Fate and Free Will

[Guest guest]

Hello All,

You do not become free. You are already free. It is this already free status

that through avidya gets projected

on to the agent ego/jiva which as Dennis and Benjamin have been pointing out

cannot support it. But how did the

notion of freedom originate? If it is illusory and purely non-existent within

the realm of the relative then

how did it pop up and present itself with such insistant assurance. Actually

this is a clear indication that

the absolute and relative ought not to be dissociated even if they are

distinguished. In so many respects there

is a neatness and an economy to the Advaitic philosophy. I look forward in due

course to the discussions on

this point led by Sri Jay. "In opposition lies true friendship" (William Blake)

 

I agree with Dennis that the concept of freedom is problematic in the realm of

the Jivanmukti. In the realm of

mundane mutations it can only be a botched casting.

Best Wishes, Michael.

[Guest guest]

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

> 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.)

 

 

A .pdf file is a picture file, not editable text, which is why it is

multi-platform. To make a .pdf text file smaller in Quark (or in any

word processing program that will let you do this) save it to Cassette

(or file) instead of Print (an option in the dialog box that pops up

when you print on a laser printer). That turns your file into a

postscript file (a .ps file is what is sent to a printer: essentially

a non-editable "picture" of your file. A small book will be about 40

MB). Then use Acrobat Distiller to make a pdf file from that. (The

file will then be only about 7 MB). Almost any machine can print a pdf

file, but you can only remove text and pictures from a pdf file, not

e

[Guest guest]

Namaste Advaitins,

 

Here is one last attempt for whatever it is worth to bring about a

consensus on the subject.

 

At the paaramaarthika level we are all in agreement. There is only

Brahman or consciousness in its infinite fullness. There is no I to

act or to be acted upon. So the question of fate and free will does

not even arise.

 

It's at the Vyaavahaarika level that we have our disagreements. Now

for the definition of vyaavahaarika level - it's the level in which I

am there, the world is there and so are my actions. Our problems

arise when on an analysis it is found that all our actions can

ultimately be traced to our thoughts and the origin of our thoughts

cannot be traced. It depends on so many variables which can broadly

be classified under either nature (my genes, poorva karma etc.) or

nurture (the environment in which I am brought up, the schooling that

I receive etc.), that It appears that all we can say about thoughts

is that they just happen. The Libet findings also seem to support

this view.

 

Now the definition of Vyavahaarika level is based on the common

experience that I exist. This experience is based on the fact that I

act. My actions are based on my thoughts. But my thoughts are not

mine though they happen to me. So if the thoughts are not mine and

they happen to me then it follows that the actions are also not mine

and that they only happen through me. In such a case is it at all

correct to say that I exist. If I do not exist, is not my starting

assumption of vyaavahaarika contradicted?

 

Hence it appears to me that at the vyaavahaarika level, after having

stated that I exist, it cannot at all be said that I do not have free

will. Doing so will be trying to straddle at the same time both

vyaavahaarika (I exist) and paaramaarthika ( I have no free will

because as we have shown above it actually means I do not exist)

levels. So if vyaavahaarika is based on the incorrect notion that I

exist, the only position that is consistent with that incorrect

notion is that I HAVE free will. So a consistent definition of

vyaavahaarika has to include both the statements:

 

1. I exist.

2. I have free will.

 

Because I have free will, I have choice over my actions. So sadhana

is possible and Moksha is possible.

 

pranaams,

Venkat.

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, S. Venkatraman wrote:

> Namaste Advaitins,

>

> Here is one last attempt for whatever it is worth to bring about a

> consensus on the subject.

>

> At the paaramaarthika level we are all in agreement. There is only

> Brahman or consciousness in its infinite fullness. There is no I to

> act or to be acted upon. So the question of fate and free will does

> not even arise.

>

> It's at the Vyaavahaarika level that we have our disagreements. Now

> for the definition of vyaavahaarika level - it's the level in which I

> am there, the world is there and so are my actions. Our problems

> arise when on an analysis it is found that all our actions can

> ultimately be traced to our thoughts and the origin of our thoughts

> cannot be traced. It depends on so many variables which can broadly

> be classified under either nature (my genes, poorva karma etc.) or

> nurture (the environment in which I am brought up, the schooling that

> I receive etc.), that It appears that all we can say about thoughts

> is that they just happen. The Libet findings also seem to support

> this view.

>

> Now the definition of Vyavahaarika level is based on the common

> experience that I exist. This experience is based on the fact that I

> act. My actions are based on my thoughts. But my thoughts are not

> mine though they happen to me. So if the thoughts are not mine and

> they happen to me then it follows that the actions are also not mine

> and that they only happen through me. In such a case is it at all

> correct to say that I exist. If I do not exist, is not my starting

> assumption of vyaavahaarika contradicted?

>

 

namaste.

 

The above paragraph implies there is a homogeneous single

entity called vyavahArika. I question that. ParamArtha is

homogeneous, uniform, and all-pervading. VyvavahArika is

heterogeneous, non-uniform and separated by inner boundaries.

It is not surprising that we hold a wide-spectrum of thoughts

because that is the hallmark of vyavahArika. Another hallmark

of vyavahArika is: no thought is incorrect and every thought

can be justified.

 

Also, what shri Venkat-ji wrote above implies nature of the

"boundary" between vyavahArika and paramArtha is a *sharp* one,

if we can call it a boundary. It also implies On one side of

the "boundary" is the jIvA with a strong belief in free-will

and on the other side of the "boundary" is paramArtha where

the jIvA looses his/her individuality. I would prefer a model

of a gradation in vyavahArika, whereby thoughts in the

vyvavahArike are gradually evolved so that the strong

kartr^itvabhAvam which is the defining characteristic of

vyavahArika slowly looses its grip on the jIvA as that

entity 'moves' toward moksha.

 

The question we are tackling here is: which, of the many

thoughts in vyavahArika, is closest to paramArtha? It seems

to me that if a person *genuinely* accepts (and I stress the

word genuine here) that actions are taking place due to some

divine intentions through that body-mind-intellect-complex,

that is a higher thought than the thought that due to *my*

free-will, *I* am doing the actions.

> Hence it appears to me that at the vyaavahaarika level, after having

> stated that I exist, it cannot at all be said that I do not have free

> will. Doing so will be trying to straddle at the same time both

> vyaavahaarika (I exist) and paaramaarthika ( I have no free will

> because as we have shown above it actually means I do not exist)

> levels. So if vyaavahaarika is based on the incorrect notion that I

> exist, the only position that is consistent with that incorrect

> notion is that I HAVE free will. So a consistent definition of

> vyaavahaarika has to include both the statements:

>

> 1. I exist.

> 2. I have free will.

>

> Because I have free will, I have choice over my actions. So sadhana

> is possible and Moksha is possible.

>

> pranaams,

> Venkat.

>

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

Shree Venkat - Good summarization - though it is not by fate you reached

that consensus that is not consented by the anti-free will proponents

who may like to exercise their free will not to accept the fateful

consensus.

 

Could not resist presenting some comments on 'thoughts and thinking

process'.

 

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

> Our problems

> arise when on an analysis it is found that all our actions can

> ultimately be traced to our thoughts and the origin of our thoughts

> cannot be traced. It depends on so many variables which can broadly

> be classified under either nature (my genes, poorva karma etc.) or

> nurture (the environment in which I am brought up, the schooling that

> I receive etc.), that It appears that all we can say about thoughts

> is that they just happen. The Libet findings also seem to support

> this view.

 

Let us first question - what is a thought? JK comes up with a definition

- it is a reflection of memory. But that is only half the story. True -

every thought has a locus of an object either in the memory - as what

you mentioned as past - or in the present perception of an object in

front.

 

If everything is relatable to the past - then no new knowledge can take

place - for the ignorant - is it not? If I did not know quantum

mechanics before and I am learning now with a teacher - the new thoughts

in me - are the result of my past or in situ generated that connects to

the past (past understanding) to the present (with new understanding).

>From the student's point it is not his past while from the teacher's

point it is his past since he is teaching what he knew.

 

Let us go one step more. I am learning by myself by inductive research

- are the new thoughts may be initiated by my old thoughts but not just

the product of old thoughts - there, a meditation or contemplation is

involved to develop intuition for the new knowledge to take place (new

with reference to the researcher).

 

Your conclusion about jiiva and jagat and the saadhana are in agreement

with Vedantic teaching.

 

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

.. So a consistent definition of

> vyaavahaarika has to include both the statements:

>

> 1. I exist.

> 2. I have free will.

>

> Because I have free will, I have choice over my actions. So sadhana

> is possible and Moksha is possible.

>

> pranaams,

> Venkat.

>

>

 

 

=====

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]

--- Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy wrote:

> Also, what shri Venkat-ji wrote above implies nature of the

> "boundary" between vyavahArika and paramArtha is a *sharp* one,

> if we can call it a boundary. It also implies On one side of

> the "boundary" is the jIvA with a strong belief in free-will

> and on the other side of the "boundary" is paramArtha where

> the jIvA looses his/her individuality. I would prefer a model

> of a gradation in vyavahArika, whereby thoughts in the

> vyvavahArike are gradually evolved so that the strong

> kartr^itvabhAvam which is the defining characteristic of

> vyavahArika slowly looses its grip on the jIvA as that

> entity 'moves' toward moksha.

 

Murthy gaaru -

 

If self-ignorance is the root cause of the problem, self-knowledge alone

is the solution to that problem. It is independnet of a path - if that

is so, there cannot be gradations in the knowledge since that will make

it path dependent. Hence That there is gradation in self-knowledge also

stems from not having understood the nature of the self. It cannot be

half-snake and half rope. The gradation is only in purification of the

mind - hence when the teacher says you are that - it does appeal to the

intellect but due to pressure of the impurities or raga dwesha-s, the

knowledge does not sink in. Hence even the notion that fuzzy boundary

exists is due to fuzziness in understanding due to vasana impurities.

Until the mind is free, the truth that I am eternally free - free from

all notions -do not drop. But as the saadhana grows and the mind is

able to contemplate on the truth, Lord himself says there is no reason

to perform all niyamita karmas - one is ready to climb the horse. That

is a suggestion to contemplate more or more or meditate more and more -

that is when nidhidhyaasana becomes essential saadhana - not karma yoga.

But the freedom of choice to do dhyaana and even the freedom to

surrender to ‘That choice’ or ‘it is all the will of god ‘-is all

again due to the notional kartRitva bhaava only. Remember 'I am

surrendering' is also notional, but true surrenderence occurs only

once and then all the notions drop too. That is go/no go situation.

That boundary is not fuzzy. That is my understandin g of Vedanta.

 

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]

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

> Murthy gaaru -

>

> If self-ignorance is the root cause of the problem, self-knowledge

alone

> is the solution to that problem. It is independnet of a path - if

that

> is so, there cannot be gradations in the knowledge since that will

make

> it path dependent. Hence That there is gradation in self-knowledge

also

> stems from not having understood the nature of the self. It cannot

be

> half-snake and half rope. The gradation is only in purification of

the

> mind - hence when the teacher says you are that - it does appeal to

the

> intellect but due to pressure of the impurities or raga dwesha-s,

the

> knowledge does not sink in. Hence even the notion that fuzzy

boundary

> exists is due to fuzziness in understanding due to vasana

impurities.

> Until the mind is free, the truth that I am eternally free - free

from

> all notions -do not drop.

 

Namaste,

 

I wonder if the two views could be reconciled if we accept the

existence of 'lokas'other than this bhu-loka, as implied in Katha

Upanishad II:3:5:

 

yathaa.a.adarshe tathaa.a.atmani

yathaa svapne tathaa pitR^iloke .

yathaa.apsu pariiva dadR^ishe tathaa gandharvaloke

chhaayaatapayoriva brahmaloke .. 5..

 

As one philosopher (R.D.Ranade) analyses it, one may call these

grades of Reality or Illusion (svApnika - dream, apsu-pAriva - stick

bent in water, chhAyAtapa - with light and shade) the highest Reality

is Atapa - there is no chhAyaa in it).

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Venkatji.

 

I am afraid there is a big mix up here.

 

"I exist" or "I am existence" or "Sat" of Advaita is purely

homogeneous. It cannot contain or possess. It is without divisons.

So, there is no meaning in saying in the same breath : "I exist", "I

have free will".

 

That is not advaita, which is accepted here and proving the

credentials of which is not within our scope. If "I exist" is

homogeneous, then there is no scope for free will as a part or

division or a possession of It.. If the "I" is heterogeneous, then

it is not Existence and advaita can least bother about it.

 

Since you have found that both "I exist" and "I have free will" are

true, there obviously is some flaw in your logic. It is not an

advaitin's business to locate the flaw. He can only say that if you

accept that logic, you are non-advaitin.

 

It is, therefore, prudent that vyavaharika and Existence are not

mixed. Existence is purely paramArta where a separate free will

cannot exist. If there is a feeling of free will in the vyavaharika,

that is only seeming or apparent as I have laboured to point out

before.

 

PranAms.

 

Madathil Nair

___________________________

 

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

wrote:

 

So a consistent definition of

> vyaavahaarika has to include both the statements:

>

> 1. I exist.

> 2. I have free will.

>

> Because I have free will, I have choice over my actions. So sadhana

> is possible and Moksha is possible.

[Guest guest]

--- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

>

> It is, therefore, prudent that vyavaharika and Existence are not

> mixed. Existence is purely paramArta where a separate free will

> cannot exist. If there is a feeling of free will in the vyavaharika,

> that is only seeming or apparent as I have laboured to point out

> before.

>

> PranAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

 

Shree Nariji

 

While the essense of what you say is true, vyvahaara is not

non-existence either- it exists not as what one perceives but as

substative. When Jiiva say I exist - he may be 'in truth' referring to

the pure existence but he does not know that. He identifies himself

that he exists within the upaadhi-s. In that sense Venkatji is not

incorrect.

 

The apparent free-will in vyavahaara if known as apparent the problem is

already solved - in that case there is no more vyavahaara. Jiiva feels

the notional free-will is real free-will and there exists the problem.

It is not the question of whether free-will exists or not - it is the

question of the understanding of jiiva- As long as he thinks he is a

jiiva and operates with the notion he has the notion that he is the

karta and hence he owns the karma - hence karma to janma to karma cycle.

 

 

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]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, kuntimaddi sadananda wrote:

>

> Murthy gaaru -

>

> If self-ignorance is the root cause of the problem, self-knowledge alone

> is the solution to that problem. It is independnet of a path - if that

> is so, there cannot be gradations in the knowledge since that will make

> it path dependent. Hence That there is gradation in self-knowledge also

> stems from not having understood the nature of the self. It cannot be

> half-snake and half rope.

 

 

namaste shri Sadananda garu,

 

Please excuse me for persisting with my thoughts on

this a bit longer. I agree with you re paramArtha

that it is independent of the path. It is also independent

of the vyavahArika model which we adopt.

 

The only attributes of vyavahArika that are relevant

in paramArtha are the purity of the heart and the readyness

of the ego for surrender.

 

Our discussion is in vyavahArika about some attributes

which the jIvA has, or seems to have in vyavahArika.

A discussion of free-will and/or fate, I am afraid,

will not help us with paramArtika satyam. I think you

will agree with me on that. But somehow, we are drawn

into this discussion (because of free-will or because

of fate) and let us continue to make our points which

may help us intellectually.

 

Now, coming to our discussion: I am not saying half-rope

and half-snake. To say that I am saying that way is putting

what I said in the last post in a different light altogether.

I (and we) are discussing vyavahAric knowledge (knowledge

with the lower case k). I think there are gradations in

vyavahAric knowledge as I will try to show in the following

examples.

 

example 1. rope or snake?

 

Somebody sees a rope in the dark and mistook it to be a

snake. He/she brings a stick, hits it to kill the 'snake'

and goes back to bed with the satisfied feeling that the

snake is killed and the danger (of getting bitten by the

snake) averted.

 

Somebody sees a rope in the dark and suspects it is a

snake. There is also suspicion it may not be a snake.

He/she investigates the properties of the snake and of

the possibility it may be a rope. He/she brings a light,

but to be on the safe side, also brings a stick, pokes

the suspected snake and, with the help of light, finds

out it is a rope.

 

These two are different grades of knowledge, both in

vyavahArika.

 

example 2:

jagat: reality?, mithya?, doesn't exist?

 

There is the jagat of duality. In addition to the seen jagat,

there is also the duality of opposites like the likes and

dislikes, joys and sorrows.

 

There are people who consider this whole to be real. There

are people who consider the seen jagat to be real, but the

duality of opposites (likes and dislikes) to be unreal.

There are people who consider the whole to be mithya.

There are people who argue that the jagat does not exist.

 

All these are gradations in the vyavahArika knowledge

(knowledge with lower case k).

 

example 3:

 

Take the constituents of our List for example. There are

gradations in our vyavahArika knowledge (lower case).

There are people who consider the world is a superimposition

on brahman. There are people who consider world is brahman.

There are people who consider the world does not exist.

These are, again, gradations in vyavahAric knowledge.

 

These vyavahAric knowledge of the people is not etched

in stone. The same person, with growth of spirituality,

holds different views at different stages of spiritual

growth.

 

After all, speaking in vyavahArika, knowledge of the

Atman in the vyavahArika (i.e. the intellectual knowledge

of the Atman) is different for different people. And

knowledge of X is different from that of Y. Why is this?

It may be because of higher self-effort from X, or

pUrvajanmasukr^itams, or being at different stages in

the so-called spiritual 'journey', or a purer heart or

a better intellect. It does not matter. The point I am

trying to make is: there are different levels of knowledge

(knowledge with lower case k) in the vyavahArika.

 

If we accept there are different levels of knowledge in

the vyavahArika, coming to my previous post, let me

re-state the problem.

 

you are saying: X has free-will and implicit in that

statement is, X has kartr^itvabhAvam. Accompanying this

free-will and kartr^itvabhAvam, there is also ego. X has

these all through his/her vyavahArika knowledge with no

diminution with time or with spiritual growth. Then suddenly

these notions fall out and X realizes its true nature.

 

I am saying: In the early days of X's sAdhana, X certainly

felt that X has free-will; but as X's spirituality grew,

X's belief in free-will is gradually weakened, X sees

more and more that actions are performed as per God's

intentions through this body, X sees the ego gradually

loosening its grip until it doesn't have a grip any

more and X realizes its true nature.

 

It does not matter which model is the preferrable one,

because our Knowledge of the SELF (Knowledge with upper

case K) does not depend on our choice of the model. The

only vyavahArika attributes on which the Knowledge of the

SELF (upper case K) depends is the purity of the heart

and the weakening of the ego. That, I hope, we both agree.

> [...]

>

> Hari OM!

> Sadananda

>

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

---

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nairji,

 

I could never have replied your question the way Shree Sadanandaji

has separately done. I thank him for the same. All that I do here is

offer some additional clarifications using the analogy of dream state.

 

The free will that I have in my dream may be very real in the dream.

But its reality is of the same order as that of dream state itself.

Similarly the free will that I have in the vyaavahaarika level may be

real within that level; but it does not and cannot have a reality

which is greater than that of vyaavahaarika level itself.

 

pranaams,

Venkat

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Venkatji.

>

> I am afraid there is a big mix up here.

>