Fate and Free Will

[Guest guest]

Dear Harsha-ji

 

Don't be too 'harsh-a' [ :-) ? ] with Ramesh Balsekar and call him a

'minor teacher'. Seeing everything as the 'will of God' can be the

purest form of devotion. It amounts to total surrender. And total

peace.

 

Besides, it's inspiring to have a successful businessman who is also

an Advaitin. Can you imagine Bill Gates assuming that role? Only in

India...

 

And after my lame joke above, I'd like to add another.

 

In my previous post to Venkatji, I ended with:

 

"So by all means, continue with Sadhana!"

 

After I sent it, I wished I had written:

 

"So by all means, continue with Sadhana and Sadananda!"

 

:-)

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Michael:

'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?"

 

D: I thought this was acknowledged. In reality, the idea has no meaning;

within the phenomenal realm, it appears as though we have free will.

 

Michael: "It should be possible to consider it separately from Karma,

destiny and predestination."

 

D: I don't think you can. Karma is all about action. Again in reality there

is no 'doer' but while we think that we act, most of us are going to think

we also choose which way to act. If, by predestination, you understand that

a god has planned what is going to happen, then this is clearly in

contradiction to free will. I don't like the word for this reason. If you

believe that everything that happens does so as a result of a long complex

chain of cause and effect, then again there is no free will but no

'planning' is involved. It amounts to the same thing in the end and I think

that is what Venkat, KKT, Benjamin, myself and Ramesh) believe.

 

Michael: "Not any one bit of our present context such as free-will is false

within the whole."

 

D: Don't know what you mean here. You mean in reality (paramArtha)? In

reality, all of the limited appearances are false; superimpositions as a

result of ignorance.

 

Michael: "Interestingly Sankara's view of causality, based on the

satkaryavada theory of the Samkhyas, is that of transformation (act and

potency)".

 

D: But this is only at the level of appearance (vyavahAra). In reality there

is no cause and effect, obviously. If there were there would have to be

duality.

 

Hello Dennis,

There seem to be two positions on the go here. (1) repudiation of free-will

on general philosophical grounds (2) repudiation of free-will as being part

of Maya and thus being inherently illusionary. It was position (2) that I

was trying to come to grips with. My view is that the relative world can be

internally coherent and that the will which is part of that world could be

free within the limits of that world. Individual elements of the world are

not negated by being part of maya but they may however be denied on

philosophical grounds. Maya has to do with the lila as a whole.

 

Karma comes in as a theory of action. However those who in no way believe

in Karma as a religious doctrine still can legitimately agree or disagree

with the notion of the freedom of the will. About Predestination the same

argument can be made. There are a great many materialists who deny the

freedom of the will and do not believe in God. Should belief in God

strengthen your denial of free-will? I discern a mixing up of the eternal

and the temporal here. Simply the fact that God knows in eternity where all

time and place is simultaneous whatever will happen does not negate the

working out temporally of your various decisions. You make it happen, He

knows about it(all successive moments simultaneously).

 

About Satkaryavada, causality and the freedom of the will. I feel that this

is important and I will try to throw some ideas together as to why this is

so. Sankara used the theory both on the Paramartha and the Vyavahara. The

theory can be assimilated to chaos/complexity theory and the Process

philosophy of Whitehead. The causality ideas which are used to undermine

free-will are old science in which events were limited. I don't believe

that they undermined free-will anyway. New cosmology may be more free-will

friendly. More anon.

Best Wishes, Michael

 

 

 

 

_______________

MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

[Guest guest]

I think I will be winding my part of the contribution to the subject

since I have repeatedly stated what I understand.

 

The gist of my conclusions of the discussions so far:

 

1. The proponents of fate - have not logically established that there is

no free-will. They could argue that free-will aspect has not been

logically established either - there is no need to since scriptures

advise on that basis only.

 

Reality is, individual looks as conscious entity has no free will or

even a will to start with. I am sure all advaitins recognizes that as

the nature of the very paaramaarthika.

 

The confusion is about vyavahaarika. Logic in the absolute sense fails

since the proof of lack of freewill goose back paarmaarthika. Within the

relative level - kartha, karma and kriya are all ontologically of the

same status and to deny it - I repeat - is jumping unconsciously to the

level of paaramaarthika - since one cannot logically within vyavahaara

establish that everything is predestined.

 

I recognize there is some confusion in terms of deterministic versus

predictability - that is the reason why I brought in the Chaos models -

bifurcations which in our case manifests of there choices - or three

probabilities - to do, not to do and to do another way.

 

I notice clear inconsistency in the statements if one rejects the

free-will when one starts the statements. He recommends only one

spiritual sadhana ,.... asks them to spend 15-20 mins at the end of a

day - Sorry fellows you have already failed to prove the point.

 

In such cases, better to resort to scriptural stand than individual

stands, however much respect one has to a particular mahatma - as

Harshaji rightly pointed out that Bhagavaana Ramana's particular answers

were addressed to different seekers- hence context specific.

 

I have not found any statements of Bhagawaan Ramana or Nisargadatta

Maharaj that contradict the scriptures.

 

Scriptures and Sankara's interpretation are very clear in this.

KartRitiva bhaava is in vyavahaara and choices are inherent in that

vyavahaara. Only whne adhyaasa is removed or ignorance is removed - I

am neither doer and nor enjoyer stands - and that is knowledge. Krishna

talks at the three levels as I pointed in my very first post - from

Jiiva's where I am the doer notion is firmly rooted - like Arjuna - he

advises him to do obligatory duties -niyatam kuru - yagnaartham kuru -

Kuru is vidhi or do giving essentially a choice to Arjuna to do, not

to do and to do another way.

 

But from the j~naani point - he points out that prakRiti does all

actions - prakRityevacha karmaani kriyamaanaani sarvashaH. Even here I

want to point out as I did - fate is a wrong word - the connotation is

the path is predestined. The fate is the situation where the prakRiti

at a given state . The response of the prakRiti is still probabilistic -

to do not to do and to do another way - The bias for to a particular

choice is provided by the local entity jiiva like Arjuna after listening

to Krishna. Free-will here may not be logically established but neither

have I seen the proponents logically established that everything is

predetermined - I respect people’s opinions, beliefs and hypotheses -

but that does not logically establish facts either. The saving grace is

from the absolute point they are right - but that is only from the

knowledge-absolute.

 

For me Krishna's teaching of Geeta as yoga shaastra is very clear - he

is addressing Arjuna who does not know what is right course of action

and what is wrong - and at the end of the eighteen chapters - He

declares that all his delusion is gone and He is going to do - what

Krishna advises him to do. Geeta standing out as yoga shaastra

emphasizes the free-will that what is dharma and what is adharma and

why one should do swadharma. SAdhana aspect is clear in Geeta.

 

No where in the scriptures it is said that everything is predestined.

The teaching would have stopped with that statement - to claim that even

teaching and subsequent decision of Arjuna or jiiva for that matter are

fate - is only begging the issue and logically cannot be established

either.

 

I would put my 2c in the scriptures than teachings of individuals per

sec when there is conflict between their statements and the scriptural

statement.

 

I will stop with this since I find repeating myself - even if it is

predestined. At least my understanding is scriptural based and also not

illogical.

 

My thanks to all the participants who tried to educate me on fate vs

free will.

 

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.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Sadananda!

 

You said:

>kartha, karma and kriya are all ontologically of the

>same status and to deny it - I repeat - is jumping

>unconsciously to the level of paaramaarthika - since

>one cannot logically within vyavahaara establish that

>everything is predestined.

 

 

Suppose one day psychology could somehow prove that every event in

our mind is 'caused', in the sense that event B is ALWAYS preceded by

event A (or equivalently event A is always followed by event B).

This is what I mean by determinism.

 

What would this do to free-will? Would we really have a choice in

anything? And does this not all occur within vyavahaarika?

 

Chaos theory does not seem relevant to me. It is really

deterministic but only says that some events are so sensitive to

initial conditions that for all PRACTICAL purposes we cannot measure

the initial conditions accurately enough to predict the future. But

the future is still deterministic under chaos theory.

 

I am specifically excluding the unpredictability of Quantum Mechanics

(Heisenberg principle) from my assumption above. I am exploring the

logical consequences of a strict determinism in the psychological

realm, assuming that somehow this were proven.

 

I realize that you wanted to conclude your contribution to this

discussion, but I would be fascinated to hear your response. Thank

you!

 

Pranams

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Sadanandaji

 

My sincere apologies for testing your patience to the very limits.

But when my confusion on the subject lasted I had no alternative but

to trouble you. Thanks to the gist that you presented in your last

message, I think the confusion is now gone.

 

A small request. Why should the whole group be punished for my

transgressions? So please continue to share your wisdom if other

members have questions on the subject.

 

Shri Madathil, Dennis, Benjamin:

 

Many thanks for the clarifications. The combined effort did help in

clearing the cobwebs.

 

Harshaji

 

You struck at the very root of my problem, and shall I say literally

uprooted it. Many thanks.

 

Proof of the pudding:

 

Having told all that my confusion on the subject is gone, here I try

to give proof in my own way.

 

One evening when I was walking in failing light I came upon a length

of rope which at that time appeared to me as a snake. The snake

appeared to be in quite some discomfort (I was then at my

compassionate best). From the way it lay there motionless, I thought

it was having tremendous snake-ache. Now in the snake-lore the

sadhana that is prescribed for a snake in such a condition is for it

to vigorously shake its tail. Now there is a snake-view which is

supported by some strong snake-logic that snakes do not have free

will. My problem was how will the snake get rid of its ache if it had

no free will to implement the snake-sadhana.

 

After all the wisdom that I received on sharing my problem with the

group, I now know that the snake-ache, snake-logic and snake-sadhana

are all only as real as the snake.Also the question of snake-will and

snake-fate cannot be any more real than that snake.

 

Many thanks and pranAms,

Venkat

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

>

> I think I will be winding my part of the contribution to the subject

> since I have repeatedly stated what I understand.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

 

Dear Dr. Sadananda: Dennis is absolutely right! Please feel free to

ignore my 'supplemental' request for an answer.

 

 

Harsha said:

>The main thing is consciousness, not the constructs that have

>consciousness as their source. If you follow the constructs outwards,

>you see the world and are bound. If you follow the constructs inwards

>through inquiry, you see that You Yourself Are the Consciousness

>untouched by fate or free will.

 

I agree with Dennis that there is much wisdom here. However, I

interpret Harsha as follows. Our only freedom is to become detached

from Samsara and dwell in the peace and bliss of Pure Consciousness.

As I see it, this entails simply watching Samsara while remaining

unaffected by it.

 

But this does not contradict my previous argument that while we are

dwelling in (or interacting with) Samsara, we are bound by its

causes, laws, karmas, vasanas, etc. Furthermore, some skeptics might

argue that the 'freedom' of remaining within the inner bliss of Pure

Consciousness amounts to a gilded cage, but I do not see it that way.

If I could attain perfect peace and happiness forever, I would be

satisfied and 'call it a day'! (American expression)

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

O.K. my second last mail on this subject!

> As I see it, this entails simply watching Samsara while remaining

> unaffected by it.

>

> But this does not contradict my previous argument that while we are

> dwelling in (or interacting with) Samsara, we are bound by its

ÿ causes, laws, karmas, vasanas, etc.

 

S: Benjamin - Watching involves witnessing aspect – From that state,

one is not bound to the action even though the action is being done–

that is what Krishna discusses in Ch. 4. While performing the action how

a j~naani remains as akartaa – and there is no bondage from that action.

This aspect Krishna emphasizes many times in Geeta.

> Furthermore, some skeptics might

> argue that the 'freedom' of remaining within the inner bliss of Pure

> Consciousness amounts to a gilded cage, but I do not see it that way.

> If I could attain perfect peace and happiness forever, I would be

ÿ satisfied and 'call it a day'!

 

S: In that state of witnessing consciousness – one will not have anymore

notions of doer- ship or bondage which is notional – one cannot be

witnessing consciousness and still have notions that I am this body,

this mind, this intellect.

> Om!

> Benjamin

>

 

Benjamin:

"Even in a deterministic (read 'robot-like') world, sadhana can be

useful.

It simply amounts to good programming. The sadhana is replacing a bad

computer program in our vasanas with a good one."

 

D: An excellent way of putting it (especially given that most of the

people

on this list seem to have something to do with computers)!

 

S: Sorry fellows – behind every computer program, which is inert – there

is a programmer who is accountable for that bad or good program and that

is jiiva as long as he has the notion that he is the doer since prakRiti

being inert cannot do! If jiiva transcends then Iswara it becomes

Iswara’s program. Leaving the responsibility to the software program is

like bank notes I get ‘Sorry our computer goofed!’.

 

Sadananda:

"Logic in the absolute sense fails since the proof of lack of freewill

goose

back paaramaarthika."

 

D: Is this actually so? Surely the notion of free will causes lots of

problems in vyavahAra doesn't it, from a scientific point of view at

least?

 

S: No. It is the other way. As long as jiiva-hood is there (it will be

in vyavahaara) all the notions are not recognized as notions but as

real. That is why it is vyavahaara – the real is masked and the unreal

is accepted because the logic which itself is based on the perceptions

which themselves are based on perceiver, perceived and perceiving are

all within vyavahaara. In fact I have been arguing it that the problem

is otherwise.

 

S: Dennis, karma and janma cycle is cause effect related – and it is

not autodriven – it is jiiva driven – one can damn himself or raise

above – All that because of cause-effect relation. What I have at any

moment is the effect of all causes of the past – prarabda - and what I

will have next is that prarabda modified by my present action – that is

where purushaartha comes into picture. That is not predestined.

-----

Sadananda:

"Within the relative level - kartha, karma and kriya are all

ontologically

of the same status and to deny it - I repeat - is jumping unconsciously

to

the level of paaramaarthika - since one cannot logically within

vyavahaara

establish that everything is predestined. "

 

D: Where is the fallacy in the logic of all actions being triggered by

thoughts, memories, previous conditioning and interactions between all

of

these? I do not think you have yet answered this have you? I am not

invoking

paaramArtha here.

 

S: Yes I have, but I get the feeling that I have not made it clear for

your appreciation ( Am I putting it mildly!). I have been emphasizing

the fact that the very existence of vyavahaara is due to the notion of

free-will. Vedanta starts with that. Concept of vaasana and bondage is

all notional and the notional is real for a jiiva as long as it is not

understood as notional. Hence free-will which is actually notional is

real from the point of jiiva and that is why it is vyavahaara too. That

is why I keep saying that the moment the student feels that the teacher

is advising me to do something, it is recognized that the student has

the notions about himself and his free-will. Vyavahaara and thus the

ignorance validates the notions as real and that includes the free-will.

That is why I kept saying it is part of adhyaasa. Adhyaasa will remain

even if one analyzes adhyaasa logically since that analysis is with in

the adhyaasa. Only self-knowledge will eliminate that adhyaasa then

vyavahaara also disappears along with notions free-will.

 

Sadananda:

"I notice clear inconsistency in the statements if one rejects the

free-will

when one starts the statements. He recommends only one spiritual sadhana

,.... asks them to spend 15-20 mins at the end of a day - Sorry fellows

you

have already failed to prove the point."

 

D: Where exactly? The suggestion to spend 15-20 mins is itself the

primary

cause for the action of doing so. There is no free will here.

 

S: I think I just discussed this above. The teacher is asking the

student to do something and the student has the choice to do not do and

do it another way and that free-will is automatically recognized in the

very suggestion. That my friend is free-will and not fate and is part

of the reality of the vvayahaara! The real accountablity rests with

jiiva as long as the notion of free-will is recognized as real

free-will.

 

> Sadananda:

> "Within the relative level - kartha, karma and kriya are all

> ontologically

> of the same status and to deny it - I repeat - is jumping

> unconsciously to

> the level of paaramaarthika - since one cannot logically within

> vyavahaara

> establish that everything is predestined. "

>

> D: Where is the fallacy in the logic of all actions being triggered by

> thoughts, memories, previous conditioning and interactions between all

> of

> these? I do not think you have yet answered this have you? I am not

> invoking

ÿ paramArtha here.

 

 

S: Dennis – if you examine my arguments from the beginning – kartaa,

karma and kriyaa and the kartR^itva bhaava are all notions in jiiva

hence the notional vyavahaara is perceived as real. Hence ontologically

they are all with in vyavahaara as viewed as real. And in that order

only the free-will falls since it is the same as kartR^itvabhaava – I am

not discarding that it is only bhaava or notional, but so is jiiva.

Hence as long as jiiva-hood and thus vyavahaara is there notional

free-will is as real as jiiva. Hence my statement – rather this has been

discussed by Shankara in that adhyaasa notes too. It is discussed when

he talked about kartRitvabhaava as part of adhyaasa. Please check the

notes. KartRitva bhaava and free-will as the same.

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

>

> P.S. to Sada-ji - I know that whether or not you respond to these

> further

> queries, having said that you have concluded, is not a matter of free

> will

> on your part. But don't feel bad about it if you (think that you)

> choose not

> to! :-)

 

S: Dennis, is feeling bad comes under the category of a free-will or

fate? You seem to be giving me a choice to feel or not to feel or to

feel another way!

 

I am still exercising to play my broken-record since that is the record

I got from studying shastra-s and listening to my teachers, which is

logical as well as based on scriptures. I would not mind playing again

and again, I am not sure it would throw any more light than what has

already been done. In all the counter arguments, I still say that 1.

vavahaara is mixed with paaramaarthika – when there is no free will

there is no vyavahaara too. ‘You do have not free-will and everything

is done by prakRiti’ is teaching for saadhaka to see the reality, but

until that reality is seen it is only ‘knowledge to be gained’ – till

then teacher’s advise is to do his swadharma while continuing

shravaNam, mananam and nidhidhyaasanam - as I mentioned before and

again will mention that there is a vidhi dhaatu attached to this –

mantavyaH – that tavyaH implies one should do. And that is the advice

of the scriptures as long as the notions of vyavahaara is there.

 

End of my second last posting on this subject!

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.

[Guest guest]

Hello Dennis,

"Within the relative level - kartha, karma and kriya are all ontologically

of the

same status" These are the words of Sri Sadananda and I would agree with

them. In the language of cards free-will is being trumped twice (a) by

being part of the relative and (b) as being incoherent, i.e. that 'free'

and 'will' jump apart like opposite poles. (a) is illicit and (b) is

questionable.

 

Between the absolute and the relative there are some bridges as it were.

One would be the analogical bridge of adhyasa/superimposition, another

would be the unity of being of self/atman and Brahman and another would be

the cosmological bridge of causality in which cause and effect are

non-different at both the micro/this world and macrocosmic levels. The

cosmological bridge or satkaryavada is treated in B.S.B. II.i.13 foll. It

is this view of causality which most excercises the mind of Sankara and is

foundational of the idea of Dharma.

 

Nature is at the heart of this view of the universal dynamic in the general

sense of natura naturans (nature naturing) and the individual set of

characteristics that make a thing what it is. The simple illustration of

this is 'it is milk that becomes curds/yoghurt and not sand'. It is nature

and the potency that is implicit within it that is the driving force that

moves us towards the expression of our nature. Our sense of freedom comes

to us from our acting in conformity with our nature. This relates to the

concept of Dharma as being our nature in action. That might seem to allow

for Hedonism as moral however the happiness of a pig and a philosopher are

different. Naturally we try to establish freedom from constraint and

creation of the best possible circumstances which allow for our natural

propensities to flourish. The inner sense of this is that we wish to

become what we are. We are that very nature but we are also constantly

questioning, 'Is this really me', 'Is that all there is'. May I suggest

that divine discontent distinguishes us as rational creatures. It would be

a denial of morality to those who are bereft of the sentiment of religion to

say that only it can give one an assurance of the vitality of free-will.

Stories, dramas and legends are all ways of exploring what its like inside

the skin of another and in that way enhance our experienc of moral

predicament.

 

B.G.III 33-43 is a good tour of the battle ground.

 

Best Wishes, Michael.

 

 

 

 

_______________

The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

In spite of Sri Sadananda' repeated appeal and the plea that nothing

more can be added in this debate from the advaitic point of view,

our persistent members want to exercise their free-will and the

mantra, 'everything is deterministic.' If everything is

deterministic, then we must answer the question: 'by whom?' If the

answer is , 'jiva' then jiva controls his/her own action which is a

contradiction! If the answer is 'not jiva but some force other than

jiva' then this contradicts 'nonduality.'

 

In the Tamil language, there is a famous poem, "Nan Oru Vilaiattu

bommai - I am just a robotic toy in the hands of the Lord!" The poem

assumes a dualistic framework where God determines everything! The

framework is quite imaginative with a meticulous bureaucratic system.

Yamadharma (also known as Yama Raja and Dharmaraja) is the judge who

determines punishments and rewards to the souls (jivas) for their

deeds. Chitragupta the right-hand man of Yama is the accountant who

maintains the records of the good and bad deeds of jivas during their

temporary residence on earth. Chitragupta also recommends Yama

whether a jiva deserves consignment in hell or lofted to heaven.

Yama Dharma Raja (The name Yamadharmaraja symbolically states that He

determines the law and order of the universe) makes the final

determination and orders his Kinkaras (Messengers) to mete out

punishment in hell or heavenly bliss accordingly.

 

In advaita, the 'fate' of illusionary jiva is to possess the

illusionary 'free-will.' Neither 'fate,' nor 'free-will' nor 'jiva'

exists and only the consciousness exists!

 

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: The reason for keeping the discussion for month long is to

provide members substantial time for reading and contemplating on the

materials posted on the list. Instead of jumping into conclusions and

repeating the same mantras, we can benefit more by taking more time

and share our thoughts wisely!

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

Let me add some additional points. It is also believed that

Chitragupta writes the 'fate' of every jiva on the forehead beneath

the skull! What is written by the 'Chitragupta' on the forehead (In

Tamil it is called ThalaiEluththu) can'be changed and everything that

happens due to past deeds! The believers of this system also believe

in astrology and they believe that knowledgeable astrologers have the

capacity to read what is written underneath the skull and they will

be able to provide the predictions. If the Jiva agrees to subside the

intellect, God determines the present on the basis of past deeds!

(please don't ask the question, "how did God determine the 'fate' of

the jiva in the begining. There is no intellectually convincing

answer for such questions except that "God enjoys playing toys

(jivas)."

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <rchandran@c...>

wrote:

> Namaste:

>

> Chitragupta the right-hand man of Yama is the accountant who

> maintains the records of the good and bad deeds of jivas during

their

> temporary residence on earth. Chitragupta also recommends Yama

> whether a jiva deserves consignment in hell or lofted to heaven.

> Yama Dharma Raja (The name Yamadharmaraja symbolically states that

He

> determines the law and order of the universe) makes the final

> determination and orders his Kinkaras (Messengers) to mete out

> punishment in hell or heavenly bliss accordingly.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Ram!

>In spite of Sri Sadananda' repeated appeal and the plea

>that nothing more can be added in this debate from the

>advaitic point of view, our persistent members want to

>exercise their free-will and the mantra, 'everything is

>deterministic.' If everything is deterministic, then

>we must answer the question: 'by whom?' If the answer is,

>'jiva' then jiva controls his/her own action which is a

>contradiction! If the answer is 'not jiva but some force

>other than jiva' then this contradicts 'nonduality.'

 

You are quite right that our philosophical views should not

be mere blind and stubborn habit, which we insist upon for basically

egoistic reasons. But I do not believe that my emphasis on

determinism was like this. I think there were good reasons.

 

For one thing, if Brahman is indeed everything, then does

that not automatically 'determine' everything (even at the relative

level) according to the manifestation of his nature? Can the

infinite manifest in more than one way? Does it have a choice, or

must it simply manifest its one unique perfection (even though that

perfection might seem imperfect to our finite understanding)?

 

Notice that the paragraph above argues determinism from a

*nondual* point of view, in contrast to your last sentence quoted

above.

 

However, as I mentioned earlier, and per our discussion the

other night, we may both be right, in that free-will does not exist

at the pAramArthika level but only at the vyavahArika level. But

then, this seems to agree with my view that what we think of as

free-will is only a phenomenological illusion that may have some

practical uses while we are still Jiva, just as we tell children

stories to make them behave.

 

Please don't think I'm being stubborn with mantras and so

forth! I have indeed thought about these things for a long time, and

I still make an honest and constant effort to reexamine the

foundations of my beliefs to see what should be changed or eliminated.

 

Pranams

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Benjamin:

 

Please don't take it personally and it was certainly not pointed

toward anyone. I sincerely believe that you are quite honest and

making efforts to understand the validity of your beliefs. If I

offended you in anyway, please accept my apology.

 

'Free-will' is quite paradoxical and intellectual analysis using any

frame-work will likely bring contradictory results! This is part of

the problem and I am not competant enough to provide you with an

affirmative answer one-way or another.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Ram!

>

>

>In spite of Sri Sadananda' repeated appeal and the plea

> .....

> Please don't think I'm being stubborn with mantras and so

> forth! I have indeed thought about these things for a long time,

and

> I still make an honest and constant effort to reexamine the

> foundations of my beliefs to see what should be changed or

eliminated.

>

> Pranams

> Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Hello Sri Benjamin,

 

At 09:40 AM 4/8/03 -0400, Benjamin Root wrote:

> For one thing, if Brahman is indeed everything, then does

>that not automatically 'determine' everything (even at the relative

>level) according to the manifestation of his nature? Can the

>infinite manifest in more than one way? Does it have a choice, or

>must it simply manifest its one unique perfection (even though that

>perfection might seem imperfect to our finite understanding)?

>

> Notice that the paragraph above argues determinism from a

>*nondual* point of view, in contrast to your last sentence quoted

>above.

 

 

Nonduality does not come down on the side of determinism *or* free will. It's

not as though nonduality=determinism, and duality=free will. There are no

nondual aspects or concepts of viewpoints. There are viewpoints *about*

nonduality, like yours above. But as has been mentioned many times here, these

viewpoints are ensconced in language and concepts.

 

At its best, the no-free-will teaching, if deeply and intuitively grasped, can

free one from certain aspects of a sense of separation. That's it, punto y

final. I have known many people who have followed the Rameshian teachings for

many years. The most effective "results" are in those students who are beset by

an intense desire to be in control, or by intense guilt (many times both in the

same person!). No-free-will teachings are of some help there.

 

But they cannot take you farther.

 

There's a very interesting but subtle clue to this fact. The very teachings

most often cited in support of no-free-will actually stop at that point and

don't go any farther. Have you ever noticed that? If you ever examine Ramesh's

teachings closely, or Wayne's (a friend of mine), you will see an odd gap in

their teachings. Their presentation and dialectic effectively stops at the

no-free-will stage. There is no extension from the no-free-will teaching to

their final teaching of "Consciousness is all there is." They offer one

statement, then the other, but there is no step-by-step that takes from one to

the other. This is why many of their students go around believing that

no-free-will is equal to no-duality.

 

So by following this argument step by step, you will always fall short -- you

will never satisfy the mind or reach a deep intuition on nonduality...

 

By the way, you might wonder what Ramesh and Wayne offer. Again, it's odd. For

all the outward intellectual sophistication, theirs is essentially a bhakti

path. They offer the resonance between disciple and guru as the bridge. It's

not a dialectical bridge, but it's a bridge.

 

Other advaitic teachings provide a dialectical bridge, such as the Upanishads,

Jean Klein's, and Krishna Menon's teachings. Ramesh's and Wayne's teachings do

not do it dialiectically. And of course no bridge is 100% foolproof or perfect.

 

Regards,

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

 

Ram-ji said:

>Please don't take it personally and it was certainly not

>pointed toward anyone. I sincerely believe that you are

>quite honest and making efforts to understand the validity

>of your beliefs. If I offended you in anyway, please accept

>my apology.

 

No offense taken whatsoever, my dear spiritual friend! I guess I

seem a little sensitive sometimes. But I do wish to dispel any

notion of being stubborn. We all need to introspect on this and not

simply be defending our pet theories.

 

 

Greg-ji said:

>Nonduality does not come down on the side of determinism

>*or* free will. It's not as though nonduality=determinism,

>and duality=free will. There are no nondual aspects or concepts

>of viewpoints. There are viewpoints *about* nonduality, like

>yours above. But as has been mentioned many times here, these

>viewpoints are ensconced in language and concepts.

 

That's just what my beloved Mahayana scriptures say, as well as Sri

Nanda VPCNK. So I have to agree with you and take this advice

seriously! But I just can't stop thinking *about* it, as you say.

It's an addiction we all share, as well as all those Indians and

others who wrote voluminous sutras, shastras, bhasyas, etc. It's

natural and even healthy to be curious while we are still Jiva.

 

>At its best, the no-free-will teaching, if deeply and intuitively

>grasped, can free one from certain aspects of a sense of separation

 

Good point, in line with what I was trying to say.

 

>If you ever examine Ramesh's teachings closely, or Wayne's

>(a friend of mine), you will see an odd gap in their teachings.

>Their presentation and dialectic effectivelystops at the

>no-free-will stage.

 

Hmmm... Hadn't noticed that. Definitely something to look out for.

 

>By the way, you might wonder what Ramesh and Wayne offer.

>Again, it's odd. For all the outward intellectual sophistication,

>theirs is essentially a bhakti path.

 

Another interesting observation. But one could say that simply

realizing your Self is Bhakti in the sense of absorption. That is,

suppose you are simply dwelling in the silent bliss of

Self-realization. This bliss is similar to love ... love is bliss

.... and in this sense we have Bhakti ... absorption in love.

 

Anyhow, I made one simple point that nobody really challenged and

that really didn't have to do with Advaita per se. Namely, I said

SUPPOSE that psychologists could prove that every mental event was

caused (according to my previously stated definition of cause). Then

would this not entail determinism? Simple logic strongly suggests to

me that it would. So in this sense, free-will, even in the relative

world, is ultimately an empirical fact waiting for experimental

confirmation or rejection.

 

Philosophers are cautioned not to believe something that can one day

be refuted by simple observation. A famous German philosopher named

Hegel used his 'metaphysics' to prove that no more planets would be

discovered. A short while later, another planet [Neptune I believe]

was discovered! (But by then, he had tenure...)

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Benjamin Root wrote:

>

> Anyhow, I made one simple point that nobody really challenged and

> that really didn't have to do with Advaita per se. Namely, I said

> SUPPOSE that psychologists could prove that every mental event was

> caused (according to my previously stated definition of cause).

 

 

The psychologist's proof would be a mental event would it not? Your

faith in the mental processes of a psychologist is admirable! :-). I am

not a logician, but something here does not sound right!

 

This is fun! :-).

> Then

> would this not entail determinism? Simple logic strongly suggests to

> me that it would. So in this sense, free-will, even in the relative

> world, is ultimately an empirical fact waiting for experimental

> confirmation or rejection.

[Guest guest]

At 11:48 AM 4/8/03 -0400, Benjamin Root wrote:

 

>>By the way, you might wonder what Ramesh and Wayne offer.

>>Again, it's odd. For all the outward intellectual sophistication,

>>theirs is essentially a bhakti path.

>

>Another interesting observation. But one could say that simply

>realizing your Self is Bhakti in the sense of absorption. That is,

>suppose you are simply dwelling in the silent bliss of

>Self-realization. This bliss is similar to love ... love is bliss

>... and in this sense we have Bhakti ... absorption in love.

 

 

Well, this can be thought of this way in a more global sense. But I meant

bhakti in the conventional sense. Wayne and Ramesh mean it as this, the

all-consuming love for the guru, in the form of a mind/body mechanism other than

one's own. The resonance between disciple and guru is a ramp to this.

 

When we get to that month's topic, I will be very rah-rah about the bhakti path.

Have you tried it?? Like this jnana-yogic path, it's not everyone's main cup of

tea...

 

>Anyhow, I made one simple point that nobody really challenged and

>that really didn't have to do with Advaita per se. Namely, I said

>SUPPOSE that psychologists could prove that every mental event was

>caused (according to my previously stated definition of cause). Then

>would this not entail determinism? Simple logic strongly suggests to

>me that it would. So in this sense, free-will, even in the relative

>world, is ultimately an empirical fact waiting for experimental

>confirmation or rejection.

 

 

OK, I'll indulge, and challenge you here!

 

Determinism - I think you are using this terms to fill the gap left by "subject

to choice." But in your model, what is it that determines what? You need two

endpoints there. And you don't need a confirmation from academic science. Just

take a scientific look at yourself. Look at the thoughts themselves. Can you

predict your next thought? Can you choose your next thought? Can you control

your next thought? The negative answers to both are enough, you don't need

science. Neither determinism nor free will is the answer.

 

Also, even if scientists were able to uniquely map every thought to a particular

neuronic pattern, you'd still be back to Hume. That certainly is not

determinism. Hume's argument was actually *against* a deterministic model of

causation. He was arguing against a notion of cause that was like a power that

controlled and forced certain outcomes to take place. Hume showed that the only

thing in evidence is succession of observations. This is a far cry from

determinism!

 

Regards,

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

 

Greg said:

>OK, I'll indulge, and challenge you here!

 

YEAH! Sorry, list member, I MUST respond! Please just ignore this

and go about your daily activities.

 

>Determinism - I think you are using this terms to fill the gap

>left by "subject to choice." But in your model, what is it that

>determines what? You need two endpoints there. And you don't

>need a confirmation from academic science. Just take a scientific

>look at yourself. Look at the thoughts themselves. Can you predict

>your next thought? Can you choose your next thought? Can you

>control your next thought? The negative answers to both are enough,

>you don't need science. Neither determinism nor free will is the answer.

 

It doesn't matter what determines what. If, by assumption, every

psychological event is linked by causation to other events, then the

whole manifold of psychological events is interlaced with an iron

grid of causation. Given certain 'initial conditions', which were

established eons ago by something other than ourselves (presumably

'God'), then the future is rigorously determined by simple

irrefutable logic. So any notion of choice is then not meaningful.

 

Now, as I said before, it may happen that within this chain of

causation you are sometimes doing what you *feel* like doing, and you

then *feel* like you are exercising free-will. But you are not,

since there is no real choice.

 

It doesn't not matter whether I have enough knowledge to predict my

next thought. What matters is that it is determined already by the

past, regardless of what I may or may not know about it. Again, you

are confusing the psychological or phenomenological *impression* of

free-will with the real thing.

 

>Also, even if scientists were able to uniquely map every thought

>to a particular neuronic pattern, you'd still be back to Hume.

>That certainly is not determinism. Hume's argument was actually

>*against* a deterministic model of causation. He was arguing against

>a notion of cause that was like a power that controlled and forced

>certain outcomes to take place. Hume showed that the only thing in

>evidence is succession of observations. This is a far cry from

>determinism!

 

But remember, what I just said is based on the assumption of rigid

causation linking all psychological events. And this disposes of the

reference to Hume. Actually, I agree with Hume that there are in

fact no real causes in the sense that B MUST always follow A. All we

observe is that certain sequences of events always follow each other.

This is only probability. The sun will probably rise tomorrow, but

it might not. I agree with this. But I was performing a thought

experiment and asking you to assume that rigid inexorable causation

were somehow proved. What would be the consequences? Rigid

determinism.

 

Or put it this way. The 'causes' of physics may only be probable

correlations of events that have always been observed in the past in

laboratories. But the probability of these causes, while not

absolute, is very, very high. If someone lit the fuse to a stick of

dynamite next to you, you would get out of the way, even though there

was a tiny, tiny chance that the laws of physics might fail for the

first time and the stick might not explode. Well, suppose the same

highly probable (if not absolute) level of causation could be

established for psychology. Then would not determinism and the lack

of free-will follow with an equally high degree of probability and in

fact be certain for all practical purposes? I think so.

 

There! I've had my say. You may have the last word if you wish, but

I WILL NOT (will TRY not to) respond! I can't always get caught up

in these spiderwebs of debate!

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

At 01:05 PM 4/8/03 -0400, Benjamin Root wrote:

 

There! I've had my say. You may have the last word if you wish

 

=====================

 

OK, watch:

[Guest guest]

Greg Goode said:

>>At 01:05 PM 4/8/03 -0400, Benjamin Root wrote:

>>There! I've had my say. You may have the last word if you wish

>

>=====================

>

>OK, watch:

 

 

Nope, I'm not biting! :-)

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

Already, quite a lot has been said on this topic in this

round of discussion itself. I was thinking of staying out

of this debate but as we still have more than twenty days

for this topic, I thought I should put my two cents worth.

Hopefully, this will bring shri Sadananda garu and others

back into the discussion. The following is my understanding:

 

1. Fate and free-will is not a topic that came out of vedic

philosophical thinking. I think it is more an outgrowth of

western rather than easern thinking. The exact sanskrit

equivalents of the two words are not really well-known.

shri Madathil Nair-ji brought attention to this matter

and shri sunder-ji supplied the probable sanskrit equivalents

to these words.

 

2. The meaning of these words in the context of my writing

is as follows: Free-will means the jIvA has a choice of action

or much more important, *thinks* he has a choice of action

(of doing, not doing, or doing otherwise). Fate means the

action to be done by the jIvA is already determined (pre-ordained).

 

3. sanskrit equivalents of these words. shri sunder-ji suggested

free-will as svayam-kartr^itvam and for fate as bhAgyam. With

respect, I would call fate as adr^iShTam and not bhAgyam.

Fate and adr^iShTam do not involve a personal God (saguna brahman),

whereas bhAgyam includes personal God (karmaphalapradA) distributing

karmaphala.

 

4. Fate and free-will both contradict the theory of karma.

The theory of karma says that the jIvA is the essence of the

karmaphala of his previous births and his actions/thoughts

are decided according to the karmaphala.

jIvA can think he has the free-will, but he does not have

the free-will in the free-est sense. The karmaphala of that

jIvA dictates the type of action he undertakes.

 

5. Free-will and bhagavat-kr^ipa (divine grace) [i would rather

discuss bhagavatkr^ipa rather than fate because fate, in my view,

does not have a status in the uttaramImAMsa terminology], are

both in the realm of vyavahArika. shri Sadananda garu expressed

forcefully that there is free-will, but there is no fate.

What is his view on bhagavatkr^ipa? Surely, there is divine grace,

as I understand. I am sure he agrees with that.

 

6. The model for human spiritual growth which makes sense to

me is as follows, in three stages [This model, as all other

models are, is in vyavahArika]

stage 1: People who think there is free-will for a human.

In this stage, human is responsible for all his achievements,

for all his failures. The role of the divine is not there.

stage 2: There is free-will for the human. But at the same

time, the human seeks occasional divine help in supplementing

the human free-will in achieving things. The success or failure

depends on both human action out of free-will and divine help

or non-help.

stage 3: The role of the human free-will gradually diminishes

here. The human sees things happening (even his actions) out

of divine-play. The human sees himself as a stage actor in a

drama conducted by the divine.

 

The spiritual growth goes from stage 1 to stage 3, all in

vyavahArika.

 

shri Sadananda garu has put forward arguments for free-will

in vyavahArika with the absence of free-will in paramArtha.

But, is the "boundary" between vyavahAra and paramArtha so

sharp as to go from full belief in free-will to entirely no

free-will at all? VyavahArika is amenable for a gradual

fading out of the free-will as the belief and faith in

divine-grace grows, so that when the jIva trasforms to

jivanmukta, he sees only God everywhere and not the jIvA.

 

I would be grateful for comments/clarifications.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

-