Free will and prarabda

[Guest guest]

PraNAms to everybody.

 

Let us see some fallacies in the arguments.

 

Every thing is predestined.

 

The problem with this argument - predestined involved predetermined.

Question is on what grounds or on what basis it is predetermined? Is

this predetermination by an individual or by some supreme being up in

the sky? If it is by a supreme guy up in the sky then he has free will

to determine what others destines should be. If He is going to do

randomly then we are eternally doomed since he can play this game any

time he wants. If he has some basis for determining the fate of

everybody then we need to know on what basis. Does it depend on him or

does he give a choice for individuals so that each individual can

determine what should be his destiny. If individual is going to decide

then he has a free will to determine. If He decides by himself then we

are again back against the wall. We have no choice than to suffer at

the whims and fancies of this Supreme Being. But if he destines the

individuals on the basis of their action input and not randomly then we

need to conclude that the individuals has some input in terms of what

kind of destiny they want. Free will has to come in.

 

Saying prAradba and claming there is no freewill are

self-contradiction. PrAradba is results of the actions that one has

performed in the past which are now fructifying. That implies I had at

that time choice in the actions. If I did not have that choice in the

past, and therefore no one had any choice in their actions then

everybody's pre-destiny was not in their hands, we are back again to

the tyrant guy determining everybody's fate. In any statistics

randomness can only determine a colletive behavior not individual

specimen behavior in an ensembel.

 

The correct understanding without any self-contradictions is:

 

When I consider myself a jiiva, I have a choice in the action at any

time as long as I have intelligence to choose, in spite of the

constraints present. The choice may not be what I like but choice I

have as in the current presidential elections, even though there is not

much of a choice, I still have to choose! If I have no intelligence to

choose then I behalf like an animal and the choice are fully determined

by the constraints present. I follow instinctively.

 

If and when I have realized that prakRiti itself responds to the

constraints, then the problem is already solved. The question of do I

have freewill or destiny - has no meaning? To whom is the question

posed? To the guy who has realized that he is never a doer at any time?

 

 

Hence the question of free-will and destiny is only in vyavahaara. The

one who has the notion of I am the doer - kartRitva bhaava - then he

has a choice of action and he is responsible for the choice he chooses.

 

Once I have realized that I am never a doer - I have already realized

that all actions are performed by the prakRiti. I have neither destiny

nor freewill. This question has no relevance.

 

Hence the statement - I have free will until I am free from will.

 

About the prArabda of the jnaani - once he has realized that he is

akartaa abhoktaa - that understanding remains. Then to whom the

prarabda belongs? To the jiiva or to the prakRiti? There is no jiiva

notion and therefore no ownership of anything much less the results of

actions that he never performed!

 

The body of jnaani is maintained by two things - the prArabda karma

that started as the cause for the birth of jiiva with that body - Also

by the samaShTi karma of jijnaasus who need a kind of teacher who is

realized and who can help them. Lord himself uses that BMI for loka

kalyaaNam. Hence we pray Guru Brahma guru Vishnu etc.

 

It is the free will of the Lord.

 

Most of the discussion and confusion, as I see, is in mixing up the

reference states. As long as I have the notion that I am jiiva, I also

have the notion that I have a free will to do the actions that I

choose. But I do not consider it as a notion but as real just as my

jiiva-hood is real for me. I also see jnaani has prarabda since I see

his body is suffering. But I realize that I am not really a jiiva and

drop that notion, then all the 'will' to do is also dropped. I am

neither doer nor enjoyer and I see all the doing being done by the

prakRiti.

 

akartaaham abhoktaaham ahamevAhamavyayaH'

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

As long as I have the notion that I am jiiva, I also

have the notion that I have a free will to do the actions that I

choose. But I do not consider it as a notion but as real just as my

jiiva-hood is real for me. I also see jnaani has prarabda since I see

his body is suffering. But I realize that I am not really a jiiva and

drop that notion, then all the 'will' to do is also dropped.

 

 

 

 

 

praNAms Hare Krishna

 

 

The question that arises here is, does this notion of jeeva bhAva continue

to remain even in the jnAni ?? if yes, then how can it be called jnAni is

brahman itself, shruti claims that he who knows *that* becomes THAT

(brahmavit brahmaiva bhavati) ?? if the answer is no, then even after

realization, for whom this prArabhdha karma pertains to?? if we say, it

pertains to jnAni's body and not to the jnAni, then it is clear that jnAni

is still maintining his *individuality* (jeevatva) & still identifying his

existence with the limited space of his body & saying it pertains to *his*

body ( !!??)....

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Bhaskar praNAms

 

--- Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

 

 

> The question that arises here is, does this notion of jeeva bhAva

> continue

> to remain even in the jnAni ??

 

No. Notion is understood as notion and not as a fact or real. yad

gatvaa na nivartante taddhaama paramam mama - once I have realized

there is no more ignorance that I am a jiiva.

 

 

if yes, then how can it be called

> jnAni is

> brahman itself, shruti claims that he who knows *that* becomes THAT

> (brahmavit brahmaiva bhavati) ?? if the answer is no, then even

> after

> realization, for whom this prArabhdha karma pertains to?? if we say,

> it

> pertains to jnAni's body and not to the jnAni, then it is clear that

> jnAni

> is still maintining his *individuality* (jeevatva) & still

> identifying his

> existence with the limited space of his body & saying it pertains to

> *his*

> body ( !!??)....

 

Praarabda karma pertains to the prakRiti in the form of BMI that is

enlivened by Iswara or to be exact, the upahita chaitanya. It is like

pot space belong to the pot yet the pot space has realized that I am

the all pervading space. The pot space can remain in the pot knowing

very well I am called pot-space due to the constraints of the pot walls

but I know I am the totality that has nothing to do with pot. Is there

individuality of the pot space? Only if one say that pot-space is

limited. But pot-space knows that even if people think that I am

limited, I am in fact the all pervading space. Even if pot stinks, the

pot-space does not get affected. It is ever immaculately pure as all

pervading space.

 

If we say prakRiti performs - prakRiti being jadam cannot perform - but

performs only under the direction of purusha. mayaaadhyakseNa prakRitiH

... The witnessing consciousness, upahita caitanya, still will be

witnessing the operation of the BMI but does not get identified as I am

this. That is what jnaana implies, right?

 

Jnaani, in principle, does not have any praarabda, but the upaadhis

continue because of praarabda. Others may say that jnaani is there

because of prArabda. Since he has no identification other than for

transactional purposes, he does not own it, to say that he has

prArabda. I must say this is true even for ajnaani too. But he

unnecessarily claims as I am the doer and therefore tries to own the

actions that do not really belong to him! That is what is implied in

adhyaasa.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

namaste Bhaskar ji

 

your question seems like karya karana sambanda....that is taadaathma

sambandha of a bramha jnaani....

 

brahma vAdinaH katham iti chEth? tasya tAdAthmya lakshaNa saMbandOpapathEH

{Brahma suthara bhasya 2.2.38}

 

this verse I read it " Vedantha Prabhodha " of Swamy ParamAnanda bharathi

{kannada version, page43 and second para}

 

since the explanation is in very technical kannada, I am not very sure on

translating it into english, all I can understand and able to translate is ,

such kArya kAraNa sambhandha will not destroy abhedha gnAna of brahma jnAni,

such tAdAthmya is called as " bEdha sahishnu abhEdha "

 

 

 

thanks

Narendra

 

 

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

 

>

> praNAms Hare Krishna

>

> The question that arises here is, does this notion of jeeva bhAva continue

> to remain even in the jnAni ?? if yes, then how can it be called jnAni is

> brahman itself, shruti claims that he who knows *that* becomes THAT

> (brahmavit brahmaiva bhavati) ?? if the answer is no, then even after

> realization, for whom this prArabhdha karma pertains to?? if we say, it

> pertains to jnAni's body and not to the jnAni, then it is clear that jnAni

> is still maintining his *individuality* (jeevatva) & still identifying his

> existence with the limited space of his body & saying it pertains to *his*

> body ( !!??)....

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

>

> bhaskar

>

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

In this on going discussion on fate and free-will, this quotation by

Heraclitus - " A man's character is his destiny " is quite insightful. We

always get into difficulty when and how to draw the line to distinguish

between fate and free-will. It is also impossible to find the evolution

of one's character nor can we define one's destiny. But we can't deny

that we are at least partly responsible for building our 'Character!)

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: According to karma theory, fate is the effect attributable to

past accumulated karma (past free-will actions. It should be also true

that free-will is influenced by fate. This is like the chicken and egg

puzzle with the impossibility to determine the beginning point of the

life-cycle!

[Guest guest]

--- Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

 

>

> You are absolutely right that jnAni does not have the identification

> with

> BMI (upAdhi-s)...but if we say, chaitanya is upahita (circumscribed )

> by

> upAdhi-s here then it is again leads to old position i.e. jIva bhAva

> is it

> not??

 

No - Upahita caitanya is witnessing consciousness which is different

from jiiva. This I addressed in the last post - 12 of the knowledge and

the means of knowledge.

 

 

Here pot space realizes that there is in reality no pot space

> as

> such at all at any point of time...is it not??

 

Not true. Pot space is there for transactional purposes. But

identification and reality assigned to the pot space is gone with the

realization. These are two different aspects. Hence as long as upAdhis

are there, the limiting witnessing consciousness still operates at the

local level. But that witnessing consciousness is for all practical

purposes is the same as total consciousness (nirupAdhika caitanya) just

as pot space is same as total space as space can never be divided.

Hence divisions are only for transactional purposes. It is like knowing

that sun never rises or sets, while enjoying the beautiful sunrise.

 

In this state, how

> can it

> be possible to have *upahita chaitanya* in the form of witness?? And

> one

> more question, whether this upahita chaitanya would be the witness of

> operations of its own BMI or is it witness of operations of

> vividhOpAdhi??

 

I think these questions I have addressed in knowledge and the means of

knowledge post no. 12. Witnessing consciousness is limited by the

upAdhis in term of witnessing part. From the consciousness angle it is

the same as total consciousness that includes even the witnessed.

 

 

 

> or in other words, pot space, after realization that it is mahAkAsha

> is the

> witness of ONLY pot upAdhi?? if yes, then its individuality (pot

> space) is

> not lost & it is appropriate to say it is ONLY upahita chaitanya

> (space

> circumscribed by pot)...

 

The first part is right - the second part is not. Just because I

realized does not mean I have the knowledge of the other's minds and

intellects. The limiting adjuncts of the upAdhis still remain; and

witnessing consciousness is also limited by the upAdhis that it

witnesses. But understanding of the Jnaani is not. It is like I know

everything is fundamentally electrons-protons and neutrons - that does

not mean I am not going to differentiate food vs. garbage. The limiting

adjuncts remain - that is nothing to do with knowledge or ignorance.

Ignorance is taking the limiting adjuncts and their attributes as my

limitations and attributes. There is ownership involved in the jiiva

bhaavana, which is not there for a jnaani. I realize that I am

consciousness that is total but operating and witnessing these limiting

upAdhis.

 

Bhaskarji - please study both parts 11 and 12 where realization has

been addressed.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

On 4/14/08, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote:

 

>

> ---

>

> No - Upahita caitanya is witnessing consciousness which is different

> from jiiva. This I addressed in the last post - 12 of the knowledge and

> the means of knowledge.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

>

Dear Sada-ji,

Beautifully and precisely put. I was expecting this reply from you. Your

knowledge of the nuances of vedanta is superb.

The witness (sAkshi) is chaitanya with the antahkaraNa (or avidyA) as

upAdhi-- antahkaraNa upahita chaitanyam.

jIva is chaitanyam qualified by antahkaraNam-- antahkaraNa visishta

chaitanyam.

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

 

 

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

Thanks for taking time to clarify my doubts....Here is my thoughts on your

observation.

 

 

Sri S prabhuji :

 

 

No - Upahita caitanya is witnessing consciousness which is different

from jiiva. This I addressed in the last post - 12 of the knowledge and

the means of knowledge.

 

 

bhaskar :

 

 

I hope you have given the bhAshya vAkya to substantiate your claims that

jIva is different from witnessing consciousness..By the way, what is jIva

bhAva apart from upAdhi?? can we imagine a chaitanya bereft of upAdhi-s &

different from upahita chaitanya i.e. sAkshi??

 

 

Sri S prabhuji :

 

 

Here pot space realizes that there is in reality no pot space

> as

> such at all at any point of time...is it not??

 

Not true. Pot space is there for transactional purposes. But

identification and reality assigned to the pot space is gone with the

realization. These are two different aspects.

 

 

bhaskar :

 

 

shankara says in sUtra bhAshya (4-1-13) that pUrva siddhA katrutva

bhOktrutva vipareetaM hi *trishvapi kAlEshu akatrutvAbhOktrutvAsvarUpaM

brahmAhamasmi, nEtaH pUrvamapi kartA bhOktA vA ahamAsaM, nEdAneeM

bhavishyatkAle, iti brahmavidavagacchati....*yEvamEva* cha mOkshaM

upapadyatE..

 

 

prabhuji, here shankara explicitly says trishvapi kAlEshu (past, present &

future time ) jIva is brahman only...he is not jIva at any point of

time..shankara emphasizes the fact that this is what is called mOksha..but

you are telling, jIva bhAva continue to be there but it is not real...when

it is not real, there is no harm in telling that pot space (even *socalled*

walls of pot are there !!!) is always mahAkAsha only. vyavahAra is

avidyAkruta, where Atman assumes wrongly identifies that he is pramAtru but

Atma jnAna reveals him the fact that he was/is/never will be a kartru nor

bhOktru...shankara in gIta bhAshya says sublation of pramAtrutva is the

result of Atma jnAna.When it is sublated, from jnAni-s point of view there

is no avidyA vyavahAra coz. of the fact that there is no wrong

identification of himself with katru or bhOktru even in this

transactions...when satyatva buddhi goes in transactions how can he still

maintain that he is upahita chaitanya?? IMO, bAdhita jnAna does mean this

only...

 

 

Sri S prabhuji :

 

 

Hence as long as upAdhis are there, the limiting witnessing consciousness

still operates at the local level.

 

 

bhaskar :

 

 

so, as long as jnAni is associated with upAdhi-s, upAdhi rahita paripUrNa

advaita jnAna is not possible for him...to get that he has to cast off his

limiting adjuncts or in other words, physical death of jnAni can only give

him ultimate jnAna...is this what here you are trying to say prabhuji??

But prabhuji, if we say ONLY after the physical death of upAdhi-s one can

attain nirupAdhika chaitanya, does it not mean the mOksha what is achieved

is dEsha kAla paricchinaa...that which is achieved only *after* some

special even & it is not nitya siddha then it is anitya only...shankara

says in sUtra bhAshya : na cha dEsha kAla nimittApEkshO mOkshaH karma

phalavad bhavitumarhati *anityatvaprasaMgAt....

 

 

Sri S prabhuji :

 

 

But that witnessing consciousness is for all practical

purposes is the same as total consciousness (nirupAdhika caitanya) just

as pot space is same as total space as space can never be divided.

Hence divisions are only for transactional purposes. It is like knowing

that sun never rises or sets, while enjoying the beautiful sunrise.

 

 

bhaskar :

 

 

does it not applicable to the vishishTa chaitanya also prabhuji?? Even

after realization, you seem to be insisting that the two chaitanya-s

(upahita & vishishTa), from empirical stand point would be operating intact

& this transactional operations would vanish only when both vishishTa &

upahita chaitanya becomes literally nirupAdhika chaitanya i.e. after

complete annihilation of upAdhi-s....

 

 

Sri S prabhuji :

 

 

Bhaskarji - please study both parts 11 and 12 where realization has

been addressed.

 

 

bhaskar :

 

 

Thanks for the reference, I've not read that series but fortunately I've 12

in my archieves...I would like to get some clarification from that post

also...I'll write to you very soon prabhuji.

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar