment to results,

again goes to the next world and so on. Thus does the man who desires

transmigrate. Since it is the man of desire who transmigrates

thus, therefore the man who does not desire, does not transmigrate

anywhere.

 

It has been said that only the man who is attached to

results transmigrates. Since one who has no desires cannot

perform (ritualistic) work, the one who does not desire

necessarily attains liberation. How does a man cease to

desire? He who is without desires is the man who does not

desire. How is this absence of desire attained? It is being

explained: 'Who is free from desires, i.e. whom desires have

left. How do they leave? The objects of whose desire have been

attained. How are they attained? Because he is one to whom all

objects of desire are but the SELF - who has only the SELF,

and nothing else separate from It that can be desired;

to whom the SELF alone exists - the Pure Intelligence without

interior or exterior, entire and homogeneous; and neither above

nor below nor in the middle is there anything else but the SELF

to be desired. What should a person desire who has realized?

When everything has become the SELF to one, what should one see,

hear, think or know, and through what? For a thing that is known

as other than oneself may become an object of desire. But such

a thing does not exist for the Knower of brahman, the objects

of whose desire have all been attained. For he to whom everything

is the SELF, has nothing else to desire. It is contradictory to

say that he has something other than the SELF to desire and that

to him everything is the SELF. ....

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

--