Expanding selfishness

(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 The individuated "I" has been replaced by the transcendental "I".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.

Ahamkara paradox - "I" needed to lose the I

Consider:

• I practise
• I realise
• My goal is liberation
  
• I want to be a better/spiritual person
• Babuji said, "Forget the I," not "Understand thyself."
• Spiritual practice is also about releasing/ignoring I (self-arrogating) thoughts
• Surrender to situations, don't respond selfishly
• Traditional Indian spiritualists rail against the "I" unremittingly
  

What are the characteristics of the I?

• self-arrogation
• self-image
• self-consciousness (c.f., shyness, introversion)
• a set of self-created, artificial, illusory thoughts

What if there is no paradox?

Assume that there are (at least) two stages in spirituality.

In the first, lower, stage, the I is actively needed. Why?

• immanent stage
• individual perspective
• sense of self needed to evolve consciously
• comparison of my self with other selves
• comparison of my self with itself at different times and contexts
• simplify or integrate many relative, context-dependent selves into a single coherent, consistent self
• be the same inside and outside
• be natural - don't think something and say something else
• yet - satyam bruyāt, priyam bruyāt
  (speak [the] truth, affectionately speak [it])
• actively work on becoming a more ethical and moral person
• accept the current situation as it is, but act positively to create different future situations
• acceptance presumes an "acceptor", and 
• choosing positive actions a "chooser"

In the second and higher, stage, the "I" is not needed actively. Why not?
 

• transcendent stage
• universal perspective
• jivanmukti (freedom from separate individuality)
• the divine inside and outside oneself drives one's evolution
• "I surrender" is not surrender
• Kabir's "prem galI" doha:
  
• Love's lane [is] very narrow; in it two cannot be.
• When "I" was, He was not; now He is, "I" am not.
• complete expansion and freeing of consciousness occur only if there is no self-image or self-consciousness
• the only freedom is the freedom is to do the right - Babuji
• no choice, hence no chooser necessary

The two stages need not be, and are generally not, sequential in time.
They may occur many times, and for differing periods, until the seeker reaches a particular level of purity, simplicity, and lightness. A seeker may have to deliberately shift down to the immanent stage regularly for some activities [1].
This may confuse the spiritual seeker.

Finally, a minimal I is still needed to use one's body and mind while alive: 

• I scratch my arm.
• That book is for me.
• I booked a flight to Chennai to reach in a few hours.
  

Notes

[1] Practice of maxim 10 (and maxim 9) requires self-examination at the individual level