On Doership and Choice

Do we have a choice ? This is an interesting question among the philosophically inclined, and has arguments in favor of both the sides. I'd like to write a bit of my thoughts on the subject after having given it some thought ;), and also after some readings of scriptures. While I make this point as a possibility, a very distinct possibility and a very strong one at that, it is difficult to analyze it with the intellect. I have come to a conclusion based on observations, commentaries of philosophers and some scriptures. Like it is said in Vasistha's yoga that : "one must convince oneself of either the falsity or correctness of things by one's own experience(observations), teachings of the teachers and also the scriptures". There is no other proof as in a mathematical proof ...

In the 13th chapter of the Bhagvad Gita, Krishna talks about the field and the knower of the field. For a person with discrimination, this is not difficult to observe. There are various subtelties in observing various phenomena. These are observing the mind, intellect etc. The difficulty of discrimination increases as we try to distinguish the subtler phenomena. Some may have the inclination and capability and others may not have it to that degree. One of the points that he makes is that a being comes into being, when there is a conjunction of the purusa and prakriti. i.e., there is a birth of an entity when there is a merger of the purusa(witness) and the prakriti(nature). Interestingly, he goes on to mention that all cause/effect phenomena is under nature(prakriti) and all actions are initiated there. What about the Purusa. He simply witnesses. He is not involved in the action, nor is a cause of it. Therefore, all observable phenomena are motivated by nature only.

So a natural question to pose is: "Who is the doer and does one have a choice ?". The above question clearly answers the part of action. That it is the result of cause and effect within the purview of nature. A fruit falls from the tree. Who is the doer ? What a ridiculous question that would be, is it not ? Does the fruit have a choice ? A more ridiculous question. A fruit for that matter is a very simple example of nature. An inanimate object. We could put laws of physics/nature and argue easily that the fruit cannot(will not ?) fly away, but fall directly to the ground. Is there a doer ? No there isn't any. Its just the properties of nature. Is there a choice ? The question is ridiculous because, there is an assumption that the fruit has a "sense of self", and therefore a "sense of choice". This is one of the most important cornerstone in my arguments that follow.

Let us take a more complicated example of the sun rising and shining. Again it is the property of the nature of the sun that makes it shine the way it does. Again, it is the property of the gravitational energies that make the sun rise and set regularly. Although the sun does not go anywhere round the earth. It only apparently does so. Does the sun have a choice ? What a ridiculous question again !

When one moves onto more complicated entities such as living organisms the argument can get into a seemingly complicated analysis. But it isn't the case. Lets take the case of an ant. I am sure that it has a "sense of self". Assuming for a moment, it doesn't have any sense of self... what would you say to the behaviour of an ant? It moves and behaves according to its nature. The ants nature is to move according to its "programming" so to say. It always moves randomly all the time and eventually finds some food. It lifts the food and moves randomly again. Who is the doer ? It is the nature of the ant gives rise to this behaviour. Does it have a choice ? This is an interesting question. While it "appears" it has a choice.... it doesn't ? Whoa,... waitaminute ...
"Appears it has a choice" but it doesn't ? Precisely, that is what is meant here. If the ant had a "sense of self", then the ant would immediately jump to the presumption that it had the choice and so it made the choices which resulted in it moving randomly and picking up food. In reality, though the ant simply followed its natural instincts and moved and did so. The reason it might have had a "sense of choice" was because of its false identification with "sense of self".

Lets move onto more complicated organisms like human beings. Its easier to pose these questions like "Doership and Choice", because we seem to have greater faculties to understand these concepts. And therein lies the greatest fallacy. Whatever we do (as a sense of doership) in our daily life is just our natural ways at work. There is no such thing as "doership" at all. The existence of the word "doership" comes merely as a result of the "sense of self". Do we have a choice. Only as much as our intelligent faculty responds to events and situations. Choice implies alternative decisions. It exists as it is in our nature. A deer looks at a lion and immediately makes a choice to run away. It is in its nature, and so it simply follows its nature. It has the intelligence to understand that there is impending danger to its existence and therefore it turns around and runs. It does this exactly as it would have gone to sleep in the night or woken up when the sun rises. Both of which are natural to it, and several other organisms. The intelligent faculty is built into nature to develop choices when alternatives are available. When we need to travel to another city we may choose to walk, run, ride a horse, board a train or a flight. Our faculty of intelligence merely tells us the bet way to accomplish the goal. So you would ask immediatly "So I had a choice to walk". Yes, you definitely had the choice, but you wouldn't exercise it at all. You would have had several alternatives and would have chosen the most optimum. But the sense of self gives us the "impression" that "we" made the choice. If the "sense of self" were absent, there wouldn't be the question of "who made the choice", "was a choice made by me","did i have a choice" etc. After the decision has been taken, it is merely an afterthought that the "sense of self" has "exercised an option" !


It is the mistaken "identity" and association with nature that makes us feel the doership and the ownership of choices we make. Consider an analogy. If I were sitting in a movie and watching the events as they pass, I can get emotionally charged as the events transpire. Even though I am not at all involved in the proceedings of the movie, I am considerably affected by it. What then of this "movie of life" ?

The misunderstood sense of self is what gives rise to false ownership and sense of doership and the notion of choices. Know the term attachment ? This is what it probably means. A "sense of self" gets created owing to our attachment with our actions and things in nature. If we never had this attachment, there would be no sense of self, and therefore none of the events would affect us anymore. This is probably why all "karmas" simply fall off. It was simply because of our wrong notion of self that this whole problem was created in the first place. Therefore, the remedy was prescribed in the Gita to do all actions neutrally ? How ? By submitting it to a "third party" such as the "lord". Since there would be no attachment to the action, there would be no attachment to the result as well. It was simply a matter of perspective, wasn't it ?


It appears that the recommendations after this analysis would be that, we simply let the proceedings go as they are. We don't relate "ourselves" to any of it. We let even the difficult situations be as they are (unattached). We watch the proceedings as they are(unattached). We perform things as we would perform them naturally, but without the adjoining sense of doership(unattached). We do not worry about the outcomes either, but watch them dispassionately (unattached). Knowing all the while that we are not part of this nature at all. Knowing all the while that things behave the way they do simply because of their properties. There is no reason to get attached to anything, just as you would not get attached to whether the fruit would fall or fly away from the tree. Merely because of its property. We would have proceeded to accomplish something simply because of our natural tendencies. I may have been working as an artist merely because of my natural tendencies. I may have become a warrior because of a natural tendency. I may have become an ascetic because of my natural tendency. Just as much as bee would have gone collecting honey for the day quite naturally, and not gone grazing grass! How ridiculous isn't it ?