Saturday, 21 March 2009
The Horror of No Volition.
Non-duality stuff doesn't get into the mainstream press very often, but I recall seeing something once in the (UK) Times. I can't remember what the article was about or what the organisation referred to was, but it said something like: "...with their emphasis on no personal responsibility." Contextually, this was abhorred; the organisation was dismissed as zany and possibly dangerous. It became clear to me how society categorises such people: crazy, deluded, threatening iconoclasts, liable to rock the boat at any moment. For a society of apparent individuals, busy taking the story terribly seriously indeed, the idea of no volition - no choice about what happens on any level (not even in mental health circles, where "I have a choice now" is the mantra of wellbeing) - is a horrifying prospect, but only because duality is so ingrained that they imagine this freedom to be necessarily anarchy. There is no choice because there are no separate individuals, there is only oneness, despite the appearance of two (or more.). There has never "been" any choice. There is no choice "now". There will never be any choice, despite the appearance of choices. There is no one who can choose to be a raving loony killer, just because they've realised there is no personal responsibility, and no choice. Who is it that would kill? Who would they kill? If you aren't already a killer, it's unlikely that you ever will be, in the story of your life. Everything seems to go on much as it ever did. The message here, such as it is, is that "no choice" being anathema to everything you've ever valued is because indeed, it is anathema to that; to taking the story ever so seriously, and trying to make everything better, or indeed to just muddling along without doing anything too vile. The fear is of the death of the individual. In liberation, everything is still everything, and nothing is still nothing. The appearance of choice can still arise in liberation, but like everything else, it is just appearance. The appearance is both real and unreal, solid and ethereal, but just a parable for a greater possibility. There is no need to fear what already is. The fear is oneness as well, being fear. Whatever happens unfolds in beauty and perfection, no matter how horrifying it seems. Or annoying, like the author of that article in the Times, who fell back on society's absolute tenet, that everyone must take their responsibilities seriously. That will still seem to happen. It's just not the be-all and end-all.