Who am I – Part I

A- Who are you?

B- I am B.

A- Yes. ‘B’ is your name. But who are ‘you’?

B- Ok. I got your point. I am this body-mind-intellect-complex.

A- Ok. That means you cannot exist without being this BMIC.

B- Yes. of course. If this BMIC is not there, how can I exist. How can I be?

A- Ok. So, tell me as to whether you cease to be if your hand is cut-off?

B- No. I continue to exist as I was. The only problem is that I cannot do the stuff that I earlier used to do by using that hand.

A- Obviously so, you are not your hand because you continue to exist even when you are not with your hand.

B- Yes. That is true. I am not my hand. Hand is my part.

A- Really? Is hand your part? Do you become something less when the hand is not there with you? Because if X is part of Y, then Y must diminish if Y is without X.

B- Look. Without hand, I obviously feel incapable of doing certain things. This means I have diminished. Isn’t that so?

A- Ok. You feel incapable of doing x. Meaning your scope of functioning reduces. That is acceptable. But is there any reduction in ‘you’?

B- I can appreciate. Look. There is no reduction in myself. It is like one of my instruments getting destroyed. So while I remain the same even without hand, certainly, the destruction of my instrument to function, the hand, renders me functionally diminished.

A- Good! So can you imagine a situation wherein in which your entire body is taken away from you and yet you remain the same.

B- Well, this is mere extension of the example of hand. Yes. I agree, extending the analogy, it is obvious that body is neither me nor my part. It is my instrument and I will continue t remain even when body is no longer there.

A- By same analogy, are you not different from your mind?

B- Yes. I agree. I am different from my BMIC. I can visualize them. These are my instruments through which I function. I can see them. I am the seer, the knower while the BMIC is seen, the known.

A- Hold on! So you and your BMIC are different. Are they different as light and darkness? Are the 180 degrees apart?

B- Yes, of course. I am knower and BMIC is known. I am light and BMIC is darkness. We are 180 degrees apart.

A- Good. So why do you say that ‘I am tall’?

B- Goodness! Did I use to say this?:-) This is an obvious error. ‘I’ cannot be tall. The body is tall.

A- Ok! Why do you say ‘I am happy/sad’?

B- Right! It is an obvious error. ‘I’ cannot be happy/sad. Mind is agitated and a particular condition of mind is termed as happy/sad.

A- Great! So, you admit that you are not your BMIC which you claim. Are you a man/woman?

B- Of course not. I cannot be man/woman. That is derived from the constitution of body. Now ‘I’ am different from body like light and darkness and hence I can neither be a man nor a woman.

A- Ok! Great! So, who are you?

B- Well. I don’t know who I am.

A- Then why do you say that ‘I am B’ ‘I am tall’ etc?

B- Well. I already said that that I accept and admit that I err while holding so. But you must appreciate that I make this error because I don’t know myself. When I don’t see a rope as rope, then I confuse it to be a snkae. Since I don’t know my own self ‘I’, I confuse this ‘I’ to be BMIC.

A- Can we be a bit technical? Not knowing myself is called avidya. Wrong knowledge-I am this body- is called adhyas. Can you see as to the source of adhyas?

B- Of course. Adhyas is the result of avidya.

A- So, do you feel the necessity of destruction of adhyas?

B- Yes obviously. Adhyas is an error and it is foolish to live in error.

A- Do you appreciate that it is only because of adhyas that you feel bondage. You feel yourself happy/sad and seek liberation therefrom.

B- Yes. I can see it. The root cause of sorrow is the basis thought that I am this BMIC. Since it is logically and experientially established that it is an error to believe so, it is quite clear that destruction of adhyas is liberation.

A- Great. So how could adhyas be destroyed?

B- Since adhyas is result of avidya, it is natural to hold that adhyas can be destroyed if avidya is destroyed. It is common knowledge that an effect cannot, if the cause ceases to exist. So the quesiton remains as to how to destroy avidya.

A- Well. Avidya can logically be destroyed only by vidya. Vidya is also known as jnana. Thus, liberation is logically possible only through jnana.

B- Well, how to get jnana?

A- For that, let us go to Whom am I-Part II.

Hope you are enjoying!

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Who am I – Part I

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s