Guest guest Posted March 26, 2003 Report Share Posted March 26, 2003 Sri Ram suggested: We have discussed fate and free-will in greater details at least two times before. We could discuss this topic again if there is sufficient interest. If there is sufficient interest and if Dennis Waite wants to lead the discussions we could start this from next month. I would be happy to post some 'starter' thoughts on the topic and lead any discussion if there is 'sufficient interest'. Beginning 1st April. Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2003 Report Share Posted March 26, 2003 Namaste Sri Dennis: I guarantee that there will be sufficient interest and please go ahead and post the starter thoughts from the first of April. Warmest regards and appreciations for your efforts, Ram Chandran advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote: > ..... > I would be happy to post some 'starter' thoughts on the topic and lead any > discussion if there is 'sufficient interest'. Beginning 1st April. > > Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2003 Report Share Posted March 26, 2003 Dennis and Ram Here are my thoughts on the subject. The topic can be addressed from two perspectives. At Vyavahaara level - or jiiva's reference. When one thinks he is jiiva - then there is 'apparent' free will but that apparent is not apparent since jiiva who himself is apparent thinks he is really different from the rest of the universe. Hence the apparent free will becomes a real free will as long as jiiva-hood is there. Hence Lord KrishNa advises Arjuna - niyatam kuru -or yaj~naartham kuru - do your obligatory duties - do for the sake of yaj~naa - here kuru is vidhi - that one should do. One should do is different from one cannot but do. There is an inherent choice in that former statement. That is the apparently real free will. As long as jiiva-hood is there, there is apparently real sadhana that one has to do including the study of the scriptures - hence Upanishad declare - are drashTavyaH, srotavyaH, mantavyaH, nidhidhyaasitavyaH - one should listen, reflect upon and contemplate on the reality - tavyaH is again vidhi vaakyam - One should do if one want to evolve. Now from paaramaarthika view point - The question itself has no meaning since from that level - there is nothing other than Brahman and there is no kartaa for free-will to operate. Hence discussion of free will has no relevance from that point. akartaaham abhoktaaham - I am neither doer nor an enjoyer. Now we bring an intermediate level - Iswara level or from macrocosmic viewpoint rather than microcosmic point. At Iswara level there is maya which is prakriti. At that level - free will transforms into spontaneity - that the totality responds with local perturbation in response to the stimulus. I would not call it as fate - fate has a connotation as predestined. But what I call spontaneity is the local perturbation in response to the constraints imposed. Constraints are imposed by the rest of the surrounding prakriti. I call this a dynamic system continuously self-equilibrating which itself setsup perturbations into the surroundings, while respond to a perturbation. Hence it is a vibrant system with no damping of the vibrations since system includes the whole universe, and in the process excludes nothing. Hence it is rightly called jagat - jayate gachchate iti that which is in continuos motion or vibrations. Hence perturbations continuously propagate spontaneously creating space-time and periodic cycles of perturbations. Since everything is conserved, we have sanchita karama, prarabda karma and agaami karma-s from a jiiva point who apparently feels that it is all real and owns in his perturbations and response to the perturbations. At the macrocosmic point we have samashhTi instead of vyashhti. Hence from the samashhTi or totality point Krishana declares - prakRiti eva ca karmaani kriyamaanani sarvashhaH - all actions (without any exceptions) are done by prakRiti. >From my understanding it is a question of only spontaneity or free will rather than fate and/or free will. Looks like I have responded spontaneously or by free will. Hari OM! Sadananda --- Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote: > Sri Ram suggested: > > We have discussed fate and free-will in greater details at least two > times before. We could discuss this topic again if there is > sufficient interest. If there is sufficient interest and if Dennis > Waite wants to lead the discussions we could start this from next > month. > > I would be happy to post some 'starter' thoughts on the topic and lead > any > discussion if there is 'sufficient interest'. Beginning 1st April. > > Dennis > > > ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2003 Report Share Posted March 27, 2003 > Now we bring an intermediate level - Iswara level or from macrocosmic > viewpoint rather than microcosmic point. > At Iswara level there is maya which is prakriti. At that level - free > will transforms into spontaneity - that the totality responds with local > perturbation in response to the stimulus. I would not call it as fate - > fate has a connotation as predestined. But what I call spontaneity is > the local perturbation in response to the constraints imposed. > Constraints are imposed by the rest of the surrounding prakriti. Namaste Sadanandaji, I find your concept of intermediate level and your ascribing to it a reality of an higher order than vyavaharika (because you use terms like spontaneity, perturbation and constraints without qualifying them as apparent), difficult to understand. As an ordinary human being I am at the vyaharika level, and my body- mind complex and the world are very real to me. At this level Ishwara is there for me,either as an article of faith If I am devout or as an hypothesis if I am not. With self- realisation comes the knowledge that I, the World and Ishwara are all really not there and that what is really there is the non-dual satchitananda. To me it appears that there can be only two levels - either I am realised or I am ignorant. And Ishwara is there only as long as I am ignorant and hence belongs entirely to the Vyavaharika level. Is there some gap in my understanding? pranAms, Venkat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2003 Report Share Posted March 27, 2003 --- "S. Venkatraman" <venkat52 wrote: .. > > To me it appears that there can be only two levels - either I am > realised or I am ignorant. And Ishwara is there only as long as I am > ignorant and hence belongs entirely to the Vyavaharika level. > > Is there some gap in my understanding? > > pranAms, > Venkat Shree Venkat - You have clear understanding. At vyavahaara level one can examines from two perspectives -From the point of microcosm and macrocosm. If you examine B.G. teaching - on one side Krishna says you have to do your obligatory duties - on the other hand He also says - all actions are being done by Prakriti and only a deluded fellow thinks he is a doer. Obviously you cannot ask a fellow to do your duty and at the same time say that you are not the doer. Krishna is not contradicting himself - Both statements are right and both apply at vyavahaara level- one from the point of jiiva and other from the point of totality. If prakriti alone performs then the divisions within the prakriti are only like divisions in the space. From jiiva's standpoint - that is vyavahaara point - the ontological status of the free will is of the same order as the jiiva himself. From the macrocosmic point the same free-will is to be understood as the response of the totality as perturbation - Which I called as spontaneity rather than fate - since fate has a connotation as pre-destined. Hope I am clear. Hari OM! Sadananda ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2003 Report Share Posted March 27, 2003 Namaste Sadanandaji, Many thanks for your explanation; I think you have been quite clear. However since I have had tremendous problems with the concept of 'Ishwara' and I want to get it right this time, I will try to put my understanding in my own words and would request you to correct me if I have gone wrong yet again: 1. Both JIva and Ishwara belong to the vyavahArika level and have the same ontological status. They are merely two perspectives in that level. Statements at the vyavahArika level can either be made from the stand-point of an individual(jIva - as representative of the group)or from the stand-point of creation (Ishwara - the group itself). 2. If what is stated above is right, for me as an individual, at vyavhArika level, reality is jIva perspective. Ishwara perspective for me is only a concept. i.e. activity takes place only for a jIva and if we speak of activity for Ishwara, it is only in the manner of speaking. 3. If in popular theistic literature Ishwara is described as being endowed with powers much more than that of jIva, it is only in recognition of the fact that different jIvas are at different levels of understanding and Bhakti rather than jnAna is more conducive for the development of some jIvas. Another request. Gita constantly shifts between vyavahArika and pAramArthika levels and within vyavahArika between jIva and Ishwara perspectives. For e.g. in a statement like 'prakritim yAnti bhUtAni, nigrha kim karishyasi', prakriti can either mean human nature or prakriti from the macrocosmic perspective. The way I have explained my understanding of these concepts above, this should really not make much of a difference in understanding Krishna's words in the Gita. Am I right in this conclusion? Nevertheless it can make a lot of difference in the appreciation of the slokAs. So it will be useful to know from what perpective the Lord is talking. May I request you to suggest a commentary or any other work on Gita, which explains the slokAs taking this very important aspect into account. pranAms, Venkat advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada> wrote: >> Shree Venkat - You have clear understanding. At vyavahaara level one > can examines from two perspectives -From the point of microcosm and > macrocosm. If you examine B.G. teaching - on one side Krishna says you > have to do your obligatory duties - on the other hand He also says - all > actions are being done by Prakriti and only a deluded fellow thinks he > is a doer. Obviously you cannot ask a fellow to do your duty and at the > same time say that you are not the doer. Krishna is not contradicting > himself - 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.