Action & Reaction

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

 

This is an edited version of the talk given by my guru Pujya Swami

Dayananda Saraswati. I hope all the list members will benefit from

this.

 

with love and prayers,

 

Jaishankar

 

Action - Reaction

H.H. Sri Swami Dayananda Saraswati

 

 

Man alone among sentient beings is self-conscious and unprogrammed. He

is aware of himself and his environment, and free to choose his

attitude and behavior. Self-awareness and free will are man’s

‘humanness’. All other beings are tied to a pattern set by their

instincts. man, too, has instincts, but he is not bound by their

pattern. In fact, blessed with free will, he cannot rely upon instinct

as a guide for his behavior, but must thoughtfully choose his actions

in accordance with ethical standards. If he allows his actions just to

‘happen’, triggered by instinct-born impulses or some conditioned

‘mechanicalness’, he is not acting but merely reacting.

 

All reactions are ‘happenings’. Human choice is over action - not

reaction. Once I act I have no power to choose the reaction. I can

choose to clap my hands or not. But, when - with a certain velocity -

the flat of my hands contact each other, I have no option to decide

whether a noise is made. A reaction is like that. Any reaction is

determined by the totality of laws and circumstances that, once an

action has occurred, come into force to make the given reaction happen.

 

If I fail to choose my actions consciously and deliberately, but simply

let them happen, they will be reactions, either impulsive reactions

born of instincts or mechanical reactions born of conditioning. In

either case I have not exercised that special faculty that makes me

human, namely choice of action based on rational thought.

 

So what? Why does it matter whether I exercise this special faculty? Is

there a reason why I should consciously choose my actions? What is

wrong with letting impulse or conditioning guide me? My impulses are

normal. My conditioning carried by my parents, my teacher, and my

society is good.

 

That may be true. But, still, over any period of time, a life based on

impulsive or mechanical behavior will run into problems. When my

’actions’ are really reactions, my mind will be troubled, because:

 

- Experience will not teach me

- Conflicts between thought and deed will bother me

- Painful emotions will build up.

- Mood will be my master.

 

When I consciously, rationally choose my actions, I am in a position to

benefit from what has happened before. Experience is my teacher. Even

from wrong actions I become wiser. But when I let my actions ’happen’,

I am not consciously there to learn from the past.

 

In addition, these actions that are ’happenings’ will lead to a split

in me. No matter how constructive my conditioning may have been, my

impulses will not always be in line with my ethical standards, leading

to behavior in conflict with values. Action in conflict will produce a

mind divided against itself. Like Duryodhana in the Mahaabhaarata, I

will find myself saying:

 

janaami dharmam na ca me pravrtti:

janaami adharmam na ca me nivrtti:

 

‘ I know what is right, but I cannot do it

I know what is not right, but I cannot but do it’.

 

Duryodhana has lost the power of rational choice over his actions. His

mind was in conflict and split between values and impulses. A mind in

conflict is always a painful mind.

 

Pain, in fact, is the companion of many reactions. When I analyze the

attitudes and conduct that all religions condemn as ’bad’, I find that

bad actions are really painful actions. Universally condemned emotions,

such as jealousy and hatred, are built-up reactions. These are

disturbing emotions that trouble the mind. No one consciously chooses

to be jealous or hateful. Such actions grow from license granted to

impulse. Impulse stems from desire/longing for the agreeable and

anger/aversion to the disagreeable. In the Gita, Lord Krishna says:

 

shaknotiihaiva yah sodhum praak shariiravimokshanaat

kaamakrodhobhavam vegam sa yuktah sa sukhii narah

 

‘The one who is able to master the force born of anger and desire here

(in this world) before release from the body is a karma-yogi. He is

indeed a happy person’. (5.23)

 

Finally, to the extent my actions are the result of impulse, I will be

ruled by mood. With mood as my master I will be a question mark to

others and myself. No one will know whether at any given time I will be

reasonable, touchy, co-operative or stubborn.

 

Thus, analysis shows that thoughtless action, born of impulse or

conditioning will cause me pain and problems. If I see this but find

that I am caught in a web of reaction and mechanicalness, what can I

do?

 

I can undertake a program of alertness. I can commit myself to

consciously watch all my thoughts, words, and actions, no matter how

small, trivial or insignificant they are. To be conscious of all

thoughts, words, and actions is called tapas in Sanskrit. The word is

used to cover many religious austerities such as fasting, observing

silence, and similar disciplines. The purpose of all these disciplines

is only to make one more conscious. When one is doing something

different from routine, alertness and awareness sharpen.

 

With sharpened awareness I will be able to recognize when I am

mechanical. If I become conscious that I am mechanical, then

mechanicalness ceases! Consciousness and mechanicalness cannot

co-exist. With mechanicalness gone, my actions are subject to my

choice. I can choose deliberately to align even my trivial thoughts,

words, and deeds so that they are not at war with one another. Mastery

over small things brings in its wake control over larger ones. Through

alertness and deliberateness I can free myself from reactions born of

impulse and conditioning.

 

A mind free from reactions is quiet, receptive, objective, capable and

serene. Such a mind enjoys relative happiness. It can learn from

experience, not wracked with conflict. It can deal with negative

emotions and it is master over its moods. A mind like this is ready to

discover the truth of the self through the teaching of Vedanta.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.

/

[Guest guest]

Harih Aum Jaishankarji:

 

My reaction to your posting on "Action and Reaction," is to request

your active participation in Gita Satsang. We are looking forward!'

 

warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin , Jaishankar Narayanan <jaishankar_n>

wrote:

> Dear friends,

>

> This is an edited version of the talk given by my guru Pujya Swami

> Dayananda Saraswati. I hope all the list members will benefit from

> this.

>

> with love and prayers,

>

> Jaishankar

>

> Action - Reaction

> H.H. Sri Swami Dayananda Saraswati

>

[Guest guest]

The Yoga Vashishta says the following regarding

action.

 

"maa vaa karta bhava prajna kim akartrtayehite |

saadhyam saadhyama upaadeyam tasmaat svastho

bhavaanagha ||"

 

" Do not become inactive either, for what is gained by

doing nothing? What has to be done has to be done.

Therefore rest in the Self."

 

"Sanitambastani chitre na stri stridharmaani yatha |

tathaivaakaarachinteyam kartum yogyaa na kinchana ||

 

" Even as a life like painting of a living woman

cannot perform duties of a living woman, this

ignorance or mental conditioning is incapable of

functioning ,though it appears potent".

 

This ignorance or mental conditioning has but a

momentary existence, yet, since it flows on, it seems

permanent like a river. Since it veils reality, it

seems real, but when you try to grasp it, you discover

it is nothing.

 

Anand

 

 

 

 

Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.

/

[Guest guest]

An interesting article posted by Jaishankar Narayanan. Is Pujya Swami

Dayananda Saraswati the same Swami Dayananda who teaches in Pennsylvania and

has written a book on the teaching of the Gita?

 

It was clearly stated that man has the ability to exercise free will. It was

said that: -

 

"If I fail to choose my actions consciously and deliberately, but simply

let them happen, they will be reactions, either impulsive reactions

born of instincts or mechanical reactions born of conditioning. In

either case I have not exercised that special faculty that makes me

human, namely choice of action based on rational thought."

 

Could you explain please why 'choice of action based on rational thought' is

not a reaction. Is it really possible to think anything that is not a

logical (and theoretically deducible) consequence of prior thought and

action, unavoidably conditioned in a totally mechanical way? Is it not

simply that the differentiation between what you call 'impulsive' or

'mechanical' reaction and 'rational thought' is the number of mental steps

involved between trigger and response? In the former case, there are few

steps and the connection is obvious. In the latter case, there are many

steps and we can delude ourselves into thinking that there is some element

of 'choice' involved?

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

>An interesting article posted by Jaishankar Narayanan. Is Pujya Swami

>Dayananda Saraswati the same Swami Dayananda who teaches in Pennsylvania and

>has written a book on the teaching of the Gita?

 

Since Shree Jaishankar Narayanan says he is quite busy with his work,

I venture to respond to Dennis to the degree I understand.

 

The first question is very simple - Yes it is the same H.H. Dayananda

Saraswati who is the head of Arshya Vidya Gurukulam in Pennsylvania.

He was in Chinmaya Mission before and was the resident achaarya at

Sandeepani Sadhanalaya in Bombay and the current head of the CM -

H.H. Swami Tejomayananda studied under him, as well. When Sandeepany

West formed in Pearcy, California, in 80"s, he also taught one

two-year Brahmachaari training course. Afterwards he separated

himself from CM to form his own Gurukula. Very ardent speaker and

extremely analytical in his approach. I personally learned a lot

from him.

>It was clearly stated that man has the ability to exercise free will. It was

>said that: -

>

>"If I fail to choose my actions consciously and deliberately, but simply

>let them happen, they will be reactions, either impulsive reactions

>born of instincts or mechanical reactions born of conditioning. In

>either case I have not exercised that special faculty that makes me

>human, namely choice of action based on rational thought."

>

>Could you explain please why 'choice of action based on rational thought' is

>not a reaction. Is it really possible to think anything that is not a

>logical (and theoretically deducible) consequence of prior thought and

>action, unavoidably conditioned in a totally mechanical way? Is it not

>simply that the differentiation between what you call 'impulsive' or

>'mechanical' reaction and 'rational thought' is the number of mental steps

>involved between trigger and response? In the former case, there are few

>steps and the connection is obvious. In the latter case, there are many

>steps and we can delude ourselves into thinking that there is some element

>of 'choice' involved?

>

>Dennis

 

Dennis you have raised very important issue. In a way what you say

is true. But I am sure you agree with me that there is difference in

an impulsive response in contrast to deliberate well thought out

response. True, in both the thought process is involved. At the same

time there is a lot of difference in the quality of action.

 

Impulsive response is called a reaction since it reflects more the

instinctive response fully colored by ones intensive likes and

dislikes. That makes it as reaction to the input where the play of

the rational intellect is low while the contribution from ones

feelings is high. It is an emotional response rather than

intellectual response. That is when ones anger, lust and other

passions takes over ones actions. People loose the discriminative

faculty and act or I should say react and later when the

discriminative faculty is available regret that they should not have

done that. This is where as Krishna puts it - krodha, anger, leads

to sammoha, delusion, where there there is lack of discrimination and

sammoha leads to memory loss, smR^iti bhramsha, where one forgets

that one is dealing with his own mother or father or child and act

irrationally - That is when the man goes down fall - praNasyati.

When one knows what is the right thing do if one uses the

intellectual reasoning but acts impulsively what one feels like doing

- That divergence between the emotional values and intellectual

values is termed 'sin'. Yoga integrates these two faculties. There

is less and less of reaction and more and more of action for a yogi.

 

As you said when one goes step by step thinking process, in the very

sequence of steps, one gets detached and analyzing the problems on

its merit rather than clouded by emotions. That is one becomes more

and more objective in his approach. Normally intellect knows what is

right and what is wrong - this knowledge is gained as one grows,

through education, through ones own personal experience and through

listening to a teacher or wise people and by studying shaastra-s.

All that knowledge comes to the point of action since he is able to

think step by step.

 

As a human one always responds to an action - He has no choice in

that - to do, not to do and to do another way is always three choices

one has. In impulsive action that choice are blocked and one acts as

animal - instinctively driven. Some plead momentary insanity for

such impulsively driven animalistic actions. Law allows that.

 

But in rational intellectual process one is human with discriminative

faculty. Here he exercises his choices that he has. One can of

course deliberately act badly by lot of thinking that which is

against their own better judgement that says not to do but here they

are driven by greed and lust. In that case intellect is coming to

support their baser animalistic tendencies and they become worse than

animals - They are real Rakshasas - We find them all the time - like

Hitler etc. This is worst sin even according to Law - Meditative

action to harm others.

 

In that sense action is different from reaction.

 

There is also inaction that was discussed few weeks ago before. This

occurs when one realizes that one is no more an actor but action goes

on in his presence. In principle he does not act. Yet appropriate

action goes on in his presence. That is the state of Jiivanmukta.

There it is spontaneous action driven by the situation. In that case

one can say it is the Lord that is acting through that equipments.

In that case it is the Lord that is accountable for the action. When

one spontaneously jumps into water when to save a child who is

drowning - This may look like a reaction discussed above but it is

the reaction of the prakriti (not individualistic prakriti or

vasana's ) but Lord's. There was a case several years ago in Florida

where one Indian student jumped in to save a child, He saved the

child alright but in the process he got drowned since he did not know

how to swim! If he had deliberated and jumped in then it is a

different action where the action is driven by the intellect.

 

It is extremely difficult to judge others actions - whether it is

action, reaction or inaction etc. Hence Krishna emphasized the fact

that even the pandits have the problem in resolving these. First

thing to do not to judge others and second thing to do it to

surrender oneself to Him and let Him guide the action. To the degree

one surrenders, to that degree one gets detached from impulsive

reactions and one acts more rationally, since Lord is taking the

reins.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, [iso-8859-1] Jaishankar Narayanan wrote:

> Dear friends,

>

> This is an edited version of the talk given by my guru Pujya Swami

> Dayananda Saraswati. I hope all the list members will benefit from

> this.

>

> with love and prayers,

>

> Jaishankar

>

> Action - Reaction

> H.H. Sri Swami Dayananda Saraswati

>

> [...]

 

 

namaste shri Jaishankar,

 

It is very nice to see your posting of swami Dayanandaji's

talk on Action and reaction. I also echo shri Ram Chandran's

observation: you should participate much more fully in the

List's deliberations and let the List have the benefit of

your insights. Particularly, I look forward to your

contributions to our gItA satsang.

 

Now, re pUjya swamiji's observations on Action and Reaction.

My understanding on this is slightly different. I put forward

my understanding below.

 

First on Action - Reaction:

 

Action: Every embodied human has to act whether he/she is mired

in avidyA or he/she is a jivanmukta completely untouched by the

mAyA. I take support for this statement from the bhagavadgItA

3.23 and also the upanishads (Isha-2). Even saying I do not like

to act is an action. Every thought is an action. Thus the human

does not have a choice except to act. Action is inevitable and

cannot be escaped.

 

Reaction: It is the reaction which shapes the man. Let me explain.

The soul is the subject for the experience. How this experience

is interpreted (or reaction to this experience) is a function

of the buddhi and the manas. Joy and sorrow, pleasure and pain,

heat and cold and all other pairs of opposites arise out of the

interpretation of this experience or arise out of the reaction.

If the human does not feel the experience itself, he/she is brahman

and knows that. Thus, reaction cannot be discounted at all, and

it is only the reaction which determines how ignorant or wise

the person is.

 

Now, re free-will: Swami Dayanandaji seems to be saying that

denial of free-will is tantamount to instinctive action like

animals. As per my understanding: Denial of free-will means

putting the responsibility on God for our upbringing; denial

of free-will means subduing the ego which rises at every step.

Shri RamaNa maharShi says when one is travelling in a train,

there is no need to carry the luggage on the head; place the

luggage on the train and let the train carry the luggage.

 

There are two lines of thought or outlooks here.

 

1. I am doing the action here, but I do not have any

phalApeksha and I ascribe the result of the action to

the Lord (a la BG2.47)

 

or

 

2. This work is being done through me by the Lord.

 

I think (2) is the outlook closer to the Truth.

 

I realize in BG2.47, Lord krishna says that Arjuna has the

adhikAra for the performing of the karma (but not for the

result of the karma). AdhikAra here is not the freedom to choose

to do or not to do. AdhikAra, as I understand, is responsibility,

duty. "Let there be the idea 'This is my duty', only with regard

to action, not with regard to its results.

 

But, this is not the final lesson given by Lord krishna to Arjuna.

The next higher lesson, as I see it, is "I have already killed

BhIShma, DroNa et al. You are only going to kill the ones I have

already killed". Here, Krishna is saying you are only an instrument

for my action. Thus, the human has no choice but to act, but the

act is not human's action. Human is only an instrument for the

Lord's action.

 

Now, if we say we are doing any action out of our free-will,

how far can we carry this free-will? Is this free-will in addition

to bhagavadkr^ipa? Or is this free-will to counter-act bhagavad

iccha, what God has intended for us? Is there a proportion of

free-will and bhagavadkr^ipa? Why not give 100% credit to

bhagavadkr^ipa rather than claiming a portion for human free-will?

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

----

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote:

>

>Is this free-will in addition to bhagavadkr^ipa?

 

I may be jumping-in out of context, but I am of an opinion as follows:

 

Let us say, Mr.X has 4pennies in his pocket and that is all the

treasure he has(free-will). Out of the blue, let is say he wins a

lottery and gets 1 million dollars(bhagavadkr^ipa).

 

Now his total treasrue is 1Million dollars + 4pennies.

 

Now, if we were to ask him, what he would do with the 4pennies which

he has of his own, what would he say ? He would probably say that

4pennies are insignificant compared to 1Mill$.

 

With Love,

Raghava

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

 

Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote:

> Now, re pUjya swamiji's observations on Action and Reaction.

> My understanding on this is slightly different. I put forward

> my understanding below.

>

> First on Action - Reaction:

>

> Action: Every embodied human has to act whether he/she is mired

> in avidyA or he/she is a jivanmukta completely untouched by the

> mAyA. I take support for this statement from the bhagavadgItA

> 3.23 and also the upanishads (Isha-2). Even saying I do not like

> to act is an action. Every thought is an action. Thus the human

> does not have a choice except to act. Action is inevitable and

> cannot be escaped.

 

Jai: I agree with what is said here. I would like to add that

freedom from freewill and action is the result of the knowledge

that 'I am not a doer or enjoyer'. This freedom is there even while a

jnani is acting in the world. It is like the actor in a drama knowing

that he is not the character but still acting as per the script.

>

> Reaction: It is the reaction which shapes the man. Let me explain.

> The soul is the subject for the experience. How this experience

> is interpreted (or reaction to this experience) is a function

> of the buddhi and the manas. Joy and sorrow, pleasure and pain,

> heat and cold and all other pairs of opposites arise out of the

> interpretation of this experience or arise out of the reaction.

> If the human does not feel the experience itself, he/she is brahman

> and knows that. Thus, reaction cannot be discounted at all, and

> it is only the reaction which determines how ignorant or wise

> the person is.

 

Jai: Reaction has been clearly stated as acting out of impulse and

instincts. Here Murthygaru is defining it differently and I am not

very clear what he is trying to convey. Particluarly the

sentence, "If the human does not feel the experience itself, he/she

is brahman and knows that." Do you mean that one who does'nt

experience anything is jnani? Then it goes against what you have said

before - "Every embodied human has to act whether he/she is mired in

avidyA or he/she is a jivanmukta completely untouched by the mAyA."

Because one cannot act without experiencing the body.

>

> Now, re free-will: Swami Dayanandaji seems to be saying that

> denial of free-will is tantamount to instinctive action like

> animals. As per my understanding: Denial of free-will means

> putting the responsibility on God for our upbringing; denial

> of free-will means subduing the ego which rises at every step.

> Shri RamaNa maharShi says when one is travelling in a train,

> there is no need to carry the luggage on the head; place the

> luggage on the train and let the train carry the luggage.

>

 

Jai: Swamiji is just trying to convey that if one does'nt act as per

one's knowledge and good judgement and instead gives in to impulses

and instincts one will end up in problems. This does not mean that

one should not surrender to Isvara's order. Infact surrender is an

act born of knowledge and freewill and can not be a reaction. Also

one should understand that here swamiji is not talking brahma Vidya

but Yoga Shastra and so the discussion is about action in vyavahara.

 

Further Murthygaru says,

> Now, if we say we are doing any action out of our free-will,

> how far can we carry this free-will? Is this free-will in addition

> to bhagavadkr^ipa? Or is this free-will to counter-act bhagavad

> iccha, what God has intended for us? Is there a proportion of

> free-will and bhagavadkr^ipa? Why not give 100% credit to

> bhagavadkr^ipa rather than claiming a portion for human free-will?

>

 

Jai: I say freewill itself is Bhagavadkripa alone. In Isvara's Order

human beings are endowed with freewill. Freewill is not against

Bhagavad iccha but adharma is. So one must use the God given freewill

to act as per Dharma. Bhagavan says "dharma aviruddha kamosmi" - I am

the desire which is in keeping with dharma" in the 7th chapter. Also

finally after teaching Arjuna in the 18th chapter he

says "yathecchasi tathaa kuru" - "You do as you desire". So freewill

is not against bhagavad iccha or krpa, but abuse of freewill is

against bhagavad iccha.

 

with love and prayers,

 

Jaishankar.