Geeta, especially
in its first half, holds a position that the true core of our personalities is Aatmaa. It’s translation is not soul but
pure-witness, that which is conscious, but normally goes unnoticed in the
contents of our consciousness. It’s turning to nothing else but itself alone
is supposed to be the enlightenment and non-dependant happiness.
“The one who
relinquishes all desires of mind and remains contented by the Aatmaa and
in the Aatmaa is the ‘person with firm insight’ (SthitaPradnya)”---(2.55)
Aatma is unaffected and has no
tendencies to act. (Avikaree and Akarta) Although its presence is very obvious we keep
on missing it, as we are engrossed in whatever concerns us. So far so good!
The problem starts
with the position of Geeta that we are not truly the doers of our actions and
by implication are free from the responsibilities of our actions. This position
is a-moral, to say the least.
Are we fooled
when we consider ourselves as doers?
“All actions are
completely done by the nature’s propensities. However the person who is under
the spell of his Ego gets deceived to believe that he is the doer” ---(3.27)
‘Vimoodhaatma’
is translated as ‘person under spell’ and not as “pure witness coming under
spell.” Because pure witness can not come under any spell. Vimoodhaatma
is taken along the lines of Yatatmaa (endeavoring person) , Sanshyaatma
(radical-skeptic person), Punyaatma (Meritorious person) and so on. Here
the term Aatmaa does not come as ‘the pure witness’ but such and such
type of person.
Similar assertion
is made by Geeta at many places as,
“oh! Strong man!
The philosophically knowledgeable person knows the constituents and
propensities of nature and sees life as ‘propensities are acting upon
propensities’ and does not get involved”—(3.28)
“It is Nature
alone that is bringing about all actions and Aatmaa is not the doer, one
who can see this is truly the seer.”—(13.29)
Let us accept this
for the time being. Now the question arises as to which component of our personality
is truly the doer?
According to Geeta
there are five (as per 18.13) essential causes for any action and these are
“Substances,
various implements (some have translated this as various faculties), various
forms of efforts/attempts, the doer and the fifth one is fortuity”---(18.14)
Thus although the
Nature is overall cause, its specific form which can be a doer is needed for
action as is mentioned in the five specific causes of action.
Which constituent
of nature has the ability to become a doer? For that let us see the list of
constituents of Nature as given by Geeta
“Regulated-Nature (Apara-Prakruti)
[As distinct from Creative Nature (Para-Prakruti)] is constituted by eight
different constituents and which are Earth, Water, Fire, Wind, Sky, Mind,
Intellect and Ego”
It is worth noting
that Aatmaa does not appear in the eight causes so this is consistent
with the above position. Five material elements would fit into ‘substances and
implements’ amongst the five causes. Mind (Mana), Intellect (Budhdee)
and Ego (Ahankaar) are the constituents in the ‘inner-apparatus’ (AntahKaran).
Mind is typically emotions
vacillating in all directions and can be propelling action but not decisively
determine it. Intellect has a property of making various options clear but
cognitive clarity is not sufficient to push the effort. Even if a decision is
rational as per intellect, it doesn’t have the power to execute itself. We have
to gather our volition against other options which are to be foregone/rejected.
The total self is an accumulation of all sorts of possible intentions. There
has to be a decisive factor which identifies with particular option and puts
the ‘weight of self’ behind that option. This function is carried out by Ego.
We can be in two Minds but can not be in two Egos! It is Ego that stamps its
‘casting-vote’ in the hung parliament of Mind. This is internally ‘coercive’ and
to some extent ‘alienating’, but you cannot remain ambivalent and have to
accept this self-coercion. The factor that selectively identifies and shifts
the weight is Ego.
Thus we can safely
conclude that Ego is the Doer. Ahankar is the Karta.
Thus the person
who thinks that I am the doer qua Ego is not fooled at all because qua Ego he
is the Doer.
Nobody would ever say that the pure witness in me
has done the action. Most of the people may not have heard that they have a
pure-witness in them.
‘KartaAaham
iti manyte’ means the person assumes that his Aham (Ego)
is Karta and he is absolutely right. There
is absolutely no Vimoodhata (foolishness) about this.
How does it help the Doer even if there is a Seer
who is not the Doer?
Main contention
is, any preaching which tries to give a solace by arguing that “the ‘real-you’
which is only witness and not the Doer”, is misleading. Drashta means
one who sees. Karta means one who does. But the witness is seeing in the
‘scene’ that Ego is doer and is in problem. Solutions to the Doer’s problems
must be given in Doer’s terms.
Even Lord, qua
doer, had killed Kansa, Shishupala. Lord had, by a miracle supplied a
perpetually extending clothing to wrap Draupadi when she was being
stripped by Duhshasana. Thus even the seer in the Lord must have seen that the
doer in him is doing these things. Lord had options as to how many times he
would pardon Shishupala? Should he donate his army to Kauravas? Or should he
create a temporary sun-set in order to bring out the hiding Jayadratha? Should
attempt the defection of Karna and so on. He must have judged the merits and
demerits in terms of his duty as particular person Krishna or God-incarnate of
the Era. But these in their very essence were actions and not mere events to be aware
about.
Question is what
Doer should do? Moreover how does he justify his action? How does he judge
merits and demerits of the action? That is precisely where ethics comes in.
Suspending judgment may be good for practicing meditation. Meditation can not
be a substitute to ethics. The excuse, that you are not the doer but merely a
seer (Sakshi), is a void excuse at least ethically. This category
mistake is committed by Geeta in many of its parts. It evades the ethical
question by invoking spiritual accomplishment.
Is Geeta
consistent with its position that Aatmaa is Non-Doer?
In the first half
of Geeta, roughly speaking, the position is held that Aatma is Non-Doer.
However in 15th
chapter of Geeta, there are stanzas which deny this very position. In Chapter
15 which is about the ‘structure’ of God himself, it is clearly said that Aatmaa
is the modicum (Ansh) of god which individualizes into a particular
body. Moreover this modicum Aatmaa is affected as well as moved by
the propensities of nature (Gunas)
“Only those who
have the complete knowledge of spirituality can see that it is individual Ataman
who migrates from body to body or is in a steady state in a body or getting
affected or being propelled by the propensities of nature; while fools (the
confused) can not see this.”---(15.10)
“Those Yogis, can
recognize this entity as their own core, if they try to recognize. However the
people who are ‘not groomed in spirituality’ (Akrutatmanam) can not
recognize it, however hard they may try to.”
(15.11)
This conception of
Aatmaa is clearly different than the one held in earlier chapters. If
pure-witness does not remain pure once lodged in a body, if it too is
undergoing (Bhokta) and it too is moved by the propensities of nature and
becomes active (Karta), the solace of Non-doer-ness is metaphysically
void too.
Aatmaa of
Jain Darshan is the entity which Does as well as Undergoes (Karta and Bhokta)
but then this is a terminological issue, function of Ahankar is also
included in Jain-Aatmaa.
Geeta is invoking Sankhya-Drarshan’s Aatmaa
in the earlier chapters and now almost invoking Aatmaa of jain Darshan
(except that Jain Aatmaas are multiple and Geeta’s Aatmaas are,
although mistakenly taken as multiple by the ignorant, are in fact unified into
one cosmic soul.)
Whether Doer and Seer are separate or unified, the
individual human being remains a doer and has to take the responsibility of his
actions.
Geeta does recognize the importance of the
Doer-ness
In a very welcome
message of Geeta “you should uplift yourself” Aatman and Aatmaa
are used for the whole personality of the addressee.
“You shall uplift yourself and not let down
you go|
You are your only friend and you are the
only foe|” (6.5)
“One, who struggles and wins his autonomy,
becomes his own friend|
and one, who is not in his own control,
becomes his own foe|” (6.6)
In my opinion this
is the best preaching of Geeta. It is very contrasting with its almost single
point program viz. ‘Dissolution of Ego.’ This is because which factor within us
can ensure that, we are in control of ourselves? It can not be any other than
ego. “I am warrior therefore I must fight” “I am a saint therefore I must keep
away from war” “I am judicious I ought to be impartial.” It is such
identifications that make us decisive.
Who can be addressee of any preaching? One who
can resolutely gather his volition for the preached ‘duty’ and against the
‘temptations’ that stray away from it, can meaningfully be the addressee of a
preaching.
Pure-witness can
not do things like uplifting or letting down. It can not be either a friend or
a foe. It can not struggle against itself and win itself. It is addressee’s Ego
that must tame the addressee’s Mind to follow addressee’s Intellect. That is
how a person can win autonomy i.e. self-control. This the meaning of (6.6)
Such autonomous
person ought to enhance himself materially and morally and refrain from harming
himself materially and morally. He should seek his Svadharma (duty unto
oneself) in the unique way as demanded by his unique constitution and situation.
Occurrence of such endeavor-oriented (Pravruittivaadi)
stanzas in Geeta is rare while most of the text remains withdrawal-oriented (Nivruttivaadi)
What should be
the role of Ego?
India has suffered
disastrous effect of this as each praise of Aatmaa is taken by Ahankar
as its own praise. Instead of diffusing itself in Aatmaa and becoming Akarta
,the Ahankar on the contrary has tended to become
Na-karta (‘indolent’ and evader of action), i.e. not
acting even when it is a duty.
What should happen
to Ego? It is clear that for morality and justice we need a strong Ego while
for spiritual accomplishment, we need to dissolve it. How one does switch these
attitudes? Art of switching these attitudes at proper junctures in life would
be the true art of living. Geeta However goes on switching its own position in
its heterogeneous metaphysics but fails to teach the pursuer as to when and how
to switch his/her attitude.
If ontological
status of Doer is relegated to naught, who then remains as owner of
responsibility?
No comments:
Post a Comment