Freewill and sadhana

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy wrote:

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

>

> > 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.

 

The model is deterministic: if not the world (including intellect)

and your experience of it, what is it supposed to model?

> 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.

 

Of course: you are free to ignore Spirit and follow Darwin.

Cause and effect are in the world; development of intellect

implies spiritual development to transcend 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?

 

Not *of* the Absolute, no; nor even *from* the Absolute. It may be

the view of a mumukSu who has purified his mind and seeks grace for

final liberation. Or it may be the view of a fatalist or nihilist.

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

> boring for some, but that is what It is.

 

Well, that's one view I suppose: abandon all hope of liberation!

Is your autopilot Y2K compliant?

> I may be digressing a bit here.

 

Transgressing.

> As for usage of the word "development",

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

> ancient times to now.

 

Has the world not progressed from the satyuga to the kaliyuga?

Has not the threshold for entry into a human body been lowered

to allow more animal-humans the opportunity for spiritual growth?

(Compare the populations of wild animals to human beings.)

> 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".

 

That's how *you* see the world. Earlier I wrote that without the

conscious decision of free will people will tend towards bestiality.

You said then that you doubted it, but here you are affirming it.

> 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?

 

Who are you to pass judgement on all mankind? Are you all-knowing?

All your information is second-hand (books, magazines, radio, TV),

and the bulk of that is merely the opinions of materialists about

the material world: your world-view is based on hearsay evidence.

Has it not occured to you that years of sAdhana may have so raised

your ethical standards that it *appears* that world is getting worse?

 

All that you know of the world is what is presented to the five senses,

everything else is merely an opinion in the mind. You do not have the

power to change the world -- which is fortunate for the rest of us --

but you do have the opportunity to purify your *own* mind, and that

means that you have free will. I fail to see that predestination/

fatalism/nihilism is a better mental outlook.

 

Furthermore, in your deterministic model nothing whatsoever can be done

to change that outlook -- in fact you are just criticising God's Will.

 

Regards, Charles.