free will

[Guest guest]

<< Sanjay Srivastava <sksrivastava68

 

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. >>

 

This is not the topic of discussion. I am not denying that we have the

*feeling* of free-will, simply that this is an illusion and that really we

do not. That our actions *are* the result of free-will (or not) is not a

matter of pratyakSha. It appears to be the result of anumAna. I agree that

the question is whether such anumAna is valid.

 

<<

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. >>

 

I do not believe this is relevant to the discussion. The entire karma-kANDa

is aimed at the ones who are still lacking in any understanding of our true

nature. We are talking about a relatively high level of knowledge here,

beyond the material in the kANDa.

 

<<

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? >>

 

I do not see that you are making a clean definition of the logic involved

here. As I see it, the pakSha is the jIva; the pratij~nA is that the jIva

has free will; the dRRiShTAnta is that things do not happen without a cause;

the hetu is that the jIva (apparently) does things. I think that the vyApti

is that every event has a cause and I don't see any problem with this. I

believe everyone takes this for granted in their day to day lives.

 

Now it may well be that you would like the sAdhya to be whether or not the

jIva has free will but, as I see it, from the information available, all

that you can infer is whether or not what the jIva does is caused. And I

think the correct conclusion is that actions *are* caused. But you can infer

nothing about those causes from these premises. (I am open to correction

here - I haven't played with Advaitin logic before!)

 

My own view is that in fact they are caused by inherited and conditioned

brain mechanisms and the notion of free will is a red herring.

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Thank you Nair-ji for this beautiful explanation. You are talking from

the top of the building at which I am only gazing from the ground.

 

I had tried to distinguish between free will and agency. Perhaps this

is pointless. When choices present themselves to me, I make one - but,

obviously that too is due to God's grace only. My point is that God

does expect us to play our parts, even though everything operates

according to His will - 'nimitta.mAtram bhava savyasAchin'

 

Harih Om.

Neelakantan

[Guest guest]

On 7/18/05, Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

> This is not the topic of discussion. I am not denying that we have the

> *feeling* of free-will, simply that this is an illusion and that really we

> do not. That our actions *are* the result of free-will (or not) is not a

> matter of pratyakSha.

 

OK. I take it back. pratyakSha does not seem to work here. However, it

doesn't seem to work in the opposite direction also i.e. in favor of

predeterminism either.

> I do not believe this is relevant to the discussion. The entire karma-kANDa

> is aimed at the ones who are still lacking in any understanding of our true

> nature. We are talking about a relatively high level of knowledge here,

> beyond the material in the kANDa.

 

I disagree. The karma-kANDa section continues to be valid unless one

becomes a jnAni. The importance of karma ceases only for a

brahma-jnAni; not for someone who is just at a "relatively" high level

of knowledge. Karma is a means of Citta-shuddhi for a sAdhaka; not for

a jnAni. If as a sAdhaka I take everything as predetermined, there is

no possibility of Citta-shuddhi for me. The shruti will contradict

itself if as a sAdhaka, it tells me that everything is predetermined

> I do not see that you are making a clean definition of the logic involved

> here. As I see it, the pakSha is the jIva; the pratij~nA is that the jIva

> has free will; the dRRiShTAnta is that things do not happen without a

> cause;

> the hetu is that the jIva (apparently) does things. I think that the vyApti

> is that every event has a cause and I don't see any problem with this. I

> believe everyone takes this for granted in their day to day lives.

 

The vyApti that everything has a cause is OK, however it doesn't say

that the cause has to be a chain of events and cannot not be the free

will. How do you therefore conclude the absence of free will through

this vyApti?

 

praNAm

[Guest guest]

Pranams to all devotees:

 

Here is a fascinating dialogue -- The Riddle of Fate and Free-Will Solved.

 

http://vepa.us/dir10/freewill.htm

 

Best wishes.

 

Mangesh Hoskote

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

everybody is maybe more or less attached to BMI....attached to the

identification with BMI....attached to this world....and mind

 

maybe the condition to Be something else than a dreaming mind....is

to loose the Karma....which is related to this world...and mind

 

one can understand that someone has the wish to find

peace.....happiness....and real nature.....and so also understand

that someone wish to have a "free will" to act in "different"

way....than "other" appearing people and beings

 

one can understand that there is a deep inner wish to loose soo many

illusions....maybe which have been built up since endless

times....and which confuse the mind and the world around....with some

more Karma

 

imagine that one loose all Karma....means, reaching inner peace and

happiness......and "distance" to an appearing world......in which the

birth (and death)of oneself appear as an illusion......as something

what in reality....never happened

 

one can understand that there is "free will" again rising for

this "someone" who finished with Karma....who is aware of the

illusion of being oneself this BMI

what is this "free will" about?.....it's about maybe, first, to keep

on being "free".......with everything else.....which is free....since

ever....and forever

 

sure....this include also to take care when crossing the street.....

having the free will to "survive" this dream......

and maybe that's it.....having just the wish to Be......to continue

with existance itself.......by knowing that nothing would

change......when this dream would end.....means, when the BMI would

die......

 

....so there is a life....even if one would loose the "free will"....

 

nothing ever really change.....a free will or non-free will

of "someone" can't change This

 

only few thoughts

i'm open minded for corrections

thank you

 

Regards

 

love and peace

 

Marc

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

>

> 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 Madathilji,

 

The 'chasm', in my view, has already been bridged by

Gita 6:5 :

 

uddhared aatmanaa aatmaanam na aatmaanam avasaadayet.h |

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Mangesh Hoskote <mhoskote2000>

wrote:

> Pranams to all devotees:

>

> Here is a fascinating dialogue -- The Riddle of Fate and Free-Will

Solved.

>

> http://vepa.us/dir10/freewill.htm

 

Namaste, MH-ji,IMHO.

 

I would qualify this with the statement that free will doesn't exist

in the past either for all is prarabda. Just the 'choice or attitude'

to circumstances exists. In some way the mind learns its lessons

sometimes and karmic memory doest manifest the same circumstances

again. There is no beginning to prarabda but there is an end--Moksha.

Prarabda even survives pralya and mahaprayla eternally.....There is no

beginning for nothing ever happened..ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Hi Sanjay,

 

Enjoying our discussion here!

 

<< OK. I take it back. pratyakSha does not seem to work here. However, it

doesn't seem to work in the opposite direction also i.e. in favor of

predeterminism either. >>

 

 

Not so sure. It does seem, if I am very attentive, that I can perceive a

cause (or several causes) for every action I (appear to) take. Sometimes

there may be a logical sequence of ifs and buts when there are several

causes but it is usually possible to see the mechanics - and it does seem to

be mechanical.

 

<< The karma-kANDa section continues to be valid unless one

becomes a jnAni. The importance of karma ceases only for a

brahma-jnAni; not for someone who is just at a "relatively" high level

of knowledge. Karma is a means of Citta-shuddhi for a sAdhaka; not for

a jnAni. If as a sAdhaka I take everything as predetermined, there is

no possibility of Citta-shuddhi for me. The shruti will contradict

itself if as a sAdhaka, it tells me that everything is predetermined >>

 

Again, I do not really agree. Just as with a living teacher, the shruti has

to try to cater for all levels of understanding. The most ignorant have to

undergo preparation, as you say and, again as you say, karma is an

inappropriate method for the j~nAna yogi. The teaching that there is no free

will is only appropriate for those who have understood most of the teaching

already. I don't see that there is any contradiction - the entire shruti has

to be thrown away once realization occurs. It is the same with something

like reincarnation. In the beginning, the sAdhaka learns that there is such

a thing. Eventually, this has to be taken back when he learns that there is

no one who was born in the first place.

 

<< The vyApti that everything has a cause is OK, however it doesn't say that

the cause has to be a chain of events and cannot not be the free will. How

do you therefore conclude the absence of free will through this vyApti? >>

 

Every cause is itself the effect of another cause, isn't it? All the way

back to the 'first cause'. As I said before, it seems an unnecessary

complication to introduce something called 'free will', especially when we

don't really know what it is. I could equally well say that an alien

controller injects an electronic stimulus at the appropriate point to swing

the 'decision' one way rather than another. Is this any less provable? (I've

just been watching the movie 'Thirteenth Floor'!) In the absence of concrete

evidence, the simplest explanation should always be assumed.

 

But no, I certainly don't conclude the absence of free will through the

vyApti that everything has a cause. This is the point I was making - the

logic cannot say anything at all about free will because we have no known

information about it.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Hi Durga-ji,

 

<<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. >>

 

Yes, of course I don't disagree. I wanted to keep it simple (one topic at a

time). All of this appearance is brahman, because there is only brahman. At

the level of explanations, we talk about Ishvara and mAyA, just as we talk

about jIva-s and avidya, but this is not how it is 'really'. I used the

metaphor of gold and ornaments and I think this is a useful one for general

understanding.

 

<< 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.

>>

 

I do not see why 'whether they exist or not' is another topic. Clearly the

characters in your dream do *not* exist. Therefore they *cannot* have any

free will. By extrapolation of your own metaphor, it would seem to follow

that we (waking jIva-s), who also do not exist, similarly can have no free

will.

 

<< 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. >>

 

Yes, I believe you! (I know we have discussed this a few times before!) But

your having no problem believing that you have a limited amount of free-will

does not help someone else to believe this also.

 

No one seems to have addressed the question of action, yet. Presumably all

agree that we do not act (only guNa act), as I mentioned earlier, as per

gIta. Is 'choosing' then not regarded as an action? If not, why not?

 

Thanks to Neelakantan, incidentally for suggesting svecchA for 'free will'.

This is indeed the meaning given by Monier-Williams. Does this word occur

anywhere in the scriptures, Sunder? It is interesting actually that this

word derives from sva and IcchA, which literally means one's own desire. So,

actually, this could still mean a simple cause-effect relationship of

choosing because one's automatic programming has predisposed one to like one

thing rather than another, i.e. no different from any other animal.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Thanks Dennis-ji. I must admit what you say makes logical sense,

however I am still not buying your stand. I am giving up for the time

being but do not take it as vindication of your stand. Give me some

more time and I will see if I can attack your position from other

angles.

 

praNAm

Sanjay Srivastava

[Guest guest]

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

>

> Thanks to Neelakantan, incidentally for suggesting svecchA

for 'free will'.

> This is indeed the meaning given by Monier-Williams. Does this

word occur

> anywhere in the scriptures ?

 

Namaste,

 

It occurs in Nirvana Upanishad:

 

http://sanskrit.gde.to/doc_upanishhat/nirvana.itx

 

svechchhaachaarasvasvabhaavo mokshaH paraM brahma .

 

 

English translation at:

 

http://www.celextel.org/ebooks/upanishads/nirvana_upanishad.htm

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

The discussions on Free will seem to be having a continuing hold on

all of us. I am attempting below, in the form of a dialogue, a

summary of most of the discussions in the past two weeks . Most of

the words that I use are actually quotes from the postings of the

past two weeks though, I have put in one or two of my own thoughts.

Of course, who is this 'I'? Incidentally, all the participants

below are 'advaitins'!

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

 

A: Karma is not fatalism. It is not an arbitrary and external

agency, which makes personal effort of no avail.

 

B: That means we have freedom to act. So we have free will

 

C: Advaita says that our vyvavahara level is an illusion.

 

B: Our free will is only in the vyvavahara level. In the

paramarthika level there is no free will.

 

D: Is Prarabdha in the vyvahara level or paramarthika level?

 

E: Both Prarabdha and Free will are only in the vyvavahara level.

 

C: Then Determinism is also only in the Vyavahara level. That

would mean, in the Paramarthika level it is all indeterminate.

Would that mean God is playing dice?

 

F: The idea of free will, or for that matter, determinism, arises

only with the sense of doership.

 

G: But the doer is God.

 

H: No It is the Prakriti. Gita: 3-27, 18-59, 60; 13-29

 

G: Is Prakriti our prarabdha? Then what is Fate?

 

J: Fate, Prakriti, Prarabdha, Free will all these make sense only

in a deterministic world.

 

K: In the Paramarthika stage there is no duality. There is no

cause, no effect. So there is no question of determinism. So no

fate, no prakriti, no free will.

 

H: Then what are we discussing? All our discussions are only in a

dream world.

 

L: That seems to be the whole point. As long as we are bound by

ignorance, as long as we are living as a body-mind-intellect

machine driven and motored by the Lord (Gita 18-61), we are deluding

ourselves that we are doing actions according to our so-called free

will. But only so long!

 

M: Is not purushartha the same as free will? Because purushartha

means the goal of life.

 

N: Purusharthas are actually four. Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha.

Of these, the middle two make sense only in the vyavaharic world.

They are effects of prarabdha.

Only dharma and moksha make sense beyond the vyavaharic level. In

order for them to make such sense, we have to make self-effort.

 

O: What is wrong in saying that even this is the doing of `Ishvara'

who according to Gita 18-63 is our inner controller?

 

P: There is nothing wrong. It depends upon your level of evolution.

At a certain `lower' level of evolution, we are told by our teachers

that we have to make self effort for dharma and moksha (Gita 6-5).

At another level of evolution, the same teachers say (Gita 11-33)

that even here we have to be like a needle in a gramaphone – with

no freedom of choice.

 

Q: But advaita says everything is like a dream. How can

our `efforts' or `actions' in the dream have any effect at the

paramarthika level?

 

R: We do wake up from a dream by a roaring lion in the dream. In

fact in this supposedly real world, our guru tells us to wake up

from this dream-like world. In fact, he is actually the `roaring

lion' in our dream-like world. He is constantly trying to shake us

off our dream by talking to us in our `dream'. This is the greatness

of a guru. And it is for this purpose and only for this purpose that

Hinduism emphasizes the necessity of a guru. Without that 'roaring

lion' coming in our dream, we would always be only dreaming!

 

S: So what is the conclusion?

 

T: It depends on whether you are talking of the vyavahara dreaming

level or the paramarthika level of being Awake!

 

U: Whatever level it is, all this writing is His doing!

 

PraNAms to all the above advaitins and other advaitins who did not

participate.

profvk

[Guest guest]

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

> No one seems to have addressed the question of action, yet.

Presumably all

> agree that we do not act (only guNa act), as I mentioned earlier,

as per

> gIta. Is 'choosing' then not regarded as an action? If not, why

not?

>

 

Dennis-ji:

 

I think 'choosing' *is* action. It can be viewed as being higher

than physical action since the latter follows mechanically once a

choice is made. But our question is, whether the choice is

deliberate or mechanical, isn't it?

 

We are compelled to act because of our vAsanas. True freedom will

mean that there is no such compulsion to act, much less to choose

among alternatives. Perhaps that is when we truly have free will.

 

Harih Om.

Neelakantan

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk>

wrote:

> Namaste

>

> The discussions on Free will seem to be having a continuing hold on

> all of us. I am attempting below, in the form of a dialogue, a

> summary of most of the discussions in the past two weeks . Most of

> the words that I use are actually quotes from the postings of the

> past two weeks though, I have put in one or two of my own

thoughts.

> Of course, who is this 'I'? Incidentally, all the participants

> below are 'advaitins'!

> -----------------

>

> "A: Karma is not fatalism. It is not an arbitrary and external

> agency, which makes personal effort of no avail.

>

> B: That means we have freedom to act. So we have free will

>

> C: Advaita says that our vyvavahara level is an

illusion..........................................

............................."

>

>Namaste Profvk,

 

thank you for being "roaring lion".....

your words are clear....difficult to add something...

 

let's add some silence.....of being

 

Regards

 

love and peace

 

Marc

[Guest guest]

Respected friends,

 

Thanks for all your clarifications. The dialogue with Sri. Chandrasekhar

Bharathi Swamiji was very insightful and crystalized my own thoughts.

 

vyAvahArika level explanations seem to be perfectly fine for me, since

this life will be spent in as much.

 

kAyEna vAchA manasEndriyErvA buddhyAtmanAvA prakritEH svabhAvAt.h

karOmi yad yad sakalaM parasmai nArAyaNAyEti samarpayAmi

 

Best regards,

Ramachandra

[Guest guest]

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

> Hi Durga-ji,

>

>

> Yes, I believe you! (I know we have discussed this a few times

before!) But

> your having no problem believing that you have a limited amount of

free-will

> does not help someone else to believe this also.

>

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

 

Namaste Dennisji,

 

Perhaps there is no way to convince someone that there is

such a thing as free will who does not feel that there is.

Perhaps at this point (since it seems not really able to be

proven), it is a matter of belief.

 

I know that many (especially in the neo-advaitin

community strongly hold that there is no such thing,

but I know that you aren't a member of that community.)

 

I always found the teaching of no free will to

be confusing, and wondered in what way subsribing

to that view was useful or beneficial.

 

One day in class someone casually mentioned that there

was no such thing as free will. My teacher appeared quite

shocked at that statement and said, "That would be a

terrible thing. That would mean that someone was destined

to be a murderer."

 

Swami Dayananda, my teacher's guru, also has said that

there is free-will.

 

My teacher further said that even a jnani has free-will,

but that a jnani rarely exercises it, rather trusting

the bigger picture, Ishwara's unfoldment of events.

 

Even after Knowledge she has said that understanding the

workings of jiva/jagat/Ishwara is really the next step

for that Knowledge to be integrated.

 

And yes, you and I have discussed this before. For me, I

accept free-will because, its existence makes sense of

the teachings of the types of karmas accrued

and reaped, and many other 'things'

seem to fall into place in my mind.

And for me a tidy mind is a useful mind.

 

Since the mind of Ishwara is infinite, why would free-will

not be included in the design of the creation? For myself,

I say, why not accept it, even if at this point, I can't

ultimately know if it is true or not. It is what my teacher

says, what her guru says, and what other jnanis have said, so

who am I to argue with that?

 

Perhaps the existence or nonexistence of free will is

ultimately for some a matter of belief. I accept it

because A. It makes sense to me, and B. It is what

my teacher tells me is true, and she hasn't been wrong

yet about anything she has said AFAIK.

 

Does the acceptance of the existence of free will or

lack thereof interfere with gaining Knowledge? I wonder.

I doubt that it does. So does it matter? Can it be known?

 

Will I have to wait and see? Best to you, Durga

[Guest guest]

If you read Yoga Vasishtam, the first volume this will be clear!!! 

 

 

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 Durga wrote :

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

> > Hi Durga-ji,

> >

>

> >

> > Yes, I believe you! (I know we have discussed this a few times

>before!) But

> > your having no problem believing that you have a limited amount of

>free-will

> > does not help someone else to believe this also.

> >

>

> >

> > Best wishes,

> >

> > Dennis

>

>Namaste Dennisji,

>

>Perhaps there is no way to convince someone that there is

>such a thing as free will who does not feel that there is.

>Perhaps at this point (since it seems not really able to be

>proven), it is a matter of belief.

>

>I know that many (especially in the neo-advaitin

>community strongly hold that there is no such thing,

>but I know that you aren't a member of that community.)

>

>I always found the teaching of no free will to

>be confusing, and wondered in what way subsribing

>to that view was useful or beneficial.

>

>One day in class someone casually mentioned that there

>was no such thing as free will. My teacher appeared quite

>shocked at that statement and said, "That would be a

>terrible thing. That would mean that someone was destined

>to be a murderer."

>

>Swami Dayananda, my teacher's guru, also has said that

>there is free-will.

>

>My teacher further said that even a jnani has free-will,

>but that a jnani rarely exercises it, rather trusting

>the bigger picture, Ishwara's unfoldment of events.

>

>Even after Knowledge she has said that understanding the

>workings of jiva/jagat/Ishwara is really the next step

>for that Knowledge to be integrated.

>

>And yes, you and I have discussed this before. For me, I

>accept free-will because, its existence makes sense of

>the teachings of the types of karmas accrued

>and reaped, and many other 'things'

>seem to fall into place in my mind.

>And for me a tidy mind is a useful mind.

>

>Since the mind of Ishwara is infinite, why would free-will

>not be included in the design of the creation? For myself,

>I say, why not accept it, even if at this point, I can't

>ultimately know if it is true or not. It is what my teacher

>says, what her guru says, and what other jnanis have said, so

>who am I to argue with that?

>

>Perhaps the existence or nonexistence of free will is

>ultimately for some a matter of belief. I accept it

>because A. It makes sense to me, and B. It is what

>my teacher tells me is true, and she hasn't been wrong

>yet about anything she has said AFAIK.

>

>Does the acceptance of the existence of free will or

>lack thereof interfere with gaining Knowledge? I wonder.

>I doubt that it does. So does it matter? Can it be known?

>

>Will I have to wait and see? Best to you, Durga

>

>

>

>

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

and Brahman.

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

>To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

>Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

>

>

> Links

>

>

>

>

>

>