Fate and Free Will

April 1, 2003

Namaste:

Most of the time as discussants, we have the tendency to add humor

with annatotes. Though we have good intentions, our language of

communication has high potential for creating misperception in the

minds of the readers of those jokes and annatotes.

Such misunderstandings happen more often when the jokes and annatotes

focus away from the discussion topics. We have observed several such

incidents of misunderstandings of jokes and in most cases they were

unintentional. The good intentional jokes represent our 'free-will'

and the unintentional hurts happen due to 'fate.'

Our intellect recognizes our 'past mistakes' and make appropriate

adjustments to our efforts to avoid us making them again (free-will).

It seems that our 'fate' determines final outcome of such efforts!.

Warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Hi Benjamin.

>

> advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

> wrote:

>

April 1, 2003

>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.

No problem, Sri Madathil Nair.

I did not take anything personally. I just didn't want anyone left

with the impression that I was either lustful or imperialistic, both

of which are rather non-Advaitin I might say. And I know that the

Hindus have no Taliban-like puritanism about chaste female beauty, or

why would their goddesses be portrayed so idealistically? (Same for

Gods. Who is more beautiful and eternally youthful than Krishna?)

Everything is fine, but you are right that we should not digress, and

humor should perhaps be used sparingly by those with more subtlety

than I have. (I'm speaking only for myself. Actually, your post

about the street to street bhajans was rather funny!)

OK and OM!

Benjamin

April 1, 2003

Namaste:

There is always a problem with the definition and/or the terminology.

I agree what you are saying and may be I should call it

as "conditional free-will" because the outcome is beyond the decision

maker's control!

Warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

advaitin, "phamdluan2000" <phamdluan@a...>

wrote:

> Usually << free-will >> is

> understood as synonym of << control >>

> In this sense I think we have

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

>

> Namaste,

>

> KKT

April 1, 2003

Sadananda: Here is what I think many scientists would say about your

argument in favor of Ishwara based on the marvelous design of the

universe. If you somehow create a lot of subatomic particles in

empty space, the rest follows automatically, based on physics,

evolution, etc. One doesn't need an architect drawing up specific

blueprints for the beautiful flowers, trees, humans, etc. It all

follows automatically from the laws of physics once we start out with

the original soup of subatomic particles after the big bang.

So the only question is, do we need an Ishwara for the original big

bang and soup of subatomic particles? I believe the answer is yes,

but not so much as some kind of engineer or designer, but rather

simply because the existence of ANYTHING is a miracle. Pure

existence alone is a miracle that must constantly be sustained by

something like Ishawara. That's the basic reason as I see it.

However, the laws of the subatomic particles, in themselves (i.e.

before cosmic and biological evolution), also seem to require some

intelligence. So in this restricted sense, I can accept the argument

from design, namely, for the stripped down laws of physics of the

subatomic particles. But to see God as some kind of engineer or

architect with blueprints is problematic, since everything follows

automatically from the laws of the subatomic particles. Then again,

in designing those laws, he may have forseen the consequences, since

he is omniscient...

Dennis: I agree with what I understand as your main point. Whatever

we choose to do is caused by psychological processes that are

ultimately deterministic and beyond our control. What makes us feel

that we made a free choice is that we were able to fulfill some

desire. But the origin of that desire proceeded from psychological

causes based on vasanas, accumulated habits, the subconscious,

whatever you want to call it. So there is indeed no free will.

Note that this argument is within the relative world (vyAvahArika).

So I disagree with those who say that free will exists within the

relative level but not the absolute (pAramArthika) level. It does

not exist at any level.

Also, this is consistent with the Hindu notion that 'God is

Everything', even at the relative level. All must then proceed as it

does in the most perfect way, which includes ignorance and pain for a

while, as the evolution of our ignorant consciousnesses to

realization proceeds as it must, for reasons we do not fully fathom.

Om!

Benjamin

April 1, 2003

--- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote:

>

> Sadananda: Here is what I think many scientists would say about your

> argument in favor of Ishwara based on the marvelous design of the

> universe. If you somehow create a lot of subatomic particles in

> empty space, the rest follows automatically, based on physics,

> evolution, etc.

................

Then again,

> in designing those laws, he may have forseen the consequences, since

> he is omniscient...

> Om!

> Benjamin

>

Benjamin,

You are right to some extent. Our scriptures has anticipated your point

already and addressed the issue. That also brings about Hindu's attitude

about the Hindu scriptures.

There are two problems in the objection.

1. Creation involves not only the intelligent cause but material cause

as well. In the case of pot maker the pot is different from pot maker.

In the case of universe there cannot be anything or person away from the

universe. " If 'somehow' the laws are formulated etc...Before big bang

and big bang takes care of itself." -- That leaves separating the

material cause from the intelligence cause, possible for a pot but not

for the universe.

2. In order to account for this model - Scripture provides an equivalent

model by analyzing the dream creation and dream creator.

3. Hence the scripture defines the creator in both ways - both as

material cause as well as intelligent cause.

4. Every Hindu scripture is a dialogue between the student and the

teacher including the Upanishads. Every possible question was asked and

answered to the best the teacher can as logically as possible, yet

teacher is not hesitant to say the truth is beyond the logic, and this

is how my teacher tought since it is recognized fundamenally finite

words are being used to indicate the truth that is infinite. That is

not illogical, at the same time scriputure declares catogorically that

reality cannot be deduced logically. The creation starts with the law

of absolute conservation. naasato vidyate bhaavo na baavao vidyate

satah - that which exists can never cease to exist and that which is

non-existent can never come into existence. Hence creation is just

apparent transformation of what already exists without the substantive

changing in the transformation - like gold becoming bangle or ring while

still remaining gold - It provides three examples to illustrate this

apparent tansformation.

5. If 'somehow' one create the particles and laws and leave them to

their 'fate or free-will'- We need to remember that universe is not a

static system but a dynamic system - if you leave a dynamic system to

its fate it will move towards equilibrium that requires highest entropy.

There have to be forces to keep in the order - that requires work or

energy dissipation. That is why the scripture starts with conservation

principle and Iswara is defined not only as creator but maintainer and

destroyer - There cannot be any energy dissipation from the universe

since there is nothing other than universe. Benjamin it is impeccable

logic - that is why I said it is not illogical. A true scientist cannot

afford to be illogical.

6. Hindu's consider Veda-s as pramaana only because - it is perfectly

logical and at the same time points out something beyond logic - when it

say you are that Brahman - tat tvam asi or aham brahma asmi. This is a

daring declaration which is beyond any logic but that is still not

illogical as it proves by taking model that we know - the example of

dream and dream creation.

7. Since we are dealing with subject-object analysis where the subject

cannot be separated from the analysis, it becomes a problem unless we

have a valid means of knowledge for really. Individual experiences

cannot be relied upon objectively and hence scripture alone becomes

valid pramaana. Every scripture of the world if it has to speak

logically and truthfully about the reality, it cannot contradict the

Veda-s. Buddha never contradicted the Vedic truth neither JK if one

goes into deeper analysis of their models.

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.

April 1, 2003

Namaste Sri Sadananda:

>5. If 'somehow' one create the particles and laws and

>leave them to their 'fate or free-will'- We need to

>remember that universe is not a static system but a

>dynamic system - if you leave a dynamic system to its

>fate it will move towards equilibrium that requires highest

>entropy. There have to be forces to keep in the order - that

>requires work or energy dissipation. That is why the

>scripture starts with conservation principle and Iswara is

>defined not only as creator but maintainer and destroyer -

>There cannot be any energy dissipation from the universe since

>there is nothing other than universe. Benjamin it is impeccable

>logic - that is why I said it is not illogical. A true

>scientist cannot afford to be illogical.

Physicists will agree that entropy has been steadily increasing since

the big bang, as it must according to the second law of

thermodynamics. However, this does not preclude the temporary

formation of organized structures, according to the laws of physics.

The increase in entropy means an increase in disorder, and the

galaxies and life forms within them are still disordered compared to

the singularity of the big bang. However, eventually in billions of

years they will revert to a random mess spread throughout a vast

extent of spacetime. That is the ultimate effect of the second law,

but for a while we can have organized structures without

contradicting the second law.

One does not need an Ishwara to 'sculpt' the matter and energy, which

is how I interpret your argument. One only needs Ishwara to produce

and sustain the matter and energy and give them their behavior

according to the laws of physics governing the elementary particles

themselves. This is different from 'sculpting' or 'organizing' the

particles with forces other than the elementary laws of physics that

immediately govern the motions of the particles.

Also, the work and energy that produce the organized structures of

the universe are not other than the work and energy involved in the

basic laws of physics governing the elementary particles themselves.

This work and energy does not need to be introduced 'from the

outside' so to speak,

Perhaps I misunderstand you in some way, but my basic point is that

once the universe is set in motion as a soup of particles governed by

elementary laws, one then only needs Ishwara to maintain the mere

existence of those particles and of the laws governing them. One

does not need Ishwara as some kind of sculptor or engineer imposing

design beyond that which results automatically from the elementary

laws of physics (through cosmic and biological evolution). That is

how I understood you. At any rate, I agree that we do need Ishwara

to create and sustain the matter and energy and to impose the

elementary laws of physics upon them. So I am not far from your

viewpoint, as I understood it.

As for your comments regarding Ishwara as material cause, I do not in

fact believe in matter (or energy) existing distinct from

consciousness (which is how Western physics understands matter and

energy). I argued this at great length in the Consciousness thread

which you unfortunately missed. Basically I believe in what Western

philosophers would call Berkeley's subjective idealism, and I am not

bothered by the solipsistic objections that have prevented this

theory from being fashionable. In a word, matter and energy do not

exist separately from consciousness (specifically perceptions) but

are illusions projected by the mind upon these perceptions.

Om!

Benjamin

April 1, 2003

--- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote:

.. However, eventually in billions of

> years they will revert to a random mess spread throughout a vast

> extent of spacetime. That is the ultimate effect of the second law,

> but for a while we can have organized structures without

> contradicting the second law.

True. That is one of the reasons the Vedantic model of universe is not

static model but continuous cyclic model. Anyway it looks like there is

not much difference in our understanding.

> Perhaps I misunderstand you in some way, but my basic point is that

> once the universe is set in motion as a soup of particles governed by

> elementary laws, one then only needs Ishwara to maintain the mere

> existence of those particles and of the laws governing them. One

> does not need Ishwara as some kind of sculptor or engineer imposing

> design beyond that which results automatically from the elementary

> laws of physics (through cosmic and biological evolution). That is

> how I understood you.

Maintenance is precisely that - when KrishNa says - I do not interfere

with the individual vaasana-s and other than setting the rules operating

the action and reaction. maastaani sarva bhuutani - na chaaham teshu

avastitaH - They are in me but I am not in them in the sense they are

accountable for their actions and have to face the consequence of their

actions. That precisely put the responsibility for the action to the

local state - jiiva. Hence as long as jiiva is there, the free-will and

consequences of that free will follow. Iswara comes into picture in

terms of maintaing the laws of nature - That include to make sure my

heart pumps and my digestive system functions on time etc, and the cells

multiply form singe cell to form complex human being.

At any rate, I agree that we do need Ishwara

> to create and sustain the matter and energy and to impose the

> elementary laws of physics upon them. So I am not far from your

> viewpoint, as I understood it.

>

Yes we are in agreement. - that is true as long as I see myself as jiiva

and there is a creation in front of. But Vedanta goes one step further

and declare what you see not the complete truth too. There is no

universe separate from you.

> As for your comments regarding Ishwara as material cause, I do not in

> fact believe in matter (or energy) existing distinct from

> consciousness (which is how Western physics understands matter and

> energy). I argued this at great length in the Consciousness thread

> which you unfortunately missed.

Benjamin - there is no need to argue on that point either - that is

precisely what Vedanta says too. There is only conscious existence -

therefore the existence of unconscious entity is only apparent and not

real. This question was raised by Uddalaka to his son swetaketu and when

he cannot answer, he himself teaches him - the truth about it - make him

realize that truth.

> In a word, matter and energy do not

> exist separately from consciousness (specifically perceptions) but

> are illusions projected by the mind upon these perceptions.

You have zeroed in on the theory of perception in advaita. This has

been exhaustively analyzed to conclude that there is nothing other than

consciousness - the subject-object distinction is only apparent and the

bottom line for both is only consciousness.

Hari OM!

Sadananda

> Om!

> Benjamin

>

=====

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.

April 2, 2003

Namaste.

Reference Dennis-ji's post # 16540.

Dennis-Ji, you seem to have overlooked the word "seeming" used by me

in parenthesis before my second parameter about "free-will".

All actions understood as expression of "free-will" can in fact be

interpreted as "fate". Therefore, "free-will" is only seeming. I

have always wondered why Sankara didn't say so specifically. I

think there lies the reason why I asked for the Sanskrit terms and

definitions.

>From the explanations that have emerged so far, it is pretty clear

that free-will is mostly a western botheration which entered India

with the materialistic onslaught from the West. This is not to say

that there was originally no materialism in India. The concept of

fate (indigenously understood as what is written by the Creator on

one's forehead) overweighed the Indian psyche so very much that even

the most bacchant of CharvAkas failed to think in the direction of a

free-will existing. Viewed against this background, Sankara perhaps

found no reason to assert that freedom of action was only seeming

because that was very very obvious to the Indians of his time due to

their unshakable belief in destiny. So, Indians were at peace with

Libet even before he was born! (I believe we discussed Libet with

Shri Atagrasin's post referred to by me in my earlier post.)

I believe this is the context in which we have to tackle the question

of fate and free-will. Hence, my request for indigenous details.

My wife (my Tamil encyclopaedia) confirms Kathirasanji's view that

adriSta in Tamil means luck and that the correct Tamil word for fate

is vidhi. Vidhi is used in the same sense in Malayalam too. AdriSta

in Sanskrit means fate, however. Taking on the BG

verse "karmanyevAdhikAraste….", why don't we then accept the

word "adhikAra" for free-will (right of action) so that we can make

this discussion originally nascent by calling it "vidhi and

adhikAra". Not that this matters very much.

Viewed from the Indian angle, therefore, Sunder-Ji is absolutely

correct that free-will is dense with egoism and egotism. A Western

eye might fail to discern this and there lies the difference between

Indian and Western interpretations. With the latter, free-will

becomes a revolutionary concept whereas with the former it is an

impediment to spiritual progress!

Thus, the more we move towards a conviction of free-will, more is the

avidya and stronger is the ego. The farther we move away from it

towards accepting God's will (vidhi, adriSta or fate), the closer we

are to total surrender and relinquishing our separate ego identity.

However, even then, we are not relinquishing the adhikAra granted to

us by the Lord as choice of action (karmanyevAdhikAraste). In other

words, the first extreme is avidya (ignorance) as opposed to the

other, which is vidyA (knowledge). I hope you will accept that these

are opposites. My terming fate and free-will as a pair of opposites

is to be understood in this truly Indian sense. Fate is centrifugal

while free-will is centipetal with the danger of even getting out of

orbit in outer space! Hasn't it happened to many exalted egos

enshrined in our history books?

I suspect your skepticism about astrology stems from the fact that it

cannot stand the test of scientific empiricism. I agree with you

there, although I have spent a precious part of my life and money to

study the subject. Astrology is not a science. Empirically, I

don't think the planets or stars have any influence on human destiny

as claimed by some astrologers. However, I can't reject it just for

that reason. My experience is that it works very well.

My interpretation is that it is a kind of language (like the Egyptian

hieroglyphics), which can be read or deciphered properly if the

astrologer has Grace. Take for instance the planet Saturn. The

immediate association is a lanky, dark, bony, lazy being. There are

many other significations of course for Saturn. Similarly, with Mars,

it is a soldier, a chemist, a butcher, a surgeon and so on.

Astrology with all its planets, stars, signs etc. thus provides the

astrologer with innumerable permutations and combinations - an ocean

of significations akin to the hidden vast vistas of our moden

internet. With Grace on his side, the astrologer picks the right

interpretation to the heavenly configuration that unfolds in front of

him and predicts. It then clicks.

This Grace factor is the aspect that links astrology to Vedanta. (So,

this is not a digression at all from the scope of this List!).

Besides, in Indian stellar astrology, as interpreted by a genius

astrologer of Madras (Late Krishnamurthy), there is a method to

ascertain the birth star, sign and ascendant of a person with a high

degree of accuracy by considering the planets ruling the time the

astrologer meets that person. I have tried it with strangers with

surprisingly fair amount of success. On all such occasions, I have

found that the ruling planets are relevant only from my point of view

and not from the point of view of the other person. I have,

therefore, sufficient reason to feel that this branch of astrology

supports the importance that advaita attaches to the subject as

opposed to objects. The astrologer is the subject. The planetary

configurations are just Consciousness unfolding to him. The more he

surrenders, the better he reads. No wonder then that an astrologer

in India is known as Daivajna – knower of the inscrutable ways of

God. But, the tragedy today is that the Daivjna species is fast

becoming extinct with commercial vultures taking over.

I fully agree with you that we don't need an intermediary called God

in our understanding of advaita. Consciousness if more than enough.

Nevertheless, I am quite comfortable with the votaries of God and

their explanations for their preference. May be being an Indian

makes the difference.

PranAms.

Madathil Nair

April 2, 2003

--- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

> Reference Dennis-ji's post # 16540.

>

> I fully agree with you that we don't need an intermediary called God

> in our understanding of advaita. Consciousness if more than enough.

Dennis and Nairji,

Not to interfere in between - but just to point out what is that

consciousness - Brahman is defined as such "Praj~naanam Brahma" - but

Brahman is akartaa and abhoktaa since for karma one implies existence of

other than Brahman.

Hence the concept of Iswara comes into picture as essential aspect of

the model to account for dRisyam or what is seen - that is source for

the objective universe. We need to account how one, which is of the

nature of consciousness, can appear as many consisting of agglomeration

of jiiva-s (conscious entities) and jagat (inert entity). Darshana,

philosophy, stems in order to account for these and their

interrelations. Model - consisting of jiiva, Iswara and jagat - is a

self-consistent model to explain logically the experience of plurality.

Existence of consciousness is not logical but factual. Hence Iswara and

aiswaryam become ontologically as real as jiiva. One can put forth any

other model and it has been tried before (as 6- darshaNa-s) but none are

logically as self-consistent as Vedanta, and are not acceptable for a

rational intellect. This is precisely what Brahmasuutra analyzes in

terms of relative merits of other models in relation to Vedanta.

There is also modern quest to understand what is consciousness - The

investigators do not recognize that very investigation objectifies the

consciousness and hence makes it inert than conscious.

Hari OM!

Sadananda

> Nevertheless, I am quite comfortable with the votaries of God and

> their explanations for their preference. May be being an Indian

> makes the difference.

>

> PranAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

=====

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://tax.

April 2, 2003

Namaste Sri Sadananda-ji,

>You have zeroed in on the theory of perception in advaita.

>This has been exhaustively analyzed to conclude that there

>is nothing other than consciousness - the subject-object

>distinction is only apparent and the bottom line for both

>is only consciousness.

Thanks so much for agreeing with so many of my key cherished

notions. It makes me feel inspired and encouraged. Everybody else

gave me such a hard time! I wish you had been there for the marathon

Consciousness debate to fight at my side, like Krishna at the side of

Arjuna.

(Just kidding! I loved that debate. Most were quite

sympathetic, and everyone was intelligent. But from now on, I think

we should exercise some moderation in these discussions. At least I

will ... I hope!)

Om!

Benjamin

April 2, 2003

At 05:39 AM 4/2/03 -0800, kuntimaddi sadananda wrote:

>There is also modern quest to understand what is consciousness - The

>investigators do not recognize that very investigation objectifies the

>consciousness and hence makes it inert than conscious.

Namaste,

Good point! But you know, most of the consciousness researchers and

investigators and writers and publishers and workshop leaders would say, "So?

Is that, like, a bad thing?"

Regards,

--Greg

April 2, 2003

Namaste all!

Here's a proposal for attacking the question of free-will or

lack thereof. I will try to condense a sophisticated philosophical

argument (not my own) into a few lines.

Let us define a 'cause' as the fact that every event of type

A is followed by an event of type B. Never mind who 'made' or

'enforces' this cause, God, Brahman, Ishwara, Nature or whomever.

Let us just accept that somehow we know that every event of type A is

always followed by an event of type B. In this case, we can say that

'A causes B'. (This is Hume's definition, for those who wish to

pursue it. Please don't throw all Western philosophers in the trash.

Even the British ones could be quite good sometimes.)

Now, either every event is caused or it isn't. This includes

especially psychological events regarding desires, aversions,

decisions, actions, etc. I will also accept that all 'events' must

occur in the 'relative' world (Vyavahaara), as the 'nondualism' of

the paaramaarthika level presumably excludes distinct 'events' (a

multiplicity).

If every event is caused, then there is an iron chain of

causation extending throughout space and time, and free-will is

patently impossible in any meaningful sense. That is, there is no

choice in our behavior. We may sometimes do what we in fact *feel*

like doing and call that 'free-will', but it is not, because there is

no choice.

If some events are not caused, then this means that some

events can arise in a truly random way, without other specific

events preceding them. You can then never predict when those

particular events will arise. If some of these random events involve

the psychological events related to decision-making, then this also

IS NOT FREE WILL. Why? Because the randomness of these events

precludes any kind of control. Control is precisely a kind of cause:

Desire A is followed by action B. (This 'desire' need not be only

for pleasure; it could also be the desire to progress spiritually,

even if this entails sacrifices.) Anything else is not any kind of

free-will that I would care about, since I have no control.

These two possibilities cover all possibilities. Therefore

there is no free-will.

End of proof.

Om!

Benjamin

April 2, 2003

Namaste Sri Benjamin:

Your statement regarding moderation in discussions is quite valid and

important. I hope others take a note of it and gain from your hints.

The real moderators of this list are members themselves and we are

blessed with a group of intelligent and sympathetic members.

The subject matter of this list is "SELF" and members have been

adopting to 'self-moderation.' The moderators will try their level

best to keep the right to the freedom of expression by the members.

Members have been exercising this privilege with almost no

intervention from the moderators. Hopefully, Members will be to

maintain this tradition of posting messages that become useful and

relevant to atleast one more more member. The moderators have no

reason to intervene underthose circumstances.

regards,

Ram Chandran

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> (Just kidding! I loved that debate. Most were quite

> sympathetic, and everyone was intelligent. But from now on, I

> think we should exercise some moderation in these discussions.

> At least I will ... I hope!)

>

April 2, 2003

Hello All,

In general it could be said that free will is a working assumption of the

religious view of life. We try to gather up all the vagrant energy bound up in

addictions, obsessions and sin and having done that bind it up in dedication and

surrender. Unless we freely do this then it is an illusion to consider that

there is any merit to asceticism. We can feel the increase of inner freedom and

peace. I use 'freedom' in the ordinary felt sense of the devotee and not in an

out and out metaphysical way. Is this demonstrable? No, only in the before and

after sense that is subjective. Eat the peach!

Fate is opposed to free will as though it were a diminishment of it or its

contrary. Some attempt to gain control of fate through knowledge of the future

although there is a paradox in that changing your destiny means that is no

longer your destiny. The higher teaching or counsel of perfection seems to be

to ignore all meddling with or inquiry into your fate. Mainstream Christian

tradition regards it as positively harmful. In the milder forms of dabbling it

is not that serious though it cannot be conducive to surrender and in its

seeking of power through having an edge of extra knowledge it is not far away

from the attitude that has recourse to black magic.

"What is a divine mind? the reader will perhaps inquire. There is not a

theologian who does not define it; I prefer an example. The steps a man takes

from the day of his birth until that of his death trace in time an inconceivable

figure. The Divine Mind intuitively grasps that form immediately, as men do a

triangle. This figure (perhaps) has its given function in the economy of the

universe." (from the Mirror of Enigmas by Jorge Luis Borges)

Best Wishes, Michael.

April 2, 2003

--- Gregory Goode <goode wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> Good point! But you know, most of the consciousness researchers and

> investigators and writers and publishers and workshop leaders would

> say, "So? Is that, like, a bad thing?"

>

> Regards,

>

> --Greg

Greg - nothing bad about it other than the objective of that

investigation is already lost. In that reseach only that is

consciousness is the invetigator and not the investigated! unless they

recognize as Benjamin did the bottom line for both is consciousness

itself but that can only be realized - as Dennis points out in his book

- anything with re- is only rediscovery!

Hari OM!

Sadananda

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://tax.

April 2, 2003

Michael to Dennis:

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

D: We all know this is not true. What seems to happen is that you assume

that everyone else has your philosophical background and will feel at home

with some of the terms that you use. Also there might be an element of your

mind racing ahead with the concepts and your fingers at the keyboard not

keeping up... :-)

Michael:

"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."

D: Yes, I am happy with this. As (I think) I pointed out in the initial

post, the word 'predetermined' in this context should not be taken to mean

'planned'. The whole thing is dynamic and so complex a sequence of cause and

effect that no one could ever work it out in advance. But of course that is

us, with our concept-using minds trying to work it out. It is still all

there now and could be calculated if we had a 'cosmic computer' for our

mind.

Michael:

"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."

In reality we are always free. Whilst avidya reigns, our actions will always

seem to be either fated or made out of free choice. In either case, we are

mistaken, merely trying to impose our mental constructs on the reality that

will always be beyond intellectualisation.

Ram suggested that 'uncertainty' could be linked to the concepts of fate and

free will. An interesting idea but I don't find it very convincing. To my

mind, certainty is more related to knowledge and ignorance. We may well

(think that we) act in order to increase the degree of certainty about some

topic but this happens (or not) after the event. How, therefore, could it be

a causative factor of the action?

Sadananda to Dennis:

"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."

D: Did you mean "One who believes that there is NO God..."? You have put

across the 'argument from design' well but this (and the other traditional)

arguments for the existence of God have been largely discredited, haven't

they? Since Darwin, most of this particular one has lost it's force or at

least favours a malevolent rather than a benevolent designer. Since

evolution is clearly traceable by science, why is there a need for a

designer as well? You say "That it is a creation is not a belief or faith

but knowledge". This is simply not true. It is not analogous to saying that

you must have had a great-great-grandfather. Also the argument about entropy

not decreasing naturally only applies to a closed system if my memory serves

me correctly. In the universe as a whole, one assumes that order is still

running down, regardless of our little pocket of (supposed) intelligence.

Also, I did not deny that (to most People) it seems as though we have free

will, I merely claimed that I did not see the need to do so and that I

personally do not feel that I have it. I frequently refer to vyavahAra as

'unreal' because, in this state, we believe it to be real and it isn't.

Agreed that it is not unreal in the sense of 'horns of hare' etc.; it is

real in the sense of being not other than the Self.

KKT to Ram:

"Usually << free-will >> is

understood as synonym of << control >>

In this sense I think we have

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

D: At first, I thought that I liked this way of putting it. On reflection,

however, I do think that most people use 'choice' and 'free will'

interchangeably.

Benjamin agrees that we have no free will at either paramArthika or

vyavahArika level. Excellent! One person persuaded at least. :-) (Is it ok

to make the occasional light hearted comment?) He argues against Sadaji's

teleological argument better than I have done but then seems to raise the

Cosmological argument as being a preferred one. My (again naive)

understanding of Western philosophy was that this was more easily

discredited as leading to an infinite regress (who created the creator).

Best wishes to all,

Dennis

April 2, 2003

Namaste!

Dennis Waite wrote:

>Benjamin agrees that we have no free will at either

>paramArthika or vyavahArika level. Excellent! One

>person persuaded at least. :-) (Is it ok to make the

>occasional light hearted comment?) He argues against

>Sadaji's teleological argument better than I have done

>but then seems to raise the Cosmological argument as

>being a preferred one. My (again naive) understanding

>of Western philosophy was that this was more easily

>discredited as leading to an infinite regress (who

>created the creator).

My 'Cosmological Argument' is more subtle than simply the first cause

in a chain of causes. (Note: I understand 'cause' in Hume's sense:

A causes B if B always follows an occurrence of A.) I am not talking

about sequences of events in time. For example, I am not answering a

question such as 'Who started the Big Bang?' by saying 'God did.'

Rather my point is the the existence of anything seems to me like a

profound 'miracle' that cries out for some kind of Divine Source.

This source is 'divine' precisely because it is the source of its own

being in some unfathomable way. Its power is necessary to sustain

reality at all times, not just at the beginning during the Big Bang.

To me, this is an intuition which seems 'self-evident' to me, so I

will not argue it, not because of stubbornness or arrogance, put

because I do not believe that such primordial intuitions can be

argued.

Om!

Benjamin

April 2, 2003

Dear Dennis,

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

KKT to Ram:

"Usually << free-will >> is

understood as synonym of << control >>

In this sense I think we have

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

D: At first, I thought that I liked this way of putting it.

On reflection, however, I do think that most people use 'choice'

and 'free will' interchangeably.

KKT: Yes, people use 'choice'

and 'free will' interchangeably.

But the point is that:

We have << choice >> at each moment

but we are not sure if the outcome

is up to our expectation from this choice

ie. we cannot << control >> the outcome.

In this sense I think that

<< we have no free-will >>

Regards,

KKT

April 2, 2003

Here is a quotation from the Perennial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley

(1946). I'm not saying that I agree with this, only that it is food

for thought related to our topic:

'Karma,' according to the Hindus, 'never dispels ignorance, being

under the same category with it. Knowledge alone dispels ignorance,

just as light alone dispels darkness.'

In other words, the causal process takes place within time and cannot

possibly result in deliverance from time. Such a deliverance can only

be achieved as a consequence of the intervention of eternity in the

temporal domain; and eternity cannot intervene unless the individual

will makes a creative act of self-denial, thus producing, as it were,

a vacuum into which eternity can flow. To suppose that the causal

process in time can of itself result in deliverance from time is like

supposing that water will rise into a space from which the air has

not been previously exhausted.

Om!

Benjamin

April 2, 2003

Dear Benjamin,