free will

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "asridhar19" <asridhar19> wrote:

>

> I will try and look up the quote - but if i am not very mistaken i

> think it was swami vivekananda who said that free-will is an oxymoron!

 

 

Also!

 

"We must believe in free will, we have no choice."

 

Isaac Bashevis Singer

 

Isaac Bashevis Singer (November 21, 1902 or July 14, 1904 - July 24,

1991) was a Nobel Prize-winning Jewish writer of both short stories and

novels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Bashevis_Singer

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Tony OClery" <aoclery> wrote:

> advaitin, Sanjay Srivastava >

> > An off-shoot of this discussion leads to the famous debate between

> > Einstein and Bohr. Einstein asserted that God does not play dice.

His

> > assertions were challenged by Quantum theorists that God indeed

plays

> > dice-- at least on the sub-atomic level. I may be wrong but I

think,

> > it is the latter view that is generally accepted nowadays.

>

> Namaste s,IMHO,

>

> Einstein's quote about 'God' not playing dice is true in as much as

> subtle prarabda goes.

>

> However in the sub atomic quantum level, or even chaos if you

like,

> it is all at a less subtle level than mind and involves the

movement

> of waves and particles/waves in the action reaction modes.

>

> So It depends on whether you are on the road or the mountain

looking

> at at the road. The man on the mountain can see more and visualise

a

> future.

There are at least three problems with using this Quantum theorists

view to defend free will dogma. First, Heisenberg's principle does

not deal with causality but with predictability. Heisenberg

maintained that the movement of subatomic particles was unpredictable

and unmeasurable; he did not maintain that their movement was

uncaused. Thus this principle cannot be used to support free

will.Second, indeterminism unreasonably denies the principle of

causality, namely, that every event has a cause. Simply because one

does not know what the cause is, is not proof that an event is not

caused [from the relative point of view].Third, quantum theorists

indeterminism strips the free will devotes of his best defence. If

human choice is based in sub-atomic level indeterminsm,then no one

could be praised or blamed for anything he did,in other words you

don't have a solid fundation for exert you assumed free will..A

paradox here is that you can only talk about free will and choice in

a determinstic world.

[Guest guest]

Atagarsanji!

 

That last line of your post is poetry to my ears.

 

Instead of going subatomic, why don't we go Mandukya? I mean the

avastAtraya road, which we frequent every time we have a question

advaitic to tackle.

 

Dream X endowed with abundant dream freewill set out to attend a

dream wedding party. He had taken a firm dream vow to be at the

party. However, he ended up on his old college verandah several

thousand miles from where he began his trip. It doesn't appear any

odd at all to dream X. He doesn't question the outcome. Even if he

questions, he will reach the conclusion that he reached the verandah

of his college due to his freewill action. However, when he wakes

up to be X in waking, the dream is seen as totally illogical and

absurd.

 

Wakeful X boasts of a waking freewill as strongly as dream X. But,

despite his very deterministic claims, he has no idea about his very

next thought. He always wants to think about his lovely wife but

almost invariably collides with the `unlikable' mother-in-law.

Association or whatever, he is magnanimous enough to leave this lack

of control over the working of his mind at the feet of the Lord.

Nevertheless, he can't maintain the same attitude towards the

external world he confronts. Ironically, he is cocksure he has a

properly functioning mind and, when he acts, he is double sure that

he does so on full freewill in a very deterministic world. Is he

not invariably ending up on the college verandah having set out to

attend the wedding party? He is perhaps standing on the verandah

fully convinced that he ended up there of his own freewill. Who

knows for sure? Does he have to wake again to another plane of

advantage in order to understand the absurdity of his conclusion?

 

Freewill actions are perhaps inherent in their results. Like "I

passed the examination" has the input of "I wrote the examination"

inherent in it granting the whole issue a semblance of freewill.

College verandah thus becomes explainable even in the waking. To

hell with wedding party!

 

I don't know what GaudapAda will say to all this. Has he said

anything?

 

It is unfortunate that Heisenberg noticed indeterminism only at the

subatomic. Our sages knew that it is the very secret of mithyA.

Thus, they left everything to the Lord and saw what they saw as his

mAyA-lIlA, which incidentally includes playing dice too.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

____________________________

 

advaitin, "atagrasin" <k1c2@h...> wrote:

.....

>If human choice is based in sub-atomic level indeterminsm,then no

one could be praised or blamed for anything he did,in other words you

> don't have a solid fundation for exert you assumed free will..A

> paradox here is that you can only talk about free will and choice

in a determinstic world.

[Guest guest]

Hi Sridharji,

 

<<We are discussing this as if fate is at one end of a line and that free

will is at the other end. We then try to debate where exactly is reality

grounded in such a line.

Now, for the purposes of conducting one's life or for the purposes of

sadhana, one can take any position, extreme left, or extreme right or

anywhere inbetween.. how isit going to make any difference when reality

transcends both fate and free will.>>

 

That is an eminently diplomatic and very reasonable view. I agree!

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Hi Tony-ji,

 

<<So one can make a choice to suffer, enjoy or to learn..>>

 

I don't know that an alcoholic would agree with this (or their

family/friends).

 

<<As I have mentioned before lives are like a cartwheel with consciousness

at the hub and each spoke a life. All that is happening is we are

concentrating on one spoke at a time, but the other spokes are there at the

same time. Occasionally there are 'bleed-throughs' from another life or

spoke, usually triggered by a common or similar samskara or vasana.>>

 

This doesn't sound like anything I have heard of from Shankara or, indeed,

Advaita in general. Can you give some reference to this?

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Hi Sanjay-ji,

 

I must say this seems to be developing into an encore of the monthly

discussion of whenever it was. I really did not intend to stimulate this!

 

<<I request you to further elaborate your assertion regarding determinstic

nature of actions. Is this assertion from parmArthik drishti or vyAvahArik

drishti?>>

 

As you say, there is no argument from pAramArthika standpoint. My argument

is that I cannot appreciate any vyAvahArika justification either.

 

 

<< As far as vyAvhArik drishti is concerned, as long as I feel I have a

choice (whether or not I actually have one), free will is evident.>>

 

I don't see how this follows. I might, in a moment of euphoria on the top of

a high building, say that I feel that I could fly but...

 

<<An interesting analogy was given in this forum of a cow tied with a rope,

but free to graze. Is the cow's action free or fixed? >>

 

The cow has no free will in any sense. The rope is an unnecessary

complication and can be ignored. It is driven mechanically by its needs to

survive and it will eat grass wherever it can. If it is in a field, it will

be unable to eat much of the grass on the other side of the boundary fence.

(And it will avoid the fence altogether if it is electrified!)

 

<<A similar question applies here: If free will is part of the order of

nature and determined by the laws of nature, is it to be taken as free or

determined? >>

 

I suggest that the word 'free' is inappropriate here. If action is

determined it is not free.

 

<<An off-shoot of this discussion...>>

 

Let's not shoot off but keep the discussion ever so simple!

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

On 7/16/05, atagrasin <k1c2 wrote:

> There are at least three problems with using this Quantum theorists

> view to defend free will dogma.....Second, indeterminism unreasonably denies

the principle of

> causality, namely, that every event has a cause. Simply because one

> does not know what the cause is, is not proof that an event is not

> caused [from the relative point of view].

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but the view is that certain events are

uncaused-- not that they are caused and the cause is unknown. It is

the breakdown of causality that is at the root.

> Third, quantum theorists

> indeterminism strips the free will devotes of his best defence. If

> human choice is based in sub-atomic level indeterminsm,then no one

> could be praised or blamed for anything he did,in other words you

> don't have a solid fundation for exert you assumed free will.

 

Not really. Despite thousands of abstractions and contradictions at

quantum level, my day-to-day life goes on with Newton blissfully

unaware of what is happening down below. What is happenning there does

not seem to affect my life here in any gross ways.

 

praNAm

[Guest guest]

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

> Hi Neelakantan-ji,

>

> <<

> That society considers somethings desirable and somethings illegal

is an

> example of free will being expressed. My decision to do or not do

something

> based on the understanding of man-made or natural laws implies

choice and

> free will. If I know the consequences will be bad and still do

something,

> well, that's when I am unable to rise above my nature.

> I guess you can keep on saying all this only one's

nature/upbringing, etc.

> and hence mechanical :-) >>

>

> You've got it!

>

 

Dennis-ji,

 

What exactly do you understand/mean by the term 'free will'? It

seems to me that you are saying there is no free will because any

choice can be explained. If I chose to act in a certain manner after

weighing the alternatives - my choice being based on a number of

factors including my likes/dislikes, past experiences, sound logic,

etc. - you will still deny there is free will involved. At least,

that's what I get from your postings.

 

I tend to think that 'purushArtha' (let me avoid the debatable

term 'free will' for the moment) is necessary to counteract my

tendencies. If this is illusory, that's fine. It is His will that I

use this illusory 'purushArtha'. I do not need to go further. This

body, this mind, this intellect, this ego, this free will - all are

products of ignorance and using the intellect to resolve the

question is perhaps futile.

 

Harih Om.

Neelakantan

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Atagarsanji!

>

> That last line of your post is poetry to my ears.

>

> Instead of going subatomic, why don't we go Mandukya? I mean the

> avastAtraya road, which we frequent every time we have a question

> advaitic to tackle.

>

> Dream X endowed with abundant dream freewill set out to attend a

> dream wedding party. He had taken a firm dream vow to be at the

> party. However, he ended up on his old college verandah several

> thousand miles from where he began his trip. It doesn't appear

any

> odd at all to dream X. He doesn't question the outcome. Even if

he

> questions, he will reach the conclusion that he reached the

verandah

> of his college due to his freewill action. However, when he

wakes

> up to be X in waking, the dream is seen as totally illogical and

> absurd.

>

> Wakeful X boasts of a waking freewill as strongly as dream X.

But,

> despite his very deterministic claims, he has no idea about his

very

> next thought. He always wants to think about his lovely wife but

> almost invariably collides with the `unlikable' mother-in-law.

> Association or whatever, he is magnanimous enough to leave this

lack

> of control over the working of his mind at the feet of the Lord.

> Nevertheless, he can't maintain the same attitude towards the

> external world he confronts. Ironically, he is cocksure he has a

> properly functioning mind and, when he acts, he is double sure

that

> he does so on full freewill in a very deterministic world. Is he

> not invariably ending up on the college verandah having set out to

> attend the wedding party? He is perhaps standing on the verandah

> fully convinced that he ended up there of his own freewill. Who

> knows for sure? Does he have to wake again to another plane of

> advantage in order to understand the absurdity of his conclusion?

>

> Freewill actions are perhaps inherent in their results. Like "I

> passed the examination" has the input of "I wrote the examination"

> inherent in it granting the whole issue a semblance of freewill.

> College verandah thus becomes explainable even in the waking. To

> hell with wedding party!

>

 

Pranams Nairji.

 

Does lack of control over the results in the external world imply

the absence of free will? It is sheer arrogance to think that one

has total control over the world. If the world were completely

deterministic that would be possible. On the other hand, where the

world is probabilistic, one can only evaluate one's choices.

 

If free will is viewed as the ability to make choices, it is one

thing. The outcome may not be in our hands. If we look at free will

as the ability to make something happen with certainty (for example,

toss a coin and get heads everytime) - well, I guess there is no

free will at all! However, I can look at it as the ability to exert

some influence, however limited, on the outcome by my choice and

effort. If not, why bother with any sAdhana - dama, sama, etc.?

 

Your reference to mAndukya brings up a question in my mind. Since we

are still in a dream state, how are we going to wake up? How can any

dream action produce such a result? Should I use my 'illusory' free

will? Should I simply wait till I wake up?

 

Harih Om.

Neelakantan

[Guest guest]

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

> Hi Tony-ji,

>

> <<So one can make a choice to suffer, enjoy or to learn..>>

>

> I don't know that an alcoholic would agree with this (or their

> family/friends).

 

Namaste,

 

As it happens I am a recovering alcoholic and haven't drank since

1985, and I am fully aware that the choice to stop was up to me and me

alone. People don't stop until they are bad enough. Recovering from

alcohol is a dummy run on recovering from birth after birth and other

attachments. I learned by giving up smoking, then alcohol and finally

meat. It is a process, but the will is definately the key, not the

addiction.

 

My spoke and wheel and bleed throughs is from myself not from Sankara,

as far as I know...Perhaps he did say something

similar....?...ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Hi Dennis,

 

 

 

I enjoy your calm logic.

 

 

 

I agree with Neelakantan that it would be useful if you were to offer a

definition of that which you are refuting - ie "free will".

 

 

 

Best,

 

 

 

Peter

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Atagarsanji!

>

> That last line of your post is poetry to my ears.

>

> Instead of going subatomic, why don't we go Mandukya? I mean the

> avastAtraya road, which we frequent every time we have a question

> advaitic to tackle.

 

 

 

 

The illusion of self and free will is the crux of the

concept of Leela.

>From the casual perspective, I completely agree

with you. However, the fact that everything is

inseparably related makes me more comfortable with the

perspective that there is actually only one process. I guess

I've always associated "individual" with "decider" and

"doer," neither of which (to me) exist.Regarding

roles: the illusory I is an actor in the cosmic play

("Leela"). Actually, the illusory I is being acted. The real

I is the acting itself.In some very important experiments scientist

have found that freely voluntary acts are preceded by a specific

electrical change in

the brain (the 'readiness potential', RP) that begins 550 ms before

the act. Human subjects became aware of intention to act 350-400 ms

after RP starts, but 200 ms. before the motor act. The volitional

process is therefore initiated unconsciously.Free will is

therefore excluded. These findings put constraints on views of the

free will .The findings also affect views of guilt and

responsibility.

Atagrasin

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Atagarsanji!

>

> That last line of your post is poetry to my ears.

>

> Instead of going subatomic, why don't we go Mandukya? I mean the

> avastAtraya road, which we frequent every time we have a question

> advaitic to tackle.

Hi Madathil:

The illusion of self and free will is the crux of the

concept of Leela.

>From the casual perspective, I completely agree

with you. However, the fact that everything is

inseparably related makes me more comfortable with the

perspective that there is actually only one process. I guess

I've always associated "individual" with "decider" and

"doer," with assumed "free will" neither of which exist.Scientists

have found that freely voluntary acts are preceded by a specific

electrical change in

the brain (the 'readiness potential', RP) that begins 550 ms before

the act. Human subjects became aware of intention to act 350-400 ms

after RP starts, but 200 ms. before the motor act. The volitional

process is therefore initiated unconsciously. The conscious function

could't control the outcome; it can't veto the act. Free will is

therefore excluded. These findings put constraints on views of the

free will .The findings also affect views of guilt and

responsibility.

Atagrasin

[Guest guest]

On 7/17/05, atagrasin <k1c2 wrote:

> In some very important experiments scientist

> have found that freely voluntary acts are preceded by a specific

> electrical change in

> the brain (the 'readiness potential', RP) that begins 550 ms before

> the act. Human subjects became aware of intention to act 350-400 ms

> after RP starts, but 200 ms. before the motor act. The volitional

> process is therefore initiated unconsciously.Free will is

> therefore excluded. These findings put constraints on views of the

> free will .The findings also affect views of guilt and

> responsibility.

 

It might appear from the above that the issue of free will and

determinism has been finally resolved. Nothing would be far from

truth. It is misleading to conclude the demise of free will based on

result of Libet's experiments (1985 and 2000) quoted above, without

examining the limitations of the experiment. The RP in this

experiment was measured with respect to the decision of moving one's

hand and the results indeed suggested that the "conscious decision" of

moving one's hand was preceded by measurable unconscious neural

activity. However Libet himself later associated this with "urge"

rather than "conscious decision" since similar experiments could not

be replicated for any complex decisions.

 

The general consensus based on Libet's and later Grey's experiments is

that there

are some "conscious" decisions that are reliably preceded by

measurable unconscious

neural activity. However, the reverse has also been found true i.e.

there are also cases of

conscious decisions for which nobody has been able to demonstrate a

prior neural correlate.

 

Moreover as far as veto-ing of decision arrived through subconscious

neural activity is concerned, Libet did not find a prior correlate

for the veto decision.

 

It might appear that the existence of a free-will ontologically

undermines advaita position, however it does not-- unless the free

will is considered free in the absolute sense.

 

praNAm

[Guest guest]

On 7/17/05, Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

 

> I don't see how this follows. I might, in a moment of euphoria on the top

> of

> a high building, say that I feel that I could fly but...

 

This analogy is not appropriate here. The feeling of free-will that I

have can only be known by me however whether I can fly or not can be

corroborated by others as well.

 

Let me explain why the free will cannot be ignored in vyavhAra. I

would request you to correct me in my reasoning :

 

1) Pratyaksha: As long as I have the feeling of choice, it is evident

to me as sAkshI pratyaksha. I understand that a jnAni may not have a

feeling of a choice, but that is beside the point. sAkshI pratyaksha

can only be my own experience. It cannot be contradicted by an outside

observer.

 

2) Shabda: Veads do prescribe vidhi-nishedha. It implies that vedas

grant relative free will to the individual in vyavahAra. Shruti's

pertaining to vidhi-nishedha would become meaning less unless vedas

accepted existence of a "doer" at least in vyavahAra.

 

3) AnumAna: The argument for complete determinism in vyavahAra is

based mainly on anumAna. However here also I do not see a flaw-less

reasoning.

 

vyApti-- Every event has a prior cause.

Hetu -- I do have a sense of free will.

sAdhya -- Therefore my free will is also based on prior causes.

 

However, if you look at the issue of free- will vs. determinism, the

vyApti, itself is under question. How can we arrive at a valid anumAna

without an established vyApti?

> The cow has no free will in any sense. The rope is an unnecessary

> complication and can be ignored. It is driven mechanically by its needs to

> survive and it will eat grass wherever it can. If it is in a field, it will

> be unable to eat much of the grass on the other side of the boundary fence.

 

Cow was just an example. If you please you can replace cow with a man.

Is he free outside the rope? -- No. Is he free inside it? -- That is

the question.

 

praNAm.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Sanjay Srivastava

<sksrivastava68@g...> wrote:

> It might appear from the above that the issue of free will and

> determinism has been finally resolved. Nothing would be far from

> truth. It is misleading to conclude the demise of free will based on

> result of Libet's experiments (1985 and 2000) quoted above, without

> examining the limitations of the experiment.

> The general consensus based on Libet's and later Grey's experiments

is

> that there

> are some "conscious" decisions that are reliably preceded by

> measurable unconscious

> neural activity. However, the reverse has also been found true i.e.

> there are also cases of

> conscious decisions for which nobody has been able to demonstrate a

> prior neural correlate.

>

> Moreover as far as veto-ing of decision arrived through subconscious

> neural activity is concerned, Libet did not find a prior correlate

> for the veto decision.

>

> It might appear that the existence of a free-will ontologically

> undermines advaita position, however it does not-- unless the free

> will is considered free in the absolute sense.

 

Hi Sanjai:

Libet argues that it is not that chain of reasoning which is causally

efficacious in moving the body—at least not directly—but rather it is

the "act now" event which ultimately causes the act.Libet's argument

in defense of this view is simple: We can muse and reason all day,

even taking decisions about what we will do, but never actually

act.It is only when we experience the "act now" kind of decision that

our body actually does something.He found that all mental states are

preceded by brain events occurring 0.2 sec before.In other words

Identity as the authorship take half a second to come about.A thought

arises, the brain reacts to that thought, and the reaction of the

brain is what I choose to call my free will[no determined or

conditioned by anything] action, whereas it is not my reaction. But

for Libet it is truly a reaction of the brain to a thought that

occurred a half-second earlier. Which I say is my thought! One can

say that there is a choosing consciousness but certainly that's not

the ego function.So Libet conclusion is that the only little amount

of escape hatch that consciousness retains in a state of

identification with the ego is the ability to say no to a conditioned

action. There is no free will there.From the relative point of view

apart from illusions, the question of belief value arises. If

something is judged as illusory, does that mean it is not valuable?

It certainly had evolutionary survival value. If valuable in the

context of human effects, illusion or not, it profits humanity.In

reality there is no chooser, only the sense of choosing.Libet's

subjects can negate a hand's rising [veto],"telling" it not to rise

but this negation in Libet's subjects is not free will. Why is it

not? If he means actions are not initiated and freely selected out of

a field of opportunity, yes, he is correct. But it can still be

considered a form of sense of free will in that it either ratifies or

vetoes an action arising in the sequence of conditioning. (The

confusion is that as a term ,free will has become too all-

encompassing.)

Atagrasin

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Sanjay Srivastava >

Let me explain why the free will cannot be ignored in vyavhAra. I

> would request you to correct me in my reasoning :

> If you please you can replace cow with a man.

> Is he free outside the rope? -- No. Is he free inside it? -- That is

> the

question.

In order to be eficient, that which is callled "free will choice" would

require separate, distinct events.Several of these distinct and

separate events would have to be rejected and only one chosen Not only

would the 'events' or options have to be separate from the inexorable

chain of causation...the 'chooser' would also have to be separate.This

is what you call the Advaita teachings about the free will issue?

Atagrasin

[Guest guest]

Namaste, All

 

Lords Krishna tells Arjuna “yadhA ichasi thadhA kuru” (Ch.18, Sl.63) i.e. in

whatever manner you wish, you do. The power, one has been given, to act

according to one’s own wish is implied when Lord says this to Arjuna. The action

according to one’s own wish may depend on various factors, particularly on

knowledge (gnanam) or false-knowledge (mithyajanitha gnanam) but this choosing

of action itself is there because one has free will.

 

Free will, exercising or not exercising it while choosing one’s action,

expecting results, accepting results with prasad budhi, etc. etc. are all in

vyavahara level. As for Paramarthika, we can only talk and write and even have

debates, but we cannot “live” it. Advaita Bhava can be there with Advaita

knowledge, but once we do vyavahara dwaita does come up, whether dwaita is

illusion or not.

 

Grace is earned by one, otherwise why everyone is not blessed with grace in the

same degree. Whether earning grace involves prayer, good work, etc. etc., which

are all actions, and action only results in earning grace or not. Action, need

not be physical, it can be mental also. Any action can take place only when

desire is there and the power to desire (ichha shakti) is given to one like the

power to do action according to one’s wish.

 

“Karmani eva adhikaraha”, as I understand, means that we have “adhikara” or

“right” to do our actions. Wherever adhikara is there or right is there, one has

the freedom and this right or adhikara is for doing karma or doing actions only

(eva) i.e. he can choose his actions. I do not mean freewill is the freedom one

has to dictate the results, though one has the freedom to will that the results

should be such and such.

 

<<The Gita makes it clear that it is only by personal

 

effort and by the practice of self-control that we may

 

be delivered of the character-load with which we

 

begin. Rajaji>>>(The Hindu article quoted by Sri Vaidyanathanji)

 

The Discrimination and Free Will, human beings are blessed with, are for

Purushartha Nirnayam or Nischayam, i.e. to choose what one wants to be.

 

Now I rest on this subject.

 

With pranamas and warm regards to all

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Start your day with - make it your home page

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Sanjay Srivastava

<sksrivastava68@g...> wrote:>

> Let me explain why the free will cannot be ignored in vyavhAra.

>

> Cow was just an example. If you please you can replace cow with a

man.

> Is he free outside the rope? -- No. Is he free inside it? -- That

is

> the question.

 

Namaste,

 

To bring the focus of discussion in the context of Gita, it

would be useful to explain our understanding of two phrases Krishna

has used in addressing Arjuna:

 

 

 

11:33 - .........nimittamaatraM bhava [be only an instrument]

 

18:63 - .........yathechchhasi tathaa kuru [do as you see fit].

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri. Dennis,

> <<...I chose to attend the yakshagAna performance.

>

> I don't see a mechanical cause-effect in my choice. Maybe, I'm missing

> something from your explanation.>>

>

> ... Whatever the thought, 1) it arose without any choice or action on

> your part and 2) it was sufficient to swing the balance in favour of

> the performance - in an entirely mechanical way. And this *must* have

> happened. Otherwise, you would still be sitting/standing there now!

>

 

I am not convinced :-)

 

The quote given by Sri. Sadananda about "one being a slave of the past

as well as the master of the destiny" sounds so so right.

 

You had also mentioned that in the cow-rope analogy, the rope is a

complication. There is another analogy: The hand is free to act. Its

acts are however limited by its being anchored at the shoulder. This

anchoring also makes its acts relevant.

 

I suspect, the concepts of karma & samskAra, will be negated if there is

no free-will whatsoever. If everything is pre-determined, what is the

point?

 

Best regards,

Ramachandra

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nilakantanji.

 

I am afraid I need to clarify my stand again.

 

I passed High School. I am confronted with several options: E.g.:

I can take medicine, engineering or law. I weigh the pros and cons

of each option and decide on medicine.

 

My passing High school is a result. The credit goes to Her. The

options are a given, i.e. Hers. They were not made by me. Yet, I

think I am making a choice – medicine. My choice has several reasons

such as my inherent liking for medicine for reasons which I can't

quite figure out, my parents' wish and pressure, the knowledge that

being a doctor brings in respect, status and money, previous

association with doctors, etc. etc. None of these reasons are due to

me. If all these are not mine and are a set of givens, influenced by

which I am acting, then why do I appropriate the acting part alone to

myself?

 

I would rather that the ability to act and actual acting are a given,

are grace kindly bestowed on me. That understanding should then go

with a humble acknowledgement that I am not acting but She is, who

to me is the Consciousness of Advaita.

 

Afterall, the brain activity that motivated my action is a given,

isn't it? BG puts it squarely on the gunas arising from prakriti (BG

3.27, 3.28, 5.09, 13.29, 14.19). I don't want to go to Libet and

confound the issue. The world with all its situations we confront is

Consciousness unraveling. How can the jIvA, idiotically bound by

ignorance, have any freedom in this scenario? His so-called claim to

freedom of action and even choice is thus only seeming.

 

This understanding is not an advice to eschew action but an attempt

to comprehend it and accept it with the right attitude. Then, the

meaning of `karmaNyevAdhikAraste' will be clear. The term `freewill'

sounds and implies agency. All that I am saying is that we can do

away with it in the context of advaita.

 

This applies to sAdhana, dama, sama etc. We are fortunate all these

are given. It is not mandatory to have an `I am acting' freewill

attitude to `beneficially utilize' (She is acting again, not me!)

these blessings. It may even be counter-productive.

 

It is my personal experience that advaita has percolated into my

dreams. Sadhana, dama, yama etc. are not privy to the waking state

alone. Often, I wake up from dreams having fresh advaitic

insights. I am more than convinced that when advaita completely

pervades all the three states, I am going to be really AWAKE –

eternally WAKEFUL. I have faith She will keep me on the right track

of sAdhana (not "I will keep myself"!). That is not `waiting till I

wake up' – is it?

 

Namaste Maniji:

 

In the thousand names of Mother Lalita, She is called "Icchashakti

jnAnashakti kriyAshakti swarUpiNi". She is the shakti – not the

struggling jIvA. When Lord Krishna asked Arjuna to do as he sees

fit, the implied meaning is only "Do as She makes you do". He has

already been given the knowledge. That is the grace of jnAnashakti.

He ought to know what is fit to do in that light. If he does, that is

the grace of kriyAshakti. All our actions are manifestation of that

kriyAshakti. She holds the reins.

 

 

Namaste Sunderji:

 

Will that resolve the apparent chasm between 11.33 and 18.63? 18.63

comes at the fag end of BG. Lord Krishna's advice should therefore

conform to the verses about gunas/prakriti referred to by me earlier

in this post. Besides, 18.63 should be read with 18.57 and 18.59.

 

 

Namaste Ramachandraji:

 

Will this explanation help preserve the concept of karma and samskAra

intact?

 

 

PraNAms to you all.

 

Madathil Nair

 

_______________________

 

P.S: If you ask an Arab Muslim for help, his answer is

always: "Insha-Allah" (If God wills). He will never say "I will". We

have a great lesson there.

________________________

 

advaitin, "Neelakantan" <pneelaka@s...> wrote:

> Does lack of control over the results in the external world imply

> the absence of free will? .......

> However, I can look at it as the ability to exert

> some influence, however limited, on the outcome by my choice and

> effort. If not, why bother with any sAdhana - dama, sama, etc.?

.......

> Your reference to mAndukya brings up a question in my mind. Since

we

> are still in a dream state, how are we going to wake up? How can

any

> dream action produce such a result? Should I use my 'illusory' free

> will? Should I simply wait till I wake up?

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "K.B.S. Ramachandra" <ram@m...> wrote:

> Dear Sri. Dennis,

>

I suspect, the concepts of karma & samskAra, will be negated if there

is

> no free-will whatsoever. If everything is pre-determined, what is the

> point?

>

> Best regards,

> Ramachandra

 

Namaste R-ji,

 

The point IMHO is to learn, and to cleanse the Buddhi.

 

So the action occurs from the prarabda karma but we have a 'Free-

Choice'. if not a 'Free-Will', to adjust our attitude to the 'lesson'.

The action is predetermined and unpreventable, the action itself isn't

important per se it is our attitude. Do we learn or is it to be

repeated again in a future life?................ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Hi Neelakantan-ji,

 

 

<<What exactly do you understand/mean by the term 'free will'? >>

 

Here's the answer I made to Shailendra:

 

It would probably make more sense for you to define it if you think we have

it. However, for the sake of argument, the OED definition looks a good

starting point: "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or

fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion." You can supplement this

by the definition given by my OED on-line encyclopaedia: "Libertarians, such

as Kant, hold that free will consists in the ability to do otherwise than

one in fact does, that is, power of choice, and that this involves a

suspension of the laws of nature. Libertarians have difficulty in explaining

how this is possible, and Kant thought that for there to be free will,

people had to be thought of as being in some sense outside the bounds of

nature. Compatibilists, such as Hume, by contrast, deny that this much is

needed for free will. They hold instead that a person acts freely so long as

he is not constrained by external forces, such as the will of another

person. Compatibilists face the problem of explaining why the factors that

determine a person's desires or character, such as their genetic make-up or

upbringing, over which they have no control, should not be regarded as

depriving them of free will."

 

<<It seems to me that you are saying there is no free will because any

choice can be explained. If I chose to act in a certain manner after

weighing the alternatives - my choice being based on a number of

factors including my likes/dislikes, past experiences, sound logic,

etc. - you will still deny there is free will involved. At least,

that's what I get from your postings. >>

 

Yes, that's right. A suitably complex and well-programmed computer could do

all of this just as well.

 

<< I tend to think that 'purushArtha' (let me avoid the debatable

term 'free will' for the moment) is necessary to counteract my

tendencies. If this is illusory, that's fine. It is His will that I

use this illusory 'purushArtha'. I do not need to go further. This

body, this mind, this intellect, this ego, this free will - all are

products of ignorance and using the intellect to resolve the

question is perhaps futile. >>

 

Yes. My view is that the non-dual reality manifests as all of this - people,

things etc. - and it is continually changing, evolving, dying, being reborn

etc. at the level of appearance. In fact it is only ever Consciousness, just

as if the gold is continually being melted and reformed into new ornaments

but however many 'separate' forms there might be they are all always the one

gold. This continual movement all 'belongs' to brahman. In our ignorance, we

(a particular ornament) think that we are somehow in charge of our local

form and destiny but this is all delusion. Acknowledging this is the true

surrender.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

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

snip

>

> Yes. My view is that the non-dual reality manifests as all of

this - people,

> things etc. - and it is continually changing, evolving, dying,

being reborn

> etc. at the level of appearance. In fact it is only ever

Consciousness, just

> as if the gold is continually being melted and reformed into new

ornaments

> but however many 'separate' forms there might be they are all

always the one

> gold. This continual movement all 'belongs' to brahman. In our

ignorance, we

> (a particular ornament) think that we are somehow in charge of our

local

> form and destiny but this is all delusion. Acknowledging this is

the true

> surrender.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

 

Hello Dennisji,

 

One thing about what you have said above. It is my understanding

that Brahman doesn't move. Brahman never changes or modifies

in anyway. It is the power of Maya which is responsible for

all of the apparent movement and change of forms.

 

I like the dream, or daydream analogy, very much when viewing

Brahman and Maya. My mind projects a dream with many

dream characters and a varied landscape, (all operating

within the laws of the dream). When I wake up from

the dream, and all of the dream characters have been wiped out,

nothing happens to 'me.'

 

Within the dream, (any dream), or within this creation,

why would the characters (operating within the laws

of the dream), not have free will? Whether they 'actually'

exist or not, is a whole other topic.

 

The dream analogy may break down somewhat,

as Ishwara's mind and my limited mind are not the same.

 

For me, for my own understanding, I have no problem

with the understanding that within the laws of

Ishwara, within the creation, as a jiva, I have a limited

amount of free-will. I am bound by my parabdha (which itself

is a result of my previous actions of free-will). And by the

exercise of my free-will, I go on and create new karma, the

results of which will be experienced until the jivatvam is

no more.

 

This all seems very logical to me, and any other understanding

makes no sense at all.

 

Sometimes I wonder for myself, if trying to make the

limited capacity of my individual mind understand

how all of the laws of Ishwara operate is

even possible.

 

Karma, limited free will, parabdha, all of this makes total

sense to me and my mind finds it satisfying.

 

--Best wishes, Durga

[Guest guest]

Thank you Dennis-ji for the definition(s). I am not sure if this is

the same as 'purushArtha'. I venture to suggest the use of the

term 'svEccha' for free will.

 

I have only been holding out for a practical use of 'purushArtha',

acknowledging all the while that that too is His blessing. In my

limited capacity and understanding, this seems to help. That's all.

 

Harih Om.

Neelakantan