Free will and sadhana

January 27, 1999

The question of free will can have an adverse effect on one's sadhana.

If there's no free will and one's destiny is pre determined then of what

use can sadhana be? If there's free will, then the validity of the

eternal atman is shaken.

The shruti insists "Tat tvam asi" - you are that or you are brahman.

But Brahman is said to be the changeless eternal. So if I'm brahman then

how can I engage in purification etc which implies change? Am I not

changing from the impure soul to the pure soul?

What should be understood is that by knowledge, it is meant the knowing

of the "non I". Knowledge implies the knower and the known. You are the

knower. To know everything, which is not you (neti, neti), the body,

mind, intellect etc and discard them and to abide in yourself, which is

the changeless, eternal absolute, is sadhana.

Sadhana is only towards this - this effort at reductionism involving the

distinction between the Self and the non-self ie you and that which is

not you and the rejection of the latter. The concept of free will, which

involves the doer and the action done, belong to the realm of prakriti,

the non-you - the mind and body.

Only actual sadhana or self enquiry will make things clearer.

January 29, 1999

>Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>Yes, intense mumukshutvam and sAdhana is required for Brahma-vidyA. But

>we need to give the credit where the credit is due, and also not claim

>any undue credit to the ego. The consciousness always pricks the intellect

>if the intellect is making a wrong decision. The consciousness is always

>there exhorting the intellect to reach higher and higher levels and to

>put the intellect in the right path.

Murthy Gaaru- not on the main topic - nor nit-picking either - but a note

to make sure one is aware of the difference between the two terms,

conscious and consciousness - as in your statement above could be

misleading "The consciousness always pricks the intellect if the intellect

is making a wrong decision" - The difference between ones conscious that

pricks and the consciousness that illumines even the pricking - The second

is akarta and abhokta - is non-doer and non-enjoyer ' akartham

abhoktaaham ahameva anyaH| The first one, ones conscious, is nothing but

the intellect itself with its value system and education as its background

which knows what is right and what is wrong based ones education and

learning from ones own experience. The same problems in the next

statement, "The consciousness is always

there exhorting the intellect to reach higher and higher levels and to

put the intellect in the right path". -If 'consciousness' exhorts it

becomes an instrument - As I understand it is the intellect that coaxes the

mind - since intellectually I started cherishing the value of the Higher by

listening to the teacher and studying the scriptures or satsangh etc. It

is the mind - chittam that lags behind because of the pressure of the

vaasanaas - The integration of these two is the yoga that B.G. emphasizes.

The anthaHkaraNa is consists four depending on functionality - manas,

buddhi, ahankaara and chitta - citta is the conditioned consciousness -

that I am - an individual - which is "aham vritti" that tries own all the

equipment. In the above - the role of the conditioned consciousness is to

claim that I am the "one who has his conscious that pricks".

There is also a problem in the next statement interms of distinguishing

the role of ahankaara -

>Yes, intense mumukshutvam and sAdhana is required for Brahma-vidyA. But

>we need to give the credit where the credit is due, and also not claim

>any undue credit to the ego.

Ahankaara 'ego' plays a lot of tricks- It is like statement "I truly admire

the intelligence of my wife for she has selected the most genius as her

husband" - giving a credit where credit is due is part played by ego -

playing the role of humble person - like the daily prayer - "tanamana

dhana subkuch terahai"- this body, mind and wealth is all yours O Lord -

This surrender is only for those few seconds when aarati is being done

since he humbly repeats again the next day the same thing- 'surrendering

what has already been surrendered yesterday' - that means that first

surrender never occurred. In principle, the credit will go where the

credit is due only when the ego is dissolved completely. Hence

surrenderence is the surrenderence of the ego that has been taking the

credit all along. Then the prayer becomes the true prayer of a JNaani as

Bhagavan Ramana maharshi starts his "Sat Darshana"

sat pryatyayaaH kinnu vihaaya santam

hRdyeshu chintaa rahito hRidaakhyaH|

katham smaraamaH tama meya mekam

tasya smRitiH tatra dRidaiva nishhTaa||

Free translation:

Oh Lord I want to think of you before I start this text - But how can I

think of you who is the nature of existence which is there even before any

thoughts arise in the mind. You are there as the very core of the

individuality free from thoughts. There is no way I can think of you other

than just establish myself firmly in the existence itself.

I may be wrong, but I get the feeling that the roles of mind, intellect

and vaasanas how disintegrates got somewhat intermixed in the your model.

I suggest to reevaluate your self and if you are convinced as the right

model - there is nothing to it - As long it does not prevent you from doing

your part of sadhana (whether you call it as freely-willed or not) which

you can surrender and give the credit where it belongs later - that is all

it counts.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

January 29, 1999

On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, sadananda wrote:

> sadananda <sada

>

> Murthy Gaaru- not on the main topic - nor nit-picking either - but a note

> to make sure one is aware of the difference between the two terms,

> conscious and consciousness - as in your statement above could be

> misleading "The consciousness always pricks the intellect if the intellect

> is making a wrong decision" - The difference between ones conscious that

> pricks and the consciousness that illumines even the pricking - The second

> is akarta and abhokta - is non-doer and non-enjoyer ' akartham

> abhoktaaham ahameva anyaH| The first one, ones conscious, is nothing but

> the intellect itself with its value system and education as its background

> which knows what is right and what is wrong based ones education and

> learning from ones own experience. The same problems in the next

> statement, "The consciousness is always

> there exhorting the intellect to reach higher and higher levels and to

> put the intellect in the right path". -If 'consciousness' exhorts it

> becomes an instrument - As I understand it is the intellect that coaxes the

> mind - since intellectually I started cherishing the value of the Higher by

> listening to the teacher and studying the scriptures or satsangh etc. It

> is the mind - chittam that lags behind because of the pressure of the

> vaasanaas - The integration of these two is the yoga that B.G. emphasizes.

> The anthaHkaraNa is consists four depending on functionality - manas,

> buddhi, ahankaara and chitta - citta is the conditioned consciousness -

> that I am - an individual - which is "aham vritti" that tries own all the

> equipment. In the above - the role of the conditioned consciousness is to

> claim that I am the "one who has his conscious that pricks".

>

Dear Shri Sadananda garu,

Namaste. Thanks very much for your very kind and well-meaning advice.

It is quite interesting: Before I put that little paragraph yesterday,

I was thinking about exactly the same point which you mentioned.

The reason and thinking I have, to put that paragraph is the following:

The consciousness that I referred to is the lower case c consciousness,

and not the Consciousness which you referred (akartam, abhoktam, ahameva

anyah). That Consciousness is undescribable.

The little c consciousness which is used in my post is ultimately the

intellect only or something which is exhorting us to reach for the

higher Truth. In the strict models, that may not be there or may be

the positive side of the intellect. The reason I put that sentence is

because I am aware of the danger that the intellect can satisfy itself

(wrongly) into a lower path (like what Charles is referring to as

bestiality).

But again, let me recall Lord Yama's saying to Nachiketa in Katha

upanishad. The good and the pleasant (shreyah and preyah) approach

a mumukshu. The dheera chooses the good and not the pleasant.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

February 1, 1999

On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy wrote:

> Destiny: God is karma-phala-pradA, the distributor of karma-phala

> impartially. That is, the jeeva has done some actions (these may be

> physical or mental actions); the God assesses these actions and assigns

> the karma-phala accordingly.

The law of karma. No problem with that.

> Charles says that if the choice is denied, the jeeva moves by default

> to bestiality, simply because it is easier and mechanical.

Things get old, worn out, and discarded; minds get forgetful and

degenerate into senility. Everything ages and decays. This is

the general rule of prakRti. Science calls it entropy. Generally

it is experienced as habit: less intelligent more mechanical;

less responsive, more reactive.

> I doubt it.

Doubt and will are both functions of the mind listed in bRhad 1.5.3.

> If the jeeva's intellectual development is such that that

> route is chosen by the intellect, then that is the level of development

> of the intellect (caused by purvajanmasukr^tAs). The intellect suggests

> the route and that route will be followed.

Given your acceptance of destiny, this means a completely

deterministic world, i.e. jIva's actions depend on intellectual

development which depends on jIva's actions which depend on ...

How can there be any development in such a situation? There

is no up or down, just a circle going round and round forever.

There needs to be another factor introduced in order to break

that circle: on j~nAna-marga it is called shAstra, on bhakti-

marga grace, and on karma-marga will.

There are three aspects to the nature of man: intellectual,

devotional, and physical -- one predominates over the other

two, but all three are always present in any individual.

And hence there are the three paths -- the individual actually

follows all three, but the dominant path will accord with his

dominant nature.

At the end of the day, it is not a question of whether the

belief/theory/model/path is right or wrong: they are all to

help the ignorant transcend ignorance -- squabbling about

them misses the point entirely.

yayA yayA bhavet puMsaM vyutpattiH pratyag-Atmani

sA saiva prakriyeha syAt sAdhvIty AcArya-bhASitam

"Whatever particular method of teaching helps a particular

man to understand the indwelling Atman is acceptable on

this path." So said Shri Sureshvaracarya in his Varttika

[on bRhad 1.4.402].

[ PD. 8.73 tr. H.P.Shastry ]

If one finds a concept (such as free will) unnecessary or even

unhelpful, then what is served in discussing it? If others find

the concept useful and helpful, what is served in refuting it?

Regards, Charles.

February 1, 1999

On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, Charles Wikner wrote:

> Charles Wikner <WIKNER

>

> [...]

>

> yayA yayA bhavet puMsaM vyutpattiH pratyag-Atmani

> sA saiva prakriyeha syAt sAdhvIty AcArya-bhASitam

>

> "Whatever particular method of teaching helps a particular

> man to understand the indwelling Atman is acceptable on

> this path." So said Shri Sureshvaracarya in his Varttika

> [on bRhad 1.4.402].

> [ PD. 8.73 tr. H.P.Shastry ]

>

> If one finds a concept (such as free will) unnecessary or even

> unhelpful, then what is served in discussing it? If others find

> the concept useful and helpful, what is served in refuting it?

>

> Regards, Charles.

>

Namaste, Charles.

I fully agree with the wisdom expressed in your statement and in the

Pa~nchadashi both quoted above.

What I stated in my previous posts is just one individual's view taken

or thrown out depending on who reads it. No insistence is made that view

be accepted. I posted them only because Shri Ram Chandran, as the

list-owner, specifically asked that people (and me and also others

by name) express their view.

------------

On a related matter, what is the precise Sanskrit equivalent of

"free-will"? I see "will" as saMkalpa, but for free-will, is there

a single Sanskrit word-equivalent?

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

February 1, 1999

Namaste.

Further to my post of this morning, a few additional comments:

On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, Charles Wikner wrote:

> Charles Wikner <WIKNER

>

> [...]

>

> Given your acceptance of destiny,

I accept destiny as much as I accept free-will/will.

> this means a completely

> deterministic world, i.e. jIva's actions depend on intellectual

> development which depends on jIva's actions which depend on ...

>

Is there anything wrong with that model? I am not saying it is

a deterministic world. But as long as there is a world, there is

cause and effect (kArya-kAraNabaddhau). The development of the

intellect allows (or restricts) the jeeva to see the world as

he/she sees it.

> How can there be any development in such a situation? There

> is no up or down, just a circle going round and round forever.

> There needs to be another factor introduced in order to break

> that circle: on j~nAna-marga it is called shAstra, on bhakti-

> marga grace, and on karma-marga will.

>

You say "There is no up or down, just a circle going round and

round for ever." But, is that not the description of the Absolute?

I do not see anything wrong with that view of the world. It may be

boring for some, but that is what It is.

I may be digressing a bit here. As for usage of the word "development",

and "progress", I wonder if there is development and progress from

ancient times to now. We look with reverence at a philosophy which is

thousands of years old. We have absolutely no doubt that those ancient

sages have realized the Truth. We see a world now (in terms of mental

frame) which is an anti-thesis of what the ancients taught us in the

upanishads. Yet we say we are "progressing". We may be progressing in

terms of the lower truth. But is the present mental outlook of the

jagat the right prescription towards the Absolute or Higher Truth?

>

> Regards, Charles.

>

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

February 2, 1999

On Mon, 01 Feb 1999, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy wrote:

> On a related matter, what is the precise Sanskrit equivalent of

> "free-will"? I see "will" as saMkalpa, but for free-will, is there

> a single Sanskrit word-equivalent?

Forgive me for appearing to sidestep the issue, but I feel it would

be more useful to first understand the concepts, before seeking a

Sanskrit term. You seem to view free-will negatively, while I view

it positively: in fact, I see a range of meanings of free-will from

the negative to the positive, but prefer to emphasize the positive

rather than decry the negative. Let us first examine a general model

for will (free or otherwise) from the individual's perspective:

circumstances --> desires --> decision --> action --> result

To keep it simple, let external circumstances, and the internal

response in the form of vAsanA-s or desires, be presented according

to the law of karma (i.e. from the past, whether in this life or

previous ones). From that complex mix one option is chosen, and

that decision directs action to produce an expected result.

The result is not guaranteed either, so it is only in the area of

decision and action that the individual has any seeming control.

That decision may be unseen, i.e. it is made by default according

to habit or instinct (like an animal), in which case the only scope

for agency is in the action itself: this will lay down the same karma

that caused the action, and so the cycle will repeat from day to day,

and life to life. Alternatively, that decision could be conscious,

in which case there is the possibility to change the action, and

hence the results and karma as well: it is in having the sense of

agency at the level of decision that distinguishes man from beast

(and not the number of legs that he walks on).

Now "will" comprises that area of decision and action where there

is an opportunity for agency, i.e. the sense of being in control.

Even if that decision is entirely mechanical (no agency) it is

included in will; however, when that decision is a conscious one

(irrespective of how limited the range of choice may be), it is

"free-will". This is the positive aspect of it.

There are also two-legged animals which, under the protection of

"human rights" and "free speech", will claim the "free-will"

(more accurately licence) to benefit themselves to the detriment

of society (purveyors of pornography, for example). That is the

negative aspect of it.

In practice, the quality of the "free-will" necessarily accords

with the quality of the agent:

Free from attachment, not given to egotism, endued with

firmness and vigour, unaffected in success and failure,

such an agent is said to be sattvic.

Passionate, desiring to obtain the fruit of action, greedy,

cruel, impure, subject to joy and sorrow, such an agent

is said to be rajasic.

Unsteady, vulgar, unbending, deceptive, wicked, indolent,

desponding, and procrastinating, such an agent is said to

be tamasic.

[ BG 18:26-28 tr. Alladi Mahadeva Sastry ]

So, whether free-will is viewed as positive or negative, depends

on which guNa is associated with it.

______

The term "free-will" also seems to be a technical term of sorts

in Western philosophy, meaning the opposite of "determinism".

To complicate the issue, there are two types of determinism:

materialistic and theistic.

Materialistic determinism assumes an entirely mechanical universe:

mind evolved from matter; consciousness evolved from mind; there is

no God, no Absolute; man is the supreme evolute of this mechanism.

I don't think we need pursue this line of enquiry on this list!

In theistic determinism it is usual to speak of predestination,

implying that everything, including particularly every choice,

has been fixed in advance by divine decree: this means that God

can be blamed for all the pain and misery in the world; that we

are not responsible for our actions or their consequences (thereby

negating karma and all civil, criminal and moral law); that all

scriptures are superfluous; and so on.

Determinism does not accord with common experience in the world,

nor is it in any way a satisfying explanation for the world,

therefore I support free-will with its restricted range of

"freedom" (which includes surrendering one's will to God).

______

Now let us see what the Sanskrit terms are for will and free-will.

Monier-Williams' English --> Sanskrit Dictionary gives:

Will: icchA, saMkalpa-shakti, niScaya-shakti

Free-will: svecchA, svacchandatA, svAcchandyam, svakAmaH, yadRcchA

Whether one understands the Sanskrit terms for free-will as positive

or negative, depends on the view of the quality of the agent implied

in "sva", and also whether "sva" is interpreted as Self or self.

Personally, I would use the term saMkalpa in translating both will

and free-will, and qualify it with shuddha or ashuddha if necessary.

Conversely, I would translate saMkalpa as free-will or endeavour

so as to lay emphasis on the possibility of the decision and effort

being *conscious*.

Regards, Charles.

February 2, 1999

Greetings Charles:

Thanks for an excellent analysis of the concept of free-will with

implied (subtle) focus on the positive side. The practice of Swadharma

(freedom to define and follow individual ethical behavior) according to

the Scriptures expect the practioners to assume responsiblities.

I also agree with Charles that Sanskrit terms are useful for

understanding but are not sufficient (sometimes not necessary!) for

understanding the concepts.

Members of the list who are not familiar with Sanskrit should not feel

that they are not qualified to participate in the discussions. On the

other hand, they can bring new perspectives and insights into

discussions. Please do not hesitate to participate because of lack of

knowledge on terms and terminology. One of the primary goal of this list

is to remove ignorance and participation is the greatest opportunity.

The list is quite fortunate to have several good teachers (names are not

mentioned because names and forms are less important in Advaita) who

have demonstrated skills to educate us on difficult concepts. I hope to

see greater participation from the members on the next topic currently

posted for discussion - The Myths of Creation.

Ram Chandran

List Moderator

Charles Wikner wrote:

> ...........

> Forgive me for appearing to sidestep the issue, but I feel it would

> be more useful to first understand the concepts, before seeking a

> Sanskrit term. You seem to view free-will negatively, while I view

> it positively: in fact, I see a range of meanings of free-will from

> the negative to the positive, but prefer to emphasize the positive

> rather than decry the negative. Let us first examine a general model

> for will (free or otherwise) from the individual's perspective: .......

> ...............

> Personally, I would use the term saMkalpa in translating both will

> and free-will, and qualify it with shuddha or ashuddha if necessary.

> Conversely, I would translate saMkalpa as free-will or endeavour

> so as to lay emphasis on the possibility of the decision and effort

> being *conscious*.

>

> Regards, Charles.

February 4, 1999

>Personally, I would use the term saMkalpa in translating both will

>and free-will, and qualify it with shuddha or ashuddha if necessary.

>Conversely, I would translate saMkalpa as free-will or endeavour

>so as to lay emphasis on the possibility of the decision and effort

>being *conscious*.

>

>Regards, Charles.

Needless to say I agree with Shree Charles Wikner's analysis on free will -

About the discussion of the 'word' for free-will:

Sankalpa involves desire prompted decision making intellect ( essentially

ego with kartRitvabhaava) In Geeta Krishna talking about sanyaasa raises

this issue of sankalpa - where He says that one cannot become a sanyaasi

unless he does the 'sanyaasa' (giving up completely) of his 'free will' by

surrendering to the will of God. Unless one is a sanyaasi ( given up that

ahankaara) - one cannot realize the truth. Then prakRiti itself acts under

the direction of the Lord. But giving up ones sankalpa itself is a

sankalpa that a saadhaka has to do by his own his free-will.

yam sanyaasa miti praahuH, yogam tam viddi pandava|

na hi asanyasta sankalpaH, yogii bhavati kaschana||

Arjuna! Know that which is sanyaasa is also called yoga of action (karma

yoga) - Noone can ever become yogii unless one gives up his sankalpa. -

This is called Iswaraarpita buddhi - not only the results of action but the

agency of action as sankalpa implies.

This is also the implication of the what is known as charama sloka

Sarvadhaarmaan partyajya, maameka sharaNa vraja|

aham tvam sarva paapebhyaH, moksha ishyaami maa suchaH||

Giving up all you dharmaas (karmaas) take shelter in me alone I will remove

all your vaasanaas and you give you the liberation - the guarantee of the

Lord. Provided one does the sankalpa of given up all this dharmaas which

includes his notion of the karta.

Sankalpa has to be or can be given up by the one who thinks he is the doer.

Doer-ship (or a notion of the doer ship) or kartRitvabhaava exists for an

ego-centric entity.

This may be Shree Murhty gaaru's point - if the PrakRiti is the doer, as it

is all the time( even now in the unrealized state or aJnaana kaale), where

is the doer and therefore the sankalpa or free-will? This argument is true

if one knows that truth. As long as one does not know, then he has the

notion that one is the doer and as long as one has that notion of the

doer-ship and enjoyer-ship ; he has a choice of action (it may be notional

but its realative reality is at the same level as his ahankaara) that is

influenced by his education, value sysems or hang-ups. He has the

sankalpa. He should have the sankalpa to give up his sankalpa!

Hence Sankalpa is there until is it is surrendered at the feet of the Lord.

Then it is the will of the Lord as Charles discussed. Then only one can

claim that I have no more free-will - Everthing is God's grace. Until

then, one can say it is God's grace - but saying is different from

realizing it.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

February 8, 1999

Namaste. I like to continue on this topic as a continuation of our

discussion of a few days ago. I am writing this, after reasonable

thought, and aware of Charles Wikner's suggestion

>

> On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, Charles Wikner wrote:

>

> > Charles Wikner <WIKNER

> >

> > If one finds a concept (such as free will) unnecessary or even

> > unhelpful, then what is served in discussing it? If others find

> > the concept useful and helpful, what is served in refuting it?

> >

> > Regards, Charles.

> >

>

to which I responded earlier

> Namaste, Charles.

>

> I fully agree with the wisdom expressed in your statement and in the

> Pa~nchadashi both quoted above.

>

> What I stated in my previous posts is just one individual's view taken

> or thrown out depending on who reads it. No insistence is made that view

> be accepted. I posted them only because Shri Ram Chandran, as the

> list-owner, specifically asked that people (and me and also others

> by name) express their view.

>

Further, continuing on this topic is not to convert anyone to the line

of thinking which I favour but to clarify my own thoughts on the matter;

particularly to see what can be pointed out against the interpretation

that I think is appropriate. After all, these are all interpretations

only.

Having said that, now the topic:

Bhagavd-gita, chapter 18 starts of with what is action and how action

is initiated. Particularly verses 13 - 17 are relevant in this context.

While most members may be familiar with this section of the BhagavadgItA,

I like to quote them here so that the post is self-consistent. And

further, the objective of the post is to clarify my own thoughts and

the complete post (along with the verses) would help me in that.

Lord Krishna says in BG18.13

pan~cai 'tAni mahAbAho kAraNAni nibodha me

sAMkhye kr^tAnte proktAni siddhaye sarvakarmaNAm

O Mighty armed Arjuna, learn from me, these five factors, for the

accomplishment of all actions, as stated in the SAMkhya doctrine.

[shri Shankara interprets SAMkhya here as vedAnta]

and in BG18.14

adhishhTAnam tathA kartA karaNam ca pr^thagvidham

vividhAshca pr^thakceshhTA daivam cai 'vA 'tra pan~camam

The seat of action and likewise the agent, the instruments of

various sorts, the many kinds of efforts and providence being the fifth.

[adhishhTAna or the seat refers to the physical body.

kartA, agent. He is, according to Shri Shankara, the phenomenal ego,

the psychophysical self which mistakes the organism for the true SELF.

The kartA or the agent is one of the five causes of action.(more on this

below)

ceshhTA: efforts: functions of the vital energies within the body.

daivam: providence: represents the non-human factor that interferes and

disposes of human effort. It is the wise, all-seeing will that is at work

in the world. In all human actions, there is an unaccountable element

which is called luck, destiny, fate or the force accumulated by the

acts of one's past lives. It is called here daiva. (In Hitopadesha,

it says: pUrvajanmakr^tam karma tad daivam iti kathyate.)

Belief in daiva should not be an excuse for quiescence. Man is a term

of transition. He is conscious of his aim, to raise from the animal

ancestry to the divine ideal. The pressure of nature, heredity and

environment can be overcome by the will of man.

and in BG18.15

sharIravAn.manobhir yat karma prArabhate narah

nyAyyam vA viparItam vA pan~cai 'te tasya hetavah

Whatever action a man undertakes by his body, speech or mind, whether

it is right or wrong, these five are its factors.

and in BG18.16

tatrai 'vam sati kartAram AtmAnam kevalam tu yah

pashyaty akr^tabuddhitvAn na sa pashyati durmatih

Such being the case, the man of perverse mind who, on account of his

untrained understanding, looks upon himself as the sole agent, he does

not see it truly.

The agent, kartA, is only one factor among five and so he misapprehends

the facts when he looks upon the agent as the sole cause (of action).

Shri Shankara explains this "looks on the pure self as the doer". If he

attributes agency to the pure SELF, he misapprehends the facts. The ego

is generally taken to be the doer but it is only one of the main

determinants of human action, which are all the products of nature.

When the ego is recognized as such, we are freed from its binding

influence and we live in the greater knowledge of the Universal SELF,

and in that self-vision, all acts are the products of prakr^ti.

(Thus, no further emphasis need to be placed on the kartA than it is

just one of the five causes of action. Free-will (I am distinguishing

free-will here from saMkalpa, the will) is considered to be present

only when the kartA is considered the sole cause of action. BG certainly

denies this.)

and in BG18.17

yasya nA 'hamkr^to bhAvo buddhir yasya na lipyate

hatvA 'pi sa imAmllokAn na hanti na nibadhyate

He who is free from self-sense, whose understanding is not sullied,

though he slay these people, he slays not nor is he bound (by his

actions).

The freed man does his work as the instrument of the Universal spirit

and for the maintenance of the Cosmic order. He performs even terrific

deeds without any selfish aim or desire but because it is the ordained

duty. What matters is not the work but the spirit in which it is done.

Shri Shankara says on this "Though he slays from the worldly standpoint,

he does not slay in truth.".

Thus, the interpretation of these five verses is to recognize the kartA,

the agent of action as only one out of the five factors that lead to

"action". Giving any further importance to the kartA (like saying kartA

has the free-will) is to deny the other four factors that are also

responsible for leading to "action".

References:

S. Radhakrishnan: The BhagavadgItA; Harper 1980

M. Rangacharya: The Hindu Philosophy of conduct: Lectures on BhagavdgItA;

Munshiram Manoharlal 1990

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

February 9, 1999

>Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>

>Lord Krishna says in BG18.13

>

>pan~cai 'tAni mahAbAho kAraNAni nibodha me

>sAMkhye kr^tAnte proktAni siddhaye sarvakarmaNAm

>

>O Mighty armed Arjuna, learn from me, these five factors, for the

>accomplishment of all actions, as stated in the SAMkhya doctrine.

>

>[shri Shankara interprets SAMkhya here as vedAnta]

>

>and in BG18.14

>

>adhishhTAnam tathA kartA karaNam ca pr^thagvidham

>vividhAshca pr^thakceshhTA daivam cai 'vA 'tra pan~camam

>

>The seat of action and likewise the agent, the instruments of

>various sorts, the many kinds of efforts and providence being the fifth.

>

>[adhishhTAna or the seat refers to the physical body.

>

>kartA, agent. He is, according to Shri Shankara, the phenomenal ego,

>the psychophysical self which mistakes the organism for the true SELF.

>The kartA or the agent is one of the five causes of action.(more on this

>below)

>

>ceshhTA: efforts: functions of the vital energies within the body.

>

>daivam: providence: represents the non-human factor that interferes and

>disposes of human effort. It is the wise, all-seeing will that is at work

>in the world. In all human actions, there is an unaccountable element

>which is called luck, destiny, fate or the force accumulated by the

>acts of one's past lives. It is called here daiva. (In Hitopadesha,

>it says: pUrvajanmakr^tam karma tad daivam iti kathyate.)

>Belief in daiva should not be an excuse for quiescence. Man is a term

>of transition. He is conscious of his aim, to raise from the animal

>ancestry to the divine ideal. The pressure of nature, heredity and

>environment can be overcome by the will of man.

>

>and in BG18.15

>

>sharIravAn.manobhir yat karma prArabhate narah

>nyAyyam vA viparItam vA pan~cai 'te tasya hetavah

>

>Whatever action a man undertakes by his body, speech or mind, whether

>it is right or wrong, these five are its factors.

>

>and in BG18.16

>

>tatrai 'vam sati kartAram AtmAnam kevalam tu yah

>pashyaty akr^tabuddhitvAn na sa pashyati durmatih

>

>Such being the case, the man of perverse mind who, on account of his

>untrained understanding, looks upon himself as the sole agent, he does

>not see it truly.

>

>The agent, kartA, is only one factor among five and so he misapprehends

>the facts when he looks upon the agent as the sole cause (of action).

>Shri Shankara explains this "looks on the pure self as the doer". If he

>attributes agency to the pure SELF, he misapprehends the facts. The ego

>is generally taken to be the doer but it is only one of the main

>determinants of human action, which are all the products of nature.

>When the ego is recognized as such, we are freed from its binding

>influence and we live in the greater knowledge of the Universal SELF,

>and in that self-vision, all acts are the products of prakr^ti.

>

>(Thus, no further emphasis need to be placed on the kartA than it is

>just one of the five causes of action. Free-will (I am distinguishing

>free-will here from saMkalpa, the will) is considered to be present

>only when the kartA is considered the sole cause of action. BG certainly

>denies this.)

>

>and in BG18.17

>

>yasya nA 'hamkr^to bhAvo buddhir yasya na lipyate

>hatvA 'pi sa imAmllokAn na hanti na nibadhyate

>

>He who is free from self-sense, whose understanding is not sullied,

>though he slay these people, he slays not nor is he bound (by his

>actions).

>

>The freed man does his work as the instrument of the Universal spirit

>and for the maintenance of the Cosmic order. He performs even terrific

>deeds without any selfish aim or desire but because it is the ordained

>duty. What matters is not the work but the spirit in which it is done.

>Shri Shankara says on this "Though he slays from the worldly standpoint,

>he does not slay in truth.".

>

>Thus, the interpretation of these five verses is to recognize the kartA,

>the agent of action as only one out of the five factors that lead to

>"action". Giving any further importance to the kartA (like saying kartA

>has the free-will) is to deny the other four factors that are also

>responsible for leading to "action".

>

Murthy Gaaru - what you quoted is absolutely right, but still it does not

negate the free-will of the ego to exercise the choice of action that it

wants. In exercising its choice of action all other factors do come into

picture in the execution. Otherwise the whole of B.G. where Arjuna

refuses to fight would not come into picture, if he did not have a choice.

Being wise enough he surrendered to Krishna for an advise - saying that he

does not know what is the right choice of action for him to do. To give

you my practical example, I have been working on my sabbatical thing for

the past 4months, filling endless forms and forms for the State Dept.

After everything approved, Clinton decided to bomb the Iraq and immediately

several safety precautions and restrictions were introduced for the US.

Govt. Employees to travel to (not-so-friendly) countries and my travel was

stooped. The diavam intervened in His own way to determine where I should

be. He knows what is right I guess, since last monday I had to be rushed

to Hospital for some heart trouble. If it had happened in transit, it

would have been the end my advaitinL list-serve discussions. Hence daivam

plays a very important role all the time. Factors that are beyond our

control which come into play in formulating the action and the results, we

call it daivam. But our role is to do our best within our means exercising

the right choice of action. The right choice of action is that which makes

one comfortable with oneself or that which takes one to ones own self.

Swami Chinmayanandaji used to tell a story in his amicable style. Briefly

- there was once an orphan boy, Raamu, who grow up in a village under the

guidance and love of village elders. Rama when he became young decided

that he should work and support himself. He traveled for and wide to find

some work, At last reached an ashram of a saint. The saint gave him a

shelter and blessed his good intentions. Next day he took him few miles

away and showed him some barren land, saying that he was lucky that someone

donated that land recently to the ashram and it is his if he wants to

cultivate and make use of it. Raamu was very happy. He thanked that

swami and immediately went to work. He tailed and tailed and tailed. He

dug a well, found water and blessed with that, he started to till the land.

He borrowed some seeds from neighbours and started all the intensive labor

that is required to cultivate that land. Raamu worked day and night. The

efforts at last were successful. In time, that originally barren land has

become - a beautiful productive land.

One day that swami, who gave that land to Raamu, happened to pass by that

way, and was surprised to see a beautiful cultivated land there. Raamu ran

to the swami and prostrated again and again and thanked him, reminding that

it was the swami who gave the land, which was originally barren, to Raamu.

Because of his hard work, Raamu was able to convert that barren land into

this beautiful greenish land. Swamiji smiled and said it was all God's

work. Raamu was puzzled. He said - Bhagavan, please excuse me if I am

disagreeing with you. How can that be Lord's work? I was the one who

tilled day and night, dug up the well with my sweat, borrowed the seeds

from some kind formers nearby, sow the seeds, removed the weeds and

fertilized the land and when the rain came in time, made use of those

waters to provide proper irrigation so that waters are not wasted, and

protected the land so that it is not destroyed either by animals or men. I

worked for months to get this land into this shape.

Swamiji again smiled and said it was all God's work. Raamu got little

annoyed and said at last - "Bhagavan, Please excuse me, how can that be

God's work. It was I who did all the labor. You should have seen the land

when God was working all alone by himself on the land - all He did was make

it into a barren land. It was I who transformed that land into this

beautiful productive land - how can that be God's work".

Swamiji patted him and said - " my dear boy what you say is right only if

you look from the narrow window of "I". But try to get the true broader

picture - When you were looking far work, He showed you my ashram.

Anticipating your coming here in advance, He prompted some donor to give

the land to the ashram so that it can be passed on to you. He gave me the

Idea to give that land to you when you came for work. He has given you all

the strength and health for you to do the work. When you started to dug

the well, He made sure that no big stones are in the way and then insured

that water seeps into the well so that you have sufficient water. When you

needed forming equipments He made sure you could borrow them from the

neighboring formers. He gave you the seeds you needed. When you sow the

seeds, he made sure that they get the proper nourishments from the land.

He provided the rain on time. He made sure the plants grow healthy. He

insured that no natural calamities, fire etc. occur to destroy the crops.

Recognize how much He has done to help you and be grateful to Him".

As long as there is Ego there is a sankalpa as Shree Charles Wikner

discussed, but for sankalpa to materials into action, lot of help from Him

is needed too. There is this famous saying " There is lot of gap between

the cup and the lip". Anything can happen in between. But without Raamu

efforts the land would have remained as barren land. But even with Raamu's

efforts without the help of the Lord, the land would have remained barren.

As Swami Chinmayanandaji used to say - When we do our 2% to our best, He

will come all the way to do his 98%. But sankalpa has to come from the

individual and is motivated by his likes and dislikes. That part is called

the free will since he has to will to act. Some have no physical capacity

to act even when they are willing. Hence role of daivam is always there in

all actions.

At the same time role of individual cannot be ignored as long there is an

individuality. In fact that there is this individuality itself is the

result of exercising the free-will. Hence one is accountable for ones

actions as long as there is free-will and willing agent is there.

Accountability ends once it is recognized that everything is His will.

Then one has become the JNaani. Then he can declare "

prakRiti eva ca karmaani kriyamaanaani sarvashhaH|

yaH pasyati tadaatmaanam akartraaram sa pasyati||

All actions are done by the prakRiti (nature) alone. Whoever sees (knows)

that oneself is not a doer, he alone sees the truth.

At that time there is only daivam presiding over the prakRiti.

"maayadhyakhena prakRiti suuyate sa charaa charam" Under my adhyaksha,

presidentship, the nature or maaya projects the wold of plurality, movable

and immovable".

But untill then, the individual is there with his individuality which

differs from other individuals. Hence work is pulled in multi directions

with many wills playing their role. But if they start to work in the

spirit of yaJNa, cooperative endeavor where everybody pitches his part of

the work to his best for the benefit of the totality as an offering to the

daivam then daivam has to come and bless - this aspect is discussed

elaborately in 3rd Chapter of Geeta by Bhagavan Krishna.

As long as there is an individual, with vaasanaas, they propel him to act -

that is sankalpa or will to act. How he acts depends on his samskaara -

culture, value systems etc., Lord is there to help him act-out his

free-will. Hence

uddhare atmanaa aatmaanam

aatmaana mavasaadhayet|

aatmaiva hyaatmano bandhuH

aatmaiva ripuraatmanaH||

One has to lift oneself by oneself and try to realize oneself. Hence one

is a friend of oneself (Lord blesses oneself) as a friend if one wants to

elevate oneself. Lord also blesses oneself if one want to damn oneself,

hence oneself can become enemy to oneself - since he has free will to

exercise his choice. That free-will and help in the execution of his

free-will is the blessing from the Lord or the pure Self. There is role of

free-will and there is the role of daivam in all these. Presence of daivam

does not negate the free-will until one realizes there is only daivam and

nothing else is there - Then even the five factors you discussed reduce to

one - daivam - Lord Himself acts or rather - prakRiti acts in His presence.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

February 9, 1999

On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, sadananda wrote:

> sadananda <sada

>

> Murthy Gaaru - what you quoted is absolutely right, but still it does not

> negate the free-will of the ego to exercise the choice of action that it

> wants. In exercising its choice of action all other factors do come into

> picture in the execution. Otherwise the whole of B.G. where Arjuna

> refuses to fight would not come into picture, if he did not have a choice.

> Being wise enough he surrendered to Krishna for an advise - saying that he

> does not know what is the right choice of action for him to do. To give

> you my practical example, I have been working on my sabbatical thing for

> the past 4months, filling endless forms and forms for the State Dept.

> After everything approved, Clinton decided to bomb the Iraq and immediately

> several safety precautions and restrictions were introduced for the US.

> Govt. Employees to travel to (not-so-friendly) countries and my travel was

> stooped. The diavam intervened in His own way to determine where I should

> be. He knows what is right I guess, since last monday I had to be rushed

> to Hospital for some heart trouble. If it had happened in transit, it

> would have been the end my advaitinL list-serve discussions. Hence daivam

> plays a very important role all the time. Factors that are beyond our

> control which come into play in formulating the action and the results, we

> call it daivam. But our role is to do our best within our means exercising

> the right choice of action. The right choice of action is that which makes

> one comfortable with oneself or that which takes one to ones own self.

>

> [...]

Dear Shri Sadananda garu,

Namaste. Thanks for a nice analysis on the topic.

I am sorry to hear of your health problem. Obviously, you are still to

serve us with your sagacious wisdom and we are to be blessed with it.

That is God's wish and no human, planned or unplanned, can interfere

with it. I am glad you are feeling well now. That IS daivam.

The examples which you gave, all of them, can be interpreted in support

of the point I am trying to make, viz. the kartA, the doer is only

one (minor) aspect of the whole cosmic action.

------

As you know from my previous posts of a few months ago, I take a

slightly alternate approach in the interpretation of the BhagavadgItA.

I do not think Arjuna has refused to fight. Arjuna has no choice but to

fight. Arjuna has sought Lord Krishna's advice. Even if we take Arjuna

and Krishna as two separate entities (which I do not take them to be),

Arjuna might have decided not to fight if Krishna were not there. But

Krishna IS there (and everywhere) and it is Krishna that is to make

Arjuna fight. Arjuna *thinks* he has a choice, and Krishna shows that

Arjuna has no choice but to fight. And Krishna knows Arjuna will fight.

That is the Cosmic Order.

--------

On a slightly related topic: I am a participant in a local BG discussion

group. In our recent discussion, one of the participants gave the

following example. I do not know whether this is a story or an actual

event.

"A murderer (in India) apparently claimed in front of the judge that

he (the murderer) is not responsible for his actions, because it is his

guNAs that made him commit the murder. He quoted BhagavadgItA in support

of his arguments (which portion of BG I am not sure). The judge, while

lauding the prisoner for his quoting BG in the court in support of his

claim, nevertheless, said that he had to find the prisoner guilty of

the crime."

Then the discussion moved on to related concepts. My question on the

above example is: (1) If the defendant accepts the verdict without any

hesitation, then is he a jnAni? Or is the defense a clever scheme to

wiggle out of the crime? (2) If it is a genuine argument by the defendant,

does the defendant consider the act to be a crime? Shri Shankara says

on BG18.17 "Though he slays from the worldly standpoint, he does not

slay in truth". I realize I am mixing up the worldly and paramArtha

frames of reference here, but in a worldly frame, how do we characterize

this defendant?

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

February 9, 1999

>Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>"A murderer (in India) apparently claimed in front of the judge that

>he (the murderer) is not responsible for his actions, because it is his

>guNAs that made him commit the murder. He quoted BhagavadgItA in support

>of his arguments (which portion of BG I am not sure). The judge, while

>lauding the prisoner for his quoting BG in the court in support of his

>claim, nevertheless, said that he had to find the prisoner guilty of

>the crime."

>

>Then the discussion moved on to related concepts. My question on the

>above example is: (1) If the defendant accepts the verdict without any

>hesitation, then is he a jnAni? Or is the defense a clever scheme to

>wiggle out of the crime? (2) If it is a genuine argument by the defendant,

>does the defendant consider the act to be a crime? Shri Shankara says

>on BG18.17 "Though he slays from the worldly standpoint, he does not

>slay in truth". I realize I am mixing up the worldly and paramArtha

>frames of reference here, but in a worldly frame, how do we characterize

>this defendant?

>

Obviously there is a mix-up of arguments here. Since his gunaas, which

are centered in his mind which is locused in his body, did the job as per

his defense, the judge is perfectly legitimate to lock up that equipments

that had the criminal tendencies. If the fellow is a true JNaani, then he

will not complain either since the punishment was not given to him since he

is only a witness and not a participant of the action. He should be

equally happy seeing the justice being done to the culprit. The

punishment is obviously not to the knower of the gunaas who is the witness

of all these, but to the equipment which is the product of the gunaas that

were responsible. He cannot take the punishment also as his when he

discards the agency. He becomes the JNaani only if he takes the punishment

also as not his but that of the equipments which committed the crime. He

must be perfectly at peace seeing the justing being done to the equipments

that commited the crime!

Actually there is a pouraanic story of this- When a brahman killed someone

he claimed that Indra is the one that deserves the punishment and not him,

since Indra is the presiding deity of the indriyaas that are responsible

for the action. Indra heard this and wanted to teach the rogue a lesson.

Later when the same fellow did some thing good thing, Indra went to him in

disguise and asked him who did that great work. The fellow boastfully said

he was the author and deserves the merits of that work. Indra appeared in

front of him and asked him what happened to his logic that Indra is the

presiding deity of all the indriyaas and the credit should go to Indra only

just as the discredit of the murder was passed on to Indra.

As you see, a real JNaani has no problem to whom the accounts belong. It

is only the half baked knowledge that causes these problem.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

February 9, 1999

Namaste,

I have been silently following this thread and have been interested in the

various viewpoints from the Bhagavad-Gita which is an important commentary

on karma/action and spirituality.

For myself, I've always been impressed by the 3rd teaching when Krishna (#s

4,5,6,7,8) explains that we must be involved in action of some type (he

later explains that the nature of our actions are determined by our

nature/gunas). It has always meant to me that it is the detachment with

which we perform our actions that determines the quality of the action.

Perhaps that is where free will is really the most obvious and important -

in our attitude and reaction to what the external world presents to us based

on our karmic results.

Linda

Gummuluru Murthy [gmurthy]

Monday, February 08, 1999 2:43 PM

advaitin

Re: Free will and sadhana

Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy