Free-will vs Pre-determination- poser-4

[Guest guest]

SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA.

 

The discussion continues..

 

The Q-4 raised:-

 

# Sri Krishna Kashyap_s mail- God_s problem vs

individual_s problem _who is

responsible for the jiva_s sorry state of affairs?

If it is due to jiva acting on free will, what does

the lord imply in BG

16-19? _aham.. aaseerushu yonishu ajasram kshibhaami

(the

words have been interchanged in order to draw the

meaning[_1])

 

Sri Sriram says:-

 

The jIvA is responsible. According to the law of

karma, we reap what we sow.

Good and bad deeds progressively and recursively place

the jIvA in

appropriate environments. Nonetheless, the jIvA at all

times has the ability

to choose - to stay and wallow or break-free and soar.

 

 

Sri Raghunanadan says:-

 

1. In the introduction of many vyakyanams, our

poorvacharyas begin with this:

The lord has put in lot of efforts to help the

jeevatman to attain paramapadam.

This starts withcreating the leela vibuthi……

……………………………… to take birth in the

leela vibuthi. Now with these statements, it is clear

that the Lord gives us all the freedom to do what we

want. If everything that we do was pre-determined,

then why sould the Lord put in all these efforts

[krushi] to attain us?

 

Observation:-

 

According to Sri Krishan Kashyap and Sri Sriram, it is

the individual’s problem.

According to Sri Raghunandan, it’s a shared problem.

Because God has also some stakes in the way that

things are building up with the jiva’s affairs.

 

The poser:-

 

Does not the reading of the above indicate that the

truth must lie at one of the extremities (Either

freewill or predetermination)or somewhere in between?

If the former is proved right, (either of the two) our

analysis will become easy. It is enough to prove one

or disprove the other.

But in the second possibility, we have to accept both

and find out the dividing line, like how much freewill

and how much predetermination? Is the dividing line a

constant one at all times and for all occasions is

also a moot point.

 

Simplifying further,

we may ask whether it is God’s problem alone or the

individual’s, or shared by both. In the latter case,

the problem of defining how much and under what

conditions come into fore.

 

A little acquaintance with Hindu philosophy may make

us vote for the second possibility. For we have been

generously treated with notions of surrender for the

ultimate release and

We believe that by doing prapatti (in our own volition

/ as part of free will) we transfer the burden of

release to the lord’s feet.

 

This implies that it is God’s problem in the case of

the prapannan, (after prapatti is done) and it is the

individual’s problem if he is a non-prapannan. The

individual must come into terms with the reality and

make an effort to appeal to god to grant him

surrender. A sure case of freewill is implied here.

 

But is it so is the million dollar question!

Taking cue from Mumukshuppadi (MP)- 258 and 259, there

seems to exist a tricky twist in the way we interpret.

In his vyakhyaanam, Sri Manavala manunigal says (258)

–until now the jiva had believed that the

‘yathna-palithangal’ (the efforts and the results from

the efforts) are his. That is a virodhi bhavam. Now as

the jiva has come to do the ultimate surrender,( that

the yathna prayathnangal are HIS), the virodhi bhavam

vanishes.

This is like telling that you are transferring your

debts to God’s account by doing prapatti.

But it is not so.

The actual meaning of prapatti or what happens in

prapatti is found in MP 191.

Sri manavala mamunigal explains that ‘sarva dharman’

means the dharma is that, which is instrumental for

getting some results –‘dharmamaavathu – phala

saadhanamai yirukkum adu’

It is implied that efforts are there to continue, even

after prapatti, the person must continue his action.

Only that he has now renounced the results.

So the efforts or yathnam have been there before and

after prapatti and the difference is in the

expectation of phalam. Now the phalam are for the

lord. Earlier it was for the jiva- so thought the

jiva.

Just because the jiva thought so, the effort can not

be termed as his (arising from his will)

And now (after prapatti)as the phalam has been

absorbed by the lord, you can not say the efforts are

HIS-only now.

They (efforts) have been HIS always

and as long as the jiva thought (due ‘limitations’ and

guna–mix)that it is entitled to the results because it

was the doer, there was bondage. When it realised that

the lord is entiltled to the results, the doership

still rests with him with the realisation that the

doer is the lord.

In any case, the doer, the one who makes the act of

doing is the lord. Freewill is only a ‘mayakkam’ (

The issue of doership has been discussed in poser-3)

 

This shows that the yathna-palithangal have never been

the jiva’s. The doership remains the same. The

‘mayakkam’ is in the jiva.

 

Once again in the next verse (259)(MP)

Hmanavala mamunigal explains, until now the jiva was

in dhu:kham for two reasons. If it had thought that it

was doing its affairs on its own, there is dhu:kham

from how to go about further.

If it had believed that god alone had been the

caretaker of its affairs, once again there was

dhu:kham, because the jiva would be troubled by

thoughts, ‘Had the lord abandoned me? How can I

survive if He ignores me?’etc.

Theefore the lord says “Soha nimiththam ellai kAN’

There is no room for dhu:hkam. Because you are not the

adhikari for the ‘yathna –palithangal’

Your protection is my responsibility as the

yathna-palithangal are mine.

 

If it is said that this assurance is for ‘rakshanam’

upon prapatti and not applicable to conditions prior

to prapatti, then it is not so. Because the lord

implies that even the yathanam (effort) for prapatti

are not his (the jiva’s)!!It is what God has made it

happen!

 

How and why?

Acharya Hrudhyam (14) “vathsalaiyaana matha….”

Like a compassionate mother(important to note

–compassion of the lord is not selective in times of

surrender etc,) who allows the child to eat mud

because it wanted to eat (prompted by guna-mix and

karmic limitations), but takes it back and applies the

alternative to undo the effects of mud eaten,

and like a mother who cooks different dishes as per

the different tastes of the members of the family and

serves them,

it is the lord who makes the efforts to happen and the

results to happen.

 

This is what is told by Thirumazhisai alwar too in

Naan mukhan Thiruvandhadhi (88)

“seyal theera sindhiththu vaazhvaarE vAzhvAr”

the explanation in AH is that ‘there is nothing that

the jiva can do, only Emperuman does”

 

Another question arises here.

If it is agreed that it is god’s problem, what is the

answer for Ghandhari’s lamentation? Why didn’t the

lord apply HIS grand will and prevent suffering?

 

At the end of the war, Ghandhari asked Krishna,

“ the pandavas and kauravas are all dead;

why did you allow this? Oh Krishna.

You could have stopped the war,

You had the tongue,

you had the power”

 

Then she cursed and in effect crippled Krishna, But HE

refused to give a direct answer.

He knew the answer but did not reveal it.

For if he had given the answer, He would have been

called as the most cruel one.

The answer lies in his assertion that He is yama in

carrying out justice – the balance ultimately coming

to rest on weighing the pros and cons , the plus and

minus of karma of the respective jivas.

 

Even if God had wished, he could not and did not

safeguard some people under certain circumstances.

Perhaps the ‘limitations’ (discussed in poser 1)had

tied up hands and that the time was not ripe. Perhaps

he blessed Sishupalan and Thirumangai alwar (nam

kaliyanadro?) because they filled up the eligibility

criteria,

Or he could have just waived the ‘limitations’

In any case it comes out to be god’s problem – HIS

will -HIS writ and hardly the individual’s will.

 

 

Jayasree sarnathan

 

Quote of the mail:-

‘yenadu enbadu yen?

YAn enbadu yen?

 

-Nammalwar.(TVM 10-10-5)

..

 

 

 

 

Health - Feel better, live better

http://health.

[Guest guest]

Smt JS wrote:

 

"In any case, the doer, the one who makes the act of

doing is the lord. Freewill is only a _mayakkam_ (

The issue of doership has been discussed in poser-3)" ...

 

"....In any case it comes out to be god_s problem _ HIS

will -HIS writ and hardly the individual_s will."

 

Smt JS / Members,

 

We ascribe "everything" to perumAl to eschew our ego and in acceptance of

the fact that we jIvAs are sesas or servants to the Sesi - the Supreme God

and nothing is possible without Him. This should not be confused with who is

responsible for jIvA's actions.

 

"Doer" does NOT refer to who facilitates or does an act but who really

intends to perform an act. Having said that, the full responsibility for our

actions squarely falls on us -the jIvAs, and not paramAtmA. The kartA is the

jIvA because it is the jIvA that intends to perform an action.

 

A jIvA's intention to do something right or wrong is not governed by

BhagavAn's pre-determination. Though PerumAl is antaryAmin - the Ultimate

Supreme Controller - we should be very clear here in how and what we ascribe

to God and who bears the moral responsibility. The Lord facilitates a jIvA's

actions by providing the necessary knowledge. However, the individual /jIvA

is responsible for what is done with that knowledge regardless of karmic

limitations.

 

Sri VisistAdvaita is very clear in that, no matter what the karmic influence

is - postive or negative - an individual / jIvA has enough capacity -

freewill - to overcome such influences and still do the right thing.

 

adiyEn,

Sriram