Fate and Free Will

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

I have a short article on this topic:

 

http://www.nonduality.com/goode.htm#free_will

 

Regards,

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

Though I would very much like to participate in the discussion

going on, I am too much engrossed in knitty-gritty personal work

of shifting my household from Chennai to Bangalore and then with

a professional assignment in Mumbai and then a trip back to the

U.S. It is all God's Will.

Accordingly may I suggest the following ten web pages of mine

for those who are interested to have an idea of my views on the

subject of Fate and Free Will?

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/paradox1.html

upto

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/paradox10.html

 

Please pardon me for this abrupt intrusion!

praNAms to all advaitins

profvk

 

 

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and

Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site.

 

 

 

Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!

http://platinum.

[Guest guest]

Dear Greg,

 

 

advaitin, Gregory Goode <goode@D...> wrote:

> Namaste,

>

> I have a short article on this topic:

>

> http://www.nonduality.com/goode.htm#free_will

>

> Regards,

>

> --Greg

 

 

 

 

KKT: I like the conclusion

of your article:

 

<<

The person is never free.

 

As awareness, we are never bound.

>>

 

 

Therefore I like to add some more:

 

__In awareness there is no person.

 

__Awareness is freedom itself.

 

__Just because there is << person >>

there is the question: Is there free-will?

 

If there is no person

then there is no such question

(as well whatever question else)

 

 

Namaste,

 

 

KKT

[Guest guest]

You got it!

 

--Greg

 

At 11:31 PM 3/28/03 +0000, phamdluan2000 wrote:

>Dear Greg,

>

>

>advaitin, Gregory Goode <goode@D...> wrote:

>

>> Namaste,

>>

>> I have a short article on this topic:

>>

>>

<http://www.nonduality.com/goode.htm#free_will>http://www.nonduality.com/goode.h\

tm#free_will

>>

>> Regards,

>>

>> --Greg

>

>

>

>

>KKT: I like the conclusion

>of your article:

>

><<

>The person is never free.

>

>As awareness, we are never bound.

>>>

>

>

>Therefore I like to add some more:

>

>__In awareness there is no person.

>

>__Awareness is freedom itself.

>

>__Just because there is << person >>

>there is the question: Is there free-will?

>

>If there is no person

>then there is no such question

>(as well whatever question else)

>

>

>Namaste,

>

>

>KKT

>

>

>

>

>

> Sponsor

>

><http://rd./M=245454.2994396.4323964.2848452/D=egroupweb/S=1705075991:\

HM/A=1457554/R=0/*http://ipunda.com/clk/beibunmaisuiyuiwabei>fb5f0d6.jpg

>fb5f8d1.jpg

>

>Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

>Advaitin List Archives available at:

<http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/>http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaiti\

n/

>To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

>Messages Archived at:

<advaitin/messages>a\

dvaitin/messages

>

>

>

>Your use of is subject to the

<>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Professor VK:

 

Thanks for your article, which I read from start to finish.

It is a good thing that you warned the reader to read the whole

article, because the first part was written like a true Christian!

:-)

 

Regards

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Hello all,

 

Stirring the pot here...

 

At 05:10 PM 3/28/03 -0500, Benjamin Root wrote:

 

> (1) If everything is 'God' or 'Consciousness' or 'Ultimate

>Reality' or 'One', then determinism seems inevitable to me. This

>eliminates the possibility of free-will in any meaningful sense.

 

This is a false dichotomy, especially in advaita. There are more possibilities

than just free will and determinism. This binary breakdown, both sides in fact,

imply a subject-object model of phenomenality, as well as the independent

existence of the entity that is supposedly determined. But there are other

models. Here's one proposed in the writings of Joel Goldsmith. This is a

wonderful thing to meditate on, and can be used to unite the bhakti and jnana

aspects of one's inquiry: Goldsmith articulated it roughly as, "God is the only

cause, and everything else is an effect."

 

Case in point. Imagine a scenario like this. Indulgent parents spoil a child

from birth to the time he leaves home for Yale. The child grows up to be

demanding, whiny, selfish and inconsiderate. But in the Goldsmithian model, the

child did not really undergo various effects. Instead, the child, the parents,

the indulgences, the spoiling, the temper tantrums, the high test scores,

parental donations, the selfish behavior later in life -- all of it arose as a

direct effect of God's cause. Even the fact that some things SEEM like causes

and some things SEEM like effects - even that is the direct effect from God as

the cause. Even the best arguments for determinism and the best arguments for

free will - even this very e-mail message - all arise from God's direct

causation...

 

Regards,

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Greg Goode wrote:

>Even the best arguments for determinism and the best

>arguments for free will - even this very e-mail message -

>all arise from God's direct causation...

 

Actually, this is precisely what I was saying. God is the ultimate

cause of every detail of the phenomenal world, which is

pre-determined to occur as it does. But within this phenomenal

world, regular sequences of events are observed to occur, and these

can be called 'secondary' causes and effects.

 

It can be represented like this:

 

X X X

| | |

v v v

A -> B -> C -> ...

 

where 'X' is God, A, B, C are phenomenal events, and '->' is a causal

relation. For example, nature follows the laws of physics, but God

'ordered' the laws of physics in the first place. God is thus the

ultimate 'cause' of the laws of physics (and hence of phenomena), but

considered in themselves, the phenomena seem to follow certain laws

of cause and effect (even though these phenomena are ultimately all

effects of God).

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

At 07:41 PM 3/28/03 -0500, Benjamin Root wrote:

 

>Actually, this is precisely what I was saying. God is the ultimate

>cause of every detail of the phenomenal world, which is

>pre-determined to occur as it does.

 

If all details of the phenomenal world are effects, it doesn't entail

determinism. If God creates the effects, then how can they be pre-determined?

What's "pre" about it? They'd have to be there before their own creation to be

predetermined....

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Sri Benjamin.

 

A few thoughts in response to some of your comments.

 

On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:10:49 -0500, Benjamin Root <orion777ben

wrote:

> (1) If everything is 'God' or 'Consciousness' or 'Ultimate Reality' or

> 'One', then determinism seems inevitable to me. This eliminates the

> possibility of free-will in any meaningful sense.

 

The Lord is supremely free, the jiva as such is not. Jiva's free will is

only apparent. Only when he realizes his identity with the Lord does he

experience real freedom. And at that point, there's no egoic "I" to

register it.

> (2) We must therefore bravely accept that whatever happens in this world

> MUST happen and must be for the best, as it is the manifestation of God.

> A philosopher named Leibniz was ridiculed for this view, but Advaitins

> must logically accept it.

 

What "must happen" and "be for the best" is relative in this world. To God

it's all the same, the divine play of duality. So who is it that says what

is best and what is necessary, jiva or Shiva?

> (3) If we assume that this 'world' and 'life' exist for the evolution of

> our consciousness from ignorance to realization, then this must REQUIRE

> all the pain and suffering. The reasons may seem mysterious, but what do

> we really know about consciousness? A world that is 'perfect' from the

> beginning may be like trying to 'square the circle' - mathematically

> impossible even for God!

 

What is, is already perfect. All is Shiva.

> (4) Determinism is not bad. The alternative is chaos. If everything

> follows according to a chain of cause and effect, then we indeed have no

> free-will. But if it does not, then everything is pure chance, and how

> is that any better? A lack of determinism actually puts us in a worse

> state, since we are then the helpless victims of chance.

 

Even if it is pure chance - as I rather suspect it is - jiva is still

subject to all contingencies and is bound.

 

Pranams,

Shivaram

[Guest guest]

Greg Goode wrote:

>If all details of the phenomenal world are effects, it

>doesn't entail determinism. If God creates the effects,

>then how can they be pre-determined? What's "pre" about it?

>They'd have to be there before their own creation to be

>predetermined....

 

It just means that they couldn't have been any other way.

 

But for the good news: see how we're keeping it short and sweet.

This is probably how the list should usually be...

 

Pranams

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Shivaram:

>The Lord is supremely free, the jiva as such is not.

>Jiva's free will is only apparent. Only when he realizes

>his identity with the Lord does he experience real freedom.

>And at that point, there's no egoic "I" to register it.

 

The Lord is free in that he could have made things otherwise, as an

artist could have painted the picture differently. But he is not

free insofar as he is constrained to do things in the best way, which

includes pain and suffering while we are in the learning stage of

Jiva.

 

The realization of identity with the Lord is the supreme goal, but

this is also supreme slavery of the highest and most exalted kind!

To be perfect is supreme slavery since we then have only ONE choice:

to be perfect.

 

>What "must happen" and "be for the best" is relative in this

>world. To God it's all the same, the divine play of duality.

>So who is it that says what is best and what is necessary, jiva

>or Shiva?

 

I do not believe that God plays with us as some nasty children play

with insects, pulling their legs off and so forth. I believe that

there are mysterious and immutable properties of consciousness, that

are intrinsic to the very nature of consciousness, such that we must

spiritually evolve through the painful stages that we do. Otherwise,

God's omnipotence makes no sense. Actually, the mere fact that all

is One is even more general than his omnipotence and includes

omnipotence as a special case. ('Omnipotence' sounds rather

Judeo-Christian-Islamic to me, but perhaps I am becoming prejudiced,

i.e. 'more Roman than the Romans'.)

 

>What is, is already perfect. All is Shiva.

 

Amen! (That means an emphatic 'Yes' in the Christian world.)

 

>Even if it is pure chance - as I rather suspect it is - jiva is

>still subject to all contingencies and is bound.

 

Nature so far has evidently followed laws: the laws of physics.

However, these laws are only observed regularities and could change

at any time (or be replaced by chaos).

 

The 'freedom' of Jiva after realization is nothing but full

consciousness of our intrinsic divine nature. This is supreme

slavery and the supremely desirable state. Do you want love to be

anything other than supreme bliss and sweetness? If the answer is

'No', then you have acquiesced to the supreme slavery, since you have

limited yourself to one possibility.

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

At 08:03 PM 3/28/03 -0500, Benjamin Root wrote:

>It just means that they couldn't have been any other way.

 

 

That's right. And as such, things are as good as they can be. Likewise, they

are as bad as they can be!

 

Yes, short and sweet!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Sri Benjamin.

 

On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:19:43 -0500, Benjamin Root <orion777ben

wrote:

 

[sri B]

> The Lord is free in that he could have made things otherwise, as an

> artist could have painted the picture differently. But he is not free

> insofar as he is constrained to do things in the best way, which includes

> pain and suffering while we are in the learning stage of Jiva.

[sri S]

He is not constrained in any way. The Lord's freedom is that he is simple

being such as he is. The Lord is all-in-all, there are no choices, choices

only appear in mayic time and space.

 

[sri B]

> The realization of identity with the Lord is the supreme goal, but this

> is also supreme slavery of the highest and most exalted kind! To be

> perfect is supreme slavery since we then have only ONE choice: to be

> perfect.

[sri S]

No, I don't think it's slavery because it's not a matter of having "only

ONE choice"; it's a matter of having NO choice because the perfection is

ever new and without beginning or end, it simply is - the question of

choice does not arise in pure being.

 

[sri B]

> I do not believe that God plays with us as some nasty children play with

> insects, pulling their legs off and so forth.

[sri S]

God doesn't play with us at all. There is only God, there is no other.

 

[sri B]

> I believe that there are mysterious and immutable properties of

> consciousness, that are intrinsic to the very nature of consciousness,

[sri S]

How can pure subjectivity (Brahman, Parama Shiva) be intrinsically

multiple?

 

[sri B]

> such that we must spiritually evolve through the painful stages that we

> do.

[sri S]

Why must "you" evolve through painful stages? You were never other than

That which "you" imagine awaits "you" at the pinnacle of evolution. In

reality nothing awaits "you" because egoic "you" will never get to that

pinnacle; in reality you never were anywhere else.

 

[sri B]

> The 'freedom' of Jiva after realization is nothing but full consciousness

> of our intrinsic divine nature. This is supreme slavery and the

> supremely desirable state. Do you want love to be anything other than

> supreme bliss and sweetness? If the answer is 'No', then you have

> acquiesced to the supreme slavery, since you have limited yourself to one

> possibility.

[sri S]

It doesn't matter what I want, it is what it is. No choice, no slavery, no

limit.

 

Pranams,

Shivaram

[Guest guest]

Namaste Advaitins!

 

Before I jump into this quagmire of a discussion (Iraqi style), may I

please have Advaitin's definitions for "free will" and "fate" and the

Sanskrit equivalents therefor. We shouldn't be talking about Laxman

when all that we are required to describe is Ram. Dennis-Ji, Ramji

or our ever-helpful Sunderji, kindly enlighten.

 

PranAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Apologies for posting the complete essay. I did not see the requests to post

in small amounts until after I had posted. Would those who are particularly

concerned please read only a few paragraphs at a time. :-)

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Dennisji: Thank you for your lucid post which I read paragraph by paragraph

in pieces.

There is one empirical proof I have (at least in my mind) about fate or

predestination. When I was 19, I happened to see a reader of Surya Samhita.

He took measurements of my shadow in morning sun, and came up with palm

leaves with red-colored inscription of my horoscope and a narrative of my

past, present and future life. I am now 73 and so far all that was read has

come true. This has made me wonder: Am I simply a role predetermined for me

by some unknown force? Have you any thoughts?

Shanti

-

"Dennis Waite" <dwaite

<advaitin>

Saturday, March 29, 2003 5:30 AM

RE: Fate and Free Will

 

> Apologies for posting the complete essay. I did not see the requests to

post

> in small amounts until after I had posted. Would those who are

particularly

> concerned please read only a few paragraphs at a time. :-)

>

> Dennis

>

>

>

>

> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of

Atman and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at:

http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

> To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

> Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Madathilji,

 

Since I read this dialogue some years back, I have given up

asking questions or giving anwers on this subject!

 

http://lists.advaita-

vedanta.org/articles/The_Riddle_of_Fate_and_Free.htm

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Advaitins!

>

> Before I jump into this quagmire of a discussion (Iraqi style), may

I

> please have Advaitin's definitions for "free will" and "fate" and

the

> Sanskrit equivalents therefor. We shouldn't be talking about

Laxman

> when all that we are required to describe is Ram. Dennis-Ji, Ramji

> or our ever-helpful Sunderji, kindly enlighten.

>

> PranAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Sri Benjamin.

 

A few verses from Abhinavagupta, to elucidate our earlier conversation:

> [sri B]

>> The Lord is free in that he could have made things otherwise, as an

>> artist could have painted the picture differently. But he is not free

>> insofar as he is constrained to do things in the best way, which

>> includes pain and suffering while we are in the learning stage of Jiva.

> [sri S]

> He is not constrained in any way. The Lord's freedom is that he is

> simple being such as he is. The Lord is all-in-all, there are no

> choices, choices only appear in mayic time and space.

 

Paramarthasara of Abhinavagupta, verses 10-11: Bharupam paripurnam

svatmani vishrantito mahanandam

Iccha-samvit-karanair

nirbharitamananta-shakti-paripurnam

 

Sarva-vikalpa-vihinam

shuddham shantam layodaya-vihinam

yat paratattvam tasmin vibhati

shattrimshadatma jagat.

 

Translation: The whole phenomenon, consisting of thirty-six tattvas,

appears and shines in that Transcendental Reality which shines as the Light

of Pure Consciousness, is Perfect in all respects, is infinite bliss by

virtue of Its complete self-dependence and perfect relaxation [or resting]

on Its Self, is compact with the functions of Willing, Knowing and Doing,

is full of infinite divine powers [shakti], is free from all conceptive

ideation, is pure and tranquil and has neither any dissolution nor any

emergence.

> [sri B]

>> I believe that there are mysterious and immutable properties of

>> consciousness, that are intrinsic to the very nature of consciousness,

> [sri S]

> How can pure subjectivity (Brahman, Parama Shiva) be intrinsically

> multiple?

 

Paramarthasara of Abhinavagupta, verse 14:

Shiva-shakti-sadashivatam

Ishvara-vidya-mayim cha tattva-dasham

Shaktinam panchanam

vibhakta-bhavena bhasayati.

 

Translation: The absolute God manifests the states of five pure tattvas

named--Shiva, Shakti, Sadashiva, Ishvara and the pure Vidya [shuddha Vidya]

by projecting outwordly His five primary divine powers: Chit [shiva],

Ananda [shakti], Iccha [sadashiva], Jnana [ishvara], and Kriya [shuddha

Vidya].

 

Note: Paramashiva must not be confused with Shiva tattva, which is His

projection primarily concerning divine will. Paramashiva, the Absolute, is

infinite pure Consciousness endowed with all divine potency.

> [sri B]

>> such that we must spiritually evolve through the painful stages that we

>> do.

> [sri S]

> Why must "you" evolve through painful stages? You were never other than

> That which "you" imagine awaits "you" at the pinnacle of evolution. In

> reality nothing awaits "you" because egoic "you" will never get to that

> pinnacle; in reality you never were anywhere else.

 

cf: Paramarthasara of Abhinavagupta, vs. 27:

Vijnaanaantaryaami-praana-viraad-

deha-jaati-pindaantaaha

Vyavahaara-maatrametat paramaarthena tu na santyeva

 

Translation: The flow of momentary consciousness, the single Self working

in all minds, the power of animation, the universal soul shining as the

whole phenomenon, the gross and subtle forms, the generalities or species

and lastly the individual being, all these consist of mere dialectical

conception and do not at all exist in Reality.

 

Pranams,

Shivaram

[Guest guest]

Greg Goode said:

>That's right. And as such, things are as good as

>they can be. Likewise, they are as bad as they can be!

>

>Yes, short and sweet!

 

 

Nope, too pessimistic. We are all headed for eventual enlightenment

and (re)union with God, which makes it all worth it. All's well that

ends well. So it should all be seen as wholly positive!

 

Perhaps not shorter, but sweeter!

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Shivaram!

 

Thanks for the comments and scriptural quotations. I won't argue

with you, because I think that what you said is probably true from

the 'absolute' level. I guess I was arguing more from the 'relative'

level, as Sri Ram pointed out earlier during the 'Consciousness is

One' discussion.

 

But let me say a few words about the absolute vs. relative

distinction. During that 'Consciousness is One' discussion a couple

of weeks ago, I also ventured into the absolute level when I agreed

that the unity of God's consciousness 'logically' implies that we are

indeed all 'one' in some profound and mysterious sense. The problem

arose when I tried to connect this to my 'immediate awareness', which

presumably corresponds to the relative level. I expressed

dissatisfaction that I had a merely logical reason for my conclusion.

I wanted something that I could intuitively see and believe 'in my

gut' as we say.

 

I suppose that we must all rely on dry, abstract, logical deductions

(or on the testimony of sages) if we are to venture into the absolute

level, unless we are already realized. That seems to be the general

conclusion of this list. This leaves me a bit unhappy, as blind

reliance on some alleged book from heaven is what I find quite

unsatisfactory in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. Oh no!

Don't tell me that Hinduism is the same thing all over again! I

thought one of the great attractions of Indian religions was that

they rely on experience rather than blind adherence to some alleged

telegram from God.

 

Well, at any rate, I still feel intuitively, based on my reading,

that the Upanishads and other such scriptures represent the highest

level of consciousness achieved by the human spirit. There is none

of the disturbing violence that one finds in the Biblical tradition.

(Now some point to the Mahabarata as divinely-sanctioned violence,

but from what I know of that story, the war was as 'just' as any.

What I object to in the Bible and Koran is divinely sanctioned

conquests of other people's territory and forced conversions, etc.

But then, as an American, should I advocate giving this country back

to the original natives? I do not think that would even be ethical

at this point, since they are so few, and America, for all its

faults does seem rather more on the 'right side' than so many of the

countries run by crazy dictators, greedy oligarchs and fanatical

clerics. But I guess we're not supposed to get political here...)

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Sri Benjamin.

 

On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:55:34 -0500, Benjamin Root <orion777ben

wrote:

> But let me say a few words about the absolute vs. relative distinction.

> During that 'Consciousness is One' discussion a couple of weeks ago, I

> also ventured into the absolute level when I agreed that the unity of

> God's consciousness 'logically' implies that we are indeed all 'one' in

> some profound and mysterious sense. The problem arose when I tried to

> connect this to my 'immediate awareness', which presumably corresponds to

> the relative level. I expressed dissatisfaction that I had a merely

> logical reason for my conclusion. I wanted something that I could

> intuitively see and believe 'in my gut' as we say.

>

> I suppose that we must all rely on dry, abstract, logical deductions (or

> on the testimony of sages) if we are to venture into the absolute level,

> unless we are already realized. That seems to be the general conclusion

> of this list. This leaves me a bit unhappy, as blind reliance on some

> alleged book from heaven is what I find quite unsatisfactory in the

> Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. Oh no! Don't tell me that Hinduism is

> the same thing all over again! I thought one of the great attractions of

> Indian religions was that they rely on experience rather than blind

> adherence to some alleged telegram from God.

 

You seem to imply that intuition somehow follows logic in a kind of

continuum, that we somehow talk ourselves into a rational conviction of

advaita and then slip into a "gut-level" feeling/intuition of same. This

is not correct. The soul and the subtle and gross bodies together with all

their attributes and phenomena are so many sheaths (kosas, kanchukas)

hiding the divine nature of the atman. You can't get there from here -

mainly because there's no place to go! You already have the whole thing.

Again, the Paramarthasara of Abhinavagupta:

 

17. Adhunaiva kinchidevedameva

sarvaatmanaiva jaanaami

Maayaa-sahitam kanchuka-

shatkamanorantarangamidamuktam.

 

Translation: "I know only now and know just a little and just this much of

it quite completely" such is the [experience caused by the] group of six

sheaths including Maayaa. These have been taken as the six interior

limitations of a finite being.

 

The remedy is not logic - it is recognition and abidance in the Self. To

this end, meditation and self-enquiry are great aids, but the sine qua non

is grace. By which I mean the simple receiving of a gift.

 

Pranams,

Shivaram

[Guest guest]

Shanti asked:

 

"There is one empirical proof I have (at least in my mind) about fate or

predestination. When I was 19, I happened to see a reader of Surya Samhita.

He took measurements of my shadow in morning sun, and came up with palm

leaves with red-colored inscription of my horoscope and a narrative of my

past, present and future life. I am now 73 and so far all that was read has

come true. This has made me wonder: Am I simply a role predetermined for me

by some unknown force? Have you any thoughts?"

 

Again we have to differentiate between the level of the real and the level

of appearance. In reality, there is no duality. There is 'only the Self'. As

Ramana Maharshi said: "There is no creation, no destruction, no path, no

goal, no freedom, no predestination. Nothing has happened."

 

At the level of the appearance, the explanation given by Advaita is that

past actions (including those of past lives), leave their traces and bear

fruit, bringing about situations whose nature is determined by those past

actions. How you react or repond now will either generate more so-called

'sanskara' (saMskAra) or use up some of that already present. (As Sadaji

reminded us recently, the total sanskara carried over from the past is

called saMchita, that which is actually having its effect now in this life

is called prArabdha and that which is generated in response to our actions

now, and will have its effect sometime in the future, is called AgAmin.)

 

In the context of our being able to make spiritul progress along some path

towards realisation, there has to be understood to be free will, otherwise

life makes no sense - we might as well just stay in bed all day and wait for

whatever is going to happen, happen. In fact, you could say that we have no

choice but to act as though we do have free will (even though we don't). How

about that for a paradox! Although our lives are totally deterministic, we

do not have the information to know this in advance (unless with the benefit

of a horoscope narrative such as the one you describe, but then it could

never be in moment-to-moment detail). We may think that we know what we are

going to do in the next hour but then an unexpected phone call could change

that totally. Only if we could somehow 'stand back' and see the whole

picture, past and future, would the predetermination have some relevance.

 

I must say that I am very sceptical about astrology and all other similar

subjects but then this has nothing to do with Advaita. On such topics, my

mental attitude reverts to the scientific approach that I so condemn when

talking about non-duality. My reading persuades me that there there is no

scientific evidence to support them. Looking at your 'predictions'

objectively, were they statistically so unlikely that you find yourself

unable to accept that they could have not have been made by chance and/or

alert observation of your behaviour and/or carefully disguised questions?

The whole subject seems somewhat in the same sort of realm as the recent

discussion with Benjamin about not being able to read other peoples' minds.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

As long we have the j~nana that "Iswara" is not separate from

the 'Self' there is nothing wrong in bringing 'Iswara' to dissolve

our thoughts. Bhavad Gita dedicates six chapters to explain 'the role

of Iswara' in the determination of tat tvam asi. Iswara also plays an

integral role in Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy.

 

Our perception of 'fate and free will' is definitely incomplete and

that is the reason behind long discussions without conclusions. I

also believe that your perception of 'Sadaji's recent post' is

incomplete and hopefully Sadaji will enlighten our understanding and

clarify what he really meant regarding the role of 'Iswara' in "Fat

and Free Will.".

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote:

> I must confess that one aspect with which I have difficulty as

regards this

> topic is that of Iswara etc. Benjamin and Shivaram in particular

seem to be

> talking at great length about 'God' wanting/doing this and that.

Now it

> seems to me that any discussion on this list must necessarily be in

the

> context of j~nAna. .......

> .....

> Again, I acknowledge the reasoning behind the bhakti approach.

> Sadaji explained wonderfully only last week how, perceiving

> himself as limited, one must bring in an unlimited being in

> order to explain creation etc. But my

> point is that those Advaitins who acknowledge this and pursue the

> intellectual discussions of this list ought to be beyond this,

surely, or at

> least unable to be taken in by such a ploy. In which case, why the

> continuing references to "God's will" and God being the ultimate

cause etc.?

>

> Well, that ought to trigger a few outraged responses!

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

[Guest guest]

Hello All Advaitins,

 

In this discussion on Free Will and Fate it is important to distinguish

between reasons and causes. Broadly speaking once a person has made his

decision between all the various reasons for acting in a certain way in a

complex situation then that reason has become a cause. It is 'reason' in

this sense that brings in the idea of freedom.

 

In the final analysis we can always choose our attitude towards the

inevitable. Even the routine established patterns were chosen at some

level sometime which is why we condemn bad 'attitude'. I do not believe

that there is then in the inner choice a further regress towards the

determinants of that choice, there is as it were no linearity in that

world, no articulation. To search for a pristine clean slate is the

residue of dualistic thinking. Karma in the personal history is

beginningless in the sense that you always were somewhere and making for

somewhere else.

 

But what is the context of all those contexts? Sankara puts it succintly in

response to the disciple who has been pondering the mechanism of

superimposition. He sums up his position:

-...So it is I, a conscious being, who make that superimposition, the root

of all evils, on the Self.

- Thus told the teacher said, "Do not make any superimposition if you know

it to be the root of all evils."(Upadesa Sahasri II.paras64/65)

 

This I take to be the context of all contexts, the original choice. It is

that which underwrites both our freedom and our bondage.

 

Best Wishes, Michael.

 

 

 

 

_______________

MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

[Guest guest]

that there there is no

> scientific evidence to support them. Looking at your 'predictions'

> objectively, were they statistically so unlikely that you find yourself

> unable to accept that they could have not have been made by chance and/or

> alert observation of your behaviour and/or carefully disguised questions?

> The whole subject seems somewhat in the same sort of realm as the recent

> discussion with Benjamin about not being able to read other peoples'

minds.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

Respected Dennisji: Thank you for your detailed response. By training and

profession I am a statistician and so, I always examine if the event has

occurred due to chance alone and if so what is the probability. In this case

of Surya Samhita reading, the man was in a different town and had never seen

me before. Furthermore, he never asked any questions and allowed me to read

the narrative in sanskrit on palm leaves. My cousin who was with me did not

know my birthday until he read in the first leaf which had birthday(lunar

calender), time and horoscope. Furthe, the details about my father's death,

his profession, the description of the town in which I was born in etc were

beyond the realm of chance. I was a sceptic like you but this experience has

convinced me that there is something here that needs an explanation. My idea

is not to discuss validity or otherwise of astrology. It is only in the

context of Fate or Freewill that I described this startling experience.

Shanti