message to my friends

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

> Pardon my intrusion into this very interesting discussion. I will put my
> understanding on two thoughts here, and go into the background again with
> the hope that the participants will address them.

No, more participation is welcome. This is not an intrusion at all. If I
remember right, one of your posts was the motivation behind this
discussion.

> 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