Mental renunciation

"Mental renunciation, thats what gItA talks of when it says that one needs to give up the doership feeling" is what I hear many a people say. I try to understand what they mean.

Clearly, literal translation of the gItA vAkya means what these people say. But is that really what Krishna means? Consider "mental renunciation". It should mean, when I do anything, I should do it without *any* association *whatsoever*. When I associate myself to the act, it gives rise to karma and karma binds. Regarding this, Shankara is very clear when he says that karma and jnAna can't go hand in hand.

Lets hypothetically see this as not doing karma by disassociating oneself from the doer's ego, thats mental renunciation. For a person who can't renounce physically, is mental renunciation going to be easier? I'm not saying that a person who has physically renounced will not have mental associations. The gItA clearly denounces such a person as a hypocrite. But I personally find the physical renunciate to be in a better position to mentally renounce than the physically active, trying to be a karma yogi. This, I've concluded.

When a person tries to live in the same world that he's trying to renounce mentally, he reminds himself all the while that he's not the doer. Its like nAmasmaraN. This goes on parallel to the actions that he physically performs, but thinking that he's not the doer. He puts in efforts in all his might, atleast as much as he used to always, but this time with no expectation or anything such. This parallel activity continues for long. Somewhere during the time, a small loss of focus on this nAmasmaraNic activity due to the depth of seriousness of task at hand, or say forgetfulness, or oft likely vAsanA-s, give rise to ego! Ah, there's your trap. Then its a downward spiral, is it not? I do agree that it is doable, and that one can snap out of these momentary pitfalls if he's well aware, but I've judged that its so only for an advanced practitioner of the path. Else, its as was.
Post a Comment