End of the Free-will discussion

[Guest guest]

I have been following the free-will discussion with

enormous interest and I was really fascinated. I want

to thank the participants for a very exciting exchange

of ideas. I did not take part for two reasons, one, my

poor command of the English language, and two, I

completely agreed with Dennis Waite's position, and

whatever I had to say he said it much better.

 

I regret that this discussion has oficially been closed

when in my opinion it was at its most thrilling point.

I'll miss it, but I'll comply with the decission, so I

won't speak about free will.

 

I'll just say that I felt a bit uneasy when reading the

posts of some of the participants. From what they said

I had the impression that they believed that they

existed as real, autonomous entities, and even that

they had existed as such in previous lives. I'm no

authority in Advaita but I've always had the impression

that the essence of Advaita (as expressed by

Sankaracharya) rested in the idea that we are not

separate individual entities, or jivas.That we are only

Atman and that "our" body-minds are only

superimpositions, imaginary sheaths with which Atman

appears to be covered. But these sheaths do not really

exist, because there is nothing other than Atman.

>From this follows that we are not many, but one. That

the plurality is only an illusion. That in reality

there is only one soul. That therefore there are no

real doers, no separate individuals, no different

persons. All that multiplicity is just a mirage, a

dream.

 

Also I don't quite understand how some members say that

they are not speaking from the absolute, but the

relative level. Maybe I'm being naive but I'd say that

when trying to express the truth there is only one

level. You can't make abstraction of Brahman when

speaking of your life, because you are That, and only

That. If you forget that level (the only real one) even

for a second, then whatever you say is nonsense.

 

Miguel-Angel Carrasco

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 1 Jan 1996, Miguel Angel Carrasco wrote:

> I have been following the free-will discussion with

> enormous interest and I was really fascinated. I want

> to thank the participants for a very exciting exchange

> of ideas. I did not take part for two reasons, one, my

> poor command of the English language, and two, I

> completely agreed with Dennis Waite's position, and

> whatever I had to say he said it much better.

>

> I regret that this discussion has oficially been closed

> when in my opinion it was at its most thrilling point.

> I'll miss it, but I'll comply with the decission, so I

> won't speak about free will.

>

> [...]

>

>

> Miguel-Angel Carrasco

>

 

 

namaste Miguel,

 

Thanks very much for your input in my requesting a closure

on this discussion earlier. Some other input to me also

corrobarates your view. There is no official closure for

any discussion, as long as participants are making new

points. If you have views to present, please feel free

to chime in any time.

 

Our List is blessed with participants who respect each

other's views although they differ. So, please feel free

to put your views. Each contribution and viewpoint is

very valuable. We all learn from them.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

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

[Guest guest]

advaitin , "Miguel Angel Carrasco" <macf12@t...>

wrote:

 

[snip]

> I'll just say that I felt a bit uneasy when reading the

> posts of some of the participants. From what they said

> I had the impression that they believed that they

> existed as real, autonomous entities, and even that

> they had existed as such in previous lives. I'm no

> authority in Advaita but I've always had the impression

> that the essence of Advaita (as expressed by

> Sankaracharya) rested in the idea that we are not

> separate individual entities, or jivas.That we are only

> Atman and that "our" body-minds are only

> superimpositions, imaginary sheaths with which Atman

> appears to be covered. But these sheaths do not really

> exist, because there is nothing other than Atman.

> From this follows that we are not many, but one. That

> the plurality is only an illusion. That in reality

> there is only one soul. That therefore there are no

> real doers, no separate individuals, no different

> persons. All that multiplicity is just a mirage, a

> dream.

 

It *is* a dream Miguel. A shadowplay on the wall of pure

being. However, it is an enduring dream. The shadow play

somehow goes on, even for those that are able to see

beyond it.

> Also I don't quite understand how some members say that

> they are not speaking from the absolute, but the

> relative level. Maybe I'm being naive but I'd say that

> when trying to express the truth there is only one

> level. You can't make abstraction of Brahman when

> speaking of your life, because you are That, and only

> That. If you forget that level (the only real one) even

> for a second, then whatever you say is nonsense.

>

> Miguel-Angel Carrasco

 

The Absolute doesn't speak Miguel. It is only Silence.

 

The play of Maya "owns" our bodies and our minds, and

that's where the words come from. But we are all that

Silence underneath, no matter what we're saying out here.

 

--jody.