Does 'free will' Exist?

[Bart Happel]

 

... Any thing going slower than the speed of light has to go forward in time, into future. And, any thing moving faster than light has to go back in time, into past. ...

I'm thinking about it.. I'm not so sure however. This is relativity theory and although that seems to be a much more 'complete' theory than quantum mechanics, it's most likely wrong, especially on this point.

[Svarupa]

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>Originally Posted by HARRY

... Any thing going slower than the speed of light has to go forward in time, into future. And, any thing moving faster than light has to go back in time, into past.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>Originally Posted by Bart Happel <!-- v3 Arcade --><!-- /v3 Arcade -->I'm thinking about it.. I'm not so sure however. This is relativity theory and although that seems to be a much more 'complete' theory than quantum, it's most likely wrong, especially on this point </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Interesting point

[Ravindran Kesavan]

 

I'm thinking about it.. I'm not so sure however. This is relativity theory and although that seems to be a much more 'complete' theory than quantum mechanics, it's most likely wrong, especially on this point.

 

Dear Bart,

 

There is a consunses now amoung physists that the theory of relativity is a flawed theory - just like classical physics - and not a complete theory. Quantum mechanics is supposed to be more correct version, though it is not a complete theory yet. (Cf: Roger Penrose :The Road to Reality. )

 

Regards,

KL.Ravindran

[Bart Happel]

 

Dear Bart,

 

There is a consunses now amoung physists that the theory of relativity is a flawed theory - just like classical physics - and not a complete theory. Quantum mechanics is supposed to be more correct version, though it is not a complete theory yet. (Cf: Roger Penrose :The Road to Reality. )

 

Regards,

KL.Ravindran

 

When it was discovered in the early twentieth century that Newtonian physics, although it had stood unchallenged for hundreds of years, failed to answer basic questions about time and space, such as 'Is the universe infinite?' or 'Is time eternal?', a new basis for physics was needed.

 

This lead to the development of ‘quantum theory’ by Bohr, Schrödinger and Heisenberg and ‘relativity theory’ by Einstein. This was the first step in the development of a new basis for physics. Both theories, however are incomplete, and are limited in their abilities to answer many questions. Quantum physics deals with the behavior of very small objects, such as atoms, why they do not disintegrate as Newtonian physics wanted. The theory of relativity, on the other hand deals with much large scales, celestial bodies and others.

 

Both theories fail when confronted to the other's 'domain', and are therefore limited in their ability to describe the universe. One must unify these theories, make them compatible with one another. The resulting theory would be able to describe the behavior of the universe, from quarks and atoms to entire galaxies. This is the ‘quantum theory of gravity’.

 

Quantum gravity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity) is the field of theoretical physics attempting to unify ‘quantum mechanics’, which describes three of the fundamental forces of nature (electromagnetism, weak interaction, and strong interaction), with ‘general relativity’, the theory of the fourth fundamental force: gravity. One ultimate goal hoped to emerge as a result of this is a unified framework for all fundamental forces – called a ‘theory of everything’ or ‘grand unifying theory’.

 

So, the main problem with such a unification is ‘gravity’. Quantum field theories cannot account for the gravitational effects at large scales or high energies, described as ‘space-time curvature’ by general relativity. Furthermore, the version of general relativity theory used in cosmology is the Friedmann equations. In order to explain the current rate of expansion of the universe, a constant energy density must be put into the Friedman equations (typically about half a joule per cubic km). This is called various things like ‘Lambda’ and ‘cosmological constant’. Main thing is, it is just some energy density constant through space and time, its effect on expansion derives mathematically in a simple way from its constancy. But there isn’t enough matter in the universe to account for this constant metric in relation to the rate of expansion of the universe. Therefore, invisible stuff (‘dark matter’ or ‘dark energy’) must be assumed to exist in large quantities in our universe.

 

Now, a ‘chaotic system theory’ of reality doesn’t have any of these problems. All fundamental forces at all scales, including large scale gravity, are intrinsic –, local and global properties of the ‘chaotic attractor’, and become manifest in a low-dimensional ‘phase-projection’ of the evolving system. A cosmological constant is not needed. Moreover, in a relativistic description of the phase-projection of the underlying system, it may take the form of a variable (i.e., not a constant) that may be locally different.

 

The beauty of this whole idea is that in principle the entire universe can be described as a simple (chaotic) oscillation of a single point, e.g., in a 4 dimensional ‘state-space’. And our perceived reality is simply a 3-dimensional phase-projection of this 4-dimensional oscillation. All forces – and laws of nature we perceive in material reality, are simply emergent properties of the underlying chaotic system.

[Justin]

 

There is only one way to resolve this paradox if we do not want to reduce jeevatma to material thing. That is taking up the advidic position that essentially there is no difference between jeevatma and paramatma. Both have free will and are in fact one. Hovever Jeevatma is that part of paramatma vailed by maya- ignorance - and hence has limited 'cience' (knowledge) but no 'omnicience' Paramatma being uncovered by the vail of ignorance has omnicience. Jeevatma, though has free will still cannot know full working and unfolding of the evolution of events. Paramatma having complete information including the free will decisions made by the jeevatma, due to paramatma's oneness with jeevatma can predict everything.

 

 

If jeevatma is part of paramatma, how is this part of paramatma covered in ignorance?

 

 

Because jeevatma's free will is paramatma's freewill.

 

If it is so, then jeevatma does not have any freewill. If jeevatma is paramatma, then how is jeevatma in ignorance?

[Bart Happel]

 

If jeevatma is part of paramatma, how is this part of paramatma covered in ignorance? ...

His consciousness of God may be 'blinded' by his involvement with material illusion.

 

 

... If itis so, then jeevatma does not have any freewill ...

Why doesn't jeevatma have any free will, if "jeevatma's free will is paramatma's freewill."?

[Justin]

 

His consciousness of God may be 'blinded' by his involvement with material illusion.

 

 

Why doesn't jeevatma have any free will, if "jeevatma's free will is paramatma's freewill."?

I dont understand. You say jeevatma is equal to paramatma. Both have freewill since they are one and the same. So which consciousness is in ignorance; paramatma or jeevatma? When in ignorance, does it have freewill?

[Bart Happel]

 

I dont understand. You say jeevatma is equal to paramatma. Both have freewill since they are one and the same. So which consciousness is in ignorance; paramatma or jeevatma? When in ignorance, does it have freewill?

Stated that way, probably both have free will and both are in ignorance at some level.

[Ravindran Kesavan]

Dear Justin,

 

Let me use Bart's anology of chaos theory to explain your problem of free will and knowledge, though I personally dont like to justify religion with science.

 

In chaotic system the problem of predictibility comes about by our ignorance or error of the initial condition of the system. Even a slight error in our assessment of the initial parameter grows exponentially with time and in due course predictibility goes for a complete toss.

 

But why there is an initial error? Why cannot we measure the initial value accurately? It is simply not possoble as there is always an error in any mreasument. All measuring systems have their limitations. No phenominon can be measured with infinitesimal accuracy. Take for example our natural spacial-position measurement system - eye. Its magnifying power is limited right? Beyond certain degree of small distance we can not makeout the difference. ( this argument is true for all precision instruments of science too) Hence , there is always an error and this error gets magnified nonlinearly with time (or itteration) . This is the essence of chaotic system.

 

Now let us come to Jeevatma and Paramatma and speculate. Jeevatma has become jeevatma because of it's entanglement in the material realm. It can know only through its sense organs. And hence it is subject to error as all sense organs are errorionious at the first place and limited on the second place. Hence a jeevatma's knowlege can never be complete and error-free.

 

With this condition if a jeevatma trys to predict a regular process in the emprical world it soon end up in a total unpredictyibility as demonstrated by Chaos theory. Let us assume this is what is ment by the Ignorance of Jeevatma.

 

Now comming to god, due to gods limitless mode of knowing ( God does not know the world through his material sense organs) god does not suffer from any error of any sort. God can know the innitial position of a particle with infiniticimal accuracy - (Perhaps because he himselfe decides its initial position at the first place) Hence god has no limitation of knowlegge.

 

Your second question: If jeevatma and paramatma are the same who is ignorant?

 

When it is maintained that Jeevatma and paramatma are same or equal we should obviously not take to mean a complete identy claim. In that case we will have no need for two terms - jeevatma and paramatma - at the first place. When we say they are same or equal ( perhaps equal is a better word), we mean that they are of same nature essentially. They both have same qualities they are both concsious and have free will (which , in contrast, the material world does not possess) .It is also ment that Jeevatma is a part of paramatma as my finger - or a single cell - is a part of my body. All jeevatmas are part of a single paramatma as all cells of my body is part of my whole body. My body is a living organism and so is my every cell of my body. They have the same biological property. Each of my cell is a living organism as my whole body is.

 

However my cell does not know all the information as my brain . Nor my cell cells have the power to change any external condition like my hand has.

 

Whole is certainly more than the parts. and so God is certainly more than the individual souls.

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

[Shriyogi]

It is true that everything is predestined and pre-planned by the Lord; and only in accordance with the holy writ, everything takes place. God has given free will also to the individual to do right or wrong, to discriminate between the Preyo Marga and the Sreyo Marga. If one is endowed with true wisdom as to the fleeting and painful nature of the worldly enjoyments, one can exert oneself in the right direction to do or undo his Prarabdha, the portion of Karmas ripened for actual experience in this current birth.

 

The whole universe is determined by Isvara’s creative Will. But this is no determinism in the sense of a denial of free will to man. Man has a comparatively clear consciousness of himself and of others related to him outside, and he is possessed of the power of discrimination and willing. Isvara is the basis of cosmic activity as well as individual action, and yet, He is not involved in the actions of the individual. To Isvara, everything is determined. The past, the present and the future are all Isvara’s Being alone. But from the individual’s own limited standpoint, there is, in spite of the fact of a changeless universal law, a sort of apparent freedom of action imposed upon himself by his own individuality. Though the individual’s freedom of thought and action is not the final truth about it, it assumes a relative importance and begins to affect the individual with its reactions, as a result of the individual’s notion of the reality of a limited personality and its thoughts and actions. On account of this self-created bondage the Jiva suffers and this suffering comes to an end the moment the Jiva realizes its identity with Isvara in consciousness, in activity and in its very existence itself.

[kaisersose]

 

It is true that everything is predestined and pre-planned by the Lord; and only in accordance with the holy writ, everything takes place. God has given free will also to the individual to do right or wrong, to discriminate between…

And there is a contradiction right there. If everything is predestined, how can the individual choose between right and wrong?

You cannot have both…pick one.

Cheers

[Bart Happel]

I’ve been thinking some more about this chaotic systems model of reality. To avoid the ‘endless creator’ paradox of a dualist view of reality, here’s a monist view, in terms of the model.

 

Suppose God actually is the chaotic oscillation itself. Then God is the universe, and since God created the universe, God created himself. The oscillation may now be seen as pure spirit or energy. And the total amount of energy in the universe will be equal to the initial momentum of the oscillating ‘point-mass’. Time exists, if the speed of the point-mass is finite.

 

While the point-mass describes its infinite chaotic trajectory in absolute-space, it may continuously dissipate and absorb energy into and from absolute-space. Initially the point-mass has so much momentum that it can only dissipate energy (big bang). Ultimately, however, it must reach an equilibrium, where as much energy is dissipated as is absorbed overall.

 

Regions in absolute-space where the point-mass resides relatively frequently, will accumulate energy. Regions in absolute-space where energy is most concentrated, may be what we call matter or mass.

 

Dead matter is solid carbon, silicium, and/or other heavy atoms or molecules. Living matter is fluid and gaseous and electro-chemically active. These may be qualitatively different dynamical regimes. And the living regime seems to be the most complex.

 

We may now speculate that if God is conscious, then living organisms must be conscious, because they are part of God. However, when you try to explain ‘free will’ in this model, you will run into the deterministic wall of chaos. So maybe something even more subtle than chaos is needed to explain our free will. Nevertheless, the model may be useful..

[Justin]

 

When we say they are same or equal ( perhaps equal is a better word), we mean that they are of same nature essentially. They both have same qualities they are both concsious and have free will (which , in contrast, the material world does not possess) .It is also ment that Jeevatma is a part of paramatma as my finger - or a single cell - is a part of my body. All jeevatmas are part of a single paramatma as all cells of my body is part of my whole body. My body is a living organism and so is my every cell of my body. They have the same biological property. Each of my cell is a living organism as my whole body is.

 

However my cell does not know all the information as my brain . Nor my cell cells have the power to change any external condition like my hand has.

 

Whole is certainly more than the parts. and so God is certainly more than the individual souls.

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

Dear Ravindran,

 

I lost you at the "When we say they are same or equal...".

 

Lets take the analogy you provided "The cell is part of the body just like how jeevatma is part of the paramatma. The cell does not have a brain. Its limited."

 

This analogy fails on many counts. For example, you cannot say the cell is equal to the body in any shape or form when you have already stated that it is limited. The biological property is different between each cell, so you cannot say the cell has the same biological property as the other million cells that constitute the body. The cell has possibly 0.0001% of the quality of the entire body (or the neighbouring cell), so it cannot be deemed equal in any way.

 

The most important part is that as the vedas say paramatma's body is said to be of a different type than a jeevatma, and paramtma's body is the same from head to toe, with head and toe being infinity. The head and the toe cannot be said to be different (like body and cell) as they have the same properties all over. You cannot say God's brain is better than his toe.

 

The jeevatma's body (or qualities) is not even equal to this infinite God even by taking each property and doing a comparison. Even if you take the parts to be of the whole, the parts have to be same like the whole (which they aren't), for God cannot be differentiated as in "He is only the brain, but his cells are all ignorant". If the cells are like the brain, they should have had the complete characteristics in the first place, even if they are covered by a membrane called ignorance.

[Ravindran Kesavan]

Dear justine,

 

I agree that there are problems in analogical reasoning Afterall an anology is an anology and not the actual thing.

 

Having said that, let me respond to you that the argument you maintain for the different part of gods body - that they are all equal, - Gods brain is equal to gods toe - is the same with the body of an organism and the cells too. From each cell you can generate the entire body. Every cell contain all the information of the whole body. After all all cells are generated from a single genetic code, and this single gemnnitic code is present in all cells. Though cells specilise in certain way , they are all mirror copies of a single cell. Cloning of the whole body can be done from any cell of the body. ( it has been experimentally accomplished too in the case of plants. From cells taken from any part of the plant, say flower pettel, the entire plant can be grown.

 

Hence there is not much difference betwen gods body and biological organisms. "Purnamadam purnamidam" (Part and whole both are perfect and mirror immages of one another). applies god and living organism equally.

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

[Ravindran Kesavan]

Dear Bart,

 

That monistic Chaos system model of yours is a brilliant conception. It appeares to have potential to resolve all paradoxes and complications in religious thinking. It is a worth wile attempt to systematically and regorously develop this model. I think you have hit at something very important and grand.

However one must wait and see what form it takes up and what new problems it throws up. Do develop it regorously. And let me know its development. I am interested in it.

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

[Shriyogi]

 

And there is a contradiction right there. If everything is predestined, how can the individual choose between right and wrong?

You cannot have both…pick one.

Cheers

 

When it is said that everything is predestined and pre-planned, it means the original the concept and the intention of Isvara in creating this universe, is predestined including the doctrine of karma but on individual platform, everybody is subject to his karmic actions. Eventually, the fate due to one’s own actions becomes predestined too. In the wider sense, whether an ant goes left or right does not matter, as long as it is successful in its work but it may take more time.

[Bart Happel]

 

Dear Bart,

 

That monistic Chaos system model of yours is a brilliant conception. It appeares to have potential to resolve all paradoxes and complications in religious thinking. It is a worth wile attempt to systematically and regorously develop this model. I think you have hit at something very important and grand.

However one must wait and see what form it takes up and what new problems it throws up. Do develop it regorously. And let me know its development. I am interested in it.

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

 

I’m thinking about implementing a computational simulation of the model, using some chaotic oscillator algorithm. It may then be possible to observe in phase-projections, something analogous to certain quantum mechanical phenomena, such as the instantaneous (non-causal) correlation between distant particles, i.e., what Einstein called ‘spooky action at a distance’ [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance_(physics)]. Even something like relativistic large scale ‘space-time curvature’ may be observed in the simulation. I’ll keep you informed, but this may take a while.

 

Kind regards,

 

Bart

[sgtalks80]

 

L.S.,

 

After reading the much inspiring book ‘The Science of Self-Realisation by/about A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami', I am (for now) left with one question: Since all human souls in the relative material world have a choice to enter the absolute realm of Krishna through the development of Krishna-consciousness, ‘free will’ must exist. However, it is also stated in this book that Krishna sees the future (as well as the past and the present) of our (material) existence, which implies that we do not have a choice and that free will does not exist. Can someone explain this apparent contradiction?

 

Could it be that Krishna 'only' sees (multiple) 'possible' or 'likely' futures? And do other books (e.g., the 'Bhagavad gita') say anything about this specific issue?

 

Kind regards,

 

Bart

 

I have not read all scriptures or other books, but I believe in that Krishna knows it all.

 

He has decided your destination, and given you the option to pick your path. The path you opt for as a result of your free will was also destined - this means - that this path itself was a type of destination and your thoughts to pick that path were your options. And the recursion continues..

 

What we know at a moment is exactly what we are supposed to know at that moment. Krishna knows more about it than what He reveals to us - that is His playful nature - to give us this pleasure of thinking that we had a choice. He does not have to prove himself.

 

If today, you think that your will is to not do anything as Krishna will give you what you are destined for - believe me - Krishna would have destined you to not receive anything

[Bart Happel]

 

I have not read all scriptures or other books, but I believe in that Krishna knows it all.

 

He has decided your destination, and given you the option to pick your path. The path you opt for as a result of your free will was also destined - this means - that this path itself was a type of destination and your thoughts to pick that path were your options. And the recursion continues..

 

What we know at a moment is exactly what we are supposed to know at that moment. Krishna knows more about it than what He reveals to us - that is His playful nature - to give us this pleasure of thinking that we had a choice. He does not have to prove himself.

 

If today, you think that your will is to not do anything as Krishna will give you what you are destined for - believe me - Krishna would have destined you to not receive anything

 

But what would be the fun for Krishna, if 'we' don't really have free will?

[sgtalks80]

 

But what would be the fun for Krishna, if 'we' don't really have free will?

 

That only Krishna knows - He and His mysterious ways!

[Justin]

 

Having said that, let me respond to you that the argument you maintain for the different part of gods body - that they are all equal, - Gods brain is equal to gods toe - is the same with the body of an organism and the cells too.

True for Gods body remains the same, whether it is the head or toe. Not true for organisms though as each cell is different than the next as I explain further below.

 

 

From each cell you can generate the entire body. Every cell contain all the information of the whole body.

The analogy does not fit what the vedic scriptures fortell. Anyway lets take a similar but simple analogy - a small amount of bacteria is enough to replicate to millions when milk is kept for fermentation. This does not mean that the millions of living organisms are now part of the original small fraction of the bacteria.

 

 

After all all cells are generated from a single genetic code, and this single gemnnitic code is present in all cells. Though cells specilise in certain way , they are all mirror copies of a single cell. Cloning of the whole body can be done from any cell of the body. ( it has been experimentally accomplished too in the case of plants. From cells taken from any part of the plant, say flower pettel, the entire plant can be grown.

According to scriptures, God created various kinds of living things from plants to creatures. Each kind contains its own unique genetic program code allowing the parent organism to replicate either sexually or asexually. The genetic code formed in the womb of our creation – is different from all other genetic codes. These genetic codes contain markers which are distinct from the genetic code found in another. Like for example, a recent study showed that by studying this code, you can find out the ethnic group you belong to whether in Africa or Mesopatamia or any place on earth. Another example is a Paramecium, where a few of the 64 codons code for different amino acids.

 

You are suggesting 'sameness' instead of 'similarity' between different cells (or organisms) by saying there is a common genetic code present in all of us. Using a similar analogy, I cannot say since I have 5 fingers in my hand and you have 5 fingers in your hand, I am a part of you or vice versa.

 

Common physical features such as five fingers are on apes too, but that does not mean you and I are part of an ape (since we descended from them). Likewise, common structures (even in a cell) cannot be a justification that we are part of God.

 

 

Hence there is not much difference betwen gods body and biological organisms. "Purnamadam purnamidam" (Part and whole both are perfect and mirror immages of one another). applies god and living organism equally.

Gods body has been described in in the Vedas as not anywhere similar (let alone same) to our bodies. He has a transcendental body that you can never even comprehend in the first place let alone suggest sameness.

 

I think you are just writing your personal opinions when you say there is not much difference between Gods and an organisms body. If indeed there isn't any difference between ours, God's, and a pigs or a skunk's body, there is no point in calling God, a God, for he is just like any of us i.e. highly defective.

[srikanthdk71]

 

If indeed there isn't any difference between ours, God's, and a pigs or a skunk's body, there is no point in calling God, a God, for he is just like any of us i.e. highly defective.

 

Justinji, I think you have completely misunderstood Ravindrans point of view. It should have been understood when he quoted the 'Purnamadah Purnamidam' to state that the BODY we are talking about is not the physical but the Soul of any creature may it be a Skunk or a pig or me or that of the Omnipresent is one and the same. It is devoid of Impurity. Impurity ends with the void of attachment of the physical. The pure is eternal. If God has a physical appearance, his infinity will be in question. Where there is Duality, there is no Moksha or Mukti.

[Justin]

 

Justinji, I think you have completely misunderstood Ravindrans point of view. It should have been understood when he quoted the 'Purnamadah Purnamidam' to state that the BODY we are talking about is not the physical but the Soul of any creature may it be a Skunk or a pig or me or that of the Omnipresent is one and the same.

srikanthdk71ji, I understood Ravindransji's posting. Your position is different than Ravindransji. He mentions that all of us are part of God (like an individual cell is part of your body). You have a monistic point of view where you think your soul is God and is the same (not part of) as that of the soul of a pig or a skunk.

 

 

It is devoid of Impurity. Impurity ends with the void of attachment of the physical. The pure is eternal. If God has a physical appearance, his infinity will be in question. Where there is Duality, there is no Moksha or Mukti.

If your stand is that soul is God, we have to go back to the drawing board again with my original question. And that is if soul is not ignorant and has free will, who has ignorance and is in bondage? According to your philosophy, it will be the body. If you associate free will (or not) to the body, this falls into several contradictions that has not been cleared through ages. Fat chance it will be clarified in this forum or in future.

 

 

If God has a physical appearance, his infinity will be in question.

With the above, all Lord Krishna said in the Gita is not only reduntant but you are also saying he never physically existed in dwapara yuga. Anyway, as I indicated in my previous message his body is transcendental. He has taken physical forms many a time as evident by his many incarnations. Even his physical forms were transcendental. You misunderstood my post, nowhere did I say God is physical. In fact, just the opposite.

 

 

Where there is Duality, there is no Moksha or Mukti.

Sorry to say, none of the people who taught non-dualism has ever experienced moksha or mukti, because by their own philosophy they get trapped. According to them in moksha or mukti there is only God. There is no person.

[Ravindran Kesavan]

 

True for Gods body remains the same, whether it is the head or toe. Not true for organisms though as each cell is different than the next as I explain further below.

 

Dear Justin ,

 

God's body is not my argument. I personally think that god has no body with a form - which may be same as what you call transcendental body that is incomprihensible. I am only picking up your argument that god's brain and toe being same .

 

It is true from any orbitary cell of mine the whole new person can be grown. you dont need for that all the billionand billion cells of my entire body, as each cell contains every information needed for the whole body.

 

Now leave that. When you say that god has created different life forms and they are not same, I agree. But there is a unity of a complex kind in this entire diversity. All life forms of this earth is one single tree of life -or web of life. The entire life force is one single system. The seperateness of different organisms is an illusion generated by the egos of creatures. I will will give you a simple example for this.

 

Take a flower . If we examine its structure its geometric design, its fast beaytiful colour, its fragrence and the nector it contains, in isolation, then we will have to come to the conclution that these properties -say the honney in it - is just an accidental chemical product of the plant. But if we bring in to the picture the anotomy and life style of a bee, then the entire flower design makes a different sense. The design is so suited to attract the beas and is so designed taking in to consideration of the anotomy of the bees and other inscets that carry the polen.

 

What I am trying to impress by this is that as long as we consider the flower as a seperate entity in isolation much of its own properties could not be understood and explained. Then we will have have to make the Darvinion mistake that the propertioes and structure of the flower are accidental evolutionary processes. But as soon as we bring in the greater whole in to pucture the interdependance of the flower and the insect, the understanding changes drastically. We see a whole instead an isolated parts. We must think that the plant and the bee are one single system not seperate two entities.

 

What I said in the case of a flowerplant must be generalised to the whole of life forms in earth. There is an ecological Whollness. Ecologists have taking about it , is int it? None of the life form is an isolated entity. All life forms are parts of a grand single life force design.

 

We think we are different and isolated from the rest of the creatures . But this is an illution created by our sharply defined ego boundry . We are all part of one single grand tree of life. Each of us are just a part of one single grand living organism - call it Ecolo system , Giea (Mother earth) Or Vasudava , I have no problem.

 

There is only one . I am a monist - not the dull detailless static oneness of the Sankara type of monism but the oneness of a complex dynamic kind where all the trillion different things came from the original one thing and remains integrated as a single grand organism of a complex kind, where, every part represents the whole as a mirror immage of one another. Though there is a thorough logical proof to this it is a littel complex thing to show right away. There is a thorough going logic called infinite logic in modern mathematics which applies to the infinite things as well as all living things , where part contains the whole in its totality is a logically valied state. But I am not geting to it here as the post will become lengthy on the one hand and on the other hand I dont know whether you are interested in such a rigorous mathematical stuff. In case you are not aversive to a little mathematical reasoning and are interested to know this proof I will discuss this proof next time - i.e. if you want it.

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

[Bart Happel]

Well, I like to see this proof