Fate and Free Will

[Guest guest]

Greg wrote: 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.

 

Hello Greg,

I think Sartre's existentialism would be hostile to the idea of a

consciousness which was not individuated. Genius may be directly

proportionate to the number of readings to be extracted from its

utterances. At the point at which the exterior world becomes the interior

world, "the object and its knowledge are different". The jiva operating

with means and ends has translated the world into its nature. "The

pickpocket only sees purses". The freedom may lie in the transforming and

not in the acuity of discernment of motivation etc.

 

The world according to Sankara even though it is inert(jada) can be

transformed into consciousness (cit) because though apparently opposed they

are not really (metaphysically) so. This is his Realism which is not the

same as the Realism of Sartre and is not to be opposed to Buddhist or any

other sort of Idealism.

 

Here's the thing. If consciousness belongs to you like the heat and light

of fire, being the nature of what you are, then by that very fact you are

essentially free even if you are bonkers, bananas, unfit to plead and far

gone dolally.

 

Will consciousness transforming the world into an 'internal' world of means

and being itself the foundation of the possibility for that transformation

retain its freedom. The answer must be yes so in that way what you, Greg,

say - the individual is an appearance in consciousness- is true.

 

Best Wishes, Michael

 

 

 

 

_______________

Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.

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

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Sadananda-ji,

 

It is my pleasure to surrender ... to Lord Krishna and to you! A

little surrender is good for all of us! It purifies the spirit.

After all, if I do not believe in free-will, then do I have a choice

but to surrender to what IS? I feel more at peace already!

 

But I do appreciate your detailed and conscientious arguments! I

definitely learned something!

 

Also, I did understand (with Sri Ram's help) that you are sort of

agreeing with me that free-will exists only at the 'notional'

vyavahaara/Jiiva level, which isn't REALLY real. At least, I hope I

understood that point correctly! Anyhow, I did read everything you

wrote. You and I both work hard at this! (But I have no sense of

doer, so I expect NO merit!)

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste again Sri Benjamin Ji!

 

I have not read a lot of this thread but below is your summary it seems.

The "logic" of predestination (no free will) is very straightforward and

easy to understand and that is part of its attraction. Your surrender is

a logical outcome of that understanding.

 

I have an interesting story to tell about a spontaneous mental

experiment I made with exploring the dichotomy of free will v.

determinism when I was nineteen. It changed me (my consciousness)

irrevocably forever.

 

Meanwhile I wish to say three things which are fairly basic and perhaps

can add to your reflections in some way.

 

1. To examine something, one needs an instrument that is more subtle

than what is being examined. This assumption is behind the technique of

Neti, Neti, Neti, (Not this, Not this....).

 

2. As Sadaji hinted, it is not possible for an observer (scientist) to

stand independently outside the system about which judgments are being

made. Therein lies the fundamental difficulty which logic cannot

overcome (perhaps Gregji can correct me on this).

 

3. Finally, believing that you have no free will is a perfectly valid

and helpful belief, especially if you are constantly keeping in mind,

"Not my will Lord by Yours".

 

Believing that it can someday be proven (in the future by a psychologist

or a scientist who is very gifted and has available the best instruments

and technology in the world) that everything is predetermined is also a

valid belief (as far as beliefs go).

 

Here is an additional thought. Self has no free will at all and indeed

the issue of free will is moot (at the absolute level), Self being One

without a Second. It's very nature is that of Absolute Independence or

Freedom.

 

The Jiva, even though it may be bound, "feels" that it has free will to

some extent. This feeling of "free will", in my view, is simply from the

feeling of "self existence - the I Am" principle which in turn is a

reflection of the Self.

 

This is why Sages such as Sri Ramana have said that if one meditates on

the "Feeling-Awareness" of I Am, by Grace, it can lead to Self Realization.

 

We can say that, Self is non movement. Meditation leads to non movement

of the body. Finally, the movement of the mind subsides in the Self.

 

Here and Now I am free.

 

Love to all

Harsha

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Benjamin Root wrote:

>

> 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.

>

> 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.

>

> 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).

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Sadananda-ji,

>

> Also, I did understand (with Sri Ram's help) that you are sort of

> agreeing with me that free-will exists only at the 'notional'

> vyavahaara/Jiiva level, which isn't REALLY real. At least, I hope I

> understood that point correctly!

 

Yes Benjamin. That is correct. Free will as well as fate, both are only

notional. However, all notions are not realized as notions by jiiva and

recognized as real due to his ignorance of himself. Once he transcends

that, all these notions also drop and these include both free will as

well as fate - In that state with whom can I agree or disagree! - there

is no merit or demerit either - all these are notions only in the mind

and disappear without any trace.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

>

> Hari 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.

[Guest guest]

Hi Harsha,

 

You make some very interesting points here, that I would like to join in with.

 

At 11:15 AM 4/10/03 -0400, Harsha wrote:

 

>Meanwhile I wish to say three things which are fairly basic and perhaps

>can add to your reflections in some way.

>

>1. To examine something, one needs an instrument that is more subtle

>than what is being examined. This assumption is behind the technique of

>Neti, Neti, Neti, (Not this, Not this....).

>

>2. As Sadaji hinted, it is not possible for an observer (scientist) to

>stand independently outside the system about which judgments are being

>made. Therein lies the fundamental difficulty which logic cannot

>overcome (perhaps Gregji can correct me on this).

 

This is correct. (i) There is no vantage point *inside* the system from which

to assess the entire system, because the scientist is actually covering up part

of the real estate by standing on it, so to speak. (ii) There is no vantage

point *outside* the system from which to assess the entire system, because there

are no points at all outside the system. So it can't be done. There's a

mathematical analog to this, in completeness proofs.

>3. Finally, believing that you have no free will is a perfectly valid

>and helpful belief, especially if you are constantly keeping in mind,

>"Not my will Lord by Yours".

 

This attitude towards the Lord is the key to make this no-free-will belief

provide experiential Knowledge! By itself, the belief isn't much use.

Sadananda-ji earlier pointed out that it is a hallmark of the jiva to think "I

have free will." But it also a hallmark of the jiva to think "I do not have

free will." After all, the jiva is still pointing to something separate as

being himself. This is where the great opportunity comes in to attribute

everything to the Lord, and deeply feel in the heart, "Not by my will my Lord,

but by Yours."

 

>Here is an additional thought. Self has no free will at all and indeed

>the issue of free will is moot (at the absolute level), Self being One

>without a Second. It's very nature is that of Absolute Independence or

>Freedom.

 

This is why it's a mistake (and I don't think it's one that Benjamin-ji is

making) to equate no-free-will with the Self or with non-dualism.

 

>The Jiva, even though it may be bound, "feels" that it has free will to

>some extent. This feeling of "free will", in my view, is simply from the

>feeling of "self existence - the I Am" principle which in turn is a

>reflection of the Self.

>

>This is why Sages such as Sri Ramana have said that if one meditates on

>the "Feeling-Awareness" of I Am, by Grace, it can lead to Self Realization.

 

 

I agree. It's subtle and slippery, but there are excellent guides available,

and it can be done!

 

Regards,

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

--- Greg Goode <goode wrote:

> This attitude towards the Lord is the key to make this no-free-will

> belief provide experiential Knowledge! By itself, the belief isn't

> much use. Sadananda-ji earlier pointed out that it is a hallmark of

> the jiva to think "I have free will." But it also a hallmark of the

> jiva to think "I do not have free will." After all, the jiva is still

> pointing to something separate as being himself.

 

Greg - one should also note that the statement of jiiva "I do not have

a free-will" is said willfully. A student in my class asked me once

what is wrong in being unhappy once in a why and why should one say that

all the efforts of jiiva is to gain happiness. I said - there is no

problem for one to be contended being unhappy as long as one is happy

about it. - Implication is that I do not have a free will - itself is a

statement of free-will. It is like I do not want to do any thing - that

is also a course of chosen action by Jiiva and he is accountable for

that choice In truth, of course, the question of having or not having a

will, will not arise at all.

 

> This is where the

> great opportunity comes in to attribute everything to the Lord, and

> deeply feel in the heart, "Not by my will my Lord, but by Yours."

>

Here on has to be careful again - surrendering my will to the Lord

involves recognition of the almightiness of Lord and also that 'Not by

my will my Lord but by yours' is itself a willful statement. That is

saadhana and involves karma as yoga.

 

But this state is different from true surrenderance - where once

surrendered there is no more surrenderence. Surrenderance can only

occur once - repeated surrender only means that surrender is not factual

only intentional. Bhagawan Ramana gives a beautiful sloka before he

begins the text 'Sat Darshan'. It starts with 'sat pratyayaaH kinnu

vihaaya santam hRidyu chintaa ... katham smaraami tamameyamekam, tasya

smRitiH tatra druDhaiva nishhTaa|| This is a prayer sloka and he says I

want to think of you, Lord, before I begin this text- but then how can I

think of you, who is beyond any thoughts, all I can do is just be firmly

established in you. This is j~naani's prayer. He cannot even say 'it is

not my will but His will' since there is nothing other than his will

since there is no any my and mine left after surrender.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

> >Here is an additional thought. Self has no free will at all and

> indeed

> >the issue of free will is moot (at the absolute level), Self being

> One

> >without a Second. It's very nature is that of Absolute Independence

> or

> >Freedom.

>

> This is why it's a mistake (and I don't think it's one that

> Benjamin-ji is making) to equate no-free-will with the Self or with

> non-dualism.

>

>

> >The Jiva, even though it may be bound, "feels" that it has free will

> to

> >some extent. This feeling of "free will", in my view, is simply from

> the

> >feeling of "self existence - the I Am" principle which in turn is a

> >reflection of the Self.

> >

> >This is why Sages such as Sri Ramana have said that if one meditates

> on

> >the "Feeling-Awareness" of I Am, by Grace, it can lead to Self

> Realization.

>

>

> I agree. It's subtle and slippery, but there are excellent guides

> available, and it can be done!

>

> Regards,

>

> --Greg

>

>

 

 

=====

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]

> The same goes for Hu-mata's quoted Buber article 'On Doom'. When I

see a

> quotation beginning with words such as "The biogistic and the

> historiosophical orientations of this...", I'm afraid I just switch

off -

> it's my nature. It may be that some valuable points were made but

perhaps

> someone who does understand this sort of vocabulary can paraphrase

it for me

> in everyday language?

> Dennis

 

Dennis

Buber was referring to the modern atheistic tendency to explain

everything as "nothing but..." Love is nothing but... chemicals.

Intelligence is nothing but... synaptic arcs. History is nothing but

the sweep of economic forces. Consciousness is nothing but animistic

drives. Evolution is nothing but the survival of the fittest. All of

these explanations propose a vision of man helpless in the grip of

overwhelming forces and deterministic processes, in which "unlimited

causality" holds sway, and by which the machine of nature, or

"historical necessity" grinds him down, and robs the individual of

significance. And with it human relations. But relation is the

manifestation of Consciousness in Form. As tangible as it gets. It is

expressed in the acknowledgement of being that seeing someone as a

living you is, and not simply as an it to be experienced and used, or

an image to be talked at, but never listened to deeply, as if they

were as real as you.

 

Dan

 

 

 

 

 

 

oooooooooooooooooooommmmmmmm

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

 

OK I'm back on-line! I'm reading through the last few digests to try to

catch up again. I'll just pick up a few points as I go through.

 

Murthy-ji:

"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)."

 

D: I don't think that most of the rest of us were using it in that way. I

would never have disputed this definition. I agree that we usually 'think'

we have free will. I believe most people however believe that they actually

have it.

 

Murthy-ji:

"Fate means the action to be done by the jIvA is already determined

(pre-ordained)."

 

D: Again, I have always avoided the 'pre-ordained' word as this implies that

a god has planned everything in advance. I prefer the notion of

'deterministic' meaning everything occurs in a cause-effect manner that

would be predictable by a 'super-computer' in possession of all of the data.

 

Muthy-ji:

"Surely, there is divine grace, as I understand. I am sure he agrees with

that."

 

D: Yes, no one has mentioned this yet. (I was hoping we might avoid it!) I

think I would probably try to argue that grace is a 'cause' whose origin we

cannot see in the cause-effect nexus and which has, consequently, a grossly

disproportionate effect. This is quite possibly rubbish - it only just

occurred to me and I haven't thought it through.

 

Muthy-ji:

"when the jIva transforms to jivanmukta, he sees only God everywhere and not

the jIvA."

 

D: ?? God? 'he sees'? I don't understand these terms if you have now moved

to the paramArthika plane.

 

Michael:

"persiflage"

 

D: 'light and slightly contemptuous mockery or banter' - it's a good job I

have an on-line dictionary available! I always used to think that I had a

very wide vocabulary. How come yours is so much greater? I never heard of

this one before. Has anyone else? I like it! Trouble is I have no chance of

remembering it given the state of my memory.

 

Michael:

"libertarian"

 

D: 'one who believes in free will' - do you know I never knew it meant that?

(I'm not being sarcastic incidentally!)

 

Michael:

"Anyone who has practiced meditation will know that we soon become

acquainted with and appalled by our motivation."

 

D: I thought the purpose of meditation was to rid the mind of thoughts, not

track down the hidden ones!

 

Apologies for the persiflage! Seriously though, in respect of meditation,

you say "The vertical diemension brings in the spiritual". Again (I always

seem to be saying this to you!), I don't know what you mean by this. It

sounds good to say that 'ordinary' progress is linear and deterministic but

'spiritual' is vertical but this does not seem to have any content. Why is a

so-called 'spiritual' thought and motivation different from any other? To

say such things as 'it is divinely inspired' or whatever is just another

thought, compounding the air of mysticism, for which I cannot see any

justification.

 

Michael:

"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."

 

D: This meaning of this last sentence eludes me. What do you mean by 'self

causing'? What is special about 'goals'? These are just more ideas aren't

they, brought about by desires, fears, etc., themselves just more thoughts.

All thoughts are either the result of other thoughts, memories, combinations

of these or they arise spontaneously via a mechanism that seems to have

nothing to do with this topic (other than to acknowledge that we do not have

the free will to initiate a thought), which only comes into play after the

initial thought.

 

Benjamin and Sadananda: A lot!

 

D: Reading all that was written here, it does seem that we are expending an

awful lot of energy arguing about something that is ultimately quite

irrelevant. I believe that most if not all were agreed from the outset that,

in reality, free will and fate have no meaning. They are only concepts that

we play with in our ignorance to try to explain that which is inexplicable,

which simply IS. When the dream ends and the disputants in the dream are

'melted into air, into thin air', it will 'leave not a rack behind'.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

I've just had a look at the original adhyaasa notes from Sadananda (Notes 3e

are my reference.)

 

Sada-ji - you asked that I refer to what you had said about KartRitva bhaava

and said that this and free-will are the same. I'm afraid I was thrown by

your terminology again. I just cannot seem to remember all of these Sanskrit

terms. I don't know whether others have this problem but I suspect many do.

 

It seems that all that you are claiming is that thinking that one is a

'doer' and thinking that one has free will amounts to the same thing. I

disagree. I would claim that it is perfectly possible to think that one does

things but acknowledge that one does them as a result of nature,

predispositions, ideas etc. that are beyond one's control. I, for example as

you know, firmly believe that I have no free will and that I can see this in

practice. However, I only acknowledge intellectually, because of my

understanding of Advaita, that I am not a doer. It still 'feels' as though I

do things.

 

If someone held a gun to your head and told you to do something that you

very much did not want to do or they would pull the trigger, would you not

do it?

 

Consequently, I would say that Shankara does NOT say anything about free

will in the BSB introduction (except in the sense that ALL concepts etc. are

mistaken superimpositions upon reality).

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

--- Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

> Sada-ji - you asked that I refer to what you had said about KartRitva

> bhaava

> and said that this and free-will are the same. I'm afraid I was thrown

> by

> your terminology again. I just cannot seem to remember all of these

> Sanskrit

> terms. I don't know whether others have this problem but I suspect

> many do.

 

Dennis - Some of the Sanskrti terms are very specific and have

intentional connotational meaning that cannot be obtained by traslation.

I get the same feeling sometimes when somebody talks about delta funtion

-But that has precise technical meaning by association. This is not just

a naming a funtion with some letters - In Sanskrit the word is coined

by it meanings, more so in Vedanta since words cannot describe the

undescribables - starting from the word Brahman.

> It seems that all that you are claiming is that thinking that one is a

> 'doer' and thinking that one has free will amounts to the same thing.

> I

> disagree. I would claim that it is perfectly possible to think that

> one does

> things but acknowledge that one does them as a result of nature,

> predispositions, ideas etc. that are beyond one's control. I, for

> example as

> you know, firmly believe that I have no free will and that I can see

> this in

> practice. However, I only acknowledge intellectually, because of my

> understanding of Advaita, that I am not a doer. It still 'feels' as

> though I

> do things.

 

1. First it is not my claims. karTRitva bhaava, ahankaara are

interrealted words and all arise due to adhyaasa. bhaava by definition

is notional. karTR^itvam is doer-ship - Hence notion of doer ship is the

kartR^itva Bhaava. That notion is " I am a doer" - Once I recognize

that I am limited - I cannot but do to change my notion of limitedness.

But I donot recognize that it is notional and feels it as factual due to

same adhyaasa. "No one can reamain from doing even for a moment" - says

Krishana.

 

2. Of course you can disagree and have your beliefs; and these

disagrements make the world and this list more interesting - is it not?

- If everybody agrees with everybody the list will reduce to Hare

Krishana list where everybody will be criticising mayavadins (since they

have to disagree with somebody) that do not read their posts!

Now look at your last sentence: "It still feels though as I do things" -

it being inet cannot have feeling - If I have that feeling then that

feeling is centered on me - that 'feeling' is precisesly is what

kartR^itva bhaava arises according to Shankara due to adhyaasa as he

expounded his adhyaasa Bhaashya. What I have to do are called 'niyamita

karama-s' - I have to do due to injections imposed sometimes Veda-s,

society or circumstances - Krishna adivises that Arjuna 'you do duties

that your feel obligated' - that is swadharma.

> If someone held a gun to your head and told you to do something that

> you

> very much did not want to do or they would pull the trigger, would you

> not

> do it?

 

Whether I do it by external forces or internal foces - (lot of things I

do which I may not want to do since I am married to a very wonderful

lady!) the choice of doing or not doing is mine. Apparently forced

choice is not lack of choice. When Jesus was forced to speak by Roman

Governer, he just kept mum - all he said was 'you cannot do anything to

me unless I let you do it'.

Shankara pointes out choice in action is - doing it, not doing it and

doing it another way. That 'free-will' comes with kartRitva bhaava.

> Consequently, I would say that Shankara does NOT say anything about

> free

> will in the BSB introduction (except in the sense that ALL concepts

> etc. are

> mistaken superimpositions upon reality).

 

Yes, all concepts including the concept of free-will are mistaken

superimpostions upon reality. But as long as that kartR^itva bhaava is

there due to adhyaasa - Yoga of action arises - In fact I should say -

al yoga-s arise due to that notion including 'meditation'. Shree

Dattatreya screams out in avadhuuta Geeta- 'aham dhyaata param dhyeyam

akhanda khadate katam' - how can you divide that I am a meditator and

that is to be meditated upon, that which cannot be divided!

 

karTRitva bhaava and free-will and the resulting sadhana or yoga are all

arise due to adhyaasa only - one of the reasons whey Sankara states

with that before he goes into analysis of suutra-s.

 

That my friend is my understanding. This misunderstanding of mine is

self-consistent although it is not consistent with the nature of myself

due to adhyaasa again!

 

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

>

>

>

 

 

=====

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]

>Michael: "libertarian"

>

>D: 'one who believes in free will' - do you know I never knew it meant that?

>(I'm not being sarcastic incidentally!)

 

In America, libertarians are those who combine the best (or worst)

qualities of both major political parties. They don't want to pay

taxes (just like Republicans), and they want complete sexual freedom

(just like Democrats). Surprisingly, they make up only a tiny

fraction of the population!

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

Dennis said to Sadananda:

>It seems that all that you are claiming is that thinking that

>one is a 'doer' and thinking that one has free will amounts

>to the same thing. I disagree. ...

 

Oh no! Yesterday, I surrendered to Sri Sadananda, and I received a

mysterious feeling of peace and actually seemed to make some

spiritual progress! But now that Dennis says this, honesty forces me

to say that I agree with him and the reasons he then proceeded to

give.

 

So what do we do? Take a vote? Is democracy relevant when it comes

to spiritual truth?

 

At any rate, I'm glad Dennis said this. I had THOUGHT that that was

what Sadananda-ji had said, but I wasn't quite sure.

 

However, please remember Sadananda's insistence that the feeling of

free-will is only 'notional' and therefore not ultimately true. He

seemed to be saying that our *impression* of free-will is a 'notion',

and therefore seems true within the notional, relative, vyavahhara

realm. So in this sense, he may be agreeing with us.

 

It seems to me that the difference is that Dennis and I think we can

rise above this *impression* through logic alone, without the

'mystical' vision of the paramaarthika level.

 

At any rate, my last word (I hope) is: If rigid cause-and-effect

(determinism) could somehow be proved to control all of nature

(physical and psychological), then free-will seems meaningless to me,

and I do not need mystical, transcendent, paramaarthika realization

to realize this. It follows from simple logic, for all of nature is

then a machine, including my thoughts, feelings, perceptions,

actions, and so forth.

 

However, I still have the freedom to become detached from it all and

remain in a state of Pure Consciousness, where I watch it all unfold

without being spiritually affected. Even living Jnanas continue to

have a 'personality' as their last karmas burn themselves up. Swami

Chinmayananda seemed down-to-earth and light-hearted; Swami Tapovan

seemed more reserved and serious.

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Hi Benjamin-ji!

 

At 10:58 AM 4/11/03 -0400, Benjamin Root wrote:

>It seems to me that the difference is that Dennis and I think we can

>rise above this *impression* through logic alone, without the

>'mystical' vision of the paramaarthika level.

 

Good explanation, though I don't think it's true for Dennis. In any case, logic

alone is not enough, or else this jiva-impression would have evaporated in every

died-in-the-wool Skinnerian and behaviorist in all those university psychology

departments.

 

In fact the very way you phrase the above paragraph shows that the jiva

impression is still there - *you* want to rise above this impression. That's a

case of wanting to eat one's cake and have it too! Wanting to not be a jiva,

while being there to enjoy it!

 

You do seem to believe intellectually that there is no free will, but why hasn't

this logic already accomplished the desired result?? The answer is in the very

formation of that question - desired by whom? The jiva! This is demonstration

that mere logic has not erased this impression! If it could have, it would

have!

 

>At any rate, my last word (I hope) is: If rigid cause-and-effect

>(determinism) could somehow be proved to control all of nature

>(physical and psychological), then free-will seems meaningless to me,

>and I do not need mystical, transcendent, paramaarthika realization

>to realize this. It follows from simple logic, for all of nature is

>then a machine, including my thoughts, feelings, perceptions,

>actions, and so forth.

>

>However, I still have the freedom to become detached from it all and

>remain in a state of Pure Consciousness, where I watch it all unfold

>without being spiritually affected. Even living Jnanas continue to

>have a 'personality' as their last karmas burn themselves up. Swami

>Chinmayananda seemed down-to-earth and light-hearted; Swami Tapovan

>seemed more reserved and serious.

 

How many I's are you talking about here? The I that is free is not a separate

I, it is not a piece of what call the machinery of nature. BTW, the machine

metaphors of the universe have been largely discarded by science and philosophy.

I know you respect Ramesh Balsekar. He uses the machine metaphor, but he

doesn't buy it for a second - it's just an expedient teaching, used merely to

debunk the idea of a separate locus of doership. The focus is the *debunking*,

not the machine concept. Scientists and philosophers have been going in for

cybernetic or linguistic or organic or even mystical metaphors.

 

Pranams,

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 11 Apr 2003, Dennis Waite wrote:

>

> Murthy-ji:

> "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)."

>

> D: I don't think that most of the rest of us were using it in that way. I

> would never have disputed this definition. I agree that we usually 'think'

> we have free will. I believe most people however believe that they actually

> have it.

>

 

namaste.

 

The starting point (between us) seems to be the same. We usually

*think* that we have free-will. As I said in my response to shri

Sadananda-ji, the fork which we think we saw in our route, is not

really a major fork at all.

 

> Murthy-ji:

> "Fate means the action to be done by the jIvA is already determined

> (pre-ordained)."

>

> D: Again, I have always avoided the 'pre-ordained' word as this implies that

> a god has planned everything in advance. I prefer the notion of

> 'deterministic' meaning everything occurs in a cause-effect manner that

> would be predictable by a 'super-computer' in possession of all of the data.

>

> Muthy-ji:

> "Surely, there is divine grace, as I understand. I am sure he agrees with

> that."

>

> D: Yes, no one has mentioned this yet. (I was hoping we might avoid it!) I

> think I would probably try to argue that grace is a 'cause' whose origin we

> cannot see in the cause-effect nexus and which has, consequently, a grossly

> disproportionate effect. This is quite possibly rubbish - it only just

> occurred to me and I haven't thought it through.

>

 

On a separate note, I notice shri Dennis-ji seems to be trying

to understand and *be* advaita *without* bringing in God. This has

appeared in one of his earlier responses as well. I am doubtful of

that approach. To understand advaita intellectually, we may not

need to invoke God, but to make the transition from the intellectual

advaita, to *be* advaita, God is a must. May be either here, or

in the subject of jnAna and bhakti (to be discussed later), that

point has to be addressed.

> Muthy-ji:

> "when the jIva transforms to jivanmukta, he sees only God everywhere and not

> the jIvA."

>

> D: ?? God? 'he sees'? I don't understand these terms if you have now moved

> to the paramArthika plane.

>

>

 

I use the word "seeing" as a rough meaning of the sanskrit word

"pashyanti", i.e. see through the inner eye. Through the inner

eye, we do not see the name and form, but we see the inner core

of what we are seeing, i.e. God.

 

> [...]

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

>

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

Banjamin:

"It seems to me that the difference is that Dennis and I think we can rise

above this *impression* through logic alone, without the 'mystical' vision

of the paramaarthika level."

 

D: Whoa! Steady on. I agree with the first part of the sentence but the

second part implies that paramArtha is somehow unecessary. On the contrary,

paramArtha is all that there is and I accept that through a combination of

logical conviction and authority of the prasthAna traya and modern sages.

(In some respects I am quite traditional!)

 

Benjamin:

"However, I still have the freedom to become detached from it all and remain

in a state of Pure Consciousness, where I watch..."

 

D: Who has the freedom? You, the ego, not only have no freedom, you do not

even exist. And you cannot watch any'thing' because there is no 'other'.

 

Jay:

"I get to understand from this that all activities pertaining to knowledge

and its objects are due to "superimposition" or

adhyAsa of Atman denoted by "I" and anAtman which is all that is "non-I"."

 

D: All of our misunderstanding is due to adhyAsa, yes.

 

Jay:

"But between Atman and anAtman there is no such confusion. My question is :

how can we say they are superimposed on

each other when there is no confusion between these two to begin with?"

 

D: AdyhAsa is not about mutual superimposition. It is a mistake made by

'us' - in ignorance the mind (ego) mixes up real and unreal. Our mind (mAyA)

covers up the reality and projects the illusion of a separate self in the

same way that we project the illusion of silver onto the nacre of the shell.

The ignorance from which these 'powers' originate is itself neither real nor

unreal. It is experienced as real whilst we are under its influence but

disappears upon realisation of the truth. This paradox is ‘explained’ by

saying that ignorance is ‘beginningless’.

 

Dan:

"Buber was referring to the modern atheistic tendency to explain everything

as "nothing but..."

 

D: Thank you for your interpretation. I understand now.

 

Dan:

"It is expressed in the acknowledgement of being that seeing someone as a

living you is, and not simply as an it to be experienced and used, or an

image to be talked at, but never listened to deeply, as if they were as real

as you."

 

D: This is rather more difficult. I'm not sure whether or not there is an

implied criticism here for my previous failing to respond (or perhaps I am

just being paranoid!). But the phrase 'as if they were as real as you' is

somewhat loaded in the context of advaita since neither you nor I exists as

an individual yet it is only as an individual that we could take offence,

not listen to someone or talk at someone.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

 

Yes, all concepts including the concept of free-will are mistaken

superimpostions upon reality. But as long as that kartR^itva bhaava is

there due to adhyaasa - Yoga of action arises - In fact I should say -

al yoga-s arise due to that notion including 'meditation'. Shree

Dattatreya screams out in avadhuuta Geeta- 'aham dhyaata param dhyeyam

akhanda khadate katam' - how can you divide that I am a meditator and

that is to be meditated upon, that which cannot be divided!

*****************************************

Respectfully Sadaji, what you say is true. However, after so many

years of intense meditation on the Self Sri Dattatray had every right

to scream that.

 

'aham dhyaata param dhyeyam

akhanda khadate katam'

 

Certainly no one will shout such things prior to even having started

sadhana.

 

Love to all

Harsha

 

Are their examples of that

[Guest guest]

At 09:50 PM 4/11/03 +0100, Dennis Waite wrote to Benjamin-ji:

>D: Who has the freedom? You, the ego, not only have no freedom, you do not

>even exist. And you cannot watch any'thing' because there is no 'other'.

 

 

Same things I told him...

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis,

 

"But between Atman and anAtman there is no such confusion. My question is :

how can we say they are superimposed on

each other when there is no confusion between these two to begin with?"

>AdyhAsa is not about mutual superimposition. It is a mistake made by

>'us' - in ignorance the mind (ego) mixes up real and unreal. Our mind (mAyA)

>covers up the reality and projects the illusion of a separate self in the

>same way that we project the illusion of silver onto the nacre of the shell.

 

If "adhyAsa" is not about mutual superimposition, then what is it actually?

Is AdhyAsa itself is a mistake made by 'us'? or

the result of adhyAsa is the mistake of mixing up of real and nonreal?

 

When I do mix up 'I' and 'non-I', then one way to explain that mixing up is

by the theory of "adhyAsa". I think that part is fairly easy to understand.

 

But my question was, When I am not making the mistake of mixing up the two

'I' and 'non-I' (Atman and anAtman) and there is no confusion or mixing up of

the two, then how can we say the two are still superimposed?

 

 

 

 

-

Dennis Waite

advaitin

Friday, April 11, 2003 4:50 PM

RE: Fate and Free Will

 

 

Banjamin:

"It seems to me that the difference is that Dennis and I think we can rise

above this *impression* through logic alone, without the 'mystical' vision

of the paramaarthika level."

 

D: Whoa! Steady on. I agree with the first part of the sentence but the

second part implies that paramArtha is somehow unecessary. On the contrary,

paramArtha is all that there is and I accept that through a combination of

logical conviction and authority of the prasthAna traya and modern sages.

(In some respects I am quite traditional!)

 

Benjamin:

"However, I still have the freedom to become detached from it all and remain

in a state of Pure Consciousness, where I watch..."

 

D: Who has the freedom? You, the ego, not only have no freedom, you do not

even exist. And you cannot watch any'thing' because there is no 'other'.

 

Jay:

"I get to understand from this that all activities pertaining to knowledge

and its objects are due to "superimposition" or

adhyAsa of Atman denoted by "I" and anAtman which is all that is "non-I"."

 

D: All of our misunderstanding is due to adhyAsa, yes.

 

Jay:

"But between Atman and anAtman there is no such confusion. My question is :

how can we say they are superimposed on

each other when there is no confusion between these two to begin with?"

 

D: AdyhAsa is not about mutual superimposition. It is a mistake made by

'us' - in ignorance the mind (ego) mixes up real and unreal. Our mind (mAyA)

covers up the reality and projects the illusion of a separate self in the

same way that we project the illusion of silver onto the nacre of the shell.

The ignorance from which these 'powers' originate is itself neither real nor

unreal. It is experienced as real whilst we are under its influence but

disappears upon realisation of the truth. This paradox is 'explained' by

saying that ignorance is 'beginningless'.

 

Dan:

"Buber was referring to the modern atheistic tendency to explain everything

as "nothing but..."

 

D: Thank you for your interpretation. I understand now.

 

Dan:

"It is expressed in the acknowledgement of being that seeing someone as a

living you is, and not simply as an it to be experienced and used, or an

image to be talked at, but never listened to deeply, as if they were as real

as you."

 

D: This is rather more difficult. I'm not sure whether or not there is an

implied criticism here for my previous failing to respond (or perhaps I am

just being paranoid!). But the phrase 'as if they were as real as you' is

somewhat loaded in the context of advaita since neither you nor I exists as

an individual yet it is only as an individual that we could take offence,

not listen to someone or talk at someone.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

 

 

Sponsor

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Jay.

 

Please permit this intrusion into the exchange of thoughts between

you and Dennisji.

 

I note from your statements quoted below that you have already

created a third "I" besides the "I" and "non-I". There is, therefore,

the danger of the mix-up being much more convoluted.

 

Why don't you refer to the following link recommended by Stig-Ji on

adhyAsa? I believe it can answer your doubts as it did mine.

 

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/articles/adhyasa_bhashyam.htm

 

Nice reading and ruminating.

 

PranAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

advaitin, "Jay Nelamangala" <jay@r...> wrote:

 

1. But my question was, When I am not making the mistake of mixing

up the two 'I' and 'non-I' (Atman and anAtman) and there is no

confusion or mixing up of the two, then how can we say the two are

still superimposed?

you do not

 

2. "I get to understand from this that all activities pertaining to

knowledge and its objects are due to "superimposition" or

adhyAsa of Atman denoted by "I" and anAtman which is all that is "non-

I"."

 

3. "But between Atman and anAtman there is no such confusion. My

question is :

> how can we say they are superimposed on

> each other when there is no confusion between these two to begin

with?"

[Guest guest]

--- harshaimtm wrote:

> Respectfully Sadaji, what you say is true. However, after so many

> years of intense meditation on the Self Sri Dattatray had every right

> to scream that.

>

> 'aham dhyaata param dhyeyam

> akhanda khadate katam'

>

> Certainly no one will shout such things prior to even having started

> sadhana.

>

> Love to all

> Harsha

 

Yes - you are absolutely right - yes Sadhana is required as long as one

sees the divisions - and seeing the divisions where there are no

divisions is part byproduct of being a jiiva. These are all tied in. I

was only emphasizing that even the meditation is a sadhana only - hence

jiiva's notion that 'He has to do meditation'. That notional doership

comes with that teritory of being a jiiva. As always, you are

absolutely right.

 

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.

 

Yesterday, I came across few sections in Yoga vashiShTa where

sage vashiShTa teaches RAma on self-effort and destiny. These

sections are relevant to our discussions at the moment. I will

transcribe the translation by swami Jyotirmayananda-ji. This is

from mumukshu vyavahara prakarana, volume 1, sections 4 to 8.

I have only english translation of yoga vashiShTa. I am wondering

if anyone who has the sanskrit original can let me know what

are the sanskrit words used for self-effort and destiny (these

are the words used in the translation).

 

The arguments presented here (by sage vashiShTa) certainly

support shri sadananda-ji's understanding.

 

-------------------------

 

mumukshu vyavahAra prakaraNa

 

section 4: The glory of self-effort

 

sri vasistha continued: O gentle Rama, the ocean is the same,

whether with rolling waves or with calm placidity. In the same

way, the experience of liberation is the same whether in a

jivanmukta (liberated in life, sustaining the waves of practical

reality) or in a videha mukta (liberated without the body).

 

A liberated sage does not enjoy the objects of the world with

a sense of egoistic involvement. He does not feel, "I am the

enjoyer. I am enjoying this object." Therefore, he rises beyond

the awareness of the relative realities of the world.

 

Therefore, O Rama, listen to the illuminating instructions that

are designed to dispel the darkness of ignorance. A well-sustained

self-effort leads to success in every field of life. Wherever one

encounters failure, it is due to lack of self-effort.

 

True self-effort consists of those actions of body, speech and

mind that render the unconscious (chitta) pure, and thereby lead

to the revelation of the moon of spiritual bliss beyond the dark

clouds of mental impurities. The goal of self-effort is the

attainment of Self-realization.

 

Reliance on destiny is an expression of weak will and confused

mind. Who has seen destiny performing actions without human self-effort?

Whoever accomplishes anything in this world does

so due to the result of his sustained self-effort. Destiny,

therefore, exists as a figment of imagination in a diseased mind.

 

If one performs actions (whether vocal, physical or mental) that

are enjoined by the scriptures and the sages, then it is right

self-effort. He is bound to succeed in attaining Self-realization.

 

Sustained Self-effort leads to the gradual unravelling of the

goal of Self-realization. One's self-effort must be characterized

by unbroken continuity, perseverance and patience. One must not

give up his self-effort because of obstacles. While gathering

momentum of will, he will be able to overthrow all that comes in

his way by the force of this sustained self-effort.

 

...

...

 

Self-effort has two aspects: the self-effort of the past lives,

and the self-effort of the present life. Of the two, the self-effort

of the present life has the capacity to overthrow the Karmic process

caused by past self-effort.

 

...

...

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

mumukshu vyavahAra prakaraNa of yoga vashiShTa

 

Section 6: negation of destiny

 

Sri vasistha continued: There is no destiny other than self-effort.

The self-effort of past lives becomes the destiny of the present

life. The intellect that believes that "I am dependent on destiny"

must be cured of its misunderstanding by the practice of good

association and study of scriptures.

 

Every development in life is backed by one's self-effort of the

past. There is no basic difference between destiny and self-effort.

 

Just as a person cries out in pain, so one cries out saying,

"Alas, It is my destiny," merely for sentimental relief. From

a rational point of view, each individual himself is the author

of every condition that he encounters.

 

Just as a strong man can beat up a weak one, so a stronger form

of self-effort will conquer the operations of a weaker self-effort.

The evils of yesterday can be remedied by the good actions of today.

There is no need to rely on destiny.

 

In cases where one does not succeed in one's self-effort, one

should not develop faith in destiny. One should rather realize

that his past self-effort was more intense than his present

self-effort. Therefore, even the apparent experience of defeat

sings the glory of one's own self-effort.

 

Those who do not even try to conquer the obstructive karmas of

their past lives and are dependent up[on the false concept of

destiny are dull-witted and ignorant.

 

When a person is unable to succeed in a particular endeavour,

he consoles himself by asserting the supremacy of destiny. But

this form of thinking is based upon ignorance. It must be shunned

by the wise.

 

Even when a person is glorified by society for no apparent reason,

one must realize that it was that person's past self-effort that

led him to his present accidental glory. Waiting for some accidental

development on the basis of the fictitious operations of destiny is

a great folly indeed.

 

Therefore, it is important to render the self-effort of this life

more powerful than the self-effort of the past. And that self-effort

which is sustained by a mind devoid of agitation is bound to be

victorious at all times. The past cannot hold its supremacy over

the present.

 

...

 

Surrender to God does not consist of believing in destiny. The

idea that, "God is the inspirer of man towards virtue and vice,

so what can he do by his own will?" is backed up by ignorance.

God is the indwelling reality in man. Therefore, when one adopts

the path of self-effort by renouncing his dependence on a

fictitious destiny, he is able to draw upon the infinite resources

of the divine Self within him.

 

It is self-effort that draws the Grace of God. One who lives a

life of dullness cannot claim to have the radiant virtue of

divine surrender.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

mumukshu vyavahAra prakaraNa of yoga vashiShTa

 

Section 8: The illusion of destiny

 

Oh Rama, out of ignorance, people talk of destiny. Like every

other type of false knowledge, destiny has no form, no activity,

no definite size or shape.

 

The mind creates a pattern of causationin the environment of

ignorance. It develops the idea that, "I am reaping the result

of the karma that I sowed during my past days." Such expressions

are sustained by mere words, without the basis of a practical

reality.

 

An insight into the law of karma must enable one to discover the

innate freedom of the soul to overcome all conditioning

circumstances and obstructing conditions. But when one seeks consolation

by asserting the law of karma, he is resigning to

a process of inertia.

 

...

 

An utter reliance on destiny is sustained only by the dull-witted.

If such reliance has any validity, then such people should jump

into a blazing fire with the conviction that unless destined, fire

cannot burn them.

 

If one holds the false doctrine of absolute predestination, there

should be no need for him to perform any action at all. He should

not even engage himself in actions such as bathing, sitting,

walking, talking, eating, giving in charity, and the like. There

should be no need for spiritual teachings.

 

But such a philosophy can be maintained only by the dead. It is

impossible for the living to stop activity even for a second.

Whether a child or a learned scholar, all use their mind, intellect,

senses, and body in order to attain whatever they desire. It is

impossible to stop activity in the name of destiny.

 

The dull-witted have crerated an illusionary concept of destiny

in their minds. Whoever depends upon destiny and does not take

recourse to self-effort goes to his own destruction. But wise

men attain the fulfillment of their desires and the goal of

their life by taking recourse to self-effort alone.

 

...

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Gummuluru Murthy

 

It is refreshing to read your eloquent quotations from a great

scripture, after our rather tedious and bogged-down arguments, where

nobody seemed willing to budge and where I doubt that we really

understood each other. So, I would like to try (once again) correct

what I perceive to be a common misunderstanding of my

'anti-free-will' argument. (I believe Dennis's view is similar, but

I'll let him speak for himself.)

 

For example, one part of your quotation from the Yoga VashiShTa said:

>Reliance on destiny is an expression of weak will

>and confused mind. Who has seen destiny performing

>actions without human self-effort? Whoever accomplishes

>anything in this world does so due to the result of his

>sustained self-effort. Destiny, therefore, exists as a

>figment of imagination in a diseased mind.

 

Actually, I agree with this. But to get to the point where we can

sincerely make the effort towards spiritual improvement results from

a long sequence of causation.

 

There are two things to distinguish: determinism and the erroneous

belief that effort is of no use. Determinism does not say that

effort is of no use. Effort is a cause like any other, and spiritual

development is indeed the effect. What determinism does say is that

to develop the aspiration and will-power for realization results from

a long sequence of causes and effects, which may be called our

'spiritual education' extending over many lifetimes. When you raise

your children, you implicitly believe in this cause and effect.

 

So the reality of cause and effect does not mean that we can or

should make no effort. Rather, the strength to make an effort also

arises from cause and effect!

 

For most of us, it is beneficial to proceed as though we have

free-will, as this functions as a psychological cause or condition

that helps us to make an effort. It amounts to beneficial

brainwashing, which could be said of any kind of spiritual

exhortation or education. But ultimately, to want to make an effort

and to be able to make an effort is the product of our past

development, according to a long history of cause and effect.

 

This is a subtle but important point. We are indeed predestined, but

this predestination results one day in the belief that our 'efforts'

are worthwhile and in the ability to translate our aspirations into

actions. But it is all cause and effect, and so it is all ultimately

predestined, from the 'scientific' point of view. Nevertheless, I

encourage you to indulge in the useful illusion of free-will.

 

I know that few of the devotees of free-will will be convinced by

this argument, but I challenge you to sharpen your wits by making a

sincere effort to understand what is really being said.

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

I just finished my last message with:

>I know that few of the devotees of free-will will

>be convinced by this argument, but I challenge you

>to sharpen your wits by making a sincere effort to

>understand what is really being said.

 

That does sound a bit arrogant. My apologies! But please do

entertain your thoughts by pondering my argument. It does actually

make sense, even though it may seem a bit counter-intuitive. Even if

you do not agree, the effort to understand will be

consciousness-expanding!

 

Om!

Benjamin