What is the point -- Part 4

[Guest guest]

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). In fact his

determinism is more thoroughgoing than

anything I have encountered in

Advaita; it can be described as 'strong

determinism' (Penrose), which is

to say the idea that there is only one

history of the universe which is

logically possible. (Spinoza: 'Things

could not have been brought into

being by God in any order or in any

manner other than that which has

in fact obtained'. Mind you Spinoza's

proof of this proposition does not

stand up to modern standards of

scrutiny.) God is the 'sole free cause'

but he is only free in the sense that

he is not conditioned by anything

else. To say that God is bound by laws

by of logical necessity is probably

not something that, say, Francis

Lucille would disagree with but what is

extraordinary about Spinoza's position

is that logical necessity leaves

no room for arbitrary behaviour -- free

will!-- on God's part. (Note that this

does not deny God's creativity but it

does mean that this creativity is

mathematical rather than artistic in

nature. Also, the entire project of

the _Ethics_ is to show that human

'freedom, salvation or blessedness'

consists in understanding the

'necessity of the divine nature'.)

 

As for the point of it all (i.e. life),

Spinoza would have us believe

that God's only 'motivation' is to

manifest himself in every conceivable

way:

'to those who ask why God did not

create all men so that they are governed

by reason, I give no answer but this

.... that the laws of his nature are so

vast as to suffice for the production

of everything conceivable to an

infinite intelligence'.

 

Regards,

Patrick

 

 

Dennis wrote:

 

I agree that I do have some confusion

about 'doing'. The original source of

teaching I had on the subject was that

'only the guna act', the Self does

nothing at all. I have also use the

metaphor of the petrol in the car - the

petrol enables the car to move but does

not itself actually 'do' anything.

Similarly, the Self enables things to

happen but does not itself act. More

recently, Francis Lucille has made

statements to the effect that the Self

can 'do' whatever it likes. Obviously,

the Self cannot be limited in any

way. Wayne Liquorman says, of course,

that our problem is the belief that

we, as body-mind mechanisms, are

'doers' and that, losing this sense of

personal doership is what constitutes

enlightenment. He says that all action

is God acting through these body-minds.

There is clearly some inconsistency

here that I have still fully to clarify

in my own mind. You imply a belief

that Brahman does not act or have free

will - this is surely a limitation?