Advertisement
this is such a beautiful, heartful, simple, deep, intense account that I thought it would be good to share with everyone. totally inspirational, and a great example of the dynamic between love and fear. - Alx
you can find the original link to this article at
www.truthout.org/docs_2006/101407A.shtml
Thoughts About the True Miracle in the Andes
By Cynthia Boaz
Sunday 14 October 2007
Exactly 35 years ago today, a horrific and extraordinary chain of events was set in motion high in the Andes above Chile. A small commuter plane carrying 45 people crashed on Friday, October 13, 1972. For the next two months, a group of survivors of the crash, most of whom were the young members of a Uruguayan rugby team called the "Old Christians," kept themselves alive against all laws of nature, physics and reason. Like many, you are probably familiar with this story because of its more gruesome details, some of which - namely that the survivors ate the flesh of the dead in order to stay alive - were obsessed over and sensationalized in media for months after the rescue, and then again in the early 1990s when Frank Marshall directed a film called "Alive" (based on Piers Paul Read's book). If you saw the film or read the book, you will recall that one of the primary characters on the mountain was a man named Nando Parrado. Nando says in his own book, "Miracle in the Andes" (published in 2006), that he was not a man of any particular leadership skill or quality at the time of the crash, but nonetheless, over the course of the two months following the accident, he emerged as the key figure in the salvation of the other 15 survivors.
Nando was the driving force behind an expedition out of the mountains (which he undertook along with medical student Roberto Canessa) to get the group rescued after 60 days of surviving freezing temperatures, altitude sickness, a crushing avalanche (which killed eight of their companions in a matter of minutes), starvation, thirst, grief, despair and the horror of being witness to their own slow deaths. Nando and Roberto walked for 11 days over a 17,000-ft peak and across more than 60 miles of ice, snow, and rock with nothing but the street clothes they had packed for a weekend vacation and the will to live.
When Nando came to SUNY Brockport last month to speak to students, he had an audience of more than 1,500 (the largest I've seen there by a scale of three times). Before he left the stage, he had been given three standing ovations, each of which lasted well over a minute. I was very fortunate to get to spend some time with Nando after his talk, and he graciously allowed me to ask him anything I wanted to know about his experience in the Andes. After some discussion of things like his relationships with the other survivors, how he has been able to not let the disaster be the most important thing in his life, and what he learned on that mountain about himself and human beings, I came to realize that what was most fascinating to me about Nando was not the tragedy or even that he had had the amazing luck to survive such an ordeal. What is most extraordinary about Nando is that he has taken an experience that might destroy most of us, and instead of defining himself as a victim, he has chosen to use his survival as an opportunity to embrace life fully and to show others how to do that as well. He spends many months traveling each year to talk to audiences all over the world about his experiences. But he doesn't lecture them on "leadership" or "teamwork" or "courage." He talks to them simply and candidly about how he learned that love is the only sane reaction to horror and death. He credits his will to survive - indeed, his survival itself - to his love for his father. It's interesting, because although he always packs the room, I get the feeling that Nando doesn't fully understand why people respond to him the way they do. He perceives that he is made into a hero for his actions (which is probably true in the case of some people), and more powerfully (and correctly) that his story resonates with people because it demonstrates to them that anything can be endured and overcome. But I think the most significant reason that people respond so strongly to Nando is not just because of what he endured, but because he reminds us that even in the most hopeless of situations, we still have a choice. At its core, Nando's story demonstrates that we always have a degree of control over our lives, even if that choice is simply defining the terms under which we die. This phenomenon is much more than hopefulness or optimism; it is the manifestation of human agency. It is the essence of empowerment.
There is a quote from Nando's book where, after being on the mountain for more than two months, enduring the deaths of 29 friends and family members (including his mother and sister), and upon reaching the summit of a 17,000-foot peak in 30-below-zero temperatures in jeans and sneakers, expecting to see green valleys below, he only sees more peaks and snow-filled valleys as far as the eye can see.
Nando writes:
I don't know how long I stood there, staring. A minute. Maybe two. I stood motionless until I felt a burning pressure in my lungs, and realized I had forgotten to breathe. I cursed God and raged at the mountains. The truth was before me: For all my striving, all my hopes, all my whispered promises to myself and my father, it would end like this. We would all die in these mountains. We would sink beneath the snow, and ancient silence would fall over us, and our loved ones would never know how hard we had struggled to return to them. In that moment, all my dreams, assumptions and expectations of life evaporated into the thin Andean air. My love for my father swelled in my heart and I realized that, despite the hopelessness of my situation, the memory of him filled me with joy. It staggered me. The mountains, for all their power, were not stronger than my attachment to my father. They could not crush my ability to love. I felt a moment of calmness and clarity, and in that clarity of mind I discovered a simple, astounding secret: Death has an opposite, but the opposite is not mere living. It is not courage or faith or human will. The opposite of death is love. How had I missed that? How does anyone miss that? Only love can turn mere life into a miracle and draw precious meaning from suffering and fear. For a brief, magical moment, all my fears lifted and I knew that I would not let death control me. I would walk through the godforsaken country that separated me from my home with love and hope in my heart. I would walk until I had walked all the life out of me, and when I fell, I would die that much closer to my father.
In that moment, when he accepted his own death as inevitable and impending, Nando made what must have seemed to him a tiny choice, but which had enormous consequences. Although he was sure that he would never see home again, he chose to refuse the path of least resistance. Instead of lying down in the snow and waiting for death to come to him (as he had pondered doing on many occasions during those two months), Nando elected to continue walking. He understood in that moment that the fear of death was the real horror. In making that split-second choice to take one more step, to breathe in and out one more time, Nando conquered that fear and discovered a reserve of spiritual resilience that he believes (as I also do) is accessible to everyone. Nando's transformational experience on that summit is not unlike what Buddha or Gandhi or other great spiritual leaders have described. Although he didn't know it at the time, in choosing to continue walking, Nando not only saved his own life and those of 15 other men, but he pulled all of us one step further down the road of human evolution.
Cynthia Boaz is assistant professor of political science and international studies at the State University of New York at Brockport. She is currently working on a book project about leadership in the age of global citizenship.
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: miracle in the Andes
Sun, October 14, 2007 - 9:57 PMIs love also the choice to remain embodied?
-
Re: miracle in the Andes
Mon, October 15, 2007 - 4:39 AM"The opposite of death, is love."
Profound!
Thank you for sharing this.
SO MUCH to meditate upon. -
-
Re: miracle in the Andes
Mon, October 15, 2007 - 2:00 PMChaz -- deep question. what do you think?
I did a Google search and found an interview with Nando -- I really wanted to hear his voice, and whatever vibration he's carrying. it was a BBC interview -- really impressive. it brought me to tears, as did the article, above, especially the excerpt from his book.
Alx -
-
Re: miracle in the Andes
Fri, October 19, 2007 - 12:08 PMHm. My teacher, Dharmanidhi, gave us a lesson the other day that I thought was very profound.
He explained why, in our lineage, the deeper and more powerful teachings aren't given until devotees take vows to serve all beings. Simply put, if one uses the powerful Tantrik practices to have full realization quickly, one may find no reason to remain embodied and simply "check out" so as to experience full realization. In other words, the body will die.
Basically, one of the few ways to remain embodied without creating more negative Karma is to choose Service for all beings.
I thought of it another way: It is the suffering of beings that allows one to remain embodied. Hence, the Buddha's teaching that life is Suffering.
PLEASE forgive me for commenting on an enlightened being's teachings. I'm not qualified! So this is for the sake of learning in a group fashion, testing my comprehension, and humbly asking to be corrected!
I think "Life is Suffering" is a good teaching, and/but/yet one could also say "Life is Love".
See, one of our linage teachers (I'm paraphrasing, sorry!) said that Love is simply another form of tension. That made sense to me. Love is a state of being that supposes something to be loved. Hence, embodiment, separateness, and tension. Maybe suffering, too. It even made sense to me in a Christian way, that "God is Love", because the creator is all things. Love, in this way, is a "thing".
One could say that suffering, then, is an act of love toward the creater, allowing the universe to incarnate and play. In this sense, all our actions can be viewed as sacrifice, as offerings. In a Hindu sense, our suffering, or actions, or very embodied nature can be offered as sacrifice for the Mother, because we, in a sense, give her someone/thing to Love.
And vice-versa, of course. Hence, the wrathful mother who causes us to 'suffer' out of compassion. Those teachings that hurt are an act of Love, and the suffering that results is also an act of Love.
This is why using "bliss" is a more appropriate way to describe and elightened state than "love". "Bliss" does not require an "other".
This is also why Brahman is NOT love. Brahman is no-thing. Beyond love, and (I'm guessing) beyond Bliss. Only "bliss" is the best word we have to describe a state of utter equinimity. I appreciate what Krishna said in the 'Gita': I neither particularly like nor dislike anyone.
This is why I think Love is a choice to remain embodied, and choosing to Love is choosing to be embodied.
-
-
Re: miracle in the Andes
Fri, October 19, 2007 - 1:04 PMhi, Charles --
this is a beautiful line of inquiry.
it's true that service is required for deep spiritual energy channels -- my experience is that no vow can possibly encompass this reality (because vows can be and often are broken), but that the energy itself starts DEMANDING that a siddha start serving others. there is no other way to be, after a certain point. (or else the reflection from Nature, in the form of Its slaps, escalates until one DOES surrender into service.)
embodying the Truth, not just giving it some lip-service.
I think the balance is between 4 major pillars -- Satya, Dharma, Shanti & Prema. (Truth, Duty, Peace & Love.)
if you can dedicate your spiritual focus to just one of these 4 pillars, like the legs of a stool, and really win it -- then all of them will come into one's life. different great saints chose different pillars, as their primary priority -- Krishna's was Love, Buddha was Dharma, Shirdi Sai Baba was Satya, Sri Ramakrishna's main focus was Shanti. Jesus' was Love, Prema. just for example.
once you win one, the next one unfolds, and the next, and the next.
re: your point that "Love is a choice to remain embodied, and choosing to Love is choosing to be embodied."
to play Devil's advocate for a moment -- is Shiva always embodied? Mother?
are you sure that love requires an 'other'?
then you wrote: "Only "bliss" is the best word we have to describe a state of utter equanimity. I appreciate what Krishna said in the 'Gita': I neither particularly like nor dislike anyone."
I can give you a better word for this -- 'stithipragnatata' -- that state of perfect equanimity, ie, 'whatever it is, it is.' that's actually the Sanskrit word describing that state, in the Bhagavad Gita.
there's another word, too -- 'vairagya' -- perfect, utter, supreme detachment. that's deeper than stithipragnatata.
to take Buddha's statement a little further -- WHY is life suffering?
because of the attachments?
what lies behind the attachments?
desire. (kama.)
what is the cause of kama?
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. that's a great mystery, something the rishis have been arguing about for millenniae.
creation = illusion. kama leads to creation; creation of thoughts, ideas, beliefs, actions, projects, universes.
put another way, kama leads to karma.
what is the original kama? the divine, awake in its own bliss (sat-chit-ananda), wants to know Itself. from that pinch of heat (jawala) in the Silence, comes the creation and then the divine Awareness has a reflection through which to know and admire itself.
Mother creates. the Silence (Shiva) suffers with Her creation.... takes care of Her creation..... then it gives it BACK to Her.
you could say that Silence is Love is Shiva is God. I disagree about the void being simply void. there's a lot going on in that void.
normal people stay embodied because of their karmic storehouses -- they have to keep coming in form, until they pay off their karmic debts.
avataras, siddhas -- they are embodied because they're here to help -- kind of as agents of Mother and Shiva.
to me, then, the ultimate state is to be embodied WHILE in the union (yoga) with the divine as a constant awareness. in this way, Sat-Chit-Ananda becomes the antidote to the three gunas or qualities that govern this world (and all the lives in it); satvo, rajo, tamo.
in that kind of a union -- you're right -- there is a friction. there HAS to be a friction for Union to operate, for it to really work, esp in this world of opposites and duality.
with love, you can accomplish something divine in this world. it's like a great motivating force, to serve, to help, to soothe, to lift, to comfort, to inspire, others to find out who they really are.
with vairagya or detachment, you can't really accomplish much in this world because you don't care so much about it and its beings (because you know what lies behind those masks). so there's not much motivation to help, to serve, to lift.
so it's a constant seesaw between these two poles, it seems to me -- finding the balance point in the friction between that detached state ("so what, who cares?") and the love that wants to help help help at every turn. it seems to me, too, that if you go too far in either direction, the opposite-but-intertwined quality will pull you back again more towards the center, more towards a balanced approach.
at least, this is my experience.
Alx
-
-
Re: miracle in the Andes
Fri, October 19, 2007 - 4:12 PMAlx--
--Thank you for engaging what must, at time, seem like a tangled mess: someone who knows a little. To act or comment with little awareness and knowledge! Please forgive my clumbsiness!
--I cannot argue with your logic. I especially enjoy the example you gave of the 4 major pillars. I would argue that dedicating oneself to Turth, Duty, or Peace, or Love necessarily requires Service, but then, it could also be argued that divine service necessarily requires the others. Fun!
--Yet you do ask a couple questions that are left unanswered, and my sense of enthusiasm would like to try. Also, you make one statement at the end that I'm not sure I understand.
"to play Devil's advocate for a moment -- is Shiva always embodied? Mother?"
---Honestly, I don't know. I can only speculate, which is silly.
--Instead, I'll rephrase your question as a question of my own:
Is Shiva always Love? Mother?
---This leads to the next knot:
"are you sure that love requires an 'other'?"
--Well, here we could get embroiled in a discussion of words and language and the meaning of a word, rather than focusing on the essence of the question itself. Allow me to try and step around THAT bog:
----The word "Love", in English, can mean many different things which in other languages (like Sanskrit) have different words to express them. The "Love" which I am thinking of is the "Love" that appears in the Andean story, Love of another: father. Or God (in a dualistic sense), lover, child, action, ect. I understand this kind of love to require an object, and while it exists a tension or yearning to be together (or reunited) also exists.
----I personally feel that the kind of "Love" that abides in itself, which has no attraction or adversion, which makes no distinctions, is better described as "Bliss". Had our hero of the Andean story felt this type of love for his father, there would have been no impulse to be reunited as he would have been content, no matter where he died.
---And, finally, you say:
"normal people stay embodied because of their karmic storehouses -- they have to keep coming in form, until they pay off their karmic debts."
----What do you mean, "debt'?
----In a book I am currently enjoying, the tale of Lady Yeshe Tsogyel, the Sky Dancer, they use a different expression. In it, the idea of leaving the body due to ending Karma was expressed: "After you have exhausted your karma" rather than 'paying off a debt.' Her Lama is careful to reserve some of his teachings until late in their relationship, so that her body would not be 'consumed' prematurely.
----I recognize that such a 'thing' as Karmic debt could exist, but I am unsure about debt being the seed of existance. It seems a bit too much like "Original Sin" and dualistic. As if some loan were borrowed from some "other", or some Sin were committed against some law created by an "other" that most be atoned. What is this debt you speak of, and what is its origin?
Thank you for your thoughtful responses!
-
-
-
-