Guest guest Posted April 23, 2002 Report Share Posted April 23, 2002 hariH OM! namaste in my view, drawing a firm and inflexible conclusion re not only the matter of free will, but any concept in question, is counterproductive and in fact because it maintains dependence on specific mind-constructs, represents an obstacle to moksha. the very thing we're trying to liberate ourselves from. now, of course, on the path to moksha, such concepts have their place and their practical application. however, not at the stage of the end-game of the 'path,' concerning the dissolution of the [separative] ego. (however, incidentally, not of the jivatman itself, which is another issue entirely.) additionally, to begin with, the sastras and sages present conflicting ideas re [the existence or not of] free will. although ramana, in his response to his mother, clearly stated that "the Ordainer controls the fate of souls acccording to their prarabdha karma...," upon being asked about this issue on other occasions, would convey the idea concerning one's sadhana (implying of course doership *and* having a choice), or else he would stear the attention of the inquirer to the nature or state of the one who's inquiring. other times he would deliberately avoid the issue altogether and suggest to the sadhaka that upon reaching moksha, such question(s) can then be addressed. clearly this shows his recognition for the necessity for adaptation as per the individual in question (re where they're at on the path of wisdom). it also shows something far more significant. it shows that there is no definitive answer! it shows the vastly ineffable and inscrutable wonder that is brahman's leela: a veritable infinite expression of unimaginable worlds within worlds, and worlds beyond worlds, with infinite combinations of laws and ideas the likes of which we have scraped the surface in discovering, or wavelength of reality thereof our awareness is in tune with! in other words, brahman's manifestation as leela is an agglomeration of infinite mutifarious, multidimensional, interpenetrating universes comprising known, unknown, as well as *unknowable* laws of physics and metaphysics. simply put, brahman's leela is as ineffable and inscrutable as brahman Itself! the explanation that follows will likely prove difficult if not impossible to grasp. the buddhic faculty needs to be appreciably engaged to reach any understanding.. (note: i'm not sure if i posted this or part of it to the List before...also some reiterates the above..) to my understanding, the conditions that exist in the leela are multi- as well as interdimensional. in this regard, for example, one could say that *within* the realm of the leela, which is on one hand pre-scripted and predetermined by isvara as well as our jivatma's past karma, while on the other (*somehow*...and this defies logic of course) exists the Relative field of free will for the individual. thus metaphysically, and from an overview holistic perspective, these two are seen to co-exist. now, our Relative reasonable mind can't fathom this, and will vehemently protest such an obvious contradiction. however, upon deeper analysis, utilizing the buddhi in tandem with the manasic faculties of Mind, one will find it to be so, and in fact, that it *must* be so. that there can be no other explanation. compelling, at least, to the point where one or the other isolated conclusion doesn't stand the test of the range of life circumstances. in other words, from the illusion of the separative ego, exists the illusion of its free will, where these illusions all contain a thread of reality. regardless, we will do what we must, of course. do what is our prarabdhakarma; what is our svadharma (what our soul mandates per its vital growth at the stage its at); as well as what has been scripted by the mahamahat or Universal Mind of isvara. however, we *do* have the choice of allowing it to victimize us or not via our mental attitude toward it. this depends on one's ability to cultivate vairagya (dispassion toward the particular, as the result of awareness seated in the Whole of brahman). OM ramanarpanamasthu! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more http://games./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2002 Report Share Posted April 23, 2002 Greg wrote, addressing Atagrasin, <Thanks for addressing my question. You mention that the free will issue is an obstacle to the "final understanding" of non-dual advaita. It is a provisional, partial teaching only. Even if this issue falls away, the show is not over. There are STILL obstacles left, so this "understanding" is not "final." And it has nothing to say about the other obstacles that it leaves in its path.... " > -------- I think there are exactly two attitudinal obstacles. Each requires a certain negation. It is not enough to have an explanation that appeals to one's intellect. Because in spite of an intellectually satisfactory explanation what one fails to achieve is an emotional conviction of the whole thing. Mark the italicized words. I am deliberately not saying: 'intellectual conviction' or 'emotional satisfaction'. Usually the word 'conviction' is associated only with intellect. But that is exactly the problem here. So long as it is only an intellectual conviction, it does not lead to an experience at the spiritual level. Unless the conviction reaches the heart, that is, unless the conviction almost merges with that type of innate yearning that is more of an intuitive kind than of the speculative reasoning kind, the spiritual experience that arises will be only academic and to that extent is not real. Real emotional conviction comes only from experience. That experience goes through two processes of negation. Every time the Upanishads refer to this they use the phrase 'neti' - meaning, na iti, not thus - and they use it twice every time, as if to emphasize that there are two negations. The first negation is a real negation that helps one transcend the mAyA which veils the Absolute and projects this universe as a superimposition on Reality. To negate the Universe is therefore to see brahman in everything and everywhere. In other words we have to see the brahman, without its adjunct, mAyA. The second negation, however, is a different category of negation and is perhaps the more difficult one. It negates the adjuncts of the Self. In other words it transcends the five sheaths, which 'cover' the Inner Self. These five sheaths are, as we all know, in order of increasing subtlety, the physical, the vital, the mental, the intellectual and the blissful self. This negation is important in the understanding of the Self defined by satyam, jnAnaM and anantaM. Thus the emotional unwillingness to make (by our own free will, if we still own it) these two intellectual negations constitutes the two great obstacles that I mentioned. With praNAms to all advaitins, Yours, profvk Regards, --Greg ===== Prof. V. Krishnamurthy My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/ You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site. Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more http://games./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2002 Report Share Posted April 23, 2002 Hello profvk, I heartily agree that negations must be made at *every level* at which experience occurs, not just the thin intellectual channel of experience. It's the difference between a philosophy class and an experience-altering investigation. Also, transcending the 5 sheaths is another good way of showing up the deficiencies of "no doership" as a supposedly complete teaching. Doership is taught by some neo-advaita teachers as the only obstacle, whereas it is primarily a vijnanamayakosa phenomenon. The conviction that these teachings claim to be the Final Understanding is primarily a matter of gaining the firm conviction (it might have emotional ramifications too) that there is no independent doer. That's it! In terms of the two negations you mention, the "no doership" teaching does not cleanly negate either one. Neither brahman-without-adjunct nor the Self-without-adjuncts is revealed by this teaching alone. Regards, --Greg At 01:14 PM 4/23/02 -0700, V. Krishnamurthy wrote: >Greg wrote, addressing Atagrasin, > ><Thanks for addressing my question. You mention that the free will issue is an >obstacle to >the "final understanding" of non-dual advaita. It is a provisional, partial >teaching only. >Even if this issue falls away, the show is not over. There are STILL >obstacles left, so this >"understanding" is not "final." And it has nothing to say about the other >obstacles that it >leaves in its path.... " > >-------- > >I think there are exactly two attitudinal obstacles. Each requires a certain >negation. It is not enough to have an explanation that appeals to one's >intellect. Because in spite of an intellectually satisfactory explanation >what one fails to achieve is an emotional conviction of the whole thing. Mark >the italicized words. I am deliberately not saying: 'intellectual conviction' >or 'emotional satisfaction'. Usually the word 'conviction' is associated only >with intellect. But that is exactly the problem here. So long as it is only an >intellectual conviction, it does not lead to an experience at the spiritual >level. Unless the conviction reaches the heart, that is, unless the conviction >almost merges with that type of innate yearning that is more of an intuitive >kind than of the speculative reasoning kind, the spiritual experience that >arises will be only academic and to that extent is not real. Real emotional >conviction comes only from experience. >That experience goes through two processes of negation. Every time the >Upanishads refer to this they use the phrase 'neti' - meaning, na iti, not thus >- and they use it twice every time, as if to emphasize that there are two >negations. The first negation is a real negation that helps one transcend the >mAyA which veils the Absolute and projects this universe as a superimposition >on Reality. To negate the Universe is therefore to see brahman in everything >and everywhere. In other words we have to see the brahman, without its adjunct, >mAyA. The second negation, however, is a different category of negation and is >perhaps the more difficult one. It negates the adjuncts of the Self. In other >words it transcends the five sheaths, which 'cover' the Inner Self. These five >sheaths are, as we all know, in order of increasing subtlety, the physical, >the vital, the mental, the intellectual and the blissful self. This negation is >important in the understanding of the Self defined by satyam, jnAnaM and >anantaM. > >Thus the emotional unwillingness to make (by our own free will, if we still own >it) these two intellectual negations constitutes the two great obstacles that >I mentioned. > >With praNAms to all advaitins, >Yours, profvk > > > > > > > > >Regards, > >--Greg > > > >===== >Prof. V. Krishnamurthy >My website on Science and Spirituality is <http://www.geocities.com/profvk/>http://www.geocities.com/profvk/ >You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site. > > > > Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more ><http://games./>http://games./ > > Sponsor > ><http://rd./M=215002.1990895.3471383.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705075991:\ HM/A=1000239/R=0/*http://ads.x10.com/?bHlhaG9vaG0xLmRhd=1019593038%3eM=215002.19\ 90895.3471383.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705075991:HM/A=1000239/R=1>9559ec.jpg >955bea.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...
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.