Desire etc.

[Guest guest]

Dear Gummuluru,

 

Never too late for your input! It can only be valuable to hear what is said

by the likes of the Br.U and Shankara's bhasyaa. I do have a couple of

questions upon what you wrote, however: -

 

You say it is the jiivaa and not the ego that has the desires. This is fine

but doesn't it amount to the same thing since ego is the process by which

aatmaa is identified with upaadhis and thus brings the jiivaa into

existence?

 

You say (and quote shruuti) that there are no desires after liberation.

Isn't this just semantics? Since there will still be praarabdha karma after

realisation, there will still be cause and effect activities taking place.

One of these might be the buying of a cream cake after seing one in a shop

window, mightn't it? Although this is all seen from the vantagepoint of

non-doership, eating the cake would still be enjoyed. To all intents and

purposes, it could be called a desire (but no 'desirer')? Again, in the

example of Ramana Maharshi going for a walk, there is no ego and the aatmaa

has no desires, true, but if Ramana Maharshi's body-mind was of the nature

of enjoying to go for a walk then, on a sunny day, with the body in need of

exercise, what could be more natural in responding to the praarabdha prompt

to go for a walk? Why *not* call it a desire as long as we understand there

is no desirer?

 

You say " Since it is the man of desire who transmigrates thus, therefore

the man who does not desire, does not transmigrate anywhere." It appears

that this is a non-sequitur. Is it not the same as saying "Since a man who

eats poison ivy will be sick, one who does not eat it will not be sick"?

There are any number of other reasons why he might be sick.

 

Regards,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2001, Dennis Waite wrote:

> Dear Gummuluru,

>

> Never too late for your input! It can only be valuable to hear what is said

> by the likes of the Br.U and Shankara's bhasyaa. I do have a couple of

> questions upon what you wrote, however: -

>

> You say it is the jiivaa and not the ego that has the desires. This is fine

> but doesn't it amount to the same thing since ego is the process by which

> aatmaa is identified with upaadhis and thus brings the jiivaa into

> existence?

>

 

namaste

 

Yes, it is the same thing because ego is part of the

jIvA. Just like the jIvA thinks through the mind, the

jIvA claims ownership of the 'I did this' statement

through the ego.

 

> You say (and quote shruuti) that there are no desires after liberation.

> Isn't this just semantics? Since there will still be praarabdha karma after

> realisation, there will still be cause and effect activities taking place.

 

 

As I understand, there is no prArabdhkarma after

realization. All may not agree with this, but I like

to put my understanding here. As mortal observers, we

see and say that shri RamaNa maharShi's body is there

because of His prArabdha karma. I do not see it that way.

That realized SELF does not have anything to do with

that body and does not care whether that body stays or

falls. It is our prArabdha karma (in a very positive way)

that we are blessed with getting teachings from that

entity. So, rather than saying it is shri RamaNa maharShi's

prArabdhakarma that the body is still there, it is our

karma and divine blessing to learn something from That.

 

> One of these might be the buying of a cream cake after seing one in a shop

> window, mightn't it? Although this is all seen from the vantagepoint of

> non-doership, eating the cake would still be enjoyed. To all intents and

> purposes, it could be called a desire (but no 'desirer')? Again, in the

> example of Ramana Maharshi going for a walk, there is no ego and the aatmaa

> has no desires, true, but if Ramana Maharshi's body-mind was of the nature

> of enjoying to go for a walk then, on a sunny day, with the body in need of

> exercise, what could be more natural in responding to the praarabdha prompt

> to go for a walk? Why *not* call it a desire as long as we understand there

> is no desirer?

>

 

The SELF does not have identification with that body.

It is we who put an identity (between that body and the SELF)

and it is we who explain that it is the remaining prArabdha

karma of the maharShi playing out. But, is it? The realized

RamaNa maharShi did not care what happened to that body.

That body was operated on without the SELF being affected

or suffering in any way, and that body went for walks without

the SELF being affected in any way. There is no desire that

can be ascribed to that entity. We say shri ramaNa is a

realized person. He realized the SELF that includes everything.

There is nothing external to It, including the walk. He is

all-inclusive. to say there is a desire to walk *outside* the

SELF on one hand and to say that He has realized the SELF

on the other hand are mutually contradictory. His desire is

the SELF which has been realized and there is nothing outside

it. Again, Br^ihadAraNyaka u. bhAShya iv.4.6 clarifies this

very nicely.

 

> You say " Since it is the man of desire who transmigrates thus, therefore

> the man who does not desire, does not transmigrate anywhere." It appears

> that this is a non-sequitur. Is it not the same as saying "Since a man who

> eats poison ivy will be sick, one who does not eat it will not be sick"?

> There are any number of other reasons why he might be sick.

>

 

Firstly, I did not say that. It is swami Madhavananda's

translation of shri shankara's bhAShya on Br. u. iv.4.6.

As I understand, shri shankara's logic is as follows:

 

a man with desire -> desire prompts karma (action or work)

-> a man with desire attached to the fruit of karma

-> man attains that fruit

-> in order to enjoy that fruit, goes into rebirth and

transmigration

i.e., a man with desire goes into trans-migration

 

a man without desire -> no desire, hence no prompting for karma

(action or work) -> hence, no fruit of the karma

(as there is no desire, even if the karma is

performed, it will be a nivr^itti karma)

-> man has no necessity to transmigrate

(transmigration only takes place so that all

the accumulated karma is expended. Once, the

karma is expended, there is no need of a new birth).

 

Other members who might have understood shri shankara's comments

on Br. u. iv.4.6 otherwise, or have a different perspective may

like to add to this comment.

 

> Regards,

>

> Dennis

>

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------