Guest guest Posted April 6, 2003 Report Share Posted April 6, 2003 I have not kept up with this thread on Advaitin but here are some thoughts and comments on the "Fate" V. "Free Will" debate. Will pass this on to NDS and HS for those interested. Inquiry about Fate and Free Will is important but there should be no compromises. It should be taken to the limit (within one's own mind). What does it mean? It is the intensity of the inquiry that is needed not the evaluation of "truth" or "falsity" of the doctrine of predetermination (or free will). You can rest assured that from the perspective of the Self, both doctrines, "free will" and "predetermination", are equally unreal and have no standing what so ever! People have pointed out that Ramesh Baleskar states that everything is predetermined. So what? On an issue of this subtle nature, relying on authority is not the best strategy, especially if the goal is that of Self Knowledge. It seems to me that what Baleskar or anyone else says on the matter is quite irrelevant. What do you say? That is important. The actual inquiry on this matter, in order to be fruitful, must take place in one's own consciousness with focus and intensity. Sri Ramana once indicated to a devotee that all was predetermined. At other times the Sage pointed out that reading of scriptures and spiritual practice are premised on Free Will. Both statements have their uses in particular times and places. A devotee may find either philosophy useful. The inquiry about "Fate" and "Free Will" is a device only to open up within to the Self- Knowledge, the Heart, that is untouched by either fate or free will. The constructs of "fate" and "free will" depend on each for meaning and can have no independent existence. It is only minor teachers who are obsessed with "Fate" and the "deterministic" nature of the world who attempt to maintain consistency in their responses. Baleskar certainly fits that category. A true master is not interested in logic or consistency for their own sake. S/He has no investment in "free will" or "determinism." These are mere tools that maybe useful for inquiry. Once the inquiry into the nature of consciousness starts, that itself becomes the tool. The main thing is consciousness, not the constructs that have consciousness as their source. If you follow the constructs outwards, you see the world and are bound. If you follow the constructs inwards through inquiry, you see that You Yourself Are the Consciousness untouched by fate or free will. Love to all Harsha /join Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2003 Report Share Posted April 6, 2003 , Harsha wrote: > I have not kept up with this thread on Advaitin but here are some > thoughts and comments on the "Fate" V. "Free Will" debate. Will pass > this on to NDS and HS for those interested. > > Inquiry about Fate and Free Will is important but there should be no > compromises. It should be taken to the limit (within one's own mind). > What does it mean? It is the intensity of the inquiry that is needed not > the evaluation of "truth" or "falsity" of the doctrine of > predetermination (or free will). > > You can rest assured that from the perspective of the Self, both > doctrines, "free will" and "predetermination", are equally unreal and > have no standing what so ever! > > People have pointed out that Ramesh Baleskar states that everything is > predetermined. So what? On an issue of this subtle nature, relying on > authority is not the best strategy, especially if the goal is that of > Self Knowledge. > > It seems to me that what Baleskar or anyone else says on the matter is > quite irrelevant. What do you say? That is important. > > The actual inquiry on this matter, in order to be fruitful, must take > place in one's own consciousness with focus and intensity. > > Sri Ramana once indicated to a devotee that all was predetermined. At > other times the Sage pointed out that reading of scriptures and > spiritual practice are premised on Free Will. Both statements have their > uses in particular times and places. A devotee may find either > philosophy useful. > > The inquiry about "Fate" and "Free Will" is a device only to open up > within to the Self- Knowledge, the Heart, that is untouched by either > fate or free will. The constructs of "fate" and "free will" depend on > each for meaning and can have no independent existence. > > It is only minor teachers who are obsessed with "Fate" and the > "deterministic" nature of the world who attempt to maintain consistency > in their responses. Baleskar certainly fits that category. > > A true master is not interested in logic or consistency for their own > sake. S/He has no investment in "free will" or "determinism." These are > mere tools that maybe useful for inquiry. Once the inquiry into the > nature of consciousness starts, that itself becomes the tool. > > The main thing is consciousness, not the constructs that have > consciousness as their source. If you follow the constructs outwards, > you see the world and are bound. If you follow the constructs inwards > through inquiry, you see that You Yourself Are the Consciousness > untouched by fate or free will. > > Love to all > Harsha > Hi harsha: I like what you say but I think Ramana was amazingly consistent. We may interpret him out of context to give an inconsistent impression. He also said that we only have the free will to stop clouding the real Self or something to that effect. I think it depends on the referent for the word "I". Those Advaitins are pretty stuffy if you don't have a PHD. Love Bobby G. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2003 Report Share Posted April 6, 2003 Dear Bobby, I agree with what you are saying. But what does "pretty stuffy" mean. Are you talking about Advaitins in general or the ones on the Advaitin list? By the way, I hear you make really good bean chilli! Is that true? Love, Harsha texasbg2000 wrote: > > > Hi harsha: > > I like what you say but I think Ramana was amazingly consistent. We > may interpret him out of context to give an inconsistent impression. > He also said that we only have the free will to stop clouding the > real Self or something to that effect. > > I think it depends on the referent for the word "I". > > Those Advaitins are pretty stuffy if you don't have a PHD. > > Love > Bobby G. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2003 Report Share Posted April 6, 2003 , Harsha wrote: > Dear Bobby, > > I agree with what you are saying. But what does "pretty stuffy" mean. > Are you talking about Advaitins in general or the ones on the Advaitin list? Hi harsha No the ones on that list are stuffy to me. I don't think you and Nair are so much but a lot seem to want to discuss issues by reference and dogma. When someone joins with a phd they always play it up about their credentials. No mention of my membership was noticed even though i filled out the bio. > > By the way, I hear you make really good bean chilli! Is that true? really, I wonder who could have spilled the beans. Bobby G. > Love, > Harsha > > texasbg2000 wrote: > > > > > > > Hi harsha: > > > > I like what you say but I think Ramana was amazingly consistent. We > > may interpret him out of context to give an inconsistent impression. > > He also said that we only have the free will to stop clouding the > > real Self or something to that effect. > > > > I think it depends on the referent for the word "I". > > > > Those Advaitins are pretty stuffy if you don't have a PHD. > > > > Love > > Bobby G. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.