Fate and Free Will

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> Namaste!

 

 

Namaste Ben et al,

 

IMO One has to notice that one isn't making anything happen, kind of

being in a dream and knowing that it is one.

 

This means all the so called individual psychological processes are

just happening anyway, just thoughts and the thought you think you

determine are just happening anyway. There is no time!!! That was

going to happen anyway. For it already has happened at the relative

level and not happened at all ultimately.

 

The more one tries to assess the molecular structure of water, in

order to leave the swimming pool the more one stays where one is, in

illusion.........ONS....Tony.

[Guest guest]

Tony said:

>IMO One has to notice that one isn't making anything happen,

>kind of being in a dream and knowing that it is one.

>

>This means all the so called individual psychological processes

>are just happening anyway, just thoughts and the thought you think

>you determine are just happening anyway. There is no time!!! That

>was going to happen anyway. For it already has happened at the

>relative level and not happened at all ultimately.

 

Yeah, I like this! And I don't think that it conflicts with anything

I was saying ... nor with what Ramesh Balsekar was saying. The dream

can just sort of unfold according to what the Buddhists call

'dependent-origination'. This is just the same old karma and dharma

of Indian religions in general. (Note: The dream analogy is just as

common in Mahayana as in Advaita.)

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Michael to 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.

 

D: I think there are three actually: (3) repudiation of free-will on

experiential grounds. I am happy with this even on its own

 

Hello Dennis,

You say that it is experiental and I say that it isn't, we both consider

that we have good grounds which makes it a philosophical disagreement.

Regard my last post as persiflage.

 

When there are strong opinions on the same subject it often turns out that

the protagonists are not talking about the same thing. Tentatively is there

common ground that we both occupy around the notion of the 'will' itself

rather than the 'free-will'. In ordinary language the difference between a

reason and a cause captures an important distinction. Before the present

war the allies has various reasons which they admitted to. After the

inception of the war those reasons they will try to persuade us were the

actual causes. Others will see different reasons, not admitted to which

were the causes or supplementary causes. Tracking back the commited

determinist will see that the base ideologies out of which those reasons

emerged as the cause. Yes, true enough but then the libertarian will hold

that this basic belief is itself freely held. Adroitly leapfrogging that it

could be said that a limited menu of ideology was all that was available

given set and setting.

 

Which comes first reason or cause? Is your nature a choice or is it a given

that you transcend? Without getting into the metaphysics of this it is an

actual fact that we are constantly changing and it is well established that

sometimes this change can be quite dramatic. Viewed on the horizontal axis

the progress is most persuasively linear and deterministic from past to

present to future. The vertical diemension brings in the spiritual. Anyone

who has practiced meditation will know that we soon become acquainted with

and appalled by our motivation.

 

Neverthless however much clarity is achieved the question remains, are you

not acting according to and out of an established nature? Therefore you are

bound. But the essence of a being that can form goals and is self causing

is freedom. If you are free in this sense you are always free and it is not

something you attain by increments. May I offer two quotes on this :

 

"This discussion shows that two solutions and only two are possible: etiher

man is wholly determined (which is inadmissible, especially because a

determined consciousness - i.e. a consciousness externally motivated -

becomes itself pure exteriority and ceases to be consciousness) or else man

is wholly free."

(from Being and Nothingness by Sartre)

 

"The teacher said to him. "As you are possessed of consciousness, you exist

for yourself and are not made to act by anyone else." (Chap.II.para.71

Upadesasahasri)

 

This is said not in the context of the free-will problem but I think it

would stand alone.

 

Best Wishes, Michael.

 

P.S. Just glimpsed your latest mail. You're doing a fine job countering

arguments coming from all sides on an issue which has being going on for

some time. I think the foregoing will have shown you that I can be

persuaded that there is elasticity. Can the conviction of Free-will be

rationally demonstrated?

 

 

 

 

_______________

Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online

http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

[Guest guest]

At 05:49 PM 4/9/03 +0000, michael Reidy wrote:

 

May I offer two quotes on this :

>"This discussion shows that two solutions and only two are possible: etiher

>man is wholly determined (which is inadmissible, especially because a

>determined consciousness - i.e. a consciousness externally motivated -

>becomes itself pure exteriority and ceases to be consciousness) or else man

>is wholly free."

>(from Being and Nothingness by Sartre)

 

 

Sartre's first alternative,

 

"a consciousness externally motivated -

becomes itself pure exteriority and ceases

to be consciousness"

 

is a good pointer that consciousness isn't individual in the first place.

Rather, the individual appears in consciousness.

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

--- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote:

>

>

> Namaste Sri Sadananda!

> But do you really have a choice in what you do with what you have?

> That is the whole question.

 

Benjamin - logically you cannot establish that I do not have a choice

since I have the sense of choice in responding or not responding and

also how I want to respond. Vedantic assertion is as long jiiva notion

is there, there arises a sense of doer-ship - that it ahankaara -I have

the doer notion whether free-will is factual or not or physical laws

explain the situation or not. In reality I may not be the doer but that

has to be discovered factually. Logic being ultimately being perception

based will have its limitation to establish that which is beyond

perceptions. The ball actually is in your court to prove that I don’t

have one and that you will have problem in doing that using logic, which

presupposes inherently the choice to analyze the system since analyzer

is a jiiva.

> How do you know whether everything is or

> is not determined by rigid cause and effect?

 

Actually the experience of the jiiva is that he has the choice. This

choice is real to him and there lies the realm of vyavahaara. Your

question is similar to asking me how do you know you have ahankaara -

becuse it shows in all my actions and attitudes and of course some

people complain that I have too much! I am not the karthaa is like

boasting that I am the humblest man in the whole world, but that

statement speaks for itself how humble I am. - This is exactly what I

see in the teacher's statement - go and think about it or do this

analysis then you will see clearly you do not have a choice!

>I may not be certain

> that it is, though I do suspect that such a determinism does in fact

> follow logically from the nature of God, and I see an echo of this in

> the laws of physics. That is why I framed my argument in terms of an

> assumption: suppose that everything is rigidly determined by cause

> and effect. That means, in this context, that every psychological

> event of type A is followed by a psychological event of type B. In

> that case, the most elementary logic shows that the future can

> proceed in only one way from a given past, and this eliminates the

> possibility of any real choice.

 

Is there not an additional inherent assumption that does Iswara has a

choice in this? - Then he fails to be Iswara. But why go all that

analysis when I have the notion that I have the choice to do and not to

do. And how does that notion differs from the notion that I am a jiiva

having this body, mind and intellect. Within the notional framework, the

ontological state of all these, as I have been saying, is the same -

bunch of notions starting from I am a jiiva and includes that I can

prove or disprove logically that I have free-will or I don’t have one.

Is it not all part of the free-will to do or not to do?

> Now you may *feel* that you have a choice, as when you decide you

> want to eat a samosa, and lo and behold, you see yourself getting up,

> cooking and eating a samosa. You think to yourself that all that

> proceeded from free-will, but that was only because you were able to

> do what you wanted to do. It is merely a psychological impression of

> freedom.

 

Benjamin - is it not the jiiva-hood all about? The very feeling that I

am the doer along with the choice of actions - constitute the jiiva.

Once I understand that (not as a thought but as a fact) what you call

merely a psychological impression, you will also realize not only the

free-will but even the separateness of the whole universe is also a

psychological impression - then not only you have solved free-will

problem but you are absolutely free for ever!

> It's true that we don't always do what we want to do. We may decide

> for spiritual reasons to curtail our diet so as to become more

> detached from the senses. But this may simply arise due to the cause

> and effect of a successful spiritual education. Your guru was

> effective in instilling the aspiration for spiritual progress in you,

> and it bore fruit with a commitment to better behavior. All this

> could easily be explained in terms of cause and effect. Just because

> you made a beneficial and difficult choice in life is no argument in

> favor of free-will. It could just as easily be explained in terms of

> the natural consequences of education and insight, which are behaving

> as beneficial causes.

 

You may explain all that by an alternate hypothesis, but the fact of the

matter is - explanation is different from, as you stated, the feeling

that I had the choice in making decision at every moment, whether it is

true or not, since all we are dealing is free will at notional level.

My statement is that notional freewill is of the same degree as the

notion of jiiva too. One can explain as Vedanta does that that you are

jiiva is also notional and you being a subject, thinking that you are an

object - this body, the mind and this intellect, is not logical. What

you say is right but that statement of factual recognition of the doing

is a response to the prior conditioning and it is essentially involves

myself to be detached from that conditioning or notion that I am the

doer. That my friend, is the realization of oneself which is same as

paaramaartika aspect of myself.

> So the question of whether every psychological event is determined by

> rigid laws must ultimately be answered through scientific

> investigation, even within the relative level of Jiva, although we

> may be strongly inclined to a certain conclusions based on

> theological preconceptions (namely the perfection of God can produce

> only one manifestation of his nature in Nature).

 

Benjamin you are zeroing on the essential problem. Now proceed further

and recognize that when one recognizes factually that even that is

determined by rigid laws and I am nothing to do with it, you have

essentially surrendered your notional mind and that is what freedom is

all about. Scripture says precisely this.

 

mana eva manushyaanam kaaranam bandha mokshayoH|

bandhaaya vishhayaasaktam muktaiH nirvishayam sRitam||

 

Mind is the cause for both bondage and freedom. Longing or dependence on

sense objects for happiness is bondage and detachment from that is

liberation.

 

That can happen only when I recognize that I am not this body, mind and

intellect and realize that I am consciousness that enliven this body,

mind and intellect. In that process one also recognizes that one has

nothing to do with any action - neither free-will nor fate has any

meaning in that context since actions and reactions to the actions will

go on continuously without one doing anything.

>

> >Divine help is there whether one seeks or not. But in seeking

> >the divine help, Jiiva understands the role of Iswara in framing

> >the result. In that prayer, he actually reframes his frame of mind

> >to be more conducive to make the action more efficient. samoham

> >sarva bhuuteshu - says the Lord - I am equal for all. No

> >favoritism for those who pray and no hatred for those who curse

> >or who ignore. But those who pray only tap the source of energy

> >that is available abundantly for everybody for asking. The divine

> >grace comes into picture impartially in framing the result of

> >action since He is the author of all the Laws. He won't bend the

> >laws just because jiiva prays.

>

> Again, this is no argument against determinism; rather it is one in

> favor of it. The impartiality of the Lord is the same as the uniform

> behavior of the laws of physics throughout Nature. I am only

> suggesting that this uniform behavior is extended to the

> psychological realm. In this case law or dharma rules everywhere,

> and every specific event is followed by another specific event. This

> logically eliminates the possibility of true choice, since the future

> immediately follows from the past.

 

Benjamin this is all after the effect. At any moment if you can predict

what is going to be next course of action that results from the previous

state, one can say yes it is fully deterministic. Until then it is a

possible explanation. Even if you are right that is all factual from

the truth point - but the notions of jiiva is different. Only way you

can convince me is what is called blind-prediction. Given the state of

affairs can you predict blindly. Can you predict when you are going to

realize that you are Brahman? We had one gentleman who did that few

months back - declaring he had realized on that day and that he has

realized if anybody wants any help, they can go to him and seek that

help - for some small cost, of course.

> This does NOT mean that we cannot make spiritual progress, only that

> it must happen according to the laws imposed on us by the Lord. When

> we pray for help, the desire for the prayer arose from past

> psychological laws (e.g. education, reflection or meditation) which

> nurtured us towards that level of spiritual development, just as

> sunlight and water nurture the plant. Then, when we pray, the

> attitude of prayer nurtures us even further and allows other

> beneficial psychological energies to manifest within us, all

> according to dharma. Law or dharma is not our enemy, only we must be

> I tune with it. But whether we are depends on our past behavior.

 

Benjamin you are not explaining anything different - all you are doing

is use different words but bottom lime is the same thing. In spite of

all those laws etc as long as I have notion that I have the choice, then

I am still a jiiva. You are going from jiiva to bhakta. But Vedanta

goes even one more step - even those physical laws and the Iswara all

are nothing but projection of yourself too.

 

> Jesus said that men are like grains of wheat planted in a field.

> Some grow and other do not, according to circumstances and the causes

> and effects arising from those circumstances. Fortunately, Hinduism

> and Buddhism tell us we get a second chance, and another, and

> another...

 

Please watch your sentences. You are jumping all over. Jesus said men

are gains planted - who is Jesus and when did he plant us! - Now you say

fortunately we have a second chance - who are this we and why do you

mean we have a chance - by your arguments the second chance is not

predetermined. Who has predetermined how many chances one has to take

and why is one has to less and the other more. Why Jesus playing with

fire and making us suffer by planning us unnecessarily. Where did get

the seeds to plant and soil to plant? Are they are predetermined and by

whom and why? Now in what way your explanation is better than statement

that jiiva has free-will just as Jesus has one! Think about it Benjamin.

 

 

 

Hari OM|

Sadananda

 

>

> Om!

> Benjamin

>

 

 

=====

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.