I've read in Harmonist about Durvasa Muni's answers to Radhika's question:
http://harmonist.us/2010/10/gopala-tapani-...asa-never-eats/
But I find it difficult to understand. I was reading and accepting that the soul is the ACTIVE principle, the one which animates otherwise the dead matter of the body through it's presence. So since the soul is the active principle, I was automatically assuming that the soul is the doer and the senses are only instruments.
But in the commentary it's said that the soul is the observer, and the senses are the doers. Can the senses act without the presence of the soul? So who is the doer?
This topic of "doing without doing" is very delicate because a lot of speculations can arise from it. Because if Durvasa said this in order to prove that he actually kept the fast no matter that he ate, then everybody can repeat his words in order to prove that he is not responsible for his/her actions being actually done by the senses and not by the soul. Thus one can try to escape the act of taking responsibility for his actions.
Recently I was having a conversation with a friend of mine who likes a lot Osho and his books. And after some argument I asked her the core question: "can you accept as a real guru one who takes sexual advantage of his disciples?" And she responded: "yes because he might do it without being entangled and thus helping them also to liberate." And then she gave me as an example Krishna and his multiple relations with the gopis.
So if Durvasa can say that he can eat without eating, then why Osho should not be able to say that he can have sex without having sex?
I just stopped the argument at that point not knowing what more can be said since inner motivation and entanglement or liberation are hidden aspects and cannot be used as a proof. But still deep inside I am sure there is a criteria and should be. A guru should be a controller of his senses and if he is not how could he be a guru? But if a sense-enjoyer presents himself as a guru and when asked what about his actions proving the opposite he responds with the words of Durvasa Muni, what could one say?
Please excuse me if my question is too naive for this forum.
I've seen that in Harmonist there is option for "comment" leaving, but since mine is a question, I am posting it here. Since this article is in the classroom section, do you think of providing space in Harmonist for questions and answers?
I was thinking of the other readers of Harmonist, since they don't have entrance to TV, how could they ask a question?
I've read in Harmonist about Durvasa Muni's answers to Radhika's question:http://harmonist.us/2010/10/gopala-tapani-...asa-never-eats/
But I find it difficult to understand. I was reading and accepting that the soul is the ACTIVE principle, the one which animates otherwise the dead matter of the body through it's presence. So since the soul is the active principle, I was automatically assuming that the soul is the doer and the senses are only instruments.
But in the commentary it's said that the soul is the observer, and the senses are the doers. Can the senses act without the presence of the soul? So who is the doer?
This topic of "doing without doing" is very delicate because a lot of speculations can arise from it. Because if Durvasa said this in order to prove that he actually kept the fast no matter that he ate, then everybody can repeat his words in order to prove that he is not responsible for his/her actions being actually done by the senses and not by the soul. Thus one can try to escape the act of taking responsibility for his actions.
Recently I was having a conversation with a friend of mine who likes a lot Osho and his books. And after some argument I asked her the core question: "can you accept as a real guru one who takes sexual advantage of his disciples?" And she responded: "yes because he might do it without being entangled and thus helping them also to liberate." And then she gave me as an example Krishna and his multiple relations with the gopis.
So if Durvasa can say that he can eat without eating, then why Osho should not be able to say that he can have sex without having sex?
I just stopped the argument at that point not knowing what more can be said since inner motivation and entanglement or liberation are hidden aspects and cannot be used as a proof. But still deep inside I am sure there is a criteria and should be. A guru should be a controller of his senses and if he is not how could he be a guru? But if a sense-enjoyer presents himself as a guru and when asked what about his actions proving the opposite he responds with the words of Durvasa Muni, what could one say?
Please excuse me if my question is too naive for this forum.
I've seen that in Harmonist there is option for "comment" leaving, but since mine is a question, I am posting it here. Since this article is in the classroom section, do you think of providing space in Harmonist for questions and answers?
I was thinking of the other readers of Harmonist, since they don't have entrance to TV, how could they ask a question?
Anyone can ask questions on the Harmonist in the comments section. Anyone can also say whatever they like (Like Osho), but to be in the world and not of the world is not so easy, and there are other important symptoms we can look for to verify anyone's claim. Such symptoms are mentioned at the end of the second chapter of the Gita. Using the example of Krsna and the gopis to support Oso's clams (if he made them) is inappropriate. Why? Well in the least, even if he was like Krsna his students are not like the gopis. The gopis occupy a unique position and Krsna is not engaged with them in lila as a means of helping them in sadhana. Sadhana is different from lila. Krsna teaches a sadhana that leads to lila, and in doing so he does not teach us to do as Osho does.
Thank you, Maharaj.
OK, I will ask the core question in Harmonist. But if some devotees would like to respond here it is also here:
If the soul is the active principle but is not the doer, then who is the doer?
Somewhere in Shastra (please help me where it was) there is a comparison of the soul and Supersoul being two birds on a tree. While the soul is picking the fruits from the karmic tree and tastes them as sweet or bitter (thus acting and experiencing), the Supersoul is a witness. From this example it is clear that the soul is the doer. But in the story with Durvasa Muni from Harmonist it is said that the soul is also not the doer. Then the first example should say that both birds on the tree are only observing none of them acting. Who is then the doer?
BG 18.14 explains the 5 elements of action: the body, the soul (in connection with ahankara), the senses, the various types of endeavors, and God.
So the soul is an element of action, but because it is not independent, it is not the doer. This topic is addressed also in the Govinda-bhasya, but I cannot remember what it says or where exactly it is discussed.
We can also say the gunas are the doer because one is under the influence of the gunas. There is like an entanglement of the soul and material nature that is so strong and intertwined that the soul thinks he is much more under control than he actually is. Basically either the soul operates under material energy (maya-sakti) or spiritual energy (svarupa-sakti) and the free will is very limited. I think it is good to emphasize free will in the beginning so that people don't become lazy, but in the bigger scheme of things free will is very limited (the experiences we will have in this life (prarabhda) are more or less decided and we have just tiny bit free-will in how we react to those experiences. Either we create more karma or get out the cycle.) Even science is largely deterministic unless you go to quantum level. Nature and nurture determine the individual according to modern theories, but both nature and nurture are basically not under the control of the individual. Free will is small and we can reach that conclusion pretty easily.
I was reading again the end of second chapter of Gita, where Krishna describes the characteristics of one who is accomplished in meditation and steady in intelligence.
Do we consider Durvasa Muni as one who covers this criteria? He is famous with his anger which he is not able to control, so it seems to me that he fails to cover Krishna's description.
In BG 2:56 is said: "He who is free from desire and whose passion, fear, and anger have subsided is said to be a sage of a steady mind."
Is Durvasa "a sage of a steady mind" if he cannot control his anger?
Further on in BG 2:62 Krishna describes how the anger is born:
"When one contemplates the sense objects, attachment for them is born. From attachment desire is born; from desire, frustration."
This verse shows that Durvasa's anger is born by his attachment to the sense objects while at the same time claims that he is non-attached, and because of this his eating is not eating.
In this story he is explaining how he can eat and still not eat, but in another story he offends the pure devotee Ambarisha Maharaj blaming him that he "ate" when he actually only took few drops of water in order to stop his Ekadashi fast.
Looking at these 2 parallel in topic stories (fasting) in both of which Durvasa is participating, it seems to me that Durvasa is a very double-standard minded person, judging others even for drinking few drops of water to stop the fast on time and still considering it "eating" and not considering his own eating to be eating.
It would be difficult for me to take as authority Durvasa if he shows such a double standard. It is true that one can eat and still "not eat" because of non-attachment, but the question stays for me is Durvasa a person who can claim this to be his оwn level of consciousness if he cannot control his anger even towards a pure devotee who just drank few drops of water to stop on time his Ekadashi fast seeing this as a lack of respect to himself? Not to mention that Durvasa is requiring full respect from Ambarisha Maharaj for his own self, thus failing again to cover Krishna's description of a pure sage as one who offers all respect to others not expecting such for himself.
BG 18.14 explains the 5 elements of action: the body, the soul (in connection with ahankara), the senses, the various types of endeavors, and God.
So the soul is an element of action, but because it is not independent, it is not the doer. This topic is addressed also in the Govinda-bhasya, but I cannot remember what it says or where exactly it is discussed.
I cannot agree with your statement that "the soul is an element of action, but because it is not independent, it is not the doer." Since nobody is independent then should we claim that there is no doer? To what will this lead? If there is no doer, nobody is responsible as well. But when preaching our goal is to inspire higher responsibility and proper actions, right? Then how would this claim that "the soul is not the doer since it's not independent" help us in this?
I've read again this verse from Gita 18.14:
"The seat of action (the body), the performer of action (karta), the senses, the various types of endeavors, and, last not least, God, or fate, are the five causes of whatever action."
So these are elements of action, but still it is clearly stated that the performer (karta) of any action is the soul.
The body is only dead matter without the presence of the soul, it is soul's shirt, so the shirt cannot be the doer. Dead matter cannot be the doer.
The senses are part of the body and they are also dead without the presence of the soul, so they also cannot be the doer.
God is the ultimate and original doer, but in the following two verses of Gita is clearly stated that God cannot be considered the doer and thus responsible for the activities of the jivas - BG 5.14-5.15:
"The Lord creates neither a person's agency of action nor his actions nor the result. All this is done by a person's conditioned nature. The omniscient Godhead does not accept responsibility for anyone's good or evil deeds. Beings are deluded because their knowledge is covered by ignorance."
So from the 5 elements of action what remains as the real actual doer seems to be the soul. And the soul takes the sequences of his actions.
Since we speak for the sake of preaching, it seems to me that we should stress that the soul is the doer, thus inspiring sense of responsibility in people. Yes it is true that the gunas (situated in the senses) and karma (fate) influence the actions of the soul, but the gunas and karma have been acquired by the very same soul through it's previous actions. So finally the responsibility is to the soul for it's present conditioned situation. And it is also the soul's responsibility to act in direction to diminish the bondage of gunas and karma by purifying it's actions and visions.
Finally "gahana karmano gatih" ("the path of action is mysterious" BG5.17), it's achintya-bheda-abheda-tattva, action in inaction and inaction in action.
I decided to search more on the net about Durvasa Muni and his contradictory character and I found this interesting passage:
"Sripad Durvasas is one of the much miss understood characters of the Vedic literary library. There are many examples of how Durvasas was used by the Lord to emphasize a particular attribute of this unlimitedly faceted philosophy. We see the same situation arising with Sri Narad Muni also, sometimes he is seen as a trouble maker, and sometimes as spiritual master of the universe. This is the difference between a pure soul and one who is very much self interested, for one who has his own prestige, or cool in mind, to be seen as rude or offensive harms one's profile, and so is not palatable for the false ego. However for the great sage Durvasa Muni he simply did as he was requested to do, so sometimes he is famous, and sometimes infamous, he didn't mind being used as an example by the Lord, so long that points could be made."
I read that Durvasa Muni is also in the 'guru parampara' that the Madhwa line lists. So most probably I should see his contradictory image in the way described above - that he was a surrendered soul in hands of God, ready to be used as an example by the Lord, so long that points could be made.