Guest guest Posted March 28, 2003 Report Share Posted March 28, 2003 Namaste, I have a short article on this topic: http://www.nonduality.com/goode.htm#free_will Regards, --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2003 Report Share Posted March 28, 2003 Namaste Though I would very much like to participate in the discussion going on, I am too much engrossed in knitty-gritty personal work of shifting my household from Chennai to Bangalore and then with a professional assignment in Mumbai and then a trip back to the U.S. It is all God's Will. Accordingly may I suggest the following ten web pages of mine for those who are interested to have an idea of my views on the subject of Fate and Free Will? http://www.geocities.com/profvk/paradox1.html upto http://www.geocities.com/profvk/paradox10.html Please pardon me for this abrupt intrusion! praNAms to all advaitins profvk ===== 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. 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 28, 2003 Report Share Posted March 28, 2003 Dear Greg, advaitin, Gregory Goode <goode@D...> wrote: > Namaste, > > I have a short article on this topic: > > http://www.nonduality.com/goode.htm#free_will > > Regards, > > --Greg KKT: I like the conclusion of your article: << The person is never free. As awareness, we are never bound. >> Therefore I like to add some more: __In awareness there is no person. __Awareness is freedom itself. __Just because there is << person >> there is the question: Is there free-will? If there is no person then there is no such question (as well whatever question else) Namaste, KKT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2003 Report Share Posted March 28, 2003 You got it! --Greg At 11:31 PM 3/28/03 +0000, phamdluan2000 wrote: >Dear Greg, > > >advaitin, Gregory Goode <goode@D...> wrote: > >> Namaste, >> >> I have a short article on this topic: >> >> <http://www.nonduality.com/goode.htm#free_will>http://www.nonduality.com/goode.h\ tm#free_will >> >> Regards, >> >> --Greg > > > > >KKT: I like the conclusion >of your article: > ><< >The person is never free. > >As awareness, we are never bound. >>> > > >Therefore I like to add some more: > >__In awareness there is no person. > >__Awareness is freedom itself. > >__Just because there is << person >> >there is the question: Is there free-will? > >If there is no person >then there is no such question >(as well whatever question else) > > >Namaste, > > >KKT > > > > > > Sponsor > ><http://rd./M=245454.2994396.4323964.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=1705075991:\ HM/A=1457554/R=0/*http://ipunda.com/clk/beibunmaisuiyuiwabei>fb5f0d6.jpg >fb5f8d1.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 March 28, 2003 Report Share Posted March 28, 2003 Namaste Professor VK: Thanks for your article, which I read from start to finish. It is a good thing that you warned the reader to read the whole article, because the first part was written like a true Christian! :-) Regards Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2003 Report Share Posted March 28, 2003 Hello all, Stirring the pot here... At 05:10 PM 3/28/03 -0500, Benjamin Root wrote: > (1) If everything is 'God' or 'Consciousness' or 'Ultimate >Reality' or 'One', then determinism seems inevitable to me. This >eliminates the possibility of free-will in any meaningful sense. This is a false dichotomy, especially in advaita. There are more possibilities than just free will and determinism. This binary breakdown, both sides in fact, imply a subject-object model of phenomenality, as well as the independent existence of the entity that is supposedly determined. But there are other models. Here's one proposed in the writings of Joel Goldsmith. This is a wonderful thing to meditate on, and can be used to unite the bhakti and jnana aspects of one's inquiry: Goldsmith articulated it roughly as, "God is the only cause, and everything else is an effect." Case in point. Imagine a scenario like this. Indulgent parents spoil a child from birth to the time he leaves home for Yale. The child grows up to be demanding, whiny, selfish and inconsiderate. But in the Goldsmithian model, the child did not really undergo various effects. Instead, the child, the parents, the indulgences, the spoiling, the temper tantrums, the high test scores, parental donations, the selfish behavior later in life -- all of it arose as a direct effect of God's cause. Even the fact that some things SEEM like causes and some things SEEM like effects - even that is the direct effect from God as the cause. Even the best arguments for determinism and the best arguments for free will - even this very e-mail message - all arise from God's direct causation... Regards, --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2003 Report Share Posted March 28, 2003 Greg Goode wrote: >Even the best arguments for determinism and the best >arguments for free will - even this very e-mail message - >all arise from God's direct causation... Actually, this is precisely what I was saying. God is the ultimate cause of every detail of the phenomenal world, which is pre-determined to occur as it does. But within this phenomenal world, regular sequences of events are observed to occur, and these can be called 'secondary' causes and effects. It can be represented like this: X X X | | | v v v A -> B -> C -> ... where 'X' is God, A, B, C are phenomenal events, and '->' is a causal relation. For example, nature follows the laws of physics, but God 'ordered' the laws of physics in the first place. God is thus the ultimate 'cause' of the laws of physics (and hence of phenomena), but considered in themselves, the phenomena seem to follow certain laws of cause and effect (even though these phenomena are ultimately all effects of God). Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2003 Report Share Posted March 28, 2003 At 07:41 PM 3/28/03 -0500, Benjamin Root wrote: >Actually, this is precisely what I was saying. God is the ultimate >cause of every detail of the phenomenal world, which is >pre-determined to occur as it does. If all details of the phenomenal world are effects, it doesn't entail determinism. If God creates the effects, then how can they be pre-determined? What's "pre" about it? They'd have to be there before their own creation to be predetermined.... --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2003 Report Share Posted March 28, 2003 Namaste, Sri Benjamin. A few thoughts in response to some of your comments. On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:10:49 -0500, Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote: > (1) If everything is 'God' or 'Consciousness' or 'Ultimate Reality' or > 'One', then determinism seems inevitable to me. This eliminates the > possibility of free-will in any meaningful sense. The Lord is supremely free, the jiva as such is not. Jiva's free will is only apparent. Only when he realizes his identity with the Lord does he experience real freedom. And at that point, there's no egoic "I" to register it. > (2) We must therefore bravely accept that whatever happens in this world > MUST happen and must be for the best, as it is the manifestation of God. > A philosopher named Leibniz was ridiculed for this view, but Advaitins > must logically accept it. What "must happen" and "be for the best" is relative in this world. To God it's all the same, the divine play of duality. So who is it that says what is best and what is necessary, jiva or Shiva? > (3) If we assume that this 'world' and 'life' exist for the evolution of > our consciousness from ignorance to realization, then this must REQUIRE > all the pain and suffering. The reasons may seem mysterious, but what do > we really know about consciousness? A world that is 'perfect' from the > beginning may be like trying to 'square the circle' - mathematically > impossible even for God! What is, is already perfect. All is Shiva. > (4) Determinism is not bad. The alternative is chaos. If everything > follows according to a chain of cause and effect, then we indeed have no > free-will. But if it does not, then everything is pure chance, and how > is that any better? A lack of determinism actually puts us in a worse > state, since we are then the helpless victims of chance. Even if it is pure chance - as I rather suspect it is - jiva is still subject to all contingencies and is bound. Pranams, Shivaram Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2003 Report Share Posted March 28, 2003 Greg Goode wrote: >If all details of the phenomenal world are effects, it >doesn't entail determinism. If God creates the effects, >then how can they be pre-determined? What's "pre" about it? >They'd have to be there before their own creation to be >predetermined.... It just means that they couldn't have been any other way. But for the good news: see how we're keeping it short and sweet. This is probably how the list should usually be... Pranams Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2003 Report Share Posted March 28, 2003 Namaste Sri Shivaram: >The Lord is supremely free, the jiva as such is not. >Jiva's free will is only apparent. Only when he realizes >his identity with the Lord does he experience real freedom. >And at that point, there's no egoic "I" to register it. The Lord is free in that he could have made things otherwise, as an artist could have painted the picture differently. But he is not free insofar as he is constrained to do things in the best way, which includes pain and suffering while we are in the learning stage of Jiva. The realization of identity with the Lord is the supreme goal, but this is also supreme slavery of the highest and most exalted kind! To be perfect is supreme slavery since we then have only ONE choice: to be perfect. >What "must happen" and "be for the best" is relative in this >world. To God it's all the same, the divine play of duality. >So who is it that says what is best and what is necessary, jiva >or Shiva? I do not believe that God plays with us as some nasty children play with insects, pulling their legs off and so forth. I believe that there are mysterious and immutable properties of consciousness, that are intrinsic to the very nature of consciousness, such that we must spiritually evolve through the painful stages that we do. Otherwise, God's omnipotence makes no sense. Actually, the mere fact that all is One is even more general than his omnipotence and includes omnipotence as a special case. ('Omnipotence' sounds rather Judeo-Christian-Islamic to me, but perhaps I am becoming prejudiced, i.e. 'more Roman than the Romans'.) >What is, is already perfect. All is Shiva. Amen! (That means an emphatic 'Yes' in the Christian world.) >Even if it is pure chance - as I rather suspect it is - jiva is >still subject to all contingencies and is bound. Nature so far has evidently followed laws: the laws of physics. However, these laws are only observed regularities and could change at any time (or be replaced by chaos). The 'freedom' of Jiva after realization is nothing but full consciousness of our intrinsic divine nature. This is supreme slavery and the supremely desirable state. Do you want love to be anything other than supreme bliss and sweetness? If the answer is 'No', then you have acquiesced to the supreme slavery, since you have limited yourself to one possibility. Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2003 Report Share Posted March 28, 2003 At 08:03 PM 3/28/03 -0500, Benjamin Root wrote: >It just means that they couldn't have been any other way. That's right. And as such, things are as good as they can be. Likewise, they are as bad as they can be! Yes, short and sweet! --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2003 Report Share Posted March 28, 2003 Namaste, Sri Benjamin. On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:19:43 -0500, Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote: [sri B] > The Lord is free in that he could have made things otherwise, as an > artist could have painted the picture differently. But he is not free > insofar as he is constrained to do things in the best way, which includes > pain and suffering while we are in the learning stage of Jiva. [sri S] He is not constrained in any way. The Lord's freedom is that he is simple being such as he is. The Lord is all-in-all, there are no choices, choices only appear in mayic time and space. [sri B] > The realization of identity with the Lord is the supreme goal, but this > is also supreme slavery of the highest and most exalted kind! To be > perfect is supreme slavery since we then have only ONE choice: to be > perfect. [sri S] No, I don't think it's slavery because it's not a matter of having "only ONE choice"; it's a matter of having NO choice because the perfection is ever new and without beginning or end, it simply is - the question of choice does not arise in pure being. [sri B] > I do not believe that God plays with us as some nasty children play with > insects, pulling their legs off and so forth. [sri S] God doesn't play with us at all. There is only God, there is no other. [sri B] > I believe that there are mysterious and immutable properties of > consciousness, that are intrinsic to the very nature of consciousness, [sri S] How can pure subjectivity (Brahman, Parama Shiva) be intrinsically multiple? [sri B] > such that we must spiritually evolve through the painful stages that we > do. [sri S] Why must "you" evolve through painful stages? You were never other than That which "you" imagine awaits "you" at the pinnacle of evolution. In reality nothing awaits "you" because egoic "you" will never get to that pinnacle; in reality you never were anywhere else. [sri B] > The 'freedom' of Jiva after realization is nothing but full consciousness > of our intrinsic divine nature. This is supreme slavery and the > supremely desirable state. Do you want love to be anything other than > supreme bliss and sweetness? If the answer is 'No', then you have > acquiesced to the supreme slavery, since you have limited yourself to one > possibility. [sri S] It doesn't matter what I want, it is what it is. No choice, no slavery, no limit. Pranams, Shivaram Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2003 Report Share Posted March 29, 2003 Namaste Advaitins! Before I jump into this quagmire of a discussion (Iraqi style), may I please have Advaitin's definitions for "free will" and "fate" and the Sanskrit equivalents therefor. We shouldn't be talking about Laxman when all that we are required to describe is Ram. Dennis-Ji, Ramji or our ever-helpful Sunderji, kindly enlighten. PranAms. Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2003 Report Share Posted March 29, 2003 Apologies for posting the complete essay. I did not see the requests to post in small amounts until after I had posted. Would those who are particularly concerned please read only a few paragraphs at a time. :-) Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2003 Report Share Posted March 29, 2003 Dennisji: Thank you for your lucid post which I read paragraph by paragraph in pieces. There is one empirical proof I have (at least in my mind) about fate or predestination. When I was 19, I happened to see a reader of Surya Samhita. He took measurements of my shadow in morning sun, and came up with palm leaves with red-colored inscription of my horoscope and a narrative of my past, present and future life. I am now 73 and so far all that was read has come true. This has made me wonder: Am I simply a role predetermined for me by some unknown force? Have you any thoughts? Shanti - "Dennis Waite" <dwaite <advaitin> Saturday, March 29, 2003 5:30 AM RE: Fate and Free Will > Apologies for posting the complete essay. I did not see the requests to post > in small amounts until after I had posted. Would those who are particularly > concerned please read only a few paragraphs at a time. :-) > > Dennis > > > > > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > To Post a message send an email to : advaitin > Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2003 Report Share Posted March 29, 2003 Namaste Madathilji, Since I read this dialogue some years back, I have given up asking questions or giving anwers on this subject! http://lists.advaita- vedanta.org/articles/The_Riddle_of_Fate_and_Free.htm Regards, Sunder advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair> wrote: > Namaste Advaitins! > > Before I jump into this quagmire of a discussion (Iraqi style), may I > please have Advaitin's definitions for "free will" and "fate" and the > Sanskrit equivalents therefor. We shouldn't be talking about Laxman > when all that we are required to describe is Ram. Dennis-Ji, Ramji > or our ever-helpful Sunderji, kindly enlighten. > > PranAms. > > Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2003 Report Share Posted March 29, 2003 Namaste, Sri Benjamin. A few verses from Abhinavagupta, to elucidate our earlier conversation: > [sri B] >> The Lord is free in that he could have made things otherwise, as an >> artist could have painted the picture differently. But he is not free >> insofar as he is constrained to do things in the best way, which >> includes pain and suffering while we are in the learning stage of Jiva. > [sri S] > He is not constrained in any way. The Lord's freedom is that he is > simple being such as he is. The Lord is all-in-all, there are no > choices, choices only appear in mayic time and space. Paramarthasara of Abhinavagupta, verses 10-11: Bharupam paripurnam svatmani vishrantito mahanandam Iccha-samvit-karanair nirbharitamananta-shakti-paripurnam Sarva-vikalpa-vihinam shuddham shantam layodaya-vihinam yat paratattvam tasmin vibhati shattrimshadatma jagat. Translation: The whole phenomenon, consisting of thirty-six tattvas, appears and shines in that Transcendental Reality which shines as the Light of Pure Consciousness, is Perfect in all respects, is infinite bliss by virtue of Its complete self-dependence and perfect relaxation [or resting] on Its Self, is compact with the functions of Willing, Knowing and Doing, is full of infinite divine powers [shakti], is free from all conceptive ideation, is pure and tranquil and has neither any dissolution nor any emergence. > [sri B] >> I believe that there are mysterious and immutable properties of >> consciousness, that are intrinsic to the very nature of consciousness, > [sri S] > How can pure subjectivity (Brahman, Parama Shiva) be intrinsically > multiple? Paramarthasara of Abhinavagupta, verse 14: Shiva-shakti-sadashivatam Ishvara-vidya-mayim cha tattva-dasham Shaktinam panchanam vibhakta-bhavena bhasayati. Translation: The absolute God manifests the states of five pure tattvas named--Shiva, Shakti, Sadashiva, Ishvara and the pure Vidya [shuddha Vidya] by projecting outwordly His five primary divine powers: Chit [shiva], Ananda [shakti], Iccha [sadashiva], Jnana [ishvara], and Kriya [shuddha Vidya]. Note: Paramashiva must not be confused with Shiva tattva, which is His projection primarily concerning divine will. Paramashiva, the Absolute, is infinite pure Consciousness endowed with all divine potency. > [sri B] >> such that we must spiritually evolve through the painful stages that we >> do. > [sri S] > Why must "you" evolve through painful stages? You were never other than > That which "you" imagine awaits "you" at the pinnacle of evolution. In > reality nothing awaits "you" because egoic "you" will never get to that > pinnacle; in reality you never were anywhere else. cf: Paramarthasara of Abhinavagupta, vs. 27: Vijnaanaantaryaami-praana-viraad- deha-jaati-pindaantaaha Vyavahaara-maatrametat paramaarthena tu na santyeva Translation: The flow of momentary consciousness, the single Self working in all minds, the power of animation, the universal soul shining as the whole phenomenon, the gross and subtle forms, the generalities or species and lastly the individual being, all these consist of mere dialectical conception and do not at all exist in Reality. Pranams, Shivaram Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2003 Report Share Posted March 29, 2003 Greg Goode said: >That's right. And as such, things are as good as >they can be. Likewise, they are as bad as they can be! > >Yes, short and sweet! Nope, too pessimistic. We are all headed for eventual enlightenment and (re)union with God, which makes it all worth it. All's well that ends well. So it should all be seen as wholly positive! Perhaps not shorter, but sweeter! Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2003 Report Share Posted March 29, 2003 Namaste Sri Shivaram! Thanks for the comments and scriptural quotations. I won't argue with you, because I think that what you said is probably true from the 'absolute' level. I guess I was arguing more from the 'relative' level, as Sri Ram pointed out earlier during the 'Consciousness is One' discussion. But let me say a few words about the absolute vs. relative distinction. During that 'Consciousness is One' discussion a couple of weeks ago, I also ventured into the absolute level when I agreed that the unity of God's consciousness 'logically' implies that we are indeed all 'one' in some profound and mysterious sense. The problem arose when I tried to connect this to my 'immediate awareness', which presumably corresponds to the relative level. I expressed dissatisfaction that I had a merely logical reason for my conclusion. I wanted something that I could intuitively see and believe 'in my gut' as we say. I suppose that we must all rely on dry, abstract, logical deductions (or on the testimony of sages) if we are to venture into the absolute level, unless we are already realized. That seems to be the general conclusion of this list. This leaves me a bit unhappy, as blind reliance on some alleged book from heaven is what I find quite unsatisfactory in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. Oh no! Don't tell me that Hinduism is the same thing all over again! I thought one of the great attractions of Indian religions was that they rely on experience rather than blind adherence to some alleged telegram from God. Well, at any rate, I still feel intuitively, based on my reading, that the Upanishads and other such scriptures represent the highest level of consciousness achieved by the human spirit. There is none of the disturbing violence that one finds in the Biblical tradition. (Now some point to the Mahabarata as divinely-sanctioned violence, but from what I know of that story, the war was as 'just' as any. What I object to in the Bible and Koran is divinely sanctioned conquests of other people's territory and forced conversions, etc. But then, as an American, should I advocate giving this country back to the original natives? I do not think that would even be ethical at this point, since they are so few, and America, for all its faults does seem rather more on the 'right side' than so many of the countries run by crazy dictators, greedy oligarchs and fanatical clerics. But I guess we're not supposed to get political here...) Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2003 Report Share Posted March 29, 2003 Namaste, Sri Benjamin. On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:55:34 -0500, Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote: > But let me say a few words about the absolute vs. relative distinction. > During that 'Consciousness is One' discussion a couple of weeks ago, I > also ventured into the absolute level when I agreed that the unity of > God's consciousness 'logically' implies that we are indeed all 'one' in > some profound and mysterious sense. The problem arose when I tried to > connect this to my 'immediate awareness', which presumably corresponds to > the relative level. I expressed dissatisfaction that I had a merely > logical reason for my conclusion. I wanted something that I could > intuitively see and believe 'in my gut' as we say. > > I suppose that we must all rely on dry, abstract, logical deductions (or > on the testimony of sages) if we are to venture into the absolute level, > unless we are already realized. That seems to be the general conclusion > of this list. This leaves me a bit unhappy, as blind reliance on some > alleged book from heaven is what I find quite unsatisfactory in the > Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. Oh no! Don't tell me that Hinduism is > the same thing all over again! I thought one of the great attractions of > Indian religions was that they rely on experience rather than blind > adherence to some alleged telegram from God. You seem to imply that intuition somehow follows logic in a kind of continuum, that we somehow talk ourselves into a rational conviction of advaita and then slip into a "gut-level" feeling/intuition of same. This is not correct. The soul and the subtle and gross bodies together with all their attributes and phenomena are so many sheaths (kosas, kanchukas) hiding the divine nature of the atman. You can't get there from here - mainly because there's no place to go! You already have the whole thing. Again, the Paramarthasara of Abhinavagupta: 17. Adhunaiva kinchidevedameva sarvaatmanaiva jaanaami Maayaa-sahitam kanchuka- shatkamanorantarangamidamuktam. Translation: "I know only now and know just a little and just this much of it quite completely" such is the [experience caused by the] group of six sheaths including Maayaa. These have been taken as the six interior limitations of a finite being. The remedy is not logic - it is recognition and abidance in the Self. To this end, meditation and self-enquiry are great aids, but the sine qua non is grace. By which I mean the simple receiving of a gift. Pranams, Shivaram Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2003 Report Share Posted March 30, 2003 Shanti asked: "There is one empirical proof I have (at least in my mind) about fate or predestination. When I was 19, I happened to see a reader of Surya Samhita. He took measurements of my shadow in morning sun, and came up with palm leaves with red-colored inscription of my horoscope and a narrative of my past, present and future life. I am now 73 and so far all that was read has come true. This has made me wonder: Am I simply a role predetermined for me by some unknown force? Have you any thoughts?" Again we have to differentiate between the level of the real and the level of appearance. In reality, there is no duality. There is 'only the Self'. As Ramana Maharshi said: "There is no creation, no destruction, no path, no goal, no freedom, no predestination. Nothing has happened." At the level of the appearance, the explanation given by Advaita is that past actions (including those of past lives), leave their traces and bear fruit, bringing about situations whose nature is determined by those past actions. How you react or repond now will either generate more so-called 'sanskara' (saMskAra) or use up some of that already present. (As Sadaji reminded us recently, the total sanskara carried over from the past is called saMchita, that which is actually having its effect now in this life is called prArabdha and that which is generated in response to our actions now, and will have its effect sometime in the future, is called AgAmin.) In the context of our being able to make spiritul progress along some path towards realisation, there has to be understood to be free will, otherwise life makes no sense - we might as well just stay in bed all day and wait for whatever is going to happen, happen. In fact, you could say that we have no choice but to act as though we do have free will (even though we don't). How about that for a paradox! Although our lives are totally deterministic, we do not have the information to know this in advance (unless with the benefit of a horoscope narrative such as the one you describe, but then it could never be in moment-to-moment detail). We may think that we know what we are going to do in the next hour but then an unexpected phone call could change that totally. Only if we could somehow 'stand back' and see the whole picture, past and future, would the predetermination have some relevance. I must say that I am very sceptical about astrology and all other similar subjects but then this has nothing to do with Advaita. On such topics, my mental attitude reverts to the scientific approach that I so condemn when talking about non-duality. My reading persuades me that there there is no scientific evidence to support them. Looking at your 'predictions' objectively, were they statistically so unlikely that you find yourself unable to accept that they could have not have been made by chance and/or alert observation of your behaviour and/or carefully disguised questions? The whole subject seems somewhat in the same sort of realm as the recent discussion with Benjamin about not being able to read other peoples' minds. Best wishes, Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2003 Report Share Posted March 30, 2003 Namaste: As long we have the j~nana that "Iswara" is not separate from the 'Self' there is nothing wrong in bringing 'Iswara' to dissolve our thoughts. Bhavad Gita dedicates six chapters to explain 'the role of Iswara' in the determination of tat tvam asi. Iswara also plays an integral role in Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy. Our perception of 'fate and free will' is definitely incomplete and that is the reason behind long discussions without conclusions. I also believe that your perception of 'Sadaji's recent post' is incomplete and hopefully Sadaji will enlighten our understanding and clarify what he really meant regarding the role of 'Iswara' in "Fat and Free Will.". Warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote: > I must confess that one aspect with which I have difficulty as regards this > topic is that of Iswara etc. Benjamin and Shivaram in particular seem to be > talking at great length about 'God' wanting/doing this and that. Now it > seems to me that any discussion on this list must necessarily be in the > context of j~nAna. ....... > ..... > Again, I acknowledge the reasoning behind the bhakti approach. > Sadaji explained wonderfully only last week how, perceiving > himself as limited, one must bring in an unlimited being in > order to explain creation etc. But my > point is that those Advaitins who acknowledge this and pursue the > intellectual discussions of this list ought to be beyond this, surely, or at > least unable to be taken in by such a ploy. In which case, why the > continuing references to "God's will" and God being the ultimate cause etc.? > > Well, that ought to trigger a few outraged responses! > > Best wishes, > > Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2003 Report Share Posted March 30, 2003 Hello All Advaitins, In this discussion on Free Will and Fate it is important to distinguish between reasons and causes. Broadly speaking once a person has made his decision between all the various reasons for acting in a certain way in a complex situation then that reason has become a cause. It is 'reason' in this sense that brings in the idea of freedom. In the final analysis we can always choose our attitude towards the inevitable. Even the routine established patterns were chosen at some level sometime which is why we condemn bad 'attitude'. I do not believe that there is then in the inner choice a further regress towards the determinants of that choice, there is as it were no linearity in that world, no articulation. To search for a pristine clean slate is the residue of dualistic thinking. Karma in the personal history is beginningless in the sense that you always were somewhere and making for somewhere else. But what is the context of all those contexts? Sankara puts it succintly in response to the disciple who has been pondering the mechanism of superimposition. He sums up his position: -...So it is I, a conscious being, who make that superimposition, the root of all evils, on the Self. - Thus told the teacher said, "Do not make any superimposition if you know it to be the root of all evils."(Upadesa Sahasri II.paras64/65) This I take to be the context of all contexts, the original choice. It is that which underwrites both our freedom and our bondage. Best Wishes, Michael. _______________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2003 Report Share Posted March 30, 2003 that there there is no > scientific evidence to support them. Looking at your 'predictions' > objectively, were they statistically so unlikely that you find yourself > unable to accept that they could have not have been made by chance and/or > alert observation of your behaviour and/or carefully disguised questions? > The whole subject seems somewhat in the same sort of realm as the recent > discussion with Benjamin about not being able to read other peoples' minds. > > Best wishes, > > Dennis Respected Dennisji: Thank you for your detailed response. By training and profession I am a statistician and so, I always examine if the event has occurred due to chance alone and if so what is the probability. In this case of Surya Samhita reading, the man was in a different town and had never seen me before. Furthermore, he never asked any questions and allowed me to read the narrative in sanskrit on palm leaves. My cousin who was with me did not know my birthday until he read in the first leaf which had birthday(lunar calender), time and horoscope. Furthe, the details about my father's death, his profession, the description of the town in which I was born in etc were beyond the realm of chance. I was a sceptic like you but this experience has convinced me that there is something here that needs an explanation. My idea is not to discuss validity or otherwise of astrology. It is only in the context of Fate or Freewill that I described this startling experience. Shanti 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.