The 'I' and the 'i'

[Guest guest]

SELF-WILL<br><br> It has been said that there is

of nothing so much in hell as of <br>self-will. For

hell is nothing but self-will, and if there were no

<br>self-will there would be no Devil and no hell.... And when

we say <br>self-will, we mean: To will otherwise

than as the One and Eternal <br>Will of God wills.

<br><br> Theologia Germanica

[Guest guest]

Several years ago when I was on my

knowledge-gaining phase I used to open a holy text at random to get

my focus for the day. One day I got a stanza from

one of the Upanishads (a series of spiritual texts;

word means ‘that which should be learnt by sitting

near a guru’) which said, ‘those who follow ONLY the

path of knowledge are no better than those who follow

no path at all’. Obviously, given the stage of my

journey I didn’t like hearing that. <br><br>A Swamiji

member of our club, while discussing secrecy in

spiritual texts, made a comment that the advaitic

(non-duality) teachings of Upanishad were also ‘‘dangerous”. He

said, it could be very dangerous for man to say, “I am

God” and miss the true meaning of that statement.

<br><br>A respected member here said “Hindus are different

though. You would be hard pressed to find anyone

elsewhere with the audacity to claim that they are God and

yet be involved in such pedantry”. (our club post

898).<br><br>Dialogue including questions, debates etc helps me clarify

my own understanding of the Truth. While we can get

caught in semantics, unfortunately words and language is

all we have to explain to others and ourselves. Till

a time comes when we are beyond words, because

Truth in its finest glory cannot be described in words.

<br><br>cont'd ....

[Guest guest]

I feel one of the causes of confusion lies in the

use of the pronoun “I”. When Krishna, Christ Buddha,

or other Masters use the term “I”, do they mean the

same as when I say “I”? “i am going home” we say in

describing our spiritual journey. Who is the I who is going?

What is home?<br><br>To eliminate one of the seeds of

confusion I like to distinguish between the “I” and the

“i”.<br><br>“I” = The Divine intelligence, of which we are part

of; as a musical note is part of a symphony, or a

wave is part of the ocean.<br>“i”= the musical note,

the wave, the ego which incarnates again and again

due to one’s karmic package, made up samskaras and

vasanas (attitudes, temperaments and desires).<br><br>The

‘i’ has to work through its tools ..intellect, mind,

body, senses etc. It has to learn, do, see, think and

talk to survive. Kriyas (actions). However, it has a

choice as to what and how it does, sees, says, and

thinks. <br><br>The ‘i’ is held accountable for its

actions, all its ‘doings’. The choices ‘i’ makes, leads to

the accumulation of karma (good or ignorant)

according to the law of cause and effect .. a simple

natural law, which operates dispassionately. <br><br>Even

if one accumulates good karma, one has to incarnate

as long as one has the desires left, however ‘good’

they may be. <br><br>The only way to break out of this

cycle is for the ‘i’ to act WITHOUT any attachment to

the fruits of its action, EVEN to the acts of

meditation and/or other spiritual practice. One therefore

has to use the tools of the ego, to break out of the

cycle of ego induced rebirths.<br><br>The state of ‘i’

ness is maintained through ignorance about our True

Self, and all paths helps us merges back to the ‘I’. i

merges into the I. As long as we remember the 'I', we

can use the tools of the 'i' to move towards our

ultimate goal.<br><br>The ‘I’ has no such need. It is

knowledge itself. It does not do anything. It just IS.

<br><br>This is not to deny that ultimately we all get to go

‘home’. Some day or the other, rougues and saints alike.

The difference is how long we are consciously willing

to take.<br><br>Tat twam asi<br>UMA