Recently, a close friend came to me expressing surprise that one of this acquaintances who has been categorized as “bad and unfriendly” went out of his way to help my friend in a certain difficult situation. This event put doubts in the mind of my friend – whether this acquaintance was really a good guy or whether he was a bad guy who did a good deed. Clearly, no answers were coming and my friend moved on without getting firm answers – as many of us do.

This small incident is the trigger of this mail. The conventional street side common sense we have been acquiring from our environment is that people are usually “good” or “bad”. Most of us internalize these categories by assigning these to people around us. Of course, for most of humanity, we have a third category viz “indifferent” but the discussion on this category is not the purpose of this write up. So what we have is two categories – the “good” and the “bad”. This label sticks to most of the close associations and determine our own behaviour with such people. The question is – do such categories exist in absolute terms? Can persons really be good or bad in an absolute sense? In my humble opinion, what is more evident is that certain people do certain acts that can be classified as “good” and certain actions as “bad”. “Actions are mere actions but the outcomes of such actions tend to be “good” or “bad”. Using Adhyatma terminology, actions are JADA meaning GROSS – they on their own cannot be assigned any category. However, behind the actions are their “intent” and following every action is an “outcome”. As there is a statement in one of the Upanishads, a knife is a GROSS OBJECT but if the user of the knife is a noble AATMA, she will put this to a good use but if the user is an ignoble AATMA, the use will be for harming others. Actions are therefore like dumb knives – they do not have a character trait of their own.

If we accept the above statement that people cannot be categorized as “good” or “bad”. Further, people merely undertake actions backed by certain intentions and such actions lead to certain outcomes. People cannot be bucketed on either end of the spectrum illustrated in the figure above. So far so good. But this conclusion does not address the concern/ confusion of my friend – how do we assess others?

I will now bring in the concept of Ahamkara – the fundamental I-ness that determines everything. All of us have an idea of “I” and all actions are done BY the I as well as FOR the I. I is the root of all actions. All of us carry dreams, ambitions, opinions, fears, insecurities, joyous moments, etc., and all of them stem from the fundamental I. One can say that I is all there is and there is nothing else about ourselves OR the world does not exist IF this I does not exist. Therefore, we can make the following statements:

1. All our good deeds are done because this makes the “I” happy
2. All our deeds to harm others are also done because this “I” either felt insecure or felt harmed by the other.
3. All our deeds like pursuit of career, sports, charity, etc are undertaken since the “I” gets a sense of completeness by pursuit of such actions.

“I” is all there is as far as each and every one of us are concerned. What do our Shastras say about the “I”? In the Sadhana Pada of the Patanjali Yoga Sutra, Patanjali makes a grand statement that the key blockages (KLESHAS) to achievement are perfection are – Avidya (ignorance), Asmita (ego), Raga (desire), Dvesha (aversion) and Abhinivesha (clinging to life). These are given in the descending order of importance with a statement that all the succeeding four KLESHAS emerge from Avidya. Let us not delve into a deeper meaning of Avidya except by stating that this is the root cause as to why we are unable to remember our true nature – it is a sort of covering that keeps us away from knowing our true original state of perfection. Ego or Ahamkara or Asmita as Patanjali uses in the Yoga Sutras comes immediately after Avidya. But why does Patanjali point to Ahamkara as a KLESHA or a blockage? As we discussed earlier, without the “I”, there is no life and no meaning to any action of ours. If this is the case, how can “I-ness” be regarded as a KLESHA and thereby as an impediment to perfection? This does sound perplexing.

The above situation is however not perplexing to a student of Dharma traditions. These traditions make a distinction between the “Pure I” (which is a state of perfection having a UNIFIED VISION OF THE UNIVERSE and regards everything as a part of itself) as against the “false I” (that feels separated and segregated from all of Universe as a solo split reality). The former pure state is a state beyond Avidya but once this “Pure I” gets injected by Avidya, Ahamkara states materializes. Our day to day human state of being is that of the latter and hence we are ignorant of grandeur. Simply put, mis-identification of oneself with one’s body-mind-intellect (BMI) complex instead of the “PURE I” state is said to be a state where Ahamkara is considered to be present. We are not supposed to be this body, this mind and all thoughts within our intelligence but we mis-identify our PURE I with these attributes. These attributes like the body and mind merely support the REAL I but do not form part of the REAL I. This is a fundamental but simple import of whole of our Shastras – how does one understand this? Let me draw out a few examples:

1. Let us take our daily act of breathing – none of us actually breath in and breath out but nevertheless, this is an involuntary act that happens despite the resolve of our BMI. We can possibly state that fake I in any case cannot influence the operation of breathing. Our act of breathing is an act without the use of fake I.
2. Suppose we are driving and an animal comes in front of the car. Instinctively, if our mind is conscious of this, it will immediately try to halt the car or change direction. Whatever our background, this instinct is natural to our character. Once again, since this action does not involve a conscious decision and comes naturally, this is an action where the fake I may not be deemed to be in operation.
3. When we offer food to beggars, we may want to make a difference to this person and hence indulge in charity OR we may not want to encourage begging as an activity and hence do not make such a charity. Both the actions are based on conscious decisions taken within our BMI and such actions may be deemed to be made out of AHAMKARA. Remember, what is “good” for the beggar may not be deemed “good” for the giver. GOOD AND BAD ARE NOT ABSOLUTE BUT MERELY RELATIVE.
4. One person may undertake charity after a lot of research with motivation to help the world, another may undertake charity out of sheer pity/ sympathy for the seeker of charity while a third may undertake charity when a right cause presents itself seeking no personal fame and without thinking of any impact or outcome of such an action. I am inclined to argue that while actions of the first two are actions based on use of Ahamkara, the third one is done with no Ahamkara or low Ahamkara. Just like it is natural for a tree to give shade to passers-by (and thereby does not seek any favour from giving such a shade), the third category undertakes charity as a natural act.
5. A parent may get violent with the kid for breaking rules; there may however be two such situations. One situation may involve the parent slapping the kid for breaking the rule of “Do not Disturb” while watching a football match for personal joy. Second situation may involve the parent slapping the child for causing grievous harm to another creature or human being for experiencing personal joy. While the former definitely involves presence of Ahamkara, the latter MAY NOT involve Ahamkara since it is the right thing to do (of course, there are many nuances here but I will want readers to get the concept I am conveying). HERE, SLAPPING THE KID IS NOT GOOD EITHER FOR THE PARENT OR THE KID – THIS MEANS PURSUIT OF GOOD OR BAD MAY NOT BE DEEMED AS A KEY OBJECTIVE OF OUR ACTIONS.

One can go on and one. The key moot points are as below (to reiterate again):

Actions are JADA or inert – they cannot be assigned “good” or “bad” labels

1. Ahamkara is a KLESHA or a blockage in pursuit of human life.
2. Presence of Ahamkara drives most of human actions; however all actions do not stem from Ahamkara.
3. Classification of outcome of actions as “good” or “bad” is a human behavioural tendency; however, this is a diversion and takes us away from pursuit of SATYA or Truth.

At this stage, it may be pertinent to remind the readers about what Krishna stated in Chapter 4 of the Gita –

He who can see action in inaction and inaction in action, he is wise among men. He is a Yogi and performer of all actions.

Clearly, there is a lot more to action than what we give credit to it for. Point “d” given above is key. We classify people as good or bad, we classify action outcomes as good or bad. We cannot rest easy till we are able to put people and/ or their multifarious actions into these categories. However, “d” above suggests that this is a diversion. So what does one do to move away from this diversion? This is because actions undertaken in a mind-state of limitedness based on the lower or false Ahamkara state takes us farther and farther away from our PURE I and thereby keeps us away from getting back to our source. Actions based on Ahamkara attract Karma while actions done with no Ahamkara reduce our stock of Karma and thereby take us on our road to freedom. To reduce Ahamkara therefore means to give up our limitedness and embrace the universality of our real being. Actions taken from a vantage point of universality will necessarily bring about a transformation into the very core of our being.

Let me relate an episode from the Mahabharata. During the twelve years, there was apparently no single day when Draupati used to needle her husband Yudhistira for having gambled his way and thereby let the entire family suffer on his account. There is one episode when she needles Yudhistira as to what is the use of pursuing Dharma. She asks him that pursuit of Dharma has brought only misery for him and his family while Duryodhana who did not care about Dharma appeared to be having a good life in the palace. Yudhistira’s answer is classic – he replies that he does not follow Dharma because of pursuit of “good” or shun “bad” – he pursues Dharma because it is his Swabhava (his own nature). To repeat – by living the life of Dharma, he is merely following his own Swabhava. That is all.

What is Dharma? DHARMA is one of the most intractable terms of the Indian Philosophy. Dharma denotes “that which holds together the different aspects and qualities of an object into a whole”. While a loose translation of the word has found various meanings – Duty, Righteousness, morality, etc – a closer definition of this word has been given as “that which makes a thing or being what it is”. Accordingly, Dharma of the Sun is to provide heat & light and thereby sustain life; Dharma of a tree is to give fruits/ flowers.

If one understands Dharma in the above context and then relate with the answer given by Yudhistira, it becomes quite clear that pursuit of good or avoidance of bad is not the purpose of our lives. Whether we pursue “good” actively or whether a “good” outcomes happens passively (and thereby giving us an experience of joy), the presence of “good” or “bad” in any life experience is a mere diversion. What is more important is whether we have indeed followed Dharma. Whether we have behaved in all situations in a manner in which we are meant to behave? Sri Krishna makes many statements in Gita three of which are quoted here:

Our right is to work only, but never to its fruits; let not the fruit of action be our motive nor our attachment to inaction”.

He whose mind is not shaken by adversity, who does not hanker after pleasures, and who is free from attachment, fear and anger, is called a sage of steady wisdom

 He who hates no creature, who is friendly and compassionate to all, who is free from attachment and egoism, balanced in pleasure and pain, and forgiving. Ever content, steady in meditation, possessed of firm conviction, self-controlled, with mind and intellect dedicated to Me, he, My devotee, is dear to Me

I do not have a good artistic imagination. What the above figure is attempting to convey is that our actions must pursue the golden mean, our actions must be in pursuit of Dharma. We must push away the “good” or “bad” intent or be happy with “good” outcomes or become sad with “bad” outcomes. Actions based on Dharma are actions done in an objective manner (using scientific language) which are most apt in a certain situation at a certain point of time. Such actions do not seek any personal favour nor tailored towards harming or benefiting the other but actions done in a state of low or no Ahamkara.

Practically speaking, when faced with a difficult situation, we must ask ourselves – how would any perfect person within our imagination (Shankara, Vyasa, Einstein, our favourite teacher, etc) have done in a similar situation that I am facing now? Whatever they would have done, we must endeavour to do the same. What is the logic of this action? Effectively, what we are doing is to reduce our own Ahamkara by taking on the mind of another person and in that state, our action tends to be more balanced than driven by our own fears and insecurities.

It is time now to return again to the point where we began our discussions. To understand the other, we must try to understand the extent of false Ahamkara displayed by the person from time to time. How does this other behave in a secure situation when there is no feeling of danger/ insecurity and understand that this becomes his natural behaviour (since this is the state of zero or low Ahamkara). If such a person displays tremendous Ahamkara in all situations the outcomes of actions of such persons will tend to vacillate between the so-called “good” and “bad”. If the intensity of false Ahamkara is lower and then a promise is made in this state, we can believe the promise but if it is made in a state of high false Ahamkara, we need to be guarded or we can discount such a promise. Some may argue that since all of humanity is infested with Ahamkara, is this a practical advice at all? My response will be that indeed all of humanity is infested with Ahamkara – if not, there would have been no birth at all. However, when we look around, we do come across a whole load of people with low Ahamkara (the humble barber, fruit seller, cobbler, etc or the next door neighbour) – many of such people may be ignored by the world but they seem contended, relaxed, well-informed but quiet, helpful but not advertising about their simple character. We must cultivate friendship with such people and learn from them low to live such lives of low Ahamkara. Equally, when we engage with the high Ahamkara types (who are far more numerous all around us), understand their behaviour from the perspective of the Ahamkara attribute rather than in terms of “good” and “bad”. For such people, if our own conduct does not enhance the insecurity/ superiority within these people, they MAY relax and in their relaxed (low Ahamkara) state, their behaviour will tend to be natural and normal and real. If we however enhance their fears/ insecurities, we may end up at the receiving end in a manner that will make things more difficult.

As for our own conduct, pursue Dharma – the golden mean that looks at the whole world as ONE or an emanation from the ONE. Once the feeling of ONENESS permeates our persona, our own actions will, over a period of time, become complete. In such completion, we should get a glimpse of the PURE I within us and lead us closer and closer to the ultimate goal of life – TO KNOW ONESELF

There may be many counter-questions/ disagreements at this stage but I will pause here for now.

OM TAT SAT

HARI OM