What is right and what is wrong?

Got this in local newsgroups today:

A group of children were playing near two railway tracks, one still
in use while the other disused. Only one child played on the disused track, the rest on the operational track. The train came, and you were just beside the track interchange. You could make the train change its course to the dis-used track and saved most of the kids.

However, that would also mean the lone child playing by the dis-used track would be sacrificed. Or would you rather let the train go its way?

So what is the right thing? Go by purely 'natural' instincts, and you want to save as many lives as possible. Go by 'idealistic' instincts and you want to support the lone child who was actually right. And those who don't do right things are to be punished - by those who feel they know what is right.

So, as an individual, what should be the right approach in determining "What is right"? In Indian philosophy, question such as this is turned upside down: Understand assumptions, and achieve freedom and clarity by giving up those assumptions. (This is focus in the following discussion.)

So the core of the question is: "What is meaning of being right?" How exactly are our actions determined? And what would an enlightned person do in similar situation?

Associated with this question is another question: "Who is authrorized to evaluate the right answer?" Obviously, authority will imply that the right answer is known, it is standard, and it is supposed to be accepted by all. And if you closely observe, the process involves you in giving authority to someone else. Which in turn means that you have authority to hand over authority to someone else! Now, you may say: "How can that be? I know that the other person is indeed a master, and I believe in him." Very correct; but look closely: This very process involves you exercising your right to become sub-ordinate to someone else. Do what you may, you can never give up your right as fundamentally free. It is only after a thinking (and programming) starts that you willingly give up your freedom. Even God will require you to approve him as God. The basis of all this is that you are conscious and you know that well. You can never really know whether other life around you is as conscious as you are. It is only by assumption or belief that you will believe so.

So with that beginning, let us then tackle "What is right" from purely logical angle. First of all, the right thing is necessarily affected by amount of information available to you. If you, truly and by some grace of God (or, some brain chemistry changes) come to know truly that "everything is illusion", then the above scenario doesn't matter; it is just like watching the movie, and you don't grudge against the author.

And as a more general case, every person has boundary of knowledge: This is sum total of the experiences which directly dictate the kind of thoughts and answers one can come out with. So, in above scenario, if you knew that the lone kid was suffering from Cancer and was about to die any moment anyway, your actions will change. The second part, allowing your actions to be validated and accepted by others is more complex part: Here, you first give up your authority, and then it is purely a play of how either you get influenced, or you can influence the world around you. It is no more a play of logical truth, but just a make-believe world where you just have to play a right role. But if you don't even see the choices, you are just executing a program - called "reaction to situation". Like a computer reacting to a situation, a reactive person just goes through sequence of good and bad emotions and feelings, without really being conscious of bigger picture.

As an example, consider "Ideal behaviour" in our example. Is it a right approach? It is determined by how the society sees it (and you accept the authority of society). Authority gets established by society in a complex way. It is affected by laws and regulations, religious practices in effect, newspapers and what not. Truth and logical behaviour are very difficult (remember, it is ultimate awareness). So in our earlier example, the society may either make you guilty for killing many more children, or it may elevate you for 'setting ideal standards for everyone to follow, even at the cost of life'.

Does it mean that you should be a zombie? i.e. don't have to take any action? No - it doesn't work like that. You are still bound by the reactions produced through your knowledge. So something always happens. This may include getting confused, just choosing one thing and following it - not worry about reasoning - just choosing a path and following it, and also, doing deep thinking and coming up with creative answers. Or it may involve "no-decision" stance, and just be dynamic and respond to the situation whatever you feel appropriate.

You will probably find like minded people who will understand nuisances of taking specific position. Or you may find stiff opposition. Sometimes, you have intutive feeling of what approach to take, even though it may not be logical, well-followed path. Individuals do get bored with standard things, so a fresh approach and a lively discussion will often help you get the edge. (Again, the "edge" is an illusion; read below!)

But in the end, the heart is truly ruled by compassion, and being aware of overall limitations of our own self. It is a true "give up" situation. But this "give up" is not in relation to other people or to a difficult situation, but to the fact that your mind accepts its limited perspective, and gives up the "I sense" which always tries to feel OK, and be in sense of control. In a true, "give up" state of mind, the flashes of insight occur. The whole acts as whole.

What does this mean? It is simple: When you carry out action, all your body parts - such as fingers, blood, face etc. work simultaneously as part of body. Your hand will not have individual "I" sense. The conscious layer surrounds the whole body. But this boundary doesn't have to exist: Eventually, there is no boundary. It is created by an illusion that your body is independent of rest of the reality, and you will always have to constly fight with surroundings to be alive and kicking, and to maintain yourself. In reality, there is continuous whole. But the consciousness creates the "I" boundary. And then, all the thinking and actions are driven by this sense, forever hiding the real truth.

So what is meant by totality acting on its own? It is just the experience of consciousness realizing that there is no boundary, and hence sees all actions as one whole. Not something where it is threatening or helpful to you as individual. So a pain anywhere is pain for you. Joy anywhere is joy for you.

Right actions automatically occur, driven by totality. A computer can never make a mistake, because the mistake is only defined by programmer. Computer itself is not aware of that mistake. In the same way, your body becomes part of totality - driven by invisible control, as part of grand play. In contrast, the "I" handling the situation, feeling a sense of control, looks quite childish. People will go on with their hats and "I"s, but the blinding truth can no more make you one of them.

And in that reality, the question of right or wrong just disappears. It is a play, and a grand play, and what is a play if it doesn't have good and bad moments, all be it, only as illusion?