karma yoga and the sense of doership (also contains reply to bhaskarji)

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramji,

 

After reading your message, I was initially going to suggest that we

cannot talk about " levels " of doership. Either one has a sense " aham

kartA " or one doesn't. While this is true to some extent, I realised

there are several meaningful ways in which one can speak of levels of

doership.

 

In your example of quality-of-life, the living condition, family, etc

.... are not in themselves quality-of-life but they are factors which

sustain quality-of-life and which in turn are sustained by quality-of-

life. If we take the the sense of doership to be the King, then the

King's army consists of various different types of soliders - such as

attachment, aversion, fear, arrogance, etc... This whole army is

powerless and incapable of doing any real damage withot a King, but

the King's power is also derived from the army. The most direct way to

win this war would be to just kill the King but if the King is too

well-defended, one has to weaken the rest of the army first. By

weakining the army, we are in effect weakening the King. Similarly, by

removing attachment, we can be said to be reducing the level of

doership.

 

There seems to be another angle to how karma yoga reduces the sense of

doership and I read this *just today* in the sAdhaka-sanjIvani

commentary on the gItA published by Gita Press. Our minds naturally go

towards what we value, what we give importance to. Some of our

identifications are present only while performing a specific action

while other identifications persist beyond the action. For instance,

we might eat dinner and we might have a sense of doership while eating

dinner, but after eating dinner, the identity " I am an eater of

dinner " does not persist (at least for most people). The fact that

one is an eater of dinner is not too important and so we leave that

identity as soon as the action is over. However, we can imagine that

if someone is a professional speaker for instance, the person's

identity as a speaker is something that remains even when not giving a

speech. Indeed, it will make it harder for that person to listen to a

speech or to do manual work, for instance, because the person will

think " I am a speaker. Why I am doing this kind of work?. " Some other

identities are also very resilient like this - for instance, our

identification with our caste, our country, etc... In the case of a

karma yogi whoose sAdhanA is well-established, all such identities are

activated only while performing the relevant duty but after the duty

is performed, these transactional identities don't persist. For such a

person, it is easy to understand that I have no inherent relation with

all these identifications and roles - they are just incidental. I

think in this way also, karma yoga reduces the level of doership by

reducing the intensity and clingingness of our identifications.

 

Bhaskarji in his earlier post mentioned that despite having a

knowledge about karma yoga and other such matters, we don't always

seem to succeed in making use of this knowledge. While I am nowhere

close to being an accomplished karma yogi, I do feel that when

following the teachings in the correct spirit, progress is steadily

experienced. I think the main point in karma yoga is that one has to

have a firm and consistent conviction that karma phalas will

neccesarily fail to give us satisfcation, fullness, etc... whereas by

understanding our own own nature and the nature of all the objects,

circumstances and people we encounter, one can be free from all sense

of incompleteness. Thus, jnAnam (or the paramAtmA) alone is the goal

to be attained and purpose of actions is only for the welfare of

others and not for the sake of one's own sukha. When reflecting on

such matters, I think we often get such a conviction but in our

actions and thoughts throughout the day, this conviction gets

overwhelmed. So the only solution is to be vigilant and careful

throughout the day and examine the motive behind all of our actions

and also to be careful to correct ourselves whenever we think that

changing our circumstances will bring us Ananda. To support this

process, I think we should do all of our prayers, nitya karmas,

naimittika karmas, etc... with this goal (ie: firmly estblishing the

spark of conviction) alone in mind. In this way, I am quite confident

that through the grace of Ishvara, success in karma yoga is possible

for eveyone. I hope I have not trespassed my limits by giving this

kind of " advice " when I am not qualified to.

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Rishiji:

 

You have very nicely explained the complexity of the notion - " non-

doership, " and I very much like it. I find the ongoing discussions in

the thread (initiated by you) has brought many new insights from the

learned members.

 

We should note that at the Vyavaharika level every thing that we state

and understand is only 'relative.' This is the reason that the

understanding of any of the notions differ by individuals. Also the

understanding is influenced by once beliefs and convictions, the

environment and the context. We also constantly find contradictions,

make additions, corrections and clarifications.

 

Thanks again,

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin , " risrajlam " <rishi.lamichhane

wrote:

>

> Dear Ramji,

>

> After reading your message, I was initially going to suggest that we

> cannot talk about " levels " of doership. Either one has a sense " aham

> kartA " or one doesn't. While this is true to some extent, I realised

> there are several meaningful ways in which one can speak of levels of

[Guest guest]

--- On Tue, 8/26/08, risrajlam <rishi.lamichhane wrote:

 

 

After reading your message, I was initially going to suggest that we

cannot talk about " levels " of doership. Either one has a sense " aham

kartA " or one doesn't. While this is true to some extent, I realised

there are several meaningful ways in which one can speak of levels of

doership.

 

-----------

Rishiji - PraNAms

 

If I can interject - I think the one takes the degrees of doership - not in the

doing but in owning the doing.

 

King claims he one over the other army, although his troops are the one that

faught and won for him. But accountablity stops for winning or defeating with

the king since he feels the responsibility and therefore ownnership too for the

actions. The solders are responsible only for their part.

That is the reason CEOs in this country claim big bugs for themselves by owning

without doing!

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda