Guest guest Posted April 25, 2003 Report Share Posted April 25, 2003 Messages Messages Help Reply | Forward | View Source | Unwrap Lines Message 17082 of 17082 | Previous | Next [ Up Thread ] Message Index Msg # kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada> Fri Apr 25, 2003 10:12 am Re: Re: Fate and Free Will --- 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. Namaste to you, What Dennis and Benjamin are disputing is perhaps not what you hold. To put it in the form of an analogy. The default port speed of the modem that I recently installed is predicated on a perfect line, perfect connections, shortish cables etc. None of these apply so it wasn't working very well until I changed the port speed. Now it lumbers on. Ideal freedom or ideal determinism are like infinity in mathematics, you can speculate with them, they tell you something about the system but you'll never meet them. If determinism was absolute then evolution could not have got going. I must plead guilty to mystic speak when I say that we are determined to become what we are. It is this bisociation of incompatible elements that gives rise to the world shattering laughter of the sage. Best Wishes, Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2003 Report Share Posted April 25, 2003 --- ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote: .. > > Namaste to you, > What Dennis and Benjamin are disputing is perhaps not what you hold. > To put it in the form of an analogy. Namaste to you too Michael. I am not sure Benjamin and Dennis arguments are exactly what you said. If the system is fully deterministic we have a problem. I presented before, the system is non-linear dynamic system with probable states that are path dependent- with three fold bifurcations - to do, not to do and to do another way and these are fully indeterministc states at the local level (jjiva level) - at the total level or Iswara level it is a self-equilibriating states with respect to internal perturbations. Anyway I still maintain that they have proved that everything is predetermined either (at least to my satisfaction). They may argue that I have not proved that it is free-will - but my free-will along with the determinism - both are notional and from jiiva's point that notionality is not recognized as notional and the free-will is considered as real. Hence saadhana and yoga have their role to play and evolution is possible for jiiva - in the sense he can evolve or he can damn himself too if he so desires and acts on that! 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2003 Report Share Posted April 25, 2003 --- Ram Chandran <rchandran wrote: > Namaste Murthygaru and Sadanandaji: > > I believe that Murthygaru is trying to explore how the 'notion of > free-will' varies between persons with different levels of spiritual > maturity. I agree with him the exercise of 'free-will' does vary > between persons with different levels of spiritual maturity. > > Ram Chandran Ram - the point is even the levels in spiritual maturity are also notional with the exisence of jiiva. The guna-s are properties of prakRiti and prakRiti itself is maaya - maaya is that which is not there but appears to be there - Hence even maaya is notional too. Free will and the degrees of free will are all ontologically the same and the point is they exist at the same state as jiiva due to intrinsic avidya. They are all interconnected along with the sadhana and need for sadhana - And that is all vyavahaara not separate from vyavahaara. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2003 Report Share Posted April 25, 2003 --- Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy wrote: > 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. Murthy gaaru - if that is the case the quotations of yogavashishhTa you provided will not be of any use. The whole discussion of Bhagawat Geeta rests on the correct exercise of free-will of Arjuna. With what attitude he acts makes the difference is it not. 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. I don’t to some intellectual discussions - Please examine 13Ch. of Geeta and Krishna implores 24 values required before he goes into the discussion of J~naanam, j~nyeyam and j~nanagamyam. These are through free-will of the jiiva only. > example 1. rope or snake? > These two are different grades of knowledge, both in > vyavahArika. Murthy gaaru - I do understand the degree of efforts one makes and level of understandings of the nature of reality. Both the fact of the matter is as long as one does not know it is rope, the ignorance of rope is there and any reactions and actions resulting from those reactions - all bundled up in vyavahaara - are all free-will actions. That I have certain degree of free-will and try to act or not act or act differently - all are due to the same ignorance. Hence I put it in the way there no half knowledge and half ignorance - there is gradations in the purity of the mind and as Ram brought up - it is from tamasic to rajasic to saatvic. but that is not degree in free-will but degrees in purity of the mind. > 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). True - but all are notional is it not? - and I rest my case. > 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. Murthy gaaru - here is my understanding. There can be gradations in the knowledge of physics or chemistry - but not gradations in self-knowledge. There are gradations in the purity of the mind due to samskaara. Everybody knows they exist and everybody knows that they are conscious. The rest of the understanding 'I am that' comes only once and final - until then 'it is an idea' not a fact. To what extent I strive to make that idea as fact depends on samskaara - and hence sadhana's vary. Hence all saadhana-s are for 'purification of the mind only - chittasya suddhaye karma na tu vastuupa labhyaye - says Shankara - avirodhitayaa karam avidyaam na vinivartayet - karma being opposite to knowledge cannot remove it. yoginaH karma kurvanti sangham tyaktvaa aatma suddhaye - yogies perform surrounding the fruits of actions for purification of their minds - says Krishna. These are process of free-will only. What you call gradation in knowledge is gradations in purity of the mind. But I am that mind is notional and that is cause of jiiva's notional free will too. > If we accept there are different levels of knowledge in > the vyavahArika, - not really as discussed above - at least that is my understanding of the scriptures - considering the nature of the reality being ones own self. > 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. Please remember the story of the missing 10th man - or swamiji's story of Mr. Jones thinking that 'I am a rat'. Now is there a gradation in the rat knowledge of Jones? That is what 'notions' really mean - is it not? this is different from knowledge of physics or chemistry where students get different degrees! > > 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. The confusion is in terms of gradations in the purity of the mind as gradations in knowledge. In vishishhTaadvaita, what you say may be true hence karma is required till one dies. But in Advaita - the nature of Advaita violates the gradations of knowledge. > 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. Murthy gaaru - please study the yogavashishhTa slokas you have provided- see what they say. Anyway my understanding of the scriptures of advaitic nature negates the gradations in that knowledge. The discussion is also not that irrelevant for saadhana since one should have a clear vision of what is the nature of the reality and role of saadhana. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2003 Report Share Posted April 25, 2003 > > Did you mean to have the word "not," as in "they have not proved"? At > least Benjamin has not proved it. His argument depends on a premise > that he asks you to accept - something like "If science were to prove > that all events are caused." By events, he includes mental events. > That's at best a conditional argument. Even if it were valid, its > initial premise is unproved.... > > --Greg Yes Greg - my mind types faster than my fingers and sees what it has typed rather than what fingers have typed. They both seem to have divergent free wills! 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2003 Report Share Posted April 25, 2003 Hi Dennis-ji, A very yoemanlike job of reporting! Like a court reporter, or an intellectual novelist! --Greg At 06:37 PM 4/25/2003 +0100, Dennis Waite wrote: >Sri Venkat: .... >Dennis: .... >I quite liked Murthy-ji's statement to begin with: ..... >But Sada-ji then replied: .... >He later says: .... >Speaking from my own experience, this is not the case! .... >Murthy-ji later tries to make out a case for degrees of knowledge ... .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2003 Report Share Posted April 25, 2003 Dear Greg-ji: I want to congratulate Sri Dennis for a splendid job in summarizing the discussions at regular intervals. Your observation comparing him to a court reporter is precise and I thought he was more like a narrator like Sanjay describing the Maharabharat battlefield events to Dhridhrastra! What did else did you expect from him? regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, Greg Goode <goode@D...> wrote: > Hi Dennis-ji, > > A very yoemanlike job of reporting! Like a court reporter, or an intellectual novelist! > > --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2003 Report Share Posted April 25, 2003 --- Ram Chandran <rchandran wrote: I thought he was more like a > narrator like Sanjay describing the Maharabharat battlefield events > to Dhridhrastra! All we need to figure out now is on which side the Sanjay the Dennis is? Next, is it by his fate or free-will? Hari OM! Sadananda ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2003 Report Share Posted April 26, 2003 > Sri Venkat: > "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." > > Dennis: A laudable attempt to summarise the position and make logical > deductions! I was with you up to the second sentence above. I do not agree, > however, that our belief that we exist is based upon the assumption that we > act. That 'I exist', I would argue, is the one thing of which we are > certain. Even if we awoke suspended in a sensory deprivation chamber without > sensory input of any kind, we would be aware that we existed. The mistake is > to associate this feeling of existence with 'something else'. But that is > what happens in vyavahArika. I say 'I am a person' and I have the feeling of > free will. Both are mistaken. However, I can exert self-effort (in a > deterministic manner of course!) and endeavour to eliminate the ignorance > that obscures the reality. > Namaste Dennis, You say, "I Can exert self-effort (in a deterministic manner...)". To me this appears to be a contradiction in terms. Either I can or I cannot. But certainly not 'I can' in a deterministic manner. In an advaitic context, I do not think it is correct to say that actions pertain only to only physical actions. I would extend it to include even 'awareness' in a situation of duality which will include all vyavahaarika contexts. So the awareness that I exist, even in a situation of total sensory deprivation, is only an awareness in duality - the knowing priciple is different from the I that is known here. I would include such 'awareness' also within my definition of actions in the advaitic context. Probably that is the reason Lord Krishna says in the Gita that it is impossible for beings to remain without actions even for a single moment - with the mere awareness of his own being he will have started acting. I would, with the wisdom of the hind-sight that I now have, rephrase my statement as follows: "Now the definition of Vyavahaarika level is based on the common experience that I exist and I act." The rest of my argument can then proceed as in my earlier message. I have also by now completed reading the article suggested by Benjamin. I think every one who has participated in these discussions should read it. It's is absolutely marvellous. I would now like to point out the contradictions in the arguments of the no-free will camp using the logic of this article (and thereby avoid all issues of definition of vyavahaarika and paaramaarthica and whether the divide between them is stark or gradual etc.) As per the findings related in the article, when I lift a tea cup, it is invariably preceded by a thought of wanting to lift the tea cup. >From the fact that such thoughts invariably precede our actions, and that the thought and actions are consistent (ie. I do not intend to topple the cup while actually lifting it) and that there is no other apparent cause for the lifting of the cup, we infer that such acts are willed by our thoughts. Quoting Libet's experiments, the article also informs us that the 'causal' thoughts are again preceded by electrical activity in the brain a mere 200 micro seconds earlier. Now what do we say caused the action of lifting the tea cup. My thought or the electrical activity. Using the same logic as above, the article concludes that both the thought and the act that follows it, are due to the 'electrical activity'. So my actions are not due to my thoughts but due to 'electrical activity' the cause of which is not me. So actions happen but they are not mine. Now what is the awareness that I exist. However subtle and intuitive, it is still a thought (may be taking place simultaneous with the awareness itself). And such a thought must also be due to some electrical activity. But I do not say electrical activity exists; I say I exist. If I own the effect of electrical activity in the matter of existence as the effect of my own activity and say that 'I exist', how can I refuse to own the effect of the same electrical activity in the matter of my actions? It is precisely such a contractiction that is involved in making the two statements - "I exist" but "I do not have free will" pranaams, Venkat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2003 Report Share Posted April 26, 2003 advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada> wrote: > > --- Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote: > > > The only attributes of vyavahArika that are relevant > > in paramArtha are the purity of the heart and the readyness > > of the ego for surrender. > Murthy gaaru - please study the yogavashishhTa slokas you have provided- > see what they say. Anyway my understanding of the scriptures of advaitic > nature negates the gradations in that knowledge. The discussion is also > not that irrelevant for saadhana since one should have a clear vision of > what is the nature of the reality and role of saadhana. Namaste, If I understand both of you correctly: There are gradations in knowledge = krama-mukti (pipIlikA mArga - the ant's journey) There are no gradations in Knowledge = sadyo-mukti (viha~Ngama mArga - the bird's flight) Both would appear to be confirmed in: Mandukya Karika - IV:89 - j~nAne cha trividhe j~neye krameNa vidite svayam.h | sarvaj~natA hi sarvatra bhavatIha mahAdhiyaH || and Sarva-Vedanta-Siddhanta-Sara-Sangraha verses 938-966 (which repeat the 7 planes of knowledge of Yoga-Vasishtha, and how the practice and conquest of each step is required). Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2003 Report Share Posted April 26, 2003 > --- Sunder Hattangadi <sunderh wrote: > > Both would appear to be confirmed in: Sunder you are incredible. Must deserver a degree in diplomacy too- if you do not have one already! 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2003 Report Share Posted April 26, 2003 advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada> wrote: Must deserver a degree in diplomacy too- if > you do not have one already! Namaste Sadagaru, Your compliments are blessings in themselves, and worth more to me than certificates!! [The greatest diplomat, Krishna, failed in his diplomacy with the Kauravas! To disable Dronacharya's prowess in the war, he had to tell Yudhishthira to tell him "ashvatthAmA hatohataH naro vA ku~njaraH" and drowned the second half of the sentence in a loud drum beat! Such is the human condition!!!] Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2003 Report Share Posted April 26, 2003 Hi Michael, Could you explain what you meant by "If determinism was absolute then evolution could not have got going."? Evolution seems very well explained by random mutations, adaptations, survival etc. pretty much as per Darwin. Where is free will in that picture? Best wishes, Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2003 Report Share Posted April 27, 2003 Hi Venkat, You said : "You say, "I Can exert self-effort (in a deterministic manner...)". To me this appears to be a contradiction in terms. Either I can or I cannot. But certainly not 'I can' in a deterministic manner." Sorry, you seem to be playing with words here. If you like I will rephrase it to say "the jIvA may appear to act in a way that is motivated but all that is happening is that ideas and desires are themselves bringing about the action in an entirely deterministic manner". It is always possible that we can argue about the precise meaning of words but I think the essence of what I was trying to say is clear (and also the case): that some of the ways in which I act do appear to be moving in a direction that I feel to be 'towards the truth' and also 'as I would choose to act if there were such a thing as free will'. In fact this is an illusion. We can still call it 'self-effort' in that it is my (notional) self that is making that effort but that effort is not made 'freely' in the sense of having a choice to do, not do or do other. On the question of existence and free-will, I disagree with your analysis and conclusions. When you wake up in the morning, at the very instant of consciousness is the naked 'feeling of existence'. I would not categorise this as a thought. There is, however, following this, the mad scrabble by the mind to latch onto something - 'where am I?', 'what day is it?', etc. It is this process of identification by the mind that is the simultaneous arising of the ego and THEN I agree with you. Subsequent thoughts of 'I' relate to the ego, which is all part of the delusion of vyavahAra. The existence that is known on awakening consciousness is that of the Self and is not the same as the I that subsequently claims responsibility for actions. Best wishes, Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2003 Report Share Posted April 28, 2003 namaste. As we are coming to the end of the month, I think there is room yet for one more final comment from me in this debate, in terms of my closing remarks. The human may think he/she has free-will, but it is in feeling only. If at all, the free-will is only in marginal adjustments to the path he/she is on. In paramArthika, there is no free-will. In vyavahArika, everything is divine-will. For a human to think that he/she can change divine-will by his/her own free-will is beyond my comprehension at this stage of my understanding. Our advaita-vAsana is by divine will. What I said above does not negate sAdhana. A human cannot do anything else except sAdhana. sAdhana is self-effort; that is always there. When I used to teach first year physics and Newton's third law of motion, a question is often asked on the topic of horse pulling a cart. The horse argues: "If the force exerted by me (the horse) on the cart is always exactly equal and opposite to the force exerted by the cart on me, then, how can I ever pull the cart forward? I may just as well give up." That question is a fallacy and similarly the argument that if everything is divine-will, how does one ever progress to attain moksha? I have the highest respect for the proponents of free-will and their knowledge and wisdom; but I am not convinced yet of that viewpoint. Regards Gummuluru Murthy --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2003 Report Share Posted April 28, 2003 --- Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy wrote: > > The human may think he/she has free-will, but it is in feeling > only. If at all, the free-will is only in marginal adjustments > to the path he/she is on. > > In paramArthika, there is no free-will. In vyavahArika, > everything is divine-will. For a human to think that he/she > can change divine-will by his/her own free-will is beyond > my comprehension at this stage of my understanding. Our > advaita-vAsana is by divine will. Shree Murthy Gaaru - the problem is even that it is all divine will again is the feeling of a mumukshu or gij~naasu only since the very existence of Iswara is also notional and falls into the realm of vyavahaara - feeling that there are grades in vyavahaara is also vyavahaara. > > What I said above does not negate sAdhana. A human cannot > do anything else except sAdhana. sAdhana is self-effort; > that is always there. Is this sadhana by will of jiiva or will of Iswara or Jiiva-s notion that it is all divine will! > but I am not convinced yet > of that viewpoint. Yes if everybody agrees with everybody the purpose of this list reduces to triviality - is it not? Through discussions only we bringout different aspects of the problem and that is the scientific way. We are disecting the concepts not the people anyway! 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.