Nothing Doing

Nothing Doing

You wrote:

“All attempts at control of a situation (any situation) is a failure to trust That which Does. Control and idealism are closely related: the latter gives birth to the former.”

You got that right. Concerning the other matter you mentioned: Yes, some teachers speak as if we had a choice (such as to seek enlightenment), while others say we’ve never had any choice about anything (and they don’t mean this in the sense of “predestination”). Actually, all true enlightenment teachers want you to be aware that there is a possibility for each of us to transcend such ideational concerns as “choice/no choice.” What does it matter? If you posit that there is a choice, you will then do what you do. If you assert that there is no choice, you will proceed to do what you do. We could say that if there is a choice, it is “you” who makes the choice. If there is no you, we might tend to assume that something “other” is directing the choice. In absence of the idea of a “you” or an “other,” there is simply what is taking place. Animals seem to make choices; yet they appear to have no capacity for an internal debate: “Am I choosing to make this decision, or is something else doing it for me?”

Awareness of one’s actions need not lead to the question “why?” The “why?” is based on the self-conscious quandary “am I doing the right thing, or the wrong thing?” As with an animal, you will do what you will do. Some observers will judge your action as “fitting,” in the circumstances, others as “unfitting.” Some will opine that you had a choice, others that you had no choice. Some will be of no opinion, and will observe that it’s simply “what’s happening.” We grant that for animals. We hardly ever are so charitable to ourselves.