What is the point -- Part 4

[Guest guest]

Greetings Patrick:

 

Good to see you and Dennis deserves the credit for

your participation. The ideas expressed by Spinoza

can be identified in the messages of Gita and the

Upanishads. These thought processes have been

floating coexisting in the minds of saints and sages

across the globe and across the time. Sadaji has

already pointed out that for a realized soul, there is

no ‘free-will' and he (she) accepts and sees no

contradiction in everything that is happening in the

world around him (her).

 

One of the most admired verse in Bhagavad Gita

(Chapter 18, Verse 66) explains how this status can be

achieved::

 

Sarvadharmaanparityajya maamekam sharanamvraja

Aham tvaa sarvapaapebhyo mokshayishyaami maa shuchah

 

Abondoning all duties, come to Me alone for shelter.

Be not grieved for

I shall release thee from all evils. (Translation by

Dr. Radhakrishnana, Bhagavad Gita, page 378).

 

Dr. Radhakrishnan sites this beautiful quotation from

Ruysbroeck: "He only is fit to contemplate the Divine

light who is the slave to nothing, not even to his

virtues." With unreserved surrender to the Supreme, we

will always attain total perfection. When we didn't

reach the highest level of perfection, we should know

that we didn't totally surrender our Ego!

 

This condensed verse replicates the philosophy of

Spinoza as spelled by you. It is no wonder that the

truth behind this verse is accepted by all the Vedanta

schools - Advaita, Dvaita and Vishistadvaita but

different explanations.

 

warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

--- Patrick Kenny <pkenny wrote:

> Dear Dennis,

>

> This would seem to be problem of such

> fundamental importance that

> scarcely anybody seems to have

> addressed it. I would be very interested

> to know of any answers that have been

> offered in Advaita or in any

> other tradition. The only credible

> answer that I am aware of is due

> to Spinoza so let me sketch it briefly.

>

> Spinoza is a determinist (he explicitly

> denies free will)......

[Guest guest]

Dear Ram,

 

Thanks for welcoming me back. I am sure that many Advaitins

who quite happily repudiate the idea of free will for contingent

beings will balk at the idea of 'strong determinism' on the grounds

that it deprives the Self of free will. Yet I would like to suggest

that if strong determinism is granted -- so that there is a clear

recognition that things could not possibly be other than they are --

then the `unreserved surrender to the Supreme' that you mentioned is

already achieved. So I am curious to know what you and other members

of the list think about it. (As I said, I am not convinced by

Spinoza's 'proof' but I suspect that the idea is true.)

 

Regards,

 

Patrick

 

 

advaitin , Ram Chandran <ramvchandran> wrote:

> Greetings Patrick:

>

> Good to see you and Dennis deserves the credit for

> your participation. The ideas expressed by Spinoza

> can be identified in the messages of Gita and the

> Upanishads. These thought processes have been

> floating coexisting in the minds of saints and sages

> across the globe and across the time. Sadaji has

> already pointed out that for a realized soul, there is

> no ?free-will' and he (she) accepts and sees no

> contradiction in everything that is happening in the

> world around him (her).

>

> One of the most admired verse in Bhagavad Gita

> (Chapter 18, Verse 66) explains how this status can be

> achieved::

>

> Sarvadharmaanparityajya maamekam sharanamvraja

> Aham tvaa sarvapaapebhyo mokshayishyaami maa shuchah

>

> Abondoning all duties, come to Me alone for shelter.

> Be not grieved for

> I shall release thee from all evils. (Translation by

> Dr. Radhakrishnana, Bhagavad Gita, page 378).

>

> Dr. Radhakrishnan sites this beautiful quotation from

> Ruysbroeck: "He only is fit to contemplate the Divine

> light who is the slave to nothing, not even to his

> virtues." With unreserved surrender to the Supreme, we

> will always attain total perfection. When we didn't

> reach the highest level of perfection, we should know

> that we didn't totally surrender our Ego!

>

> This condensed verse replicates the philosophy of

> Spinoza as spelled by you. It is no wonder that the

> truth behind this verse is accepted by all the Vedanta

> schools - Advaita, Dvaita and Vishistadvaita but

> different explanations.

>

> warmest regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

>

>

> --- Patrick Kenny <pkenny@c...> wrote:

> > Dear Dennis,

> >

> > This would seem to be problem of such

> > fundamental importance that

> > scarcely anybody seems to have

> > addressed it. I would be very interested

> > to know of any answers that have been

> > offered in Advaita or in any

> > other tradition. The only credible

> > answer that I am aware of is due

> > to Spinoza so let me sketch it briefly.

> >

> > Spinoza is a determinist (he explicitly

> > denies free will)......

[Guest guest]

>Dear Ram,

>

>Thanks for welcoming me back. I am sure that many Advaitins

>who quite happily repudiate the idea of free will for contingent

>beings will balk at the idea of 'strong determinism' on the grounds

>that it deprives the Self of free will. Yet I would like to suggest

>that if strong determinism is granted -- so that there is a clear

>recognition that things could not possibly be other than they are --

>then the `unreserved surrender to the Supreme' that you mentioned is

>already achieved. So I am curious to know what you and other members

>of the list think about it. (As I said, I am not convinced by

>Spinoza's 'proof' but I suspect that the idea is true.)

>

>Regards,

>

>Patrick

>

Patrick who has the free will - the aatma or the anaatma - From the aatma

or consciousness or truth, what is free will and what does it do with it.

>From the anaatma or the mater reference, what does a will let alone free

will means?

 

In the samsaari state or vyavahaara state only the free will operates since

there is doer ship involved. As long I feel I am a doer there is doer and

enjoyership and all problems belong to him. Using that free will he can sit

for meditation on contemplate on the reality that he is beyond the free

will! - Then the knowledge dawns on his that he is ' akartaaham

abhoktaaham' I am neither doer not enjoyer - I am one without a second -

beyond the concepts of wills and unwills where cause and effect and hence

time operatates - thus beyond the concept of time.

 

True surrendering is the very surrrendring of the ahankaara where wills

operatate. That happens only once that is when the knowledge dawns. That

is what Ram implies in Radhakrishan's statement. Until then one is only

threatening to surrender but not really surrenders.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

Dear Sadananda,

 

you wrote:

> Patrick who has the free will - the aatma or the anaatma - From the

> aatma or consciousness or truth, what is free will and what does it

> do with it. From the anaatma or the mater reference, what does a

>will let alone free will means?

 

Please understand that my question was not about free will. However I

thought it was appropriate to refer to it in passing since it bears

directly on Dennis's statement (#5863)

> You imply a belief

> that Brahman does not act or have free will - this is surely a

>limitation?

 

So let me restate the question. Following the theoretical physicist

Roger Penrose, let us define the term 'strong determinism' as the

hypothesis that there is only one history of the universe which is

logically possible. My question is whether Advaita has anything to say

about this hypothesis.

 

Regards

 

Patrick

[Guest guest]

>

>Please understand that my question was not about free will. However I

>thought it was appropriate to refer to it in passing since it bears

>directly on Dennis's statement (#5863)

 

Sorry Patrik for my misinterpretation.

>> You imply a belief

>> that Brahman does not act or have free will - this is surely a

>>limitation?

 

No - limitless cannot have any limitation. Action involves three aspects -

actor, action and acting. When we say Rama killed RavaNa, Rama is

different from RavaNa and both are different from killing. Hence the very

implication of action one limits the other. Brahman does not act is

similar to Brahman cannot move (achalam) - is that a limitation? He cannot

move only because he is everywhere and there is no place where he is not

for him to move. Any movement is only therefore apparent movement for

those who see. Any action is also with in time bound or gets limited by

time. Brahman is beyond the realm of time and cause-effect limitations.

It is our description of Brahman that he has no free will or he does not

act etc. It is only an indicator to point to Him that any things that acts

cannot not be him - just as 'neti' neti etc that he is not this and not

this - Being not this is not a limitation and in fact it is the other way

around.

 

My answer may not have a direct bearing on your question, I am only taking

this chance to clarify based on my understanding.

>So let me restate the question. Following the theoretical physicist

>Roger Penrose, let us define the term 'strong determinism' as the

>hypothesis that there is only one history of the universe which is

>logically possible. My question is whether Advaita has anything to say

>about this hypothesis.

 

If I interpret the question - strong determination is a 'will' - I am not

clear Penrose connection of strong determination to one history of the

universe. In Advaita universe itself is a projection of the total mind,

hence the history of the universe is as much a projection as the universe

itself. At the absolute level there is no universe separate from Brahman

to have a history. Once we talk about unverse and creation one is already

comming done to Iswara level or vyavahaara level. At that level Iswara

being all powerful, there is no limitation for him to create a universe

with one history. Since he has all the capacities that one can dream off,

he can create more than one universe or universes with many histories.

Just as I can dream many dream worlds each having its own history or

histories - there is no limitation in my imaginations. So is Iswara.

Advaita explains all this as part of vyavyahaara which is in the realm of

time and space etc. It also goes beyond vyavahaara to claim that from the

absolute point universe and its history are in the realm of cause-effect or

time and are only apparent and not real.

 

I donot know if this is a direct answer but one can extract an answer from

it.

 

Hari Om!

Sadanadna

 

>

>Regards

>

>Patrick

>

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

Dear Patrick:

 

Please take a moment to think and you will notice that

your question has an implicit reference to freewill.

The entire discussions on "strong determinism" is an

intellectual exercise (including all our discussions)

and according to Advaita that the nature of Brahman

can not be described intellectually! All that we can

say is (Vedic pramAna) that the Brahman only exists

and He is beyond human perception.

 

The questions related to "strong determinism" and

"random events" are based on human perceptions in the

relative world (vyavahaara level of reality). In the

absolute level (paramarthika level of relaity),

"strong determinism" become irrelevant! In the

Vedantic framework, your question is implicitly

equivalent to "Who Am I?" A short answer is I am

Brahman. When I know the Brahman, I know everything

that I don't know.

 

Ishwara (God) is the human (intellectual perception or

creation) of Brahman. For all humans who accept God at

their freewill, Ishwara become omnipotent, omnipresent

and eternal. With strong faith in God, Ishwara

determines all outcomes without any uncertainty. Swami

Dayananda Saraswati of Arsha Vidya Gurukulam calls

Ishwara as the "karma palam dataa." We can get a

clearer understanding of the relationship between jiva

and Ishwara from Bhagawad Gita: Chapter 2, Verse 47.

As long as we bound us within space and time we have

the "right" to act with freewill. However, our rights

are limited with respect to only "action" and we don't

control the outcome! The controller of the outcome is

the Ishwara and the outcome becomes the ‘prasad.'

Alternatively, it is possible to declare that our

actions are at our freewill but the outcomes are

purely random.

 

To understand the essence of "Advaitic determinism,"

we should understand the above quoted verse from

Bhagawad Gita in Karma Yoga (Chapter 2, Verse 47)

 

karmaNi eva adhikaaraste maa phaleshu gadaachana

maa karma phala hetuH bhuH maa sanghaH astu akarmaNi

 

(The entire interpretation is based on Swami

Dayananda Saraswati's lecture on Gita (2nd and 3rd

October, 1999) in Washington Metropolitan. This is

my understanding and if there are errors, they are

mine. My sincere Pranams to Swamiji for his insights

on Gita)

 

We only have the "right" to conduct the action and

certainly we have no control over the results of the

action. We should avoid using the "results" as the

motivating force of our action and free our attachment

to inaction. The facts will become crisp and clear if

and only if we make efforts to understand this verse

carefully. We are part of the Nature and we should

understand our ‘rights' and also our ‘limitations.'

Nature has given us the skill and power to conduct an

action of our choice. We can use our skills to set up

the goals for the action and should proceed to apply

all our energy and skill to accomplish those goals.

Our intelligence, energy and knowledge do not give us

the authority over the results of the action. This

human limitation is also a fact of life and we have no

choice other than to accept the outcome. The results

can be more, equal, less or even opposite to our

expectations (goals). We have the right to conduct or

not to conduct an action but we have no authority over

the results. Any expression of expectation

(prejudging the results) before completing an action

develops an attitude that binds the action to the

results.

 

Lord Krishna in Bhagavad Gita emphasizes to Arjun that

he has no rights (authority) over the consequences.

Implicitly the Lord points out that He only has the

authority over the results! The views of Karma Yoga

expressed in this verse are certainly no different

from modern management, political, scientific and

sports experts. But the message of Gita is much more

profound and precise. According to Gita, the humans

have the "rights" on action (Karma) but ‘right' comes

along with the responsibility to maintain Dharma. The

doer has the freedom over his/her Karma but he or she

has to obey the Dharma established by his own mind.

 

warm regards,

Ram Chandran

 

Some Reference to Penrose's hypotheses, discussions

and related materials on Determination:

(1) A Book Review: "The Emperor's New Mind," by Roger

Penrose, Oxford University Press, 1990 - Website:

http://www.friesian.com/penrose.htm

 

(2) A Case for Free Will AND Determinism by Ben Best

Website: http://www.benbest.com/philo/freewill.html

 

--- Patrick Kenny <pkenny wrote:

> Dear Sadananda,

>

> you wrote:

>

> > Patrick who has the free will - the aatma or the

> anaatma - From the

> > aatma or consciousness or truth, what is free will

> and what does it

> > do with it. From the anaatma or the mater

> reference, what does a

> >will let alone free will means?

>

> Please understand that my question was not about

> free will. However I

> thought it was appropriate to refer to it in passing

> since it bears

> directly on Dennis's statement (#5863)

>

> > You imply a belief

> > that Brahman does not act or have free will - this

> is surely a

> >limitation?

>

> So let me restate the question. Following the

> theoretical physicist

> Roger Penrose, let us define the term 'strong

> determinism' as the

> hypothesis that there is only one history of the

> universe which is

> logically possible. My question is whether Advaita

> has anything to say

> about this hypothesis.

>

> Regards

>

> Patrick