Fate and Free Will

[Guest guest]

IN THE COURT OF ADVAITINS

Before Justice - Ishwara

A partial recording of the proceedings in case No 12757 (Ishwara has

a lot business on hand)

 

FATE Vs. FREE WILL

 

Evidence of Independent Witness 'Consciousness'

 

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.

 

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'

 

With that Your Honour, 'I-I' rest my case.

 

Overheard by,

venkat

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> Namase Sri Ram!

>

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

but --------------

> I'll try to be quiet for the rest of

> the day. I must get some work done.

>

> Om!

> Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Hello Dennis,

 

'But this reality, mayvic reality is an illusion and part of the illusion is the

idea that our will is free'

Is it possible to partition off the problem of free-will from the total advaitic

vision as being part of relative reality? It should be possible to consider it

separately from Karma, destiny and predestination. The latter essentially comes

into play when God is posited as the player who knows which way the dice will

fall. I've never been able to understand how that made a difference to

free-will as such. Other theological considerations such as the role of grace

give additional room for puzzles. 'Whatever I get I deserve in divine justice so

grace is only the bhakta's worship and self-abnegation'. These are the

controversies that rage wherever theologians gather.

 

The strong point of advaita is that its central insights come from a

consideration of consciousnes/awareness right here right now, the articulation

of its modalities (waking, dreaming and deep sleep) and that sruti note (the

chanter reed in the bagpipes) that runs through the whole. I mean the Self.

Liberation as I understand the concept is a change of context or the context of

contexts. Not any one bit of our present context such as free-will is false

within the whole. It is the totality that is in question. It is interesting

that Sankara has a common sense view of perception and freedom of the will. Did

he have much to say about that sort of freedom other that the quoted triad? It

would be impertinance for me to construct his answer to the problem.

 

My own view just looking at the moral plane is that there is confusion at two

levels (a) in the act itself between reasons and causes. A reason becomes a

cause after the act.

(b) even that coupling of reason and cause is loose talk. A cause in the moral

sense does not function in the same manner as physical causality which is

sequential in the European view of causality: a causes b causes c.

Interestingly Sankara's view of causality, based on the satkaryavada theory of

the Samkhyas, is that of transformation (act and potency). This would be akin

to Aristotle's idea of a Final Cause. That view of causality would imply on the

moral plane motive coming from what is not yet in existence. Nothing is at the

heart of freedom.

 

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose,

Nothing aint worth nothing but it's free.(garbled song/Me andBobby McGee)

 

Best Wishes, Michael.

[Guest guest]

Benjamin to Ram:

"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."

 

D: I don't think you can say things like this. Again there is this confusion

of levels. In reality there are no subjects and objects. How can 'someone'

see 'unity'? It doesn't make any sense. If to us there appears to be an

individual in whom we believe there is enlightenment, my understanding is

that that person sees exactly the same as we do. How could it be otherwise

if they are to continue to function in the world? The difference is that

they know that it is only an appearance and that in reality there is no

duality. I would like to hear Greg's view on this.

 

Michael to Dennis:

"The path has been expressed as 'first you see the light, then you are in

the light, then you are the light'."

 

D: I haven't heard that one before. I like it! Nice story, incidentally.

 

Sadananda to Dennis:

"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."

 

D: Yes, I understand what you are saying. I agree that I tend to

intellectualise too much! However, I do occasionally just see and appreciate

the beauty of nature (and even try to capture it on film with macro

photography, which I have been interested in for the past 20+ years).

(Actually, of course, on re-reading this, what I have said means that I am

NOT just seeing and appreciating! When will I learn?) I eagerly await the

j~nAna-bhakti discussion!

 

Venkat:

"IN THE COURT OF ADVAITINS

Before Justice - Ishwara"

 

D: Much enjoyed! (or LOL as they say on other lists!)

 

Benjamin to Dennis:

"This is not breaking my pledge to remain silent."

 

D: !

 

Benjamin: "What you attribute to me was still Aldous Huxley speaking."

 

D: Have you got his email address then so that I can query what he was

saying? :-)

 

Sadananda to Benjamin and Dennis:

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

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

 

D: Gulp! Can I take back all that I said? No, seriously, my question did not

relate to the first part - I have no problem with that - but with the

subsequent statement.

 

Sadananda to Dennis:

"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."

 

D: OK, I guess I can accept this.

 

Sadananda:

"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."

 

D: Sorry, I do not follow. I have accepted that the analysis effectively

excludes ourself as the analyst and I accept that we want to analyse it in

this way. But I do not see where free will comes in. It is my scientific

education and academic background and lifetime working with computers that

brings about this way of thinking, All cause and effect, nothing to do with

free will.

 

Sadananda:

"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."

 

D: We are talking vyavahAra, yes? I do not think like this at that level. I

see objects and other people in the world and accept that all is part of the

world. These other people have consciousness just as I do. Why should I

consider myself separate from the universe?

 

Sadananda:

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

exclude myself from the system to analyze the system."

 

D: I don't think that I really do consider this. The scientist recognises

that he is part of the system he is trying to analyse. Perhaps chemists and

physicists may occasionally be able to conduct their experiments inside

evacuated chambers but certainly psychologists for example never have this

luxury.

 

Sadananda:

"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'"

 

D: Apologies if this is the case - can you refer me to the relevant

English-related sections, I'm afraid I never learnt the Sanskrit terms and

do not recognise them. Surely adhyAsa is explaining how it is that we

confuse real and appearance, not anything to do with free will?

 

Sadananda:

"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."

 

D: Sorry, the 'hence' in this sentence doesn't carry any weight for me since

I do not appreciate the arguments preceding it.

 

Sadananda:

"You may argue against it - but the very argument itself is an exercise of

the free will - it is like saying on top of ones voice - I have no tongue

to speak".

 

D: I do argue against it but, as before, I see this argument as inevitable

given that I do not yet appreciate your arguments, my nature is to argue

until I do understand etc. No free will.

 

Sadananda:

"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."

 

D: Agree with this - I've said it lots of times too. I don't see the

connection with what went before however.

 

Hope we are both slowly moving towards an appreciation of what the other is

saying! Seems like hard work!

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

The assertions of both Sri Sadananda and Sri Balsekar are both

correct within the confinement of the underlined assumptions!

 

The question, what is real? is tall and we can't measure its height

because we don't know the top or bottom. While we are in a dream,

everything is real during the entire duration of the dream. Only

after we wake up from the dream we realize and negate our experience

during the dream as 'unreal!'

 

The jnani is the awakened dreamer who could negate the experience and

notions of jiva as unreal. No one can dispute that all notions

including the notion of 'free-will' is attributable to jiva.

 

In Sri Balsekar's framework, the 'notion of jiva' doesn't exist and

consequently free-will doesn't exist.

 

Sri Sadananda's framework is an elaboration of the statement: "If it

is so then it will be so." This is quite useful and become neccessary

to understand Shankara's advatiata philosophy that distinguishes

between 'Paramarthika' and vyavaharika levels of realities. When we

know 'it is not so' then everything else that come when 'it is so'

also go away! In this case when we rule out the existence of jiva

then 'free-will' is also ruled out.

 

Is it not true that Sri Balsekar and Sri Sadananda mean the same even

though they appear to be contradictory? Let us not jump into any

conclusion without fully understand the theorems, corollaries and

implied assumptions. In the present context, honestly Sri Balsekar

didn't invent anything new other than whatever already present in

Shankara's advaita philosophy.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "phamdluan2000" <phamdluan@a...>

wrote:

>

> KKT: If free will exists

> only as long as jiiva notion lasts

> and since jiiva-hood is only apparent

> therefore free will is also apparent.

>

> How could something << apparent >>

> be considered as << real >> ?

>

> I think Balsekar is correct

> in saying that there is no free will at all.

>

> He insists alot on the non-doership

> and often mentions this Buddhist phrase:

>

> << There is doing but no doer >>

>

>

> Namaste,

>

>

> KKT

>

>

> PS. I think the advice

> Ramesh gives you is very helpful.

> It helps one to become << impassive >>

> towards the notion of doership.

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

Sri Venkat:

>He [Ramesh Balsekar] 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

>figure out from where that thought arose.

 

I agree with Ramesh Balsekar that the notion free-will is untenable,

even in the relative Jiva state, and his prescribed sadhana

illustrates this well, as you discovered. What do we mean by

free-will, anyway? If we are honest, then we will realize that our

everyday notion of it simply means being able to do what we want to

do. A desire to do some action arises, and we can either do it or

not, depending on our physical and mental circumstances. That is

what we mean when we say, 'I am free to do this or that.'

 

But this is a trivial notion of free-will. The real question is why

we have the desire in the first place (which can be a desire for

spiritual progress as well as for some pleasure). That is the real

mystery and the essential point. And as you correctly point out,

this seems to arise in a spontaneous way, though I would ascribe it

to our vasanas (accumulated habits and mental inclinations).

 

What we must do is change these vasanas. This takes time and

practice, but the mere desire to change these vasanas arises from

past vasanas, such as those acquired through the spiritual guidance

of parents and gurus, or from the lessons learned from painful

experiences in life. And this again is cause and effect. It is all

cause and effect in the phenomenal world. There is no free-will. It

is not even a meaningful concept, since it really only means, 'Can I

satisfy my desires?' The question is WHY we have certain

inclinations. THAT is the source of our problems (or lack thereof).

 

 

Sri Svahauk:

>The latter essentially comes into play when God is posited as

>the player who knows which way the dice will fall. I've never

>been able to understand how that made a difference to free-will

>as such...

 

This illustrates another side to the absurdity of free-will. If God

knows the future, as he presumably does, then what sense does it make

to talk of free-will? The script is already written. As I said, our

notion of free-will really just means being able to do what we want

to do. We rarely ask WHY we want to do what we want to do, and when

we do ask this question, we open ourselves to spiritual progress, as

the very question starts to melt vasanas.

 

 

Sri Dennis:

>>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."

>

>D: I don't think you can say things like this. Again there is

>this confusion of levels. In reality there are no subjects and

>objects. How can 'someone' see 'unity'?

 

I guess you are right that the word 'LOOKS' is inappropriate,

suggesting as it does a subject-object duality. I simply meant the

nondual experience itself, whatever it is, as when we say 'spiritual

vision'. (No, not the angels floating in the sky but the outlook of,

say, a Ramana.) The utterances of the ancient Rishis must have

proceeded from intense experiences and not as the topic of idle

philosophical debate. That is all I was saying.

 

 

Sri Sadanda:

>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."

 

Sorry, but I agree with Dennis that I do not follow your argument.

It seems to me that a robot could objectively analyze a system ...

assuming the robot is conscious! Surely the robot has no free-will.

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

Dennis to Benjamin:

> D: I don't think you can say things like this. Again there is this

confusion

> of levels. In reality there are no subjects and objects. How

can 'someone'

> see 'unity'? It doesn't make any sense.

 

Dennisji, absolutely marvelous. Shankara himself has said this

in 'Dasa Sloki' - Nachaikam tadhanyat dvitiiyam kutasyaat - It is not

even one, how then does it become two.

 

Pranaams,

Venkat

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sadaji.

 

I very much appreciate your lucid explanation of the essential nature

of Iswara in understanding what is seen. I do accept it. I can,

therefore, do with a God. No problem.

 

However, I would like to do without if that is possible. That is the

point I was trying to drive home. There is a short-cut, at least in

practice.

 

As you know, I am a Devi devotee. Here are some consecutive names of

Sri Lalita from LalitA Trishati:

 

sarvadhArA, sarvagatA, sarvAvagunavarjitA,

sarvArunA, sarvamAtA, sarvabhUSana bhUSitA

 

To me, Mother is verily Consciousness - the advaitic Truth. Here, in

the first three names, She is described as the basis of everything,

all-pervading and entirely beyond all attributes. However, the next

three talk about Her sanguine complexion, Her being the Mother of

everything and Her state of being adorned with all adornments.

Sanguinity, motherhood and adornments here stand for the whole of

creation, this Universe, what is seen. In other words, Mother is

both Consciousness and creation. If She is seen in all that is seen,

then one is face to face with Consciousness with eyes open without

the need to invent an Iswara because nothing other than Her exists.

I believe this is possible through bhakti based on advaitic jnAna.

 

I had touched on this topic in my post 13475 to Dennis-Ji, of course

in a different context.

 

PranAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

 

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

 

.......just to point out what is that

> consciousness - Brahman is defined as such "Praj~naanam Brahma" -

but

> Brahman is akartaa and abhoktaa since for karma one implies

existence of

> other than Brahman.

>

> 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.....

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sadanandaji,

> 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.

 

I fully respect your advise. While we have been having a fascinating

discussion on this forum on 'Fate and Free will', unfortunately the

discussions have been rather theoretical and academic and I feel,

since the stakes are high (the very purpose of spiritual sadhana is

involved here), a more down to earth discussion is warranted. So I

would like to provide you with some additional information and the

example of a certain situation in my own life so that the importance

of the question can be more fully appreciated. I do hope you do not

mind.

> 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.................................

 

> 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.

 

No, Balsekar's advise is not contextual or specific to me. He gives

the same advise to all the persons all the time. Now Balsekar does

not direct his disciples to any scripture. His only claim for

authority is simple logic and common sense.I too believe that the

scriptures are the ultimate PramaNa for knoeledge on these matters.

However inorder to make the knowledge doubt free, one is asked to do

manana (reflection). I use Balsekar's satsanghs as a sort of manana.

But when I find that the conclusions the process leads me to are not

in line with the scritures (which is no argument that Balsekar will

listen to) and I myself cannot find any fault with his logic, I have

to approach another teacher who relies upon the scriptures and being

a scientist wields logic much better than what I am capable of.

 

I started attending Balsekar's satsanghs 5 years back. Three years

back, the situation was that after 26 years of service in a multi

national, I had to look for another job. This was not a situation

where Balsekar's teaching that one has no free will is very helpful.

So I stopped attending his satsanghs. Six months later, at the age of

48 I got a job in a very good company at the same level of seniority

(reporting to the Finance Director) without having to be out of job

even for a day. Something which looked impossible to me because good

companies have management processes by which they generally do not

have to recruit at the level at which I was taken in. Now after two

and a half years in the comany I know that a very peculiar

combination of circumstances made them look outside. This is

something I simply could not have influenced.

 

If I had not stopped attending Balsekar's satsanghs, I would never

have found the motivation to search for and find an alternative job

as I did. So while I am happy that I did what I did, subsequent

events seem to suggest that his teaching is indeed correct. So I went

back to him and told him all this. He just laughed and asked me to

test his teaching in the fire of my own personal experience which is

exactly what you too advised me in your last message.

 

Now Balsekar does not care very much if his teaching is at variance

with the scriptures. For one of my questions on the subject he more

or less told me that. But you are a rare combination of a scientist

who also upholds and values the scriptures very much. hence I have to

approach you once again with my problem:

 

1. The scriptures proclaim that by my essential nature I am the non-

dual divinity without any limitations whatsoever. This is the

paaramaathika level reality.

 

2. Because I am ignorant of this fact, I have by mistake assumed

jiiva-hood and lent a reality to this body and world, which they do

not themselves have. This is the vyavahaarika level reality.

 

3. Scriptures also say that to reclaim my divinity which I always had

all that I have to do is to drop my erroneous assumption. For this

they suggest a lot of sadhanas,

 

4. If I have no free will, the scriptures themselves and all the

sadhanas prescribed by them - karma theory, papa, punya,

purushaarthas, Bhakti, Dhyaana, Jnaana all - become purposeless.

 

This is not acceptable to me. Please help me out.

 

Pranaams

Venkat

[Guest guest]

Namaste Venkatji.

 

Sorry to barge in. As they say, devils enter where angels fear to

tread.

 

I thought I could reword your statements in the following manner to

rid them of the heart-breaking problem:

 

1. The scriptures proclaim the paramArta that I am One without a

second.

 

2. I hear this stated in vyAvahArika. What is heard is object. I

am the subject (hearer). There is a separation between the two.

That separation is only apparent because that is against the

paramArta. It is such separation that erects this apparent world of

objects including my mind, intellect and body.

 

3. Scriputres tell me what I should do to get rid of this apparent

separation. Their suggestions are also apparent.

 

4. With all the apparent objects, I also have a sense of free-will

which again is apparent. All the apparent paraphernalia are

apparently employed to transcend their apparence (this noun is my

coinage) when the the situation with all elements contributing to its

apparent existence resolves into paramArtic "One-without-a-second-

ness" from where there has never been any apparence or its

transcendence because it is no `where' at all.

 

Do I make sense? If not, my profund apologies for this apparent

intrusion.

 

PranAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

_________________________________

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

wrote:

Namaste Sadaji,

...........................................................

> Now Balsekar does not care very much if his teaching is at variance

> with the scriptures. For one of my questions on the subject he more

> or less told me that. But you are a rare combination of a scientist

> who also upholds and values the scriptures very much. hence I have

to

> approach you once again with my problem:

>

> 1. The scriptures proclaim that by my essential nature I am the non-

> dual divinity without any limitations whatsoever. This is the

> paaramaathika level reality.

>

> 2. Because I am ignorant of this fact, I have by mistake assumed

> jiiva-hood and lent a reality to this body and world, which they do

> not themselves have. This is the vyavahaarika level reality.

>

> 3. Scriptures also say that to reclaim my divinity which I always

had

> all that I have to do is to drop my erroneous assumption. For this

> they suggest a lot of sadhanas,

>

> 4. If I have no free will, the scriptures themselves and all the

> sadhanas prescribed by them - karma theory, papa, punya,

> purushaarthas, Bhakti, Dhyaana, Jnaana all - become purposeless.

>

> This is not acceptable to me.