(A follow-up to Ahamkara paradox - I needed to lose the I)
There was a discussion many years ago on a series of prioritisations:
- for the family, sacrifice oneself
- for the village, sacrifice the family
- for the country, sacrifice the village
- for the atma, sacrifice everything
This series has a lot of history and commentary/explanations. It was probably first documented (but in different words) in the Mahabhārata in Vidura Nīti (details/commentary).
Now, try replacing 'sacrifice' by 'deciding for' or 'thinking for'. [1]
In the context of the "I", it is a straightforward expansion till the atma:
- A child thinks or decides only for itself.
- Parents decide primarily for their immediate family.
- A leader's decision is primarily for their organisation
- (business, country, kingdom, etc.)
But, what about sacrificing everything, or deciding only, for the atma? Isn't that regressing to a selfish/childish stage?
Yes, definitely, if one considers the atma to be an embodied, separate, creature. The immanent stage, in other words.
No, if the atma is considered as that which underlies or gives life to all of creation - the transcendental stage. The individuated "I" has been replaced by the transcendental "I". [2]
NOTES
[1] "Renunciation" or "sacrifice" has negative connotations. A better perspective is "expansion", e.g., from love only for one to love for all of their family. A related example: sannyasa is considered selfish because, among other things, one renounces family and society. But, a true sannyasi's concept of family expands
tremendously, from a few members of his species to infinity!
[2] Purists may rightly quibble about the lack of rigour in equating the atma and the "I". My apologies, this is not a rigorously argued article.
No comments:
Post a Comment