Does 'free will' Exist?

[Ravindran Kesavan]

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]

Dear Bart,

 

I will get back to you on this proof - that part represents the whole - on monday.

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

[Justin]

Dear Ravindran,

 

 

Whether monists have attained mukti or not - or dualist have attained it or not - depends on what one means by mukti. For monist Mukti is a complete merger with god with out a seperate ego - Sayujya.

The monist ceases to exist in this merger. So there is no way the monist is getting the mukti according to your own definition of mukti.

 

 

If that is Mukti then I dont see why they cannot attain it.

Because there is no "they" in mukti according to their own definition of mukti.

 

 

In this case it is the dualisat who cannot attain it by their own philosophy.

I will take it as your personal opinion again unsupported and without meaningful reason.

 

 

But I guess you are taking the dualist conception of mukti - reaching to a gods heven and living there woth god serving him. (Saloka, Samiba, and Sarupa).Then of course Dualiost can attain mukti, but the monist may not even want that kind of status.

According to the monist, he doesn't even exist in the stage of mukti. There is only God. The monist is not experiencing anything. If he or she did exist then it is a state of dualism.

 

 

There is no difficulty for a monist to attain a 'monistic mukti'.

What you said above is a state of dualism "a monist experiencing mukti". There is a monist AND there is a mukti to be experienced by the monist :-)

 

Your post #49 on cell being part of God is not a monist position. Maybe a new-age so-called vedantic position. The monist considers the cells to be matter and an illusion.

[Bart Happel]

Dear Justin,

 

Allow me to try and answer your question in terms of the ‘monistic chaos model of reality’ suggested earlier.

 

In the model, the entire universe – with all its intricate material structure and all its Souls – emerges from a single source of pure energy (God). This energy source ‘fills’ absolute-space with energy and matter, according to an exquisitely complex infinite dynamical pattern. The most energy-dense regions in this pattern are what we call solid matter. Souls are probably the most complex regions. Material organisms may be created around our Souls, somehow as a side-effect of the material ‘position’ of our Souls.

 

In terms of the model, Mukti may be the Soul living in a ‘complex dynamical regime’ that is qualitatively different from life of the same Soul in the material world, which is another ‘complex dynamical regime’. Reaching Mukti may be seen as a dynamical ‘phase-transition’ of the life of the Soul from one dynamical regime into another.

 

Living organisms may be an intermediate dynamical regime between simple dead matter and Mukti, in which the perception of Mukti is hidden by our material sense-organs. In Mukti our Souls may develop different, more sensitive senses. God knows what we will see there.

 

So, who is ignorant? I guess ‘we’ are. And our collective ignorance is possibly part of Gods ignorance. And our free will must somehow be Gods free will. We may be Gods agents.

 

Kind regards,

 

Bart

[Justin]

 

So, who is ignorant? I guess ‘we’ are. And our collective ignorance is possibly part of Gods ignorance. And our free will must somehow be Gods free will. We may be Gods agents.

Dear Bart,

 

Thanks for the explanation. Your model is still not a monistic one. In a monistic model, only ONE (not-TWO) thing exists i.e. God or the soul. Everything else including your body, my body, others, pig, skunk, your explanation of freewill!!!, is maya or a delusion. The model crumbles as soon as you say "we" or "I" or "you" or "it". No amount of "trying" to relate with biology or quantum mechanics to provide a rational explanation will help.

 

So who is ignorant when you and I do not exist? If you still say we really exist, the monistic model/s that people have been trying to explain (in vain) throughout the ages falls like a pack of cards.

[Justin]

 

So, who is ignorant? I guess ‘we’ are. And our collective ignorance is possibly part of Gods ignorance.

Your statement also denotes that God has ignorance. Such an ignorant bieng cannot be revered as God. Its better to be an atheist than pray to a God who has fallible qualities.

[Bart Happel]

 

Dear Bart,

 

Thanks for the explanation. Your model is still not a monistic one. In a monistic model, only ONE (not-TWO) thing exists i.e. God or the soul. Everything else including your body, my body, others, pig, skunk, your explanation of freewill!!!, is maya or a delusion. The model crumbles as soon as you say "we" or "I" or "you" or "it". No amount of "trying" to relate with biology or quantum mechanics to provide a rational explanation will help.

 

So who is ignorant when you and I do not exist? If you still say we really exist, the monistic model/s that people have been trying to explain (in vain) throughout the ages falls like a pack of cards.

 

Dear Justin,

 

I started my previous post with the phrase: In the model, the entire universe – with all its intricate material structure and all its Souls – emerges from a single source of pure energy (God).

 

So anything coming from that, must be 'one'. I don't see where the model can go wrong (as a monist view).

[Justin]

 

Dear Justin,

 

I started my previous post with the phrase: In the model, the entire universe – with all its intricate material structure and all its Souls – emerges from a single source of pure energy (God).

 

So anything coming from that, must be 'one'. I don't see where the model can go wrong (as a monist view).

Right. And you, I and others emerged out of the womb of our mothers. That does not make you, I, others and our moms one and the same.

[Svarupa]

This is the universal creation described by the Vedas, there is no room for any dedate on this, this IS the fact. All of us have been taught this since we were very young. As far as I'm concernrd, there is too much nonsense STUPIED speculation on these threads.

 

Learn to accept authority instead of the crazy workings of the mind on the mental plateform. THE ONLY WAY TO UNDERSTAND IS ACCEPT BONAFIDE AUTHORITY LIKE SRILA PRABHUPADA!!

[Bart Happel]

Pardon?

[Justin]

 

This is the universal creation described by the Vedas, there is no room for any dedate on this, this IS the fact. All of us have been taught this since we were very young. As far as I'm concernrd, there is too much nonsense STUPIED speculation on these threads.

 

Learn to accept authority instead of the crazy workings of the mind on the mental plateform. THE ONLY WAY TO UNDERSTAND IS ACCEPT BONAFIDE AUTHORITY LIKE SRILA PRABHUPADA!!

Dear sir, you really take the cake for this beats all biological and quantum analogies delivered so far!!!

 

Sorry Bart and Ravindran, I guess I was barking up the wrong tree. The post above lays at rest all our speculations. All glories to Prabhupada who told only FACTS with proper scientific evidence to back up. No further debate required. Visnu is part of Krsna is a fact. If anyone need more facts, evidence, and fossils of the parts, please visit the harekrsna museum.

[Bart Happel]

Haha, say what you think is true, that will do fine, possibly..

[Sarva gattah]

 

I'm not my body, I'm my free will, possibly..

<!-- / sig -->

 

There is almost no free will in the body we are in, we are simply dragged around by the demands of the body and mind we have slowly created over the millions of live's we have developed with the very little free will we have, that covers our real identity.

 

The choice to use free will allows us to choose to leave Gods Kingdom and attempt our own thing in the material. But quickly in the confines of the material world or mahat tattva trapped within the material bodies we lease off Maha Vishnu, we learn we have very little so called freedom and therefore spend most of our time serving our material bodies.

 

Next time the body is forcing you to go to the stool house, practise your free will and ability to choose and say no

 

 

 

 

[Bart Happel]

 

There is almost no free will in the body we are in, we are simply dragged around by the demands of the body and mind we have slowly created over the millions of live's we have developed with the very little free will we have, that covers our real identity.

 

The choice to use free will allows us to choose to leave Gods Kingdom and attempt our own thing in the material. But quickly in the confines of the material world or mahat tattva trapped within the material bodies we lease off Maha Vishnu, we learn we have very little so called freedom and therefore spend most of our time serving our material bodies.

 

Next time the body is forcing you to go to the stool house, practise your free will and ability to choose and say no

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indeed, in the monistic chaotic model of reality, there isn’t any free will at all. Once the initial conditions are set, the system will evolve completely deterministically. As I said earlier: “Maybe something even more subtle than chaos is needed to explain our free will”. If free will exists, however, I guess it must be part of the soul, and it must be somehow detached from material reality, while still being a part of the whole (God).

 

We may then have the freedom to change our conscious-perception of material reality. In the chaotic model, it is even possible that by changing our conscious-perception of material reality, we will perceive a slightly different ‘dynamical regime’, in which our material actions seem to have slightly different material consequences. Underneath it all, however, there is a perfectly deterministic material reality.

So, free will may be the ability to perceive reality in (qualitatively) different ways, while reality itself simply is what it is.

Kind regards,

 

Bart

[Justin]

Deleted

[Justin]

 

Indeed, in the monistic chaotic model of reality, there isn’t any free will at all. Once the initial conditions are set, the system will evolve completely deterministically. As I said earlier: “Maybe something even more subtle than chaos is needed to explain our free will”. If free will exists, however, I guess it must be part of the soul, and it must be somehow detached from material reality, while still being a part of the whole (God).

Bart, I agree with you and Sarva gattah that we do not have freewill. With exception of post # 7, yet to see a good enough explanation without contradictions.

 

You are unknowingly espousing a pluralistic model instead of a monistic one where you have A) a soul and B) material reality or pluralistic in the sense that there are millions of multiple beings and the universe as part of him (with each different from another). In order for the model to be monistic, you have to explain away the material reality and this includes our material bodies. So there is no question of a material body having a feewill.

 

Even otherwise, if the material reality does not have freewill it implies that even soul aka God does not have any freewill. Why? because it has not created anything in the first place. Zilch creation. Whatever we see is ignorance or ego. So even the soul does not act and in a sense does not have freewill. I don't know which ancient monistic model you follow, but according to Sankara, there is nothing created in the first place.

[Sarva gattah]

 

Indeed, in the monistic chaotic model of reality, there isn’t any free will at all. Once the initial conditions are set, the system will evolve completely deterministically. As I said earlier: “Maybe something even more subtle than chaos is needed to explain our free will”. If free will exists, however, I guess it must be part of the soul, and it must be somehow detached from material reality, while still being a part of the whole (God).

 

We may then have the freedom to change our conscious-perception of material reality. In the chaotic model, it is even possible that by changing our conscious-perception of material reality, we will perceive a slightly different ‘dynamical regime’, in which our material actions seem to have slightly different material consequences. Underneath it all, however, there is a perfectly deterministic material reality.

So, free will may be the ability to perceive reality in (qualitatively) different ways, while reality itself simply is what it is.

Kind regards,

 

Bart

 

Interesting what you write Bart Prabhu, however, what do you mean - "while reality itself simply is what it is".

[Bart Happel]

 

Bart, I agree with you and Sarva gattah that we do not have freewill. With exception of post # 7, yet to see a good enough explanation without contradictions.

 

You are unknowingly espousing a pluralistic model instead of a monistic one where you have A) a soul and B) material reality or pluralistic in the sense that there are millions of multiple beings and the universe as part of him (with each different from another). In order for the model to be monistic, you have to explain away the material reality and this includes our material bodies. So there is no question of a material body having a feewill.

 

Even otherwise, if the material reality does not have freewill it implies that even soul aka God does not have any freewill. Why? because it has not created anything in the first place. Zilch creation. Whatever we see is ignorance or ego. So even the soul does not act and in a sense does not have freewill. I don't know which ancient monistic model you follow, but according to Sankara, there is nothing created in the first place.

 

First of all, I’m only testing (following) this chaotic model of reality. The model can also be viewed from a dualist standpoint (as I showed earlier), but a monist view neatly eliminates the problem of ‘who created God (who created the universe)’. I like that. So I try to continue on this theoretical path. And if there is no free will, then there is basically no problem for the model.

 

So, let’s keep it simple: no free will. Your ‘pluralistic argument’ seems to indicate a problem with the existence of “millions of multiple beings”, all being similar but different from one another. Interestingly, phase-projections of a chaotic attractor typically display a ‘self-similar’ structure. This means that not only are similar (but different) spatial structures repeated many times in state-space, but similar structures are also repeated within similar structures, within similar structures, infinitely.

 

For example, complete representations of the universe may be seen at every spatial scale in the model, as a part of complete representations of the universe at a larger scale, as part of complete representations of the universe at an even larger scale, etcetera. This is called a ‘fractal geometry’. Thereby, no representation of the universe is exactly the same as any other representation of the universe at any scale.

 

Your argument that ‘there is nothing created in the first place’ seems to be irrelevant in the light of the above

 

Kind regards,

 

Bart

[Bart Happel]

 

Interesting what you write Bart Prabhu, however, what do you mean - "while reality itself simply is what it is".

 

I mean: Material reality (in the model) is completely deterministic. However, qualitatively different dynamical aspects (phase-projections) of material reality may be perceived (by different viewers).

 

Kind Regards,

 

Bart

[Ravindran Kesavan]

Dear Bart,

See attachment for the proof that part containing the whole.[ATTACH]1791[/ATTACH] It contains figures and that is not comming in this reply hence the attachment form.

Regards,

 

K.Ravindran

Dear Bart.doc

[Ravindran Kesavan]

 

This is the universal creation described by the Vedas, there is no room for any dedate on this, this IS the fact. All of us have been taught this since we were very young. As far as I'm concernrd, there is too much nonsense STUPIED speculation on these threads.

 

Dear Svarupa,

 

I personally have no problem if you accept authoriuity (text and gurus) as a method of realization.

 

But I am stronhgly convinced that there is no conflict between science and religion and Science could be a means of spiritual realization, if rightly understood. I do get terrific spiritual insights by studying physics.

 

The path of inquiry is a valied path of realization. Different jivatmas are differently made and abled to suit different paths. Dont be intollorant of unfortunate souls like me who are not cable of accepting authority and needs reason, evidences and proof. The problem I find with the method of authoiority is that there are too many differing authorities and each one differ in the doctrine. Poor soul like me is very confused -who is right and which to believe.

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

[Ravindran Kesavan]

All glories to Prabhupada who told only FACTS with proper scientific evidence to back up. No further debate required. - Justin

 

Dear Justin,

 

Are you closing down that the last spiritual guru has arrived and no more spiritual beings can emerge, like Muslims who closed down with Prophet Mohemed as the last prophet? I personally believe there is lots of scope - in fact endless scope - for new new ways of comprehending spiritual truth. I believe in Ramakrishna paramahamsa's description of Religious Prophets and leaders: "No one has seen Kali ( meaning the ultimate truth. It could well be substituted by the word Krishna if you likle), completely. Each seer has seen a small aspect of Her like the five blind men who experienced the Eliphant and concluded they know the total truth.

 

No one has exhausted the spirituasl truth, as spiritual truth is not finate and fixed. There is enough and perpectual scope to conceive in new and ever new ways.

 

Of course you can brush this aside as my personal opinion and you are free to hold on to your belief that truth has been exausted and there is no more scope to say anything on it. It is your choice and I will not debate on it.

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

[Bart Happel]

Dear Ravindran,

 

Thank you for the proof. It seems to fit in very nicely with the notion of hierarchical 'fractal geometry' that I discussed above, in post #68

 

Thanks again,

 

Bart

[Trivedi 3]

That part hole logic is mind boglling stuff. It throws clear light on many of the religious ideas which are other wise confusing and paradoxical. For example the picture posted in post number 59 , along with the discription in it that Vishnu within his own world is a paradox . Similarly Vishnu declared to be part of krishna (See the words inscribed in the above picture) , yet Krishna is an avadar of Vishnu! It looked like a mumbo jumbo for me first . The one who posted it is only asking acceptance of it . But how to accept such an imposible state ?

 

Now with this part-hole logic that paradox is solved. Now I know Part of Vishnu is whole of Vishnu and viceversa. Now I also know how is the paradoxical claims that "In Sivas's heart Visnu dwelves and in Vishnus heart Siva dwelves". And many many confusion like this found in puranas and Vedas are solverd now. Now I understand Vedas much better. Thanks Ravindran ji .Great post.

 

Promod Trivedi

[Justin]

 

Your argument that ‘there is nothing created in the first place’ seems to be irrelevant in the light of the above

 

Bart, frankly I read your post many times but did not understand your chaotic model.

 

To keep it simple, if you believe there is a universe, there is a you, and there are others in the picture, the model is not purely monistic even if contained within God. In the monistic model, only one thing exists and that is the soul. The composition of which is entirely different than matter. You may call this model as pluralistic within a monistic whole but cannot claim it as a totally monistic one.

 

The above assertion 'that nothing is created' is not mine but Sankara's. Since some folks like to follow a few non-classical physics books instead of the traditional monistic philosophies, it becomes their individual opinion on Hinduism.