'ahankAram/mamakAram': The Burden of the self

[Guest guest]

> Dear friends,

>

> In a short poem titled "nyAsa-dasakam", which contains earnest

> prayer as well as profound philosophy, Swami Desikan begins with a

> truly memorable stanza:

>

> aham madh-rakshana-barO madh-rakshana-phalam tathA

> namama sripatEr-Eva AtmAnam nikshipEdh buDha-ha

>

> The meaning of the stanza is:

>

> "Wise ones, knowing this to be Truth, say: The burden of preserving

> my self is not mine; whatever is to be reaped by self preservation

> is never mine. It is the Lord of "Sri" alone who bears and reaps

> from the burden of my self".

>

> In two pithy lines in one gem of a stanza, Swami Desikan evokes a

> grand essay on human psychology. The stanza begins with "aham" ---

> which is Sanskrit for the English "I". The second line begins with

> "namama" which is Sanskrit for "not-mine". Between "aham" and

> "namama", between "I" and "not-mine", stretches the whole Vedantic

> subject of man's Ego and Salvation.

>

> In Vedantic philosophy the human Ego is referred to as

> "ahankAram"/"mamakAram". The SriVaishnavite doctrine of

> spiritualism called "prappati" or self-surrender is also built

> around this very important concept.

>

> ******** ********** ***********

>

> The human Ego as commonly understood by us is not the same as the

> larger sense in which Vedanta (and the doctrine of "prappati")

> deals with it.

>

> Let us see how:

>

> Without clothes a man is bodily naked. Similarly, in the day-to-day

> world, it can be said that without "ahamkAram"/"mamakAram" man

> would feel, psychologically speaking, just as naked.

>

> Just as it is said that "clothes maketh the man" in a physical

> sense (in Tamil, "aaL pAdhi, aadai pAdhi"), it can be said with

> equal validity that Ego, in a psychological sense, too maketh the

> man. For example, even if people knew nothing about a certain lady

> personally, she might yet have great social reputation thanks to

> the sort or style of clothes she is normally known to wear --

> whether shabby, showy or superb. Likewise, even if one knew nothing

> about the real character of a man, word usually gets around about

> how big or small his ego is. If he is overly submissive, timid or

> vulnerable it might be said of him, "That poor man is like a child!

> He has an undeveloped ego. He should be more self-assertive if he

> wants to get ahead in life". Conversely, it might also be said of a

> man, "That man has too big an ego. He is so autocratic and

> arrogant. If he doesn't curb his ego, he won't get far ahead in

> life".

>

> The inner self within Man is thus seen to be constantly asserting

> itself through the outward functioning of the Ego. In the ordinary

> world we see both the lack and the excess of "ahankAram/ mamakAram"

> manifested clearly in man's outward personality. We can understand

> this fact a little better if we grasp the message behind a rather

> humorous but quite profound Jewish parable of the modern times:

>

> "A man goes to a tailor to try on a new custom-made suit. The

> first thing he notices is that the arms are too long.

> "No problem," says the tailor. "Just bend them at the

> elbow

> and hold them out in front of you. See, now it's fine."

> "But the collar is up around my ears!"

> "It's nothing. Just hunch your back up a little ... no, a

> little more ... that's it."

> "But I'm stepping on my cuffs!" the man cries in

> desperation.

> "No problem, bend your knees a little to take up the slack.

> There you go. Look in the mirror -- the suit fits perfectly."

> So, twisted like a pretzel, the man lurches out onto the

> street. Reba and Florence see him go by.

> "Oh, look," says Reba, "that poor crooked man!"

> "Yes," says Florence, "but what a beautiful suit."

> -- Arthur Naiman, "Every Goy's Guide to Yiddish"

>

> Whether clothes fit well or ill, man must have his clothes.

> Likewise, whether big or small, for good or for bad, Man must have

> his Ego too!

>

> In terms of normal human psychology, we can thus say that a man's

> Ego, i.e. his "ahankAram/mamakAram", provides his inner self a

> "beautiful suit" of personality as much as a custom-made coat gives

> sartorial protection ("rakshanam") to his body. But we must

> understand that in Vedanta and in the "prappati" doctrine (and in

> the way Swami Desikan spoke of it in the "nyAsa-dasakam" above),

> Ego is dealt with in a far profounder sense.

>

> Let us examine it further.

>

> ******** ******** *********

>

> Man is naturally endowed with 5 sense-organs ("indriyas"), a unique

> faculty called Intelligence ("buddhi") and a strong, inalienable

> sense of selfhood called "ahankAram/mamakAram" -- Ego. This Ego is

> very dear to Man as it is the seat of his "survival instinct" ---

> that powerful instinct which wills him to self-preservation

> ("rakshana-bAram" or "rakshana-phalam", as Desikan calls it).

>

> When life begins to pass away from the body, the 5 senses and

> "buddhi" begin to take leave of Man. The dying man then has little

> control over their departure. They all simply fade away and the man

> who is dying is helpless about it. It is not so in the case of the

> Ego. Even in the last throes of death, man finds it extremely

> difficult and painful to give up his deep-rooted sense of self

> called "ahankAram/"mamakAram". He claws and clings to it in

> desperation since it is the last and most precious vestige of

> conciousness remaining with him before Death finally claims him.

>

> The late U.VE. Sri. Mukkur Lakshminarasimhachariar Swamy used to

> recount a parable illustrating the power of Man's

> "ahankAram/mamakAram" on a death-bed even.

>

> In a village somewhere in India a wealthy old merchant was in the

> throes of death. The old man had lived a full life. He had sired a

> dozen children, amassed wealth and lived the life of a successful

> and respected gentleman in his community. He had had no desires

> left unfulfilled. But towards the end of his days the merchant

> contracted some incurable disease. It racked his body and spirit to

> no end. Everyone around him pitied him. Soon the merchant was a

> pale ghost of his old self. His sickness made him rapidly lose zest

> in life. Even humdrum workaday living filled him with loathing

> ("virakti") for the world. He raved and ranted beseeching the gods

> to release him from earthly plight.

>

> At last the fatal day arrived. The merchant, now frail and

> comatose, was laid out on a death-bed to breathe his last. Everyone

> was relieved that the sick old soul would soon be put out of its

> misery.

>

> Now, one well-meaning relative of his, who was present at that

> time, was eager to solemnize the merchant's departure with divine

> absolution. He hoped the dying old man, filled as he was with

> utter disgust for the world and himself… "virakti…, he hoped the

> old one could be made to pass away at complete peace with himself.

> This he thought was possible if the old man were somehow enabled to

> take his thoughts away from personal misery and instead focus on

> the divine. He hoped to somehow make the dying man take the holy

> name of "Narayana" upon his lips in the terminal moments on earth.

>

> Fortunately the last child of the old merchant was a lad of 10

> years

> with the name of 'Narayana'. So the good relative took hold of the

> lad and leading him to the death-bed bade its occupant to open his

> eyes and look at the young visitor. The relative hoped the old

> merchant would do so, recognize the lad, be urged perhaps in the

> moments before demise to utter the holy name of "Narayana" and be

> lead unto the blissful consciousness of God rather than of the

> self.

>

> "Sire, O Sire!", yelled the relative into the dying man's immobile

> face, "Sire, open your eyes and look at who's come to visit you!".

>

> After a few minutes of similar coaxing, the dying merchant stirred

> and

> slowly opened his eyes. Although his faculties were rapidly

> failing, the old man seemed to recognize the dim outlines of the

> person beside him.

>

> Greatly encouraged in his efforts, the relative persevered further.

> He

> now drew the son closer to the dying man and asked again, "Sire, do

> you see who is before you? Can you recognize him? Can you name him

> please?!".

>

> The dying man, gasping for breath, once again turned his eyes on

> the lad and shook his head feebly as if to say, "Yes, I know who

> this is!".

>

> "Name him! Name him, Sire", pleaded the good relative with

> desperate

> urgency, sensing now that the end was very near. "Say it out aloud,

> this lad's name! For the sake of God, please! What is his name? Cry

> his name out, Sire, please! And say it now!".

>

> Then as everyone around watched with mute amazement, the old man

> suddenly opened his eyes wide, raised himself slowly on the bed and

> then turning to Narayana, his youngest son, clasped him to his

> bosom. They heard the old man cry out loud and clear, "Of course, I

> know who this is.! This … this is the youngest of MY one dozen

> sons"!

>

> In the very next instant they saw him slump dead!

>

> The moral of the story:

>

> Even in the terrifying moments of death what was foremost in the

> mind of the the old man was not thoughts about the Divine; it was

> possessive kinship ("ahankAram/mamakAram") which prevailed over all

> other thoughts.

>

> ********* ******* ***********

>

> Thus, "ahankAram", Vedantic psychology teaches us, not only

> influences man's behaviour and personality, but is at the very core

> of Man's being. Take away a man's sense of his self, his identity,

> and you destroy him completely... You might kill his sanity even.

>

> "mamakAram" too is no less powerful than "ahankAram". It is man's

> sense of possessiveness... It is what gives Life earthly meaning

> and purpose. If a man were never able to say, "This is my life",

> "This is my homeThis is my family", "This is my country" or even

> "This is my God, my Faith", he would find himself living in a world

> that is terrifying void and dark emptiness. If there was nothing he

> could claim as his very own in the world, existence would cease to

> have any meaning for Man.

>

> Which is precisely the reason why, even on the death-bed, a man

> resigns himself to giving up everything else in life -- wealth,

> wife, kith, even his 5 senses and the unique "buddhi" -- but he is

> never, never willing to let go of his precious Ego.

>

> Without a strong sense of "I" ("ahankAram") man would indeed never

> be able to navigate across the sea of life. We can understand how

> deeply and inalienably man is rooted within that sense of "I-ness"

> by reflecting for a moment on the way English language rules how

> the pronoun in first person singular should always be used. "It's

> odd, and a little unsettling, to reflect upon the fact that English

> is the only major language in which "I" is capitalized; in many

> other languages "You" is capitalized and the "i" is lower case". --

> Sydney J. Harris.

>

> ******* ********** ********

>

> We may now ask: If Man's Ego is such an inalienably intimate part

> of him, what does Swami Desikan mean by saying that the burden

> ("bAram") of "ahankAram/mamakAram" is "namama" -- "not-mine", but

> that of God ("sripati:")?

>

> aham madh-rakshana-barO madh-rakshana-phalam tathA

> namama sripatEr-Eva AtmAnam nikshipEdh buDha-ha

>

> The clue to understanding Desikan's statement lies in the story of

> the Mahabharata.

>

> The epic Mahabharata deals comprehensively with all matters

> discussed so far above viz. Man's ego, death, his salvation, God...

> even "clothes"! We need to only recall the incident of Draupadi's

> humiliation in the Court of Hastinapur.

>

> In the court of the royal Kauravas, Draupadi was subjected to the

> humiliation of being disrobed in public. As the villain DushAssan

> kept peeling away her clothes ("vastram") one by one, Draupadi

> appealed to her 5 husbands, the Pandava brothers, to save her. The

> husbands forsook her. Then she turned pathetically to King

> DritarAshtra for sovereign protection. The King was blind and hence

> conveniently "looked" the other way.

>

> In man's moment of death too, as life slips away much as Draupadi's

> clothes did, the departing 5 senses and "buddhi" behave in exactly

> the same way as the 5 Pandava brothers and DritarAshtra did.

> Everything and everyone begins to forsake a man in the hour of

> death.

>

> Every piece of Draupadi's clothes was removed until finally there

> was virtually nothing left she could protect herself with. Moments

> before the last stitch was ripped from her body, Draupadi realized

> her sense of personal modesty, that precious birth-right womanhood

> cherishes, that too would soon be removed. It was the moment

> Draupadi's "ahankAram/ mamakAram", her innate sense of personal

> identity too would be lost. Therefore, when Draupadi kept clinging

> on to her clothes, she was actually clinging, in a deeply

> instinctual sort of way, to preserve her sense of self -- precisely

> the 'aham' and 'mama' which Desikan alludes to in the phrase "aham

> madh-rakshana-barO ...namama...".

>

> A wise man once said, "Death is only one of the many ways of

> dying", and in the Mahabharatha, for Draupadi, the terrifying

> moment of death arrived when she was about to be stripped naked in

> full and open view of the large assembly at the royal court of

> Hastinapur -- forsaken by husbands, King, kith and kin... everyone.

> In clinging to the last shred of fabric covering her body she

> fought to preserve ("rakshanam") the last remnant of Ego -- the

> sense of "aham", "I-ness", that she believed was still her very own

> ("mamakAram").

>

> ****** ****** *******

>

> Considering all the above, Man is compelled to ask finally :

>

> # If I am not "I" ("aham"), and this self (Ego) which for long I

> had regarded to be the real me, is "not mine" at all ("namama"),

> then who or what really am I?

>

> # If "I" am not the preserver/protector of my "self" (as Draupadi

> in the Mahabharata found out), then who is to preserve/protect me

> in my ultimate hour of crisis i.e. death? If I am to be ultimately

> stripped of even my sense of "I-ness" ("ahankAram/mamakAram")--

> just as Draupadi was stripped of her "clothes" -- what else in life

> is there left for me? Nothing but Void?

>

> # If it is only God ("sripatEr-Eva", as Swami Desikan says) who

> bears the burden of preserving my "self", who is He?

>

> All these are familiar but nagging questions of eternal puzzlement

> to Man. But Draupadi, according to the Mahabharatha, found answers

> to them immediately when, in the final moments of her crisis, she

> chose to voluntarily let go off not only the last shred of fabric

> she was clutching but her Ego too. Reposing all faith in the

> Almighty, she raised her hands to the heavens and surrendered the

> burden of her self unto Him ("bAra-samarpaNam", "saraNagati", as

> per the doctrine of "prappati) :

>

> sri shanka-chakra gadhA pANe, dwArakA nilayAchyutha

> gOvinda pundareekAksha rakshamAm saraNagatam

>

> The epic narrates how Draupadi was then saved, at the nick of the

> moment, by a great miracle wrought by the avatar of Lord Krishna.

> In the climactic moment of that miracle, Draupadi came face to face

> with the presence of God and witnessed His infinite Power and

> Glory!

>

> ******** ******** ********

>

> Draupadi may well have finally found answers to the troubled

> questions of Man, "ahankAram", of death and salvation. But what

> about the fate of ordinary folks like us? Where are we to go for

> answers?

>

> The Upanishads tell us that the journey of human life is nothing if

> not an unceasing quest for answers to such questions. The answers

> shall be revealed to us no less clearly and surely than they were

> to Draupadi (or Swami Desikan) but only if we willingly subject

> ourselves to the same intense practice or experience as hers -- the

> experience of what lies beyond the 'burden of the self'. Giving up

> "ahankAram/mamakAram" -- i.e. giving up the "clothes" of our Ego as

> Draupadi did -- is a central part of all such intense practices.

> Giving up the Ego is required not only in the banal sense in which

> ordinary men and women of the world know it; "ahankAram/mamakAram"

> has to be given up in a more profound Draupadic sense too. Then,

> and only then, shall we see the miracle of "I" being "not-I",

> "mine" becoming "not-mine", "aham" becoming "namama". The Upanishad

> declared it to be so too in a famous verse:

>

> "jyOtir-jwalati brahmA~ham~asmi

> yO~ham~asmi brahmA~ham~asmi

> aham~asmi brahmA~ham~asmi

> aham-EvAham mAm juhOmi svAhA-a " II

>

> ("taittiriya mahAnArAyana upanishad")

>

> "I am of that Supreme Light! I am of that supreme Light of Brahman

> that shines as the inmost essence of all that exists. I am of the

> same infinite Brahman too even when I am experiencing myself as

> finite self due to Ignorance. Now with the onset of Knowledge I

> know I am really of that Brahman which is my true nature!"

>

> ******** ********* ********

> (concluded)

>

> Regards,

> dAsan,

>

> Sudarshan

 

 

 

 

Sign up for SBC Dial - First Month Free

http://sbc.