Guest guest Posted April 21, 2002 Report Share Posted April 21, 2002 HI GREG:Here some more concepts about choice and free will:Thinking you have a choice is not the same as actually having a choice. How can u choose to have 'this thought' when 'this thought' is ALREADY HAPPENING and is therefore unchosen. I believe we are free in the sense that thoughts just arise, unchosen/undetermined. They just occur, like everything else. We do not choose to have them -- that, as I've shown, is impossible. Free will is an illusion caused by mind dividing itself against itself, so that we believe one part is "us" and free (because it has isolated itself and therefore has a sense of self-determination) the other part, be it our emotions, body, thoughts we don't like, etc. is not "us". Again, how could a present thought be chosen, if to be chosen, the thought has first to be thought. To put it in a convoluted way: To choose a thought we would have to consciously think, "I choose (to have) this thought" but as soon as we get to the word "I" the thought is already happening and is therefore unchosen, even if we do complete the sentence. To choose (to have) the thought is to already (be having) the thought, and so it (thought) is unchosen. Now, you cannot appeal to a prior choice because the same process would occur here and in the thought before that thought, stretching back to infinity. If this were the case, there could never be a first choice and therefore no subsequent choices. So there is no free will ,Regards atagracin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2002 Report Share Posted April 21, 2002 Yes Atagrasin, I am thoroughly familiar with these concepts and the various ironies and paradoxes and bondages surrounding the notion of free will. I looked into these questions in great detail and depth years ago.... And you are actually presenting the concepts with more clarity than most, and you might even have had some experiential aftereffects from these insights. You say, "I believe we are free in the sense that thoughts just arise, unchosen/undetermined. They just occur, like everything else." OK, then, for "you," what follows from these insights? (That is, as seen in the stream of arisings appearing THERE, what follows?) More specifically, how are you relating these insights to advaita/nonduality on this advaitin list? No entity/no doer/no chooser does not entail nonduality. It does seem to be a step along the way for many. But there's farther to go! If no entity, why even speak of freedom? In fact, if you no longer believe in entities, then why the insistence on thoughts? Would you say that thoughts arise in one place or more than one place? What would you call this(ese) place(s)? If in no place at all, then why speak of something being free? Om! --Greg At 12:14 AM 4/22/02 +0000, atagrasin wrote: >HI GREG:Here some more concepts about choice and free will:Thinking >you have a choice is not the same as actually having >a choice. How >can u choose to have 'this thought' when 'this thought' is ALREADY >HAPPENING >and is therefore unchosen. I believe we are free in the sense that >thoughts >just arise, unchosen/undetermined. They just occur, like everything >else. We >do not choose to have them -- that, as I've shown, is impossible. >Free will >is an illusion caused by mind dividing itself against itself, so that >we >believe one part is "us" and free (because it has isolated itself and >therefore has a sense of self-determination) the other part, be it our >emotions, body, thoughts we don't like, etc. is not "us". > >Again, how could a present thought be chosen, if to be chosen, the >thought >has first to be thought. To put it in a convoluted way: To choose a >thought >we would have to consciously think, "I choose (to have) this thought" >but as >soon as we get to the word "I" the thought is already happening and is >therefore unchosen, even if we do complete the sentence. To choose >(to have) >the thought is to already (be having) the thought, and so it >(thought) is >unchosen. Now, you cannot appeal to a prior choice because the same >process >would occur here and in the thought before that thought, stretching >back to >infinity. If this were the case, there could never be a first choice >and >therefore no subsequent choices. So there is no free will ,Regards >atagracin > > > > Sponsor > ><http://rd./M=178320.1964497.3448863.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705075991:\ HM/A=879171/R=0/*http://www.fastweb.com/ib/-57f>1f8ee515.jpg >1f8ee592.jpg > >Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. >Advaitin List Archives available at: <http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/>http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaiti\ n/ >To Post a message send an email to : advaitin >Messages Archived at: <advaitin/messages>a\ dvaitin/messages > > > >Your use of is subject to the <> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2002 Report Share Posted April 22, 2002 Namaste. This refers to the posts of Shri Atagarsinji, Shri Sadanandji and Shri Gregji. I have been lapping up their discussion with great interest. Isn't there a hitch in Benjamin Libet's conclusions? The EEG "spurt" occurred first followed by awareness of intention to act and then the motor act itself at 0, 350-400, and 550-600 microseconds respectively. I am not aware of the actual conditions of Libet's experiments. As such, Libet's premises for concluding that the EEG "spurt" was necessarily related to the awareness of intention to act and the actual action that followed are not known. Can't what the EEG recorded be an independent occurrence unrelated to the subsequent volition and action? Couldn't the experimenter have an influence on the outcome? Libet was the observer in whose "awareness" the whole experiment was occurring. What certainty Libet had about the electrical impulses on his own brain? Was there a spurt of activity 300 ms or so before he became actually aware of his findings? He has to necessarily accept such an inferential scenario if his findings on another brain are valid. Hasn't he? If my argument is correct, then his "findings" were already there before he "found them out". His experiment was not his experiment. He was made to do it. It was planted for him. I know that my questions do not take us anywhere. However, I am asking them to point out the futility of the whole exercise. I don't need answers! I think Shri Sadanandaji had Sankara's "karthum sakyam, akarthum sakyam, anyathawa kartum sakyam" (Can do, can avoid doing, can do differently) in mind when he talked about volition in vyavaharika. That is not the point that Shri Atagrasinji is trying to make. So, both are, in effect, talking at cross-purposes. If I have made a mistake in concluding so, kindly correct me. Let us take an example. Some one is offering me a bribe. My vyavaharika reaction can be in three ways as Sankara pointed out. I can gladly accept the bribe straightaway, I can reject it or I can demand that the "briber" give me only half and give the rest to a cause of charity so that I can put my conscience at rest. We do have some freedom of action here as pointed out by Shri Sadanandaji. He is quite right. But according to Shri Atagrasinji the course that I would pick out of the three mentioned above was already decided for me. I just do it. I cannot say he is wrong either. So, where does all this lead us? My understanding and conclusion: Our volition has a seeming existence and, since we are aware of such volition, from the vyavaharika point of view, it exists. I have a choice – pick either "A" or "B". I am picking "B" by exercising my seeming "volition". However, that I pick "B" had already been decided for me as per Shri Atagrasinji. It is this "prior decision" that is materializing through my present action. This whole understanding is where? In my awareness. It is a thought in my awareness. Who is thinking this thought? Me. Where is Me? Everywhere. Where is everywhere? It is in Me. Where are Skinner and Libet? In Me. Where are their findings as presented by Shri Atagrasinji? In Me again. When I "look" I see them all, their apparent occurrences in a time-scale very accurate to microseconds. We call all this vyavaharika. When I don't "look", they cease to exist. And only "I "remain – the paramarthika. We cannot do without that clinching "I". The thought of infinite regression cannot sustain itself without that final "I". Even the following "thought" thought by Shri Atagrasinji cannot sustain itself without that final "I": "Thought is self-thinking. In other words, it just happens. It does not grow out of a prior thought to think. The prior thought does not cause the present one. The past one thinks itself and the present one thinks itself and the two are unrelated and independent." He need not accept a prior thought. No one wants him to. But, he cannot certainly do away with that prior "I" – the Thinker of All Thoughts. The timing of an electrical spurt on a mass of mortal cells cannot change that truth! Pranams. Madathil Nair advaitin, Gregory Goode <goode@D...> wrote: > Yes Atagrasin, > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2002 Report Share Posted April 22, 2002 Namaste Madatyilnairji: You have made an excellent summary of the ongoing discussions and let me make my 2 cents worth on your observations stated below: First I wholeheartedly agree with your assetion and the conclusions of Atagrasinji and Sadanandaji are both valid with proper perspectives. A quick review of 'Karma Yoga" as stated in Bhagavad Gita, chapter 2, Verse 47 supports the stated assertions: While conducting any action, we should define goals (as though we have the authority) but should recognize that results of such actions can potentially contradictory to the goals. In otherwords, we act as though we have the 'choice' but should recognize that we have no authority over the outcome! When we become the 'Perfect Yogi' (as stated in Gita verses 55 to 72)we act spontaenously without mind vibrations (thoughts). Atagrasinji joining this list and discussing 'choice and free will' appears as though he made a choice! The illusionary choice will likely appear real until we get the 'wisdom' to realize there is only 'free will!' regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, "madathilnair" <madathilnair> wrote: > Namaste. > > We do have some freedom of action here as pointed out by Shri > Sadanandaji. He is quite right. > > But according to Shri Atagrasinji the course that I would pick > out of the three mentioned above was already decided for me. > I just do it. I cannot say he is wrong either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2002 Report Share Posted April 22, 2002 Hi! I have two questions. 1. Do thoughts arise from "nothingness"? Do they arise from information stored in memory? 2. If we follow our thoughts carefully don't we see a sequence of thoughts one connected to the next? or they are always just random and unpredictable and unrelated to previous thoughts? -- Vis - "madathilnair" <madathilnair <advaitin> Monday, April 22, 2002 3:51 AM Re: CHOICE and FREE WILL <Thought is self-thinking. In other words, it just happens. It does <not grow out of a prior thought to think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2002 Report Share Posted April 22, 2002 Namaste Viswanathanji, The passage you have quoted does not belong to me. It is Atagrasinji's and I just quoted it in my post. In endeavouring to answer your questions, may I say as follows? 1. Nothing can arise from nothingness. So, thoughts should be no exception. They can have relevance to memory. However, as I see it, remembering a memory itself is a thought. In that sense it is doubtful if we can conclude that thoughts arise from information stored in memory. 2. Yes. There is a seeming sequence to thoughts. We call it "association". This varies from person to person. I can have an elephant thought followed by a temple thought. Another fellow's elephant thought may precede a jungle thought. But, one may remember a memory without any immediate reason. In that sense, I can accept Atagrasinji's idea of randomness. It is just like dreams. Last night I had a tete-a-tete with Amitabh Bachchan, the most unavailable superstar, at Heathrow Airport which included matters relating to his son's future. The conversation was so very coherent that no Freudian or Jungian explanation can substantiate the experience. I have never ever visited or even transited through Heathrow! I don't even have a wish to. Why, of all places, Heathrow then!? Why not our Sahar? Further clarification in the matter should come from Atagrasinji as the para quoted by you belongs to him. Pranams. Madathil Nair ______________________ advaitin, "R. Viswanathan" <drvis@c...> wrote: > Hi! > I have two questions. > 1. Do thoughts arise from "nothingness"? Do they arise from information > stored in memory? > 2. If we follow our thoughts carefully don't we see a sequence of thoughts > one connected to the next? or they are always just random and unpredictable > and unrelated to previous thoughts? > -- Vis > - > "madathilnair" <madathilnair> > <advaitin> > Monday, April 22, 2002 3:51 AM > Re: CHOICE and FREE WILL > > > > <Thought is self-thinking. In other words, it just happens. It does > <not grow out of a prior thought to think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.