RE: free will and prArabdha (was - does Advaitha has an explanation for epilepsy?)

[Guest guest]

Pranams

This is my understanding.

Whenever there is a violent event like an accident or

murder what happens is one person's abuse of his free

may be resulting in an abrupt end to another person's

life before that person's prArabdha karma may have had

a chance to get fully fructified.

 

Of course it is entirely possible that this may been

exactly by design based on the " victim " 's prArabdha

karma (as when Krishna tells Arjuna that these

Kauravas have already slain by me – all you are is a

nimitta – a instrument for this to happen - Ch11 -

mayyevaite nihatAh pUrvameva nimitta-mAtram bhava) -

this is probably what Shri Shastri-ji is referring to.

 

 

But there may be situations when one takes birth with

a certain prArabdha-designated course chartered by

destiny and someone else’s abuse of free will may have

brought about a premature end to that – what happens

in this case is of course that Ishwara’s ever-perfect

Order takes over and the residual prArabdha of the

victim which is now added onto the prior sanchita

karma fashions his next equipment suitable for its own

ordained self-expression.

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

--- Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

 

> 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

>

>

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>