RE: Free will etc.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sadananda,

 

There has never been any question but that we agree about the reality of the

situation. The point of contention in all of these interchanges was that I

maintained (and still maintain) is that even in vyaavahhaara, free will is

not only untenable but not even (from the posts to date) arguable. You

say: -

 

****************************************************************

That is exactly what Krishna teaches -

prakR^ityaivacha kriyamaanaani sarvashhaH (all actions are being

performed by prak^Riti alone).. True from that state. But my

understanding is when there is ego - 'I am the doer notion' - what

gets done is claimed as my doing and that is what, although agreed

that it is a fictitious fact, nevertheless is real in Ego's

understanding at his level. When the truth as you stated dawns, the

ego is also dissolved and, yes indeed the prakR^iti responds to the

situation in demand as long as the play of prakR^iti is there.

*********************************************************************

 

Yes, I posted my favourite verse from the giitaa mid December (naiva

ki~ncitkaromIti yukto manyeta tattvavit.h . - Settled in the Self, the

knower of truth should think, in truth I do nothing at all.) But I disagree

with one of your statements above in that I know that, despite the fact that

'the truth has dawned', the ego has not dissolved. I am still here and well!

:>)

 

Dear Patrick,

 

You said "As I understand it will is the affirmation of desire. What does

this have to do with belief in the ego?"

 

I don't know. What do you mean by affirmation? (I understand 'saying

"yes"'.)

 

You also stated:-

 

***********************************************************************

I understand determinism to be the view that desire precedes

affirmation (as confirmed by Libet's experiments) and free will to be

the view that affirmation precedes desire. It's hard to see how the

latter view can be maintained without believing in the ego because if

the existence of the ego is not granted this view would seem to entail

the creation of desire *ex nihilo* by the simple act of affirmation.

So if you are suggesting that one can't believe in _free_ will without

believing in the ego I agree with you, but I don't follow you when you

say that `All willing is of the ego'.

**********************************************************************

 

Sorry, Patrick, but you are a lot better at this than I am. I have only

dabbled in Western Philosophy. You'll have to spell this out much more

simply before I can respond.

 

What I was saying is that it is the ego that desires and wants things to

happen. It is also the ego that believes it has choice and can act. But true

freedom comes only when it has been realised that there is no ego and that

the true Self wants for nothing because it is everything. Therefore, whilst

the ignorance is still there, with its consequent desire and belief in

doership, there is no freedom at all. Thus it is somewhat ironic that we

talk about having free will.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

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

> What I was saying is that it is the ego that desires and wants

things to

> happen. It is also the ego that believes it has choice and can act.

But true

> freedom comes only when it has been realised that there is no ego

and that

> the true Self wants for nothing because it is everything. Therefore,

whilst

> the ignorance is still there, with its consequent desire and belief

in

> doership, there is no freedom at all. Thus it is somewhat ironic

that we

> talk about having free will.

>

> Best wishes,

>

 

Dear Dennis,

 

Let us try this from another angle. We agree that the idea of free

will is illusory and hence of no practical importance: one can get

along very well in life without having any idea of onself as a free

agent. At least that has been my experience and I imagine that it has

been yours too. But adopting this view requires major revisions in our

understanding of concepts such as desire and will. For instance if

free will is denied, the question arises is there such a thing as

unfree will and if so is this idea of any practical use? I think the

question is important because one reason why people (including those

who really should know better) cling so stubbornly to the idea of free

will is that they can't conceive of any practical alternative.

 

For my part I cannot conceive of human life without desire and

striving. Since the ego is illusory it surely can't be the ego that

desires as you say. Desire itself is no obstacle to vision, it's only

our attitude to it that is (sometimes) problematic:

 

He attains peace into whom all desires flow as waters entering the

sea.

Although he is always being filled, he is always unaffected

And not one who cherishes desire. (Gita II)

 

True 'the Self wants for nothing because it is everything' but the

Self has embodied itSelf as finite contingent beings whose nature is

desire and striving. Even after extirpating the idea of doership you

will still be racked by desire. (At least I hope you will be because

otherwise you will be dead!)

 

regards,

 

Patrick

[Guest guest]

advaitin , pkenny@c... wrote:

 

Dear Peter:

 

First, I agree with your assertion that "We agree that the idea of

free will is illusory." Second, I admit that I belong to a group that

stubbornly cling to the idea that 'free will is illusory.' Third, I do

agree that we can get along very well in our life by exercising the

illusory free will without any problems what so ever.

 

In conclusion, the (illusory) discussions on the (illusory) free will

using (illusory) logical explanations are quite fascinating.

Whether we agree or disagree, our (illusory) intellect couldn't resist

posting our (illusory) judgements to this (illusory) list to convince

the (illusory) audience in order to get the (illusory) fulfilment of

our (illusory) desires!

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

advaitin , "Ram Chandran" <rchandran@c...> wrote:

> advaitin , pkenny@c... wrote:

>

> Dear Peter:

>

> First, I agree with your assertion that "We agree that the idea of

> free will is illusory." Second, I admit that I belong to a group

that

> stubbornly cling to the idea that 'free will is illusory.' Third, I

do

> agree that we can get along very well in our life by exercising the

> illusory free will without any problems what so ever.

>

> In conclusion, the (illusory) discussions on the (illusory) free

will

> using (illusory) logical explanations are quite fascinating.

> Whether we agree or disagree, our (illusory) intellect couldn't

resist

> posting our (illusory) judgements to this (illusory) list to

convince

> the (illusory) audience in order to get the (illusory) fulfilment of

> our (illusory) desires!

>

> regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

 

 

Dear Ram,

 

I'm afraid I can't agree with you that everything is illusory, just

free will and the ego. When I say that these are illusory I mean that

they simply don't exist and hence that they have no effects. I admit

that I am puzzled by the suggestions that are frequently made on this

list that the ego, despite the fact that it doesn't exist, is somehow

capable of action and likewise that the idea of free will is somehow

useful.

 

Regards,

 

Patrick

[Guest guest]

Dear Peter:

 

I fully respect your disagreement and I have to admit that we have no

way to resolve our disagreement through intellectual means because we

are driven by our beliefs!

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin , pkenny@c... wrote:

> Dear Ram,

>

> I'm afraid I can't agree with you that everything is illusory, just

> free will and the ego. When I say that these are illusory I mean

that

> they simply don't exist and hence that they have no effects. I admit

> that I am puzzled by the suggestions that are frequently made on

this

> list that the ego, despite the fact that it doesn't exist, is

somehow

> capable of action and likewise that the idea of free will is somehow

> useful.

>

> Regards,

>

> Patrick

[Guest guest]

OM

Pranam

Prarabdh and Purusharth, this discourse is available at:

http://www.sivanandadlshq.org/discourse/sep97.htm

and is reproduced below. Also the first two chapters onf

the Yoga Vashishth shed light on this very issue.

 

PRARABDHA AND PURUSHARTHA By SRI SWAMI SIVANANDA

Question: Man's actions are determined to a certain extent

by his Prarabdha, yet he is free in his Kriyamana Karmas.

What is the line of demarcation? How far the Kriyamana

Karmas can bear fruit and how far they are determined by

Prarabdha? When a man fails to achieve a desired object, is

there a way to find out whether the failure was due to

Prarabdha or to deficiency or incompetency of his effort?

At what stage a man should stop his effort, when they are

supposed to be useless because of his Prarabdha?

 

Answer: An animal which is tethered to a peg by a rope of a

given length has freedom to move within the circle drawn by

that radius, the rope. But it has no freedom beyond that

limit. It is bound to move within that specified range. Man

is something like this. His reason and discrimination

afford him a certain amount of freedom which is within

their scope. But this reasoning faculty is like the rope

with which the animal is tied. Reason is not unlimited and

it is circumscribed by the nature of the Prarabdha which

governs this body of the Jiva.

 

As long as man has consciousness of personality, and in so

far as it is possible for him and is within the capacity of

his conscious endeavour to exercise the sense of selective

discrimination or freedom of choice, he is responsible for

what he does. He is an agent or doer of the action, and

such actions as these are fresh actions or Kriyamana-

Karmas, as they are connected with the sense of doership.

But if events occur when he is incapable of using this

power of understanding, as when he is not in his body-

consciousness, or even without his conscious intervention

therein, he is not to be held responsible for the same; for

these are not fresh actions, but only the fruition of a

previous deed or deeds of Prarabdha.

 

Though every experience is finally caused by Prarabdha

alone, its connection with one’s consciousness constitutes

effort or a fresh deed. Effort is nothing but consciousness

of action as related to oneself, whatever be the thing that

prompts one to do that action. It is not the action as such

but the manner in which it is executed that determines

whether it is a Kriyamana- Karma or not. A Jivanmukta’s

actions are not Kriyamana-Karmas; for they are not

connected with any personal consciousness. They are

spontaneous functions of the remaining momentum of past

consciousness of agency.

 

Experiences which are forced upon oneself of which come of

their own accord without the personal will of the

experiencer, are the workings of Prarabdha. But others

which result from a deliberate and conscious act, which has

a pre- meditated background, show that it is a Kriyamana-

Karma, though it may be sanctioned by the law of the

Prarabdha-Karma itself. An experience caused by mere

Prarabdha does not cause another fresh result but is

exhausted thereby; but a Kriyamana-Karma tends to produce a

fresh experience in the future as it is attended by the

sense of doership.

 

If a desired end is not attained even after all possible

efforts on one’s part, it has to be taken that the failure

is due to an obstructive Prarabdha. Of course, this is the

same as saying that the failure is due to incompetency of

the person concerned; for, through a greater effort allowed

by a non- impeding Prarabdha - which, however, he is not

enabled to exercise at present - he could have attained the

desired end. As the Prarabdha determines even Purushartha,

it has to be said that the effort of man is the working of

the Prarabdha itself as superimposed on his consciousness.

 

Prarabdha, when it is functioning, can never be defied or

destroyed, but it can be exhausted through experience and

non-commission of further Kriyamana- Karmas. Even this

cessation from doing Kriyamana-Karma has to be allowed by

the Prarabdha itself; otherwise even such a cessation will

not be possible. An evil Prarabdha will not allow the

withdrawal from Kriyamana-Karmas and as long as it is not

exhausted through experience, rebirth and pain cannot be

stopped.

 

Only a good Prarabdha can allow higher effort, the rise of

knowledge, and cessation from Kriyamana-Karmas. But, on

that account, effort cannot be stopped; for the Prarabdha

forces itself out in the form of effort as long as its

appearance can be possible only through the individual

consciousness. Sometimes Prarabdha manifests itself, not

through the individual consciousness, but either through

external agency or occurrences having causes beyond human

comprehension.

 

Even when a person is goaded by another to do action or

Purushartha, it is only an aspect of his Prarabdha in

relation to the other’s that works. In the state of supreme

wisdom, however, such incitations and admonitions cease.

Efforts are automatically (and not deliberately) stopped

only on the rise of Self-Knowledge which is the goal of all

effort, and not before that. As long as there is body-

consciousness and world-consciousness, man will perforce

carry on exerting to achieve his desired end. Effort is the

natural concomitant of the consciousness of imperfection.

Man, being imperfect, continues, by his own nature, to

exert until the achievement of Perfection. The question of

Prarabdha and Purushartha is a relative one and it loses

its meaning on the dawn of Perfect Knowledge.

Pranam

OM

> Dear Peter:

>

> I fully respect your disagreement and I have to admit

that we have no

> way to resolve our disagreement through intellectual

means because we

> are driven by our beliefs!

>

> regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

>

> advaitin , pkenny@c... wrote:

>

> > Dear Ram,

> >

> > I'm afraid I can't agree with you that everything is

illusory, just

> > free will and the ego. When I say that these are

illusory I mean

> that

> > they simply don't exist and hence that they have no

effects. I admit

> > that I am puzzled by the suggestions that are

frequently made on

> this

> > list that the ego, despite the fact that it doesn't

exist, is

> somehow

> > capable of action and likewise that the idea of free

will is somehow

> > useful.

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > Patrick

>

>

> 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->

>

>

>

>

 

 

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

Get FREE E-Mail

http://www.valuemail.net