Fate and Free Will

[Guest guest]

At 11:28 AM 4/15/03 -0400, Jay Nelamangala wrote:

 

Dear Jay,

>>All theories are teaching mechanisms, for expedient purposes only. The

>purpose: to sublate or dislodge the currently-held views and attachments of

>the student. The endpoint is not to hold the most 100% foolproof theory. >No.

Rather, it's freedom from attachment to theory, to thought, to feeling, >to

phenomenality.

>

>Again this is according to adhyAsa-theory.

>

>But Shruti's don't put it that way. "sarvE vedAh yat padam Amananti, tapAmsi

sarvANi cha yat vadanti". -

>All the Vedas have come about to teach Parabrahman.

 

 

Well, then you have your answer! Stick with that! Therefore, why the

questions??

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

On my kitchen wall, I have a Hindu Temples Calendar for 2003

by the VHP of America. The month of April has the following quote:

 

"We can choose what karma to do; but we cannot choose not to do karma"

 

I'm not saying I agree with this. I'm just offering another

viewpoint. (I do like the pictures of temples!)

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Dear Greg,

 

Questions arise because when Shrutis and sootra say it is Parabrahman that is

cause of the world,

some one came along and made the adhyAsa-theory and said it is avidyA that is

cause

of the world.

 

Hence all these questions are being asked to show how adhyAsa-theory is not

vEdAnta.

 

Big-bang theory, adhyAsa-theory - and other theories did not consult

prasthAna-traya

when they were made, so questions will be asked if anyone claims that these

theories

are according to vEdAnta.

 

The people who made big-bang theory, they don't care if we don't call it

vEdAnta.

But, adhyAsa-theory-people insist that, that is what is vEdAnta.

That is where the real issue is.

-

Greg Goode

advaitin ; advaitin

Tuesday, April 15, 2003 11:47 AM

Re: Re: Fate and Free Will

 

 

At 11:28 AM 4/15/03 -0400, Jay Nelamangala wrote:

 

Dear Jay,

>>All theories are teaching mechanisms, for expedient purposes only. The

>purpose: to sublate or dislodge the currently-held views and attachments of

>the student. The endpoint is not to hold the most 100% foolproof theory. >No.

Rather, it's freedom from attachment to theory, to thought, to feeling, >to

phenomenality.

>

>Again this is according to adhyAsa-theory.

>

>But Shruti's don't put it that way. "sarvE vedAh yat padam Amananti, tapAmsi

sarvANi cha yat vadanti". -

>All the Vedas have come about to teach Parabrahman.

 

 

Well, then you have your answer! Stick with that! Therefore, why the

questions??

 

--Greg

 

 

Sponsor

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Jay,

 

I see the point now, which I suspected was your concern. Thanks for explaining

it in such a clear and non-personalized way! I see that you seem to be

seriously intent on this. So first, can you (1) define what you mean by the

adhyAsa-theory? And then (2) cite text where you see it making its appearances,

which you say are unauthorized by prasthAna-traya? This might help anyone who

cares to justify it from the standpoint of prasthAna-traya.

 

--Greg

 

At 12:25 PM 4/15/03 -0400, Jay Nelamangala wrote:

>Dear Greg,

>

>Questions arise because when Shrutis and sootra say it is Parabrahman that is

cause of the world,

>some one came along and made the adhyAsa-theory and said it is avidyA that is

cause

>of the world.

>

>Hence all these questions are being asked to show how adhyAsa-theory is not

vEdAnta.

>

>Big-bang theory, adhyAsa-theory - and other theories did not consult

prasthAna-traya

>when they were made, so questions will be asked if anyone claims that these

theories

>are according to vEdAnta.

>

>The people who made big-bang theory, they don't care if we don't call it

vEdAnta.

>But, adhyAsa-theory-people insist that, that is what is vEdAnta.

>That is where the real issue is.

> -

> Greg Goode

> advaitin ; advaitin

> Tuesday, April 15, 2003 11:47 AM

> Re: Re: Fate and Free Will

>

>

> At 11:28 AM 4/15/03 -0400, Jay Nelamangala wrote:

>

> Dear Jay,

>

> >>All theories are teaching mechanisms, for expedient purposes only. The

>purpose: to sublate or dislodge the currently-held views and attachments of

>the student. The endpoint is not to hold the most 100% foolproof theory. >No.

Rather, it's freedom from attachment to theory, to thought, to feeling, >to

phenomenality.

> >

> >Again this is according to adhyAsa-theory.

> >

> >But Shruti's don't put it that way. "sarvE vedAh yat padam Amananti,

tapAmsi sarvANi cha yat vadanti". -

> >All the Vedas have come about to teach Parabrahman.

>

>

> Well, then you have your answer! Stick with that! Therefore, why the

questions??

>

> --Greg

>

>

> Sponsor

>

>

>

>

>

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

Atman and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at:

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

n/

> To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

> Messages Archived at:

<advaitin/messages>a\

dvaitin/messages

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Sponsor

><http://us.ard./M=249982.3083889.4452939.1728375/D=egroupweb/S=1705075\

991:HM/A=1524963/R=0/*http://hits.411web.com/cgi-bin/autoredir?camp=556&lineid=3\

083889∝=egroupweb&pos=HM>b9a9818.jpg

>b9a9fd7.jpg

>

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

and Brahman.

>Advaitin List Archives available at:

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

n/

>To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

>Messages Archived at:

<advaitin/messages>a\

dvaitin/messages

>

>

>

>Your use of is subject to the

<>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear sadA-jI,

>adhyaasa has been dealt with by other Vedantic schools -

>these are extensive discussion of 'theory of error' (khyaati vaada-s)

>and prama vs. bhrama since to some extent every Vedantic school agree

 

I am aware of the various theories of error coming from darshana.

 

sat-khyAti-vAda, asat-khyAti-vAda, anyathA-khyAti-vAda,

abhinava-anyathA-khyAti-vAda, anirvachaneeya-khyAti-vAda,

Atma-khyAti-vAda etc

 

But all these great thinkers are analyzing the right cognition (pramA)

and wrong cognition (bhramA) in the silver-shell superimposition.

 

But it is only advaita that says, this world gets created by such a bhramA

or

avidyA. All others vEdAntins, following prasthAna-traya say that

this world gets created in all its details (including

silver-shell-superimposition)

by Parabrahman.

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Sunder Hattangadi wrote:

>

> May I again request that readers refer to Sw. Chandrashekhara

> Bharati's dialogue :

>

> advaitinArticles/The%20Riddle%

> 20of%20Fate%20and%20Free-Will%20Solved.txt

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder

>

 

 

namaste shri Sunder-ji,

 

Thanks for the reference to HH shri Chandrasekhara Bharati's

dialogue on fate and free-will. I have read this carefully

and as I understand it, yoga vashiShTa and HH both say

essentially the same with HH using the word free-will and

sage vashiShTa using the word self-effort.

 

Thanks very much for the reference. I think I have a better

feel now. I guess I can see the answer to my question "How

free is the free-will?", in HH's last paragraph which goes

like this.

 

" ... You will gradually be led on to a stage when your free-will

be entirely free from any sort of coloring due to any vasanas.

At that stage, your mind will be pure as crystal and all

motive for particular action will cease to be. Freedom from the

results of particular actions is an inevitable consequence. Both

fate and vasana disappear. There is freedom for ever more and that

freedom is called Moksha."

 

On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Benjamin Root wrote

> [...]

> Once again, I agree with your distinction. Why don't you humor me

> and read what I wrote. It is not too long and is actually rather

> clear and logical, even if not inspired by the Gods!

>

>

>Om!

>Benjamin

>

 

namaste shri Benjamin-ji,

 

My apologies in not acknowledging ypur post properly. I read

it fully (as all of your other posts, and I daresay you are

a prolific writer). In formulating my question, how free is

the free-will?, I overlooked referring to other posts, that

already are asking similar question coming to a similar

conclusion.

 

But the yoga vashiShTa and HH shri Chandrasekhara Bharati's

dialogue will give us a better handle on this question.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Nair,

>Thus, advaitic knowledge is called parAvidya, as opposed to other

>limited mundane knowledges.

 

Where does it say in prasthAna-traya that parAvidyA is

advaitic knowledge?

 

parA-vidyA and apara-vidyA are words coming from a upanishat.

So, their meaning must be understood as given in the context of

that upanishat. "atha parA yayA tadaksharam adhigamyatE" -mundaka

"para-vidya is that by which is known the immutable parabrahman"

 

Veda by itself does not give this knowledge of parabrahman.

Hence that upanishat calls all the 4 vedas and the 6 vedaangas

as aparA-vidya (lower science). However, veda is the language

of 'reason'. This 'reason' that was already hidden in the Veda is

what Sri VedavyAsa brought out in the form of sootras.

 

Therefore, Vedic text when understood directly, not only draws one

in different directions ( bhEda, abhEda, saguNa, nirguNa etc)

and so does not give any definite knowledge of anything or the

shruti nature (shrutitva) of shruti is not known.

 

But Veda itself says, it has come about only to teach parabrahman

and nothing else. So, the question is how is this possible?

 

This is where parA-vidyA comes into picture. Only when vEda

is understood in the light of brahma-sootras, does the shruti

nature of shruti becomes explicit. As one progresses in

the inquiry (brahma-jignyAsA) into the meaning of Veda, the

shrutitva of shruti becomes more and more definite, and finally

at a ripened state of enquiry, the shruti reveals its object

which is parabrahman.

 

This is how, parA-vidyA is nothing but brahma-sootras, because

they make the apara-vidyA or the text vEda into veda-pramANa.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jay

 

I am on travel and will be out of contact with the mail for some time

and there are very many learned members in this group and would be able

to answer any questions you may have. I can share my understanding to

the extent I can once I am back and ready to handle the large mail on

this list.

 

God Bless you.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

--- Jay Nelamangala <jay wrote:

> Dear sadA-jI,

>

> Thanks for the reply. I will read them. I don't know if it is

> appropriate for me to take up further discussion on what I find there

> with everyone in this group.

>

> I am not here to "offend" anyone or any beliefs that this group of

> people may have. My interest is only in vEdAnta as given by

> prasthAna-traya.

>

> >Hopefully your contention may change if you are open-minded

> Sure, why not?.

>

> > that the basic adhyaasa -that is taking ' I am this body' is

> there. If

> > that is not accepted as adhyaasa - superimposed error - philosophy

> will

> > reduce to that of Chaarvaaka-s, and I don't think any Vedantin wants

>

> I agree with you. It is an error to think that 'I am this body'.

> But when

> that 'error' is corrected, you will know that there were two things -

> body

> and

> soul and that body is only a casing for that soul. Neither body nor

> soul

> vanishes because of that corrrection.

>

> But adhyAsa theory insists that they do vanish. That is where other

> vEdAntins have an issue.

>

> > Most of your arguments seem to be similar to Dwaitins, but I may be

>

> The words Dwaita and adwaita have been borrowed from prasthAna-traya

> and therefore their meaning should come from prasthAna-traya and not

> from

> any school of thought.

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

=====

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

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo

http://search.

[Guest guest]

--- Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy wrote:

>

> namaste.

>

> May be it is time to put this discussion aside. But I still

> have some lingering questions on this topic and somehow, they

> were not addressed in this debate.

 

Murthy gaaru - Krishna's teaching

karmani eva adhikaaraste maa phaleshhu kadaachana|

- you have a right or to interpret correct you have a choice in action

and never in the results - the essence of karma yoga is centered on

free-will.

 

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.

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo

http://search.

[Guest guest]

namaste shri Sadananda garu,

 

Thanks very much for your comment. I am very much obliged

for this further discussion so that I can clarify my thoughts.

As you have noticed from my previous posts, I still have some

objections to the freeness of the 'free-will'. You say the

essence of karma-yoga is centred on the free-will and you quote

the BG verse "karmanyeva adhikaaraste ..." in support of that.

 

Yes, I accept that we have adhikAra for doing karma. I accept

the yoga-vashiShTa way of explaining self-effort. Particularly,

I like the conclusion that the self-effort for this life has

to be of higher intensity than the self-effort of the previous

lives so that things are not left to fate (destiny). I also

like the way it is explained (both in yoga-vashiShTa and by

HH shri Chandrasekhara Bharati) that fate (destiny) is what

was created by the self-effort of the previous lives. I like

the usage of the word self-effort rather than free-will because

the word free-will somehow implies the connotation that we,

at *this* juncture of our spiritual journey, have the *unlimited*

freedom to act, not to act or to act in an entirely different way.

 

This is the point of my reservation and I think I am supported

in this by the HH's dialogue. The last paragraph in the dialogue

(of HH shri Chandrasekhara Bharati) says

 

" ..You will gradually be led on to a stage when your free-will

be entirely free from any sort of coloring due to any vasanas.

At that stage, your mind will be pure as crystal and all

motive for particular action will cease to be. Freedom from the

results of particular actions is an inevitable consequence. Both

fate and vasana disappear. There is freedom for ever more and

that freedom is called Moksha."

 

I interpret this last paragraph this way: The free-will is really

free at moksha when we know what we are. Until then, the free-will

is not *entirely* free. The so-called free-will, until then, is

dictated by the past free-will or karma-phala. In my last two

posts on this topic, I gave examples of a hypothetical pious

man and his incapability to commit a crime. Let me be more

specific. Let us say this pious man faces a situation of committing

a murder or another hineous crime. Would he be capable of doing

that? I submit that he cannot do it because his past karma-phala,

which is of a very high quality, would not allow him to do that.

What that means is, the free-will is not entirely free at that

stage of his spiritual journey. The free-will is entirely free

(as shri HH also pointed out) at moksha, i.e. when all the

karma-phala of previous lives is fully exhausted. Until then,

the karma-phala, derived from the self-effort of the previous

lives, has a role in directing the free-will or self-effort

of the present life.

 

I would be most grateful for your further comments and also

comments on the hypothetical cases I brought up in this and

in the previous posts.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

 

[Guest guest]

--- Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy wrote:

 

> " ..You will gradually be led on to a stage when your free-will

> be entirely free from any sort of coloring due to any vasanas.

> At that stage, your mind will be pure as crystal and all

> motive for particular action will cease to be. Freedom from the

> results of particular actions is an inevitable consequence. Both

> fate and vasana disappear. There is freedom for ever more and

> that freedom is called Moksha."

 

Murthy gaaru - free will is nothing but a notion that I have a choice of

action and in fact I have no choice but to choose. Since this is

notional, it is of less concern, how strong that notion is - That I

have, is the very problem since I take the role of a karta when I am

really not. That is the reason why I keep saying that kartRitva bhaava

is due to adhyaasa only - since it is notional and not factual.

> I interpret this last paragraph this way: The free-will is really

> free at moksha when we know what we are.

 

I would interpret the statement of Shree H.H Swamiji differently. It

only means when the vasanas are exhausted - the notions also drop out

and naturally I do not take myself as an inadequate persons or insecure

person which are all notional. I am what I am - full complete and

unlimited. Hence there is no more question of will - the notion of I am

the doer also goes away since I have no more misunderstanding that I am

this body. That is in fact is moksha. In moksha there is no more will

to act and therefore no question of free will or forced will either.

Action itself is product of misunderstanding.

 

Until then, the free-will

> is not *entirely* free. The so-called free-will, until then, is

> dictated by the past free-will or karma-phala.

 

Karma phala dictates the situation that is result of all previous

actions. That is not the free- will to act, but is an environment to

act - The tendencies - likes and dislikes- due to cultivated past habits

can contribute to desire in my intellect - Now as an intelligent being I

can act on my desires to fulfill them they way I want - or try to act

differently in spite of the past pressures to act in certain way.

Krishna says: Shaknotii haivayaH shoDum …praak sharrira vimokshanaat

..kaama kRidodbhavam vegam sa yuktaH sukhii naraH| one who can withstand

the pressure of vaasana-s – likes and dislikes -during ones life (or

before one kicks his bucket) he is the one who is yogi and he is one who

is most happy man.

That I have choices to make is precisely what Sadhana implies - not

to act impulsively but think and act in such a way that one progresses

forward. This is the message of Swamiji as well as yoga vashishhTa or

B.Geeta or any yoga shaastra - yama, niyama etc are all based on

positive efforts by jiiva to evolve.

 

In my last two

> posts on this topic, I gave examples of a hypothetical pious

> man and his incapability to commit a crime. Let me be more

> specific. Let us say this pious man faces a situation of committing

> a murder or another heinous crime. Would he be capable of doing

> that? I submit that he cannot do it because his past karma-phala,

> which is of a very high quality, would not allow him to do that.

 

Even in your example, the past karma phala will only provide the

situation and desires in the intellect. The desire to enjoy and gain

happiness comes for every limited being but and to what extent he is

going to select the right course of action instead of wrong course of

action can be predicted by his past behavior. You can even predict his

behavior compared to others who are always selfish and act in a

self-centered way. That does not mean that he does not have a choice of

action at any moment. He wants to progress and therefore of all the

choices that are available he may invariably select that which is noble.

This is not negation of his free-will but I would argue as assertion of

his free-will – that is wanting to do the right thing. What is his

mentality at that time of action - does he think that it is his fate

that he has to do noble action and not mean actions. Or does he elate

himself that he is going to do the right action. The agency of action

is there that I am the doer and I am taking this course of action

avoiding the wrong course of action. Some time even the good natured

people in moment of weakness end up taking the wrong course of action

and people wonder that he is not of that type and I do not believe that

he could do that. In those moments, his discriminative intellect became

dull and he was overpowered by the passions and he selects wrong course

of action and repents for doing that later.

> What that means is, the free-will is not entirely free at that

> stage of his spiritual journey.

 

I would to the fact that it is not lack of free will nor

degree of free will - as long as a jiiva notion is there - the free-will

is there and even surrendering the free-will to the will of God is also

due to free-will - because what is there to surrender when I never had

one or I am already free.

>The free-will is entirely free

> (as shri HH also pointed out) at moksha, i.e. when all the

> karma-phala of previous lives is fully exhausted.

 

Murthy gaaru - it is not just karmpa phala exhausted and one is free -

it is the knowledge alone that makes one to recognize that ’ he is a

jiiva’ is notional and along with that he is doer and enjoyer. The

fundamental problem has to be solved before he is free and in that

freedom - the concept of free-will or fate etc all disappear since they

were never there to start with.

 

Until then,

> the karma-phala, derived from the self-effort of the previous

> lives, has a role in directing the free-will or self-effort

> of the present life.

 

until what I have is prarabda and what I do with what I have is

purushaartha - that is the manifestation of free-will.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

>

> I would be most grateful for your further comments and also

> comments on the hypothetical cases I brought up in this and

> in the previous posts.

>

> Regards

> Gummuluru Murthy

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

=====

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

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo

http://search.

[Guest guest]

namaste shri Sadananda garu,

 

Thanks very much for your patient reply. I need to think of

these concepts more in the light of these recent discussions.

As you know, this is not the first time I expressed these

understandings. Obviously, I need to think more on this.

 

Thanks again for your kind and patient replies.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

---

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sadanandaji,

 

I have not come across a clearer exposition on 'Fate and Free will'

than what you have provided to us through several of your posts on

the subject. Though at a certain stage, after explaining your

understanding for our benefit many times, you said that you do not

intend to repeat yourself anymore, that was precisely what you did

not just once but many times over and over again. I am aware that it

must have been extremely tedious for you to do so.

 

But the repetitions did help because your messages were never carbon

copies of earlier ones. Though logically I should not have needed

more than just one of your messages to become as clear on the subject

as I am now, for some mysterious reason it is the repetition that did

the trick. Many thanks for having had the kindness and patience to do

so.

 

It was my fate that I was born with advaita vasana. It was also my

fate that till recently I could not have a teacher who could guide my

studies of vedanta properly. But through the use of my free will, I

continued the search and today I am blessed with two teachers:

 

1. Swami Paramarthananda from whom I am learning Vedanta by getting

cassettes of his discourses on different upanishads one by one from

Chennai.

 

2. Sri Sadanandaji from whom I am learning through email on this list.

 

My shaastaanga namaskarams to you.

Venkat.

 

 

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

>

>

> Murthy gaaru - free will is nothing but a notion that I have a

choice of

> action and in fact I have no choice but to choose. Since this is

> notional, it is of less concern, how strong that notion is - That I

> have, is the very problem since I take the role of a karta when I am

> really not. That is the reason why I keep saying that kartRitva

bhaava

> is due to adhyaasa only - since it is notional and not factual.

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Benjamin:

 

I can understand your frustration. But please note that the

continutation of the "Beethoven thread" inspite of your several

protests is certainly due to Fate. Your efforts to stop the thread

is due to the belief that there is 'free-will." Whether you accept or

reject this inference coming from your experience, this just

happened! The Vedantic point of view of 'Fate and Free Will' is fully

reflected by this episode.

 

My friend, one of my interesting observation is that you are

very 'attached to you beloved Beethoven,' and that is you feel

deprived when it was hijacked! Swami Chinmayananda used to say, the

collection of Vasanas is the biggest baggage (bondage) and if we

travel without the baggage, we don't need to worry whether someone

has hijacked or stole the baggage!!

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> Namaste my dear friends!

>

> I hate to see my beloved Beethoven hijacked by something totally

> unrelated. It makes no sense! :-)

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

Sri Ram Chandran wrote:

>Dear Sri Benjamin:

>

>I can understand your frustration. But please note that

>the continutation of the "Beethoven thread" inspite of

>your several protests is certainly due to Fate. Your

>efforts to stop the thread is due to the belief that there

>is 'free-will." Whether you accept or reject this inference

>coming from your experience, this just happened! The Vedantic

>point of view of 'Fate and Free Will' is fully reflected by

>this episode.

>

>My friend, one of my interesting observation is that you are

>very 'attached to you beloved Beethoven,' and that is you feel

>deprived when it was hijacked! Swami Chinmayananda used to say,

>the collection of Vasanas is the biggest baggage (bondage) and

>if we travel without the baggage, we don't need to worry whether

>someone has hijacked or stole the baggage!!

 

 

Touche, Sri Ram. No comment! :-)

 

Anyhow, next week I will be at a conference in Orlando.

 

Now here's a free will question. Should I go to Disneyland and

suffer the adverse effects on my spiritual sensitivity? Or should I

go to test my detachment from the adverse effects on my spiritual

sensitivity?

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Benjamin:

 

"Life is a bridge, enjoy while crossing, don't build any castles!"

This is the advice of Upanishadic sages and this is certainly

applicable to your Disneyland journey. My friend, don't build castles

before going, during your stay at Disneyland and also after return

from the Disney trip. That is the detachment being advocated in

Vedanta.

 

Let me provide you with a Tamil Story. In India, during the hot

summer in the olden times, street venders used to cary and sell

mudpot full of butter milk. A lady was carrying the butter milk and

started thinking the following:- Suppose I sell this buttermilk at a

good price, I can buy two pots full of buttermilk and sell and can

continue to sell more and more and become wealthy. When I become

wealthy, I should be able to buy expensive dress and enjoy by

dancing.

 

With this thought process, she started singing and dancing and forgot

about the mudpot on her head. Unfortunately, the mudpot fell on the

ground and broke and all the butter milk spilled completely!

 

I don't think that I need to explain the moral of this story!

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

> Now here's a free will question. Should I go to Disneyland and

> suffer the adverse effects on my spiritual sensitivity?

> Or should I go to test my detachment from the adverse effects on

> my spiritual sensitivity?

>

> Om!

> Benjamin

[Guest guest]

At 12:55 PM 4/18/2003 -0400, Benjamin Root wrote:

>Now here's a free will question. Should I go to Disneyland and

>suffer the adverse effects on my spiritual sensitivity? Or should I

>go to test my detachment from the adverse effects on my spiritual

>sensitivity?

 

 

If you go to Disneyland, your spirituality won't suffer. I used to work there,

I should know! After all, if you go, you might see the innocent smile of a

child, which could melt your heart and push you towards Self-Knowledge.

 

If you don't go to Disneyland, you might think all weekend about going to

Disneyland, and also spend time waiting anxiously for the results of your

"test."

 

I say, go to Disneyland. Even though - if you do, you will. And if you don't,

you won't. And if I say so, then I say so, etc.

 

Om!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Ram!

 

Thank you for your kind and insightful advice on passing through and

enjoying the wonders of the world while remaining in the detached

bliss of pure consciousness.

 

To fully understand my question regarding Disneyland, you should

realize that I consider it to be a lot of plastic garbage. I would

much prefer it were a beautiful Hindu temple or European cathedral.

Much more inspiring! But even there we should remain detached, as

they too will return to dust.

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Benjamin:

 

My dear friend, we always come across three types of people: some

look for gold in the garbage, some look for garbage in gold and the

third throw the garbage and take the gold! Both the gold and garbage

are pure creations of the mind and this may explain why the sages

called the mind as a monkey!

 

Since you are a great admirer of openess of Hindus, Hindus are also

well known for spreading morals through stories and here is another

story for you:

 

Two friends X and Y while going back work discussed about their

evening plan. X said that he is going go to the beautiful Hindu

temple. Y informed X that he is going out to see a recently released

movie with lots of disney like excitements. When X went to the

temple, his mind was only thinking about the movie and he couldn't

utter a word of prayer. On the otherhand, Y couldn't enjoy the movie

and he was imagining all the good things that he is missing in the

temple! Unfortunately both X and Y are detached but yet attached!!

 

I don't know whether you want to be X or Y or both!!

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

 

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> To fully understand my question regarding Disneyland, you should

> realize that I consider it to be a lot of plastic garbage. I would

> much prefer it were a beautiful Hindu temple or European cathedral.

> Much more inspiring! But even there we should remain detached, as

> they too will return to dust.

>

> Om!

> Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Sadananda,

 

I would like to try once again on the topic of Free Will with

you, but I very much wish to avoid a long discussion where we seem to

be talking on different wavelengths.

 

So let me just as you a very simple question, and a very

simple answer will suffice ... like 'yes' or 'no'. I basically asked

this question before, but I want to strip it down to its essentials.

 

The question is: SUPPOSE (and as if capitals were not enough

let me reiterate that this is a supposition) that it could be proven

that every psychological event of type A is followed by a

psychological event of type B. (Never mind quantum mechanics, chaos

theory or anything else. And never mind paramaarthika vs.

vyavahaara.) Does this not logically imply that the future

development of all of our psychological events is uniquely determined?

 

If you answer yes, then I will be happy to add my own opinion

that any notion of free will is then only a psychological impression

(an illusion) that has no real meaning, but you need not draw this

conclusion nor will I ascribe it to you.

 

If you answer no, then I would be most interested if you

would provide some idea of how that could possibly be, e.g., one

single credible example, no matter how far-fetched, which need not

even obey any of the current laws of physics but only the law of

causality that I outlined in my supposition above.

 

This is not specifically an Advaita question, but only a

question of the logical implications of a certain assumption. You

recently said that you like well-defined axioms and their logical

implications.

 

Thank you and Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Ram!

 

You said:

>My dear friend, we always come across three types of

>people: some look for gold in the garbage, some look

>for garbage in gold and the third throw the garbage

>and take the gold! Both the gold and garbage are pure

>creations of the mind and this may explain why the sages

>called the mind as a monkey!

 

I'm afraid that Western (and possibly World) civilization has decayed

to the point where we now have a fourth type: the punks looking for

garbage in garbage. But it is still all in the mind, as you

correctly say!

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Hello Benjamin,

To keep it short and to the point: What's a psychological

 

event? To a psycho-physical dualist (Descartes) it might mean

 

one thing, to an epiphenomenalist another, to an Advaitin yet

 

another. In Upadesa Sahasri the term used is mental

 

modifications. And who or what is free or not free?

Best Wishes, Michael.

[Guest guest]

>Hello Benjamin,

>To keep it short and to the point: What's a >psychological

>event? To a psycho-physical dualist (Descartes) it might

>mean one thing, to an epiphenomenalist another, to an

>Advaitin yet another. In Upadesa Sahasri the term used

>is mental modifications. And who or what is free or not free?

>Best Wishes, Michael.

 

 

Hi Michael,

 

By 'psychological event', I mean any process in the mind involved in

making a decision. The 'mental modifications' of the Upadesa Sahasri

sounds fine to me. I'm keeping the argument extremely general, only

in order to make a point about the logical consequences of cause and

effect (assuming that rigid cause and effect is demonstrated in the

first place - an assumption regarding which I am explicitly

non-committal).

 

Also, I'm explicitly avoiding any conclusions about who or what is

free. I am only trying to get Sri Sadananda to agree that there are

certain logical consequences to rigid cause and effect in the mental

domain ... assuming that rigid cause and effect exists in the first

place!

 

My question is simply a technicality regarding what kind of logic we

should use when debating these things. I want to at least pin down a

little rigor in that domain!

 

Don' worry! This is not the prelude to a big kill. I am not setting

anyone up!

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Benjamin,

> I'm afraid that Western (and possibly World) civilization has

decayed

> to the point where we now have a fourth type: the punks looking

for

> garbage in garbage. But it is still all in the mind, as you

> correctly say!

 

I think everybody feels this way at least to a certain extent.If we

did not feel this way, will we look at religion and philosophy ?

Eastern world is equally worse. It just looks better to you from

here.

Saying in Tamil : Ikkaraiku akkarai pachai ( equivalent of grass

looks greener on the other side )

Though there is lot of religious organisations and religious minded

people in India, there is a lot of degeneration too.

 

Regards,

G.Venkat

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Jay.

 

You said in reply to my post # 16889:

 

QUOTE

 

Only when vEda is understood in the light of brahma-sootras, does the

shruti nature of shruti becomes explicit. As one progresses in

the inquiry (brahma-jignyAsA) into the meaning of Veda, the

shrutitva of shruti becomes more and more definite, and finally

at a ripened state of enquiry, the shruti reveals its object

which is parabrahman.

 

This is how, parA-vidyA is nothing but brahma-sootras, because

they make the apara-vidyA or the text vEda into veda-pramANa.

 

UNQUOTE

 

If you don't mind my asking questions in your style, where in the

prastAnatraya is such an explanation given? Is it external to

prastAnatraya? If yes, then how can it be acceptable? The sUtras have

been interpreted differently. Does the prastAnatraya recommend the

correct bhAshyam to be followed? If not, aren't the 'seekers' after

Truth eternally doomed not to find the 'object' of their enquiry as

they would be seeking guidance from sources external to prastAnatraya

(Sankara included) as we are all doing now?

 

PranAms.

 

Madathil Nair