RE: Desire and Free will

[Guest guest]

Dear Patrick,

 

(Ignoring Ram's illusory contribution to this discussion :>) )

 

I must confess I did not see that any problem arose with respect to desire

and striving by accepting that there was no free-will. Once mind and

intellect have accepted that the ego is illusory, the rest surely poses no

problem. These things must belong only to the ego mustn't they? Desire is a

limitation and an acknowledgement of a limitation. It is the illusion that

one (Self) is limited and not aananda. Why cannot an illusion have

illusions? Once the basic illusion is there, no amount of compounding of the

ignorance is going to make it more of an illusion. Once it has been accepted

that neither the Self nor the ego acts; that there is only an ongoing

cause-effect playing out in prakR^iti; then one can just watch the play,

with all of its sound and fury, without the need to believe in a will, free

or otherwise. Yes, the desire (and from time to time its concommitant

frustrations and anger) will continue to be experienced until the last

remnant of egoistic rebellion has been removed and every 'thing' is seen at

last as it really is - no 'thing' at all but the one Self.

 

Or at least, that is the theory! Apologies for degenerating into

proselytising!

 

Dennis

 

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

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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]

OM

Pranam

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/univ/univ_02a.html

MAN'S SEPARATION FROM GOD

 

The Anatomy of Human Desire

This isolation of the part from the whole is the beginning

of the individuality of things. It may be plant, it may be

animal, it may be man, and it may be even the so-called

angels in heaven. Any consciousness of one's being separate

from what one sees is called the individual sense or Asmita

or self-sense. Grossly put, it is what we know as Ahamkara

or egoism. The sense of one's own existence as apart from

other things is called egoism, basically, philosophically,

or in the language of Yoga and Samkhya. The isolation from

the Supreme is accompanied simultaneously with the reversal

of perception, which means to say, that the universe

appears as an outside object; and the universe appears as

an object which is material, that is, bereft of

consciousness. The wall does not seem to have any

consciousness, and everything that is external is divested

of intelligence, because intelligence cannot see

intelligence. It can only be inferred as existing. What we

see outside is only an appearance of the body or a movement

of it, but the actual seeing principle cannot be seen.

Because, the seer cannot be seen. The presence of the seer

in me can only be inferred by the manifestations of it. The

objective world appears as an external something, and

therefore, there is a necessity felt inside in one's own

consciousness to regain that unity which has been lost.

Because truth always triumphs, reality asserts itself. And

the reality is that the world is not outside us. The truth

is that the world is not outside us. This circumstance of

the universe being outside us, or our being outside the

universe, is a false situation. So, we want to rectify this

mistake by coming in contact with everything, grabbing all

things, and making them our own! The desire to possess

property, and to grab things to the largest extent

possible, is basically a desire to get united with the

Almighty. The desire to possess is a desire to unite. But,

because of the reversal that has taken place, this union is

not possible. The reflection cannot unite itself with the

original, because the two are basically, qualitatively,

different. So, despite all our desires to come in contact

with things, we do not really come in contact with them.

So, every desire is frustrated in the end. We go on

sorrowing in spite of our efforts to possess things.

Desires are condemned because of this error involved in the

attempt to fulfil a desire, though there is a basic piety

behind the manifestation of every desire. Every desire is

holy in the sense that it is fundamentally a wish to unite

oneself with all things. But, there is also the devilish

aspect behind it, namely, that it is trying to come

physically in contact with the object for its satisfaction,

in space and in time, which is an impossibility.

 

The reflection cannot be decorated in order to

beautify the original. This is an image that occurs in a

great passage of Acharya Sankara in one of his works. If a

person wants to decorate himself and put on a necklace, or

put a mark on his forehead, he looks at his face in a

mirror. But he does not put the necklace on the image in

the mirror; he puts it on himself. The moment his original

self is decorated, the image is automatically decorated. He

has no need to decorate the image or beautify it again, in

addition to the effort on his part to beautify himself.

Now, all our desires are attempts at beautifying,

decorating or possessing the reflections, ignoring the

original. Because, the original is not an externality, and

our desires ordinarily are desires for those objects which

are external to ourselves. Here lies the basic mistake in

our attempts at the fulfilment of desires. So, while there

is some sort of a significance in the manifestation of

every desire which is worthwhile, while there is a divinity

aspect in every desire, the opposite of it also is

simultaneously present, which makes it very difficult to

understand the justification or otherwise for the

fulfilment of any desire. It requires great caution to

understand where we are moving, and what is the basic

reason behind our movements. Thus, in the isolation of the

individual from the cosmic forces, there is an automatic

reversal of perspective, a reversal in the process of the

part perceiving the whole. The part does not see the whole

properly. The object does not retain its originality when

it is beheld by the subject in space and in time. There is

a distortion that automatically takes place, and a

misguided representation of the objects happens, when the

isolated individuals begin to judge things outside. So, we

cannot judge anything correctly from an individual

standpoint, because this judgement of any individual in

respect of the objects outside is based on the reversal

process that has already taken place. And unless the

individual places himself in the position of the original

Supreme Being, his judgements may not be correct always.

Pranam

OM

 

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

Get FREE E-Mail

http://www.valuemail.net

[Guest guest]

OM

Pranam

 

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/ascent/ascent_07.html

THE CRISIS OF CONSCIOUSNESS-I

If existence and consciousness have to be one and the same,

how do we explain the anxiety of consciousness to desire

objects which have an existence of their own? If the

objects of the world have no existence of their own, it

would be impossible for consciousness to desire them. On

the other hand, if they have an existence of their own,

what is the relation of this existence to the existence of

consciousness which desires them? Are these objects

external to consciousness, or are they involved in the very

constitution of consciousness? On the second alternative,

it would follow that it would be meaningless for

consciousness to desire objects, because they are supposed

to be already involved in its very structure. But, if they

are not so involved, the desire of consciousness for the

objects would be understandable. And if the existence of

objects is not involved in consciousness, it would also

mean that this existence is bereft of all consciousness;

not only that, this existence would be an external to

consciousness. But we have already seen that a total

externality to consciousness is inconceivable, and is an

indefensible position. Hence it has to be concluded that

the desire of consciousness for objects outside is a

peculiar kind of error that seems to have crept into it,

and there would be no justification for consciousness in

desiring objects at all.

 

Though this is the logical analysis of the whole

position, the involvement of consciousness in a desire for

objects is so much taken for granted that it may be said

for all practical purposes that the desire of consciousness

is inseparable from the desiring consciousness. Desire, in

fact, is a mode of consciousness itself, a mode

characterised by what may be called a spatio-temporal

externalisation, notwithstanding the fact that such an

externalisation is ruled out on logical grounds, as we have

already seen.

 

The practical involvement of consciousness in a

desire for objects is the problem of man, in spite of the

logical grounds which do not permit the possibility of

consciousness desiring anything at all. The cosmological

theories of the Upanishads as well as those propounded in

the standard philosophies in the world make out that though

consciousness cannot be regarded as finite, - that is, it

has to be infinite, - the notion of finitude has entered it

by a mystery, - a mystery to consciousness itself. In this

mysterious descent of consciousness from infinitude to

finitude, an awful catastrophe might be said to have taken

place. And it is this. Since consciousness has to be

accepted to be infinite, the existence of objects external

to it would be conceivable only on the acceptance of there

having taken place a division of consciousness within

itself, though this dividing factor itself cannot be

outside consciousness. Nonetheless, the concession to this

division is the explanation of human life in everyone of

its aspects, for life’s processes cannot be explained

without such division between the subject and the object.

These processes of life have therefore to be ‘conditions’

of consciousness, processes within itself, - a veritable

history of consciousness.

 

The processes of life are, broadly speaking, those

which are studied in the fields of politics, world-history,

sociology, ethics, economics, aesthetics, psychology,

biology, chemistry, physics and astronomy. Everything

connected with man can be said to be comprehended within

this outline of the framework of life’s activity. But all

this has to be ‘related’ to consciousness; else, they would

not exist even as subjects of study or objects of

experience. The problem of man is therefore the problem of

consciousness. The study of man is the study of

consciousness.

 

Since it is impossible to conceive a real division

of consciousness within itself, it is also not possible to

imagine that there can be real ‘objects’ of consciousness.

If there are no such real ‘objects’, the whole of life

would be a drama played by consciousness within itself in

the realm of its infinite compass. The alienation of the

Infinite into the form of the universe is originally

conceivable as the physical realm that is studied in the

field of astronomy, - namely, the five elements of ether,

air, fire, water and earth, simultaneously with the

conception of the elemental constituents of molecules,

atoms, electrons and the like, leading up to

the ‘relativity’ of the cosmos as a space-time-continuum.

This is the world studied in astro-physics as well as sub-

atomic physics. Life is supposed to have manifested itself

from this inorganic level gradually through the more

organised levels of cellular formations, the various stages

of the development of the plant kingdom, which are supposed

to lead on further to the level of the animal and the human

being. In a sense it is hardly possible for one to accept

that the rise of man from the animal, the animal from the

plant, and the plant from the mineral kingdom is really an

advance in the process of evolution, unless we regard a

evolution as a tendency towards greater and greater

diversification and disintegration of consciousness. For,

to mention only one instance, the instinct of the animal is

nearer to reality than the intellect of man, in which case

it would be difficult to imagine that the human intellect

is superior to animal instinct, notwithstanding that the

intellect is supposed to be endowed with the power of

logical judgment not discoverable in the animal. But it is

doubtful if the so-called logical faculty of man is an

improvement upon instinct which is more akin to reality in

its function. However, the fact that involuntary urges

become more uncontrollable as life proceeds further on

along this diversifying process should show that man is

more distant from reality in his present level than life’s

processes are in the preceding stages. Man has become more

and more a foreigner to Nature so that he has now begun to

feel that he has to ‘conquer’ Nature rather than be

friendly with it by adjusting his life in harmony with its

operative laws.

 

The rudimentary urge towards diversification, the

tendency to the appearance of the One as the many, should

be regarded as subtly present in the formations of the

world of matter itself. Else, how could the plant kingdom

be said to have been given rise to from the level of the

mineral kingdom? And simultaneously with this urge for

multiplication of the One into the many, there has to be

accepted a parallel urge towards ‘self-integration’

and ‘self-perpetuation’. Why should this be so? Because,

the diversification of the Infinite into the several

individualities that are the subjects of empirical

experience implies on the part of these individuals a

simultaneous loss of connection with the Infinite, for

consciousness of individuality and relationship with the

Infinite are irreconcilable positions. Thus it should

follow that right from the imperceptible urge for self-

multiplication incipiently working as a latent force in the

world of inorganic matter up to its final form reached

through the various intermediary stages of self-

multiplication there is a double activity of consciousness

taking place at the same time side by side in the form of

the irresistible urge to self-maintenance as an individual

and also the equally uncontrollable urge to recover what

has been lost by it by means of its alienation from the

Infinite. What is the advantage that accrues to the

individual by its self-affirmation? The advantage is a

simple satisfaction of an assertion of ‘existence’ as

identical with its ‘consciousness’. For, there cannot be a

greater joy than the identification of existence and

consciousness. In fact every act of any individual anywhere

is an attempt to progress covertly or overtly towards the

achievement of an identity of existence and consciousness

which is the same as the experience of an immense delight.

Now, does the individual achieve the desired satisfaction

by identifying individual existence with individual

consciousness? Yes, and no. Yes, because a modicum of

existence identified with an iota of consciousness must

bring some sort of a satisfaction, for the identity of

existence and consciousness is joy. Hence it is that

personality-worship, self-respect, social status, praise,

name, fame and the like, - all forms of adoration of

individuality, - bring such happiness to the individual

that one would even sacrifice one’s life and stake one’s

all for the sake of achieving this satisfaction, in short,

what is crudely called as self-prestige of the

individuality. But has this prestige any substance in it?

No; because it is divested of relationship with the

Infinite, and all substantiality is an approximation to the

Infinite in some degree. Hence, the acquisition of the

satisfaction by prestige, name, etc., or by means of any

type of self-affirmation, is not going to be for the ‘good’

of the individual, for that which is good is approximation

to the Infinite, though a mere act of self-affirmation may

bring a pleasant sense and a mood of having achieved one’s

aim. But the pleasant is different from the good (Preyas is

contradistinguished from Sreyas).

 

It is this tension obtaining between the urge for

self-affirmation on the one side and the longing to

establish connection with the Infinite on the other that

goes by the name of Samsara or worldly existence. And this

circumstance commences right from the rudimentary evolution

of life from the plant kingdom itself, nay, we should say

even much earlier in the stage of the very seed-urge

potential at the mineral level. The tension continues,

becomes worse as life evolves into more and more complex

forms of greater types of diversification of the One into

the many. But the drama is more beautiful to witness than

to act. The individual, being involved in the dramatis

personae in the cosmic enactment, cannot enjoy the act as a

whole but suffers it as pressed into a confinement of

itself into the partite consciousness of self-limitation

into the mere part that it isolatedly plays in the

universal drama. Even individualised living organisms are

said to have been originally uni-cellular, and therefore

uni-sexual, there being not in them that further travesty

of affairs in the form of the bi-sexual urge seen in

organisms more advanced in the process of self-

diversification. The uni-cell splits itself into the bi-

cell and struggles to reproduce itself by contact of its

two parts with each other, thus showing that the sex-urge

does not originate either from the male or the female but

from the single totality which is prior to the division of

the single cell into the two parts. Can we say that this is

the reason why sex-urge is the most powerful of all the

instincts in the individual? Perhaps it is so? There is a

transcendent pressure exerted upon the male and the female

which does not belong either to the male or the female

independently. We seem to have come too far from the

infinitude of consciousness which is inseparable from the

infinitude of existence.

 

But we have to revert to another point from where we

have to take our steps gradually through the historical

process of evolution.

 

OM

 

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

Get FREE E-Mail

http://www.valuemail.net

[Guest guest]

Dear Denis,

 

As I understand it desire is an appetite of which we are conscious and

hunger is the prototypical example. As such I can't see how it

'belongs to the ego' or is an 'illusion' or a 'limitation'. There has

never yet been a sadhu who didn't experience hunger pangs if he wasn't

fed regularly!

 

Your statement that 'desire ... will continue to be experienced until

the last remnant of egoistic rebellion has been removed' doesn't quite

make sense for the reason that the ego is not there to begin with and

so is not capable of rebellion. All that can be removed is a mistaken

belief in the existence of the ego. Would you really maintain that

changing this belief would cause all desires to cease?

 

I don't think that there is any need to labor the problematic aspects

of desire. It clearly entails more ego-identification than other

mental processes such as (say) thinking and nobody disputes that a

predominance of rajas obscures buddhi. But there is nothing more going

on here than the play of the gunas or 'an ongoing

cause-effect playing out in prakR^iti' as you put it. So I don't see

why desire should be singled out for special opprobrium. There are

thoughts but no thinker and deeds but no doer so why not desires but

no desirer?

 

Regards,

 

Patrick

 

 

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

> Dear Patrick,

>

> (Ignoring Ram's illusory contribution to this discussion :>) )

>

> I must confess I did not see that any problem arose with respect to

desire

> and striving by accepting that there was no free-will. Once mind and

> intellect have accepted that the ego is illusory, the rest surely

poses no

> problem. These things must belong only to the ego mustn't they?

Desire is a

> limitation and an acknowledgement of a limitation. It is the

illusion that

> one (Self) is limited and not aananda. Why cannot an illusion have

> illusions? Once the basic illusion is there, no amount of

compounding of the

> ignorance is going to make it more of an illusion. Once it has been

accepted

> that neither the Self nor the ego acts; that there is only an

ongoing

> cause-effect playing out in prakR^iti; then one can just watch the

play,

> with all of its sound and fury, without the need to believe in a

will, free

> or otherwise. Yes, the desire (and from time to time its

concommitant

> frustrations and anger) will continue to be experienced until the

last

> remnant of egoistic rebellion has been removed and every 'thing' is

seen at

> last as it really is - no 'thing' at all but the one Self.

>

> Or at least, that is the theory! Apologies for degenerating into

> proselytising!

>

> Dennis

>

>

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

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<