Nature Vs. Quality

[Guest guest]

Jaya Guru Datta,

 

Here is today's saying:

 

"No! It is not like that!! Let us consider an example. A person is

short-tempered. It is his nature. Because it is his nature, it does not leave

him. But, if he practises discrimination and realises that anger is an evil

quality - just as sage Vishwamitra performed tapas to get over anger - he may

become a calm person. Similarly, by appropriate practise, the Atma might lose

its nature of doership and might acquire the nature of non-doership. Is this not

what Vedanta also says?

 

Answer. In the above example, confusion has set in because the word Swabhava

(nature) has been understood as Swaguna (own quality). When we say that a person

is short tempered, it only conveys the attribute (quality) of that person and

not the nature of his Atma. When we say 'I am the doer', the word doer does not

represent a quality. It means that the Atma is the doer. If it is not so, the

example in the above question displays certain inconsistency. If anger were to

be considered as the nature of a person, it would mean that the person will be

angry for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. This is not the case. It may be that

the person becomes angry very easily. There will indeed be times when the person

is calm. If the same analogy were to be applied to the doership of Atma, it

would mean that the Atma behaves as Karta (doer) at certain times and as Akarta

(non-doer) at other times. Accepting this would prove the earlier premise - that

the Atma is devoid of modifications - to b

e false. This is not possible. Therefore the Atma should be either a Karta all

the time or an Akarta all the time."

 

Sri Swamiji

Lessons in Vedanta - 35 part IV

Bhakti Mala, November 1998

 

Sri Guru Datta,

Swamiji Says

 

 

 

___________

Get 25MB, POP3, Spam Filtering with LYCOS MAIL PLUS for $19.95/year.

http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus&ref=lmtplus