Disccussion on Free-will

[Guest guest]

PraNAms to all

 

Interestingly this topic keeps coming back again and again and appearing in the

both the lists at this time.

 

I am not going to discuss this issue - other than restate a statement I have

made before: Free will is there until I am free from will.

 

Here is a beautiful sloka from Bhagavaan Ramana in Sat DarShaNam in the text we

are taking in the coming Memorial Day weekend camp, related to this topic, and

it may be of interest to some. He says, as always in his characteristic style of

brevity:

 

vidheH prayatnasya ca ko2pivaadaH

tayor dvayor muulamajaanataam syaat|

vidheH prayatnasya ca muulavastu

sanjaanataam naiva vidhirna yatnaH|| - sloka 21

 

Vidhi stands for fate and prayatna stands for freewill. He says the debate of

fate and freewill is a universal and unending debate. Some say it is fate and

some say it is freewill that controls. Efforts determine our fate and fate

determines your freewill. What I have is fate and what I do with what I have is

free will. I have at anytime these two things simultaneously since I have no

choice but to choose - kartum shakyam akarturm shakyam, anyathaa kartum shakyam

- to do, not to do or to do another way - these choice-less choices is there

because of the present situation to deal with due my fate. At any time I am

faced with these two. Now which comes first - is it fate or free will. That

question is invalid because the ignorance is anaadi - beginning less. The birth,

sustenance and death are cyclic and no beginning and no end until I get out of

this punarapi jananam punarapi maranam cycle. How do I get out of it?

 

Bhagavaan Ramana says -this discussion is there only because one does not

understand - tayor dvayoH muulam - here moolam is the adhiShTaanam or the

substantive of both the freewill and the fate - both arise with the notion of

ahankaara - the notion that I am an individual separate from the jagat the

universe and hence separate from Iswara, the creator of this universe.

 

Hence Bhagavaan recommends not to indulge in this useless discussion of is it

freewill or fate which is final, what is final is the substantive of both - the

very existence-consciousness that I am - where both jiiva, jagat and Iswara

resolve into one and where both freewill and fate get transcended.

 

Hence he says, vidheH prayatnasya ca muulavastu samjaanataam - for those who

know the substantive of both the fate and free will - the very

existence-consciousness because of which both seems to exist and because of

which one is aware of both, that muula vastu or that absolute reality - one who

knows that for him naiva vidhiH na yatnaH - there is no freewill or fate.

 

A beautiful teaching indeed. My prostrations to that sage of Arunaachala.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Let  us strive to attune ourselves to the Divine will ..then perhaps we will

cease to bother

about destiny and free will ..Sage Ramakrishna once said - free will is limited

like

the movement of the calf tied by a strong rope to an iron post ..Of  what big

use

is such a limited free will ? It only keeps us ensnared in Maya !

 

Pranams ,

 

ramesh

 

--- On Wed, 5/20/09, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote:

 

 

kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

Disccussion on Free-will

advaitin , " adviata-l " <advaita-l

Wednesday, May 20, 2009, 4:37 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PraNAms to all

 

Interestingly this topic keeps coming back again and again and appearing in the

both the lists at this time.

 

I am not going to discuss this issue - other than restate a statement I have

made before: Free will is there until I am free from will.

 

Here is a beautiful sloka from Bhagavaan Ramana in Sat DarShaNam in the text we

are taking in the coming Memorial Day weekend camp, related to this topic, and

it may be of interest to some. He says, as always in his characteristic style of

brevity:

 

vidheH prayatnasya ca ko2pivaadaH

tayor dvayor muulamajaanataam syaat|

vidheH prayatnasya ca muulavastu

sanjaanataam naiva vidhirna yatnaH|| - sloka 21

 

Vidhi stands for fate and prayatna stands for freewill. He says the debate of

fate and freewill is a universal and unending debate. Some say it is fate and

some say it is freewill that controls. Efforts determine our fate and fate

determines your freewill. What I have is fate and what I do with what I have is

free will. I have at anytime these two things simultaneously since I have no

choice but to choose - kartum shakyam akarturm shakyam, anyathaa kartum shakyam

- to do, not to do or to do another way - these choice-less choices is there

because of the present situation to deal with due my fate. At any time I am

faced with these two. Now which comes first - is it fate or free will. That

question is invalid because the ignorance is anaadi - beginning less. The birth,

sustenance and death are cyclic and no beginning and no end until I get out of

this punarapi jananam punarapi maranam cycle. How do I get out of it?

 

Bhagavaan Ramana says -this discussion is there only because one does not

understand - tayor dvayoH muulam - here moolam is the adhiShTaanam or the

substantive of both the freewill and the fate - both arise with the notion of

ahankaara - the notion that I am an individual separate from the jagat the

universe and hence separate from Iswara, the creator of this universe.

 

Hence Bhagavaan recommends not to indulge in this useless discussion of is it

freewill or fate which is final, what is final is the substantive of both - the

very existence-conscious ness that I am - where both jiiva, jagat and Iswara

resolve into one and where both freewill and fate get transcended.

 

Hence he says, vidheH prayatnasya ca muulavastu samjaanataam - for those who

know the substantive of both the fate and free will - the very

existence-conscious ness because of which both seems to exist and because of

which one is aware of both, that muula vastu or that absolute reality - one who

knows that for him naiva vidhiH na yatnaH - there is no freewill or fate.

 

A beautiful teaching indeed. My prostrations to that sage of Arunaachala.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

> I am not going to discuss this issue - other than restate a statement I have

made before: Free will is there until I am free from will.

>

 

The notion " free will " is a misnomer in the sense that " willing " is a process of

self-assertion by a being in response to the world it is aware of. Hence the

being finds the need to express itself against the external limitations, the

`need' implying a lack of complete freedom.

 

This is of course understood by all who speak of " free will " . As for the

validity of this " will " , I think we should use the principle that this belongs

to the level of pratyaksha pramana - one should not use Shastra to contradict

the obvious pratyaksha. If Shastra or saint suggests against the obvious, it

should be understood in some transcendental sense that does not contradict the

obvious, and lead to silly argumentation.

 

The individual is aware of its capacity to will an action; I can decide to lift

my finger and then lift it. The latter process follows from a deliberate signal

given by my mind with regard to the organ of action. Now if this is an

experiment, then the scientific/pratyaksha-based conclusion is that a being has

the capacity to will an action.

 

As for modern experiments suggesting otherwise, they are partial and necessarily

inconclusive and cannot by any means lead to conclude the absence of all will in

the individual - which is all the while backed by direct pratyaksha pramana.

Based on available information, will is there, with locus in the upadhis of each

individual as also in the Universal whole. (Consciousness being all-pervading,

this is within Vedanta that its manifestation/expression as will is validated in

individual upadhi-contexts).

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

PranAms Shri T,

 

It is perhaps a little more complicated than that - if a tiger zeroes in on one

of many gazelles it does imply that its intellect has sent a signal to its motor

apparatus to attack that one particular gazelle out of the 50 others grazing and

seemingly it may seem that the tiger is exercising its will - but in that case

it is much more appropriate to say that it is not as much free will as it

is SrShti's determinism that is operational. Not so in the case of humans

though....

For a perspective on this..

http://poornamadam.blogspot.com/2008/04/free-will-determinism-prarabdha.html

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

--- On Wed, 5/20/09, putranm <putranm wrote:

 

 

putranm <putranm

Re: Disccussion on Free-will

advaitin

Wednesday, May 20, 2009, 1:11 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

The individual is aware of its capacity to will an action; I can decide to lift

my finger and then lift it. The latter process follows from a deliberate signal

given by my mind with regard to the organ of action. Now if this is an

experiment, then the scientific/pratyaks ha-based conclusion is that a being has

the capacity to will an action.

 

As for modern experiments suggesting otherwise, they are partial and necessarily

inconclusive and cannot by any means lead to conclude the absence of all will in

the individual - which is all the while backed by direct pratyaksha pramana.

Based on available information, will is there, with locus in the upadhis of each

individual as also in the Universal whole. (Consciousness being all-pervading,

this is within Vedanta that its manifestation/ expression as will is validated

in individual upadhi-contexts) .

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

 

Recent Activity

 

 

 10

New Members

 

 1

New FilesVisit Your Group

 

 

 

Give Back

for Good

Get inspired

by a good cause.

 

Y! Toolbar

Get it Free!

easy 1-click access

to your groups.

 

 

Start a group

in 3 easy steps.

Connect with others.

..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

PraNams

 

The point that was made by Bhagavan Ramana is that free will is there to deal

with the situation that one is facing and the situation that one is facing is

due to past actions. Hence what I have is destiny, and what I do with what I

have is purushaartha. This is the biginningless cycle. Both arise due to

ignorance which is anaadi. These go together only because there is katRitva

bhaava that is I am kartaa notion is there. That is only a notion, and

therefore both what I have and what I do with what I have, both are result of

the basic notion that I am a doer. That very conclusion is the essence of the

problem and arises due to lack of substantive knowledge that - akartaaham

abhoktaaham, ahamevaaham avyayaH.I am never a doer or enjoyer.

 

The rest of the discussion is not much relevant, from the point of this list

serve.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

--- On Wed, 5/20/09, putranm <putranm wrote:

 

 

The notion " free will " is a misnomer in the sense that " willing " is a process of

self-assertion by a being in response to the world it is aware of. Hence the

being finds the need to express itself against the external limitations, the

`need' implying a lack of complete freedom.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

>

>

> PraNams

>

> The point that was made by Bhagavan Ramana is that free will is there to deal

with the situation that one is facing and the situation that one is facing is

due to past actions. Hence what I have is destiny, and what I do with what I

have is purushaartha. This is the biginningless cycle. Both arise due to

ignorance which is anaadi. These go together only because there is katRitva

bhaava that is I am kartaa notion is there. That is only a notion, and

therefore both what I have and what I do with what I have, both are result of

the basic notion that I am a doer. That very conclusion is the essence of the

problem and arises due to lack of substantive knowledge that - akartaaham

abhoktaaham, ahamevaaham avyayaH.I am never a doer or enjoyer.

>

> The rest of the discussion is not much relevant, from the point of this list

serve.

>

 

Sadaji.

 

Advaita has to accept or reject the following idea regarding the Order that

governs this world. Is it entirely " Shrishti's determinism " or is there a

self-determining aspect? There are some quotes as you explain above where it

suggests " free will is there to deal with the situation that one is facing and

the situation that one is facing is due to past actions. " That is , both are

there. However there are other quotes that seem to contradict this, and suggest

pure determinism. I saw in the other list that you simply gave an explanation to

sideline Ramana's quote in that direction, and said it was only your opinion. I

gave my own in the less-relevant paras. Is there a firm postion given by

Shankara in his bhashyas, and which he does not contradict elsewhere in the

bhashyas?

 

As for the rest, I think I accept that; the discussion is not from Brahman's

standpoint - I think it should not be mixed with that, and be recognized as

relevant at pratyaksha-level (in ignorance), where willing and doership are

quite " real " . i.e. if doership is implied, it is not to some universal set of

laws acting like a robot, but also to the individual at that point of time,

space, etc.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

Putramji - PraNAms

 

At saadhana level - as long as I have kartRitva bhaava, the yoga is there that

involves saadhana and free-will will be the governing factor - tat vijnaasasva -

one has to inquire -inquiry is the purusha tantram. The knowledge is not purusha

tantram - it is vastu tantram.

 

Krishna himself says - prakRityaiva ca karmaani kriyamaanaani sarvashaH, yaH

pasyati tadaatmaanam akartaaram sa pasyati - prakRiti does all the actions and

understanding in clear terms makes me akartaa and abhoktaa. That is knowledge.

Then there is neither destiny nor free-will - that is what Bhagavaan Ramana also

wants us to find out by analysis the very ahankaara that goes with the I am the

doer notion.

 

Shankara begins with adhyaasa bhaashya to discuss the fundamental human error

that contributes to I am a doer and I am enjoyer notions. In all his bhaashyas

he is dead against mixing up the karma and jnaana. jnaana-karma samucchaya is

the constant purvapaksha in all his bhaashyaas. Karma is required as jnaana yogo

yogyataa siddhi - that involves free-will. Once one is able to have

yogaaruuDhaH, the advice is to contemplate on the nature of reality which Ramana

emphasizes. The teaching is only for those who are able to have chitta suddhi,

chitta vishaalaata and chitta ekaagrata. There is adhikaari for everything.

Hence the teaching depends on the student too. There is nothing wrong here as

long as we understand correctly the adhyaaropa-apavaada system of Vedanta.

 

Hope this helps

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

--- On Thu, 5/21/09, putranm <putranm wrote:

 

Sadaji.

 

Advaita has to accept or reject the following idea regarding the Order that

governs this world. Is it entirely " Shrishti's determinism " or is there a

self-determining aspect? There are some quotes as you explain above where it

suggests " free will is there to deal with the situation that one is facing and

the situation that one is facing is due to past actions. " That is , both are

there. However there are other quotes that seem to contradict this, and suggest

pure determinism. I saw in the other list that you simply gave an explanation to

sideline Ramana's quote in that direction, and said it was only your opinion. I

gave my own in the less-relevant paras. Is there a firm postion given by

Shankara in his bhashyas, and which he does not contradict elsewhere in the

bhashyas?

 

As for the rest, I think I accept that; the discussion is not from Brahman's

standpoint - I think it should not be mixed with that, and be recognized as

relevant at pratyaksha-level (in ignorance), where willing and doership are

quite " real " . i.e. if doership is implied, it is not to some universal set of

laws acting like a robot, but also to the individual at that point of time,

space, etc.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

The debate between " fate " and " free-will " is an endless one, and

although the Vedantin may have something to say on this (on the basis

of the law of karma), it is not his approach to get caught in this

cycle. Rather, the Vedantin points out that the very premise for the

existence of fate/will, viz., the sense of agency, is illusory.

 

Actually, fate and free-will are two sides of the same coin, the coin

itself being the sense of agency. As long as I have the bhAva of being

a kartA and a bhoktA (doer/enjoyer), I will see that some of my wants

get fulfilled and others don't. On one occasion, I might decide to go

to Sringeri and do so with ease. Hence my " free-will " has worked. On

another occasion, I really want to go but am unable to because of an

emergency at the office. Hence, " fate " has stalled my plans.

 

As long as there is a sense of agency, which in a way is the key to

our sense of individuality, both free-will and fate influence our

lives.

 

mokSha involves the understanding that the sense of agency is avidyA.

Hence the mukta does not identify with the causal cycle and is

liberated from both fate and free will.

 

Interestingly, the illusory/erroneous nature of the sense of agency is

stressed by all the Indian philosophical traditions, though they

explain it in different ways.

 

The advaitin uses the framework of avidyA which is the attribution of

knowerhood and doerhood to the Atman. The saMkhyan, in a similar way,

says that the puruSha identifies himself as the doer due to a mistaken

identification with the modifications of prakR^iti. Most

bhakti-oriented traditions would attribute doerhood to Ishvara (divine

play etc), with the jIva being only an instrument. The bauddha-s would

say that the doer and the deed arise co-dependently, therefore neither

is inherently real, and so forth.

 

Hence, if you are a follower of any Indian philosophical tradition,

the riddle of fate and free-will is " transcended " (through the

understanding that the sense of agency is mistaken) instead of being

resolved in favour of either fate or free will. In fact such a

resolution cannot happen because the two are two sides of the same

coin.

 

The vipra-s of the ancient past, while pouring their offerings into

agni, contemplated on their actions and the relationship between the

sacrificer and the sacrifice, the doer and the deed. Hence, 'karma'

and 'yaj~na' took on increasingly philosophical meanings, and spawned

the insightful darshana-s that we have inherited today.

 

 

Ramesh

 

--

santoá¹£aḥ paramo lÄbhaḥ satsaá¹…gaḥ paramÄ gatiḥ I

vicÄraḥ paramaá¹ jñÄnaá¹ Å›amo hi paramaá¹ sukham II

- Yoga VÄsiṣṭha

[Guest guest]

Dear ramesh,

 

What exactly is the role of *viveka* here? Suppose, a person X has been adviced

to go to temple. But he goes to a theatre instead.

 

Now, the *decisive power* whether to go to temple or a movie lies with X and

that is what is the *free will*.

 

It is with the power of *free will* that one proceeds in Sadhana (uddharet

atmanam atmanam.....), IMHO.

 

regs,

sriram

 

advaitin , Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy wrote:

>

> The debate between " fate " and " free-will " is an endless one, and

> although the Vedantin may have something to say on this (on the basis

> of the law of karma), it is not his approach to get caught in this

> cycle. Rather, the Vedantin points out that the very premise for the

> existence of fate/will, viz., the sense of agency, is illusory.

>

> Actually, fate and free-will are two sides of the same coin, the coin

> itself being the sense of agency. As long as I have the bhAva of being

> a kartA and a bhoktA (doer/enjoyer), I will see that some of my wants

> get fulfilled and others don't. On one occasion, I might decide to go

> to Sringeri and do so with ease. Hence my " free-will " has worked. On

> another occasion, I really want to go but am unable to because of an

> emergency at the office. Hence, " fate " has stalled my plans.

>

> As long as there is a sense of agency, which in a way is the key to

> our sense of individuality, both free-will and fate influence our

> lives.

>

> mokSha involves the understanding that the sense of agency is avidyA.

> Hence the mukta does not identify with the causal cycle and is

> liberated from both fate and free will.

>

> Interestingly, the illusory/erroneous nature of the sense of agency is

> stressed by all the Indian philosophical traditions, though they

> explain it in different ways.

>

> The advaitin uses the framework of avidyA which is the attribution of

> knowerhood and doerhood to the Atman. The saMkhyan, in a similar way,

> says that the puruSha identifies himself as the doer due to a mistaken

> identification with the modifications of prakR^iti. Most

> bhakti-oriented traditions would attribute doerhood to Ishvara (divine

> play etc), with the jIva being only an instrument. The bauddha-s would

> say that the doer and the deed arise co-dependently, therefore neither

> is inherently real, and so forth.

>

> Hence, if you are a follower of any Indian philosophical tradition,

> the riddle of fate and free-will is " transcended " (through the

> understanding that the sense of agency is mistaken) instead of being

> resolved in favour of either fate or free will. In fact such a

> resolution cannot happen because the two are two sides of the same

> coin.

>

> The vipra-s of the ancient past, while pouring their offerings into

> agni, contemplated on their actions and the relationship between the

> sacrificer and the sacrifice, the doer and the deed. Hence, 'karma'

> and 'yaj~na' took on increasingly philosophical meanings, and spawned

> the insightful darshana-s that we have inherited today.

>

>

> Ramesh

>

> --

> santoá¹£aḥ paramo lÄbhaḥ satsaá¹…gaḥ paramÄ gatiḥ I

> vicÄraḥ paramaá¹ jñÄnaá¹ Å›amo hi paramaá¹ sukham II

> - Yoga VÄsiṣṭha

>

[Guest guest]

2009/5/22 sriram <sriram_sapthasathi:

>

>

> Dear ramesh,

>

> What exactly is the role of *viveka* here? Suppose, a person X has been

> adviced to go to temple. But he goes to a theatre instead.

>

> Now, the *decisive power* whether to go to temple or a movie lies with X and

> that is what is the *free will*.

>

> It is with the power of *free will* that one proceeds in Sadhana (uddharet

> atmanam atmanam.....), IMHO.

>

 

You are quite correct. I never denied the above. Fate and free will

comprise yet another " pair of opposites " in the mithyA jagat. As with

all opposites, there is an essential unity between these two. In

sAdhana too, both of these have a role - there is puruShArtha, and

there is anugraha.

[Guest guest]

Pranams to all,

 

Swami Paramarthananda puts it quite succinctly. He says, free will allows

you to plan to do certain things. Free will also allows you to act according

to your plans. Fate intervenes and determines whether your plans succeed or

fail. Thus, we would be well placed to derive satisfaction from the very

action we are doing, instead of depending on the results of the action for

our satisfaction. If the plans succeed, OK - the satisfaction from the

success is a bonus. If the plans fail, that is also OK - we have already

derived satisfaction from the actions.

 

Yours in reverence,

 

Sai

 

On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 2:23 AM, Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthywrote:

 

>

> Actually, fate and free-will are two sides of the same coin, the coinitself

> being the sense of agency. As long as I have the bhAva of beinga kartA and a

> bhoktA (doer/enjoyer), I will see that some of my wantsget fulfilled and

> others don't. On one occasion, I might decide to goto Sringeri and do so

> with ease. Hence my " free-will " has worked. Onanother occasion, I really

> want to go but am unable to because of anemergency at the office. Hence,

> " fate " has stalled my plans.

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I discussed the subject with one of my friends who is spiritually oriented.

the following is the summary

 

Free will- to whom ? Obviously the question is to the one who is under the

influence of maya. Any body who is under its influence there is world and

Brahaman apart from himself.

 

When we observe the whole Universe including , the Sun, Moon, functioning

of human body, - we cannot but accept that there was a Power behind their

functioning , be it Nature, God, or Cosmic Consciousness. We observe a

perfect order and plan behind their formation. I think The functioning of

individuals and the happenings in and out side those individuals are part of

this divine plan. Thus in each individual there is no individual functioning

but due to ignorance one believes and identifies oneself with the body and

its actions.

 

.. The situation where we consider that we are doing many actions based on

lour own decisions may not be correct. Actions are preceded by thoughts and

thoughts arise and one does not get them.

 

(when I doubted the concept thoughts arise within us and we do not get them,

he wanted me to take any manta and repeat the same for 15 minutes sitting

quietly in a corner. After I did the same he questioned me whether I could

retain the mantra all through the 15 minutes or whether I lost it some

where. I told him that I lost it and after some time I realised suddenly

that I was not repeating and start again. Then he questioned me whether I

took any conscious decision to drop the mantra or whether there was any

effort to realise the fact some where that I lost. I replied that only after

realising I lost it I took it again and there was no effort to realise the

fact of missing the mantra. His conclusion is that the same happens to all

our actions. Actions happen and only afterwards we own them. He mentioned

that Nisarga datta maharaj als mentioned the same

 

somewhere.)

 

continuing His exposition:-

 

Where from thoughts arise? Let us examine -One has no choice of choosing

one's parents. You inherit what you got from your DNA. which controls major

portion of our behaviour and thought process. In addition to DNA, the

conditioning that accrues through the environment in which one is brought up

and subsequently lives is also responsible for one's thoughts and actions.It

appears everything is programmed and the computer cannot go beyond the

software. when we think that all our actions are done with free will

actually it may not be so. It is only apparent free Will. This concept may

help us to live more happily in the world apart from whatever spiritual

merit it has.

 

If we apply the concept to practical situations:;

 

It is all our common knowledge we do many actions expecting a particular

outcome which if materialises makes us happy. On the other hand if it does

not happen as we expected we feel disappointed. and go on worrying that we

should not have acted as we did or we should have acted in a different way

and curse our self. Suppose we have 100% faith in the above concept that

there was no individual doer but every thing happens according to a divine

plan.What would be our reaction in the above situation. Let us see the two

alternatives

 

1. The outcome was as we expected. If we believe that the action because of

which the positive outcome resulted was in fact not ours but as willed by

Him feeling of pride doe not arise and humility would make us thank God for

it.

 

2. On the other hand if the outcome was not as we expected,resulting in

terrible disappointment and if we believe that we were not the doer of that

action, the guilt or disappointment wanes as we accept it as God's will. .

 

SO WHAT IS THE CONCLUSION ?

 

Act as if you have full freedom to act- .and at the time of facing result

accept it with 100% faith that when you acted you had really no free will.

We have apparent free will but not real free will

 

Ramana Sarma

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , vrsarma podury <rpodury wrote:

> Free will- to whom ? Obviously the question is to the one who is under the

> influence of maya. Any body who is under its influence there is world and

> Brahaman apart from himself.

>

 

Namaskarams Sri Sarmaji,

 

The above paragraph, I agree with. However I believe the answer also belongs in

that paragraph. There is nobody to pose such a question, until *after* affirming

the jiva-jagat-Ishvara triad. We are dealing with vyavahaarika, wherein

free-will is verily 'real' and localized in each jiva, even as the sun is

identified as generating its own light. It does not mean independence; in the

context of duality, individual-will is affirmed along with universal Order.

 

The divine plan or power is not centralized in some corner of the universe. If

you localize anywhere to spot identity as jiva or sun, moon, etc, there also you

must localize the Power in operation. It is to be identified right there; and as

much as we wish to conclude determinism in Prakrithi, so also we witness

evidence of self-determining consciousness in jiva. This is bare evidence from

observation + our own experience.

 

Thoughts arise in the mind, most we are not aware of. Yes, but here the issue is

not about *most* thoughts. Nobody is saying everything happens at the conscious

plane. Yet one cannot negate the conscious plane (willing) by pointing to the

subconscious levels. That is ill-logic that panders to some preconception,

contradicting direct evidence.

 

The best-bet for this type of " Freewill is false " conclusion is to claim it as

of Sruthi - and leave it as a transcendental fact. I may not accept the

interpretation, but I can accept then the position of those who take it.

However, logic by itself is a no-go.

 

(We are using ideas and logic to deny direct experiential conviction; I think

this has more to do with our desire to pander to modern-science than to the

Sruthi or Advaita.)

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

[PS. This is just a self-correction. In my second post to Maniji, I had begun ~

" I looked at your first question above. " This may have been written with some

intention to deceive. I believe I had seen the question before writing the

previous post as well, but had concentrated on the later question on what is

moksha, etc. ]

 

Quote from Katha Upanishad:

" Beyond the senses are the objects of sense.

Beyond the objects of sense is the mind.

Beyond the mind is the intuition.

Beyond the intuition is the great soul.

Beyond the great soul is the unmanifest.

Beyond the unmanifest is Spirit.

Beyond the Spirit there is nothing at all.

That is the end; that is the final goal. "

[Guest guest]

Namaste to all on this thread.

 

I decided to go on a picnic.

Everything went ok.

The picnic materialized.

It was really grand.

Thank God.

 

I decided to go on a picnic.

There was a downpour.

The picnic didn't materialize as the roads were deluged.

I spent a gloomy day at home.

Need I curse God?

 

Isn't everything in the above fate, asks my friend, a Christian priest. What is

the great freewill in using a mind that the Lord has granted and lights up, with

all its inherent tendencies which again belong to the Lord, gathered through

past situations, all of which are of the Lord's making, in 'deciding' to go for

a picnic to a spot which the Lord has kindly set up - asks my friend. The word

'deciding' seems the only free-will factor. If all the rest is attributed to the

Lord, then it derives that I was also supposed to 'decide' to go for a picnic.

I couldn't have acted differently although another person is a similar situation

might have preferred sitting at home and hitting the bottle.

 

Is the priest a foolish fatalist or one who has surrendered himself totally to

the Lord?

 

Asking this question knowing fully well Shankara's statement " kartum shakyam,

akartum shakyam, anyaThAva kartum shakyam " . Isn't freewill seeming? Isn't that

there is only fate - the Lord's free-will?

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Dear Nair-ji,

 

 

 

Very good! It reminded me of the following from Schopenhauer, which I quoted

in 'Back to the Truth':

 

 

 

" It is six o'clock in the evening, the working day is over. Now I can go for

a walk, or I can go to the club; I can also climb up the tower to see the

sun set; I can go to the theater; I can visit this friend or that one;

indeed, I also can run out of the gate, into the wide world, and never

return. All of this is strictly up to me, in this I have complete freedom.

But still I shall do none of these things now, but with just as free a will

I shall go home to my wife. Now this is exactly as if water spoke to itself:

I can make high waves (during a storm), I can rush down hill (in the river

bed), I can plunge down foaming and gushing (in the waterfall), I can rise

freely as a stream of water into the air (in the fountain), I can, finally,

boil away and disappear (if its hot enough); but I am doing none of these

things now, and am voluntarily remaining quiet and clear water in the

reflecting pond. As the water can do all those things only when the

determining causes operate for the one or the other, so too man can do what

he imagines himself able to do only on the same condition. In the case of

each motive, the man thinks that he can will it and so can fix the

weathervane of his will at this point, but this is sheer delusion. For this

" I can will this " is in reality hypothetical - and carries with it the

additional clause, if I did not prefer the other. But this addition annuls

that ability to will! "

 

(Prize Essay on the Freedom of the Will (Cambridge Texts in the History of

Philosophy), Arthur Schopenhauer, Cambridge University Press, 1999. ISBN

0521577667)

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Madathil Rajendran Nair

Saturday, May 23, 2009 10:08 AM

advaitin

Re: Disccussion on Free-will

 

 

 

 

Namaste to all on this thread.

 

I decided to go on a picnic.

Everything went ok.

The picnic materialized.

It was really grand.

Thank God.

 

<< >>

 

Asking this question knowing fully well Shankara's statement " kartum

shakyam, akartum shakyam, anyaThAva kartum shakyam " . Isn't freewill seeming?

Isn't that there is only fate - the Lord's free-will?

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

> " As the water can do all those things only when the

> determining causes operate for the one or the other, so too man can do what

> he imagines himself able to do only on the same condition. In the case of

> each motive, the man thinks that he can will it and so can fix the

> weathervane of his will at this point, but this is sheer delusion. For this

> " I can will this " is in reality hypothetical - and carries with it the

> additional clause, if I did not prefer the other. But this addition annuls

> that ability to will! "

>

 

Namaskarams Nairji, Dennisji and others,

 

Yes Lord's free-will, but when we talk of " man " , then that free-will belongs to

that man - the Lord's/Universal will is then the sum-total of the individuals' +

perhaps an overall Order, but the latter cannot deny the former. Once we bring

in duality, it implies both together - I act and the world reacts; the world

acts and I react. We bypass this interdependent activity only when we transcend

duality altogether - i.e. in the paramaarthika standpoint. Bringing such logic

into vyavahaarika to conclude pure-determinism is the real " sheer delusion " due

to a mixing up of standpoints.

 

The water example is wrong for it presumes a perfectly still lake - that is an

oversimplification to begin with. Such a lake would not be thinking in the first

place of what it could or could not do. (jnani:-)

If it is thinking, then yes: it has free-will. (And NOT, " yes, you can imagine

you have free will " - this version is the mixing up of standpoints using

ill-logic.)

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

PranAms Putran-ji

 

I agree with you when you point out that there is a mixing up of

different levels of reality in that position.  

 

This debate between freewill and fate is by default never-eding - because the

proponents of free will will ever exercise their free-will in explaining their

position and the determinism of those determined to defend determinism is of

course pre-determined! :-)

 

In the Bhagwad Gita, Bhagwan Krishna makes his stance ambiguously clear!

 

First he emphasises this :

yada ahankaaram aashritya na yotsya iti manyase

mithyaisha vyavasaayaste prakrti tvaam niyokshyati

 

If by harboring or resorting to a notion of doership, you think " I will not act

(fight); then this is your error; you will be impelled - nay - compelled to act

by your own intrinsic nature.

 

Shankara too in his bhashya adds - na mantavyam - dont think - svatantra aham -

I am free (to act)!

 

Krisha again reiterates

svabhavajena kaunteya nibaddha svena karmanaa

kartum nechhasi yanmohaat karishyasyavashopi tat

 

What through this delusion (of freedom) you dont desire to do, bound by your own

work (which have led to vasanas) borne of nature, you will inevitably do.

 

Krishna also emphasizes next that it is ever the Lord alone that causes all

beings to revolve as though they were wooden puppets mounted on a

machine yantrani roodhani (the robots of that age!)

 

But just when you take this as a clear and unequivocal endorsement by the Lord

of determinism, he advises Arjuna very soon " yatha icchasi tathaa kuru " - after

taking into consideration all these 18 chapters of advice that I have patiently

given you, please act as you wish - you alone have the freedom - nay - the

responsibility to decide what it is that you need to do now - to do or not to do

- to fight or not to fight - the choice is yours. The Lord Himself, has just

told Arjuna, that as the wileder of MAyA he impels beings to act as though they

were mere puppets. And the verisame Lord now tells Arjuna - " please now think,

and then do as you see fit "   

Whence is the need for these words from Krisha if as the All-knowing Lord He

knew fully well that Arjuna would have no choice but to fight?

 

Thus it is we see Krishna emphasizing the twin concepts of determinism and free

will in almost back-to-back slokas in the Bhagwad Gita. We can " freely " draw our

own conclusions and hopefully come to our own  " pre-determined " understanding!

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

 

 

 

--- On Sat, 5/23/09, putranm <putranm wrote:

 

 

putranm <putranm

Re: Disccussion on Free-will

advaitin

Saturday, May 23, 2009, 11:32 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

If it is thinking, then yes: it has free-will. (And NOT, " yes, you can imagine

you have free will " - this version is the mixing up of standpoints using

ill-logic.)

 

thollmelukaalkizh

 

 

 

Recent Activity

 

 

 8

New Members

 

 1

New FilesVisit Your Group

 

 

 

Give Back

for Good

Get inspired

by a good cause.

 

Y! Toolbar

Get it Free!

easy 1-click access

to your groups.

 

 

Start a group

in 3 easy steps.

Connect with others.

..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I remember one question put by somebody to Satya Sai. regarding free will.

 

The reply was -What free will you have in a dream ?

 

On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Madathil Rajendran Nair <

madathilnair wrote:

 

>

>

> Namaste to all on this thread.

>

> I decided to go on a picnic.

> Everything went ok.

> The picnic materialized.

> It was really grand.

> Thank God.

>

> I decided to go on a picnic.

> There was a downpour.

> The picnic didn't materialize as the roads were deluged.

> I spent a gloomy day at home.

> Need I curse God?

>

> Isn't everything in the above fate, asks my friend, a Christian priest.

> What is the great freewill in using a mind that the Lord has granted and

> lights up, with all its inherent tendencies which again belong to the Lord,

> gathered through past situations, all of which are of the Lord's making, in

> 'deciding' to go for a picnic to a spot which the Lord has kindly set up -

> asks my friend. The word 'deciding' seems the only free-will factor. If all

> the rest is attributed to the Lord, then it derives that I was also supposed

> to 'decide' to go for a picnic. I couldn't have acted differently although

> another person is a similar situation might have preferred sitting at home

> and hitting the bottle.

>

> Is the priest a foolish fatalist or one who has surrendered himself totally

> to the Lord?

>

> Asking this question knowing fully well Shankara's statement " kartum

> shakyam, akartum shakyam, anyaThAva kartum shakyam " . Isn't freewill seeming?

> Isn't that there is only fate - the Lord's free-will?

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

> PranAms Putran-ji

>  

> Thus it is we see Krishna emphasizing the twin concepts of determinism and

free will in almost back-to-back slokas in the Bhagwad Gita. We can " freely "

draw our own conclusions and hopefully come to our own  " pre-determined "

understanding!

>  

> Hari OM

> Shri Gurubhyoh namah

> Shyam

>  

>  

>

 

Nice analysis, Shyamji. Thank goodness: Krishna is always on our side, no matter

our conclusions :-)

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Some of the recent messages on this thread have a sarcastic tinge.

 

Determinism is a Western concept. I am not sure how it compares with the

Indians' reverential attribution of everything to the Lord.

 

We need only to concentrate on the last thing Lord Krishna said in SrImad

Bhagavad GItA , i.e. " sarva dharmAn parityAjya mAmekaM sharaNaM vraja " . That

helps us keep away from seeming contradictions in Bhagawan's statements.

 

Seeing the Lord in all actions, in all happenings and in everything is part of

this sarvadharmaparityAga. Actions are not relinquished here. They are

purified, instead, by relating them to the Lord. The thought that I have choice

other than the Lord's Will is certainly relinquished.

 

The idea is to develop a mind that constantly revels in the thought of the Lord.

Where is place in such a mind for an absurd notion called free-will which has

the audacity to stand up and argue in the name of reasoning and logic that even

for sarvadharmaparityAga a free-will is required?

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

_________________

 

 

>

> advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md@> wrote:

>> > Thus it is we see Krishna emphasizing the twin concepts of determinism and

free will in almost back-to-back slokas in the Bhagwad Gita. We can " freely "

draw our own conclusions and hopefully come to our own  " pre-determined "

understanding!

 

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

 

> Nice analysis, Shyamji. Thank goodness: Krishna is always on our side, no

matter our conclusions :-)

[Guest guest]

NANAK IN THE GRANTH

 

 

*तजहॠिसआनप सà¥à¤¿à¤° जनहॠिसमरहà¥

हिर हिर राइ ॥*

> *Reliance on mortals is in vain - know this well.*

 

> **

 

> *देवन कउ à¤à¤•à¥ˆ भगवानॠ॥*

> *The Great Giver is the One Lord God.*

> **

 

> *िजस कै दीठरहै अघाइ ॥*

 

> *By His gifts, we are satisfied,*

> *बहà¥à¤¿à¤° न ितरà¥à¤¸à¤¨à¤¾ लागै आइ ॥*

> **

 

> *and we suffer from thirst no longer.*

 

> *मारै राखै à¤à¤•à¥‹ आिप ॥*

 

> *The One Lord Himself destroys and also preserves.*

 

> *मानà¥à¤– कै िकछॠनाही हािथ ॥*

 

> *Nothing at all is in the hands of mortal beings.*

 

> *ितस का हà¥à¤•à¤®à¥ बूिठसà¥à¤–ॠहोइ ॥*

 

> *Understanding His Order, there is peace.*

 

> *ितस का नामॠरखॠकं िठ परोइ ॥*

 

> *So take His Name, and wear it as your necklace.*

 

> *िसमिर िसमिर िसमिर परà¥à¤­à¥ सोइ

॥*

 

> *Remember, remember, remember God in meditation.*

 

> *नानक िबघनॠन लागै कोइ ॥१॥*

 

> *O Nanak, no obstacle shall stand in your way. ||1||*

 

> *उसतित मन मिह किर िनरंकार ॥*

 

> *Praise the Formless Lord in your mind.*

 

> *किर मन मेरे सित िबउहार ॥*

 

> *O my mind, make this your true occupation.*

 

> *िनरमल रसना अिमरà¥à¤¤à¥ पीउ ॥*

 

> *Let your tongue become pure, drinking in the Ambrosial Nectar.*

 

> *सदा सà¥à¤¹à¥‡à¤²à¤¾ किर लेिह जीउ ॥*

 

> *Your soul shall be forever peaceful.*

 

> *नैनहॠपेखॠठाकॠर का रं गॠ॥*

 

> *With your eyes, see the wondrous play of your Lord and Master.*

 

> *साधसंिग िबनसै सभ संगॠ॥*

 

> *In the Company of the Holy, all other associations vanish.*

 

> *चरन चलउ मारिग गोिबद ॥*

 

> *With your feet, walk in the Way of the Lord.*

 

> *िमटिह पाप जपीठहिर िबद ॥*

 

> *Sins are washed away, chanting the Lord's Name, even for a moment.*

 

> *कर हिर करम सरà¥à¤µà¤¿à¤¨ हिर कथा ॥*

 

> *So do the Lord's Work, and listen to the Lord's Sermon.*

 

> *हिर दरगह नानक ऊजल मथा ॥२॥*

 

> *In the Lord's Court, O Nanak, your face shall be radiant. ||2||*

> (from sggs)

 

> On 23/06/07, ashok mahajan <goodspor... wrote:

 

> > all quotation is real gem

 

>

> > > कहॠमानà¥à¤– ते िकआ होइ आवै ॥

 

> > > Tell me - what can a mere mortal do?

 

> > > जो ितसॠभावै सोई करावै ॥

 

> > > Whatever pleases God is what He causes us to do.

 

> > > इस कै हािथ होइ ता सभॠिकछà¥

लेइ ॥

 

> > > If it were in our hands, we would grab up everything.

 

> > > जो ितसॠभावै सोई करे इ ॥

 

> > > Whatever pleases God - that is what He does.

 

> > > अनजानत िबिखआ मिह रचै ॥

 

> > > Through ignorance, people are engrossed in corruption.

 

> > > जे जानत आपन आप बचै ॥

 

> > > If they knew better, they would save themselves.

 

> > > भरमे भूला दह िदिस धावै ॥

 

> > > Deluded by doubt, they wander around in the ten directions.

 

> > > िनमख मािह चािर कà¥à¤‚ ट िफिर

आवै ॥

 

> > > In an instant, their minds go around the four corners of the world and

 

> > come

> > > back again.

 

> > > किर िकरपा िजसॠअपनी भगित देइ

॥

 

> > > Those whom the Lord mercifully blesses with His devotional worship -

 

> > > नानक ते जन नािम िमलेइ ॥३॥

 

> > > O Nanak, they are absorbed into the Naam. ||3||

 

> > > िखन मिह नीच कीट कउ राज ॥

 

> > > In an instant, the lowly worm is transformed into a king.

 

> > > पारबरà¥à¤¹à¤® गरीब िनवाज ॥

 

> > > The Supreme Lord God is the Protector of the humble.

 

> > > जा का िदरà¥à¤¸à¤¿à¤Ÿ कछू न आवै ॥

 

> > > Even one who has never been seen at all,

 

> > > ितसॠततकाल दह िदस परà¥à¤—टावै ॥

 

> > > becomes instantly famous in the ten directions.

 

> > > जा कउ अपà¥à¤¨à¥€ करै बखसीस ॥

 

> > > And that one upon whom He bestows His blessings -

 

> > > ता का लेखा न गनै जगदीस ॥

 

> > > the Lord of the world does not hold him to his account.

 

> > > जीउ िपडॠसभ ितस की रािस ॥

 

> > > Soul and body are all His property.

 

> > > घिट घिट पूरन बरà¥à¤¹à¤® परà¥à¤—ास ॥

 

> > > Each and every heart is illuminated by the Perfect Lord God.

 

> > > अपनी बणत आिप बनाई ॥

 

> > > He Himself fashioned His own handiwork.

 

> > > नानक जीवै देिख बडाई ॥४॥

 

> > > Nanak lives by beholding His greatness. ||4||

 

> > > (from sggs)

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair

wrote:

>

> Namaste.

>

> Some of the recent messages on this thread have a sarcastic tinge.

>

 

Namaste Nairji, sorry the post appeared sarcastic. Maybe it was; but possibly

not as well - I was commenting that Krishna's statements seem to be on both our

sides as per Shyamji.

 

As for what you have said below, I think that is not a fair way to approach this

question. But let me leave it there for now. (I had dozed off near the computer

and just woke up and saw this. Must get back to sleep!)

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

> Determinism is a Western concept. I am not sure how it compares with the

Indians' reverential attribution of everything to the Lord.

>

>

> The idea is to develop a mind that constantly revels in the thought of the

Lord. Where is place in such a mind for an absurd notion called free-will which

has the audacity to stand up and argue in the name of reasoning and logic that

even for sarvadharmaparityAga a free-will is required?

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

> _________________

>

>

> >

> > advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md@> wrote:

> >> > Thus it is we see Krishna emphasizing the twin concepts of determinism

and free will in almost back-to-back slokas in the Bhagwad Gita. We can " freely "

draw our own conclusions and hopefully come to our own  " pre-determined "

understanding!

>

> advaitin , " putranm " <putranm@> wrote:

>

> > Nice analysis, Shyamji. Thank goodness: Krishna is always on our side, no

matter our conclusions :-)

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Madathil-Ji:

 

Even lord KR^iShNaa use to express his ideas like engineers and scientists do.

When it comes to free will, & fate he reminds us to leave 20% to chance !?

 

adhishhThaanaM tathaa kartaa karaNa.n cha pR^ithagvidham.h .

vividhaashcha pR^ithakcheshhTaa daiva.n chaivaatra pa~nchamam.h ..

 

 

Kind Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair

wrote:

>

> Namaste.

>

>

> Determinism is a Western concept. I am not sure how it compares with the

Indians' reverential attribution of everything to the Lord.

>

> We need only to concentrate on the last thing Lord Krishna said in SrImad

Bhagavad GItA , i.e. " sarva dharmAn parityAjya mAmekaM sharaNaM vraja " . That

helps us keep away from seeming contradictions in Bhagawan's statements.

>

> Seeing the Lord in all actions, in all happenings and in everything is part of

this sarvadharmaparityAga. Actions are not relinquished here. They are

purified, instead, by relating them to the Lord. The thought that I have choice

other than the Lord's Will is certainly relinquished.

>

> The idea is to develop a mind that constantly revels in the thought of the

Lord. Where is place in such a mind for an absurd notion called free-will which

has the audacity to stand up and argue in the name of reasoning and logic that

even for sarvadharmaparityAga a free-will is required?

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

> _________________

>

[Guest guest]

PranAms Nair-ji

 

You have mistaken my attempt at humor as sarcasm - it was not intended to be in

the least.

 

You have rightfully emphasized the aspect of surrender. I have written about

this previously

http://poornamadam.blogspot.com/2007/02/surrender-involves-surrendering-entity.h\

tml

 

However, Advaita, lays as much emphasis on purushartha as sharanagati. Because

in advaita - the surrender is complete - this type of surrender requires

strength - and effort.

 

Putting the ball wholely in Ishwara's court may conveniently absolve oneself of

the need for any effort as well as complete responsibility.

 

" If my sadhana is not bearing effort - why of course its the Lords wish - for He

has decided its not yet time for me - perhaps next janma He will be more

Gracious! " might be the cosy trap embedded in such an attitude that seemingly

belittles the importance of free will and effort.

 

After all it is by the self alone that Krishna asks us to lift oneSelf towards

self-realization. So accepting our own free-will is not audacity, but a

reverential acknowledgement of one of - nay the most important of - Ma Shakti's

benevolent gifts to us - the power of icchaShakti! - which alone renders us

humans fit, to begin with, for MoskhA. 

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

 

 

 

 

--- On Sun, 5/24/09, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

 

 

Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair

Re: Disccussion on Free-will

advaitin

Sunday, May 24, 2009, 1:56 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

Namaste.

 

Some of the recent messages on this thread have a sarcastic tinge.

 

The idea is to develop a mind that constantly revels in the thought of the Lord.

Where is place in such a mind for an absurd notion called free-will which has

the audacity to stand up and argue in the name of reasoning and logic that even

for sarvadharmaparityAg a a free-will is required?

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

 

 

 

Recent Activity

 

 

 7

New Members

 

 1

New FilesVisit Your Group

 

 

 

Give Back

for Good

Get inspired

by a good cause.

 

Y! Toolbar

Get it Free!

easy 1-click access

to your groups.

 

 

Start a group

in 3 easy steps.

Connect with others.

..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Oh dear Shyamji.

 

She Herself is ichchAshakti jnAnashakti kriyAshakti swarUpiNi. Where is the

question of 'my' then usurping Her divine mantle? At best " I " can try to be She

Herself by hitting Her Lotus Feet head down! She will take care of the rest if

I do so. That is what Advaita demands. Shakti upAsana is not non-addvaitic,

therefore.

 

I have not questioned self-effort. But, to hold it as 'mine' is a dubious,

possessive misadventure. My seeming capability for self-effort also belongs to

Her.

 

And, lastly, I am not a human chauvinist. Male, female, unfortunately termed

non-human animal and avian entities have a place of comfort at Her Holy Feet! I

would like to roll There with them all. What otherwise is the much talked about

liberation?

 

This is the thought that is evoked in this frail me when I see Bh. Ramana in his

dilapidated physical form, wearing only a kaupeena, communicating with a cow!

 

Blessed is the cow and blessed is me who shares that communion. Blessed be all

of us sans our notions of free-will.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

 

advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>  

> After all it is by the self alone that Krishna asks us to lift oneSelf towards

self-realization. So accepting our own free-will is not audacity, but a

reverential acknowledgement of one of - nay the most important of - Ma Shakti's

benevolent gifts to us - the power of icchaShakti! - which alone renders us

humans fit, to begin with, for MoskhA.