shadsampatti:a story-Choosing a choiceless choice

March 15, 2007

Shaymji and Nair - PraNAms

Interesting story.

Let us pose a question - who has the choice that

Shankara points out? - To do, not to do and do it

another way.

I am not entering into the discussion of freewill vs.

destiny here, although topic is centered on it.

If one is a realized being, as the sage seems to be,

then the choice is not his but that of the totality

that responds to the situation and sage can either

take himself as the witnessing agent or even the

governing agent providing only substantive support

without any agency of action.

If one is unrealized being, then the choice is only a

seeming choice since it is based on the reaction to

the situation and the reaction is dictated by the ego

which is rooted on its past conditionings, and future

reparations. There the pressures of the past, or

anxiety about the results of the future can be

temporarily frozen to provided intellectual evaluation

of the seeming choices and respond accordingly. Even

here, the ego is playing the role by indentity with

the intellect, the choices are not free from the past

and future repurcations.

But that seaming choice is taken as the real choice by

the ego since it would seam to be real. In Gita

Krishna says, Kouravaas are destined to be killed from

the point of totality, whether Arjuna likes it or not.

Arjuna can either go along with this choiceless

choice or resists it locally by crystallizing his

egoistic attitude. In the process Arjuna will suffer,

but from the point of totality, if the destiny is

powerful the action gets done. How? - Krishna alone

would know.

In the current story's case, the sage chose to remain

as the silent witness, and allowed the totality to

function on its predestined path. In the process, he

remained unaffected with the circumstances around him

obviously were affected. He must have enjoyed the

drama that took place. Is his choice, the right

choice? Who would know?

Suppose He told the truth from his perspective and

then accepted whatever that comes, that would have

been alright too. Then there is no play of personal

ego involved. That would have been a slight deviation

of the drama that took place.

Suppose he fought the allegation as part of the

acceptance of the situation and took the results as it

comes - that would have been alright too. Even then

there is no personal ego involved.

What Gita advocates is somewhat different. Krishna

declares there is nothing he needs to do in the three

worlds. Yet he does. But why?

He gives a clear explanation - yadyat aacharatiH

shreShTaH ...' whatever a leader or an elder does the

others blindly follow. So for the benefit of loka

kalyaaNam, one has the responsibility in exercising

the choiceless choice - essentially redirecting the

totality to better destiny. Hence if you examine all

our pouraanic stories, Gods are very active in

destroying the wicked and in establishing Dharma. - Is

there a choice or is it choiceless choice. The

concept of avataara is embedded in that.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

--- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair

wrote:

> Shaymji, thanks for the beautiful story. I am

> already feeling monk-

> like under its spell.

>

> However, I am a little bit confused too. We,

> Advaitins, do agree

> that there is at least a 'seeming' choice of action

> granted to us.

> In Shankara's own words, kartum shakyam, akartum

> shakyam, anyatAva

> kartum shakyam (can do, cannot do, can do

> differently).

>

> Each moment is Consciousness unravelling Herself in

> front of us. The

> child and its alleged paternity were Consciousness

> unravelling before

> the monk. There is a beauty in understing all

> happenings this way

> and accepting them totally without resistance. We

> are then honouring

> the very Consciousness we are. In the explanation

> to the story, the

> word Existence, I suppose, denotes this

> Consciousness.

>

> Well, from the point of view of Advaita, there was

> no harm for the

> monk to have denied the charge, as that is the

> truth. In doing so he

> would then have been exercising the seeming freedom

> of action granted

> to him by the very same Consciousness (Existence).

> Then that denial

> would not be an attempt of the dreaded ego to

> salvage its pride. It

> would only be an obeisance to Consciousness.

> Someone else, perhaps

> the grandparents themselves, would then have taken

> care of the child.

>

> Don't we Advaitins also pray for the will to change

> those that we can

> change and the ability to understand those we can

> change and those we

> cannot? Why couldn't the monk try to change the

> situation if that

> was possible before embracing it as an obvious

> inevitable?

>

> Would you agree?

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

March 15, 2007

Pranams dear Sada-ji and Nair-ji

Thank you both for your beautiful posts.

I agree with Sada-ji that from a vedantic perspective any action on the part

of the revered Seer would have been in Order.

In the story there are three prarabdhas unfolding - the unwed mothers', the

newborns and the Masters.

What is destined to happen will happen as per the dictates of the perfect

Order which is Ishwara. A person who is realized who has no ragadvesha to taint

his acts who has no notion of do-ership is no different than any natural

instrument - like a sea neither resists nor assists a tsunami from forming into

one, but does what the Order ordains it to do.

The newborn's prarabdha may have been to be proximate to a realized Seer as

soon as it was born; only ParaShakti knows!

In the end what unfolded helped the newborn benefit greatly by giving it the

priceless proximity of a Sage, and helped the mother recognize the evil in her

actions and in turn hopefully evolving into a more spiritual person.

But if the Order had been configured differently, then we may well have seen

the Seer " act " in a different manner - in which cae too as Sada-ji writes - he

would essentially allowed that action to happen, ensconced as He would be in

pure Being.

There is a subtle but crucial difference this story highlights i think between

Buddhism - where-in any act on the part of an individual has to be decidedly

inert (from an observer's viewpoint) - whereas Vedanta allows the (observed)

actions to have a wide-scope and latitude- even violent - provided there is no

notion of do-ership on the part of the person - the context of the Gita of

course comes most readily to mind. This is perhaps what Nair-ji is alluding to

as well.

Hari OM

Shyam

kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: