“I would distinguish what is commonly called choice among men, and which is a partial act, the choice of the hands, of the eyes, of the appetites, and not a whole act of the man.  But that which I call right or goodness, is the choice of my constitution.”

To me, this portrayed the same concept as part of Chapter Four of the Bhagavad-Gita:

“You must realize what action is, what wrong action and inaction are as well.  The true nature of action is profound, and difficult to fathom.  He who can see inaction in the midst of action, and action in the midst of inaction, is wise and can act in the spirit of yoga.”

This quotation discusses the nature of the Atman as distinct from the body.  The actions made by the body are not necessarily the actions of the atman, or the true self.  I found it interesting that Emerson, who was at one point a Unitarian minister, and the Bhagavad-Gita both express, though in very different terms, that the action of the body are not necessarily the actions of one’s true self.  I was surprised to find such similar ideas expressed by such different sources.

What do other people think?  Are there any aspects of Hinduism that are universal?  That are specific to Hinduism?

Related posts:

1. The Bhagavad Gita: Chapter 5 I wanted to follow up this past week’s discussion on...
2. In Search of the True Self There is much discussion in Hindu literature about the true...
3. Gita Study Group 2.21.11 In this week’s Bhagavad Gita study group with Swami Tyagananda,...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.