Pujya Ramsukhdasji Maharaj

[Guest guest]

Search for I-ness, Ego

 

Now we must search where, and in what is that I-ness (ego)? In

reality, if we accept I-ness (egoism) in us, then this egoism can

never be wiped out, and man will never become free of mine-ness and

egoism. This I-ness is the works of nature and the Self (existence)

transcends nature. When egoism does not exist even in nature, then

how can it exist in the Self which transcends nature?

 

The essential Self is so very real and genuine that the egoism that

is ever changing and moving towards non-existence, cannot even

imagine to remain in it. When we assume the ego to be in the unreal,

that is ever changing, then how will the ego, the I-ness last in it?

That which itself does not exist, how can it establish the existence

of any other thing in it? Therefore ego (I-ness) is neither in the

real, nor in the unreal.

 

The ego (I-ness) is also not presumed to be in the relationship of

the real and unreal. Just like lightness and darkness cannot meet

(co-exist) at the same time. I-ness cannot be presumed in the inner

senses (antahakarana); because the inner senses are only

instruments, instincts that are dependent on the doer. Therefore the

one who is the doer, he alone has the ego (I-ness) in him.

 

Now the question arises - who is the doer? The body is not the doer;

because the body is going into extinction every moment! Mind,

intellect, thinking faculty and ego are the four tools known as the

inner instrument (antahkaran). These inner instruments are also not

the doer; because the instrument is dependent on the doer. But the

doer is ever independent " Swatantra kartaa " (Pani. a. 1:4:54).

 

An instrument aids in the performance of an activity " Sadhaktam

karanam, " (Pani a. 1:4:42). Therefore no activity can be

accomplished without the aid of the instruments. Just like a pen

cannot write independently and is only an instrument for the purpose

of writing and is dependent on the writer. In the same manner, the

inner instrument does not become the doer, and the doer cannot

become the instrument. If the inner instrument is the tool, then how

can it be the doer, as well? Secondly, if there is a sense of

doership in the inner instrument, then why does the Self become

happy and sad? And if the inner instrument were to become happy and

sad, then what loss is it to us (Self)? The existent (Self) also is

not a doer, because the ego is the evolute of nature, how can it be

in the Self which transcends nature?

 

Therefore who is the real doer? (to be continued)