karma yoga and the sense of doership

[Guest guest]

Dear Profvkji and Ramji,

 

Thank you for your replies. This seems to be an important topic, of

great practical importance.

 

From my understanding, karma-yoga consists of performing one's duty

without attachment for the fruits of one's actions. Establishment in

karma-yoga purifies the mind and prepares the sAdhaka for being

established in jnAna-yoga. In jnAna-yoga, the sAdhaka identifies with

the Self and so necessarily gives up the sense of doership.

 

As far as I know, Shankara always seems to point out that jnAna-yoga

and karma-yoga can never be simultaneously practiced by the same

person precisely because the former requires the renunciation of the

sense of doership, whereas the later requires a sense of doership. For

instance, even in the verse kAyena manasA vAca... (5.11) (which seems

like a very good candidate for a verse talking about renouncing the

sense of doership) Sri Shankaracharya does not not interpret it in

this way. He explains that the Yogi performs actions without mamatva

(mineness) with the attitude: " I act only for Ishvara, not for gaining

the fruits of actions for myself. " Here the sense of doership is

present (karomi, " I do " ) but the action is devoid of attachment.

 

Even in the second chapter, which profvkji brings our attention to,

Sri Krishna points out the need for renunciation of doership only in

the section dealing with jnAna-yoga (verse 11-30) and not in the

section dealing with karma-yoga, where he points out the need for non-

attachment and for equanimity.

 

I think this is also part of the reason why jnAna-yoga is harder to

abide in than karma yoga (5.6). Renunciation of doership implies non-

attachment, but non-attachment doesn't neccesarily imply renunciation

of doership (I think for this reason, this is not a chicken and egg

situation). Instead of directly renouncing doership it is easier to

first renounce attachment to karma-phala and when attachment has been

seriously weakened, the renunciation of doership takes place with

great ease.

 

I am looking forward to participating further in the Gita Satsang,

thank you (Ramji) for restarting it!

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

Namaste dear Rishiji:

 

Thanks for sharing your insights on this discussion. I agree with you

have stated with respect to the distinguishing differences

between " detachment " and " non-doership. " Since different seekers

possess different beliefs and understanding, they make their choices

accordingly. Though all seekers have the same ultimate goal of

liberation (Self-realization)their means of achieving these goals are

likely influenced by their beliefs and understanding. This may

partly explain why Gitacharya provides various starting points such

as karma, bhakti and jnanan yogas to suit individual preferences.

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin , " risrajlam " <rishi.lamichhane

wrote:

>

> Dear Profvkji and Ramji,

>

> Thank you for your replies. This seems to be an important topic, of

> great practical importance.

>

> From my understanding, karma-yoga consists of performing one's duty

> without attachment for the fruits of one's actions. Establishment

in

[Guest guest]

--- On Mon, 8/25/08, Ram Chandran <ramvchandran wrote:

Since different seekers

possess different beliefs and understanding, they make their choices

accordingly. Though all seekers have the same ultimate goal of

liberation (Self-realization) their means of achieving these goals are

likely influenced by their beliefs and understanding. This may

partly explain why Gitacharya provides various starting points such

as karma, bhakti and jnanan yogas to suit individual preferences.

---------

PraNAms to all

 

If I can interject; according to Advaita

 

Moksha is by jnaana only

 

By karma yoga, one gets jnaana-yoga-yogyata - that is qualification (four-fold

qualifications) required for jnaana.

 

Bhakti is bottom line for both - during karma yoga there is Iswaraarpita buddhi

and prasaada buddhi involved - offering all actions to the Lord as kaikaryam and

accepting the results that come as prasaada of the Lord. That way mind becomes

non-reactive to the demands for action and results that come.

 

Jnaana involves - in term so moksha - jiiva brahma aikyatva bodha - a teaching

involving oneness of jiiva with Brahman - that is mahaavaakya bodha.

 

In the 11th chapter during the viswaruupa darshaNa as long as Arjuna was seeing

oneness of the totality where the seer is part of the seen too, he was enjoying

the show. In that viswaruupa darshaNa there is no more of his ego crystallized.

 

But once ego came back - the fear of the rest arose and he requested Krishna to

withdraw the viswaruupa since he was afraid.

 

The question that posed in 12th Ch. therefore involves separateness of jiiva

from Iswara - hence how should 'I " have to meditate on 'you' the totality.

 

Dattaatreya in Avadhuuta Giita says -

 

aham dhyaata param dhyeyam akhanDam khanDate katham? -

 

As Arjuna says which is better to meditate on - the formless one or form full

one? The very question is questioned by Dattaatreya - how can you divide that

which is indivisible - the meditator and meditated.

Of course Krishna will say as long as you think you are embodied, then better to

meditate on form full one.

 

On the Karma yoga, I have written series that is stored in the file section and

also wrote on transition from karma to jnaana, the change in the attitude

required to shift form karma yoga to jnaana yoga - for those who are interested.

I do not have the references with me.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste all.(Rishi-ji & others)

 

Just because jnAna-karma samuccaya is not Sankara's teaching, it does

not mean that karma-yoga can ignore the advaitic fundamentals of

jnAna-yoga. Those who have read the advaita sAdhanA lectures of

Kanchi Mahaswamigal will perhaps understand this better.

 

Karma-yoga is not contained only in shloka 47 of chapter II. Its

ramifications proceed in the third, fourth and fifth chapters and

finally getting summed up in the 18th chapter also. Shlokas 56, 57

of the 18th chapter sum up the karma-yoga aspect finally. Both here

and everywhere else the idea of non-doership is emphasized. Without

the sense of non-doership the fruits of the karmas will not only

accrue to the doer, but the doer has no more the privilege of saying

that 'I will not have to experience the fruits'. The attitude

of 'nAham kartA,, nAham bhoktA' is as much the maxim for a karma-yogi

as is generally thought of as a maxim for a jnAna yogi. The latter

does it because it is his nature to do so and the karma-yogi follows

it because the Lord tells him to do so. The movement from the karma-

yogi stage to the jnAna-yogi stage is what is recommended as the

major lesson of the Gita. 99.99 percent of us belong to the *karma-

yogeNa yoginAM* section of the population rather than the *jnAna-

yogena sAnkhyAnAM* section of the population. This does not mean

that the Actionlessness (naishhkarmya-siddhi) concept about which so

much is talked about in the Gita does not apply as the goal for a

karma-yogiN.

 

Please read the Actionlessness chapter in the book " Live Happily

the Gita Way " , also available on my website.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

PranAms Respected Prof-ji

 

May I very humbly offer here that what Shri Rishi-ji is suggesting is indeed fully correct.

 

Prasada-buddhi and Ishwara-arpana buddhi are stages in a spiritual aspirants inner development which are both decidedly different and, on a lower scale, than the much more difficult stage of non-doership of a jijnAsu/jnAni.

 

I have elaborated on this to a limited extent in a prior post:

 

http://poornamadam.blogspot.com/2007/09/ch12karmayoga-response-to-query.html

 

If there is no doer-ship there is no question of any phalam, let alone dedication of the latter to Ishwara, etc.

naiShkarmyasiddhi 1.52 describes this stepwise progression :

nityakarmAnuShThAnAt dharma utpattiHdharma utpatteH pApa hAniHtataH citta SuddhiHtatah saMsArayAthAtmi AvabodhaHtataH vairAgyaMtataH mumuxatvaMtataH tat upAya paryeShaNamtataH sarva karma tat sAdhana sannyAsaHtataH yogAbhyAsaHtataH cittasya pratyag pravaNatAtataH `tat tvam asi' Adi vAkyArtha parijnAnamtataH avidyA ucchedaHtataH cha svAtmani eva avasthAnam

The performance of nityakarma yields dharma, dharma destroys pApa (duritAkshayam), this alone leads to chittashuddhi, then the understanding of (the nature of) saMsAra, thereby accrues vairAgya, and consequently mumuxatvaM, naturally then, the yearning for the means (of liberation), only then the renunciation of karma through sannyAsa, then *yogAbhyAsa*, then concentration of the citta (nidhidhyAsana), then the firm understanding of the mahAvAkya 'tat tvam asi', leading to the destruction of avidyA, and being established in the Self alone.

 

My humble pranAms

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Hari OM

Shyam

 

 

--- On Mon, 8/25/08, V. Krishnamurthy <profvk wrote:

V. Krishnamurthy <profvk Re: karma yoga and the sense of doershipadvaitin Date: Monday, August 25, 2008, 12:58 PM

 

 

Namaste all.(Rishi-ji & others)Just because jnAna-karma samuccaya is not Sankara's teaching, it does not mean that karma-yoga can ignore the advaitic fundamentals of jnAna-yoga. Those who have read the advaita sAdhanA lectures of Kanchi Mahaswamigal will perhaps understand this better.

 

 

 

Recent Activity

 

 

6

New MembersVisit Your Group

 

 

Finance

It's Now Personal

Guides, news,

advice & more.

 

Everyday Wellness

on

Find groups that will

help you stay fit.

 

Weight Loss Group

on

Get support and

make friends online.

..

[Guest guest]

Dear Profvkji,

 

I think here in order to avoid just stating our opinions repeatedly,

it is best if we can refer to the text and the commentary precisely.

If non-doership is an important part of karma yoga, then surely it

should not be difficult to find evidence of this from the text or the

commentary.

 

Also, please note that I did not come up with this position on my own

(I wouldn't be stating it with as much confidence if I did) but I have

been explained this and I have read this in what I consider reliable

commentaries.

 

I certainly agree that the gItA talks about karma yoga repeatedly and

not only in that section of chapter 2. What I meant was that in the

section of chapter 2 that dealt with karma-yoga, I have not found any

mention of renouncing doership as part of the discipline itself,

whereas such an emphasis is clear in the part of the chapter dealing

with jnAna-yoga.

 

You mention verses 56 and 57 of chapter 18. I agree that these verses

refer to karma yoga, but I do not see anything about renouncing the

sense of doership here. In the bhAshya also, it says that actions are

to be offered to Ishvara, but as in the bhAShya quote I gave in the

last message, this is very much compatible (or perhaps, only possible)

when there is a sense of doership.

 

" Without the sense of non-doership the fruits of the karmas will not

only accrue to the doer, but the doer has no more the privilege of

saying that 'I will not have to experience the fruits'. "

 

I agree and the karma yogi does experience the fruits. However,

whereas people with attachment and aversion get elated when

experiencing pleasant fruits and depressed when experiencing

unpleasant fruits, the karma yogi experiences both the pleasant and

unpleasant with equanimity.

 

" This does not mean that the Actionlessness (naishhkarmya-siddhi)

concept about which so much is talked about in the Gita does not apply

as the goal for a karma-yogiN. "

 

I think it definitely does apply as a goal, but it is not a part (or

at least not a crucial part) of the sAdhanA of someone who is not yet

an adhikAri for jnAna-yoga-niShTha. I think there is great merit in

stressing the essential aspect of a sAdhanA and distinguishing it from

the non-essentials so that one understands what one should give most

importance to in one's sAdhanA - this is why I stress this point so

much, even while knowing that renunciation of doership is certainly a

very good thing.

 

Please forgive me if my message has been too forceful, I do not mean

it to come out that way.

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>  

> Prasada-buddhi and Ishwara-arpana buddhi are stages in a spiritual

aspirants inner development which are both decidedly different and,

on a lower scale, than the much more difficult stage of non-doership

of a jijnAsu/jnAni.

>  

> I have elaborated on this to a limited extent in a prior post:

>  

> http://poornamadam.blogspot.com/2007/09/ch12karmayoga-response-to-

query.html

>  

> If there is no doer-ship there is no question of any phalam, let

alone dedication of the latter to Ishwara, etc.

>  

> My humble pranAms

> Shri Gurubhyoh namah

> Hari OM

> Shyam

 

Dear Shri Shyam,

You are absolutely correct. There is the sense of doership at the

stage of performance of karma yoga.

Gita, 3.30- Here it is said in the bhAshya: " Engage in battle by

dedicating all actions to Me who am vAsudeva, with your mind intent

on the Self, with discriminating wisdom, with the idea `I am an

agent (aham kartA), and I work for God as a servant' " .

Here it is clearly stated that the person has doership.

Gita, 5.10- bhAshya- One who is ignorant of the Truth and is engaged

in karma yoga acts, by dedicating all actions to God, with the

idea, `I am working for Him, as a servant does everything for his

master (karomi iti bhRitya iva svAmyartham) and by renouncing

attachment even with regard to the resulting liberation.

Here also it is clear that there is the sense of agency.

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

Namaste all.

 

Shastri-ji and Shyam-ji have explained it. My praNAms to them. I

agree, but my supplementary observation is that the thought that I

am the doer is to be declared as wrong from the beginning of the

spiritual ascent. Because, `ahamkAra vimUDhAtma karta'haM iti

manyate' (3 -27). So from the beginning, either the thought has to be

either it is Iswara that does it or it is the PrakRti that does it.

The authority that even a karma-yogi has to nurture that kind of

thought of non-doership is, for example, clear from Shloka 5-13 and

its Bhashya by Shankaracharya. (There are other shlokas, but this one

is enough).

There will be no doubt that this shloka applies to karma-yogis.

 

The Bhashya on 5-11 (kAyena manasA…)

 

kAyena dehena manasA buddhyA ca kevalaiH mamatva-varjitaiH

IshvarAyaiva karma karomi na mama phalAya iti mamatva-buddhishUnyaiH

indriyairapi …

 

My English meaning (As I Understand) of the Bhashya: kevalaiH

indriyaiH, that is, by the senses which have banished the concept

of `mine' from their intelligence, the only thought being that I am

doing this not for my enjoying the fruits but for the sake of Isvara.

 

Bhashya continued: kevala-shabdaH kAyAdibhirapi pratyekaM sambadhyate

sarva-vyApAreshhu mamatA-varjanAya …

 

My English meaning (AIU): The `kevala' (= only) word has to be joined

to every organ (of action), for the purpose of avoiding the `mine'

concept from every transaction (activity, work).

 

Bhashya continued: yoginaH karmiNaH karma kurrvanti sangaM tyaktvA

phalavishhayam-Atma-shuddhaye satva-shuddhaye ityarthaH …

 

My English meaning (AIU): The Karma Yogis do their (obligatory)

actions, renouncing the attachment to the matter of the fruits, for

the purpose of self-purification ( VK: self is outer self here; for

the inner self is always pure).

 

Bhashya continued: tasmAt tatraiva tava adhikAraH iti kuru karmaiva.

 

My English meaning (AIU): Therefore your right (VK: Note this same

word was used in 3-47, the foundation shloka for Karma Yoga) is only

for this. Do your (obligatory) actions thus.

 

VK: This `mamatva-varjitaiH' in the bhashya and `kevalaiH' in the

shloka text are enough to tell me that even as I am in the beginning

stages of karma-yoga I have to strive to develop the attitude of non-

doership. Of course the only methodology for that is to dedicate the

work to Ishvara and take everything – the beginning of the work, the

doing of the work, the result of the work, all of that to be His.

(cf. tvadIyAbhir vAgbhiH … in the last shloka of Soundarya-lahari).

 

praNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

but my supplementary observation is that the thought that I

am the doer is to be declared as wrong from the beginning of the

spiritual ascent. Because, `ahamkAra vimUDhAtma karta'haM iti

manyate' (3 -27). So from the beginning, either the thought has to be

either it is Iswara that does it or it is the PrakRti that does it.

praNAms

Hare Krishna

Yes, a karma yOgi should practise basically four virtues: (a) ahaMkAra tyAga (b) phala tyAga © samatva buddhi (d) IshvarArpaNa...By this gradually he leads himself to sarva karma saMnyAsa yOga...shankara says in 2nd chapter 39th verse bhAshya : yOgE tu tatu prAptyupAyE , nissangatayA dvandva prahANa pUrvakaM ishvara ArAdhanArthe karmayOge karmAnushTAne...etc..I think the above all the four qualities have been included in this sentence...Karma cannot be a direct means to mOksha, but after not doing *akarma*, *vikarma*, a karmi should practise karma yOga, to qualify himself to bhakti/jnAna yOga.

A self-introspection, throwing the reality sand on my face & telling me that these are all mere theoritical knowledge in my mind, without an iota of practical application :-(( Sometimes I really hesitate to write all these things & participate in the discussions...However, the only consolation I have always in my mind is the moral of the story : *Basket full of water*....

I donot know how many prabhuji-s in this forum, who know the intricacies of karma /bhakti / jnAna yOga, have taken these theories to the practical level. I would like to hear their experiences & problems they faced while implimenting these qualities in their day-to-day life/activities...

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

--- On Tue, 8/26/08, V. Krishnamurthy <profvk wrote:

 

I agree, but my supplementary observation is that the thought that I

am the doer is to be declared as wrong from the beginning of the

spiritual ascent. Because, `ahamkAra vimUDhAtma karta'haM iti

manyate' (3 -27). So from the beginning, either the thought has to be

either it is Iswara that does it or it is the PrakRti that does it.

 

Prof VK - PraNAms.

 

As you rightly pointed out that ultimate understanding is either prakRiti does

under the guidance of the Lord or I am - the consciousness - Even further

understanding is nothing is done or to be done - as everything flows as natural

-as swaabhaavikam as GouDapaada says.

 

But aham kartaa to akartaa stage involves movement in understanding not as a

thought but as a fact from a karma yogi to jnaana yogi - Then whether he does or

not is of no consequence - he may do it for loka kalyaaNam - or action is done

spontaneously in response to the situation of course under the presidentship of

either the lord or the conscious entity that I am. mayaa adhyakseNa prakRitiH

suuyate sa cara acaram|

That is also ultimate sharaNaagati - sarva dharmaan parityajya maam ekam

sharaNam vraja| dharmas include karmaas. And that requires knowledge.

 

Then he remains as akartaa all the time even when rigorous actions are being

done by his BMI's. At that stage he is both doer and non-doer depending on the

reference. Hence one of the ashTottara naama for Krishna is anaadi

brahmachaarine namaH! - Prostrations to that eternal brahma chaari - of course

we are not counting his wives now!

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda