Fate and Free Will

April 3, 2003

Namase Sri Ram!

I know I am sending too many messages for one member on one day, but

I would like to address what you just said about free-will (m16365).

I am not being argumentative, but I just feel strongly about this,

for what it is worth. Also, I feel that there is a great subtlety

here, which bears directly on the optimistic message you just gave

us. I may well be wrong-headed, but this is what I think at present.

I agree with you that, despite the effects of past karma, our present

decisions do indeed determine our future. But the question is, 'What

makes us decide as we do?' What makes us even WANT to be good. I

agree that once we actually FEEL like being good, then we are at

'third base', to use a baseball analogy. (I don't know the

equivalent cricket analogy.) We may still have a problem with

will-power, as when a smoker wants to quit but must fight his desire.

Still, if we really WANT to be good, then we are well on our way.

But the question is, as I said, what makes us recognize and desire

the good? This is the key question, in my opinion. And I believe

that the answer is that it is determined by long sequences of complex

psychological causes extending into our remote past. So, yes, the

criminal is ultimately not responsible for being who he is, but

society must punish him anyway, for the good of society.

My reasons for this rigid deterministic view were given in my

previous post to Sri Sadananda.

Sorry for being so stubborn! I'll try to be quiet for the rest of

the day. I must get some work done.

Om!

Benjamin

April 3, 2003

Namaste!

Ooops! One very last quick footnote. Thank you for your indulgence!

I do believe that my rigid deterministic views are in line with those

of Ramesh Balsekar, disciple of Nisargadatta, and famed Advaitin guru

in his own right. Now Guru (or would-be-Guru) name-dropping is an

ancient and hallowed Indian tradition. So you can't nail me on that

one! Enough said. :-)

Om!

Benjamin

April 3, 2003

Madathil to Dennis:

“Dennis-Ji, you seem to have overlooked the word "seeming" used by me

in parenthesis before my second parameter about "free-will".”

D: My apologies – now happy with your statements.

Madathil: “My interpretation is that it is a kind of language (like the

Egyptian

hieroglyphics), which can be read or deciphered properly if the

astrologer has Grace. Take for instance the planet Saturn. The

immediate association is a lanky, dark, bony, lazy being. There are

many other significations of course for Saturn. Similarly, with Mars,

it is a soldier, a chemist, a butcher, a surgeon and so on.

Astrology with all its planets, stars, signs etc. thus provides the

astrologer with innumerable permutations and combinations - an ocean

of significations akin to the hidden vast vistas of our moden

internet. With Grace on his side, the astrologer picks the right

interpretation to the heavenly configuration that unfolds in front of

him and predicts. It then clicks.”

D: Yes, I can accept it with this sort of description. It is a bit like the

I Ching or tarot cards, where the related stories do not in themselves mean

anything but the lateral thinking of the mind, in attempting to make a

connection, is able to look at problems in a new light and come up with

novel solutions.

Madathil:

“I have, therefore, sufficient reason to feel that this branch of astrology

supports the importance that advaita attaches to the subject as

opposed to objects.”

D: Does it? I thought that the subject-experience-object differentiation was

all a bit irrelevant, given that there is no duality? J

Ram:

“The question of God arises when scientific explanations become incomplete.

The statement, 'religion starts when science ends' is quite appropriate and

valid.”

D: In reality, as gauDapAda says: “… The ultimate truth is that nothing

whatsoever is born. The perceived world of duality, characterised by the

subject-object relationship, is verily an act of the mind.” - mANDUkya

(kArikA) IV, 71-2. I see no reason why science cannot continue to ‘explain’

more and more of the apparent creation. After all, people would presumably

have claimed that there was no way that we could ever know what was on the

other side of the moon not very long ago. In reality, of course, it is not

explaining anything because there are no separate ‘things’ to explain in the

first place. And the same argument can be applied to religion. The

supposition of a god is not explaining anything because there is no creation

to explain in the first place.

I know that I am guilty of confusing paramArtha and vyavahAra again here but

Benjamin says: “Rather my point is that the existence of anything seems to

me like a profound 'miracle' that cries out for some kind of Divine Source.

This source is 'divine' precisely because it is the source of its own being

in some unfathomable way.” It seems that statements such as that are also

confusing real and apparent. In the world of appearances we do not see a god

creating things. We are supposing that there is a god, separate from the

universe that is responsible for creating it. I.e. we are going beyond the

appearance to an imagined reality. Why? If we accept the tenets of Advaita,

why can we not just say that the appearance is just name and form imposed

upon the non dual reality, which was never created and is itself

indescribable?

Sadananda to Madathil and Dennis:

“Hence the concept of Iswara comes into picture as essential aspect of the

model to account for dRisyam or what is seen - that is source for the

objective universe.”

D: I understand what you are saying but you still do not seem to be

appreciating the point that I am trying to make. I accept that we see the

creation and would like to have some sort of reasonable explanation for how

it can be. One way of doing this is to propose a god as you suggest. Another

way, though, is to say that the creation is only apparent; that in reality

there is only Consciousness, say, and we in our ignorance are superimposing

name and form upon parts of this reality and calling them separate. Given

that we, as Advaitins, believe this latter explanation intellectually, even

though we are still within the realm of vyavahAra, why do we need the former

at all?

Michael:

“In general it could be said that free will is a working assumption of the

religious view of life. We try to gather up all the vagrant energy bound up

in addictions, obsessions and sin and having done that bind it up in

dedication and surrender. Unless we freely do this then it is an illusion

to consider that there is any merit to asceticism.”

D: All spiritual paths are only notional means towards the end of destroying

the ego. To whom is the merit?

KKT to Dennis:

“Yes, people use 'choice' and 'free will' interchangeably.

But the point is that: We have << choice >> at each moment but we are not

sure if the outcome is up to our expectation from this choice ie. we cannot

<< control >> the outcome. In this sense I think that << we have no

free-will >>”

D: I’m having some difficulty with understanding the point you are making

here. When I (think that) I choose to act in a certain way, I may well have

a particular outcome in mind but that outcome may not result for any number

of reasons that are beyond my control. There is no reason why this should

cause me to think that I had no free will, is there? For example, I decide

to go to the cinema to see a particular film. I drive to the cinema but when

I get there discover that the film has been changed to a different one that

I do not want to see. This does not mean that I did not freely choose what

to do. Can you give an example of what you mean?

Best wishes,

Dennis

April 3, 2003

--- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote:

> one unique best possibility implies determinism and excludes chance.

>

> Such is my simple-minded thinking, .

>

Benjamin, Once beliefs come into picture, there is nothing much to

argue. About the lack of chance even in quantum mechanics - I am not

sure how much Einstein will come to your rescue. Whether it is going to

be a boy or a girl or position of an electron at any moment -

probabilities or chances versus determinism - There is a big gulf. I

do not know if you are familiar with Schrodinger’s cat problem.

All I can say is I respect your beliefs.

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.

Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more

http://tax.

April 3, 2003

Namaste again Sri Sadananda!

>Benjamin, Once beliefs come into picture, there is

>nothing much to argue. About the lack of chance even

>in quantum mechanics - I am not sure how much Einstein

>will come to your rescue. Whether it is going to be a

>boy or a girl or position of an electron at any moment -

>probabilities or chances versus determinism - There is

>a big gulf. I do not know if you are familiar with

>Schrodinger's cat problem.

>

>All I can say is I respect your beliefs.

Ah, but my beliefs are not just blind, stupid beliefs. They proceed

from certain assumptions about the perfection of Brahman, and this is

different from pure whim or fancy.

Also, you have great faith in Hindu scriptures, as you frequently

quote from them with reverence, even though you also argue that the

Vedantic system is so logical and perfect and intellectually

convincing. Vedantins must have a measure of faith in the visions of

the Rishis; that is called being Astika as opposed to Nastika.

Yes I have heard of Schrodinger's cat. I also know of non-mainstream

but nevertheless reputable physicists who have a 'deterministic'

explanation for Quantum Mechanics, but where 'locality' is violated

(in a precise physical sense). I have no problem with the violation

of this so-called locality. The Consciousness is everywhere!

We can all reach enlightenment despite our views. You don't think

the followers of Ramanuja are doomed, do you?

Om to the Nth degree!

Benjamin

April 3, 2003

Namaste!

Dennis Waite says:

>I know that I am guilty of confusing paramArtha and vyavahAra

>again here but Benjamin says: "Rather my point is that the

>existence of anything seems to me like a profound 'miracle'

>that cries out for some kind of Divine Source.This source is

>'divine' precisely because it is the source of its own being

>in some unfathomable way." It seems that statements such as

>that are also confusing real and apparent. In the world of

>appearances we do not see a god creating things. We are supposing

>that there is a god, separate from the universe that is responsible

>for creating it. I.e. we are going beyond the appearance to an

>imagined reality. Why? If we accept the tenets of Advaita, why

>can we not just say that the appearance is just name and form

>imposed upon the non dual reality, which was never created and is

>itself indescribable?

I guess I seem incredibly egoistic always defending myself and

hogging the list, but I really do love and care about this stuff.

Please notice that I am now trying to be succinct.

My 'God' is not separate from the universe. It IS the 'universe',

which is none other than Consciousness, which includes the thoughts,

feelings and perceptions. I know that I am back to my previous

position, which bothered so many people, since I failed to

distinguish between Seer and seen. But I believe that at the

absolute nondual level Seer and seen must be the same, and this is

Consciousness. This is reality.

My view of the relative level is that the mind falsely imposes a

distinction between Seer and seen on the one immediate unitary

Consciousness. It is all a conceptual mistake, an attitude problem.

Basically, I am agreeing with what you just said.

The need to bring in 'God' as a source of being occurs only when we

view the 'universe' as something other than God, as we normally do.

Once we view it as God, or rather Brahman, then it is by definition

the source of its own being. But until we see this, we must assume a

'God' to account for the miracle of being. But this God is

ultimately not distinct from the miracle of being, although it may

seem that way at first. It is all Consciousness, upon which we

sometimes impose false conceptions and distinctions.

Really, I am agreeing with everyone on this list. Only, I am trying

to explain it in terms of Western philosophical concepts which seem

to cause confusion to Indians but which, in my opinion, provide

clarity. The West has indeed lacked spiritual wisdom, but it does

tend to have the virtues of analytic clarity, which enabled it to

build machines and toys to clutter our lives and annihilate each

other. But I'm not giving up my creature comforts. I've been

seduced!

Om!

Benjamin

April 3, 2003

--- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote:

>

> We can all reach enlightenment despite our views. You don't think

> the followers of Ramanuja are doomed, do you?

>

> Om to the Nth degree!

> Benjamin

>

Sure.

No I have great respect for Bhagawan Ramanuja - Many of the questions he

has raised about aj~aana are valid and but in my understanding he failed

to look at the problem correctly. But the very desire to examine the

problme itself helps slowly or ultimately to arrive at the solution to

the problem as long as one is openminded!

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.

Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more

http://tax.

April 3, 2003

Hello Benjamin-ji,

Physics is not the only Western Science out there,

right ?.

I doubt Physics and Mathematics alone can give you all

the answers.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0880382.html

and hundreds of others, like Medicine, also.

Regards

TKB

--- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote:

>

> You don't think

> the followers of Ramanuja are doomed, do you?

>

> Om to the Nth degree!

> Benjamin

Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more

http://tax.

April 3, 2003

Namaste Sri Benjamin:

I sincerely admire your conviction and willingness to take lots of

time to explain your 'belief based assumptions.' When two people

disagree then the following are the potential possibilities:

(1) Both possess blind and/or stupid beliefs

(2) One of the two possesses blind and/or stupid beliefs

(3) Neither of them possesse blind beliefs but one or both are stupid.

(4) Neither of them are stupid or blind but they perceive differently

due to 'vasanas (spiritual evolutionary paramter attributable to

socio-cultural-geographic background)'

I honestly believe that most of the discussants including you are

reasonable and are not likely fall into categories (1) to (3).

Consequently we are all potential candidates that fit category (4).

Since our perceptions are very much influenced by our beliefs, we

perceive the same truth differently and observe paradoxical

disagreements without any clue!

In support of the above assertion, you have made the following

interesting comment in your recent post to Sri Dennis: " Really, I am

agreeing with everyone on this list. Only, I am trying to explain it

in terms of Western philosophical concepts which seems to cause

confusion to Indians but which, in my opinion, provide clarity. The

West has indeed lacked spiritual wisdom, but it does tend to have the

virtues of analytic clarity, which enabled it to build machines and

toys to clutter our lives and annihilate each other. But I'm not

giving up my creature comforts. I've been seduced!"

Honestly most of us who come from the East do not lack in the virtues

of analytic clarity but with humility we do agree that we may not

possess the level of English language communication skills that

matches with those who come from English speaking countries of West.

Communication is always a two way street and both East and West get

an equal amount of confusions due to attributable problems such as

language and terminology differences.

Let take a moment to say that I agree with you on your

assertion: "The West has indeed lacked spiritual wisdom." It seems

that people from West seem to have blinded by their belief that

everything that happens in the universe should be intellectually

explainable. Consequently most of their energy is being diverted in

expanding their analytical skills with the expectation that "the

virtues of analytic clarity" will help them to explain everything.

This unending expansion path to analytical clarity has trapped them

inside a tunnel of darkness with no escape hole to recognize the

light of spiritual wisdom.

Finally our perceptions of East and West are likely incorrect and

incomplete and it just demonstrates strong evidence for our lack of

spiritual wisdom.

Warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> Ah, but my beliefs are not just blind, stupid beliefs. They

proceed

> from certain assumptions about the perfection of Brahman, and this

is

> different from pure whim or fancy.

>

April 3, 2003

Namaste Sri Ram!

I absolutely promise to go on a 'diet' in the very near

future and post a far more moderate number of messages to this site.

but I am new to this list, and I am burning with the zeal to share

some deeply cherished convictions. First it was 'Consciousness', and

now it is 'Free Will and Fate'. After these two monumental topics

are exhausted, I am sure that I will calm down and stop acfting as

though I were some kind of guru. How intolerable!

You just said:

>When two people disagree then the following are the potential

>possibilities:

>(1) Both possess blind and/or stupid beliefs

>(2) One of the two possesses blind and/or stupid beliefs

>(3) Neither of them possesses blind beliefs but one or both are stupid.

>(4) Neither of them are stupid or blind but they perceive differently

>due to 'vasanas (spiritual evolutionary paramter attributable to

>socio-cultural-geographic background)'

>I honestly believe that most of the discussants including you

>are reasonable and are not likely fall into categories (1) to (3).

>Consequently we are all potential candidates that fit category (4).

>Since our perceptions are very much influenced by our beliefs, we

>perceive the same truth differently and observe paradoxical

>disagreements without any clue!

I absolutely believe this to be true. I am absolutely convinced that

someone at the relative level actually SEES subject and object in a

palpable way (as we do). And someone at the absolute or Advaitin

level sees unity in an equally palpable way. This is actually how

reality LOOKS to them. It is not theoretical. It is as vivid as a

sunset or the scent of a rose.

Now maybe I shouldn't have said that about Western analytical skills

vs. Eastern wisdom and intuition. Of course the best thinkers both

sides possess both virtues in abundance. However, I do detect a

surplus of wisdom and intuition in the Eastern hemisphere, which I

consider by far the more important of the two virtues. And I do

detect a somewhat greater clarity in the Western realm. For example,

the Gita really combines several philosophies, Shankya, Advaita,

Yoga, ... I think that the Westerners, with their love of labels and

categories, would have distinguished them a bit more sharply.

However, as you so correctly just pointed out, these represent

different levels in the evolution of our minds, and so the Gita is

really trying to reach all of us. But the dissecting analytician

will get a bit confused sometimes...

And 'wisdom' and 'intuition' are no 'hocus pocus'. They result from

deep introspection into the inner realms of the Self, which is by far

the most important laboratory of life. I am staking my entire future

on this, far beyond the grave!!!!!

I agree about the problems of language. And a surprising number of

Indians speak excellent and literate English. Sri Madathil Nair, for

example... I think he reads some English literature behind closed

doors in the middle of night, when nobody is looking, so as not to

appear too un-Hindu! :-) Sri Venkat is similar. And others...

Pranams!

Benjamin

April 3, 2003

Michael:

"In general it could be said that free will is a working assumption of the

religious view of life. We try to gather up all the vagrant energy bound up

in addictions, obsessions and sin and having done that bind it up in

dedication and surrender. Unless we freely do this then it is an illusion

to consider that there is any merit to asceticism."

D: All spiritual paths are only notional means towards the end of destroying

the ego. To whom is the merit?

Hello Dennis,

I am rationally persuaded of the truth of Advaita but there's still more than a

tincture of ajnana adhering to me. The path has been expressed as 'first you

see the light, then you are in the light, then you are the light'. I'm

fortunate to have a living Master and I know that such a one can teach you at a

cellular level. For instance you may advaitically believe that all realised

saints are manifestations of a single reality, we all are but they know this.

I had a dream in which the Master granted me an interview, gave me coffee and

fed me. Santosh (very happy) but I felt that this was just a dream as this is

not the way that He was dealing with me up to this and I didn't expect it to

come to pass. Some weeks later myself and a friend went on a tour and we

fetched up at the ashram of a Divine Mother (Jillelamudi Ama now deceased). I

think all we knew of Her was Her picture on a calender with the address

nr.Bapatla on the Vijayawada line. When we arrived there, a very small place,

we were introduced to Her and She did everything that the Master had done in

the dream.

When we were leaving there I was bold enough to ask

-Does the Mother have any instruction for us?

The answer came back (translated to us):

-The Divine Mother doesn't give any instruction.

Best Wishes, Michael.

April 3, 2003

--- Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

> Sadananda to Madathil and Dennis:

> “Hence the concept of Iswara comes into picture as essential aspect of

> the

> model to account for dRisyam or what is seen - that is source for the

> objective universe.”

>

> D: I understand what you are saying but you still do not seem to be

> appreciating the point that I am trying to make. I accept that we see

> the

> creation and would like to have some sort of reasonable explanation

> for how

> it can be. One way of doing this is to propose a god as you suggest.

> Another

> way, though, is to say that the creation is only apparent; that in

> reality

> there is only Consciousness, say, and we in our ignorance are

> superimposing

> name and form upon parts of this reality and calling them separate.

> Given

> that we, as Advaitins, believe this latter explanation intellectually,

> even

> though we are still within the realm of vyavahAra, why do we need the

> former

> at all?

Dennis - I do understand what you saying. One is seeing the plurality as

reality and second stage learning that the plurality that we see is only

apparent and the bottom line is consciousness that pervades everything

such as the gold pervading the ornaments. Yes intellectual appreciation

is one thing understanding as a fact is another. In the intellectual

appreciation you are already started the journey towards Advaita. The

purpose of other understanding for those who think plurality is reality,

the concept of Iswara is to help them to surrender the ahankaara which

block the intellectual understanding from factual understanding. J~naana

yoga is precisely what you are advocating - Absolutely nothing wrong

with that.

It is like in Vedanta class - discussing that happiness is not out there

but it is oneself etc and after such serious discussion, the organizer

announced, let us have a coffee break now and we will continue the

discussions again after the break. What does that mean? Why coffee

break when the happiness is coming from oneself and not from coffee. It

is difficult to get out of attachments unless one is attached to higher.

If j~naana inspires one then it is O.K. but most of us, we discuss at

length, after we have comfortable shelter over the head , stomach is

full, air conditioner on, no mosquitoes around and no teenager in the

next room blasting disco music. Not that Iswara will help in all these

but the mind finds a solace from misery and suffering, if one feels that

there is something superior intellect to take care of all these.

Dennis I don’t know if you have read "Iswara Dashing" by Swami Tapovan.

It is the autobiography of Swamiji who was the teacher of Swami

Chinmayanandaji. It is beautiful, I strongly recommend everyone to

read. Once Swamiji was waking in the forest and as usual he never

carried anything with him. People have warned him not to walk through

the forest since it is infested by robbers, who even kill to get what

they want. As Swamiji walking that day, he got lost in the forest .

He was feeling hungry and no end of the dense forest and he was going

round and round. Swamiji in a way not concerned and only started

wondering where the Lord is going to lead him and how He is going to

feed him and so on. Soon he was spotted by a gang of robbers and they

approached him and after examining him thoroughly, found out that he is

a real swami, and stared discussing with him about Vedanta. They

started offering him their own food and shelter and acted like guides

for him to cross the forest safely. Swamiji concludes his story saying

that mysterious is His ways full of surprises and revelations. Swami

Chinmayanandaji used to tell us his wondering in the Himalaya-s with his

Guru. Once Tapovan stopped walking suddenly and showed his disciples a

small lizard walking across the road- What a beauty and what a creation

how great is that designer who designed such a thing of beauty- marveled

Tapovanji. He soon got lost himself in meditation. The point is one

can say this is all evolution or nature etc but these are just words

with no impact. The forces behind those nature’s evolution are well

defined - whether the evolution is driven by self-survival instincts -

One cannot but admire the beauty and wonder of the creation or

manifestation! - Looking at the Niagara falls or beautiful sun set from

Greek islands –or reading Geetanjali describing the beauty of a that

great painter who painted all this. One can of course say that all

these noting but consciousness - but remember consciousness is only

bottom line and from its point the apparent need not appear too. The

fact that it appears and that too in such beautiful majestic form with

all laws and rules impeccably accurate and universal - that is aiswaryam

or glory of whatever that cause that manifests.

Yes I hear what you are saying at the same time I am still down to earth

with recognizing the plurality and the beauty behind each one. Most

educational for me is the watching the play of our cat. Divine play is

even more enchanting to watch, I guess.

Dennis I leave you to your superimpositions on consciousness but I

enjoyed the seeing the magnificent sea shore at your place even though

it is apparent superimposition on that consciousness.

We will be talking more of this when we discuss J~naana and Bhakti or

should I say without preempting the subject bhatiruupaka J~naana.

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.

Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more

http://tax.

April 4, 2003

Namaste:

Interestingly the entire discussion of 'fate and free-will' and even

any discussion that negates Ishwara is also part of the 'Glories of

the Lord.' This is the subtle message of chapter which describes the

glories of the Lord!

The list discussion reminds me of a musical concert where every

discussant plays an instrument of his/her choice to please the

listening audience of silent members. The performers of advaitin

music concert do need to follow rules and regulations of music and

have to synchornize the tune (sruti). Iswara is the subtle

invisible 'sruti' that becomes essential for the success of the

concert! It is impossible for anyone to ignore the experience of

the "Glories of the Lord."

regards,

Ram Chandran

advaitin, "S. Venkatraman" <venkat52@s...>

wrote:

>

> 2. The moderators of advaitins in their free will decided to

discuss

> the 10th chapter of Bhagwad Gita dealing mainly with the Glories of

> the Lord. But they were fated to discuss 'Fate and Free will'

>

April 4, 2003

Namaste!

Venkat said:

>1. As we all know Benjamin is a man of many words

>and he certainly believes in keeping them all (even

>while sharing them with all of us). So after arguing

>admirably the case of fate in his last few posts, when

>he told Ramji that he intends to make his post to him the

>last one for 3rd April, 2003, he really meant to keep his

>word. But by assuming that he had free will in this regard,

>he put himself in the unenviable position of creating a

>conflict between 'His Word' and 'His Theory'. So when he

>was compelled to rush in almost immediately after hitting

>the 'send' button to provide us with the additional

>'Ramesh Balsekar' argument in favour of his theory and

>thereafter to reply Dennis and Sadaji, 'His Theory' won by

>a knock-out in the 43rd second of the first round itself.

Dear Venkat,

I might be a bit worried about sarcasm here, if I didn't know from

previous messages that you are friendly and full of humor. But I

really will cut down severely on the number of messages. In fact, I

pledge to make this the first and last of the day. Let's see if I

can do it, or if I am developing an addiction as pernicious as drugs.

As for the quantity of words... I hope that you have noticed that I

have tried to be more concise lately. Also, when one really cares

about an argument, one wants to bolster it as much as possible.

Bringing Ramesh in seemed legitimate to give my austere determinism

credibility. He is a foremost living authority on Advaita, and he

clearly believes in thorough determinism as the Will of God. It is

natural for most people to rebel against this notion.

Above all, please believe that I had truly a burning zeal for this

subject matter. I swear it was not grandstanding or self-indulgence.

There was a lot of intense emotion, though perhaps a little too much

of the rajasic kind and not enough of the sattvic kind. Bhaktis can

be rajasic, but we Advaitins are supposed to be sattvic. And

concise...

Take care all Advaitins.

Om!

Benjamin

April 4, 2003

Benjamin:

"Here is a quotation from the Perennial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley (1946).

I'm not saying that I agree with this, only that it is food for thought

related to our topic:

'Karma,' according to the Hindus, 'never dispels ignorance, being under the

same category with it. Knowledge alone dispels ignorance, just as light

alone dispels darkness.' In other words, the causal process takes place

within time and cannot

possibly result in deliverance from time."

D: Definitely agree with all this.

Benjamin:

"Such a deliverance can only be achieved as a consequence of the

intervention of eternity in the temporal domain; and eternity cannot

intervene unless the individual will makes a creative act of self-denial,

thus producing, as it were,

a vacuum into which eternity can flow."

D: But this is introducing anthropomorphism again, as well as proposing that

one can 'make a creative act' - I thought you had already conceded that

there is no free-will. Also there is no 'act' in the process of

'enlightenment' nor any 'one' to become enlightened. The 'who' who would be

acting creatively doesn't exist.

Sadananda to Benjamin:

"Benjamin - your arguments are logical - except we need to introduce some

probabilities into the model. Let us extend the model - suppose Cause A can

lead to there possible events, say in an unbiased case - three possible

events could be -B,C,D (B=to do, C=not to do and D= to do another way!-

since these include all possibilities)..."

D: Some excellent stuff here. I think I agree with most of what has been

said here. However, there is one key thread in the argument that I do not

fully understand. Would it be possible to elucidate further? The sentence in

question is:

"In the vyavahaara - the jiiva excludes himself as if separate from the

total system and assumes that there is world out there - Looking from that

defective angle he cannot but conclude that he has free-will - since that

very exclusion involves exercise of free-will."

Surely, when we 'look at the world', we normally assume that we ARE part of

it don't we? And I don't follow the logic of concluding that we have free

will if we assumed we were separate. Why would the assumption that we are

separate involve an exercise of free will? It still seems to me that any

assumption is just an idea that arises as a direct consequence of previous

ideas, i.e. no free will. You go on to say that if we do include ourselves

in the system, it collapses to paramArtha. Why?

It seems that there is another danger happening here, namely that (because

we understand the teachings of Advaita) we assume that the truths apply even

within vyavahAra. Of course they do (in reality) but whilst we are in the

realms of appearance we should not be making those assumptions. i.e. in

vyavahAra it is perfectly acceptable to have many consciousnesses, of which

I am just one observing the other ones and things around me.

Ram: Superb essay on the traditional view of the topic.

D: No arguments at all. And,of course, you will agree that all of this

applies at the vyavahArika level only. I merely maintain that, even at this

level, it is possible to see that there is no free will, even though the

lawful nature of karma, purushArtha etc. continues as before. I believe that

I have no choice but to put in self-effort (or not) driven by others,

thoughts, etc. etc. in a deterministic manner.

Benjamin to Sadananda:

"The reason I believe in determinism is that I think that the laws of nature

and karma (which are different aspects of the same thing) represent God's

(or Ishwara's) choice of what is 'best' for the world, specifically for the

evolution of our consciousness, which is the purpose of this world." And

then: "Indeed, in my view, God has no choice."

D: Are these statements not contradictory? You also talk about the 'purpose'

of this world. Isn't that again implying free will on the part of a creator?

Benjamin to Ram:

"But the question is, as I said, what makes us recognize and desire the

good? This is the key question, in my opinion. And I believe that the

answer is that it is determined by long sequences of complex psychological

causes extending into our remote past."

D: Yes, here we are back in agreement again!

Benjamin to Dennis:

"My 'God' is not separate from the universe. It IS the 'universe', which is

none other than Consciousness...But I believe that at the absolute

nondual level Seer and seen must be the same, and this is Consciousness.

This is reality."

D: But this is paramArtha again, not vyavahAra. Which are you wanting to

talk about? At the level of reality, noumenal or paramArtha, there is no

duality - call it Absolute, Consciousness or God, I don't really mind. No

one is disagreeing with you on any of this. But it does not tally with what

you said previously: "Rather my point is that the existence of anything

seems to me like a profound 'miracle' that cries out for some kind of Divine

Source". 'Existence' of 'things' only has meaning at the relative level,

appearance or vyavahAra.

Benjamin:

"Only, I am trying to explain it in terms of Western philosophical concepts

which seem to cause confusion to Indians but which, in my opinion, provide

clarity."

D: I think I would have argued the opposite - Western phiolosophers are

confused and propogate that in what they say but Eastern philosophy (shorn

of the mythical overtones admittedly) offers clarity.

Best wishes to all,

Dennis

April 4, 2003

--- Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

> Benjamin:

> "Here is a quotation from the Perennial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley

> (1946).

> I'm not saying that I agree with this, only that it is food for

> thought

> related to our topic:

> 'Karma,' according to the Hindus, 'never dispels ignorance, being

> under the

> same category with it. Knowledge alone dispels ignorance, just as

> light

> alone dispels darkness.' In other words, the causal process takes

> place

> within time and cannot

> possibly result in deliverance from time."

>

> D: Definitely agree with all this.

Benjamin and Dennis, Just to set the record straight - the quote is

actually the exact translation of sloka from Atmabodha of Adi Shankara.

aviroditayaa karma avidyaam na vinivartayet|

vidyaa avidyam nihantyeva tejas timira sanghavat||

But not all Hindu's for that- Ramanuja and Madhava emphasize

karma all the time as part of Upaasana - a required ingredient for

moksha - After all in moksha - jiiva-s while enjoying all the beauty,

still have to sever the Lord and service involves action. There are

those who believe that a mixture of karma and j~naana is required -

since ignorance, according to them involves lack of understanding the

fact that you are dependent on the Lord - your free-will is cut to half!

Shankara takes their view as puurvapaksha in dismissing their theory of

moksha.

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.

Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more

http://tax.

April 4, 2003

--- Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

>

> Sadananda to Benjamin:

> However, there is one key thread in the argument that I do

> not

> fully understand. Would it be possible to elucidate further? The

> sentence in

> question is:

> "In the vyavahaara - the jiiva excludes himself as if separate from

> the

> total system and assumes that there is world out there - Looking from

> that

> defective angle he cannot but conclude that he has free-will - since

> that

> very exclusion involves exercise of free-will.

> Surely, when we 'look at the world', we normally assume that we ARE

> part of

> it don't we?

Dennis - here is my understanding of the model.

When we look at the world, as we are doing in analyzing the Benjamin's

world(!), whether we recognize it or not, we exclude ourselves as the

analysts who are analyzing the object of the analysis - the world - this

is the same situation in seer, seeing and seen or subject-object- and

objectifying.

> And I don't follow the logic of concluding that we have

> free

> will if we assumed we were separate. Why would the assumption that we

> are

> separate involve an exercise of free will?

I look at it this way! 1) Since I want to analyze the system, and for

my analysis I objectify the system separate from the subject, who is

analyzing the system - The exclusion is brought about by my wanting to

analyze the system and in the process I am exercising my free-will,

whether I recognize it or not. 2) In addition, I consider myself

separate from the universe, since I take myself to be a conscious entity

and the world is Jadam or inert entity - I cannot be jadam. 3)

Furthermore, I consider myself that I have the (presumed) capability to

exclude myself from the system to analyze the system - I exercise that

presumed capability. - Here in these discussions as well as in the

choice to participate or remain as silent participant or desiring to

remain silent hereafter to these discussions, all involve

objectification, that is the essential ingredient inherent in all

vyavahaara. That is the reason why Vedanta keeps insisting that as long

as jiiva notion is there - he already has the notion that he is separate

from the universe and hence Iswara. I have discussed all these aspects

in discussing adhyaasa - kartR^itva bhaava as well as bhoktRitvabhaava

are part of the extension of 'I am a jiiva", separate from the rest of

the universe that is jadam. Hence the very separation of the jiiva from

the universe involves exercising the apparent free will which is

apparently real as long as jiiva notion is considered as real. The

ontological status of both remain the same. You may argue against it -

but the very argument itself is an exercise of the free fell - it is

like saying on top of ones voice - I have no tongue to speak". As I

mentioned before, the difference between jiiva and j~naani is, for both

of them the apparent still remains apparent, but one thinks that that

apparent is real and the other knows that it is only apparent.

It still seems to me that

> any

> assumption is just an idea that arises as a direct consequence of

> previous

> ideas, i.e. no free will.

Yes or no - you are right about that - it follows not from an assumption

that I have free will or not - it follows by my assertion that I want to

analyze the system and that involves exercising the will to analyze the

system that is inherent in vyavahaara.

I realize what you are concluding - but the inherency is not due to

defective in my logic but inherent in the vyavahaara itself. That is why

I keep saying that it is apparently real but not absolutely real. For

absolutely real you are already jumping to paaramaartika. The rest of

the arguments as I mentioned before is putting one leg on vyavahaara and

arguing from paaramaartika point. Nothing wrong in it as long as one

recognizes that and do not fall into pray - in rejecting sadhana and

yoga - which are based on presumption of free-will.

Bottom lime from my understanding - free will exists as long as jiiva

notion is there - when jiiva notion is transcended then concept of

free-will also dissolves - This is required to account disparities in

the karma and results of karma - prarabda, sanchita and aagami- as Ram

rightly brought out in his post. Karma and sadhana are all in the same

level (ontologically speaking)

> You go on to say that if we do include

> ourselves

> in the system, it collapses to paramArtha. Why?

That is simple when the subject is included the object - subject is part

of the object and if one analyses such system - the analysis itself ends

into the analyst alone since - if that is done correctly - the analyst

concludes or realizes that he alone is real the rest is only apparent -

He becomes j~naani - Hence Ramana says " analyze the analyst".

>

> It seems that there is another danger happening here, namely that

> (because

> we understand the teachings of Advaita) we assume that the truths

> apply even

> within vyavahAra.

Dennis - yes your are right - we need to watch out the danger in mixing

vyvahaara and paramaarthika and from what reference we are addressing

the issue - and believe me or not that is exactly the point I have been

raising all along.

Of course they do (in reality) but whilst we are in

> the

> realms of appearance we should not be making those assumptions. i.e.

> in

> vyavahAra it is perfectly acceptable to have many consciousness, of

> which

> I am just one observing the other ones and things around me.

you are right if I understand your sentence correctly - that "I am

observing many consciounesses - cannot be established logically.

But in vyavahaara - there is inherent assumption that I am a jiiva and

there are many other jiiva-s and there are distinctions between one

jiiva and the other jiiva-s and jiiva and jagat. Shankara argues that

that is apparently true in the realm of vyavahaara. This Sagaati,

vijaati and swagata bheda-s are inherent in Jiiva-hood or jiiva notion.

You can present different models but those models either based on

vyavahaara or paramaarthika. As long as one understand clear

demarcations there is no problem. Otherwise the problem reduces to the

fellow who screams that he has not tongue to speak.

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.

Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more

http://tax.

April 4, 2003

Namaste.

Thanks Shri Benjamin.

My pronunciation is horrible. You are lucky you don't have to listen

to me.

I am a lover of English poetry. However, for many years now, I

haven't read anything new. Even keeping abreast of Advaitin is

difficut these days.

I believe I don't either look or sound Hindu. So, my doors are open

even at midnight when I pour over old Browning or Wordsworth. I

always expect the stars to come in and give me company.

I can never accept the word Hindu. It is a very recent coinage, not

very indigenously rooted, perhaps invented by India's European

administrators who wanted to bottle up and label a vast ocean of

unnameable and problematic humanity.

Best regards.

Madathil Nair

____

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

> I agree about the problems of language. And a surprising number of

> Indians speak excellent and literate English. Sri Madathil Nair,

for

> example... I think he reads some English literature behind closed

> doors in the middle of night, when nobody is looking, so as not to

> appear too un-Hindu! :-) Sri Venkat is similar. And others...

April 5, 2003

Hindu ,I think is derived from:

(S)indhu >Hindu by the Arabs who put a " H" before "i"

chilukuri bhuvaneswar

On Sat, 05 Apr 2003 Madathil Rajendran Nair wrote :

>Namaste.

>

>Thanks Shri Benjamin.

>

>My pronunciation is horrible. You are lucky you don't have to

>listen

>to me.

>

>I am a lover of English poetry. However, for many years now, I

>haven't read anything new. Even keeping abreast of Advaitin is

>difficut these days.

>

>I believe I don't either look or sound Hindu. So, my doors are

>open

>even at midnight when I pour over old Browning or Wordsworth.

>I

>always expect the stars to come in and give me company.

>

>I can never accept the word Hindu. It is a very recent coinage,

>not

>very indigenously rooted, perhaps invented by India's European

>administrators who wanted to bottle up and label a vast ocean

>of

>unnameable and problematic humanity.

>

>Best regards.

>

>Madathil Nair

>____

>

>advaitin, Benjamin Root

><orion777ben>

>wrote:

>

> > I agree about the problems of language. And a surprising

>number of

> > Indians speak excellent and literate English. Sri Madathil

>Nair,

>for

> > example... I think he reads some English literature behind

>closed

> > doors in the middle of night, when nobody is looking, so as

>not to

> > appear too un-Hindu! :-) Sri Venkat is similar. And

>others...

>

>------------------------ Sponsor

>

>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

>

_____________________

Odomos - the only mosquito protection outside 4 walls -

Click here to know more!

http://r.rediff.com/r?http://clients.rediff.com/odomos/Odomos.htm&&odomos&&wn

April 5, 2003

Dear Benjamin,

I want to assure you that my message was entirely in jest and did not

intend any sarcasm whatsoever. Please continue the way you normally

do. I immensely enjoy reading your messages.

In this part of the world we sleep when you are all awake in the US.

So every day I wake up to a great morning when I get to read the

messages of Shri Dennis, Sadaji, Ramji and your replies to them.

Today as usual their messages were there, but not your well argued

rejoinders. I want you to know I missed them very much.

Regards,

Venkat

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

> Dear Venkat,

>

> I might be a bit worried about sarcasm here, if I didn't know from

> previous messages that you are friendly and full of humor. But I

> really will cut down severely on the number of messages.

April 5, 2003

Namaste Sadanandaji,

I have to once again paraphrase your statement in my own words just

to confirm that my understanding is correct:

> Bottom lime from my understanding - free will exists as long as

jiiva

> notion is there - when jiiva notion is transcended then concept of

> free-will also dissolves - This is required to account disparities

in

> the karma and results of karma - prarabda, sanchita and aagami- as

Ram

> rightly brought out in his post. Karma and sadhana are all in the

same

> level (ontologically speaking)

Jiiva-hood itself is due to a mistake and hence is only apparent and

not real. So the free will which exists only as long as jiiva notion

lasts, is also only apparent. But it seems real as long as the

mistake of jiiva-hood continues.

Did I get you right? If so I would like to bring to your attention an

argument which says that there is no free will even in jiiva-hood. It

is advanced by Ramesh Balsekar whose satsanghs I attend whenever

possible in Mumbai. He recommends only one spiritual sadhana to

people who seek his advise. He asks them to spend 15-20 mins at the

end of a day to analyse objectively and honestly one or two of their

actions which they feel are certainly due to their own volition. I

have done this analysis many times and the chain of causation

invariably leads to a thought and I simply cannot fugure out from

where that thought arose. According to Balsekar 'a thought arises,

when out of thousands of probabilities one probability collapses in

to an actuality. And nobody can ever say which one will do so at any

time'. So his theory is that even in phenomenality there is no free

will. I have even asked him,'In that case, Does not my very attending

his satsanghs become pointless?'. And for that his advise to me

usually has been that I should behave in exactly the same way I would

have done - lovingly, intelligently, thoughtfully or whatever else

would be to my taste- had I not come to him.

I do not think Balsekar's argument errs anywhere by having one leg in

paaramaathika and another in vyaavahaarika. You say in the apparent

jiiva-hood we have real free will. But according to Balsekar, we do

not have any free will even in apparent jiva-hood. Both of you appear

to be right to me. How do I reconcile the two?

Pranams,

Venkat.

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

>

April 5, 2003

--- "S. Venkatraman" <venkat52 wrote:

> Namaste Sadanandaji,

> Jiiva-hood itself is due to a mistake and hence is only apparent and

> not real. So the free will which exists only as long as jiiva notion

> lasts, is also only apparent. But it seems real as long as the

> mistake of jiiva-hood continues.

> Did I get you right?

Yes. Your understanding is right based on my understanding of Krishna

and Shankara.

Venkat - It is difficult for me to comment on the statements of another

teacher - first it is a direct advice to a student and any teacher's

advice to a particular student - is like doctor's prescription to a

particular patient and will be specific to the symptoms of the patient

in front. It will be contextual.

>He recommends only one spiritual sadhana to

> people who seek his advise. He asks them to spend 15-20 mins at the

> end of a day to analyze objectively and honestly one or two of their

> actions which they feel are certainly due to their own volition.

Now I would ask seriously - if he asking them to spend some time - is

that by free-will or is it by fate. one has to be careful to read

between the lines.

I would like to make a general comment - not directed to any particular

teacher.

This is exactly reason why scripture becomes ultimate pramaNa and right

teacher is one who directs his disciples to the scriptures and not to

him as the authority. But again a particular advise is context specific

and one has to be careful in extending that advise across the board.

> I do not think Balsekar's argument errs anywhere by having one leg in

> paaramaathika and another in vyaavahaarika. You say in the apparent

> jiiva-hood we have real free will. But according to Balsekar, we do

> not have any free will even in apparent jiva-hood. Both of you appear

> to be right to me. How do I reconcile the two?

My friend -I tried to be very careful in my statements - first I

paraphrase that it is my understanding. Second I tried to present as

logically as possible because of my own background or training. Third as

Benjamin noted, I tried to provide scriptural statement in support or

reference to Shankara to what I say, not to impress any body, not out of

reverence to scriptures, but to come across that my understanding has

some scriptural basis.

My best advise for you is to evaluate (exercising your free will!) all

the inputs from all these discussions and come to some understanding

based on your experience. We are all lucky that we have this forum to

discuss these things and look at the problem from different

perspectives. When the arguments are contradictory, then one has to come

to conclusion by oneself based on all the input. One should not reject

the arguments nor one can accept all the arguments - one has to analyze

the input to the best that one can and come to conclusion that is open

to modification based on further input. That is how any knowledge grows

- is it not?

Hari OM!

Sadananda

> Pranams,

> Venkat.

>

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more

http://tax.

April 5, 2003

Dear Vankat-ji,