Advaita for the Novice - Who is the doer-experiencer? - 1

[Guest guest]

Namaste all.

 

Series on Advaita for the Novice

 

"I am neither the Doer nor the Experiencer" - 1

 

Posing the Problem

 

[Note: A reference, say, to Ch.2, Shloka 7 of the Bhagavad-Gita would simply

be given as "(2 - 7)" without mentioning the Bhagavad-Gita]

 

 

"Arjuna, if through your egoism you think you will not fight, this

resolution of yours will be thwarted. Your nature will make you fight. Never

be carried away by the transient ups and downs of everyday life. Who are

you? You are not the author of any action. God in the heart of man is

running this world as if mounted on a machine. These warriors have died long

ago, they will die even if unslain by you. You are just an instrument in the

unseen hands of God. You have right only to action, do not hanker for the

fruit of it. Do not become inactive leaving your work.

 

"Ego is the enemy at the root of all our actions and thoughts. The thought

that `I am the doer' is the Ego. The wise man knows he is not the doer. Nor

is he the experiencer. Perform your actions with detachment, by transferring

your doership to the divine. Perform actions only to purify your mind.

Perfection and purification of mind is a subjective action. Subjective

results are not taboo; only objective results are. It is not the experience

of events that gives us joy or sorrow; the joys and sorrows are already

determined by us by the attitude we keep in doing the action.

 

"The so-called Renunciation (sannyAsa) is not renunciation of work. Action

in yoga is renunciation. Therefore poised in yoga, renouncing any addiction

to whatever that pertains to your body or mind, making failure and success

as one, fight without attachment. Surrender your will to me, become my

devotee, you are dear to me. Avowing the truth, I tell you, you will reach

me. Leaving all the doership of dharmas take refuge in me. I shall release

you from all sins and bondage; do not grieve".

 

This is the bottomline message of Krishna in his teaching of the Gita to

Arjuna. In all this the most difficult to understand and to abide by is the

statement "You are not the doer, nor are you the experiencer". This happens

to be the main concept in the practical operation of Vedanta of non-duality.

So we shall go about elaborating it from scratch.

 

The philosophy of non-duality uses several concepts of Vedanta. In order to

understand its full import, one has certainly to get a deep comprehension of

many basic technical concepts like Atman (the Self as an immanent

principle), Brahman (the Self as a transcendent principle), mAyA (the

confounding factor of all Life), PrakRti (the Nature of everything), NirguNa

(that which carries no attributes), adhyAsa (superimposition), etc. While

the significance of these concepts is profound, the ordinary words like

Karma (meaning 'action') and Bhakti (meaning 'devotion') are more

fundamental not only in Vedanta but in the general understanding of

spiritual behaviour that goes with what is known as Hinduism. The

fundamental import of these two ordinary words get added significance - nay,

added complication - in the theory of advaita. Because Karma and Bhakti

impinge on the daily living routine of individuals and because of the fact

they both involve the concept of action itself, the questions implicit in

the title become indispensable in any explanation of advaita. The purpose

of this project is to discuss these questions from the point of view of

advaita and attempt to go through the complications that may naturally

arise.

 

Torn of all jargon, the question raised is the following. If the innermost

reality of each individual is the supreme spiritual reality - which is what

is claimed by advaita - then what prompts us to think and what motivates us

to act must be this spiritual reality, namely, the Self. If that is so,

then all our bad thoughts and actions have to be traced to this source. And

there arises what seems to be a contradiction. How can the Self, which is

equated to Godhead, be attributed with anything that is bad or imperfect?

On the other hand, if the Self is not the motivator of our bad thoughts and

actions then who is responsible for them?

 

So, who is the doer (kartA)? The characteristic statement that occurs very

early (3 - 27) in the Gita says: It is (only) the person deluded by his

ego, who thinks he is the 'doer'. So to think that oneself is the doer of

one's actions (or for that matter, the thinker of one's thoughts) is wrong

according to the Gita.

 

But this raises a contradiction in another way. If oneself is not the doer

of one's actions, and not the thinker of one's thoughts, then why should one

be 'punished', or considered responsible, for one's actions or thoughts -

which is what is purported to be the central thread in all concepts of

merit and demerit, religious or otherwise?

 

Normally, in world parlance, in our everyday life we do many things and also

experience much more, physically as well as mentally. When we say "I do it"

or "I did it" or when we say "I have had such and such an experience" we

have no doubt at all about whom we are referring to. It is the personality

which we claim by the pronoun 'I'. But Vedanta comes in and interjects to

tell us to inquire into whom this "I" refers to. From Yajnavalkya, the

Sage of the Upanishads, through Shankara, the Guru of yore, down to Ramana,

the Master, of modern times, all of them make a distinction between the

personality claimed by the use of the pronoun "I" and what they designate as

"the real I" .

 

It does not require great wisdom to accept that the entity claimed by the

common use of the pronoun "I" is a temporary one; for, one day, that entity

is bound to disappear. The question then is: Is there any remnant of that

"I" except the ashes? Religions generally talk of the soul as the remnant

of that personality of "I". Advaita philosophy refines that and provides a

unique answer to the question.

 

Advaita says the answer can be obtained by Guru's Grace if one starts

enquiring into common statements about one's own behaviour, some of which

are :

 

1. Somebody pinched me and I felt the pain.

2. I had a sumptuous meal and I am happy now.

3. I dreamt I was in a palace, enjoying all the luxuries of life.

4. I was angry then, but I controlled my anger.

5. My mind is restless because of a sad occurrence.

6. I was thinking of something else; I was not aware of your presence.

 

In #1, the ' I' refers to the body, though we don't specifically say so.

In #2, the first ' I' refers to the body and the second ' I' refers to the

mind.

In #3, the first ' I' refers to the mind and the second ' I' is a

fictitious ' I' - we know it is so, but we don't specifically say it is

fictitious. But we do recognise this fact, because very often when one

describes a dream one uses words like "I dreamt as if I was in a palace,

..". The words 'as if' mean that the subject of experience in the dream is

fictitious.

In #4, the first ' I' refers to the mind and the second ' I' refers to the

intellect.

In #5, it is the mind that is specifically referred; the point to note here

is that the mind has been influenced by a totally external factor, namely,

the sad occurrence.

In #6, the first ' I' refers to the mind and the second ' I' refers to the

conglomeration of the mind and the senses.

 

The reader can himself think of many more examples. Thus all the time,

without our knowing it, we are identifying 'I' with our body, mind, senses

or the intellect. (We shall use hereafter the now-standard abbreviation

'BMI' for the conglomeration of body, mind, senses and intellect). Advaita

Vedanta asks us to ponder over certain questions in respect of this

identification of ourselves :

What do we mean by 'We are identifying ourselves with ..'?

What would it mean not to so identify?

What would be the consequence if we do not identify ourselves with BMI?

Who is the 'We' here in these questions? Who is supposed not to identify?

 

We shall take these up in the next post. We shall see therein how to

distinguish between what witnesses all our thoughts and actions and what

actually thinks and acts and there we shall tie all this up with the concept

of 'adhyAsa' (superimposition) with which our education in advaita for the

novice rightly began.

(To be continued)

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

 

 

For almost everything you wanted to know about the basics of Hindu

philosophy, go to

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

For an English translation of Kanchi Mahaswamigal's Discourses on Advaita

Sadhana go to

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/VK2/Advaita_Saadhanaa.html

[Guest guest]

Namaste ProfVK,

 

Please accept my humble praNAms.

 

>It does not require great wisdom to accept that the entity claimed by

>the common use of the pronoun "I" is a temporary one; for, one day,

>that entity is bound to disappear. The question then is: Is there any

>remnant of that "I" except the ashes? Religions generally talk of the

>soul as the remnant of that personality of "I". Advaita philosophy

>refines that and provides a unique answer to the question.

 

 

Instead of reducing a jIva to non-existence why can't it be construed

that a realised jIva who renounces and burns himself into ashes (yagnya

shista) and thus exist as a bhOgya vastu or a decoration for Brahman?

 

Your humble servant,

Suresh

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "sureshsmr" <sureshsmr wrote:

>

> Namaste ProfVK,

>

> Please accept my humble praNAms.

>

> >It does not require great wisdom to accept that the entity claimed

by

> >the common use of the pronoun "I" is a temporary one; for, one

day,

> >that entity is bound to disappear. The question then is: Is there

any

> >remnant of that "I" except the ashes? Religions generally talk of

the

> >soul as the remnant of that personality of "I". Advaita philosophy

> >refines that and provides a unique answer to the question.

>

>

> Instead of reducing a jIva to non-existence why can't it be

construed

> that a realised jIva who renounces and burns himself into ashes

(yagnya

> shista) and thus exist as a bhOgya vastu or a decoration for

Brahman?

>

> Your humble servant,

> Suresh

>

Namaste Suresh-ji

 

I think the relevant paragraph of mine has not been successful in

making the right communication. "The entity claimed by

the common use of the pronoun 'I' " is not the JIva; it is the BMI

and we all know the BMI disappears in due time. So I don't

understand what you mean by your above comment. Can you elaborate

your comment?

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

> It does not require great wisdom to accept that the entity claimed by

the

> common use of the pronoun "I" is a temporary one; for, one day, that

entity

> is bound to disappear. The question then is: Is there any remnant of

that

> "I" except the ashes? Religions generally talk of the soul as the

remnant

> of that personality of "I". Advaita philosophy refines that and

provides a

> unique answer to the question.

>

 

 

Respected Sir, If you deem it relevant, kindly discuss the relevance of

the following Gita verse to the discussion :

 

Gita 2:12

 

"There was never a time that I did not exist, nor you nor these kings.

Nor will any of us cease to exist in the future."

 

Pujya Swami Dayananda says that Acharya Sankara makes an important

observation that plural has been used with respect to bodies and not

atman. There is only atman. This seems to a bit contentious if you take

the verse literally.

 

with best regards,

 

OM Namah Sivaya

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreeniva Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk

wrote:

Dear Readers,

The question is a valid one if there is a second conscious

entity (samsAri) besides Atman/ Brahman. Upanishads proclaim that

other than Atman/Brahman there is no other second conscious entity

[kindly refer to Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Mantras 3-8-11 and 3-7-23].

Sri Shankara in his commentaries has declared the same fact in so

many places.Will it not be better if the question is examined in the

light of the above Mantras and Sri Shankara's commentary? If

permission is given I will provide the relevant portions of

Sri Shankara's commentaries.

I request the revered Professor to give a thought

to this point.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

 

>

> Namaste all.

>

> Series on Advaita for the Novice

>

> "I am neither the Doer nor the Experiencer" - 1

>

> Posing the Problem

>

> [Note: A reference, say, to Ch.2, Shloka 7 of the Bhagavad-Gita

would simply

> be given as "(2 - 7)" without mentioning the Bhagavad-Gita]

>

>

> "Arjuna, if through your egoism you think you will not fight, this

> resolution of yours will be thwarted. Your nature will make you

fight. Never

> be carried away by the transient ups and downs of everyday life.

Who are

> you? You are not the author of any action. God in the heart of man

is

> running this world as if mounted on a machine. These warriors have

died long

> ago, they will die even if unslain by you. You are just an

instrument in the

> unseen hands of God. You have right only to action, do not hanker

for the

> fruit of it. Do not become inactive leaving your work.

>

> "Ego is the enemy at the root of all our actions and thoughts. The

thought

> that `I am the doer' is the Ego. The wise man knows he is not the

doer. Nor

> is he the experiencer. Perform your actions with detachment, by

transferring

> your doership to the divine. Perform actions only to purify your

mind.

> Perfection and purification of mind is a subjective action.

Subjective

> results are not taboo; only objective results are. It is not the

experience

> of events that gives us joy or sorrow; the joys and sorrows are

already

> determined by us by the attitude we keep in doing the action.

>

> "The so-called Renunciation (sannyAsa) is not renunciation of work.

Action

> in yoga is renunciation. Therefore poised in yoga, renouncing any

addiction

> to whatever that pertains to your body or mind, making failure and

success

> as one, fight without attachment. Surrender your will to me, become

my

> devotee, you are dear to me. Avowing the truth, I tell you, you

will reach

> me. Leaving all the doership of dharmas take refuge in me. I shall

release

> you from all sins and bondage; do not grieve".

>

> This is the bottomline message of Krishna in his teaching of the

Gita to

> Arjuna. In all this the most difficult to understand and to abide

by is the

> statement "You are not the doer, nor are you the experiencer". This

happens

> to be the main concept in the practical operation of Vedanta of non-

duality.

> So we shall go about elaborating it from scratch.

>

> The philosophy of non-duality uses several concepts of Vedanta. In

order to

> understand its full import, one has certainly to get a deep

comprehension of

> many basic technical concepts like Atman (the Self as an immanent

> principle), Brahman (the Self as a transcendent principle), mAyA

(the

> confounding factor of all Life), PrakRti (the Nature of

everything), NirguNa

> (that which carries no attributes), adhyAsa (superimposition),

etc. While

> the significance of these concepts is profound, the ordinary words

like

> Karma (meaning 'action') and Bhakti (meaning 'devotion') are more

> fundamental not only in Vedanta but in the general understanding of

> spiritual behaviour that goes with what is known as Hinduism. The

> fundamental import of these two ordinary words get added

significance - nay,

> added complication - in the theory of advaita. Because Karma and

Bhakti

> impinge on the daily living routine of individuals and because of

the fact

> they both involve the concept of action itself, the questions

implicit in

> the title become indispensable in any explanation of advaita. The

purpose

> of this project is to discuss these questions from the point of

view of

> advaita and attempt to go through the complications that may

naturally

> arise.

>

> Torn of all jargon, the question raised is the following. If the

innermost

> reality of each individual is the supreme spiritual reality - which

is what

> is claimed by advaita - then what prompts us to think and what

motivates us

> to act must be this spiritual reality, namely, the Self. If that

is so,

> then all our bad thoughts and actions have to be traced to this

source. And

> there arises what seems to be a contradiction. How can the Self,

which is

> equated to Godhead, be attributed with anything that is bad or

imperfect?

> On the other hand, if the Self is not the motivator of our bad

thoughts and

> actions then who is responsible for them?

>

> So, who is the doer (kartA)? The characteristic statement that

occurs very

> early (3 - 27) in the Gita says: It is (only) the person deluded

by his

> ego, who thinks he is the 'doer'. So to think that oneself is the

doer of

> one's actions (or for that matter, the thinker of one's thoughts)

is wrong

> according to the Gita.

>

> But this raises a contradiction in another way. If oneself is not

the doer

> of one's actions, and not the thinker of one's thoughts, then why

should one

> be 'punished', or considered responsible, for one's actions or

thoughts -

> which is what is purported to be the central thread in all

concepts of

> merit and demerit, religious or otherwise?

>

> Normally, in world parlance, in our everyday life we do many things

and also

> experience much more, physically as well as mentally. When we

say "I do it"

> or "I did it" or when we say "I have had such and such an

experience" we

> have no doubt at all about whom we are referring to. It is the

personality

> which we claim by the pronoun 'I'. But Vedanta comes in and

interjects to

> tell us to inquire into whom this "I" refers to. From

Yajnavalkya, the

> Sage of the Upanishads, through Shankara, the Guru of yore, down to

Ramana,

> the Master, of modern times, all of them make a distinction

between the

> personality claimed by the use of the pronoun "I" and what they

designate as

> "the real I" .

>

> It does not require great wisdom to accept that the entity claimed

by the

> common use of the pronoun "I" is a temporary one; for, one day,

that entity

> is bound to disappear. The question then is: Is there any remnant

of that

> "I" except the ashes? Religions generally talk of the soul as the

remnant

> of that personality of "I". Advaita philosophy refines that and

provides a

> unique answer to the question.

>

> Advaita says the answer can be obtained by Guru's Grace if one

starts

> enquiring into common statements about one's own behaviour, some of

which

> are :

>

> 1. Somebody pinched me and I felt the pain.

> 2. I had a sumptuous meal and I am happy now.

> 3. I dreamt I was in a palace, enjoying all the luxuries of

life.

> 4. I was angry then, but I controlled my anger.

> 5. My mind is restless because of a sad occurrence.

> 6. I was thinking of something else; I was not aware of your

presence.

>

> In #1, the ' I' refers to the body, though we don't specifically

say so.

> In #2, the first ' I' refers to the body and the second ' I' refers

to the

> mind.

> In #3, the first ' I' refers to the mind and the second ' I' is a

> fictitious ' I' - we know it is so, but we don't specifically say

it is

> fictitious. But we do recognise this fact, because very often when

one

> describes a dream one uses words like "I dreamt as if I was in a

palace,

> .". The words 'as if' mean that the subject of experience in the

dream is

> fictitious.

> In #4, the first ' I' refers to the mind and the second ' I' refers

to the

> intellect.

> In #5, it is the mind that is specifically referred; the point to

note here

> is that the mind has been influenced by a totally external factor,

namely,

> the sad occurrence.

> In #6, the first ' I' refers to the mind and the second ' I'

refers to the

> conglomeration of the mind and the senses.

>

> The reader can himself think of many more examples. Thus all the

time,

> without our knowing it, we are identifying 'I' with our body, mind,

senses

> or the intellect. (We shall use hereafter the now-standard

abbreviation

> 'BMI' for the conglomeration of body, mind, senses and intellect).

Advaita

> Vedanta asks us to ponder over certain questions in respect of this

> identification of ourselves :

> What do we mean by 'We are identifying ourselves with ..'?

> What would it mean not to so identify?

> What would be the consequence if we do not identify ourselves with

BMI?

> Who is the 'We' here in these questions? Who is supposed not to

identify?

>

> We shall take these up in the next post. We shall see therein how to

> distinguish between what witnesses all our thoughts and actions and

what

> actually thinks and acts and there we shall tie all this up with

the concept

> of 'adhyAsa' (superimposition) with which our education in advaita

for the

> novice rightly began.

> (To be continued)

>

> PraNAms to all advaitins.

> profvk

>

>

> For almost everything you wanted to know about the basics of Hindu

> philosophy, go to

> http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

> For an English translation of Kanchi Mahaswamigal's Discourses on

Advaita

> Sadhana go to

> http://www.geocities.com/profvk/VK2/Advaita_Saadhanaa.html

>

[Guest guest]

narayana145 <narayana145 (AT) (DOT) co.in> wrote: H.N.Sreeniva Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk

wrote:

Dear Readers,

The question is a valid one if there is a second conscious

entity (samsAri) besides Atman/ Brahman. Upanishads proclaim that

other than Atman/Brahman there is no other second conscious entity

[kindly refer to Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Mantras 3-8-11 and 3-7-23].

Sri Shankara in his commentaries has declared the same fact in so

many places.Will it not be better if the question is examined in the

light of the above Mantras and Sri Shankara's commentary? If

permission is given I will provide the relevant portions of

Sri Shankara's commentaries.

I request the revered Professor to give a thought

to this point.

 

 

Dear Sir,

The non-existence of anything besides one's innermost Self- Is this not the basic position of Advaita, one's unformulated intuition too being this? Is it necessary to quote Sankara? It is only the clever game of the intellect to posit something and prove its reality. As Bhaghavan says one should doubt the doubter, not to arrive at the supremacy of the unreal, as Descartes did or should have been misunderstood by his inadequate language. The atman does not experience anything, which is only the deceit of the ego.

 

with respectful regards

Sankarraman

 

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate

in the Answers Food & Drink Q&A.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "narayana145" <narayana145

wrote:

>

> H.N.Sreeniva Murthy

> Pranams to all.

>

> advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk@>

> wrote:

> Dear Readers,

>

> The question is a valid one if there is a second conscious

> entity (samsAri) besides Atman/ Brahman. Upanishads proclaim that

> other than Atman/Brahman there is no other second conscious entity

> [kindly refer to Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Mantras 3-8-11 and 3-7-

23].

> Sri Shankara in his commentaries has declared the same fact in so

> many places.Will it not be better if the question is examined in

the

> light of the above Mantras and Sri Shankara's commentary? If

> permission is given I will provide the relevant portions of

> Sri Shankara's commentaries.

 

 

Namaste Srinivasamurthy-ji

 

Please go ahead; you are welcome to do so.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk