message to my friends

[Gummuluru Murthy]

On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote:

>
> > Actionlessness and desireless action
> >
> > These two words were used in the debate, and in my view, they refer to
> > at different levels of understanding. As long as one is embodied (or
> > thinks, is embodied), is not there action all the time ? May be minimal
> > action in some cases, but still action. This point came up in Jaladhar's
> > and my discussion on Karma and sannyAsa. Desireless action is there for
> > a mumukshu, but actionlessness is there only for jnAnam in embodied form.
> >
> > -------------------------
>
> The only thing to realize here is that it is the mumukshu who "graduates"
> into the jIvanmukta, if not in this lifetime, in some other, future one.
> Nobody is born a jIvanmukta without first having been a mumukshu. Now, all
> of this assumes birth and death, so that yes, we are speaking of the
> subtle body here. So, clearly, vyAvahArically speaking, actionlessness is
> a higher value than desireless action. The crucial thing to note is that
> all speaking is vyavahAra, so one has to acknowledge the higher value. For
> the jIvanmukta, "to act or not to act" - the question does not arise; for
> that matter, no question arises.
>
> Regards,
> Vidyasankar
>


Your point is right. But somehow (may not be in this thread, but in other
concurrent threads), actionlessness was attributed to physical sannyAsa,
which I think is not correct. If you agree that actionlessness is there
only for jnAnam in embodied form, yes that is the highest state.

I have some doubts about your point ".. Nobody is born a jivanmukta
without first having been a mumukshu..", but that will be the subject of
another thread.

Regards
Gummuluru Murthy
------------------------------------------------------------------------