Fate and Free Will

[Guest guest]

ubject:

Fate and Free Will

 

Hello Dennis,

Despite the Libet research and general considerations about causality we still

have a sense of freedom.

This we project on to the will or on to the agent ego. Despite the endless

pattern of change and

dissolution ending finally in death we feel that we have an unchanging

identity. This identity we project

on to the personality. It could be said that this projection is a necessary

condition for the first

mentioned agent ego. Moral responsibility attaches to a someone.

 

On inquiry into this founding of our unchanging identity on the personality we

discover through rational

analysis that it cannot be the source of that conviction. Various

alternatives are examined and none are

adequate explanations. So it seems that we are left with the self as a

reality and nothing in the

psychological process itself that can supply that certainty.

 

It gets worse. The Self cannot be an agent either. Let me quote the short

passage in Upa.Sah. #105

Chap.II.

"Agency is not possible without the use of instruments. Instruments,

therefore, have to be assumed. The

assumption of instruments is of course, an action. In order to be the agent

of this action, other

instruments have to be asumed. In assuming these instruments still others

have to be assumed. A regressus

ad infinitum is, therefore, inevitable if the self which is not joined with

anything, were to be the

agent."

 

To resolve these irreconcilable contradictions Sankara offers the theory of

mutual superimposition. In

very broad brushstrokes then the sense of self is not an illusion but that in

which we propose to found it

is an illusory support. The sense of the absolute freedom of the Self is not

an illusion but when we

imagine it to be expressed in the arena of the will we are deluded.

 

Best Wishes, Micha

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

[CAUTION: For those List members who have reached saturation

with the repeated points made to and fro on this topic, my

apologies. If you wish, you may like to hit the SKIP or DELETE

key]

 

namaste shri Dennis-ji,

 

Thanks very much for giving me this opportunity to respond on

this topic again.

 

As you see from my posts, I have a similar feel as you and shri

Benjamin, except that you and Benjamin are looking at it from

cause and effect angle, and also on an experimental basis. I am

looking at it from my exposure to the concepts of karma and to

the words of wisdom from ancient texts.

 

I highly respect shri sadananda-ji's knowledge and his assertions

about free-will. Yet, I cannot find myself agreeing with him on

this topic: existence of free free-will.

 

My understanding or belief is as follows: Free-will is a notion

only and in vyavahArika, as shri Sadananda-ji says. Similarly,

fate (destiny) is also a notion only, and in vyavahArika.

I like particularly the description of fate as the essence of

the self-effort of the previous lives. Being a notion only, our

belief in their existence or otherwise is not critical. Also,

I think it is not a sharp boundary either (between free-will

and fate). There could be a gradual change in human belief from

free-will to fate or destiny. Depending on our previous vAsanA-s,

we fall somewhere in the spectrum.

 

I give below a few verses from nIti shataka of Bhartr^ihari

on the role of fate (destiny). Bhartr^ihari's words are

considered full of wisdom, and imbibing them is said to enable

us to fight the ariShaDvargA-s (the six great enemies) of

kAma (desire), lrodha (anger), lobha (miserliness), moha

(passion), mada (pride) and mAtsarya (jealousy).

 

verse 82:

 

Lord Indra who had astonishing support such as Brihaspati

as his guru, thunderbolt (vajra) as his weapon, gods as his

soldiers, Paradise (swarga) as his fortress, who had the

blessing of Hari (VishNu) and whose elephant was Airavat,

yet he was defeated by his enemies. Thus, fate or destiny

alone should be our refuge and not our own efforts.

 

 

verse 83

 

A hungry snake was lying unconscious in a basket with his

body and senses emaciated with hunger. A rat came and made

a hole in his mouth. After consuming the flesh of the rat,

the snake came out of the basket. Indeed one should observe

patience and leave one's prosperity or adversity to fate alone.

 

 

verse 85

 

A bald-headed person was troubled by the sharp rays of the Sun.

He went to the foot of the coconut tree for shade. But a huge

coconut fell from the tree and broke his skull. Indeed, trouble

reaches the ill-fated person wherever he goes.

 

 

verse 86

 

The elephant, the snake and the bird get bound and caged. Even

the Sun and the Moon are troubled by the planet Rahu. Looking

at the poverty of the learned, I really feel that fate alone

is supreme.

 

 

verse 87

 

Fate creates man who is the ornament of the Earth and who is the

treasure of virtues. However, the same fate makes him brittle,

fragile and subject to instant death. Is this not the foolishness

of fate?

 

 

verse 88

 

The Moon is full of nectar and is the controller of all medicines

and it always rests on the locks of Lord shiva's hair. Yet, the

Moon cannot avoid its waning. Indeed, no one can avoid what is

destined.

 

 

verse 89

 

Oh dear friend! This cruel fate picks me up like a lump of clay

and puts me on the wheel of fate like a clever potter. It rotates

my mind and gives me a different shape. Thus, fate creates different

forms in this world. I wonder what shape fate proposes to give me?

 

 

verse 91

 

Fate alone is responsible for whatever happens in the world.

One shall get whatever is decided by fate and not by taking

refuge in anyone else. The huge rain-cloud showers water

upon all and satisfies each one but the poor Chatak bird

receives hardly a couple of drops of water in its mouth.

 

 

verse 92

 

I bow down to the Gods but even they are at the mercy of fate.

But even fate offers fruits only according to one's actions.

And, the fruits are also dependent on one's actions (karma-s).

Then what can Brahma or the Gods do to us? Therefore, give

obeisance to the actions or deeds alone whom even fate or

destiny cannot ignore.

 

 

verse 93

 

Obeisance to action (karma) which has made Brahma work like

a potter to create the world; which has compelled VishNu to

assume ten incarnations with great trouble; which has made

shiva to hold the skull in his hand and to roam for alms;

and which makes the Sun revolve round and round continuously.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Nair!

 

This is just for fun. I think the debate is worth continuing just a

wee bit more. Anyhow, I'm going on travel tomorrow for a week, so I

won't be answering.

 

You said:

>Let us take an example. Some one is offering me a

>bribe. My vyavaharika reaction can be in three ways

>as Sankara pointed out. I can gladly accept the bribe

>straightaway, I can reject it or I can demand that

>the "briber" give me only half and give the rest to a

>cause of charity so that I can put my conscience at

>rest. We do have some freedom of action here as

>pointed out by Shri Sadanandaji. He is quite right.

> ...

>So, where does all this lead us? My understanding and

>conclusion: Our volition has a seeming existence and,

>since we are aware of such volition, from the vyavaharika

>point of view, it exists.

 

 

The issue is not whether you have several courses of action available

to you. You surely do. The issue is WHY you finally choose one of

them. You may *feel* that you chose one course 'freely', but that is

just a psychological impression. How do you know what caused the

thought 'Aha! I will choose that option'? That thought (or rather

decision) arose in your mind. But are you sure WHY? Maybe it was

all an inevitable product of specific vasanas in your mind:

impressions, habits, preconceptions, desires, etc. Maybe given a

complete map of those vasanas prior to your decision, as well as a

comprehensive theory of the mind in terms of causation, one could

predict your behavior. That is the whole issue. Just because you

felt that you made a free choice does not disprove this possibility.

 

Now I do admit that we don't know for a fact that the mind obeys such

a deterministic theory. That is something that must be investigated

by psychology. But until you can be sure that it does not, the

possibility remains. You impression of free will proves nothing.

The earth *seems* flat. In fact space itself seems flat, but

Einstein says it is not.

 

Pranams

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

>>> BR: "The issue is not whether you have several courses of action

available

to you. You surely do. The issue is WHY you finally choose one of

them. You may *feel* that you chose one course 'freely', but that is

just a psychological impression. How do you know what caused the

thought 'Aha! I will choose that option'? That thought (or rather

decision) arose in your mind. But are you sure WHY? Maybe it was

all an inevitable product of specific vasanas in your mind:

impressions, habits, preconceptions, desires, etc. Maybe given a

complete map of those vasanas prior to your decision, as well as a

comprehensive theory of the mind in terms of causation, one could

predict your behavior. That is the whole issue. Just because you

felt that you made a free choice does not disprove this possibility."

Benjamin <<<

 

 

D: If I can assemble those vasanas to the eye of insight so that they

are like objects to my awareness, and if in that consideration I see

their emptiness, or essential unreality so clearly that no further

behavior or imagination arises from those vasanas, that they are

extinguished by insight in other words, or understood at their core as

attached desire, and released, am I not freed from the causal chain

you say was determining me? Such insight is my own act, and cannot

come about except through my own activity (ie thoughtful or

comtemplative consideration), yet has an objective and universal

character, because what it is I focus to see with, is the Light which

shows (or sees) all things as they are, in essence and in detail. Yet

"I" am changed as a result of my act. How can any truly deterministic

explanation of my psychology survive except by saying, Well, if it

happened, then something preceded it, but nothing that can be mapped

linearly? The WHY of what I choose then, is substantially altered, but

if I were inescapably determined by all that had gone before, insight,

which is nothing more than comprehension, could not alter it.

Certainly this constitutes a new cause, but the essential act here is

the introduction of understanding, breaking up and reforming all the

connections simply by its presence, enabling me to transcend and end

causes, which, if I had not meditated, I would still be bound to.

 

Ramana Maharshi is a dramatic example of the tremendous force of such

possiblity, which is called a "point of freedom" by Percival, and

which can be extended to an "area of freedom" when developed and the

insight and implications embraced. Maharshi's original experience when

he was seventeen is the outstanding example of just such a reversal of

all previous causes set in motion in his life to that time. Later, he

even defined Wisdom as seeing the truth of something once, and then

acting on it thenceforth. And if direct insight or Light becomes your

guide, and it is universal, objective, and eternal, "unfailingly true"

as Patanjali puts it, in what way are you determined causistically, or

other than free, since you merely see things as they really are, and

determine what to do or not do, on the basis of their actual reality,

and not on your habits, preferences and prejudices? I think your model

works horizontally, so to speak, for the Created, and for all

(consciousness) that is identified with and as it, which follows

around in its train so to speak. So long as one is "attached" in

identity, acting as if it were the body, for instance, then what is

true for matter and for vestures seems true for it. But Consciousness

is vertical, and in finding its own Being is freed from all thinking

which arose as a result of its misidentification with not-self. To a

linear consciousness Being would seem to only intersect its experience

in a 2 dimensional way, and would therefore also appear only as a

pattern in it and to it, on its own ground and to its limited

perception. Until through realizing its own Self nature, it realized

its capacity to fathom all patterns on the Common Ground, and

therefore know its freedom from them, seeing them

[Guest guest]

Until through realizing its own Self nature, it realized its capacity

to fathom all patterns on the Common Ground, and therefore know its

freedom from them, seeing them as a jar is seen.

 

Dan

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

hu_mata said:

>If I can assemble those vasanas to the eye of insight

>so that they are like objects to my awareness, and if

>in that consideration I see their emptiness, or essential

>unreality so clearly that no further behavior or imagination

>arises from those vasanas, that they are extinguished by

>insight in other words, or understood at their core as

>attached desire, and released, am I not freed from the

>causal chain you say was determining me?

 

 

Dan,

 

You express some subtle thoughts which are rather stimulating. Let's

focus on this quotation.

 

I basically agree with you, but I would explain it this way.

Watching the objective world in detachment, without identification or

grasping, does indeed free one from the effects of karma. But the

process of becoming free is in accordance with the laws (cause and

effect) of the mind. It is like using a thorn to remove a thorn.

 

You can think of it as the burning light of awareness melting the ice

of the vasanas. This melting still proceeds according to the laws of

physics (in this case the 'physics' of the mind). Furthermore, to

reach the point where the awareness is focused enough to proceed

towards liberation results from a long process of spiritual

education, which also proceeded according to the laws of the mind.

Indeed, the more ignorant we are spiritually, the more we are subject

to those laws.

 

Finally, I believe that the sage, even if a Jivanmukti, still retains

a 'shadow' of personality in order to operate in the world.

(Maharishi spoke of the burned remains of the rope.) This

personality is still of the mind and functions as a kind of

auto-pilot until Mahasamadhi occurs. The sage has his wants and

needs so streamlined that only a residue of vasanas remains, enough

to sustain his last playful act in the world of samsara.

 

Even if we do not agree on details, I do agree with you that a

sadhana performed with faith and receptivity will provide a 'light'

which can lead us to liberation. This light is none other than

consciousness becoming purified. But I see no reason why this light

does not or should not proceed according to laws as long as we are

bound by Samsara. Actually, your final words seem to agree with this.

 

What is so scary about laws anyway? Is the alternative not chance

and chaos? How is that any better? Are not the laws of the

universe the manifestation of God's mind and wisdom, insofar as we

can speak of such a thing? As I explained before, I am inclined to

think that the laws of Samsara are as 'good' as they can be, given

our level of ignorance, and they exist to facilitate liberation, as

long as we 'surf' gracefully with them rather than stubbornly

resisting them. Go with the flow.

 

At any rate, this is how I see it according to my level of

understanding. If you respond and I do not, it is because I am about

to go on a trip, not because I don't care about any further ideas you

have.

 

Here is a question which might be pertinent to keep the thread from

stagnating. Suppose the consciousness is 'free' as you describe it.

Free to do what? In one important sense, it means we are no longer

controlled by karma and vasanas. But then, what is the Jivanmukti

free to do except be a blissful spectator? In that case, is he even

*doing* anything? Doesn't the Gita speak of the vanishing of the

'doer'? So what does freedom mean? Perhaps the very concept of

freedom has been transcended, except in the sense of being free from

vasanas.

 

Pranams

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Dear Benjamin-ji,

 

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

 

 

< snip >

 

 

Here is a question which might be pertinent to keep the thread from

stagnating. Suppose the consciousness is 'free' as you describe it.

Free to do what? In one important sense, it means we are no longer

controlled by karma and vasanas. But then, what is the Jivanmukti

free to do except be a blissful spectator? In that case, is he even

*doing* anything? Doesn't the Gita speak of the vanishing of the

'doer'? So what does freedom mean? Perhaps the very concept of

freedom has been transcended, except in the sense of being free from

vasanas.

 

Pranams

Benjamin

 

 

 

 

 

KKT: What is wonderful

is that the Jivanmukti seems

to have << real >> free-will

in the sense that he can

<< control >> the outcome

of his choice, ie. whatever

he << wills >> will be realized!

(incredible :-))

 

 

I like to share with you the teaching

of Yogaswami (1872-1964) on free-will.

Yogaswami was a famous mystic

and spiritual master of Sri Lanka.

 

Excerpts from the book

"Divine Messengers of Our Time"

by Susunaga Weeraperuma, p.16:

 

 

4. Eppavo Mudintha Karyam: The event was completed

long ago. It was all over long ago. Everything has been

pre-ordained. Man may like to think that he can determine

the course of his life and in a general sense even shape

the course of human affairs. It feeds the vanity of man

to think that he can shape the future. But man is a mere

instrument in the hand of God. It is God alone who controls

the past, present and future. Ego-centred man prides

in the belief that he has free will when in actuality he is

mere puppet in the hands of an unseen power. One had

better accept this fact and surrender oneself to God.

 

 

But on the same page of this book

there is this wonderful story:

 

 

Even when Yogaswami was alive he had a considerable

reputation in Sri Lanka and India as a truly enlightened

sage. He devotees naturally tended to exagerate his

spiritual accomplishments. He had been hailed as the

greatest seer the world had known since Shankara

who was born in the eighth century A.D. There were

sceptics who dismissed Yogaswami as just another

yogi with psychic powers. Even those who questioned

whether he had been fundamentally transformed in

the spiritual sense did nevertheless readily concede

that he had extraordinary powers. Yogaswami was

reputed to have been remarkably clairvoyant. He was

known to disappear from one place in space and

reappear at several places at the same time. Three of

his devotees claimed to have met him at the same

moment in time in places as far distant as Jaffna

(Sri Lanka), Madras and London. One of his close

friends recalled incidents which illustrated that anything

wished by Yogaswami immediately materialised.

For instance, this person once accompanied Yogaswami

on a long walk in the country across many miles of

rice fields. Having experienced the pangs of hunger

and fatigue, Yogaswami had casually wished for a car

ride back to town. No sooner had he uttered this wish

than there were several cars on the scene. The drivers

of the cars were all requesting Yogaswami to step into

their cars. The drivers were vying with each other for

the privilege of being of some assistance to a holy man.

On this occasion Yogaswami had raised his hands and

exclaimed how dangerous it was to wish ! Spiritually

liberated persons, I was told, were incapable of wishing

in the psychological sense as their egos had dissolved

but their wishes were confined to purely physical needs.

On another occasion, at the end of one of Yogaswami's

rare visits to Colombo, a large crowd of admirers had

thronged a railway station in Colombo to see his

departure. Some devotees were chanting hymns in

Sanskrit and Tamil while a few others were offering

him garlands of flowers. It was getting late and one of

Yogaswami's friends had alerted him to the importance

of catching his train in time. "Don't worry," replied

Yogaswami with assurance, "the train cannot leave

without me." That evening there had been engine

trouble and the train failed to start at the right time.

After leisurely greeting all his friends Yogaswami

finally decided to enter his railway compartment

and the train thereupon started to move.

 

 

Another spiritual path,

The Fourth Way of Gurdjieff,

states that only the realized ones

have << real >> free-will.

We read from the book

"The Psychology of Man's Possible Evolution"

by P.D. Ouspensky, p.54:

 

 

Man no. 7 is a man who has attained all that a man

can attain. He has a permanent "I" and free will.

He can control all the states of consciousness in

himself and he already cannot lose anything he

has acquired. According to another description,

he is immortal within the limits of the solar system.

 

 

Hope you enjoy.

 

 

Peace,

 

 

KKT

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

Thank you, KKT, for your charming stories, which relieve the tedium

of these philosophical discussions.

 

Your stories remind me of Autobiography of a Yogi by Paramahamsa

Yogananda. Some of the 'miracles' in that book seem rather

incredible. However, Yogananda comes across as a very likeable and

trustworthy person. I've never been quite sure what to make of those

miracles. I have an open mind. Miracles may not happen often in

the scientist's laboratory, but then you wouldn't expect them too.

Perhaps they can be explained as the mental energy of the Yogi

somehow producing illusions in the brains of others. Television

waves would seem incredible to the caveman. Who knows?

 

Anyhow, miracles and wonders are not essential for progress along the

spiritual path and can even be a dangerous trap for immature Yogis

whose practice is greater than their wisdom.

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Benjamin.

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

 

BR: The issue is not whether you have several courses of action

available to you. You surely do. The issue is WHY you finally

choose one of them.

 

MN: Please note that I was quoting my message of last year and it

was meant to answer the point the other party was making then.

 

BR: You may *feel* that you chose one course 'freely', but that is

just a psychological impression. How do you know what caused the

thought 'Aha! I will choose that option'? That thought (or rather

decision) arose in your mind. But are you sure WHY? Maybe it was

all an inevitable product of specific vasanas in your mind:

impressions, habits, preconceptions, desires, etc. Maybe given a

complete map of those vasanas prior to your decision, as well as a

comprehensive theory of the mind in terms of causation, one could

predict your behavior. That is the whole issue. Just because you

felt that you made a free choice does not disprove this possibility.

 

MN: I fully agree with you here. I don't understand whatever made

you think that I have any disagreement in the first place. However, I

would not vote for any explanation that doesn't satisfy me fully and

I am not at all optimistic that psychology or any other science for

that matter can ever provide one. In the circumstances, I endeavour

to understand everything, voluntary or involuntary (everything that

happens around me, everything known by me) as Consciousness

unfolding. As an Advaitin, I like to stand aside and watch the tide.

When an action is to be performed, perform it and get back to the

banks to continue watching. I believe that makes life beautiful.

Why rack our brains out trying theories? To me, a solution to the

conundrum from our mundane plane looks as impossible as a

satisfactory (final) theory for the origin and shape of the universe.

 

BR: Now I do admit that we don't know for a fact that the mind obeys

such a deterministic theory. That is something that must be

investigated by psychology. But until you can be sure that it does

not, the possibility remains. You impression of free will proves

nothing. The earth *seems* flat. In fact space itself seems flat,

but Einstein says it is not.

 

MN: As you said, mine is only an 'impression' or rather an opinion.

Opinions are never expressed to prove anything. Proving needs fool-

proof theories and experiments. I have already mentioned my reason

for not attempting any theories or experiments as the task looks

hopeless, at least to me.

 

MN: Incidentally, it was Eratosthenes(sp?) who first said that the

earth was not flat and he paid for it by his life. That was not the

end. Einstein didn't say Eratosthenes was wrong. However, he

brought in the space-time continuum and the result is: Although the

earth still looks flat to us post-Eratosthenes, we know that it is

almost spherical in shape. Despite this knowledge, we also know that

if we have the ability to experience time through our sense organs -

says eyes - the earth will not longer look spherical either as each

point on it exists at a different time. Now, please let me get on to

the banks and await other theories or dimensions unfolding that

unendingly present new shapes for the earth and universe!

 

Have a nice break away from routine.

 

PranAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Thanks to Benjamin for the links. I linked to the 'Apparent Mental

Causation' and downloaded the 5MB pdf file only to find I couldn't save it

to disc. I subsequently located it as a 180k Word document at

a1162.fmg.uva.nl/~djb/edu/Consc_NonConsc_processes/ Wegner.doc

if anyone else is interested. (Actually, I subsequently realised I probably

could have saved it - I was using the IE toolbar instead of the Acrobat

toolbar. But the pdf file was obviously scanned in as a picture rather than

text - hence the poor quality and large size.) Incidentally, Wegner also had

a book published last year 'The Illusion of Conscious Will' - sounds

interesting!

 

Michael:

"To resolve these irreconcilable contradictions Sankara offers the theory of

mutual superimposition. In very broad brushstrokes then the sense of self

is not an illusion but that in which we propose to found it is an illusory

support. The sense of the absolute freedom of the Self is not an illusion

but when we imagine it to be expressed in the arena of the will we are

deluded."

 

Dennis: You are risking incurring the wrath of Ram here! I must admit I

hadn't thought of bringing together the threads of Free Will and adhyAsa but

of course you are right. It is all just another example of the way in which

we confuse reality and appearance. I am a little wary of using any concepts

at all in connection with the Self however, including that of 'freedom'.

What could it mean?

 

Madathil: Thanks for the references to earlier Libet discussions (before I

joined the list). I will certainly look these up and read them with great

interest. I'm not sure about the value of re-raising topics that have been

discussed before. Presumably there will always be new members who did not

see the old discussions and even old members who still do not fully

understand the topic. Those old members who do fully understand can always

ignore any new discussion. In the limit, in another 10 years, say, it might

be possible that no discussions at all are needed. Someone might send in a

new topic that just says "Post 264466" and some else will reply " Yes, but

post 56665 and don't forget what Sri Ram said in Post 23344." And so on... I

am not intending to be facetious here, it just seems that new people need a

new, dynamic interchange. But of course there is a danger of repeating what

has been said before and this is indeed not always useful if it was said in

a better way last time.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Madathil:

"As I pointed out before, Libet's findings were discussed on this list

some time back (Ref: Posts 13196, 13201, 13208, 13212 of Shri

Atagrasin, Sadaji. Gregji and Ramji respectively)."

 

Just looked these up. Where do you get the message number from? (I receive

digests and there are no associated numbers.) I tried entering the URL

http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m13196.html etc. as Benjamin's

earlier post in the last digest but these did not return any messages about

Libet. I did eventually find them easily enough by searching for 'Libet' and

discovered that I was a member of the group well before this time. Where was

I?? (Obviously not reading the list at that time for some reason!

Apologies.)

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

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

 

>

> 1. Swami Paramarthananda from whom I am learning Vedanta by getting

> cassettes of his discourses on different upanishads one by one from

> Chennai.

> My shaastaanga namaskarams to you.

> Venkat.

 

Shree Venkat, Just saw your mail. Thanks for your kind words. I learned

Brahmasuutra-s from Swami Paramaarthanandaji only. You are blessed with

the right teacher. Continue your studies. God Bless you.

 

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.

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo

http://search.

[Guest guest]

--- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote:

>

> Also, I'm explicitly avoiding any conclusions about who or what is

> free. I am only trying to get Sri Sadananda to agree that there are

> certain logical consequences to rigid cause and effect in the mental

> domain ... assuming that rigid cause and effect exists in the first

> place!

>

> My question is simply a technicality regarding what kind of logic we

> should use when debating these things. I want to at least pin down a

> little rigor in that domain!

>

> Om!

> Benjamin

 

Benjamin - logic has its limitations. First it is based on perception

for its proof. Perception being experiecial we are back again not only

validating the expereince but experiencer to start with which is beyond

perceptual. It is like scientist investigation of 'consciousness'

using obviously mind that itself is supported by consciousness - Hence

we look far someother means to validate - hence shaastara alone becomes

a valid pramaaNa or means of knowledge and not logic per sec. Obviously

' a faith' has to come in - but what is deced by shaastra cannot be

illogical (otherwise it becomes fanaticism), being not illogical is

different from haveing to establish by logic.

 

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.

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo

http://search.

[Guest guest]

Hi Dennis.

 

For a list of messages with numbers, please go to Advaitin home page

and click open "messages". You can search for specific messages, you

can search for messages of varioius authors and you can also scroll

up and down the archives page by page by clicking the "previous"

and "next" tabs. You can avoid receiving digests or individual mails

by choosing for the no-mail option but yet continue to be active

through the list of messages as you have a id. This is what I

am doing with all where I am Member.

 

Madathil Nair

 

______________________

 

 

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote:

Where do you get the message number from? (I receive

> digests and there are no associated numbers.) I tried entering the

URL

> http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m13196.html etc.

[Guest guest]

> advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

> wrote:

>

>

>

> Here is a question which might be pertinent to keep the thread from

> stagnating. Suppose the consciousness is 'free' as you describe it.

> Free to do what? In one important sense, it means we are no longer

> controlled by karma and vasanas. But then, what is the Jivanmukti

> free to do except be a blissful spectator? In that case, is he even

> *doing* anything? Doesn't the Gita speak of the vanishing of the

> 'doer'? So what does freedom mean? Perhaps the very concept of

> freedom has been transcended, except in the sense of being free from

> vasanas.

>

> Pranams

> Benjamin

 

Can you ask the same question - what does fate mean in that state. Fate

and free-will both are notions and have no relavacne in the state of

liberation - that is what liberation also immplies. There is no more

delusion. Hence all the discussion is only in vyavahaara and both fate

and free-will are notions but the human has notions that he has notion

of samsaara and he needs liberation and that where yoga comes into

picture to knock of notions by another notions - but these notions will

get themselves lost while eliminating the previous notions - like soup

gettting rid of dirt. That is secret of sadhana.

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.

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo

http://search.

[Guest guest]

--- rajkumarknair <rajkumarknair wrote:

>

> Dear Sadanandaji,

> I don't intend to appear blasphemous in the advaitin

> list, that is why I send this mail directly to you.

> These are some genuine doubts that I have regarding

> the pramanas:

 

Shree Raj

There is nothing blasphemous about the questions. I am responding to

the list since many may have the same doubts too.

 

But whatever I have provided is based my understanding. You are welcome

to disagree.

> 1. Why are Vedas considered as the only valid means of

> knowledge?

> Is it because Vedas are Apourusheya ? If yes, how do

> we know that they are so? Doesn't it become a matter

> of blind belief, like belief in the holy books of

> any other religion?

 

Let me state that Hindu's believe that Veda-s are aourusheya. Hence

they become absolute pramaaNa. The darshana-s or philosophies that relay

Veda-s as pramaaNa are called aastika darshana-s. That is the faith of

the Hindu-s. Advaita vedanta is a vedic philosophy. Similarly dvaita

and vishishhTaadvaita.

 

Now more logic aspect. Ved means to know and veda means knowledge and

vedanta, which stands for upanishads also means end of the knowledge or

the ultimate knowledge since that is what they deal with. Any knowledge

is aourusheya or not authored by a human being. One may write a physics

book but the knowledge of Physics is eternal and not invented by the

author. If that is understood - so is vedanta in that sense it deals

with sanaatana dharma - the highest purushaartha - the moksha since any

other gain is not really a gain. Like all other knowledge it is

aourusheya only.

 

> Is it because that the Vedic hymns are authoured by

> Great seers who have experienced the Truth ?

> If yes, then how is it different from, say, Tao Te Ching

> or Ashtavakra Gita or Avadhuta Gita?

 

In principle they are not. It is the experince of many many seers of

the truth recorded - like physical laws in the text book of physics

which have been repeatedly experimented and confirmed again again by

subjective scientists, our seers. Hence they provide the working

hypothesis for one to pursue further and discover by oneself the truth

expounded in the vedanta. Hence we take all scriptures as pramaana as

long as they are in agreement with Vedanta and only reject those that

violate the vedanta since we have no other way to confirm they are true

or not. If somebody disagrees the theories of physics, then the burdon

of proof rests with them to show why they are worng - same applies to

Vedanta too. Being a subjective science, it becomes even more difficult

to prove or disprove vedanta. Every Tom, Dick and Harry (in Vedanta

they are called Devadatta, yagnadatta etc) can come up with alternate

theories and they may be right. But since these are subjective

experiences how are we going to confirm or deny them. Becuase of that

we cannot relay their experiences as valid unless they are in tune with

Vedanta. Hence Vedanta becomes absolute pramaaNa. One need not have

faith on that but then they have to realy on Tom, Dick and Harry.

> 2. Why is the Karma Kanda of Vedas given less importance?

 

This is a very interesting question - Since veda-s are pramaaNa for

karma kanda too but in karma kanda the knowledge that veda-s provide is

not the ultimate - There is karma involved. Like for example reading the

cook book gives us the knowledge of how to cook but that itself is not

the end in itself. I will still be hungry after reading and meditating

on the truths expounded in the cook book. Beside the knowedge of how to

cook and what to cook, I have to get the ingradients and the instruments

and the means etc to cook and follow the directions without missing salt

etc then I may be able to enjoy the result of that karma. But again

between the cup and the lip there are lot of slips! Karma kanda is

important to the same extent as the cookbook is important for

fulfilment.

> If the Jnana Kanda is the only means of knowing the

> Absolute, then one would assume that Karma Kanda is

> the only means of material knowledge.

 

In jnaan kanda - the means and the end are not differnt. Hence the

scripture says - brahma vit brahma eva bhavati - the knower of Brahman

becomes Brahman. It is very special knowlege even different from

physics knowledge since knower of physics does not become physics. Hence

Veda alone become pramaana for this.

> But then we all know that Western Science is far ahead

> in Material Knowledge than any culture was at any time.

> Does it mean that the Karma Kanda is obsolete now?

 

No. any knowlege has its role. Once I become expert in cooking, I donot

need cook book. But knowedge of how to cook does not help me in knowing

how to swim. Material knowledge all fall in the vyavahaara or

trasactions purposes. They are needed in their sphere i.e. in the

material world - one becomes more ignorant by gainging material

knowledge since more one knows more one recognizes that there is lot

more to learn. Hence my ignorance only increases in the knowledge of

material science. (By the by I am a material scientist, and still trying

to discover the depth of my ignorance!) The problem there is in the very

knowledge it excludes the knowledge of the knower and his validity.

>

> 3. Why does Advaita which speaks about the One and Only

> Reality , have to depend on Vedas - which is after all

> just another object that arises in Consciousness - for

> its validity?

 

Advaita - means non-dual. Brahman means infiniteness. Infiniteness

cannot be dual since by that infinite ceases to be infinite. What

advaita says - is not that it is only one - but you are that only one.

tat tvam asi - you are that - Hence it is not knowing 'some' only one

that is different from you - it says that you are that one.Hence it is a

pramaaNa. It is that fact that has been indeed confirmed by Seers of the

yore.

 

I hope I am clear.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

>

> It will be great if you could answer these doubts.

> Regards,

> Raj.

>

>

 

 

=====

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

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo

http://search.