Difference between Self Respect & Ego?

January 19, 2009

Rao Garu !

Namaste !

Few days back a person asked me sincerely one question.

" What is a difference between Self respect & Egoistic attitude in day

to day life? "

I thought it to be a very pertinent and complex question. that may be

the concern of many aspirants. only a advanced soul can try to answer

this with some conviction.

I could have given her a detailed theoritical explanation but thats

of no use unless things are clear.

Say for example, somebody Insults/Ignores/Neglects one person. How

he/she needs to react?

If a superior send a caustic email to subordinate which is

unjustified. should he/she keep quite or answer in same language

without any fear?

In any case, one can choose to react differently but as you've

mentioned earlier that shouldn't bore any grudge. I suppopse, such

detachment may come only after lot of Saadhana and after good amount

of purifications. but what to do till that actual wisdom rises?

as usual i ended mixingup !!!

Yours,

Utpal

January 28, 2009

Namaste,

In vedantic terms, ego stands for " I-ness " (sense of " I " ). If you

self-identify with anything, you have an ego. Ego is not there when and only

when there is no self-identification of any kind, i.e. when one is immersed

in Brahman without any distinction like " this is I, this is other " .

But, in order to exist in a body and function in this world, one needs to

keep alive atleast a very limited amount of self-identification.

However, in most people, this self-identification is not " a very limited "

amount, but really huge. We self-identify with a body, name and identity

quite heavily. The goal is to reduce it and keep it under check, so that it

is ready to completely melt away oneday.

* * *

The only useful purpose of allowing ego (self-identification) to exist is to

allow one to identify with a body, name etc and use them to do god's work.

How does one know what god's work one is supposed to do? One knows it

through one's intuition, one's logical thinkiing and external input like the

words of a guru or other learned men.

How you decide your dharma - what you are supposed to do in this world - is

personal and upto you. But, once you decide that, all your actions should be

centered around that. The level of self-identification should be barely

sufficient for discharging one's dharma. Any self-identification above that

level is unneeded and counter-productive. It gets one entangled in

unnecessary web of karmas.

* * *

Suppose I decide that my dharma is to spead homam in the world. Then I

should use my body, my name, my image, my thoughts and my actions to do what

is needed for spreading homam in the world. Suppose somebody dismisses homam

and speaks very deridingly about homam and me. I may argue or ignore. If my

judgment is that arguing with him and removing the doubts of people is

better to advance my dharma and spread homam, I should argue. If my judgment

is that ignoring is better to advance my dharma, I should ignore him. If my

self-identification with the name and its fame is too strong and it was

offended by his deriding comments on me and I get back to him just for that

reason, I am doing something silly and unneeded. Instead, I should look at

what actions will help me advance my dharma better.

* * *

When Swami Vivekananda lived in US for sometime after his celebrated speech

at the parliament of religions in Chicago, he received some good coverage in

US newspapers. Some jealous Indian neo-religious leaders conducted a

campaign of writing letters to the parliament of religions declaring that

Swami Vivekananda was a fake and that he did not represent Hinduism.

Swamiji was a detached soul who did not care what people thought of him. His

self-identification with the body, name and image in the world were there

only to finish his mission of spreading sanatana dharma and vedanta in the

world. After all, once he finished *his* dharma, he did not look back and

gave up body.

Still, he did not ignore the taunts and negative letter campaign. He took it

seriously. If his detractors were taken seriously, it could have derailed

his mission. He needed thousands of important people from across the world

to be influenced by him and start vedanta societies in various cities (and

co-operation from parliament of religions and positive media coverage

contributed to it). That was *his* dharma as judged by him. So he used his

body, name and image to engage in actions that fought with his detractors,

shut them down and advanced his dharma. He requested Ramakrishna's other

disciples in Calcutta to hold a public meeting and send news clips. Swami

Abhedananda went from Dakshineshwar to Calcutta, stayed there for a few

days, invited all spiritual leaders, royals and famous personalities to a

public meeting, held a public meeting. He ensured that the grand public

meeting was attended by many famous people and passed a formal resolution

acknowledging Swami Vivekananda's contributions to Hinduism. News clips from

Indian news papers were promptly mailed to the parliament of religions

leaders. All doubts about Vivekananda's authenticity were laid to rest.

If Vivekananda did this out of personal egotism and to feel good about

himself, he would be binding himself in more entanglements. But, he was

doing it to advance his chosen dharma, which was far bigger than feeling

good about himself. So it did not really bind him.

* * *

As you said, suppose your superior insults you or is unfair to you. The

first instinct of a person would be to be hurt or sad or angry or mad. But,

that is the sign of a overly strong self-identification with a body, name

and image. What's the big deal if someone calls me names? You, the

imperishable one, are trapped in this perishable identity (body, name,

image) *temporarily* just to fulfil some dharma. Identifying with this

identity just enough to fulfil your dharma is required. But why identify

more than needed and become angry or sad or mad that someone thinks badly

about this temporary identity? It is actually quite foolish.

You should think only in terms of your dharma. What is the dharma you are

working for? What things help it and what things pull it back?

Suppose you decide that one of your dharmas is to take care of your family

(because there are still unpaid karmik debts). Suppose an unfair comment of

a superior has a chance of impacting your next performance review, your

salary or even your job itself, and, as a result, a chance of blocking your

dharma. Then, the question is what action will advance your dharma better.

Will you serve your dharma better by ignoring and remaining calm or by

arguing back? Do whatever helps your chosen dharma more.

But, thinking " he is wrong. He is unfair to *me* " and reacting based on it

useless, though that is what most people do. As I said above, do not pay too

much attention to a temporary entity called your identity (body, name and

image). You are not that. You are something else using 'that' to fulfil some

dharma. Decide what your dharma is and base your actions in tricky

situations on their impact on your dharma.

Hope that clarifies a little bit.

Best regards,

Narasimha

Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam

Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana

Spirituality:

Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net

Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org