does Advaitha has an explanation for epilepsy?

[Guest guest]

namaste

 

Does Advaitha vedantha has an explanation for epilepsy that is being

caused?

in the website below, they are terming this as seizing disorder...how ever

they really dont the reasons of its cause...

{ http://www.epilepsyfoundation.org/about/faq/index.cfm }

 

I suspect the mis locking of the antah karanas in sushupthi level (???)

....am i right?

 

thanks

Narendra

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

From : H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

 

advaitin , " narendra sastry "

<narendra.sastry wrote:

>

> namaste

>

> Does Advaitha vedantha has an explanation for epilepsy that is being

> caused?

 

Dear Sri Narendra Sastry,

 

Is it a proper question to be asked in this Vedanta Forum?

When the quest is for the realization of our true nature which is

aSarIri, where is the point in asking a question from the body level?

 

I may please be pardoned for putting my reaction to the posting

in such a blunt way.

 

yours in The Divine,

Sreenivasa Murthy

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Sreenivasa Murthy,

 

I am sorry if you are hurted with my question, well I was curious to know

how our antahkaranas play their role during this condition...added to that,

what I feel is, being advaithins, there is no harm in discussing this only

if the intention is to know the role of antah karanas....and their

influence.. though they come under the category of vyavaharika

sathya.....well I have not requested here to state a good doctor or medicine

or any mundane level aspects....i strongly believe you understood my

question properly...

thanks

 

 

 

On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 11:52 AM, narayana145 <narayana145

wrote:

 

>

> From : H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

> Pranams to all.

>

> advaitin <advaitin%40>, " narendra

> sastry "

>

> <narendra.sastry wrote:

> >

> > namaste

> >

> > Does Advaitha vedantha has an explanation for epilepsy that is being

> > caused?

>

> Dear Sri Narendra Sastry,

>

> Is it a proper question to be asked in this Vedanta Forum?

> When the quest is for the realization of our true nature which is

> aSarIri, where is the point in asking a question from the body level?

>

> I may please be pardoned for putting my reaction to the posting

> in such a blunt way.

>

> yours in The Divine,

> Sreenivasa Murthy

>

> Messages in this topic

>

<advaitin/message/40258;_ylc=X3oDMTM0ZmtnOGUwBF9TA\

zk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1OTM5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA3NTk5MQRtc2dJZAM0MDI1OQRzZWMDZnRyB\

HNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzEyMDc3OTIzNzYEdHBjSWQDNDAyNTg->(

> 2) Reply (via web post)

>

<advaitin/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJvNTFsNG9wBF9TAzk3MzU5Nz\

E0BGdycElkAzE1OTM5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA3NTk5MQRtc2dJZAM0MDI1OQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycG\

x5BHN0aW1lAzEyMDc3OTIzNzY-?act=reply & messageNum=40259>| Start

> a new topic

>

<advaitin/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJjaGo3ZGYyBF9TAzk3MzU5Nz\

E0BGdycElkAzE1OTM5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA3NTk5MQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzEyMD\

c3OTIzNzY->

>

Messages<advaitin/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJjYmdtbWYxBF\

9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE1OTM5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA3NTk5MQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNtc2dzBH\

N0aW1lAzEyMDc3OTIzNzY->

>

[Guest guest]

I am sorry if you are hurted with my question, well I was curious to know

how our antahkaranas play their role during this condition...

 

 

 

 

 

praNAms

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

epileptic condtions, intoxications, insanity or any physical disorder

which drives to unconscious state is called aviditA (not knowing)

state...Here in these states, though antaHkaraNa acting in its own

peculiar way, the user of that karaNa does not aware of it...So it is as

good as *not knowing* state like deep sleep...Hence, shankara advises

shamadamAdi susaMskruta mana ( a healthy mind ofcourse :-)) is the right

tool to do brahma jignAsa or to have *darshana* of Atman.

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sastriji, Bhaskar Prabhuji and Sri Bhaskaran:

 

I am also of the opinion that this discussion does pertain within the

scope of this list. Advaita implicitly tries to explain mind

conditions and thought process and consequently epilepsy deserves

our attention. The quick but detailed explanation of the medical

condition is described in Wikipedia for those who want to know more

about it. The link is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epilepsy.

 

Wikipedia correctly reminds everyone that epilepsy should not be

understood as a single disorder, but rather as a group of syndromes

with vastly divergent symptoms but all involving episodic abnormal

electrical activity in the brain. Sri Bhaskaran is right to the

extent that any discussion on the medical conditions is certainly

beyond the scope of this list. Few years back, someone raised the

question regarding the mind condition when the person is in the

vegetable state without any mental activity and under life-support.

During the seizures, the state of the mind is a temporary vegetable

status and the person regains the memory only after the recovery.

Bhaskar Prabhuji's observation is quite precise and it is in fact a

state of " aviditA (not knowing). "

 

I recommend everyone to read the post by our dear Anandaji with the

subject title: Mind and Sleep and at the link:

advaitin/message/20338

 

Discussions pertain to vegetable state can also found in message #s

26592, 26599, 26796 etc. These discussions clarify that a Jnani will

not be in the " Vegetable State. "

 

A seizure condition due to Epilepsy can be considered as a spell of

mAyA and ignorance prevails. As advaitins we should discriminate

between the transitory experience such as the epileptic condition and

transcendent condition – Ananda.

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> epileptic condtions, intoxications, insanity or any physical

disorder

> which drives to unconscious state is called aviditA (not knowing)

> state...Here in these states, though antaHkaraNa acting in its own

> peculiar way, the user of that karaNa does not aware of it...So it

is as

> good as *not knowing* state like deep sleep...Hence, shankara

advises

> shamadamAdi susaMskruta mana ( a healthy mind ofcourse :-)) is the

right

> tool to do brahma jignAsa or to have *darshana* of Atman.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " narendra sastry "

<narendra.sastry wrote:

>

> namaste

>

> Does Advaitha vedantha has an explanation for epilepsy that is

being

> caused?

> in the website below, they are terming this as seizing

disorder...how ever

> they really dont the reasons of its cause...

> { http://www.epilepsyfoundation.org/about/faq/index.cfm }

>

> I suspect the mis locking of the antah karanas in sushupthi level

(???)

> ...am i right?

>

> thanks

> Narendra

 

Dear Shri Narendra,

Epilepsy, as a disease, is, understandably, no concern of Vedanta.

But, interestingly, the nature of a swoon, which may be due to an

attack of epilepsy or other causes, has been considered in

brahmasUtra 3.2.10-- mugdhe ardhasampattiH parisheshhAt.

The meaning of the above sUtra is—In the case of a person in swoon,

there is only partial attainment (of the state of sleep), that being

the only alternative left.

This sUtra is an answer to the following contention of the opponent:

There is such a phenomenon as a man in a swoon whom people call

unconscious. When the condition of such a man is under scrutiny, it

is said: The soul inhabiting a body s known to have three states—

waking, dream and deep sleep. The fourth is the departure from the

body. But no fifth state is known to exist for the soul either in

the vedas or the smRitis. Therefore unconsciousness must be classed

under one of the four states.

The above contention is refuted in this sUtra.

In his bhAshya on this sUtra, Shri Shankara points out the

difference between swoon and deep sleep thus: A man in a swoon may

not breath for a long time, but his body may be in tremors and his

face may be distorted, and the eyes may remain wide open. But a man

in deep sleep has a calm face, he breaths rhythmically again and

again, his eyes remain closed, and his body has no contortion. A

sleeping man is awakened simply by pushing him with the hand,

whereas an unconscious man cannot be brought back to consciousness

even by beating with a club. Furthermore, the causes of swoon and

sleep differ, for fainting results from blows from a club, etc.,

while sleep comes as a result of fatigue. and people never say that

a man under a swoon is sleeping. By a process of elimination we

realize that swooning is a state of half sleep; he is partially

asleep because he is not conscious, but he is not fully asleep

because his state is different from sleep.

A further contention is put forward by the opponent as follows:--

In a swoon, as in deep sleep, there is a complete merger in

Existence (brahman) owing to the cessation of the limiting adjuncts,

and it is not only partial merger.

This contention is answered by Shri Shankara thus:

It is not our view that in a swoon a man becomes partially merged in

brahman. A swoon is partly a form of sleep and partly of some other

state. We have already shown its similarity and dissimilarity with

sleep. And it is a door to death. So long as the individual's karma

lasts, his speech and mind return from a swoon, but when the karma

has no residue, his breathing and warmth depart. Hence the knowers

of brahman call swoon a partial sleep.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

 

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sastri-ji,

 

 

 

Thank you for drawing our attention to this Brahmasutra commentary. I'm

bound to say that, contrary to the vast majority of analyses by Shankara,

this does seem very 'waffly' and generally unsatisfactory. Are there any

other instances where this is discussed in authoritative works?

 

 

 

Questions which arise are, for example, what about hypnotic trance and coma?

They have different characteristics from 'swoon' and the usual three states

- are these yet more distinct states? (Surely, one does have to say that a

state that has some characteristics of another state but lacks others is a

distinct state rather than 'partly a form of sleep and partly of some other

state'?

 

 

 

Also, I find the statement that 'So long as the individual's karma lasts,

his speech and mind return from a swoon, but when the karma

has no residue, his breathing and warmth depart' intriguing. I am certainly

no expert on karma but this is something I don't think I have encountered

before. Does this mean that, if X kills Y, this is *because* the (prArabdha)

karma for Y is exhausted? (The alternative explanation, that one can bring

someone's karma to an end prematurely by 'knocking it out of them' with a

club does not seem plausible.)

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

<<<<

Dear Shri Narendra,

Epilepsy, as a disease, is, understandably, no concern of Vedanta.

But, interestingly, the nature of a swoon, which may be due to an

attack of epilepsy or other causes, has been considered in

brahmasUtra 3.2.10-- mugdhe ardhasampattiH parisheshhAt.

..

 

This contention is answered by Shri Shankara thus:

It is not our view that in a swoon a man becomes partially merged in

brahman. A swoon is partly a form of sleep and partly of some other

state. We have already shown its similarity and dissimilarity with

sleep. And it is a door to death. So long as the individual's karma

lasts, his speech and mind return from a swoon, but when the karma

has no residue, his breathing and warmth depart. Hence the knowers

of brahman call swoon a partial sleep.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

>>>>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Dear Sastri-ji,

> Thank you for drawing our attention to this Brahmasutra

commentary. I'm

> bound to say that, contrary to the vast majority of analyses by

Shankara,

> this does seem very 'waffly' and generally unsatisfactory. Are

there any

> other instances where this is discussed in authoritative works?

>

>

>

> Questions which arise are, for example, what about hypnotic trance

and coma?

> They have different characteristics from 'swoon' and the usual

three states

> - are these yet more distinct states? (Surely, one does have to

say that a

> state that has some characteristics of another state but lacks

others is a

> distinct state rather than 'partly a form of sleep and partly of

some other

> state'?

> Also, I find the statement that 'So long as the individual's karma

lasts,

> his speech and mind return from a swoon, but when the karma

> has no residue, his breathing and warmth depart' intriguing. I am

certainly

> no expert on karma but this is something I don't think I have

encountered

> before. Does this mean that, if X kills Y, this is *because* the

(prArabdha)

> karma for Y is exhausted? (The alternative explanation, that one

can bring

> someone's karma to an end prematurely by 'knocking it out of them'

with a

> club does not seem plausible.)

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

>

> Dear Dennis-ji,

In the same bhAshya Shankara says, " By admitting it to be a partial

sleep, we do not reckon it to be a fifth state " . The states of

hypnotic trance and coma have not been dealt with anywhere, probably

because a study of their nature has no importance from the point of

view of the aim of advaita Vedanta. The discussion regarding swoon

came up only because of a contention raised by the opponent, as

stated in my previous post. Shri Shankara has not specifically

stated whether in a swoon the jIva becomes one with brahman as in

deep sleep. He merely says , " It is not our view that in a swoon a

man becomes half merged in brahman " .

In the statement, " So long as the individual's karma lasts, his

speech and mind return from a swoon, but when the karma has no

residue, his breathing and warmth depart " , by the word `karma' the

prArabdhakarma of the person is referred to. This applies equally to

sleep. We know of persons dying in sleep.

According to Vedanta, a person dies only when his prArabdha karma is

exhausted and not before or after that. The nature of his death,

whether natural or in an accident, or by being killed by some one,

or by his own hand, is also determined by his prArabdha karma. So if

X kills Y, it means that Y is destined to die at that moment and X

is the `nimitta' or instrument, just as Krishna told Arjuna that he

would only be the nimitta for the death of the Kauravas whose fate

had already been decided. If Y is not destined to die at that

moments, the attempt of X to kill him will not succeed. We have seen

reports of political leaders escaping miraculously from attacks by

assassins.

In this context I am reminded of two incidents which show how death

comes only at the predestined time. There was a very serious train

accident in Tamil Nadu some years ago, in which a large number of

passengers were killed. The newspapers reported that one young man

who was traveling by that train got down at a particular station to

have snacks and coffee. While he was eating he did not notice that

the train had started moving. When he came to know, he ran to catch

the train, but it had picked up speed and he could not get in. He

was very much upset because his belongings were in the train. Just

before the train reached the next station the accident took place.

The compartment in which this young man had been traveling was

smashed and every one of the passengers died. The young man was

saved because he missed the train.

In the other incident, a lady who was a senior officer of the

Government of India, posted at Chennai, had to go to Delhi for a

conference. She had booked by a particular flight, but one of her

colleagues who was traveling on an earlier day persuaded her also to

change her booking so that they could travel together. The flight in

which both of them traveled crashed and both died. If she had stuck

to her original schedule, she would have been safe because that

flight reached Delhi safely. Her prArabdha karma made her change

her plan.

Similar instances are known to every one.

Such incidents cannot be explained except on the basis that the date

of one's death is predestined.

With best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

 

>

>

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Sastri-ji,

 

 

 

You say that: " According to Vedanta, a person dies only when his prArabdha

karma is exhausted and not before or after that. "

 

 

 

Do you have a reference for this?

 

 

 

You go on to conclude that: " So if X kills Y, it means that Y is destined to

die at that moment and X is the `nimitta' or instrument " and say that: " Such

incidents cannot be explained except on the basis that the date of one's

death is predestined. "

 

 

 

My first question has to be: how can such a view be squared with the

contention that we have free will? You are suggesting that the person who

gets onto the plane which is going to crash has no choice but to do so?

Indeed, presumably his or her entire life up to that point must be a

sequence of events leading inexorably to getting onto the plane, in none of

which free will is present. This is fine with me but does not, as far as I

am aware, correspond with the principles of traditional advaita. (I.e. the

person has the choice to get on the plane, not get on the plane or get on a

different one.)

 

 

 

My second query concerns the logic and reasoning behind your claims. I find

it difficult to believe that Shankara would support these since they seem to

based on several fallacies (at least). Each of the examples you give could

be argued in precisely the same way if the accident had been the other way

round. i.e. if A was to travel on X but changes to Y and then Y crashes, you

can argue that A was destined to be killed. But if X crashes, you can argue

that A was not yet destined to be killed. Is not the simple fact of the

matter that X or Y crashed and you can say absolutely nothing about A other

than that he was killed or not?

 

 

 

The sort of fallacies that are involved seem to be:

 

a) the fallacy of unknowable fact - you simply have no evidence of

anything, one way or the other. All you can say is that A chose (or agreed

or was coerced etc) to get onto X and X subsequently crashed (or not).

Incidentally, if we are talking about lots of people being killed, you have

to argue that ALL of them happened to reach the end of their prArabdha karma

simultaneously - somewhat unlikely since the logistics of coordinating such

an event would be astronomical (though, I do accept, not beyond the power of

Ishvara)!

 

b) You are making what is basically a subjective claim unless you can

provide the evidence from the shastra in support, since there can obviously

never be any objective evidence to show the current level of A's prArabdha.

 

c) It also seems that you must effectively be saying that A (and the

other passengers who met their death) CAUSED the accident by their act of

getting onto the plane. (And presumably also saying that, if subsequent

investigation shows that a fractured fuel pipe for example caused engine

failure etc, the fracture was brought about by Ishvara?) Whatever the case,

this seems to be a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, i.e. saying that

because A (and the others) happened to get onto the plane, therefore the

plane had to crash. (Or perhaps this fallacy does not apply in the context

of destiny.)

 

 

 

I'm sure that a more rigorous criticism of the claim could be made but I

will be interested to hear your response. Incidentally, I apologize in

advance if the tenor of this post seems hostile. That is certainly not my

intention. Your treatment of the topic does, however, seem to be in

conflict with what I have found to be the eminently reasonable and logical

teaching of traditional advaita so I feel that many people will be

interested in some resolution.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> You say that: " According to Vedanta, a person dies only when his

> prArabdha karma is exhausted and not before or after that. "

>

> Do you have a reference for this?

 

Hari OM!

Just sharing few thoughts.

 

While we can suppose reasons for why/when a person does, I am

not sure if the same reasoning explains why the person is living in

the first place. I mean living in the sense of staying alive to

changes and circumstances- far from and much distinct from

breathing, aging and being healthy.

 

It seems we live, not because of, but inspite of ourselves. It is

nothing short of mathematical miracle that we actually live. Just

the sheer probability of getting hit by any one of so many things,

beings, viruses, bacteria and conditions is totally mind boggling.

Yet, we seem to breathe when we are too tired to do even that.

 

Instead of saying we live, it seems more accurate to say we are

*made* to live. Something is more interested in getting the air

into our lungs even when we have no concern or thought to do so.

 

When we are even made to live, what to speak about free-will! May be

we are made to feel even the so called free will, like an actor

made to enact the character of free will. Or like one dreaming

of having free will, to see it only get shattered upon waking.

As Krishna says " bhraamayan sarva bhootaani yantraarooDhaa ni

maayayaa " .

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

Hari OM!

-Srinivas

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Dear Dennis-ji,

Your uncharacteristically long and even more uncharacteristically

hostile (as you yourself describe it) post made me think deeply on

the subject. After considerable thinking I could not find anything

wrong with what I had said.

I shall answer your points one by one.

Your question:--You say that: " According to Vedanta, a person dies

only when his prArabdha karma is exhausted and not before or after

that. "

Do you have a reference for this?

My answer:--

The following extracts from the bhAshya are relevant.

Br.up.1.4.7.S.B—s'ariiraarambhakasya karmaNaH niyataphalatvaat-------

-- anyaarthaasambhavaat.

The past actions that gave rise to the present body must necessarily

produce their results and so the body, mind and organs will continue

to function even after the attainment of Self-knowledge, just as an

arrow that has already been discharged must continue to move forward

until its force is exhausted. The operation of Self-knowledge, which

is weaker than the praarabdha karma, is liable to be affected by the

latter.

Br.up.1.4.10.S.B—yena karmaNaa s'ariiram aarabdham---- itarat.

The residue of praarabdha karma is the cause of the body continuing

even after the attainment of knowledge. Knowledge cannot prevent

the results of this category of Karma from producing their effect,

since the two are not contradictory to each other.

Ch.up.6.14.2.S.B--- yaani pravr.ttaphalaani---

Those actions which have started yielding results and by which the

body of the man of knowledge was brought into existence get

exhausted only by their results being actually experienced, just as

an arrow that has gathered momentum after having been discharged

stops only when the momentum is exhausted.

Br.up.4.4.22.S.B--- s'ariiraarambhakayostu upabhogenaiva kshayaH

Actions that caused the present body are exhausted only by the

results being experienced.

B.G.4.37.S.B--- Since the karma because of which the present body

came into existence has already taken effect, it gets exhausted only

by being experienced. Self-knowledge destroys only those actions

performed in past lives and in the present life prior to the dawn of

knowledge which have not yet taken effect.

 

From the above extracts it is clear that a person dies only when his

prArabdha karma which gave him the present body is exhausted. Even

Self-knowledge cannot cut short the effect of his prArabdha karma.

Then how can some other person kill him when his karma is not

exhausted? This is my reasoning, based on the bhAshya?

Your question:--

 

You go on to conclude that: " So if X kills Y, it means that Y is

destined to

die at that moment and X is the `nimitta' or instrument " and say

that: " Such

incidents cannot be explained except on the basis that the date of

one's

death is predestined. "

 

My first question has to be: how can such a view be squared with the

contention that we have free will? You are suggesting that the

person who

gets onto the plane which is going to crash has no choice but to do

so?

Indeed, presumably his or her entire life up to that point must be a

sequence of events leading inexorably to getting onto the plane, in

none of

which free will is present. This is fine with me but does not, as

far as I

am aware, correspond with the principles of traditional advaita.

(I.e. the

person has the choice to get on the plane, not get on the plane or

get on a

different one.)

My answer:--

I have not at all said that a person has no freedom to decide what

he should do. On the other hand it will be clear from what I had

said that the lady who died in the crash did use this freedom and

made a choice. She cancelled her previous booking and booked by the

flight which crashed. Every one has the freedom to act, but is the

result of his action in his hands? In our own experience we have

seen that we do not always get the result we expect. This is where

praarabdha karma comes in. By praarabdha karma is meant the results

of actions done in past lives which have given rise to the present

body. They may be both good and bad. The result of any action is

determined by the person's praarabdha karma. Shankara has

specifically stated in his bhAshya that a person gets favourable

results as a result of his past good karma and unfavourable results

as a result of his past karma (I am not able to give the exact

reference now, but this theory is well known). What we call good

luck and bad luck are both parts of this karma. Thus I do not deny

free will at all, but I only say that the result is not in his

hands.

Please let me know which principles of traditional advaita are

contradicted by what I have said.

Your question:--

My second query concerns the logic and reasoning behind your claims.

I find

it difficult to believe that Shankara would support these since they

seem to

based on several fallacies (at least). Each of the examples you give

could

be argued in precisely the same way if the accident had been the

other way

round. i.e. if A was to travel on X but changes to Y and then Y

crashes, you

can argue that A was destined to be killed. But if X crashes, you

can argue

that A was not yet destined to be killed. Is not the simple fact of

the

matter that X or Y crashed and you can say absolutely nothing about

A other

than that he was killed or not?

 

This argument does not contradict my conclusion given above. Are

there any statements by Shankara which would go against my

reasoning? On the other hand the extracts from the bhAshya which I

have quoted support my stand.

If a car in which 5 persons are traveling meets with an accident,

and 3 of them die and the other 2 escape unhurt, you will have no

problem in saying that the three were unlucky and the two were

lucky. Good luck and bad luck are themselves part of the praarabdha

karma of a person. So what we are saying in essence is that three

persons died because they were destined to die according to their p

karma and two escaped, also because of their praarabdha karma. So

what views of Shankara's does it go against?

 

Your question:--

The sort of fallacies that are involved seem to be:

a) the fallacy of unknowable fact - you simply have no evidence of

anything, one way or the other. All you can say is that A chose (or

agreed

or was coerced etc) to get onto X and X subsequently crashed (or

not).

Incidentally, if we are talking about lots of people being killed,

you have

to argue that ALL of them happened to reach the end of their

prArabdha karma

simultaneously - somewhat unlikely since the logistics of

coordinating such

an event would be astronomical (though, I do accept, not beyond the

power of

Ishvara)!

 

My answer:--

There are many things in this world that cannot be logically

explained. On the one hand we have the definite assertion by

Shankara that death cannot come until the prArabdha karma of the

person is exhausted. If it has been said by any authority that death

may occur even before the p. karma is exhausted, I would like to

know that. In that case my view may need modification. It is no

doubt difficult to explain how so many people who happened to have

their praarabdha karma exhausted at the same time got into the same

plane. Each one took his own decision, but the result was not in his

hands. I have also wondered at this. But if any better explanation

in the light of Vedanta, other than saying that it is mere chance,

is available, then I am prepare to accept it.

 

Your question:--

b) You are making what is basically a subjective claim unless you can

provide the evidence from the shastra in support, since there can

obviously

never be any objective evidence to show the current level of A's

prArabdha.

My answer:-

What I have said is based on the extracts from the bhAshya given

above. It is true that no one can know the current level of one's

praarabdha. I have not claimed that it can be known. When Vedanta

says that a person dies only when his p karma is exhausted it

follows that when a person is dead his p karma has been exhausted.

It is not necessary to measure the level of the karma to come to

that conclusion.

 

Your question:--

c) It also seems that you must effectively be saying that A (and the

other passengers who met their death) CAUSED the accident by their

act of

getting onto the plane. (And presumably also saying that, if

subsequent

investigation shows that a fractured fuel pipe for example caused

engine

failure etc, the fracture was brought about by Ishvara?) Whatever

the case,

this seems to be a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, i.e. saying

that

because A (and the others) happened to get onto the plane, therefore

the

plane had to crash. (Or perhaps this fallacy does not apply in the

context

of destiny.)

My answer:--

I have not said or even implied that these passengers caused the

crash. Please do not think I am so naïve as to make such an absurd

statement. Each of them made a free choice to travel by that plane.

I was only looking at the result and trying to explain it in the

light of the teachings of Vedanta. If you can give some other

explanation based on Vedanta I would welcome it. I do not swear by

my view.

 

Your question:--

I'm sure that a more rigorous criticism of the claim could be made

but I

will be interested to hear your response. Incidentally, I apologize

in

advance if the tenor of this post seems hostile. That is certainly

not my

intention. Your treatment of the topic does, however, seem to be in

conflict with what I have found to be the eminently reasonable and

logical

teaching of traditional advaita so I feel that many people will be

interested in some resolution.

 

My answer:--

You have used the word `claim' several times. Let me make it clear

that I have not made any claim. I gave an explanation which appeared

logical to me. If you can give a better explanation I am prepared to

accept it. Please let me know what are the specific teachings of

traditional advaita which you are referring to as conflicting with

my treatment of the topic. A general statement of this nature does

not help me to know where I have gone wrong. I would certainly like

to correct myself and shall welcome your specific references in this

respect.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

snsastri <sn.sastri schrieb:

 

It is no doubt difficult to explain how so many people who happened to have

their praarabdha karma exhausted at the same time got into the same

plane.

 

Dear Shri Shastri,

 

I do not understand the above difficulty. There are 6.5 billion people in the

world, why can’t 200 of them have their prarabdha Karma exhausted at the same

time and in the same place? Big plane crashes do not even happen that often.

 

In wars there might be many more killed in a short period of time in the same

country. All those did not choose to being born at that time and in that

country. It was their prarabdha karma, wasn´t it. So within the range of the

prabdha karma you execute your free will, as you and others have pointed out.

 

 

Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti

 

 

Sitara

 

 

 

 

 

Gesendet von Mail.

Der Lieblings-Mailbox der Welt.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Sastri-ji (and others who are contributing to this thread),

 

 

 

Again, my apologies to anyone who finds that I am arguing too 'strongly'. I

suppose this is partly due to an idea that this is an issue between reason

and 'folklore' so that it seems important.

 

 

 

Perhaps I was wrong to ask two questions, Some respondents have concentrated

on the first and ignored the second, when it is the case (as I see it) that

the unanswerability of the second makes the first redundant.

 

 

 

However, before moving on to restate the case for the second question, let

me address the points made by Sastri-ji.

 

 

 

<<Your question:--You say that: " According to Vedanta, a person dies

only when his prArabdha karma is exhausted and not before or after

that. "

Do you have a reference for this?

My answer:--

The following extracts from the bhAshya are relevant.>>

 

All of the extracts that you quote seem to be showing that prArabdha is not

exhausted by self-knowledge but continues subsequently (arrow discharged

etc). I never had any problem with this. None of the examples seem to be

saying anything about not being able to die until the prArabdha is

exhausted. Why (in the case of the unenlightened) can it not be carried

forward to the next incarnation as part of the saMchita?

 

 

<<From the above extracts it is clear that a person dies only when his

prArabdha karma which gave him the present body is exhausted>>

 

As noted, I do not believe the extracts demonstrate this at all.

 

<<My answer:--

I have not at all said that a person has no freedom to decide what

he should do. On the other hand it will be clear from what I had

said that the lady who died in the crash did use this freedom and

made a choice.>>

 

But this is not what you were saying. Surely, if the lady was destined to

die, than she must also have been destined to catch the flight - in which

case she must have been destined to 'choose' to fly, which does not seem

like freedom to me. Or, an alternative way of putting it is that this is not

a normal usage of the word 'choose'.

 

<< In our own experience we have

seen that we do not always get the result we expect. This is where

praarabdha karma comes in. By praarabdha karma is meant the results

of actions done in past lives which have given rise to the present

body. They may be both good and bad. The result of any action is

determined by the person's praarabdha karma. Shankara has

specifically stated in his bhAshya that a person gets favourable

results as a result of his past good karma and unfavourable results

as a result of his past karma (I am not able to give the exact

reference now, but this theory is well known). What we call good

luck and bad luck are both parts of this karma. Thus I do not deny

free will at all, but I only say that the result is not in his

hands. >>

 

No argument with any of this and I don't think I suggested otherwise.

(Certainly did not intend to do so if I did.)

 

<<There are many things in this world that cannot be logically

explained. On the one hand we have the definite assertion by

Shankara that death cannot come until the prArabdha karma of the

person is exhausted.>>

 

This is what I was asking initially - where does Shankara make this

statement? I was not saying that he makes any contrary statement, just that

I had never seen anything such as you suggest here.

 

<<You have used the word `claim' several times. Let me make it clear

that I have not made any claim. I gave an explanation which appeared

logical to me. If you can give a better explanation I am prepared to

accept it>>

 

Let me state my understanding again of what is entailed by the claim that

each person's time and nature of death is predestined. Take the example of

the lady who boards the plane that subsequently crashes. It is not only

that the 'choice' of whether to fly or not had to have been predestined

also. If you think about it, everything leading up to that point must also

have been predestined. Suppose that the flight was from Chicago to San

Francisco. Why was she in Chicago? Why was she flying to San Francisco? If a

business trip, there had to have been a reason for the business to require

her to go - that must have been predestined. That she was promoted into the

position of the person responsible for doing whatever - that must have been

predestined. That she joined that company in the first place, that she was

qualified for the job, that she passed her exams, that she went to that

school and had those teachers, that she was born into that family - all

predestined.

 

And it is much worse than that. All of the people connected to her and

involved even remotely in any of the events leading up to that journey -

each transaction that affected the outcome must also have been predestined.

Since everything will ultimately be connected, however remotely, ALL must be

predestined. According to this way of thinking, it seems to follow

inevitably that no one, at any time can ever have any free will.

 

I do not have any scriptural reference for such an argument. Do I need one?

Please point out the fallacy in the logic if there is one.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Sastri-ji,

 

 

 

One other thought has just occurred to me. The predestination theory does

not in fact correspond to a 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' fallacy - my

apologies to you for suggesting this.

 

 

 

But does it not mean something far worse? Is it not the case that cause and

effect are accepted in vyavahAra? i.e. the effect is the outcome of a prior

cause. Would not the predestination theory mean that the opposite would have

to apply? i.e. that the effect was (effectively) the 'cause' of the cause?

 

 

 

In the example of the lady and the plane, because the lady *has* to get onto

the plane in order that she may be killed (since her prArabdha has expired),

therefore, she *has* to choose to get on it. In order to do this, she *has*

to have travelled to the airport; she *had* to have remembered to have her

car fixed the day before; etc.

 

 

 

I.e. everything is operating in reverse as far as cause and effect is

concerned.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Dear Sastri-ji (and others who are contributing to this thread),

 

>

> All of the extracts that you quote seem to be showing that prArabdha

is not

> exhausted by self-knowledge but continues subsequently (arrow discharged

> etc). I never had any problem with this. None of the examples seem to be

> saying anything about not being able to die until the prArabdha is

> exhausted. Why (in the case of the unenlightened) can it not be carried

> forward to the next incarnation as part of the saMchita?

 

 

 

> Let me state my understanding again of what is entailed by the claim

that

> each person's time and nature of death is predestined. Take the

example of

> the lady who boards the plane that subsequently crashes. It is not only

> that the 'choice' of whether to fly or not had to have been predestined

> also. If you think about it, everything leading up to that point

must also

> have been predestined.

 

 

>

> And it is much worse than that. All of the people connected to her and

> involved even remotely in any of the events leading up to that journey -

> each transaction that affected the outcome must also have been

predestined.

> Since everything will ultimately be connected, however remotely, ALL

must be

> predestined. According to this way of thinking, it seems to follow

> inevitably that no one, at any time can ever have any free will.

>

> I do not have any scriptural reference for such an argument. Do I

need one?

> Please point out the fallacy in the logic if there is one.

>

> Best wishes,

> Dennis

>

 

 

Namaste Dennis,

 

I also do not have scriptural references for what

I am going to say. But I do have the verbal

'testimony' of my teacher.

 

First of all, it seems to me that there is

some confusion about the definition of the

word 'prArabdha.

 

Here is the definition which is given in the

'Vedanta-Sanskrit Glossary' published by

Arsha Vidya:

 

" prarabhdham--operating karma; karma accounting

for this birth and exhausted in this lifetime. "

 

It is my understanding that prarabdha karmas are

those karmas which have caused one to take this

birth and will follow one through until one's

death. When they are exhausted, one will die.

 

There is the possibility that one's prarabdha might

be interferred with by an act of free will on the

part of another, in which case as Sri Shyamji, said

the balance of that karma would go into the sanchitta.

(But I would think this is generally rare).

 

In the case of a person with self-knowledge the

prarabdha still has to be lived out, and when

it is exhausted that jnani's body will die.

Finished, no more jiva or karma after that.

 

Furthermore, almost all events in a person's life

are predestined. Every person has a 'modicum,'

a very small amount, of free will, which my

teacher refers to as 'wiggle room.'

 

Since it is impossible to know when

one's actions are predestined and when

one has free will, it is better at all

times to assume that one has choice in

one's actions, and therefore try and

behave according to dharma, and therefore

avoid creating suffering for others and

future papa karma for oneself.

 

In the case of 'group karma' my teacher

has also said that there definitely is

such a thing. Why are all of us in class

together? Why do we write on the advaitin

list? Why do we read it? Why did all of

those people get on the airplane? Group karma.

Did we, or they, have a choice, probably not, but

we cannot know.

 

I think that the laws of karma are so

incredibly complex that we, with our

limited jiva minds, cannot possibly

understand all its workings.

 

That there is such a thing as karma is held by

Vedanta to be a belief, and therefore it is not

subject to our directly knowing whether it is

true or not, as opposed to the direct

knowledge that I am brahman, which can

be at first taken with shradha, but is in the

end, directly known.

 

It seems that some people see it one way, i.e

everything predestined, and others think there

is a very small amount of free will. Maybe others

think that there is a lot of free will, but

that isn't what Vedanta teaches as far as

I know.

 

It is my understanding that Vedanta

teaches what I've written above, but in

the end, karma is an unverifiable belief,

(although to my mind it is logical), and you

can accept it or not, as you like (by choice?) :-)

 

It is explained at length in the text Tattva Bodha.

 

I see it the way my teacher received the

information from her teacher, because it is

what make the most sense to me. I accept

it, but I suppose I would have to say in the

final analysis I 'believe it' because it seems

logical, and leave it at that.

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

Dear all,

 

 

Just two remarks. I don´t know whether they are logically relevant

for the discussion, still I want to contribute them:

 

If someones PrK. is exhausted and that means he is destined to die, it

does not mean that he is destined to die on an airplane crash or on that

particular airplaincrash. The lady having used up her PrK. could have

been anywhere and in any circumstances and die.

 

It follows that her or others did certainly not cause the accident by

being on the plane: She could have had a simple heart attack or choke on

a piece of bread or whatever while being on the plane and die without it

crashing.

 

Om Shanti, Shanti Shanti!

Sitara

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

>

>In the example of the lady and the plane, because the lady *has* to

get onto

> the plane in order that she may be killed (since her prArabdha has

expired),

> therefore, she *has* to choose to get on it. In order to do this,

she *has*

> to have travelled to the airport; she *had* to have remembered to

have her

> car fixed the day before; etc.

>

>

>

> I.e. everything is operating in reverse as far as cause and effect

is

> concerned.

>

>

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

 

Dear Dennis-ji,

This argument can be applied to any event in one's life, because

every event is preceded by a chain of causes and effects. So if the

theory of pre-destiny is to be rejected on this ground, then we will

have to conclude that there is no such thing as destiny at all. But

that will go against the very basis of the theory of karma.

With best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Dear Sastri-ji (and others who are contributing to this thread),

>

> Again, my apologies to anyone who finds that I am arguing

too 'strongly'. I

> suppose this is partly due to an idea that this is an issue

between reason

> and 'folklore' so that it seems important.

>

> Best wishes,

> Dennis

 

Dear Dennis-ji,

I am writing this not so much to reply to you, but in order that the

other members of the group may know the correct position of Vedanta

on the various points which have been raised.

Your question:

All of the extracts that you quote seem to be showing that prArabdha

is not

exhausted by self-knowledge but continues subsequently (arrow

discharged

etc). I never had any problem with this. None of the examples seem

to be

saying anything about not being able to die until the prArabdha is

exhausted. Why (in the case of the unenlightened) can it not be

carried

forward to the next incarnation as part of the saMchita?

My answer:-

The fundamental principle in Vedanta is that logic is not by itself

an authority at all. It can only be used to understand the sruti.

Shankara has repeatedly stressed this point in his bhAshya. I have

the references ready, but since this is a matter known to all

students of Vedanta I am not reproducing them here. The sruti or the

bhAshya does not say anywhere that a person may die before his

pr.karma ends and that the balance can be carried forward to the

next birth. That is a very strange proposition. We cannot put

forward any proposition and ask why it cannot be so. In that case we

are not speaking of the teachings of Vedanta but of some thing else.

 

Your point:

From the above extracts it is clear that a person dies only when his

prArabdha karma which gave him the present body is exhausted>>

 

As noted, I do not believe the extracts demonstrate this at all.

 

My answer:--

I can only say I am sorry I am not able to convince you. The very

idea of prArabdha karma is that it is what starts the present life

and continues till this life ends. This is an elementary fact well

known to students of Vedanta. I am not inclined to strain myself

more to establish this point.

You say:--

I do not have any scriptural reference for such an argument. Do I

need one?

Please point out the fallacy in the logic if there is one.

My answer:

As I have said above, mere logic is not an authority. We go only by

sruti as explained by Shankara and other advaitins. Sruti is

certainly needed in support of any proposition according to the

definite view expressed by Shankara repeatedly.

 

Finally I must say that I am unhappy at your labeling all this as

folklore. I have studied the upanishads and the bhAshyas in the

original Sanskrit (and not in translations) for more than 15 years

under acknowledged scholars in the subject and so you may take it

that I have the capacity to distinguish between Vedanta and

folklore.

I do not propose to send any more posts on this subject even if you

reply to this, because I have said all that I can say. I would

request the other knowledgeable members of the group to give their

views on the various points.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

 

 

 

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sastri-ji,

 

 

 

I will be writing further on the subject shortly but I would just like to

respond briefly to the points you make since these are tangential to the

discussion itself.

 

 

 

I would not for a second attempt to suggest that my knowledge of shruti even

approaches your own. This is why we all turn to you for authoritative

statements on matters under discussion.

 

 

 

All that I was pointing out is that the extracts that you have quoted say

nothing about dying when prArabdha is expired.

 

 

 

My understanding of what Shankara has said is that whenever there appear to

be contradictory statements in shruti, then one should utilize reason to

differentiate; also, perhaps, that one should use reason to reflect upon

whatever statements might be made. But what should one do when nothing

specific is said on the subject at all? It seems to me that one should apply

reason to what *has* been said and try to understand the new situation in

terms of these. That is all that I was trying to do.

 

 

 

As regards the word 'folklore', I agree that this might be seen as

pejorative. But, unless, clear supportive statements exist to maintain that

each person's time and place of death are pre-ordained from birth, all that

I can conclude is that such an idea has somehow grown up over the ages as a

result of imaginative (mis-)interpretation of what is actually stated. I

hope you can appreciate this position.

 

 

 

Best wishes, and assuring you of my utmost respect at all times,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

P.S. Incidentally, as already pointed out, I am familiar with (and have

written about) the basic principles of karma so was not disputing any of

these.

 

<<

Finally I must say that I am unhappy at your labeling all this as

folklore. I have studied the upanishads and the bhAshyas in the

original Sanskrit (and not in translations) for more than 15 years

under acknowledged scholars in the subject and so you may take it

that I have the capacity to distinguish between Vedanta and

folklore.>>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Dennis,

We have been down the predestination road before. Of

course! I am not convinced that the person's will is part of the causal

chain in the same sense as we use the term 'cause' in physics. I take the

pencil into my hand is perhaps not the same as 'I caused my hand to grasp

the pencil'. Humans operate for reasons most of the time though we may

accept that their heart condition was caused by a bad diet. We tend to

view a person as an object rather than a subject when we judge them to be

in the grip of some force or other such as an addiction. Extreme

determinism implies an acceptance of materialism or that we are nothing

but material entities.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

 

SrI Sastri-ji,

sAshTAnga danDa praNAmaH

 

You wrote:

 

The result of any action is

> determined by the person's praarabdha karma. Shankara has

> specifically stated in his bhAshya that a person gets favourable

> results as a result of his past good karma and unfavourable results

> as a result of his past karma (I am not able to give the exact

> reference now, but this theory is well known).

[uNQUOTE]

 

Are you pointing towards this sUtra? --

 

vaishamyanairgRNyE na sApEkshatvAt tathAhi darSayati. 2.1.34.

 

AchArya's bhAshya:--

 

.......The Lord, we reply, cannot be reproached with inequality of

dispensation and cruelty, " because he is bound by regards. " If the

Lord on his own account, without any extraneous regards, produced this

unequal creation, he would expose himself to blame; but the fact is,

that in creating he is bound by certain regards, i.e. he has to look

to merit and demerit. Hence the circumstance of the creation being

unequal is due to the merit and demerit of the living creatures

created, and is not a fault for which the Lord is to blame. The

position of the Lord is to be looked on as analogous to that of

Parjanya, the Giver of rain. For as Parjanya is the common cause of

the production of rice, barley, and other plants, while the difference

between the various species is due to the various potentialities lying

hidden in the respective seeds, so the Lord is the common cause of the

creation of gods, men, while the differences between these classes of

beings are due to the different merit belonging to the individual

souls. Hence the Lord, being bound by regards, cannot be reproached

with inequality of dispensation and cruelty.--And if we are asked how

we come to know that the Lord, in creating this world with its various

conditions, is bound by regards, we reply that Scripture declares

that; compare, for instance, the two following passages,

 

eshau hyEva sAdhu karma kArayati tam yam Ebhyo lokEbhya unniniishatE

eshau evAsAdhu karma kArayati yam adhO ninIshatE!

" He makes him whom He wishes to lead up from these worlds do a good

deed and the same makes him whom He wishes to lead down from these

worlds do a bad deed. " --(Kaushitaki Upanishad.3.8).

 

And, 'A man becomes good by good work, bad by bad work' (Bri. Up. III,

2, 13). Smriti passages also declare the favour of the Lord and its

opposite to depend on the different quality of the works of living

beings; so, for instance, 'I serve men in the way in which they

approach me' (Bha. Gita. IV, 11).

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

 

Because of the hectic schedule(with exams) I have these days, I am not

able to take part in the forum in an active manner. Hope to discuss

the nectar of vEdAnta with you all very soon.

 

Yours

SAMPATH.

 

hariH Aum ~

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

 

 

 

I have decided not to post any further messages (after this one) on the

topic of determinism versus free will. After all, as Michael (I think)

pointed out, we do seem to discuss this every year (although it always seems

popular!) I will, however, very briefly try to summarize the situation as I

see it.

 

 

 

The philosophical positions vary considerably. At the free-will end of the

spectrum is the extreme 'libertarianism' of philosophers such as St.

Augustine and Sartre. This says that, as long as we are physically able to

do something, have the opportunity to do it and are not constrained from

doing it by some outside force, then we may freely choose to do it (or not)

without anything, inside or out, 'making' us act one way or the other.

 

 

 

Universal determinism is the general belief that everything that happens

does so necessarily as a result of the causes that precede it.

 

 

 

Theistic determinism (or predestination) claims that these causes are the

will of a God or gods. Some variants of this allow that we ourselves may

have some free will within the overall constraints. This is effectively what

I understand to be the general view of advaita at the vyAvahArika level.

i.e. our actions are largely determined by our karma but there is a limited

amount of scope for free will within this. (Karma is 'effectively' the same

as control by a god in the sense of being a 'ghostly power'.)

 

 

 

Fatalism is not quite the same thing. This maintains that some events (such

as the time, place and nature of our death) are totally predetermined -

nothing that we do can prevent these from happening - but for the rest of

the time, the status quo is maintained (e.g. karma + limited free will).

This is the view that I believe was being expressed by Sastri-ji, and for

which I was seeking scriptural reference since my feeling is that it is

contrary to the tenets of advaita.

 

 

 

Naturalistic determination is the belief that every event is the natural

outcome of prior causes such as genetic and environmental factors (and that

no god is involved). 'Soft' determinism allows that some of these causes are

our own desires, thoughts and feelings at the time of action (this is my own

view). 'Hard' determinism denies that these are relevant. This is the view

of people like B. F. Skinner.

 

 

 

Soft determinism is also called 'compatibilism' meaning that belief in both

free will and determinism is not necessarily logically inconsistent (both

libertarianism and hard determinism are therefore 'incompatibilist'

beliefs). The crucial, practical aspect here is that compatibilism makes

moral responsibility meaningful, whereas it is not meaningful for

incompatibilism.

 

 

 

The 'bottom line' as far as I am concerned is that the absolute reality of

the situation is that there is no one to have free will so that the entire

discussion is academic. We know that it is the case that advaita utilizes

teaching methods that are appropriate to the level of understanding of the

student. 'Explanations' are given and later withdrawn as the understanding

grows. Ultimately, all explanations must be withdrawn, since brahman is

beyond any description or understanding. The Mandukya kArikA explains that

there has never been any creation and yet descriptions of the creation are

given in many of the other Upanishads. This need not be a problem as long as

the other Upanishads are taught first!

 

 

 

It seems perfectly reasonable that karma should be taught to the early

seeker, so that he starts to act rightly and without claiming the fruit. And

it is reasonable that free will is allowed so that the seeker can 'choose'

to seek the truth. It does seem that other teachings are potentially

dangerous, however. On the website, I was recently asked a question about

the teaching of Ramesh Balsekar et al and gave the following reply:

 

 

 

" This idea that there is no one to act, no free will and therefore no

responsibility is one of the most dangerous ideas to have been taken up by

neo-advaitin teachers. It runs completely contrary to traditional advaita by

failing to recognize that, at the level of the world (apparent though it may

be), people exist as separate individuals who act and interact. It is

intrinsic to the whole process of seeking on a path and eventually becoming

enlightened. This process cannot be bypassed by attempting to deny it before

the mind is ready. As you say, these false ideas effectively license the ego

to do whatever it wants. This is, of course, completely contrary to what

advaita is really about. "

 

 

 

I feel that ideas such as that our death is totally predetermined may also

be used in a negative sense. As I pointed out in an earlier post, it seems

necessarily to follow that everything leading up to that event (i.e. one's

entire life) must also be predetermined (in a hard sense). This being the

case, what would be the point in pursuing any path to the truth? This will

either happen or it won't according to whether it is en route to the

appointment with death.

 

 

 

I could obviously do lots more research and write much more about the

various aspects of the subject, which I have only touched on above (and

probably got wrong!) but I have lots of other things to do and this is

definitely keeping me from them!

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

" Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

 

> I have decided not to post any further messages (after this one) on the

> topic of determinism versus free will. After all, as Michael (I think)

> pointed out, we do seem to discuss this every year (although it

always seems

> popular!) I will, however, very briefly try to summarize the

situation as I

> see it.

 

Dennis and All, pranams...

 

It is a pity that in this long description of different views about

this topic, it is not included Sri Sadananda's point of view (refer to

his posting number 16403, March 26th 2003 and posted by him again

again a few days ago for this discussion). His angle of vision covers

all possible scenarios, from the " apparent " to the " real " , from

" determinism to free-will, from the jiva to Brahman and all the

" in-betweens " of the relative level. And it does so in just three

paragraphs.

Some ideas need to be " seen " , and one of the ways this is accomplished

is to have the time to ponder on them.

 

With all regards for every-body,

Mouna