The following two interchanges took place off-list when we thought that the
topic had been closed. They are repeated below so that all may benefit: -

Interchange 1 with Sadananda: -

Dear Sada,

Do you really believe all of this? It doesn't sound much like advaita! I've
always been very suspicious of the books that argue that modern physics is
approaching the same understanding as was reached thousands of years ago in
Eastern Philosophy. I tried reading Capra once but it sounded a bit
contrived and I never finished it. I know there are some more recent ones
around now. I began the Sobottka 'Course in Consciousness' off the Internet
but found the physics very hard going. Let's face it, peple who actually
understand the maths etc. can always 'pull the wool over the eyes' of those
who can't, whether or not intentionally. It used to be called 'blinding with
science'.

Where is there actual evidence that the thinking process is a quantum
mechanical process? I always thought we were talking about electrochemical
events with neurones and synapses etc. If you are going to introduce
collapsing wave functions and the like into the process, don't you also
introduce uncertainty? And where then does that leave the supposed 'choice'
in the equation?

As far as 'statements after the fact' are concerned, isn't *everything* we
do and think 'after the fact'? We cannot possibly be aware of anything until
after it has happened, given the time delay for perception and recognition.
That was exactly what Libet's experiments found of course, namely that the
actual feeling of having decided occurred after the action had been
initiated.

Regards,

Dennis

> Dennis - I get the feeling that we are only talking about semantics here.
>What you call at every moment the vector sum of all the factors leads to
action -
>and the next action includes the new input to the vector sum that takes
into
>consideration the results of the precious action. -
>Only difference in the argument is that the vector sum at any point in time
>need not be a unique factor - there are several degenarate eigen values
> of which one that is decided (for the time being let us omit who made that
decision) is most probably taken which you may call as deterministic vector
result. Your argument that there is
>a unique deterministic value, I consider that as the statement after the
fact.
>At the time of decision making there are degenerate eigen vectors each with
>certain probabilities, but one of them get a boost by 'the deciding
factor'.
>That decision making factor out of different eigen states I call the free
will-
>when you conclude that it is the only one deterministic value, I consider
>that only a statement after the fact that is after the decision but at the
time
>of decision there is no unique deterministic factor -only some factors are
more
>probable than others. What makes it as unique deterministic vector at the
time
>of execution is the additional input to the system by the deciding factor.


Dennis - Any objective science has limitations inherent in the very
objectification and there is no way the subject, the consciousness, can be
included in the objective analysis, since in the very objectification for
analysis, the subject gets excluded. Silence is the final answer.


No! I do not believe Quantum mechanics can ever account for the totality.
But it will eventually come to conclusion that the universe is
non-deterministic. This they might have already reached since they are
beginning to realize that there is no uniqueness of the observed since it
varies with the observer as well as for the same observer varies with the
time of observation, as well.


What you say is right. I was only extending your argument that there may
not be a unique deterministic vector just before the decision is being made.
Decision makes the decided vector unique, like an arrow shot. The next
moment is conscious entity coming into picture to make decision for the next
event. If everything is preordained there is no fun in life! It is a
continuous drama with the script being formulated right here and now. We
are both the writers and players - There is beauty in that and fun too
provided we can enjoy as we write and play without worrying about the
consequences or results since we can keep changing the script as we go
along, if we do not like the results that come. That makes us we are the
masters of our destiny since we can dictate how the play can be modified.


Any way I do believe as long as "I am an actor' notion is there, that is
jiiva-hood notion, there is a decision process and accountability for that
decision - this is what I call 'free-will' - with in the realm of 'ahankaar'
or notion of doer-ship. That makes the sadhana also valid in its realm
along with the desire for liberation. Hence the paths to follow in terms of
shravanam, mananam, nidhidhyasanam. Remember all are notions in the mind
and arises with the fundamental notion " I am the body, mind and intellect".
The truth. of course, is 'akarthaaham abhoktaaham' I am neither a doer nor a
enjoyer and the previous notions are due to adhyaasa. I see
self-consistency in my "premordial ignorance"!. - and this consistency also
goes away along with ignorance!


Dennis you can submit both of our comments to the list and I am sure others
would also enjoy since there is nothing personal anyway.


Regards
Sada

************************************************** **************************
***********

Interchange 2: -

Dear Dennis,

Some of the statements made by you in your concluding
analysis on Free will vs Fate are:

1. Who is there to be reincarnated anyway?

2. This discussion is valid at the level of Vyavahara.
All we need is the law of cause and effect.

3. No vasanas involved but (straight cause and
effect), no free will either.

4. At any given moment there is action or inaction.
Some thing initiates these actions.Let us call the
initiating action a 'choice' on our part.

5. The choice is a cause-effect relationship, not one
involving freedom.

6.It all depends on the vasanas and the circumstances
in the moment; no choice.

7.For a few of us in occasional moments there may be a
100% Budhi and then there will effectively be no
vasanas or habit playing a part.Here action = response
to need.
--------------------------------------------------
My submission:

In Vyavahara,the 'CAUSE' you are refering to is
nothing but the circumstance or situation confronted
by the Jiva at a given moment in time.This
circumstance ot situation can be called the initiating
action or "need" but you cannot call it a "choice" ON
YOUR PART.The choice is there only in the "response"
to this "need", in as much as , you may decide to ACT
or be INACTIVE based on your own FREE WILL.In your own
words, it can be called NEED of that moment and, it is
this NEED that is the CAUSE and the response to this
NEED, is the EFFECT or the actual ACTION of the Jiva
under that particular situation and that particular
moment in time.

Now, if the person acts by 'instinct,he behaves like
an animal,but, if he uses his Budhi or intellect, he
is verily acting out of FREE WILL.What else can it be,
Dennis ?

Hari Om!

Swaminarayan.

Dear Swaminarayan,

I used the word 'choice' because this is what we colloquially use in the
situation where an action is initiated. My belief is that those thoughts,
ideas, opinions etc. that form part of our 'decision making process' are
automatically generated in response to the situation and themselves
constitute part of the set of vector forces, in addition to the those
inherent in the situation itself, which trigger the subsequent action. This
is all in the nature of a cause-effect relationship. Certainly the situation
is itself the 'cause' of the thoughts and ideas but everything together then
becomes the 'cause' for the subsequent action. What you are calling the
choice in response to the need is surely only the name given to these
thoughts and ideas. So what you have is: -

situation --> thoughts; both together --> action

Your 'decision' to act or not is merely another thought. Indeed you must
have experienced a situation where you 'decided' one thing and found
yourself doing another. e.g. when driving, I often find myself at a
roundabout deciding to drive off and find myself braking instead. Here, the
instinctual experience is overiding the intention to move off because it is
recognised as being unsafe. No free will here!

Namaste,

Dennis

************************************************** **************************
**