Action, Free will versus fate

[Guest guest]

The topic has been discussed elaborately. Here is my summary

comments from my understanding on the fate versus free will and

Murthy gaaru's god's grace.

 

There are three references from which this topic has been discussed

and confusion arises mostly if we are not conscious of the reference

from which the discussion is made.

 

1. From the reference of absolute - Nothing can in principle be said

from that reference. But description of that state is state of

absolute freedom, freedom from all limitations - and action, will

etc stem from limitations; there is no question of action or will at

that state.

 

Every action involves three aspects - actor, action, and acting -

kartaa, karma and kriya. kartaa is not karma and karma is not kriya

and all three are mutually exclusive and by mutual exclusion they

limit each other. In the unlimited the limitation has no meaning.

 

Hence Rule no. 1. action, reaction, will etc can all be talked only

with reference to the limited or jiiva or ego centric entity.

 

Once we understand clearly the discussion is from the reference of

egocentric entity- jiiva- then the discussion of fee will and action

will have proper reference. The whole discussion itself is relative

to jiiva and does not have any relevance from the absolute point.

Hence there is no point in bringing absolute into the discussion of

the relative. The statement that there is no free will is absolutely

true from the absolute point.

 

From the relative point or jiiva's point - we can split the

discussion into two levels - from the point of yogi or saadhak and

from the point of bhogi or a materialist person.

 

But before we do that let us understand first although the ignorance

is the same for all jiiva's in terms of not knowing who I am, the

degree or extent of identification with the prakriti varies from

jiiva to jiiva - This we call also as ones samskaara or ones

vaasana's or ones guna's etc.

 

First let us look from point of vaasana-s - my vaasana-s are

different from Murthy's or that of Dennis or some others and every

individuals likes and dislikes are different. Question we need to

ask is why my vaasana-s are different from that Dennis or other

individuals - I cannot definitely blame Dennis for my vaasana-s - I

am the author of mine and thus each individual is cause for his own

vaasana-s. Vaasana's do not come into picture unless there is

ego-centric action. The divergence of the vaasana-s from individual

to individual implies that there is a divergence of individual's

actions or the motivating factors in their action and that is what

is referred to as free-will. Here is the vicious cycle - As long

as I have vaasana-s I am propelled to act and as long as I act, I

will accumulate new vaasana-s. Propulsion to act in the environment

that I am in is dictated by my vaasana-s and that we call it as fate.

Hence fate is nothing but the product of my past actions or

vaasana-s. My fate is different from that of Dennis or of some other

person only because I acted differently compared to Dennis or some

other individual. That I exercised my free-will differently from what

Dennis did. Hence fate is the result of free-will of my past

actions.

 

So what I have is FATE - What everyone is facing second by second is

his FATE. FATE is the result of all the actions upto that point.

 

As long as I have vaasana-s I cannot but act - says Krishna - nahi

kashchit kshaNa mapi jaatu tushhTasya karam kR^it, kaaryate havishhaH

karma sarva prakR^itijai guNaiH|| - no one (jiiva) can ever remain

without acting even one second, he will be propelled to act by this

guNa's and Vaasana's.

 

Now how should one act given the circumstances that each one finds

himself because of his fate. There is where choice of action or

free-will of jiiva comes into picture in his relative sense since he

considers himself not absolute but relative -ego. KrishNa although

mentions that the fate of the people in front in the war is already

decided by their past actions, Arjuna has the choice to fight or not

to fight. Hence Krishna's advice - niyatam kuru - do your obligatory

duties - If Arjuna does not do it, Krishna may have to find someone

else to do the job - from then on it is Krishna's problem - Arjuna

may have to face different problems if he runs away from the field of

action and he has to face his new fate then. - It is not that he is

destined to act and he has no free will - if so Bhagavad giita

teaching will be a waste - since he is going to kill anyway and why

waste time in teaching that which is going to be done. Hence that is

not the message of Krishana. In the final sloka he asks Arjuna - Has

he understood the teaching, has his delusion of me and mine gone etc

and advices him to act properly. There is no need to advice if

Arjuna has no free-will.

 

- Bottom line rule no. 2 - As long as there is ego and ego-centric

entity jiiva there is free-will and there is action and reaction.

Only when the ego is dissolved in the realization of the truth that I

am absolute there is no more discussion of action and will.

Everything stops.

 

From jiiva-s reference we can discuss now two view points - one who

has learned about the nature of the truth and follows the path of

shreyas or path towards realization or yogi and one who has involved

in prayas only or path of sensious enjoyments or bhogi.

 

Jiiva who intellectually appreciates the nature of reality and

realizes in principle he is not doer or karthaa yet he cannot but be

an actor due to pressure of his vaasana-s - is in a state of in

between. He knows the truth but yet has not realized the truth. To

get rid of the fate or vaasana-s he has to act since by action only

he has accumulated vaasana-s. By action only he can get rid of them

- there is where karma becomes karma-yoga by bringing Iswara into

picture. Let us not confuse a saadhak's state with the state of

realization. There is still a jiiva-hood involved and hence a notion

of actor due to self-imposed limitations.

 

Rule no. 3. As long as one feels he is jiiva or one is in the state

of jiiva hood - from his reference there is a kartR^itva bhaava or

notion of doer ship. That notion is as real as the notion that I am

jiiva that include a notion that I have or I do not have free-will

and all this discussion is with in that notional reference only.

From that reference action, reaction and free-will are all real to

that degree - or vyavahaara satyam. Statement that there is no free

will is just jumping out of the state of jiiva-hood. Jiiva in his

wisdom can surrender to Iswara or Iswaraapita buddhi - and that

arpana or offering to the Lord is out of free-will only and that is

part of saadhana. The statement that this is all Iswara kripa or

his grace or compassion is only a appreciation of the role of Iswara

or karma phala daata or giver of fruits of action. But when one fully

jumps out of this notional reference there is no Iswara and hence no

talk of Iswara's grace or kripa etc. Iswaraarpita buudhi itself

dissolves once one has understood I am no more and He is the doer-

ultimately even that dissolves that in to the knowledge there is no

doer or non-doer. One has reached new reference.

 

Dennis is right even the exercise of free-will is dictated by his

knowledge of the past or values systems he has gained from the past -

Still he has several choices to make based on the analysis which

itself is based on his intellectual values. If his intellect is blank

he can consult and take advice form elders and then act. But all that

past intellect values will brings the options or present various

options - The final action is not fully pre-distined. He is

compelled to act becuase of his fate. He can still refuse to act and

choose to act, not to act or act in another way - has to be made by

jiiva as long as he is jiiva - if he has realized the truth then we

cannot talk about jiiva anymore - prakriti itself acts under the

presidentship of Iswara. Hence one is not just prisoner of past

thinking only. The past only brings in the invironment and his

intellect brings in or presents the options for him. He has to make

a choice in present as long he has the kartR^itva bhaava or doer ship

- that is what intelligent being has by nature and that comes with

the nature of the creative power associated with the intelligence. A

finite intelligence (jiiva) has finite choices and and infinite

intelligence (Iswara) as infinite choices. That there is a choice

cannot be removed as long as intellect is playing the role either at

individual ego presiding or collective or Iswara is presiding. Again

all this discussion is with the realm of relative where there is

jiiva and Iswara.

 

From the point of bhogi or materialistic person all actions are at

ego level and western ego-motivation theory applies for success etc.

 

Ones I am in the state of jiiva-hood, there is reaction at the baser

level and there is action at the intellectual level. A contemplative

well though out action is an action or pre-meditated action - here

one acts is dictated by ones intellectual value system. Here is

study of scriptures and shaastras will help educate the person so

that one can properly that leads to dissolution of ones vaasanas

rather than accumulation of more vaasana-s. Here the action can be

god-ly or can be worse than beastly - depends on ones intellectual

values.

 

Impulsive action at the mental level is reaction that what Jai had

mentioned in starting the thread on action and reaction. All are

within the realm of kartR^itva bhaava or notion that I am jiiva and I

am actor.

 

Now the question again - is there a fate and or free-will?-

 

Answer is YES if I think I am jiiva or an individual separate from

the rest of the world. Fate is what I have (that includes the

environment that I am in and the presentation of the options by my

intellect) and what I do with what I have is free-will. In the

thinking also even though the intellectual capabilities is what I

have from my previous accumulation of knowledge, I still have a

choice - to think, not to think or think another way - Hence thinking

is an exercise of freedom of choice too. So my thinking paths are

also predestined, no new knowledge can take place. So one has to be

careful here. My intellect is not complete prisoner of my past. It

is just like my new vaasana-s. New vaasana-s are past vaasana-s

modified by present action where I exercise my free will while others

exercises their free-will. Hence vasana-s of each one of us diverge

even though the environment may be the same to start with.

 

Answer is No if I have realized that I am that absolute - here the

question and answer, both have no relevance.

 

Since our discussion is of some relevance since we are in the realm

of relatives, the answer yes is more relevant.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

Hari Om friends,

 

firstly i would like to express my thanks to all who

have been instrumental in creating a forum like this.

 

apropos of the issue that Shri.Sadanand has raised ,

Swami Chinmayananda gives a very lucid analogy to

explain the subtle interaction of fate and free will

 

" consider a log of wood floating down a river, which

is flowing at a speed of say, 2 miles an hour. the

speed of the log would then be the same as the speed

of the log. now suppose we fix a motor on the log and

start the motor to run at 10 miles an hour the log of

wood will float at 12 miles down or 8 miles up. the

log of wood with the motor under its captain is 'free'

to move down the river or up the river along the left

or the right bank and the alert captain can safely

negotiate it through the obstacles enroute. yet it

cannot escape the rate of flow of the river. THINK "

 

 

regards

ganesh

 

 

 

 

 

 

Photos - Share your holiday photos online!

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Sadananda,

 

Well, I was ready to end this discussion but your detailed analysis has

inevitably kept it open!

 

Firstly I agree entirely that this discussion is at the relative level only.

We are talking only about how this question appears to us, the ego.

 

Secondly, I agree that our actions are driven by vasana-s and that all

actions-for-a-result bring about new vasana-s. (It is said that 'right

action' that is purely a response and has no thought of a result does not

give rise to new sanskaara but let's not introduce that to complicate the

matter further.) My first point of disagreement then is as follows:-

> The divergence of the vaasana-s from individual

> to individual implies that there is a divergence of individual's

> actions or the motivating factors in their action and that is what

> is referred to as free-will.

 

Why is this called free-will? Certainly I will act according to my vasanas

and you will act according to yours but where is the freedom in this?

> Hence fate is nothing but the product of my past actions or

> vaasana-s. My fate is different from that of Dennis or of some other

> person only because I acted differently compared to Dennis or some

> other individual. That I exercised my free-will differently from what

> Dennis did. Hence fate is the result of free-will of my past

> actions.

 

This statement that we 'exercise free will' comes out of the blue without

any justification. As as I have asked before, where is this justification?

Our actions are the result of our vasanas - on this we are agreed. But is

not our so-called 'choice' not just another action, equally dictated by our

vasanas?

> Now how should one act given the circumstances that each one finds

> himself because of his fate. There is where choice of action or

> free-will of jiiva comes into picture in his relative sense since he

> considers himself not absolute but relative -ego. KrishNa although

> mentions that the fate of the people in front in the war is already

> decided by their past actions, Arjuna has the choice to fight or not

> to fight.

 

But the 'choice' that is eventually made is the resultant of all of Arjuna's

vasanas, together with thoughts and ideas consequent upon what Krishna tells

him. When the various thoughts seem to contradict each other, we have the

feeling that we have a difficult 'decision' to make and may indulge in lots

of mental arguments etc. that complicate the matter, adding their own

sanskaara to the equation. In the end, however, a 'decision' is made as a

result of all of this - a cause and effect relationship; no freedom, no

choice, no free will, only the illusion of this. Because all of this is

dynamic, happening in the present, there is no element of 'destiny' in any

of this. The result is not a foregone conclusion. If you have 'decided' to

go and see a movie and then I tell you that the cinema has burnt down, you

will 'change your mind' - cause and effect, no free will. Therefore, what

you say about Bhagavad Giitaa teaching not being a waste of time is quite

right. Discovering the message of Krishna is useful. We learn the 'right'

way to act and this is then part of the cause for our next effect. But still

no free will.

 

I have still not seen any argument (convincing or otherwise) for the

existence of freedom of choice in anything we do at the relative level of

ego.

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennis,

 

Does the development and evolution of ethics and morals

provide adequate logic as an answer to your question?

 

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

 

advaitin , "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@d...> wrote:

>

> I have still not seen any argument (convincing or otherwise) for the

> existence of freedom of choice in anything we do at the relative

level of

> ego.

>

> Dennis

[Guest guest]

namaste -

when in ego you are the one that controls that which is called your

fate or destiny... so-called fate or destiny is that which you

yourself have created with your karma.... what you have sown in the

last life will be met within the next... now what you do with that

which comes is "free-will"... and what action or re-action that is

taken determines the next so-called fate or destiny....

With one pointed focus you may reach your aim... whether it is for

liberation, or for worldly endeavors.... if you are proceeding in the

satvik way and do not appear to be making headway know that you are

burning off and mitigating former karma... and you only need to

persevere... in the end you will succeed....

when you reach liberation still the former karma will come and play

out... but there is no attachment to that which comes nor does not

come.... you at that point see the maya realm as a dream of

illusion..and knowing that you do not exist as personality but are

only ONE within Brahman... therefore you no longer act with any

motive or intent..you move as one sleep walking.. it is only the

residule karma that plays out....

You alone create your future... and you alone can change the moments

actions or re-actions...thereby changing that which would be termed

destiny or fate....

Love and Blessings

[Guest guest]

Dear Sunder,

 

You asked "Does the development and evolution of ethics and morals provide

adequate logic as an answer to your question?"

 

I cannot think that it would. Do you mean the fact that a system of ethics

and morals has developed at all as opposed to a society based upon anarchy?

I do not see why this would not naturally develop as a straight cause-effect

sequence. People soon discover that they themselves suffer least in the long

run if they treat others as they themselves prefer to be treated. A society

with a set of values perceived by the majority to be 'good' rather than

'evil' will appeal to most people since it will accord with their existing

nature.

 

Is this what you meant or do you have some other idea in mind that argues in

favour of free will?

 

Dear Ganga,

 

You said 'when in ego you are the one that controls that which is called

your fate or destiny..." and "now what you do with that which comes is

"free-will"'. I understand what you are saying and appreciate that this is

the accepted view for vyaavahaara. However, no one has yet presented any

evidence as to why one should view us as having any choice in any of these

situations. As far as I can see, there is no 'control' of any sort on our

part; our actions are driven by external events and/or internal thoughts and

ideas, over which we have no control.

 

Regards,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

These points and counter points posted on the subject

of Fate and Freewill has been usefull and interesting.

 

Apprapos this discussion, I was going through the

recent issue (Jan 2001) of Tattvaloka that came in my

mail today which contained the Acharya's explanation

for a good person , in this life time, undergoing pain

while a bad person in front of us in this life is

enjoying all goodies!

 

The Jagadguru says,

 

"We must understand an important point here.The joy

and sorrow that man enjoys in this life are the fruits

of the karma performed in the previous birth. In his

next birth,he will enjoy the fruits of the karma of

his present life. Hence the answer to the question of

the good man suffering in this birth is that it is the

result of the karma performed in his previous birth.

This holds good for the bad man enjoying a

confortable life. But, surely, he will pay for the

sins committed in this birth.We must understand this

so that even if we suffer in this birth, we continue

to perform satkarma and refrain from dushkarma."

 

Now, my point is: Are the good man's good deeds in

this life prompted by Fate or Free Will? And,are the

bad man's bad deeds in this life prompted by Fate or

Free Will?

 

I would say it is FREE WILL because he is only doing

good deeds out of his Free Will so that he can enjoy a

comfotable life in his NEXT birth. Similarly , the bad

man is also doing bad deeds in this life out of his

Free Will and even though he is living comfortably in

this life, his next birth is going to be miserable.

 

So, do you not agree with me that irrespective of

whether a person does good deeds or bad deeds in his

life time, he is always acting out of FREE WILL ONLY

and this, so called, 'FATE' does not exist atall?

All the pleasures and pain that we undergo in this

lifetime are only REACTIONS as a result of our

'ACTIONS' in our previous births undertaken by us of

our own FREE WILL ?

 

Hari Om!

 

Swaminarayan

 

 

Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

> Dear Sadananda,

>

 

 

 

 

Photos - Share your holiday photos online!

 

[Guest guest]

Dennis Waite:

 

 

 

> > The divergence of the vaasana-s from individual > to individual implies

>that there is a divergence of individual's > actions or the motivating

>factors in their action and that is what > is referred to as free-will.

>

>Why is this called free-will? Certainly I will act according to my vasanas

>and you will act according to yours but where is the freedom in this?

 

Vasana-s will push you interms of likes and dislikes - here humans who has

discriminative intellect differs from the animals who donot have. They

follow their vasana-s and hence their is no choice in their action. No

willful actions - Hence they donot accumulate new vasaana-s . They only

exhaust the vaasana-s. They only evolve upwards. But human who is endowened

with intellect is different. He cannot but choose - In fact I can say he

has no choice but to choose. The vasana-s will provides the environment as

well as the paths that available for action. But because of the power

provided with the discriminative faculty, a man finds himself at every

second he has a choice to make - he can leave it to his destiny but that is

his choice. Becuase of that choice only he can accelerate his progress or

he can also go down the hill- hence the statement in the upanishads -

kshurasya dhaara nishitaa duratyayaa durgam pathanaat kavayo vadanti - It is

a razor edge path one can walk carefully or fall down by taking the path of

preyas. Man has to make starting from what to eat - vegitarian or

non-vegitarian - spicy Indian food or bland English food - every moment if

you objectively evaluate there is a choice to make. One makes a choice

depending on his likes and dislikes or what is right or what is wrong. The

power to choose or what is termed freely is the gift that comes with one who

is endowend with the discriminative intellect.

 

For animals vasana-s provides the complete equation.

 

For humans vasana-s only a part of the equation. Choice comes with the

intellect what has the capacity to choose.

 

> > Hence fate is nothing but the product of my past actions or > vaasana-s.

>My fate is different from that of Dennis or of some other > person only

>because I acted differently compared to Dennis or some > other individual.

>That I exercised my free-will differently from what > Dennis did. Hence

>fate is the result of free-will of my past > actions.

>

>This statement that we 'exercise free will' comes out of the blue without

>any justification. As as I have asked before, where is this justification?

 

The choice comes from the capacity of the intellect. As an intelligent

being endowened with the discriminative intellect - the choice to

discriminate right from wrong and good from bad - shreyas versus preyas

comes with that teretory of being humans.

>Our actions are the result of our vasanas - on this we are agreed. But is

>not our so-called 'choice' not just another action, equally dictated by our

>vasanas?

>

I think vasana-s provide the choices - emotional attachments pull us in one

direction and intellectual values pull us in another direction. Yago tries

to integrate these two into one. Which direction to go is the choice one

has to make and that is not by predestined by vaasana-s alone.

> > Now how should one act given the circumstances that each one finds >

>himself because of his fate. There is where choice of action or > free-will

>of jiiva comes into picture in his relative sense since he > considers

>himself not absolute but relative -ego. KrishNa although > mentions that

>the fate of the people in front in the war is already > decided by their

>past actions, Arjuna has the choice to fight or not > to fight.

>

>But the 'choice' that is eventually made is the resultant of all of

>Arjuna's vasanas, together with thoughts and ideas consequent upon what

>Krishna tells him. When the various thoughts seem to contradict each other,

>we have the feeling that we have a difficult 'decision' to make and may

>indulge in lots of mental arguments etc. that complicate the matter, adding

>their own sanskaara to the equation. In the end, however, a 'decision' is

>made as a result of all of this - a cause and effect relationship; no

>freedom, no choice, no free will, only the illusion of this.

 

Dennis - you are going too fast. a decision is made by whom? of the

several choices a decision has to be made in selecting what is the best

choice. And since one is making with ego involved, he is accountable to

that choice./ Hence he accumulates new vaasana-s inthe process. If the

nature and lord makes the choice or another way to put it the choice has

been made, they why he should be accountable for that action and why should

he accumulate new vaasana-s. A cause and effect relation ship is unique

then there is no decision to make. For the intellectual entity - effects or

paths can be many to take. In the case of animals what you say is right

and hence they donot accumulate new vaasana-s. They follow the beaten path.

A cow does not have to choose should I be a vegetarian or non-vegitarian.

Neither a tiger. There is no sin for tiger not a merit for cow. They

follow a decided path. For human being it is different. Please think about

it. That choice is yours!

 

 

Because all of this is

>dynamic, happening in the present, there is no element of 'destiny' in any

>of this. The result is not a foregone conclusion. If you have 'decided' to

>go and see a movie and then I tell you that the cinema has burnt down, you

>will 'change your mind' - cause and effect, no free will.

 

Why there is change in mind - I just cannot go to that cenema. But I have

choice to make in terms of what to do now with my time. What you have

provided is that some choices are cutailed due to cicumstances beyond my

control. That part comes from my and samishhTi vaasana-s. But I still have

a choice to jump up and down - to screem at some body or to go and take a

nap or read a book or argue with Dennis. Dennis may not want to argue then

that is his choice, but I am opened with other choice in the process. I am

at cross roads all the time or every second. Hence it is said: what I have

is fate or praradba and what I do with what I have is purushaartha or

self-effort By the by this statement is by Gurudev Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

Therefore, what

>you say about Bhagavad Giitaa teaching not being a waste of time is quite

>right. Discovering the message of Krishna is useful. We learn the 'right'

>way to act and this is then part of the cause for our next effect. But

>still no free will.

>

>I have still not seen any argument (convincing or otherwise) for the

>existence of freedom of choice in anything we do at the relative level of

>ego.

 

In fact it is only at that level the feedom of choice is there. Anyway I

have presented from what I know. Now You have to present me arguments that

convince me that there is no free will! I am open and you have to make sure

I have no choice but to accept a decision that there is no free will which

has already been made by things beyond my control!

 

>

>Dennis

 

 

_______________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennis,

 

As I concur with what has been written by Gangaji, Frankji,

Swaminarayanji, and Sadaji in the most recent posts, I have nothing

further to add. If each one of us finds the peace one seeks in the

world-view we hold, that is all that matters anyway!

 

 

Regards,

 

s.

advaitin , "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@d...> wrote:

> Dear Sunder,

>

> You asked "Does the development and evolution of ethics and morals

provide

> adequate logic as an answer to your question?"

>

> I cannot think that it would. Do you mean the fact that a system of

ethics

> and morals has developed at all as opposed to a society based upon

anarchy?

> I do not see why this would not naturally develop as a straight

cause-effect

> sequence. People soon discover that they themselves suffer least in

the long

> run if they treat others as they themselves prefer to be treated. A

society

> with a set of values perceived by the majority to be 'good' rather

than

> 'evil' will appeal to most people since it will accord with their

existing

> nature.

>

> Is this what you meant or do you have some other idea in mind that

argues in

> favour of free will?

>

> Dear Ganga,

>

> You said 'when in ego you are the one that controls that which is

called

> your fate or destiny..." and "now what you do with that which comes

is

> "free-will"'. I understand what you are saying and appreciate that

this is

> the accepted view for vyaavahaara. However, no one has yet

presented any

> evidence as to why one should view us as having any choice in any

of these

> situations. As far as I can see, there is no 'control' of any sort

on our

> part; our actions are driven by external events and/or internal

thoughts and

> ideas, over which we have no control.

>

> Regards,

>

> Dennis

[Guest guest]

Hari Om

 

 

well said sadananda garu.

your reply to shri dennis was excellent.

 

now i have something to ask..

my question is ..

 

is not the intellect influenced by one's vasanas ?

 

in your explanation you have implied implicitly as though all human

beings have been endowed with a similar intellect, though because of

their karma they may be experiencing different environments and

different predicaments...

 

pl explain...

 

regards

ganesh

[Guest guest]

I would suggest that we first step back a little and examine

the words we use. It is well and good to talk of vAsanAs and

all that, but we have to remember that the vAsanAs are only

generated by previous actions and their results. In addition

to prior vAsanAs, we also actively do things now, things that

generate their own vAsanAs for the future. It is also well

and good to talk of "free will", but one has to know what it

is that is "free" here. If one brings God into the discussion,

then that God has to be not only gracious and forgiving, but

also fair and just. We can think of this in terms of parent

and child relationships.

 

To be truly free includes the freedom NOT to will, and NOT

to act. One can say, "so long as we are embodied, it is not

possible to desist from action". However, this is true only

for one who truly believes that we exist only in embodied

forms. For advaitins, freedom is not only between choices A

and B for doing a particular action, but also the choice not

to do the action at all (yayA kartum, anyathA kartum, *na vA

kartum*). The history of the term "free will" (particularly

in the West) assumes that a human being is by necessity one

who wills things, always. In advaita, we view "will" not as

an absolutely necessary characteristic, but only as one factor

among others. This does not mean that one is merely a blind

thing caught in an endless illusion. We acknowledge that

something within an illusion can function as a trigger to get

one out of the illusion, e.g. being chased by a tiger in a

dream can be a stimulant that makes you wake up! To go on

using the term "free will" and opposing it to "fate" is not

very useful to truly get the point of advaita.

 

Vidyasankar

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis:

 

Your suggestion that "People soon discover that they themselves suffer least

in the long run if they treat others as they themselves prefer to be treated,"

has an implied assumption that "people make their using some preference

criteria!" It is impossible to rule out the appearance of some degree of

'free-will' in your assertion. Anytime we try to (intellectually) rationalize

our 'action,' we inadvertantly exhibit 'free will.'

 

In an earlier post, you suggested that 'Let us bring an end to this (extremely

interesting) discussion." I whole heartedly agree. I remember a famous

paradoxical statement: "No one will be ever be convinced by other's argument."

This statement will be always true whether you agree or disagree!

 

warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin , "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@d...> wrote:

> Dear Sunder,

> .......

> People soon discover that they themselves suffer least in the long

> run if they treat others as they themselves prefer to be treated.

> society with a set of values perceived by the majority to be

> 'good' rather than 'evil' will appeal to most people since

> it will accord with their existing nature.

>

> Is this what you meant or do you have some other idea in mind that

 

argues in favour of free will?

>

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

> Regards,

>

> Dennis

[Guest guest]

The discussion is excellent.But,are we not forgetting the role of Brahman or

God?Is He just a silent spectator watching a human helplessly caught in Karma

cycle? No.While Karma cycle is a natural law of Prakriti, a human being when

undergoing the pains and sufferings becomes an arta and turns to God, the Lord

will rush to interfere and rescue the devotee from this Karma Cycle caused by

the free will of an ignorant or sick mind. Lord Sri Krishna's assurances in

Bhagawad Geetha And Uddhava Geetha prove the point.Sri Satyanarayana vrata Katha

illustrates this truth!

 

Ananda Sagar

 

 

 

 

Kuntimaddi Sadananda <k_sadananda wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Photos - Share your holiday photos online!

 

 

[Guest guest]

--

> You said 'when in ego you are the one that controls that which is

called

> your fate or destiny..." and "now what you do with that which comes

is

> "free-will"'. I understand what you are saying and appreciate that

this is

> the accepted view for vyaavahaara. However, no one has yet

presented any

> evidence as to why one should view us as having any choice in any

of these

> situations. As far as I can see, there is no 'control' of any sort

on our

> part; our actions are driven by external events and/or internal

thoughts and

> ideas, over which we have no control.

>

> Regards,

>

> Dennis

 

Namaste Dennis -

If you mean that you are controlled by your thoughts due to the

conditionings of life then that is a wrong precept.... the

conditionings help to create the thoughts but you can by "freewill"

change your thinking patterns... and also you can by stilling the

mind and thought (which is again possible by application of free

will) by prescribed step by step focus to in the end enter into the

silence beyond mind and thought... this process takes you to the

throne of realization so to speak.... Realization is reached by

first having a desire and then you use action until that has taken

you as far as it can... then ultimately you surrender all.... and

realization is reached.... but the point being to your question you

are either driven by the belief that you can do nothing to alter your

course and for you this will be truth.... for you are only what your

mind conceives... or you can see the illusion in this fatalistic

view... and you can change your course of action... it is all up to

you.... The shastras also state in graphic language that those that

believe that God controls their destiny - are fools.... this may be

found in the Maharamayana... i posted a writing called ego-bondage

and illusions of truth on this line under enlightenment.... or you

can go to god-realized to read... it is one of the

postings on the first page.....

 

Love and Blessings

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

I would first like to make the starting point clear from my

perspective. I have not used the word 'fate' anywhere in the

discussion. From the perspective from which I am putting the

point across, the discussion is not about fate versus free-will

but bhagavadkr^ipa versus puruShArtha. PuruShArtha here has

the same meaning as free-will in these discussions. The point

I am trying to make is: everything in the relative (vyavahArika)

is bhagavadkr^ipa. Now, I would like to comment on shri

Sadananda garu's points.

 

On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, K. Sadananda wrote:

> The topic has been discussed elaborately. Here is my summary

> comments from my understanding on the fate versus free will and

> Murthy gaaru's god's grace.

>

> There are three references from which this topic has been discussed

> and confusion arises mostly if we are not conscious of the reference

> from which the discussion is made.

>

> 1. From the reference of absolute - Nothing can in principle be said

> from that reference. But description of that state is state of

> absolute freedom, freedom from all limitations - and action, will

> etc stem from limitations; there is no question of action or will at

> that state.

>

> Every action involves three aspects - actor, action, and acting -

> kartaa, karma and kriya. kartaa is not karma and karma is not kriya

> and all three are mutually exclusive and by mutual exclusion they

> limit each other. In the unlimited the limitation has no meaning.

>

> Hence Rule no. 1. action, reaction, will etc can all be talked only

> with reference to the limited or jiiva or ego centric entity.

>

> Once we understand clearly the discussion is from the reference of

> egocentric entity- jiiva- then the discussion of fee will and action

> will have proper reference. The whole discussion itself is relative

> to jiiva and does not have any relevance from the absolute point.

> Hence there is no point in bringing absolute into the discussion of

> the relative. The statement that there is no free will is absolutely

> true from the absolute point.

>

> From the relative point or jiiva's point - we can split the

> discussion into two levels - from the point of yogi or saadhak and

> from the point of bhogi or a materialist person.

>

> But before we do that let us understand first although the ignorance

> is the same for all jiiva's in terms of not knowing who I am, the

> degree or extent of identification with the prakriti varies from

> jiiva to jiiva - This we call also as ones samskaara or ones

> vaasana's or ones guna's etc.

>

 

I fully agree with the comments above so far. A key point in my

understanding also is the point made by shri Sadananda above in

the last paragraph and I quote: "although the ignorance is the

same for all jiiva's in terms of not knowing who I am, the

degree or extent of identification with the prakriti varies from

jiiva to jiiva -". What this means is: if we take the analogy

that jIvA is 'journeying' from ajnAna to jnAna through many

many lives, these different jIvAs are at different stages of

their 'journey', hence their layering of ignorance varies.

> First let us look from point of vaasana-s - my vaasana-s are

> different from Murthy's or that of Dennis or some others and every

> individuals likes and dislikes are different. Question we need to

> ask is why my vaasana-s are different from that Dennis or other

> individuals -

 

The reason why vAsanAs are different from one jIvA to the next is

the reason which I gave above - one jIvA is farther ahead or

farther behind in his/her 'journey' to moksha than the other.

Hence, different reactions to an event by various jIvAs.

> I cannot definitely blame Dennis for my vaasana-s - I

> am the author of mine and thus each individual is cause for his own

> vaasana-s. Vaasana's do not come into picture unless there is

> ego-centric action. The divergence of the vaasana-s from individual

> to individual implies that there is a divergence of individual's

> actions or the motivating factors in their action and that is what

> is referred to as free-will. Here is the vicious cycle - As long

> as I have vaasana-s I am propelled to act and as long as I act, I

> will accumulate new vaasana-s. Propulsion to act in the environment

> that I am in is dictated by my vaasana-s and that we call it as fate.

> Hence fate is nothing but the product of my past actions or

> vaasana-s. My fate is different from that of Dennis or of some other

> person only because I acted differently compared to Dennis or some

> other individual.

 

No. As I see, the reaction is different only because of the

different stages we are in.

> That I exercised my free-will differently from what

> Dennis did. Hence fate is the result of free-will of my past

> actions.

>

> So what I have is FATE - What everyone is facing second by second is

> his FATE. FATE is the result of all the actions upto that point.

>

 

I do not have any comment on fate, as I do not know much about

fate.

> As long as I have vaasana-s I cannot but act - says Krishna - nahi

> kashchit kshaNa mapi jaatu tushhTasya karam kR^it, kaaryate havishhaH

> karma sarva prakR^itijai guNaiH|| - no one (jiiva) can ever remain

> without acting even one second, he will be propelled to act by this

> guNa's and Vaasana's.

>

> Now how should one act given the circumstances that each one finds

> himself because of his fate. There is where choice of action or

> free-will of jiiva comes into picture in his relative sense since he

> considers himself not absolute but relative -ego. KrishNa although

> mentions that the fate of the people in front in the war is already

> decided by their past actions, Arjuna has the choice to fight or not

> to fight. Hence Krishna's advice - niyatam kuru - do your obligatory

> duties - If Arjuna does not do it, Krishna may have to find someone

> else to do the job - from then on it is Krishna's problem - Arjuna

> may have to face different problems if he runs away from the field of

> action and he has to face his new fate then. - It is not that he is

> destined to act and he has no free will - if so Bhagavad giita

> teaching will be a waste - since he is going to kill anyway and why

> waste time in teaching that which is going to be done. Hence that is

> not the message of Krishana. In the final sloka he asks Arjuna - Has

> he understood the teaching, has his delusion of me and mine gone etc

> and advices him to act properly. There is no need to advice if

> Arjuna has no free-will.

>

> - Bottom line rule no. 2 - As long as there is ego and ego-centric

> entity jiiva there is free-will and there is action and reaction.

> Only when the ego is dissolved in the realization of the truth that I

> am absolute there is no more discussion of action and will.

> Everything stops.

>

 

Shri Sadananda garu seems to be putting a direct jump from ego

and ego-centric entity jIvA saying I am acting, on one side, to the

Absolute on the other side. I submit, in the vyavahArika state,

there is a gradation from ego and ego-centric jIvA to a stage

where the jIvA sees him/herself to be Ishwara's instrument

where Ishwara does the action through the jIvA. I cannot

understand why this stage is being denied in the vyavahAra.

This state is not fate, but a stage where you see you are

not the one initiating action, no pravr^itti karma, but only

nivr^itti karma. I have asked the question in my first post

on this topic

(i) is the free-will to aid bhagavadkr^ipa?

(ii) is the free-will to counteract bhagavadkr^ipa,

(iii)doea Ishwara require this free-will by the man to do

Ishwara's duties of maintaining order in the jagat?

These questions need to be answered before the claim of

existence of free-will (vis-a-vis bhagavadkr^ipa) is

established.

> From jiiva-s reference we can discuss now two view points - one who

> has learned about the nature of the truth and follows the path of

> shreyas or path towards realization or yogi and one who has involved

> in prayas only or path of sensious enjoyments or bhogi.

>

> Jiiva who intellectually appreciates the nature of reality and

> realizes in principle he is not doer or karthaa yet he cannot but be

> an actor due to pressure of his vaasana-s - is in a state of in

> between. He knows the truth but yet has not realized the truth.

 

This is what I was referring to in my above comment. There is

a stage in vyavahArika where the sAdhaka sees Ishwara's role

and only Ishwara's role in maintaing the order of the jagat.

The jIvA is a nimittamAtra. There is jIvAhood, but not necessarily

that he/she is the doer. This is not a realized person because

the jIvA still sees action, sees Ishwara, both in the realm

of vyavahArika. In the realized state, there is no jIvA,

no action.

> To

> get rid of the fate or vaasana-s he has to act since by action only

> he has accumulated vaasana-s. By action only he can get rid of them

> - there is where karma becomes karma-yoga by bringing Iswara into

> picture. Let us not confuse a saadhak's state with the state of

> realization. There is still a jiiva-hood involved and hence a notion

> of actor due to self-imposed limitations.

>

> Rule no. 3. As long as one feels he is jiiva or one is in the state

> of jiiva hood - from his reference there is a kartR^itva bhaava or

> notion of doer ship. That notion is as real as the notion that I am

> jiiva that include a notion that I have or I do not have free-will

> and all this discussion is with in that notional reference only.

 

Shri sadananda garu is extrapolating the view here. He is saying

 

There is jIvA -> kartr^itvabhAva -> doership -> I am the doer

-> hence I have free-will.

 

That need not be the case. I present the scenario

 

There is jIvA -> there is action -> Action is of Ishwara

-> jIvA is an instrument in Ishwara's action

 

This is not Absolute perspective, but is a valid perspective

in vyavahArika.

 

> From that reference action, reaction and free-will are all real to

> that degree - or vyavahaara satyam. Statement that there is no free

> will is just jumping out of the state of jiiva-hood. Jiiva in his

> wisdom can surrender to Iswara or Iswaraapita buddhi - and that

> arpana or offering to the Lord is out of free-will only and that is

> part of saadhana.

 

jIvA is created by Ishwara. Hence, everything associated with jIvA

is created by Ishwara. The free-will which is claimed to be associated

with jIvA is also created by Ishwara. It seems to me rather odd that

the jIvA out of his 'free-will' is surrendering to Ishwara what is

really Ishwara's.

 

Is it really part of sAdhana? My understanding is no, it is not part

of sAdhana. If it is a tool of sAdhana, it is a tool which we discard,

of our own accord, after its job is finished. I do not see it that way.

That notion may fall down by itself if a higher truth is learned. But

it has to fall down by itself rather than something in me discarding

by intention.

> The statement that this is all Iswara kripa or

> his grace or compassion is only a appreciation of the role of Iswara

> or karma phala daata or giver of fruits of action. But when one fully

> jumps out of this notional reference there is no Iswara and hence no

> talk of Iswara's grace or kripa etc. Iswaraarpita buudhi itself

> dissolves once one has understood I am no more and He is the doer-

> ultimately even that dissolves that in to the knowledge there is no

> doer or non-doer. One has reached new reference.

>

 

I have two questions to shri Sadananda garu.

 

1. Does he accept as higher truth (i) the belief that Ishwara is the

originator of action than (ii) the belief that human is the

originator of action?

 

2. Does he accept that (i) Ishwara created human rather than that

(ii) human, for his intellectual convenience, created Ishwara?

 

I am really looking for answers for these two questions and the

three I raised earlier in the text, for me to be swayed from my

thinking.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

Shree Ganesh:

>Hari Om

>

>now i have something to ask..

>my question is ..

>

>is not the intellect influenced by one's vasanas ?

>

>in your explanation you have implied implicitly as though all human

>beings have been endowed with a similar intellect, though because of

>their karma they may be experiencing different environments and

>different predicaments...

 

If my explanation gave that implication then I am wrong. I was only

presenting an argument that since vaasana-s diverge from individual

to individual and vaasana-s are products of will-full actions, the

very divergence implies that individual free-wills were involved in

those that produced the divergent vaasana-s.

 

Vasaana-s propel one to action - here thinking and planning etc are

also action. Intellect grow by leaning process and although learning

is not by will, precursors for learning requires saadhana - true for

any learning process since it is a process. My desire to learn

Vedanta is different from some others persons desire. But desire has

to be supported by effort to learn. Hence intellect does not only

depends on the extent of desire to learn but how much effort I put

forth in the process. Hence intellectual values also differs from

individual to individual. Dennis argument is this is also part of

the background conditioning that one accumulates - that is true. But

the divergent conditionings is again due to divergent efforts

involved in the learning process.

 

In action - several things come into play from the point of

individual - The environment that he has which is actually product of

not only his vaasuana-s but samishhTi vaasanaa-s. Like this forum

for discussions is the product of not only my vaasana-s but the

vasanaa-s of coordinators and others members of the group who

sustain the list serve. To participate in this forum is my choice.

I can continue to be an active member or silent members as some are

or drop out of the membership - this choice I always have as long as

I am member in the group.

 

How I exercise the selection of my choice is dictated by my

intellectual and emotional value system. In that too I can go

against my own value system and choose to some other's value system -

Hence Krishna comes to teaches us - better to follow your own value

system -swadharma than to follow others - paradharma - These implies

Krishna's caution since we do have choice to follow - swadharma or

paradharma.

 

I have choice only in action - that is what karmanyeva adhikaara aste

- implies - but no choice in the results - I can expect results and

act on with the expectation that my expectation can come true. But

as an intelligent entity I should also recognize that even though I

may act with all my capabilities, I should also expect that my

expectations can not be fulfilled. Here where Daivam that Shree BTA

Sagar discussed comes into picture into the equation involving action

and results.

 

True intelligence is influenced by your vaasana-s - but as

intelligence also provides the choices available - plan A, Plan B

etc. Since one is desires of certain results (some at any cost)

people select only a particular plan and compline I did not have much

choice. But in the process they exercised a choice for whatever the

motivating factors behind that choice. Some do not use their

intelligence and follow blindly propelled by vaasana-s - then they

are behaving like animals since they are not acting like humans with

discriminative intellect.

 

Hence as long as I have kartR^itva bhaava - notion of doer ship -

within that frame of reference I have choice to make and am

accountable for that choice - the merits or demerits belong to me

since ego is involved. If you go into deeper truth, this is all a

notion - I unnecessorily go and claim that which is being done by

prakR^iti as my action - but that is part of the ignorance that goes

with the embodied as Vidya noted.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

> pl explain...

>

>regards

>ganesh

>

>

>Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity

>of Atman and Brahman.

>Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

>For Temporary stoppage of your Email, send a blank email to

><advaitin-nomail >

>To resume normal delivery of Email, send a blank email to

><advaitin-normal >

>To receive email digest (one per day) send a blank email to

><advaitin-digest >

>To to advaitin list, send a blank email to

><advaitin->

 

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Murthygaru:

 

Fundamentally, our life is propelled by our beliefs. Once we believe

in 'bhagavadkripa,' then we can sail through the 'samsarasagarm' with

His Grace! Then the question of 'free-will' will not arise. All

discussions arise because, we have diverse beliefs across the

population and across our own time. The assumption of God's Grace

implies that 'God' has 'free will' and the rest of us follow His

commands and God becomes the Benevolent Dictatator. In Islam,

'bhagavadkripa' is known as 'Divine Determination' which is closely

associated to formula of Spinoza Ethics.

 

Our discussions so far were quite excellent but none of them can

convince a non-believer(identical to the stand of J.Krishnamoorthy).

It is intellectually impossible to develop a framework that is

consistent and independent of 'belief.' Shankara's advaita

Vedanta Accepts the following six Sources of Knowledge: perception

(pratyaksa), inference (anumAna), analogy (upamAna), implication

(arthApatti), non-apprehension (anupalabdhi), Vedas(Sapda). Among

them the most authoritative is the knowledge contained in the Vedas.

Since Karma theory is a part of the Vedas, we accept the validity of

Karma theory. Here is a brief statment of Karma theory. We had

extensive discussions on 'Karma theory' and they are available in the

list archive at: http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin and use the

search engine to retrieve them.

 

The law of karma explains the entire phenomenon of life on the basic

principle of cause and effect. The law of karma goes beyond the law

of destiny and it covers the past, present and future. According to

the law of destiny, we are just the product of the past. The law of

karma says that we are not only a product of the past but we are also

the producers of the future. With reference to our past actions we are

a product. However, we are solely responsible for producing our

future. We are product-producer at one and at the same time. When we

pay our attention to our past, we believe that we became the hero,

victim or a slave. But when we shift our attention to the future we

become the architect, the artist and the master.

 

The law of karma is quite consistent with the 'economic theory of

human behavior.' To apply economic theory also, we need belief and it

is quite fundamental for all human endowers!

 

warmest regards,

 

Ram chandran

 

 

 

advaitin , Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote:

>

>

> namaste.

>

> I would first like to make the starting point clear from my

> perspective. I have not used the word 'fate' anywhere in the

> discussion. From the perspective from which I am putting the

> point across, the discussion is not about fate versus free-will

> but bhagavadkr^ipa versus puruShArtha.

[Guest guest]

Shree Murthy garu wrote:

>

>I fully agree with the comments above so far. A key point in my

>understanding also is the point made by shri Sadananda above in

>the last paragraph and I quote: "although the ignorance is the

>same for all jiiva's in terms of not knowing who I am, the

>degree or extent of identification with the prakriti varies from

>jiiva to jiiva -". What this means is: if we take the analogy

>that jIvA is 'journeying' from ajnAna to jnAna through many

>many lives, these different jIvAs are at different stages of

>their 'journey', hence their layering of ignorance varies.

>

>> First let us look from point of vaasana-s - my vaasana-s are

>> different from Murthy's or that of Dennis or some others and every

>> individuals likes and dislikes are different. Question we need to

>> ask is why my vaasana-s are different from that Dennis or other

> > individuals -

>

>The reason why vAsanAs are different from one jIvA to the next is

>the reason which I gave above - one jIvA is farther ahead or

>farther behind in his/her 'journey' to moksha than the other.

>Hence, different reactions to an event by various jIvAs.

 

Murhty gaaru - the basic question we have - Why the jiivas have the

differences? on what basis? Why should Bhagavaan who is - samoham

sarva bhuuteshu name dweshhosti na priyaH| provide divergence in the

jiiva-s. I cannot blame somebody including Bhagavaan to the state I

am in. Nobody should be accountable to my actions other than myself

- that is illogical. If I am accountable then I have exercised the

choice for which I am accountable for while others exercised other

choices that differ from mine. Please think it over. This is the

central issue involved in your and my arguments. I can say it is

bhagavat kripa but that is my appreciation of the bhagavaan and to

what extent I want to surrender - in saying that I am already

exercising another choice in my evolution. That is where saadhana or

sreyas involved.

 

>

>Shri Sadananda garu seems to be putting a direct jump from ego

>and ego-centric entity jIvA saying I am acting, on one side, to the

>Absolute on the other side. I submit, in the vyavahArika state,

>there is a gradation from ego and ego-centric jIvA to a stage

>where the jIvA sees him/herself to be Ishwara's instrument

>where Ishwara does the action through the jIvA. I cannot

>understand why this stage is being denied in the vyavahAra.

>This state is not fate, but a stage where you see you are

>not the one initiating action, no pravr^itti karma, but only

>nivr^itti karma. I have asked the question in my first post

>on this topic

>(i) is the free-will to aid bhagavadkr^ipa?

>(ii) is the free-will to counteract bhagavadkr^ipa,

>(iii)doea Ishwara require this free-will by the man to do

> Ishwara's duties of maintaining order in the jagat?

>These questions need to be answered before the claim of

>existence of free-will (vis-a-vis bhagavadkr^ipa) is

>established.

 

As I understand - in vyavahaara -where jiiva-notion is involved that

wants to surrender to the Lord as a saadhank - as long as I want to

surrender and it is bhagavat kripa and I am instrument in His hands

etc are involved - the surrenderence is not there yet. True

surrenderance occurs only once and that is in the dissolution of the

ego - see the beautiful sloka, the very first sloka of Bhavagaan

Ramana in Satdarshan. The will to surrender to the Lord is out of

free-will. When true surrendance occurs there is no more will - no

more a notion that I am instrument in His action since I am not there

or He is not there, one to be the Lord and the other to be a sevak. -

sivoham sivoham sivoham. that is when my will and His will merges in

to one.

 

>

>This is what I was referring to in my above comment. There is

>a stage in vyavahArika where the sAdhaka sees Ishwara's role

>and only Ishwara's role in maintaing the order of the jagat.

>The jIvA is a nimittamAtra. There is jIvAhood, but not necessarily

>that he/she is the doer. This is not a realized person because

>the jIvA still sees action, sees Ishwara, both in the realm

>of vyavahArika. In the realized state, there is no jIvA,

>no action.

 

Muutthy gaaru - the difference is one is intellectual understanding

and appreciation and the other is realization of the truth. The

surrenderance of the free-will is the very exercise of free-will and

notion that I am His instrument is only appreciation of the reality.

But as long as I am instrument in His hands - there is I to be an

instrument and He to make use of the instrument - the duality and

there is no true surrenderance yet. I cannot see a rope and then say

this snake is nothing but a rope. It is either a rope or a snake.

You are trying to describe an intermediate state where I consider I

am instrument in his hands and he is an actor - In my understanding

even that state is a shadhana state where I am surrendering my ego

and that surrendering process is by free-will. Of course that is all

I can do in Sadhana. The rest is His grace in the sense the true

knowledge has to dawn on me. That is not by will. In the complete

dissolution of the ego, there is no more notion of even surrendarance

or notion of an instrument for action. Sivoham Sivoham Sivoham.

>

>

>jIvA is created by Ishwara. Hence, everything associated with jIvA

>is created by Ishwara. The free-will which is claimed to be associated

>with jIvA is also created by Ishwara. It seems to me rather odd that

>the jIvA out of his 'free-will' is surrendering to Ishwara what is

>really Ishwara's.

 

One has to be carefull here. No vedanta teaching accepts that Jiiva

is created by Iswara. If fact it may be the otherway around - Iswara

is created by Jiiva! Please think it over. that may in fact more odd

- jiiva creates Iswara so that He can create him, the jiiva! Iswara

is a notion in the mind of Jiiva - Once the notion is taken as real,

then Iswara is there who is sarva shaktiman and Jiiva is there with

limited intellect and limited choices - and the choice to surrender

his egotistical free-will at the alter of Iswara. All this gets

washed out or all the notions drop out in the realization of the

truth that there is no Iswara separate from me and He has no will

separate from mine. Sivoham Sivoham Sivoham!

>

>

>I have two questions to shri Sadananda garu.

>

>1. Does he accept as higher truth (i) the belief that Ishwara is the

> originator of action than (ii) the belief that human is the

> originator of action?

 

First it does not matter what I accept or reject - but here is what I

understand.

 

The truth is neither and that is from the point of highest truth! At

the next level if one goes deeper the two choices are not different.

 

But As long as Sadananda feels he is different from Iswara, then the

duality exists at least in the mind of Sadananda. Then there is a

duality in terms of actions - that which is under his control he has

the originator of the actions and that which is beyond his control

Iswara is the originator of the actions.

>2. Does he accept that (i) Ishwara created human rather than that

> (ii) human, for his intellectual convenience, created Ishwara?

 

I think before I even saw these two questions I have addressed this

above. The fact as I see it is human has created Iswara to create

him! The truth is his existence is beyond any concepts while Iswara

is a concept in the mind of jiiva! There is a beautiful book by J.

Grimes on Religious Teaching - I think it is his thesis work - I

advice everyone to read it.

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

>I am really looking for answers for these two questions and the

>three I raised earlier in the text, for me to be swayed from my

>thinking.

>

>>

>> Hari Om!

>> Sadananda

>>

>

>Regards

>Gummuluru Murthy

>------

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity

>of Atman and Brahman.

>Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

>For Temporary stoppage of your Email, send a blank email to

><advaitin-nomail >

>To resume normal delivery of Email, send a blank email to

><advaitin-normal >

>To receive email digest (one per day) send a blank email to

><advaitin-digest >

>To to advaitin list, send a blank email to

><advaitin->

 

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

hariH OM!

 

if bhagavan ramana were alive and a member of our List,

and posted the following:

 

"Yes, everything is predetermined."

 

and

 

"The only free will we have is whether or not we

*identify* ourselves with the actions coming through."

 

and, in his famous departure note, upon leaving home

for sri arunachala:

 

"The Ordainer controls the fate of souls in accordance

with their past deeds--their prarabdha karma. Whatever

is destined not to happen will not happen--try how hard

you may. Whatever is destined to happen will happen,

try doing what you may to stop it. This is certain.

The best course, therefore, is for one to be silent."

 

i'm sure most of us would take pause at least.

 

fact is--and it's being proved on or List--the philosophical

pursuit and wrangling--amongst eachother, as well as within

each individual, invariably runs in a vicious circle. given

answers inevitably breed more questions. so, as advaita

clearly establishes: the Mind is a confusion. and as ramana

advises, the best course is to arrive at silence. (sundarji

was alluding to this by saying [paraphrasing] "whatever brings

one peace in their understanding or viewpoint, is what really

matters." this peace leads to the release of our habit of

depending on the Mind's dictates...critical to moksha itself.)

 

also, the fact that after moksha, the past consideration of

one's state of Being, is seen to have been an amazing dream

of suffering, that never affected one in reality. therefore

the need to raise the standard of one's format of activity is

intrinsically meaningless. in light of this, it's hard to

deny ramana's stating our free will is only in terms of *how

we think* and not *what we do*.

 

the real pointers to truth, to me, always have the prerequisite

of simplicity. if a line of thought starts breeding complexity,

it's likely to be following bad signals.

 

the center of the Heart is the ineffable brahman, where the

Mind's attempt to behold such is invariably met with silence.

whatever happens superimposed on That is brahman's own leela,

and such is for nothing more serious than a child at play.

 

regardless, therefore, TATTVAMASI.

 

namaste

[Guest guest]

Dear Frankji:

 

I have no doubt that Bhagavan Ramana is alive and is a life-member of

this list!

 

warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin , f maiello <egodust@d...> wrote:

> hariH OM!

>

> if bhagavan ramana were alive and a member of our List,

> ........

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Some more Ramana sayings: [from "Talks..", 1972.]

 

" Free will and Destiny last as long as the body lasts. But wisdom

transcends both, for the Self is beyond knowledge and ignorance.".

 

"Free-Will holds the field in association with individuality. As long

as individuality lasts so long there is Free-Will. All the shastras

are based on this fact and they advise directing the Free-Will in the

right channel.. Find out to whom the Free-Will or Destiny matters.

Abide in it. Then these two are transcended. That is the only purpose

of discussing these question. To whom do these questions arise? Find

out and be at peace."

 

"So long as there is individuality, one is the enjoyer and doer. But

if it is lost, the Divine will prevails and guides the course of

events. The individual is perceptible to others who cannot perceive

divine force. Restrictions and discipline are for other individuals

and not for the liberated.

Free-will is implied in the scriptural injunctions to be good. It

implies overcoming fate. It is done by wisdom. The fire of wisdom

consumes all actions. Wisdom is acquired by association with the

wise, or rather, its mental atmosphere."

 

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

advaitin , "Ram Chandran" <rchandran@c...> wrote:

> Dear Frankji:

>

> I have no doubt that Bhagavan Ramana is alive and is a life-member

of

> this list!

>

> warmest regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

>

> advaitin , f maiello <egodust@d...> wrote:

> > hariH OM!

> >

> > if bhagavan ramana were alive and a member of our List,

> > ........

[Guest guest]

hariH OM! ramji, sundarji-

 

 

Ram Chandran wrote:

>

> I have no doubt that Bhagavan Ramana is alive and is a life-member of

> this list!

>

 

yes, of course.

 

__________

 

 

sunder hattangadi wrote:

>

>

> Some more Ramana sayings: [from "Talks..", 1972.]

>

 

yes, this shows how bhagavan spoke to those

at various stages of understanding, and on

their own terms...within their own field of

awareness..

 

also shows the arbitrariness of the debate itself!

 

the substratum of who and what we *are* is the

key to all [our conceptual attempts] at beholding

That which cannot be held...in the Mind.

 

the Heart *is* the 'answer'--and we already know it.

_____________

 

yea, there is only one between us

eternal in eachother's Heart,

as ever was and shall ever be.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , "Ram Chandran" <rchandran@c...> wrote:

> The assumption of God's Grace

> implies that 'God' has 'free will' and the rest of us follow His

> commands and God becomes the Benevolent Dictatator. In Islam,

> 'bhagavadkripa' is known as 'Divine Determination' which is closely

> associated to formula of Spinoza Ethics.

>

Dear Ram,

 

At the risk of appearing churlish let me point out that not

only did Spinoza laugh the idea of human free will out of court but

free will is not an attribute of Spinoza's God either: `God acts by

the same necessity whereby he exists'. (Spinoza's God is not Allah or

Ishwara.)

 

regards,

 

Patrick

[Guest guest]

>Vedanta Accepts the following six Sources of Knowledge: perception

>(pratyaksa), inference (anumAna), analogy (upamAna), implication

>(arthApatti), non-apprehension (anupalabdhi), Vedas(Sapda). Among them

>the most authoritative is the knowledge contained in the Vedas.

 

Sorry to interrupt. But I found this para in one of the postings by Sri Ram

Chandranji in this thread. I had some reservations about it and I am

expressing it.

 

Sabda (Vedas) pramANam is authoritative ONLY in its own domain of knowledge

ie., knowledge of the self. A pramANam by its very definition is unique in

the field of knowledge for which it is the means. A pramANam takes

precedence over every other means in the field of knowledge for which it is

"appropriate" and "adequate". Therefore there really cannot be any

gradation of pramANam.

 

pratyaksha pramANam is also called the jyeshta pramANam and infact is the

only svatah pramANam (though mimAmsakas will argue even Vedas as svataH

pramANam - I am not qualified to handle that). They have the greatest

validity in all matters of vyavahara. Everything else follows pratyaksha.

 

So a statement like "Among them the most authoritative is the knowledge

contained in the Vedas" cannot be accurate.

 

If it is matters relating to vyavahAra then Vedas do not occupy the highest

berth. For eg., Eye has suzzerainity over the field of knowledge of color,

here the Vedas take a back seat (infact the Vedas cannot contradict what the

eyes have seen).

 

But if we are talking of paramArtha then other pramaNams are neither

"appropriate" nor "adequate" and again the question of comparing pramANams

does not arise.

 

So we can never make an absolute statement like "Among them the most

authoritative is the knowledge contained in the Vedas".

 

I am only presenting my understanding with due respects to the age and

erudition of Sri Ram Chandranji.

 

Regards.

S. V. Subrahmanian.

_______________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

[Guest guest]

Dear Patrick:

 

I agree that Spinoza's God need not necessarily be Allah or Ishwara.

If you got that impression, let me apologize. All my observations

discussions regarding any work or theory is subject to my limited

understanding and are mostly influenced by my beliefs. As such, I am

not surprised that there are disagreements. One of the problem that I

experience is the following: I tried to send my reflections quickly

without going through a thorough check-ups and at times (may be more

times!) forget to state all the caveats associated with such

observations. At other times, it is quite possible that there are

mistakes and it just confirms that I am a human. The purpose of the

list is better served when participants asks for clarifications and/or

correct mistakes and/or give better explanations. Such exchanges will

definetely benefit all of us and that is the true intent of this list.

 

An Interesting quotation from Professor Ranade in his book,

Bhagavadgita as a Philosophy of God Realization, published by the

Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 3rd. ed., 1982 about Spinoza: "What we want

and what we should have, says Aurobindo, is only action of the

God-possessed and for the God-possessed. Novalis in like spirit has

said about Spinoza that if there was any God-intoxicated man upon

earth; it was Spinoza himself." Novalis was the pen name of Georg

Philipp Friedrich Freiherr, a German Philosopher-poet(Baron) von

Hardenberg(1772-1801).

 

advaitin , "Patrick Kenny" <pkenny@c...> wrote:

> Dear Ram,

>

> At the risk of appearing churlish let me point out that not

> only did Spinoza laugh the idea of human free will out of court but

> free will is not an attribute of Spinoza's God either: `God acts by

> the same necessity whereby he exists'. (Spinoza's God is not Allah

or

> Ishwara.)

>

> regards,

>

> Patrick