Disccussion on Free-will

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> 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

> _________________

>

 

Namaste Nair-ji!

 

I think you have captured the import of 'sarva.dharmaan.parityajya...'

beautifully.

 

Sri Shankaracharya introduces this verse as 'karmayoga.niShthaaphalam'

or the fruit of karma yoga. The previous verse, 'man.manaa. bhava...' is

considered the secret of karma yoga.

 

Since all actions really are done by prakriti alone, this tyaga is only

the giving up of the 'notional' doership and choice, the giving up of

body-identification and total renunciation of all attachment to

non-self. Surrendering entirely to the Lord is the same as surrendering

to the Self, the one without second. Such abidance leads to freedom from

all suffering.

 

Imho, the use of the term 'free will' is improper. At most, we can claim

we have 'choice'. In making a choice, we are usually guided by our likes

and dislikes over which we seem to have no control. Karma yoga demands

we rise above petty, selfish considerations and act according to dharma

alone (Bhagavan says, 'tasmaat.shaastram pramaanam te

kaaryaakaarya.vyavastitau' - 'let the scriptures be your guide in

determining what to do'). Adhering to dharma and performing all actions

as offering to Him, we attain purity of mind and go beyond likes and

dislikes. So surrender is implied in karma yoga itself. We need His

grace to even make the right choice in actions. This is summed up in

11.55, considered the very essence of the Gita by Shankaracharya:

 

'mat.karma.krt mat.paramo mat.bhaktah.sanga.varjitah |

nirvairah.sarva.bhuteShu yah.sa.mAmeti.pANdava||

 

Harih Om.

Neelakantan

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivsa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

Respected learned members,

 

From the spate of letters on the above subject matter which are

flooding the Advaitin group, one can easily see that the one central

question is completely missing. The central question is " Who is the

entity that is poseesing or not possessing the Free-will " . When the

answer to this question is got by each one within oneself that will

put an end to all fruitless discussions. Let us all devote our energy

and time to this .

 

Sri Shankara has declared many many times that there is no second

saMsAri entity existing apart from Brahman. Why not we examine this

statement in the light of our anuBava?

 

My request is this: Please study upanishads with the aid of Sri

Shankara's commentary so that authentic answers can be given for such

questions. Otherwise the replies will mislead the new entrants to the

vedantic field. It may please be noted so many basic and important

questions are not at all dealt in most of the Prakarana granthas

attributed to Sri Shankara.

 

Let us not always think in terms of vyavaharadRuShTi. let us not forget

the truth that that it is PARAMARTHA WHICH APPEARS AS VYAVAHARA.

 

I will conclude this posting with an excerpt from sri Shankara:

" na hi AtmanO^nyat anAtmaBUtaM tatpraviBaktadESakAlaM sUkShmaM

vyavahitaM viprakRuShTaM BUtam Bavt BaviShyadvA vastu vidyatE | atO

nAmarUpE sarvavasthE brahmaNaiva

AtmavatI | na brahma tadAtmakaM " {TAittariya upanishad 2-6-4]

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

[Guest guest]

Nair ji

 

simply wonderful. It is best summary of whole discussion.

How fortunate you are.!You could see bhagavan in physcical frame while while

we have to satisfy with a vision

in a dream.

 

Ramana Sarma

 

On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Madathil Rajendran Nair <

madathilnair wrote:

 

>

>

> 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 <advaitin%40>, 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.

>

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

>

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

Indians' reverential attribution of everything to the Lord.

> >

 

I just want to clarify what I am " fighting " for/against.

 

Determinism says that there are fixed laws of nature that are continually in

operation, under which prakrithi keeps changing in a definite manner. We may

never be able to know them; but the laws are governing existence. The universe

of tomorrow is entirely determined today. See para 2 onwards in Mahesh Ursekar's

post in

 

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2009-May/043562.html

 

Free-will is based on the idea that there is a self-manifesting aspect behind

existence; that is, the direction the universe will go in the next instant has a

karma aspect, coming from the past cause-effects, and a determination that must

happen NOW. This is not a question of " not being able to know " , etc. It is

something fundamental of the nature of things - that I would like to say is

Consciousness driving/manifesting Prakrithi.

 

Now, both of these are within human experience/observation; if we don't try to

negate one with another using logic and analogies, then our experience indicates

both self-determination and law-operation.

I am asserting that this is vyavahaarika conclusion: both are undeniable.

 

Now the question: should the jiva associate this " free-will " as its own or

completely resolve that it belongs to Ishvara alone? This seems to be the

question Nair-ji is raising, and concluding the latter. Actually, this is not

the question I was mainly after. I have seen people deny free-will in jiva and

affirm in Ishvara, but in reality, use that as a way to suggest

pure-determinism. This is what I am against; whether we affirm free-will in man

or God, if it is taken as an undeniable component of vyavahaarika, I am ok with

the viewpoint - at least, for this discussion.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

 

> >

> > 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]

hare  krishna, namaskArams.

 

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

 

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

this sarvadharmaparityAg a. 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 script is already

written and your role specified in the universal drama directed by the lord. it

is wiser to understand the limitations of ourselves in this and trust the order

and surrender to him with faith to get relieved from this cycle of samsArA.may

lord krishna bless us all for this.baskaran

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Explore and discover exciting holidays and getaways with India

Travel http://in.travel./

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Bhaskaran-ji.

 

Appreciate your views.

 

However, may I request you to kindly separate your remarks from mine quoted so

that readers know who is saying what?

 

Hope I am not inconveniencing you. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

advaitin , Baskaran <baskaran42 wrote:

>

> hare  krishna, namaskArams.

>

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

>

> [seeing the Lord in all actions, in all happenings and in everything is part

of this sarvadharmaparityAg a. 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 script is already

written and your role specified in the universal drama directed by the lord. it

is wiser to understand the limitations of ourselves in this and trust the order

and surrender to him with faith to get relieved from this cycle of samsArA.may

lord krishna bless us all for this.baskaran

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Ramana Sarma-ji,

 

It seems you got me wrong. I was only referring to a photograph of Bhagawan

with a cow. I was less than four when Bhagawan cast His mortal frame. I can't

therefore remember to have seen Him even if I did. The truth is that I haven't

been anywhere near Thiruvannamalai in my life.

 

Ecstasy is your birth-right. Kindly access it by viewing the following at

U-Tube:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvIlhN0frdY

 

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

 

advaitin , vrsarma podury <rpodury wrote:

> How fortunate you are.!You could see bhagavan in physcical frame while while

> we have to satisfy with a vision

> in a dream.

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Putran-ji,

 

I don't think I fully understood what you are trying to say in 45233.

 

However, I can appreciate your " Consciousness Revealing / Manifesting Prakriti " .

In fact, I had called it " Consciousness Unravelling " before and it is none other

than the Lord / Devi we have been referring to. If you, therefore, associate it

with " free will " , it then naturally becomes the Lord's / Devi's free-will.

 

The laws which determine the course of the unravelling is within that Lord's /

Devi's free-will. They are, therefore, the Laws of the Lord / Devi.

 

These Laws and Free-Will are inscrutable. Although we have the seeming

capability to enunciate innumerable theories to explain them, the riddle of the

unravelling will always remain unsolvable unless one takes recourse to a

non-dual understanding, which essentially is non-creation.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

____________________

 

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

.......

> Determinism says that there are fixed laws of nature that are continually in

operation, under which prakrithi keeps changing in a definite manner. We may

never be able to know them; but the laws are governing existence. The universe

of tomorrow is entirely determined today.

.........

> Free-will is based on the idea that there is a self-manifesting aspect behind

existence; that is, the direction the universe will go in the next instant has a

karma aspect, coming from the past cause-effects, and a determination that must

happen NOW. This is not a question of " not being able to know " , etc. It is

something fundamental of the nature of things - that I would like to say is

Consciousness driving/manifesting Prakrithi.

>

> Now, both of these are within human experience/observation; if we don't try to

negate one with another using logic and analogies, then our experience indicates

both self-determination and law-operation.

> I am asserting that this is vyavahaarika conclusion: both are undeniable.

.......

[Guest guest]

Respected sharma-ji.

 

Pranams.

 

The disciples of Bhagavan (in particular) don't give much importance to the

*physical frame* of Bhagavan. Kindly bear this in mind. Otherwise you miss the

train.

 

regs,

sriram

 

advaitin , vrsarma podury <rpodury wrote:

>

> Nair ji

>

> simply wonderful. It is best summary of whole discussion.

> How fortunate you are.!You could see bhagavan in physcical frame while while

> we have to satisfy with a vision

> in a dream.

>

> Ramana Sarma

>

> On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Madathil Rajendran Nair <

> madathilnair wrote:

>

> >

> >

> > 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 <advaitin%40>, 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.

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

.. Sir One request whenever sanskrit verses are quoted kindly provide english

translation. that would be a great help

pranams

 

Ramana Sarma

 

On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 7:01 PM, narayana145 <narayana145wrote:

 

>

>

> H.N.Sreenivsa Murthy

> Pranams to all.

>

> Respected learned members,

>

> From the spate of letters on the above subject matter which are

> flooding the Advaitin group, one can easily see that the one central

> question is completely missing. The central question is " Who is the

> entity that is poseesing or not possessing the Free-will " . When the

> answer to this question is got by each one within oneself that will

> put an end to all fruitless discussions. Let us all devote our energy

> and time to this .

>

> Sri Shankara has declared many many times that there is no second

> saMsAri entity existing apart from Brahman. Why not we examine this

> statement in the light of our anuBava?

>

> My request is this: Please study upanishads with the aid of Sri

> Shankara's commentary so that authentic answers can be given for such

> questions. Otherwise the replies will mislead the new entrants to the

> vedantic field. It may please be noted so many basic and important

> questions are not at all dealt in most of the Prakarana granthas

> attributed to Sri Shankara.

>

> Let us not always think in terms of vyavaharadRuShTi. let us not forget

> the truth that that it is PARAMARTHA WHICH APPEARS AS VYAVAHARA.

>

> I will conclude this posting with an excerpt from sri Shankara:

> " na hi AtmanO^nyat anAtmaBUtaM tatpraviBaktadESakAlaM sUkShmaM

> vyavahitaM viprakRuShTaM BUtam Bavt BaviShyadvA vastu vidyatE | atO

> nAmarUpE sarvavasthE brahmaNaiva

> AtmavatI | na brahma tadAtmakaM " {TAittariya upanishad 2-6-4]

>

> With warm and respectful regards,

> Sreenivasa Murthy

>

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri ramji

 

Thank you for reminding me. I agree that what you mentioned is an ideal

stance. I always try to feel His presence. Probably his grace may prepare

me for the same. At times I wonder that when his phtographs could evoke so

much devotion what it would be like in his presence. Many great devotees

like NN rajan used to run to ashram to be in His presence though Bhagavan

himself used to say Presence could be felt any where. When Papaji was in a

wheel chair somebody asked Him whether he had regrets for his present

confinement to wheel chair. Papaji replied that his only regret was that he

was unable to prostrate to His Guru- indicating to Bhagavan's photo.

Probably the line between advaita and devotion is very thin.

 

Pranams

 

Ramana Sarma

 

On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 11:26 PM, sriram <sriram_sapthasathiwrote:

 

>

>

> Respected sharma-ji.

>

> Pranams.

>

> The disciples of Bhagavan (in particular) don't give much importance to the

> *physical frame* of Bhagavan. Kindly bear this in mind. Otherwise you miss

> the train.

>

> regs,

> sriram

>

> advaitin <advaitin%40>, vrsarma

> podury <rpodury wrote:

> >

> > Nair ji

> >

> > simply wonderful. It is best summary of whole discussion.

> > How fortunate you are.!You could see bhagavan in physcical frame while

> while

> > we have to satisfy with a vision

> > in a dream.

> >

> > Ramana Sarma

> >

> > On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Madathil Rajendran Nair <

> > madathilnair wrote:

> >

> > >

> > >

> > > 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 <advaitin%40><advaitin%

> 40>, 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.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair

wrote:

>

> Dear Shri Putran-ji,

>

> I don't think I fully understood what you are trying to say in 45233.

>

> However, I can appreciate your " Consciousness Revealing / Manifesting

Prakriti " . In fact, I had called it " Consciousness Unravelling " before and it

is none other than the Lord / Devi we have been referring to. If you,

therefore, associate it with " free will " , it then naturally becomes the Lord's /

Devi's free-will.

>

> The laws which determine the course of the unravelling is within that Lord's /

Devi's free-will. They are, therefore, the Laws of the Lord / Devi.

>

> These Laws and Free-Will are inscrutable. Although we have the seeming

capability to enunciate innumerable theories to explain them, the riddle of the

unravelling will always remain unsolvable unless one takes recourse to a

non-dual understanding, which essentially is non-creation.

>

 

 

Nairji,

 

like you object to the jiva usurping the free-will, I also object to referring

to free-will with " inscrutable laws " - which suggests determinism. My objection

is not merely notional; I am saying that given vyavahaarika experience, this is

the appropriate conclusion.

You are perhaps saying (concluding) they will remain unsolvable - I am saying

such a conclusion is validated not by logic but by the experiential conviction

of the reality of free-will. Hence the right vyavahaarika conclusion is that it

is a fundamental aspect that should not be (on the basis of interpolation/logic)

deemed as " inscrutable laws " .

 

" Devi acts on Her own will " : ok; but " Devi acting, willing, etc. are illusions;

She is unravelling nothing but what is 'already there', hence 'non-creation' " :

this is not vyavahaarika conclusion. This is paramaarthika standpoint to " become

one with " and not rationalize about.

 

(This may only confuse, but I thought my previous message was actually clear as

to the differences. Also, the primary question for me is not " Whose free-will? " :

I had already made some points on this issue before, and they may still stand.

But here I am concerned with the more basic issue.)

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

Dear Neelakantan-ji wrote:

 

 

> Since all actions really are done by prakriti alone, this tyaga

> is only the giving up of the 'notional' doership and choice, the

> giving up of body-identification and total renunciation of all

> attachment to non-self. Surrendering entirely to the Lord is the

> same as surrendering to the Self, the one without second.

> Such abidance leads to freedom from all suffering.

> Imho, the use of the term 'free will' is improper. At most, we can claim

we have 'choice'.

 

Dear Neelakantan-ji,

 

I feel you have raised some good points, especially in your last two

sentences above. " Free will " as a term does not really seem to fit the bill,

does it. What exactly do we mean by " free " , anyway?

 

It's true that we experience ourselves making choices. To what extent these

are " free " is another matter and may depend upon the context in which we

find ourselves. We have 'freedoms' as adults that we don't have as

children. Many of the choices we face in life are imposed on us.

 

Supposes a robber says " hand over your money or I'll kill you " . We can

choose whether or not to hand over the money, but to what extent is our

choosing " free " in such circumstances when our options (choices) are

severely limited. Am I " free " to choose not handing over the money and not

to be shot? While this may appear an extreme example I suspect many of the

choices presented to us in life are limited. Perhaps we could say that many

of the choices we are called to make in life are not of our own choosing.

That's not to say they are not of our own making.

 

There are other times when we do experience ourselves " free " at the moment

of choosing or willing. Interestingly, at such times people who know us

well are likely to be able to predict what it is that we will choose, will

or do. Our choices and actions are, to a large extent, predictable

depending on our temperament, culture, social and religious background.

However, if our choices and actions are predictable to people who know us,

to what extent can we really say they are " freely " made? Or is it just our

conditioning, the past (vasanas and samskaras) operating unopposed?

 

These are just some thoughts on one aspect of this topic.

 

Peter

[Guest guest]

Dear Peter,

 

 

 

I don't want to enter into the current discussion - I have already said more

than enough in the past. But your passage below reminded me of the following

example I gave in 'Book of One' (and my nature and past conditioning caused

me to write):

 

" Also, if you think what it would mean if we could act in ways that were not

caused by any prior events, you might find the idea less attractive than it

initially appears. It would mean that people could behave totally out of

character. If your dear, reclusive old granny suddenly, and for no apparent

reason, mortgaged her house and bought an Aston Martin, you would probably

conclude that she had become senile rather than that she was exercising her

free will. " and I go on to say:

 

" More seriously, what would such a mechanism mean for morality and

responsibility? We rely on being able to influence people's behaviour

through example and education so that, when they themselves come to act,

they will be able to draw on this teaching to enable them to reach a

decision.

 

It would not, in any case, really make any sense to do something for no

reason whatsoever and, if there is a motivation for doing it, i.e. in order

to achieve a particular result, then this is effectively a cause. But, if

that motivation is a result of our past conditioning, i.e. we have been

'brought up' to like some things rather than others, then it cannot really

be thought of as entirely 'free' will. "

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Peter

Monday, May 25, 2009 1:21 PM

advaitin

RE: Re: Disccussion on Free-will

 

 

 

However, if our choices and actions are predictable to people who know us,

to what extent can we really say they are " freely " made? Or is it just our

conditioning, the past (vasanas and samskaras) operating unopposed?

 

Peter

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Putran-ji,

 

I am afraid we are vainly shouting at each other from the opposite banks of a

very noisy river.

 

Assuming that I heard and understood you adequately, these are my answers (in

brackets ):

______________

 

Putran-ji:

> like you object to the jiva usurping the free-will, I also object to referring

to free-will with " inscrutable laws " - which suggests determinism.

 

[MN: How can something inscrutable be deterministic!? I will never use that

word " deterministic " unless I am sure about what is happening. No one is sure.

If we were, all this search, quest and philosophising would have been totally

unnecessary.]

____________________

 

Putranji:

> You are perhaps saying (concluding) they will remain unsolvable - I >am saying

such a conclusion is validated not by logic but by the >experiential conviction

of the reality of free-will.

 

[MN: No. Not the experiential conviction of the reality of free-will. By the

experiential conviction of the unending nature of my quest.]

_____________________

 

Putranji:

>Hence the right vyavahaarika conclusion is that it is a fundamental >aspect

that should not be (on the basis of interpolation/logic) >deemed as " inscrutable

laws " .

 

[MN: Hence, the inscrutability of the Laws is a given over which I have no

control. That is the vyAvahArika conclusion. If you think otherwise, I would

like either you or someone else more knowledgeable to present the Laws to the

world's understanding.]

__________________________

 

Putranji:

> " Devi acts on Her own will " : ok; but " Devi acting, willing, etc. are

illusions; She is unravelling nothing but what is 'already there', hence

'non-creation' " : this is not vyavahaarika conclusion. This is paramaarthika

standpoint to " become one with " and not rationalize about.

 

[MN: I don't understand you here. The unravelling is there for me to see.

That is my anubhava. How can you say that what is unravelled is what is already

there? What do you mean by 'what is already there'? What would you say if I

contend that that 'it was already there before' thought of yours itself is a

revelation - a part of the unravelling? Putran-ji, there is no mixing of two

levels here as you suggested once before. I am looking at what is happening

around me in this very vyAvahArika with my mortal eyes open and this is my

conclusion - that I have no control over it. It has nothing to do with the

paramArthThika.]

________________

 

Putranji:

>(This may only confuse, but I thought my previous message was >actually clear

as to the differences. Also, the primary question for >me is not " Whose

free-will? " : I had already made some points on this >issue before, and they may

still stand. But here I am concerned with >the more basic issue.)

 

[MN: The answer to the question " Whose free-will? " is the " Lord's free-will " .

And that is the basic issue.

_______________________

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair

wrote:

 

Nairji,

 

" Law " to me implies something pre-fixed; by inscrutable, I simply understood

that it is not something we can figure out. This latter assertion, I don't agree

- but I think, if I attempt to explain, this is going to go endless with

word-entanglements.

 

Also your statement that it is " Lord's free-will " first requires freeing

free-will from Law; otherwise it is meaningless. Then, **if 'you' are there**,

then " Lord's free-will " is manifest in you as " my free-will " , except as you are

only a 'part', your free-will corresponds with that of not-you. In that sense,

it is not " free " ; but focus on the capacity to will then. (Will+Law then).

 

I gave my basic position in the previous post.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

>

> Dear Putran-ji,

>

> I am afraid we are vainly shouting at each other from the opposite banks of a

very noisy river.

>

> Assuming that I heard and understood you adequately, these are my answers (in

brackets ):

> ______________

>

> Putran-ji:

> > like you object to the jiva usurping the free-will, I also object to

referring to free-will with " inscrutable laws " - which suggests determinism.

>

> [MN: How can something inscrutable be deterministic!? I will never use that

word " deterministic " unless I am sure about what is happening. No one is sure.

If we were, all this search, quest and philosophising would have been totally

unnecessary.]

> ____________________

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

> advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair@>

wrote:

>

> Nairji,

>

> " Law " to me implies something pre-fixed; by inscrutable, I simply understood

that it is not something we can figure out. This latter assertion, I don't agree

- but I think, if I attempt to explain, this is going to go endless with

word-entanglements.

>

>

 

I meant I don't agree with " inscrutable but predetermining Law " as the viable

vyavahaarika position.

[Guest guest]

2009/5/25 putranm <putranm:

>

> I meant I don't agree with " inscrutable but predetermining Law " as the

> viable vyavahaarika position.

>

 

 

There is no such thing as **the** vyAvahArika position. Rather, all

positions are in vyavahAra.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy wrote:

>

> 2009/5/25 putranm <putranm:

> >

> > I meant I don't agree with " inscrutable but predetermining Law " as the

> > viable vyavahaarika position.

> >

>

>

> There is no such thing as **the** vyAvahArika position. Rather, all

> positions are in vyavahAra.

>

 

Based on Rameshji's comment, I shall withdraw my attempt at establishing " the

vyavahaarika position " . Perhaps all of our positions have validity corresponding

with our notion of 'i'.

 

My position on this question of will is based on pratyaksha pramana (take

appropriately), wherein people have 'immediate'-knowledge/conviction of both the

capacity to self-will and of law-abidance. (i.e. of both will and law).

 

If we further bring in anumana, comparison, logic etc, then there are likely

multiple positions depending on how we connect things: only Law, only law,

will & law, only Will, etc. [science also seems far from giving a universal

convincing verdict.]

 

If we bring in shabdha, then we transcend the question itself, hence will & law

both vanish from consideration - some may also consider this as " only Law " or

" only Will " .

 

When I asked for " vyavahaarika position " , I intended to approach the question

without taking recourse to shabda pramana, since for me, shabda points to

transcending the question altogether. And between pratyaksha and 'anumana, etc',

I felt that pratyaksha gives universal conviction of both will & law, whereas upon

bringing in the latter category, we are lead in different directions.

 

I was debating under the conviction that pratyaksha is the " right " pramana for

this knowledge - and anumana, etc should not contradict pratyaksha by favouring

law over will or viseversa. Others here may not agree with my above analysis,

but there it is as I view it.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

PS If no serious prompting to continue, I am soon going on a 'sabbatical',

having once again been unsuccessful in controlling my time in religious forums -

need time off. Have to invoke the " Lord's will " through " surrender " to approach

with detachment!

[Guest guest]

2009/5/26 putranm <putranm wrote:

<<Perhaps all of our positions have validity corresponding with our notion

of 'i'.>>

 

avidyA is the superimposition of knowerhood on the Atman, thus bringing

about the tripod of knower, known and knowledge. Any position or viewpoint

implies a knower and is hence an outcome of avidyA. The

pAramArthika, strictly speaking, is not a standpoint. It is a way of

indicating the transcendence of viewpoints, without having to reject any of

them (even mutually opposing ones).

 

In his kArikA-s, gauDapAda states that advaita is " avirodha " to all views.

With this understanding, I would agree with your statement above.

 

<<My position on this question of will is based on pratyaksha pramana (take

appropriately), wherein people have 'immediate'-knowledge/conviction of both

the capacity to self-will and of law-abidance. (i.e. of both will and

law).>>

 

Leaving vedAnta aside for the time-being, if we discuss this issue in a

general sense, we soon find that a distinction between will & destiny, or

between choice & fate, is not always easy to make. The world as we

see it as a matrix of cause & effect, so any decision you take has causes

ranging from external circumstances to your own mental inclinations,

predispositions, emotions, etc.

 

Once the individual's own mind is brought into the cause-effect framework,

the distinction between will & destiny seems to become hazy.

 

Ramesh

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy wrote:

Sir,

In this universe everything is being dne Mechanically.What we say Free will

is also under the rule of " Cause and Effect " theory.For every action there is a

reaction.In our Human life this reaction may be seen or experienced by the same

person in His/her very birth itself.If not in the next Birth/Births.If it does

not experienced in the same birth it

does not meal that there is no Rection for his/her action/deed.

There is a Saying that " Destiny Leads the Man " .What is this Destiny?

It is also called as " Fate " What is it?It is nothing but the Fruit of one's

Previous action/Karma.Thare is another saying that " Buddhih karmanu

saeene " what is the meaning of this?It means one's intelligence acts according to

his/her Karma done previously.so we can conclude that man

is not independent.His/her actions are led by his/her fate created

accrding to previous actions.Free will is a Myth

with regards

Sd/bagawan_sastry

[Guest guest]

Dear sir,

 

If *free will* is a myth, why are we working in offices for salaries / wages.

Infact, why *should* we work?

 

If everything runs on *fate*, then why are we not sitting at homes quietly

waiting for salaries to fall from heaven. Let us resign and sit at home quietly

waiting for the month-end to come.

 

I expect the same words when one's boss gives a *pink slip* and fire off.

 

regs,

sriram

 

advaitin , " bagawan_sastry " <bagawan_sastry wrote:

>

> advaitin , Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy@> wrote:

> Sir,

> In this universe everything is being dne Mechanically.What we say Free

will is also under the rule of " Cause and Effect " theory.For every action there

is a reaction.In our Human life this reaction may be seen or experienced by the

same person in His/her very birth itself.If not in the next Birth/Births.If it

does not experienced in the same birth it

> does not meal that there is no Rection for his/her action/deed.

> There is a Saying that " Destiny Leads the Man " .What is this Destiny?

> It is also called as " Fate " What is it?It is nothing but the Fruit of one's

Previous action/Karma.Thare is another saying that " Buddhih karmanu

> saeene " what is the meaning of this?It means one's intelligence acts according

to his/her Karma done previously.so we can conclude that man

> is not independent.His/her actions are led by his/her fate created

> accrding to previous actions.Free will is a Myth

> with regards

> Sd/bagawan_sastry

>

[Guest guest]

Dear sir,

you are not able to understand FATE and freewill.Fate is not some thing

comes from Heaven.Your fate will always be with you only.It is your fate that

causes awill in your brain to work in an office.If Freewill is everything every

body wants to become an officer.Can he become like that?in the recent elections

some candidates were narrowly

defeated.is it due to lack of their freewill and efforts.every body

wants to become Rich with good freewill.Can they become?Mind that you

and your Free will are nothing before your Fate.Fate is nothing but the fruit of

your previous actions.you need not invite your fate to act.It makes you to work

through your will.we and our freewill are nothing before our fate.I want to

become chief minister for this state.What fre will i should have?and how many

years i have to wait?plz guide me.

Sd/bagawan_sastry

[Guest guest]

Sringeri Acharya Shri Chandrasekhara Bharati Swamigal has beautifully put the

definition of Fate & Free Will. This has been recorded in the *Dialogues with

Jagatguru*. Here are the excerpts

 

" an individual has the means at his disposal to counter the fate with a weapon

of choice which is free will "

 

" failure only means that your present exercise of free-will is not sufficient to

counteract the result of the past exercise "

 

With this, i close this thread as the discussion seems futile.

 

with regs,

sriram

 

Suggested Reading: Dialogues with Jagatguru; Published by Sringeri Sarada Pitha

 

 

 

 

advaitin , " bagawan_sastry " <bagawan_sastry wrote:

>

> Dear sir,

> you are not able to understand FATE and freewill.Fate is not some

thing comes from Heaven.Your fate will always be with you only.It is your fate

that causes awill in your brain to work in an office.If Freewill is everything

every body wants to become an officer.Can he become like that?in the recent

elections some candidates were narrowly

> defeated.is it due to lack of their freewill and efforts.every body

> wants to become Rich with good freewill.Can they become?Mind that you

> and your Free will are nothing before your Fate.Fate is nothing but the fruit

of your previous actions.you need not invite your fate to act.It makes you to

work through your will.we and our freewill are nothing before our fate.I want to

become chief minister for this state.What fre will i should have?and how many

years i have to wait?plz guide me.

> Sd/bagawan_sastry

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy wrote:

> <<My position on this question of will is based on pratyaksha pramana (take

> appropriately), wherein people have 'immediate'-knowledge/conviction of both

> the capacity to self-will and of law-abidance. (i.e. of both will and

> law).>>

>

> Leaving vedAnta aside for the time-being, if we discuss this issue in a

> general sense, we soon find that a distinction between will & destiny, or

> between choice & fate, is not always easy to make. The world as we

> see it as a matrix of cause & effect, so any decision you take has causes

> ranging from external circumstances to your own mental inclinations,

> predispositions, emotions, etc.

>

> Once the individual's own mind is brought into the cause-effect framework,

> the distinction between will & destiny seems to become hazy.

>

 

[sorry for my flimsy free-will. Have to reply!]

 

Rameshji, I think it is quite apparent, except we are confusing ourselves with

added logic. Our experience is that " I act and the world reacts; the world acts

and I react " . As much as they are inseparably linked, they are yet distinct to

our conviction and experience. The world as we see it includes BOTH - will and

law.

 

Will is " determination at the moment " that cannot be predicated entirely to

prior causes and must be denoted as the inherent self-manifesting nature of the

underlying consciousness. That it is there or not there is not a thing for

logic; it is strictly based on pratyaksha-experiential conviction. Beyond this,

logic, etc is used by some to try and make one subsidiary to the other - because

we see a cause-effect matrix, we wish to conclude that *everything*, including

what is apparently not in that matrix, must *also* be in that matrix.

 

(I agree that ultimately both are resolved in advaita as Consciousness - hence

the haziness you mention -, but feel an incorrect attempt is often made to

extend this fact to the relative plane, and proclaim one superior to another.

Perhaps we should leave it as haziness on account of the underlying truth- maybe

by giving priority to will, we can interpret this haziness as " nothing is really

" cause-effect " but only " Will " that appears cause-effect from a 'distance',

whereas in us humans, it is most free to express its *real* unhidden nature of

Self-determinism and freedom " . Such contentions and interpolations can go both

ways inspite of the general desire to side with law over will; best thing is to

leave the bias and admit both in the relative plane.)

 

thollmelukaalkizhu