Fate and Free Will

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Sri Dennis.

 

On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 14:24:10 +0100, Dennis Waite <dwaite

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.

 

I use the word God simply as a synonym for Brahman and for ease of

reference I hold them to be generally synonymous with Para Shiva though I

am well aware of the differences between Trika and Vedanta. It is no big

issue with me. The word itself is inconsequential.

 

But what is the problem here? Ramesh Baleskar makes continual reference to

God. He even closes his masterwork, "The Unlimate Understanding", with a

letter to God. Ramana Maharshi spoke always of Shiva. Are they not

advaitins?

> We are intellectually trying to rationalise the

> appearance and intuit the reality.

 

Are you saying this as a criticism of the method, or a statement of

your/our purpose? Ultimate reality/Brahman/Para Shiva/God is not found at

the end of any chain of rational inquiry, nor does intuition take up where

reason leaves off. Reason and intuition are both enterprises of the bound

soul. Realization bypasses all of this and abides in the nondual. It

matters little whether It is approached through reason, meditation,

intuition, self-enquiry, bhakti or whatever. All these things are a trick

to get us to the point where we are ready to stop seeking what we already

have.

> We are not talking at the level of

> bhakti, where one foregoes the intellect and surrenders all to an

> imagined

> god. At his intellectual level, I just cannot understand how it can be

> that,

> notwithstanding the fact that we are already trying to rationalise the

> illusion of the world, we then go one stage further and invent a god that

> we

> then have to try to fit into this illusory appearance. It seems analogous

> to

> the person who, trying to make sense of his life. takes hallucinogenic

> drugs

> to distort everything and make his life even more difficult.

 

If you are a nondualist, "god" is not other than yourself. Nothing is

invented; you are That.

> 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.?

 

Personally, my own free will or lack of it, God's will, and God's freedom

are facets of the same issue, viz., the nature of the bound soul (jiva) and

its liberation.

 

Thank you for the interesting questions.

 

Pranams,

Shivaram

[Guest guest]

Dennis Waite 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. We are intellectually trying to rationalise

>the appearance and intuit the reality. We are not talking at

>the level of bhakti, where one foregoes the intellect and

>surrenders all to an imagined god. At his intellectual level,

>I just cannot understand how it can be that, notwithstanding

>the fact that we are already trying to rationalise the illusion

>of the world, we then go one stage further and invent a god that

>we then have to try to fit into this illusory appearance. It

>seems analogous to the person who, trying to make sense of his

>life. takes hallucinogenic drugs to distort everything and make

>his life even more difficult.

>

>...

>

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

 

 

No outrage at all, Dennis-ji! I fully agree with you that the

Supreme Consciousness cannot have any anthropomorphic qualities that

would limit his infinity. For me, this is one of the unsatisfactory

aspects of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition (though a few of

their thinkers have more subtlety than their scriptures!). And for

this reason, I have become a bit allergic to the word 'God'. I will

try to find another word, maybe just Consciousness. (I have no

bhakti inclinations.)

 

However, I do believe one thing, namely, that we are here to progress

spiritually to realization. I simply cannot believe that this

happened 'by accident', without some 'intention' on the part of the

Supreme Consciousness. This Supreme Consciousness must indeed be

'infinitely conscious' in some unfathomable sense, which includes and

far transcends anything we can think of. For example, I cannot

accept Einstein's cold reverence for the Unconscious Laws of Nature

that simply are without a purpose. Consciousness to me must include

some notion of Purpose, though in a way that far transcends our

ordinary thinking.

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Dennis Waite wrote:

>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.

>...

>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.

 

 

Actually, Dennis there is some serious research on parapsychology. See:

 

http://www.enlightenment.com/media/bookrevs/conscuniv.html

 

http://www.enlightenment.com/media/interviews/radin.html

 

I am not saying that such phenomena as mental telepathy have

definitely been proven, but there is some evidence worth considering.

Anyhow, this is not essential to Advaita but only peripheral.

 

However, my point before, when I briefly made a reference to mental

telepathy, was this. The Universal Consciousness, which is the

'substratum' of our seemingly finite consciousness, must certainly

'know' everything that we do, though undoubtedly in some unfathomable

and transcendent way unlike our own immediate experience. And it

therefore seems 'logical' to me that as we realize the Universal

Consciousness and become 'one' with it, then we should have access to

all knowledge.

 

And then there are interesting accounts of psychic experiences by

Yogananda and many others. Do you think he was a liar?

 

As I said, I am not absolutely sure, and it is not essential to

Advaita. But it is interesting and seems to me to be implied by

Advaita, for the reason just given.

 

Who knows what the limits of consciousness are? We live a very

parochial life in a tiny corner of Reality and may be like insects

compared to enlightened beings.

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

I requested Advaitin's definitions and corresponding Sanskrit terms

for "fate" and "free will". I haven't received any. These words

have varying connotations in different cultures, religions and

regions. Imagine a term like `sin' coming up for discussion. An

advaitin's idea of sin being totally different from that of a

routine theologian, any discussion on the topic can ramble and

digress farther from relevance.

 

No help having been received, I have to confess that I wouldn't

venture to hunt for the Sanskrit terms for either fate or free will

on my own. I am not competent there. However, to have my moorings

right before taking the plunge, I would like to set the following

parameters. Our Moderator/Discussion Leader should have done this

and I hope they will do that for future topics.

 

1. The unshakable premise for this post is advaita (as I understand

it).

2. I define fate as Consciousness unfolding or unraveling Itself.

3. Free will, again as I understand it, is the (seeming) freedom of

action implied by Sankara in his famous statement: "kartum shakyam,

akartum shakyam, anyathAva kartum shakyam" (can do, can choose not to

do, can do differently).

 

We, advaitins, always have the habit of taking refuge in the

paramArtika (Absolute), whenever the going gets rough, and then

emerge again in the vyAvahArika (mundane) when the weather is

favourable. I am no exception.

 

At the Absolute, there is only the jnAni. In other words, jnAni is

the Absolute, One without a second. Kindly refer to Shri

Atmachaitanyaji's most outstanding post # 12177. So, let us leave

the jnAni alone on his exalted pedestal at an inaccessible distance,

as He is of no immediate use to us and concentrate on the mundane

shadow-play. Being One without a second, there is logically no scope

for fate or free will on the jnAni.

 

In the mundane, we have the jnAnanishtAs (all the teachers including

Bhagwan Ramana) down to the most deluded of beings including me.

Evidently, we are in the sway of fate and free will. How?

 

(a) I have no idea what my next thought is going to be. It comes

from where I don't know. Last year, this time around, I never knew

I would be communicating with an Englshman called Dennis Waite or an

ireless Irish called Michael Reidy. So a spontaneous unraveling of

the phenomenal world goes on in the mundane over which I have no

control. That is fate as per my definition above, which includes the

gory sarcoma that afflicted Bhagwan Ramana Maharshi's mortal shoulder.

 

(b) It is evening here where I am now. Time to relax. I can decide

to have a drink. I can also decide to forgo it or I can change my

usual whisky to cognac (doing differently, hehehe!). Then that is

free will, provided my boss doesn't summon me for some emergency

assignment – then that is fate because that idiot is a tee-totaller,

puritan fundamentalist of the worst kind. Advaitins, please bear

with me for bringing my glass into this august discussion. I just

wanted to reassure Shri Benjamin that most of us so-called Hindus are

soma-land aborigines who love inebriation.

 

There is something to all this that shouldn't escape the attention of

the advaitin. Free will is the negation of fate. In other words,

free will and fate are a pair of opposites (like seetoshna,

sukhadukha in BG – cold and heat, happiness and misery) - the very

fabric of the mundane. Neither has any validity without the other as

darkness cannot be without light. In the mundane, therefore, both

fate and free will are equally valid!

 

Both 0 degree Celsius and minus 5 degree Celsius are cold. However,

the former is warmer than the latter. Total starvation is misery.

However, being able to have one meal at least per day is comparative

happiness and comparative starvation too. If this rule is applied to

fate and free will, both are calibrations on the same scale.

 

An advaitin understands this and is equanimous to both fate and free

will as he is to seethoshna sukhadukha. And that is karma yoga. He

accepts the Lord (Brahman or Consciousness or God as Shivramji has

rightly pointed out) as the ultimate result-giver (fate) and, at the

same time, exercises his options of "can do, can decide not to do,

can do differently" (free will). The option that he ultimately

selects can be called fate. The result (fate of action) can be just

what he wanted, more or less than what he wanted or just the

opposite. Since the result comes from the Lord (KarturAjnaye

prApyate phalam – UpadesasAram 1st verse), he accepts it with

prasAdabuddhi – equanimity. This is termed as action that doesn't

bind and that doesn't add to accumulated prArabdAs.

 

Who, therefore, cares when the already accumulated prArabdAs are

exhausted? Let them, when they will. Continue with praSadabuddhi.

That is like operating without a curriculum vitae on the mundane

roller-coaster. We call it karma yoga.

 

To conclude, therefore, on the mundane plane (vyAvaharika), both fate

and free will are a valid pair of opposites and, therefore,

gradations on the same scale. To separate one from the other or

negate either is an illogical endeavour. There is also no point

discussing these issues outside the realm of advaita in the light of

Western concepts of determinism etc. as we have seen in our

discussions here. They can at best confound and mire us in a no

man's land if we move out of our advaitic moorings. Advaita should

be our terra firma here as rightly stressed by Dennis-Ji.

 

If interested, please also read the thread beginning with Shri

Atagarsin's post # 13196 for some interesting thoughts.

 

And, Dennis-ji, please don't throw astrology in the dustbin. I am an

astrologer. Don't worry - not of the commercial variety. I have

enough reason to think that it works. I can say I know it works.

Since the topic is outside the scope of this Group, we can talk about

it privately (at no cost to you of course!).

 

PranAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

The reference to astrology kindled my interest in looking for

the Sanskrit words!

 

Fate = bhAgya (what an astrologer predicts!)

 

Free-will = svayaMkartR^itvam (what the individual does to prove the

astrologer wrong!!)

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste.

>

> I requested Advaitin's definitions and corresponding Sanskrit terms

> for "fate" and "free will".

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste.

>

> I requested Advaitin's definitions and corresponding Sanskrit terms

> for "fate" and "free will".

[Guest guest]

Sri Madathil Rajendran Nair says:

>It is evening here where I am now. Time to relax.

>I can decide to have a drink. I can also decide to

>forgo it or I can change my usual whisky to cognac

>(doing differently, hehehe!). Then that is free will,

>provided my boss doesn't summon me for some emergency

>assignment - then that is fate because that idiot is a

>tee-totaller, puritan fundamentalist of the worst kind.

>Advaitins, please bear with me for bringing my glass

>into this august discussion. I just wanted to reassure

>Shri Benjamin that most of us so-called Hindus are soma-land

>aborigines who love inebriation.

 

Hey! I thought we were all holy here! It seems as though some of us

have hormones. Tsk! tsk! tsk! (Olde Englishe expression). I guess

I should have been forwarned by the sumptuous Bollywood actresses

that all is not as it should be in Mata Bharata...

 

Om!

Benjamin

[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.

 

 

 

 

 

_______________

The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*

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

[Guest guest]

VAH! - It is difficult to keep track of the overwhelming discussion on

the subject. I am yet to study carefully the first post of Dennis.

 

I went through most of the mails on this topic quickly by my free-will

and decided there is no way I can moderate these discussions - this

decision is either willed or destined - but since I used word 'decided'

- I tend to push it to free-will or willed by the circumstance.

 

When I met Shree Ram this afternoon, he reminded me that I may have to

clarify the Iswara concept.

 

When I read through the mails - everyone seems to recognize that from

the Brahman point the discussion is meaningless since there is noting

other than Brahman and discusser and discussions have to merge to their

substantives - namely Brahman.

 

Hence the whole discussion has to be at the level of vyavahaara.

Everyone seems to be aware of it - yet everyone seems to jump across two

states of reference and many do not even realize it that they are

jumping across the two states. Shree Nair's is an exception. He wanted

some definitions. Here are my definitions for the terms that agrees

with my notions!

 

Free will - there is a choice in the action - that kartum shakyam ...

one can do, not do or do it other way - the three choices.

 

Fate - I have no free will - that is no choice - including the choice in

exercising the choice.

 

I am introducing another term - spontaneity at microcosmic and

macrocosmic states.

The response at the local level (individual body-mind-intellect) is

locally spontaneous where in long range or global effects or minimal

and much less compared to the local effects - one can say -this is

vyashsTi vaasana-s.

Gobal spontaneity is samashhTi leval - or Iswara level.

 

I wanted to take up each point by point of what Dennis and Benjamin

others pointed out but I gave up that effort as it seems to be

monumental task. Hence I am going to present my understanding in a

general sense - fulfilling want Ram wanted me to do.

 

So this discussion is from Vyavahaara point only!

 

That means I am jiiva separate from the rest of the world. Jiiva is

notional but as long as the notion is there with 'ego' or ahankaara -

the fundamental error exists - adyaasa has occured.

 

We need to be clear here - the so called error or adhyaasa is 'real'

within the reference state of vyavahaara. It has no meaning from the

absolute or Brahman state.

 

Second we need also to be clear - Iswara is real with in vyavahaara and

it/he has no relevance from the Brahman state. Iswara becomes real

because the world is as seen is real and therefore the creator of the

real world is equally real. Some have referenced to Bhagawan Ramana's

statements - He never said Iswara is not real - in fact in response to a

question whether Iswara has a body - he said he has one if you think you

have one! That is within vyavahaara Iswara is as real as the jiiva.

 

Iswara is not Brahman in the sense Iswara has attributes - He is

sarvaj~na and sarva shaktimaana and sarvavyaapaka etc.(Omniscient,

omnipotent and omnipresent etc)- just as jiiva is alpa j~na, alpa

shaktimaana and alpavyaapakan -alpa means limited.

 

Bhagavaan Ramana says - isshajiivayoH veshadiibidha, satvabhaato vastu

kevalam - the difference between jiiva and Iswara is in vesha or the

costumes (body, mind and intellect) that they are wearing -(costume is

that which makes you look different from what you are) if one removes

all the costumes -of jiiva and Iswara - looking from their essential

states they are just one - sat chit ananda - otherwise in their vesha or

costume they are not - just as the same actor playing the begger or King

in a drama and King is never be the same as begger even though the actor

is the same.

 

That brings to the next point - that - tat tvam asi statement discussed

- the statement is not equating jiiva and Brahman - but discarding all

the vesha or costumes that both are wearing and equating only their

essence - in the same sense of the statement - soyam devadattaH - this

is that devadatta. This devadatta and that devadatta differ in terms of

their body, mind and intellect, time as well space - but their identity

is only in terms of their essence - this is what is called bhaaga

tyaaga lakshana - where part of the this and that are discarded in the

realization of the identity.

 

Shankara adhyaasa bhaashya says - as long as that error is there - the

notion that I am a doer and I am enjoyer etc are real. That is from the

reference of vyavahaara - as long as I have not realized the identity,

the kartRitva bhaava is apparently real and this apparently real is

real to the jiiva since the appearance aspect becomes known only when

the misunderstanding of separateness goes away. Hence as long as I

feel that world is real, all other things are ontologically of the same

level and that is what I was (trying to) point out in my previous mails.

 

' Free will' is ontologically as real as jiiva is.

 

Fate aspect in the fate or free-will? is it a fate - it is wrongly

defined question as I pointed out earlier. Fate has a connotation of

predestined. I prefer the word spontaneous response of the totality

rather than fate. Now the question of predictability of that response

which is discussed as fate. Before this I want to mention about Chaos -

as those who are familiar with chaos theory it is deterministic

alright(in the sense that it is not random) but at that same time

sensitive to the initial conditions. In order to follow the future

state, one has to be fully aware of extreme non-linearity of the system

and sensitivity to even small perturbations (this is called butterfly

effect). Here the relevance is - the so-called fully prederminability

can be only from the point of one who has complete knowledge of the

system - that is only from Iswara's point. My point is from jiiva's

point predeterminability is the so-called fate in the -fate or free will

-essentially an academic question. Those that have some extraordinary

powers perhaps can predict extraordinarily the so called chaotic

response of this highly non-linear system! Personally like Dennis I have

no interest in such predictions even if they are established as accurate

since that removes the thrill in the life - like knowing the score

before the game is played. All the fun is gone!

 

So my understanding.

 

Free-will is as real as jiiva is present. In terms of J`naani - the

jiiva becomes apparent and so is the free-will. and from Brahman point -

the discussion is irrelevant.

 

I request the contributors to read their input again and see if you are

having one leg on one state and another leg on the other state without

realizing it and coming with some conclusions which differ from

Shankara's.

 

Issue Benjamin mentioned about Hindu-s attitude towards Upanishads -

that may be beyond the scope of this notes but I would discuss it slowly

in a separate mail.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

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

http://platinum.

[Guest guest]

Hi Benjamin.

 

I held out my glass just to reassure you. At the very dry spot I am

now in, cognac talk is wish-fulfilment!

 

By the way, your oft-expressed American ardour for our buxom wealth,

now threateningly extending from Ash to others, is rather worrisome.

Beware America! Don't try to disarm (desaddam) Bharat to lay hands

on the Indian beauties. We will engage you in street to street

bhajans and meditations! We have done that before. Oh, what a

scenario for an invading group of marines!

 

PranAms.

 

Madathil Nair

____________________

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

I guess

> I should have been forwarned by the sumptuous Bollywood actresses

> that all is not as it should be in Mata Bharata...

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Thanks Sunder-ji.

 

I had always thought that bhAgya referred only to luck and good

fortune. In MalayAlam, we mean so. You are right it means fate

too. However, don't you think daivakalpitam or Ishwaranishchitam

would be a better term in our present context?

 

About "svayaMkartR^itvam" for free-will - don't you think the term

covers shades of both egoism and egotism not very relevant to or not

gone into by the discussions so far? All the more reason, that we

must base our deliberations on indigenous grounds at least to begin

with.

 

That dig on astrology was marvellous.

 

Just thoughts.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

______________________________

 

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

wrote:

> The reference to astrology kindled my interest in looking

for

> the Sanskrit words!

>

> Fate = bhAgya (what an astrologer predicts!)

>

> Free-will = svayaMkartR^itvam (what the individual does to prove

the

> astrologer wrong!!)

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Further to my post 16522.

 

I think the word 'adriSta' would be more appropriate for fate. It is

extensively used by the Tamils and in astrology too.

 

PranAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nairji

 

Adrshta is used as 'luck' in Tamil. In tamil Fate is 'Vidhi'.

 

best regards,

K Kathirasan

>

> Madathil Rajendran Nair [sMTP:madathilnair]

> Monday, March 31, 2003 12:41 PM

> advaitin

> Re: Fate and Free Will

>

> Namaste.

>

> Further to my post 16522.

>

> I think the word 'adriSta' would be more appropriate for fate. It is

> extensively used by the Tamils and in astrology too.

>

> PranAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

>

>

>

>

> 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]

Just a few comments on recent posts:

 

Benjamin to Shivaram:

"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."

 

D: No! The absolute level is not accessible to logicical deduction. It is

not accessible to the mind (ego) in any way. This is the problem (as far as

discussions such as these are concerned).

 

Ram to Dennis:

"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."

 

D: As most Sages seem to point out, any and all verbal instruction is

potentially of value when aimed at the level of understanding of the hearer.

For another hearer it will be of no value or even counter-productive.

Ultimately, none of it has any relevance to the reality. But, at the level

of this discussion, what you say does not seem to make any sense. If we know

that Iswara = Self, 'bringing in' Iswara is not actually introducing

anything knew is it? If the Self cannot dissolve our thoughts, how can

calling 'it' by some other name help? I would have agreed that for someone

who does NOT yet know that Iswara is not separate from the Self, it might be

of help.

 

Michael to All Advaitins:

"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'."

 

D: I don't see any argumentation to back up this claim. I would deny that

routine established patterns were ever 'chosen'.

 

Michael:

"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."

 

D: ? Sorry, Michael. I've read this 4 or 5 times but I'm afraid I don't

understand what you are saying.

 

Shanti to Dennis:

"I was a sceptic like you but this experience has

convinced me that there is something here that needs an explanation."

 

D: Fair enough. A sceptic is bound to make the initial query but I certainly

agree that there always seem to be some cases left over where there is not

any obvious explanation. Clearly yours is one of them.

 

Shivaram to Dennis:

"The word itself is inconsequential.

But what is the problem here? Ramesh Baleskar makes continual reference to

God. He even closes his masterwork, "The Unlimate Understanding", with a

letter to God. Ramana Maharshi spoke always of Shiva. Are they not

advaitins?"

 

D: I also have no problem with using the word as a synonym for Absolute,

Consciousness etc. I do admit, however, to some concern when Sages refer to

God in the way you describe. I rationalise as I indicated above to Ram, that

the words are directed at the 'level' of the listener. Whilst the listener

still has the sense of a separate 'I', it is always salutary to remind them

that reality is infinitely greater, in the sense in which the word 'God' is

used. The danger lies in interpreting it as something separate.

 

Shivaram:

"Ultimate reality/Brahman/Para Shiva/God is not found at

the end of any chain of rational inquiry, nor does intuition take up where

reason leaves off. Reason and intuition are both enterprises of the bound

soul. Realization bypasses all of this and abides in the nondual. It

matters little whether It is approached through reason, meditation,

intuition, self-enquiry, bhakti or whatever. All these things are a trick

to get us to the point where we are ready to stop seeking what we already

have."

 

D: Agree with all of this - very well expressed!

 

Shivaram:

"If you are a nondualist, "god" is not other than yourself. Nothing is

invented; you are That."

 

D: Again, I agree but my point was that, in our delusion, we invent god in

order to explain the appearance in that interim period until the truth is

realised. If we have already accepted non-duality intellectually, then what

purpose does this 'extra' level of appearance serve?

 

Benjamin to Dennis:

"I fully agree with you that the

Supreme Consciousness cannot have any anthropomorphic qualities that

would limit his infinity." and then "I simply cannot believe that this

happened 'by accident', without some 'intention' on the part of the

Supreme Consciousness."

 

D: These statements seem to me to be contradictory. The concept of

intentionality is itself anthropomorphic surely? You attempt to justify this

by saying "Consciousness to me must include some notion of Purpose, though

in a way that far transcends our ordinary thinking" but here you seem to be

trying to have things both ways. You want God to have a purpose but not have

a purpose. I maintain that you simply cannot talk about reality in this sort

of way at all.

 

Benjamin: "Actually, Dennis there is some serious research on

parapsychology..."

 

D: I used to be very interested in parapsychology and could still be (if I

could find the time!). In the context of Advaita, however, I do not see any

relevance. Any such phenomena would be simply that; a part of the phenomenal

appearance and nothing to do with reality; part of the waking dream if you

like.

 

Benjamin: "The Universal Consciousness, which is the

'substratum' of our seemingly finite consciousness, must certainly

'know' everything that we do."

 

D: This is anthropomorphising again. Yes, all thoughts are equally the Self.

It's like saying that all waves are equally the sea. If I choose to identify

with one particular wave rather than with the sea, is it meaningful to say

that the sea knows 'my' wave? There is no 'I' or 'my', and no separate

'thoughts', there is only the Self.

 

Benjamin: "And then there are interesting accounts of psychic experiences by

Yogananda and many others. Do you think he was a liar?"

 

D: See my response to Shanti, above. Actually, I have not looked into the

question of so-called 'siddhis' so I really do not know. I seem to recall

Greg referring to these once, perhaps he could make an enlightened

observation on the subject? Certainly I understood that Sages viewed those

who pursued such things as very misguided; it must all be quite irrelevant

in the limit.

 

Best wishes to all,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Namaste Madathilji,

 

Sanskrit does give a range of choices for making compound

words, and I have no objection to the ones you have suggested.

 

Ishvara-sa~Nkalpitam is the traditional word.

 

svechchhA or svachchhanda would also fit in with free

will.

 

Free will is dense dark with egoism, why just a shade!!

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste.

 

However, don't you think daivakalpitam or Ishwaranishchitam

> would be a better term in our present context?

>

> About "svayaMkartR^itvam" for free-will - don't you think the term

> covers shades of both egoism and egotism not very relevant to or

not

> gone into by the discussions so far? All the more reason, that we

> must base our deliberations on indigenous grounds at least to begin

> with.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Kathirasanji,

 

Your reference is corroborated by Shankara -

 

In Sanskrit, Shankara has used vidhi in the same sense:

 

.......vidhivashAt prAptena santuShyatAm.........

 

.....let one remain contented in what is obtained through fate.........

 

[sadhana-Panchakam]

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

 

advaitin, K Kathirasan NCS <kkathir@n...>

wrote:

> Namaste Nairji

>

> Adrshta is used as 'luck' in Tamil. In tamil Fate is 'Vidhi'.

>

> best regards,

> K Kathirasan

>

> >

> > Madathil Rajendran Nair [sMTP:madathilnair]

> > Monday, March 31, 2003 12:41 PM

> > advaitin

> > Re: Fate and Free Will

> >

> > Namaste.

> >

> > Further to my post 16522.

> >

> > I think the word 'adriSta' would be more appropriate for fate.

It is

> > extensively used by the Tamils and in astrology too.

> >

> > PranAms.

> >

> > Madathil Nair

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > 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]

Hi Dennis,

 

You write,

>Benjamin: "Actually, Dennis there is some serious research on

>parapsychology..."

>Benjamin: "And then there are interesting accounts of psychic experiences by

>Yogananda and many others. Do you think he was a liar?"

>

>D: See my response to Shanti, above. Actually, I have not looked into the

>question of so-called 'siddhis' so I really do not know. I seem to recall

>Greg referring to these once, perhaps he could make an enlightened

>observation on the subject? Certainly I understood that Sages viewed those

>who pursued such things as very misguided; it must all be quite irrelevant

>in the limit.

 

 

You know, this question of auras, siddhis, levels and ascended experiences used

to be the most fascinating thing for me, and it's what led me to be interested

in advaita vedanta in the first place. When read in the Western mystical

traditions of the various levels (sometimes 3, sometimes 4, or 7 or 49 levels,

etc.), I strove to learn where this teaching came from!

 

Long story short, I traced these teachings back to koshas (that's a 5!). Each

level, each siddhi, each experience is associated with one of the koshas.

Experiencing something at a higher level, accidentally watching a siddhi unfold

in the body/mind apparatus can serve to dislodge the identification at the lower

level. For example, let's say I really think and feel like I am the body. Then

I have an out-of-body experience. I feel like I'm up here on the ceiling,

looking down at my body on the operating table. I really feel like I am *here*,

up on the ceiling. That body looks very neutral to me, sort of irrelevant. OK,

now after the operation, I might happen to feel co-located with my body. My

identification has now shifted to a more subtle level. Progress!! I now feel

identified with the subtle body. Gone is they identification with the gross

body. All siddhis are like this....

 

The idea is *not* to arrive at the most advanced siddhi or level, and dwell

there forever, seeing all and knowing all. Because there is no separate

substance or concept that inhabits the thing in the first place, so the dwelling

makes no sense. Rather, the idea of advaita vedanta in everyday terms is that

identification with all phenomenality cease.

 

At best, the siddhis and levels are lessons. They are ways to pull splinters

out. But striving for them can be just another way of being greedy, getting

sidetracked. In some of the other e-lists on the internet, seeking siddhis is

called drug addiction.

 

But the search for siddhis can also be from non-greedy motives, resulting from

the path one is on. One seeks them as confirmation of the teachings one has

adopted and come to believe. Yet, as the understanding (even plain old

intellectual understanding) becomes clearer, there will be less and less

interest in siddhis as a symbol or sign of realization. They are neither

necessary nor sufficient.

 

Pranams,

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

Actually the Tamil word for the Sanskrit Vithi or Vidhi is "Uuz

Vinai" and reference to fate occurs in the famous Tamil literary

work, Silappathikaram. While arguing before the Pandava King, Kannagi

refers that due to 'fate' her husband came to Madurai and was killed

due to mistaken identity!

 

But she didn't leave everything to the fate and went back to the king

to establish the innocence of her husband. It seems that she

exercised her free-will to correct the consequence of the fate of her

husband! It is possible for someone to conclude that even Kannagi's

action could be considered due to 'fate.' In addition, the king, his

wife both died according to the episode along with severe fire damage

to the city of Madurai due to spell of curse ordained by Kannagai!

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

wrote:

> Namaste Kathirasanji,

>

> Your reference is corroborated by Shankara -

>

> In Sanskrit, Shankara has used vidhi in the same sense:

>

> ......vidhivashAt prAptena santuShyatAm.........

>

> ....let one remain contented in what is obtained through

fate.........

[Guest guest]

Sri Madathil Rajendran Nair:

 

You wrote:

>Hi Benjamin.

>

>I held out my glass just to reassure you. At the very

>dry spot I am now in, cognac talk is wish-fulfilment!

>

>By the way, your oft-expressed American ardour for our

>buxom wealth, now threateningly extending from Ash to

>others, is rather worrisome. Beware America! Don't try

>to disarm (desaddam) Bharat to lay hands on the Indian

>beauties. We will engage you in street to street bhajans

>and meditations! We have done that before. Oh, what a

>scenario for an invading group of marines!

 

 

My dear beloved Madathil,

 

I was just joining in the fun of your previous message. I was trying

to be friendly and show a bit of humor. I was hoping you would

respond in some cheerful and unmistakably friendly way, as Sri Venkat

did when I mentioned Ash. Instead, under the guise of a joke, you

have raised and insinuated two troublesome specters: lust and the

ugly invading American. If I had any brains, I would just laugh and

let things be. I am sure that I will soon get a message from Sri Ram

telling both of us not to deviate in this way from Advaita. However,

I believe that everything is ultimately related to the topic of

spirituality, and I will insist just this once on sharing some candid

personal thoughts regarding these two explosive topics, so that

people can at least know what I CLAIM to think. Whether you can

really trust me is another matter. Whether anyone cares is also

another matter, but I feel like discussing this anyway. Sorry if all

this seems boring and pedantic, but why not take a brief excursion

into real life for a change? (I'll bet a lot of people will read

THIS post, even if it is a bit long.)

 

 

First, the topic of women and Indian beauties in particular. Is

there anything wrong with simply appreciating a gorgeous female face?

Perhaps there is if you are married, but I am a lifelong bachelor,

for various personal reasons that are quite boring. Nobody is less

of a playboy and more cautious and respectful with women than I am.

At least this is true in real life. My fantasies may be something

else, but I don't think any of us want to discuss our fantasies in

too much detail. The simple fact is that I am extremely sensitive to

another person's feelings in real life, and I cannot even imagine

getting intimate unless there is deep personal understanding and

affection.

 

Does this necessarily mean marriage before intimacy? I know that

this topic is being hotly debated in India, as American values (or

lack thereof) invade what used to be a quite conservative society.

(A thousand years of Muslim and British invasions did not destroy

Bharat, but American popular culture may just succeed in doing that.)

Well, the issue of intimacy outside marriage is quite an interesting

and complicated question. The free-thinking part of me does in fact

accept that most of our moral rules are simply social conventions, at

least those that don't involve actual violence. At one level, what

seems to matter to me is sincerity, honesty, compassion,

consideration, affection, etc. I do not see how this necessarily

requires marriage. Some would disagree, saying that anytime you can

just throw someone in the trash, then you are treating that person as

a desire-fulfilling object, no matter how friendly things seem for a

while. The threat of alimony may be seen as a guarantee that a man

has something other than lust on his mind. Or it can be seen as a

gun pointed at the poor married man's head, so that the wife can be

as disagreeable as she pleases with impunity. Every particular

situation is different. Only an intelligent, sincere, compassionate

and compatible couple can make a marriage succeed. Morality alone

doesn't do it. So much for morality, i.e. following rules and

commandments, that most favorite topic of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic

tradition. It is the heart that matters. That is where the truth

lies, not in robot-like rules, which everybody flouts anyway.

 

So far I have been mouthing pious platitudes. However, there is one

thing about so-called 'promiscuity' that I will say, and here is an

original contribution that I have not heard elsewhere. From

observing American kids, it seems to me that promiscuity is often

associated with an insolent and insensitive attitude that is most

definitely incompatible with any kind of genuine spirituality. This

need not be the case but usually seems to be. In American youth

culture, great emphasis is placed on being 'cool', and this usually

means a kind of arrogant and disrespectful attitude which I despise.

You can see it especially in rock and movie stars (at least of the

American variety). Now I will confess that I used to listen to some

kinds of rock music and still do. But whereas I used to admire the

rock star attitude, I now think that most of them are idiots. One

thing I DO admire about Indian and Chinese actresses is that they

manage to look sweet, gentle and natural, without pretensions and

without an 'attitude problem'. They may just be pretending, but it

is still very charming. So for me, being a Romeo is not the issue.

The issue is whether a young person manages to develop into a

sensitive, gentle, kind, thoughtful and compassionate human being.

By the way, and meaning no disrespect, I detect the slightest trace

of this American insolence in your messages. But don't worry; it's

still barely perceptible. But please rush to your doctor (or guru)

and get inoculated from the American virus before it's too late.

 

 

Now, as for the war in Iraq. Having suffered terrorism in India, in

Kashmir, the bombs in Mumbai, the Hindus slaughtered in Bangladesh,

partition, etc., you surely know that pure pacifism is as immoral as

an aggressive war. What do you think the Mahabarata was about? So

the question is, are Americans justified in invading Iraq? Well,

this question is too complicated for this list, and I will not go

further into it. I will just say that there are, as usual pros and

cons. I believe that the Middle East is a sick place, and the

sickness is now affecting the rest of the world. And I know that I

will offend many gentle and tolerant Hindus in this list, but I trace

a large part of the problem to the Koran itself. Both the Koran and

Bible have blood-curdling passages and exude extreme intolerance.

This is an undeniable fact. But whereas most Jews and Christians

have managed to move beyond this and have adopted a secular

constitution based on human rights, the poor Muslims seemed to be

stuck in repressive dictatorships, fanatical theocracies, and

personal and tribal vendettas. You can blame this on colonialism,

but they have had 50 years to get their act together. An intolerant

religion is indeed a most terrible thing, because people feel that

they have been justified by God. Many (perhaps most) Muslims may be

more moderate than the Jehadis, but they seem to have been unwilling

or afraid to speak out at a volume that can be heard.

 

So I do not believe that it is a priori wrong to try to go in and fix

a sick country (or countries) whose virus is slowly but surely

infecting the world. The question is, can it be done? What will

replace Saddam? A Shiite theocracy similar to the one in Iran? Not

unlikely. The question is very difficult, and there are many good

reasons for criticizing American policy, just as there are good

reasons for applauding it. I just wish that my government had been

less callous and hypocritical towards terrorism in India. You didn't

seem useful to us, so we put you on a back burner. China throws its

weight around and gets more respect. Life is not fair. (By the way,

instead of weakening India with petty internal disputes about temples

and other irrelevancies, you had better get your economy together to

face the growing Chinese threat. Or you can add Chinese colonialism

to the Muslim and English ones. Remember Tibet.)

 

Finally, regarding America, I will say this. I feel quite sure,

based on reading all kinds of international newspapers on the web,

that most of the people who are feeling ill-will towards the U.S.A.

are doing so based on petty and foolish egoistic emotions, and not on

rational and responsible arguments. Stupid people get cartoon images

of America into their minds, which trigger feelings of resentment

that resemble childish temper tantrums. Yes, it was wrong and

foolish of America to support the Shah of Iran and other dictators,

under the pretext of expediency. I have grave reservations about our

support for Musharaf. And yes, I think that the Israeli settlements

added fuel to the fire, though I have become much more sympathetic of

Israel since realizing how many idiots there are in the world.

 

But the issue is much more complicated than the hypocritical,

dogmatic and 'politically correct' left-wing European and Indian

so-called intellectuals make it out to be. You have to put yourself

in the position of the American government before childishly

criticizing it. Mostly, it is just trying to put out fires. George

Bush came into office saying the America would disengage from the

world. 911 changed that. And yes, even as an Advaitin and aspirant

to moksha, I am quite concerned about a terrorist nuclear or

biological weapon. I am aware of how the Hiroshima bomb melted

eyeballs and caused skin to peel off, and I do not relish that. I

have seen pictures of smallpox, and do not relish that either.

 

So it is all very complicated. But those who criticize the US need

to search their souls and ask what their true motivation is. Is it

petty resentment and childish emotionalism? Or have you really

thought carefully about a complicated and dangerous situation?

 

Well, this post was way out of line for this list, but Sri Nair

goaded me into it. I love expressing my views. How egoistic!

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

--- kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote:

 

When I read my mail, I realized I had to re-emphasize one aspect that I

forgot. The universe is a dynamic system - and that is reason fate is

wrong word. The response of the totality is also dynamic in the sense

it is not predetermined- it continously altered as the states

dynamically change. That is why I call it spontaneity. adRishTa is

only unforseen. it is may be one aspect of the dynamic system but not

complete aspect.

Hence the universe is called jagat - jaayate gachchhate iti. that which

continously changing. One can predict that has to be supermaster like

predicting the state in a choatic system.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

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

http://platinum.

[Guest guest]

"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."

D: ? Sorry, Michael. I've read this 4 or 5 times but I'm afraid I don't

understand what you are saying.

 

 

Hello Dennis,

Point taken, amongst my other talents I also speak and write Gibberish.

This problem's setting is within the manifest universe and for that reason

is part of the realm of the inert when viewed from that angle. Non-dual

with it is pure consciousness. The two mutually superimpose. Though I

offered the idea that adhyasa was the original choice, on reflection avidya

cannot be held against us as who was there to choose or what, in

beginningless creation.

 

The inert is of its nature law-bound but as Sri Sadananda wrote the infinite

subtle differences of starting conditions can cause widely separated end

results. Only a cosmic computer could assimilate all the starting data and

the assembly of that data is itself an action which creates feeback and so

on. If the intellect, mind and senses have no consciousness and the self no

action it is easy to see why wisdom wants us to move to the present (where

we are anyway) to get out of the realm of causality, to the still point of

the turning world. Because the present is depthless, like a geometric plane

this may have been behind my babbling about neither linearity nor regress.

(I am now waving my hands)

 

Might I put to you that free will is an oxymoron? Freedom is a project

rather than anything that can be reached or perhaps we are free to begin

with but we cannot conceptualise it. It is the everything that we cannot

get outside. As you can see I am totally bewildered.

 

Best Wishes, Michael.

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________

STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*

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

[Guest guest]

Hi Benjamin.

 

Whether you accept it or not, I was only trying to be sincerely

humourous. If my post hurt you, I apologize. However, I swear I

didn't intend to hurt anybody including the people of America for

whom I have great respect.

 

About humour, I can be humourous like Madathil Nair only, not like

Shri Venkat.

 

I don't hold a brief for anyone in the current international mess

and, therefore, would not like to comment on your long post on the

merits of the ongoing war, which, as you have rightly understood, is

out of scope here.

 

Best regards, if you are prepared to accept them in the best of

friendly spirits.

 

Madathil Nair

________________________________

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>Instead, under the guise of a joke, you

> have raised and insinuated two troublesome specters: lust and the

> ugly invading American. If I had any brains, I would just laugh

and

> let things be. ......

> Well, this post was way out of line for this list, but Sri Nair

> goaded me into it. I love expressing my views. How egoistic!

>

[Guest guest]

Madathil said:

"I requested Advaitin's definitions and corresponding Sanskrit terms

for "fate" and "free will". I haven't received any."

 

D: I know. I did see your previous comment and deliberately ignored it

(hoping it would go away!). I have to confess that I have not come across

any that I am aware of. Although the concepts are frequently referred to by

most teachers at one time or another, no one ever seems to quote from the

scriptures and thus give away the Sanskrit terms. I was hoping that Sunder

would come to our aid as he usually does and was somewhat nonplussed when he

didn't. Fortunately, of course, he now has with his clever "Fate = bhAgya

(what an astrologer predicts!); Free-will = svayaMkartR^itvam (what the

individual does to prove the

astrologer wrong!!)" Mind you, I note that you subsequently contributed

"daivakalpitam or Ishwaranishchitam" so you were actually pretending more

ignorance than you really had! I also note the later suggestions from

yourself and K Kathirasan. However, I am bound to say does it actually make

any difference? It is unlikely that I will remember any of these Sanskrit

terms unless I encounter them again (which seems unlikely).

 

Madathil: "We, advaitins, always have the habit of taking refuge in the

paramArtika (Absolute), whenever the going gets rough, and then

emerge again in the vyAvahArika (mundane) when the weather is

favourable."

 

D: Of course you are right but, to be fair, if it is not possible to talk

meaningfully about something then it is not possible. All we can do is to

try to find suitable metaphors, with the ever present danger that someone

will try to push them too far and into nonsense, or waffle around the topic

with the danger that someone will accuse us of waffling.

 

Madathil: "I can decide

to have a drink. I can also decide to forgo it or I can change my

usual whisky to cognac (doing differently, hehehe!). Then that is

free will,"

 

D: You only say that because you have the associated feeling that you did

something, i.e. a) made a decision and b) initiated an action. You cannot

argue against Libet's assertion that these feelings are only side effects

(actually occurring after those actions have taken place automatically). I

don't think I agree with your analogy of fate-freewill being like

misery-happiness. I can see the merits up to a point but, whilst it would

not make sense to say that there is really only misery or happiness but not

both, it is clearly meaningful to suggest this in the case of fate-freewill

(otherwise there would not be a discussion here). I agree with your way of

putting it that "The option that he ultimately selects can be called fate"

except that I would rephrase it slightly: The option *that is ultimately

selected* can be called fate.

 

On astrology, I confess that I have not studied it in any depth. I have read

some articles that appear to have seriously attempted to gather statistical

evidence for it and concluded that there was none. As I recall, an analogy

that I found most persuasive was that there is vastly more of a

gravitational effect on an individual from a bus passing by outside their

house than from the movement of Jupiter. The book in question, which I can

thouroughly recommend as giving objective assessments of many paranormal

subjects, was 'The Hundredth Monkey' edited by Kendrick Frazier, ISBN

0-87975-655-1. A quote at the beginning of the articles is: "Given the

extraordinary ability of the human mind to make sense out of things, it is

natural occasionally to make sense out of things that have no sense at all"

Richard Furnald Smith.

 

Sadananda: "Second we need also to be clear - Iswara is real with in

vyavahaara and

it/he has no relevance from the Brahman state. Iswara becomes real

because the world is as seen is real and therefore the creator of the

real world is equally real."

 

D: This is the point I do not understand. I agree that the world is seen as

real within vyavahAra but why do I need to invent Isvara? I do not feel any

need to postulate a creator. Why cannot the world have always existed? Or

why need it matter? As a jIva seeking enlightenment, I am concerned about

me, the ego, not the world.I agree with all that you have said about the

ontlogical status of fate and free will within vyavahAra and I like the

analogy with chaos theory to explain the non-predictability of the future.

However, I still maintain that one does not have to believe in free will for

the jIva. Even within vyavahAra it seems to me that I never make a free

choice, it is always a cause and effect result of pre-existing thoughts,

feelings, etc.

 

Greg: - Explanation of function/relevance of siddhis. -

 

D: Excellent! Thanks. I just read the following from Ramana last night: "The

siddhis denote extended powers. A man is possessed of limited powers and is

miserable. Because of this he wants to expand his powers so that he may be

happy. But consider if it will be so. If with limited perceptions one is

miserable, with extended perceptions the misery must increase

proportionately."

 

Benjamin: said some stuff about promiscuity and war etc. Sorry Benjamin, I

started to read it but it didn't seem relevant to the subject so I didn't

finish it. Hope you are not offended. I got the impression from the

beginning bit that you felt that Madathil was being in some way nasty in

response to one of your earlier posts. I am sure this is not the case. I do

feel that it often happens that someone interprets the wording in a message

in quite the wrong way and then reacts inappropriately (this just happened

to me on another list!). We must all be more tolerant and give people the

benefit of the doubt. It is ever so difficult to phrase messages in a

completely unambiguous way. I'm sure we all have friendly intentions towards

each other to begin with!

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

The choice of 'fate or free-will' can be looked in the context

of 'uncertainty in life.'

 

Uncertainty varies from person to person. For example, those who live

in India faces a different set of uncertainty than those live in USA.

Also the perception of 'uncertainty' also varies from person and is

influenced by their attitutde and behavior. A friend of mine (forty

years of age) told me that he can't travel by air and he has not

never taken a flight. It is fair to say that everyone would like to

have less than more 'uncertainty.' Consequently we do undertake steps

to reduce (if not remove) the uncertainity wherever and whenever we

can. At the same time we also understand that 'some uncertainty' is

beyond our control and leave it untouched.

 

In this context, free-will is an honest attempt by a person who tries

to reduce or remove the uncertainty. But after all such attempts, if

the uncertainty still persists it is considered 'fate.' In otherword

that 'fate' and 'free-will' are likely to coexist as long that we

face the uncertainty. In the Vedantic context uncertainty coexists in

the vyavahara state and consequently the Jivas seem to exercise their

free-will with no gurantee for the 'fruits for their actions.' The

subtle message of Karma Yoga (Gita Chapter 2, verse 47)conveys that

as jivas, we have the right to 'act' (free-will is our right) but the

rewards are determined by the Lord and not by us (fate!)

 

At the paramarthika level, Brahman alone exists and He is the KNOWER

and there is no UNCERTAINTY! Consequently neither fate nor free-will

exists!!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

--- Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

>

> Sadananda: "Second we need also to be clear - Iswara is real with in

> vyavahaara and

> it/he has no relevance from the Brahman state. Iswara becomes real

> because the world is as seen is real and therefore the creator of the

> real world is equally real."

>

> D: This is the point I do not understand. I agree that the world is

> seen as

> real within vyavahAra but why do I need to invent Isvara? I do not

> feel any

> need to postulate a creator. Why cannot the world have always existed?

> Or

> why need it matter? As a jIva seeking enlightenment, I am concerned

> about

> me, the ego, not the world.I agree with all that you have said about

> the

> ontlogical status of fate and free will within vyavahAra and I like

> the

> analogy with chaos theory to explain the non-predictability of the

> future.

> However, I still maintain that one does not have to believe in free

> will for

> the jIva. Even within vyavahAra it seems to me that I never make a

> free

> choice, it is always a cause and effect result of pre-existing

> thoughts,

 

 

Dennis - there is a saying in Tamil - since I don’t know Tamil - someone

translated it to me as " One who believes that there is God is a brute

or a stupid" - statement apparently authored by a famous

writer/philosopher.

 

Since this statement is not a prattling of an ignorant man, one needs to

contemplate on what or why he is making such a daring statement.

 

That there is a god or creator is not a statement of faith or a

statement of belief but a statement of knowledge- hence the statement of

that great writer/philosopher follows.

 

Let me explain to the best I can (it is a going to be a useful exercise

for me since I have to give a talk on Iswara this weekend!).

 

If I see a beautiful pot, I immediately say that that is a beautiful

creation. I have no knowledge of the pot-maker, but the very existence

of the pot makes me to conclude 1) that there is a creator of the pot 2)

obviously he had the knowledge of how to make that pot 3) Not only the

knowledge but skill of making the pot (unlike many modern engineers who

can design a building but do not have the skill of drilling a nail

straight!)and 4) he had all the tools he needed to make that pot. Now

are all these statements born out of knowledge or belief? I have no

direct knowledge of the existenc of pot maker - that pot might have been

made centuries ago - the ancient Chinese ceramic pot! - Why should I

conclude that it is a creation? - for one thing there is no natural pot

lying anywhere to conclude that pots come naturally without a deliberate

creation involved.

 

Now little bit of thermodynamics that I am sure you are familiar. Any

creation is an ordered system with beauty associated with the order.

Any ordered system is not natural since nature tends to move system to a

disorder to decrease the energy which involves increase of entropy

(entropy is a measure of disorder). That means the any ordered system is

a well behaved thermodynamic system involving higher energy and therefor

'work' has to be done to crate an ordered system, as well as to maintain

it from disintegrating to disorder - The more complex the ordered-system

the more intricate skill and knowledge involved in creating and

maintaining the system - you can see from evolution of the wheel to

bicycle to car to jet plane - knowledge, skill and tools required become

increasingly complex for both creation and maintenance and of course

intelligent recycling for conservation.

 

Now if we examine the universe - it is most beautiful that has ever been

designed! We admire artists as great creators if they come anywhere

close to imitating this universe! It is highly ordered system - from the

electron to protons neutrons making up the atom to the planets to solar

system to galaxies - everything following well-defined laws governing

the system. A scientist sitting in a remote place on the earth (which

itself on the scale of the universe is smaller than size of an

atom)discovers the laws governing the universe that is valid galaxies

and galaxies away, indicates that the universe a thermodynamically well

behaved ordered system. Ordering demands high energy and work is

required to have that energy. The complexities that are in the universe

make it system complex. One can see this beauty in simple DNA design -

two tiny cells (even that may many be needed - cloning is being done and

man may soon become is a redundant!)has all the info stored to replicate

such a complex living being is wonder of all wonders. Man is unable to

make a simple car pump work without a problem for couple of years where

a tiny muscular pump works day in and day out, for so many years. It is

really a wonder. A scientist only discovers the laws already there in

the universe. Quantum mechanics to Newtonian mechanics to celestial

mechanics all follow a prefect order. Chaos that I talked about is not

random - but ordered system only but highly non-linear interactive

system with what are known as 'attractors and strange attractors etc.

Hence the universe is not natural but highly ordered well behaved system

with definite laws governing the system -That is it is a creation is not

a belief or faith but knowledge. Just as my great great great great

grand father must have existed some time in the past is a statement of

knowledge rather than belief and my very presence here is enough proof

for that - since I did not comeout naturally without a creator to

create.

 

If there is such a creator and such creator cannot be inside the

creation nor outside the creation and that cause has to have all

knowledge, skill etc required for the creation - hence omnipotent,

omnipresent etc.

 

Hence when scripture says that Iswara is there - it is not illogical or

it is just a faith - It is perfectly logical. Now where is that Iswara

or who is that Iswara - is the question further inquired one it is

established that there is a creator for the universe.

 

Please note that vyavahaara is not unreal - unreal is that which has no

locus - non-existent - such as vandya putraH - son of a barren women.

(It is called mithya or maaya - and maya is Iswara's shakti) Scriptures

tell us not only existence of Iswara and also goes beyond to tell us

What is the truth behind that vyavahaara leading us to paramaarthika -

parama arthika - that which us understand the at supreme intelligence.

 

Shankara never denounced upasana and bhakti -He was only against the

arguments that it is enough - they are instrumental to prepare the mind

for contemplation to inquire into the truth behind the vyavahaara or the

adhyaasa.

 

That is why I said as long as jiiva notion is there and is considered as

real, the universe also becomes real and the creator also become real. a

When the knowledge that universe is not separate from me - the

knowledge that Iswara is also not separate from me arises.

 

Bhagavad Giita is yoga shaastra - it is a science of yoga and yoga

involves an effort and that is not random but required a kartha. Sorry

to say that all the discussion of lack of free will fails to recognize

the problem correctly. Hence I said within vyavahaara the problem is

self-consistent - sadhana, sadhaka and sadhya and therefore yoga are all

valid within the vyavahaara. To say that there is no free will is to say

that there is no vyavahaara and that statement is valid only from the

point of paaramaarthika. Any thing in beween is only having one leg in

vyavahaara and making statements from paramaarthika level. - that is I

said before and will keep saying again - is just a confusion of the

reference states. That my friend is my understanding for whatever it is

worth.

 

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more

http://platinum.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <rchandran@c...>

wrote:

 

 

< snip >

 

 

The

subtle message of Karma Yoga (Gita Chapter 2, verse 47)conveys that

as jivas, we have the right to 'act' (free-will is our right) but the

rewards are determined by the Lord and not by us (fate!)

 

 

 

 

 

KKT: So we have the << choice >>

to choose which action to act

but we cannot << control >>

the outcome (ie. the result)

of this action.

 

Usually << free-will >> is

understood as synonym of << control >>

In this sense I think we have

only << choice >> but not << free-will >>

 

 

Namaste,

 

 

KKT