free will

[Guest guest]

pranams to all

 

after watching the discussions on the subject, i was motivated and

read a book on bhagavad gita by rajaji.

 

this is what that is said about freewill and fate.

 

Fate and Freewill

 

Fate is one's own creation. Man acts, thinks, and

develops his own character. He creates a web like the

spider or a silkworm and entangles himself in its

meshes on account of the three knots, viz., Avidya,

Kama and Karma. He himself has enthroned fate to the

level of a king and obeys its order owing to his

ignorance and its effects.

Maya is here material nature constituted by the Gunas.

The slokas14, 15 in chapter 5. Slokas 30 to 32 of

chapter 13, slokas 5 and 19 of chapter 14 and slokas

40,60,61 of chapter 18 deals with Inherited

Propensities (this is the Gunas with which men are

borne).

 

The lesson from the slokas is that the qualities with

which men start on their life-journeys determine their

activities. We should not be moved to anger or

contempt if any one commits what we deem to be wrong,

nor pride ourselves upon our own good actions. The

slokas must not be interpreted as if men were absolved

from responsibilities.

 

The Gita makes it clear that it is only by personal

effort and by the practice of self-control that we may

be delivered of the character-load with which we

begin.

 

That men are moved by congenital qualities born of

previous Karma, which defeat all efforts at ignoring

them, is a teaching to cultivate charity towards

others and serenity in ourselves, and not a doctrine

of irresponsibility. It would be the reverse of what

the Gita teaches if the inevitability of qualities

resulting from Karma moves us to contempt or cruelty

towards others, instead of making us more charitable.

The tendencies of men broadly classified as Sattva,

Rajas and Tamas are matter-born and matter-bound, i.e.

have their origin and sustenance in the Prakriti,

which embodies the Soul. But they have their resultant

effect on the Soul. By the exercise of self-control

and true knowledge, a man can realize his own freedom,

irrespective of these inherited qualities and

principles of material nature. If he does not exercise

self-control and practice an attitude of detachment,

he will not only remain bound unto this load, but also

increase it. The doctrine of Karma should not frighten

us. Law is immutable but God is Love as well as Law.

 

As explained by Shri Rajaji in his book on Bhagavad

Gita.

 

In sloka nine, seven and eight of chapter 15 Bhagavan

says:

 

" A fragment of mine own becomes in the world of

living things an immortal Soul. It attracts to itself

the five senses and a controlling mind, all six

established in matter." (This is the body we carry, in

our present life in this world).

 

" The Soul when it takes up lordship over a body and

when it leaves it, takes these with it as the wind

takes fragrances from bower to bower".

 

"Using the ear, eye, and the organs of touch, taste

and smell and the mind also, it enjoys the objects of

the senses".

 

It is in this contact with the objects of the senses,

and the attractions thereto that in subtle form hang

on to the Soul and become its Karmic load. No

explanation or theory in regard to the ultimate cause

of things can be free from objectives or difficulties

from the rationalist point of view. But, on the

assumption of an immortal Soul as the basis of

personality no theory can be formulated more in

conformity with the known laws of nature than the

Hindu doctrine of Karma. Man evolves himself exactly

according to his actions, the process being unbroken

by the death and passing on to the next life. This,

the most important doctrine in Hindu religion, is the

application in the moral sphere of the law of

conservation of energy, and indeed both may be looked

upon as parts of one law.

Karma is the rule of law, so to say, in the spiritual

world. Cause and effect must be equivalent. As death

is the only disintegration of the body, and not of the

Soul, the law of cause and effect, so far as the Soul

is concerned, continues to operate beyond death. The

death of the body does not operate as a bankruptcy

court. The old account is carried over.

 

The tiniest pebble thrown into water produces a

ripple. The disturbance is carried onward in

ever-widening circles on the water. One ripple may cut

across, add itself to, and be merged in another,

increasing or reducing it, but not the tiniest

movement can go for naught. Likewise also do all our

acts-and acts include thoughts-produce results? The

most transient and secret thought entertained in the

mind ruffles the calm of the Spirit Universal, and the

disturbance has to be worked off.

 

Over and above the effect on others and apart from any

question of reward or punishment, we can see, without

the help of any doctrine, that every thought or act,

good or bad, has at once an effect on oneself. Every

motion of the mind deals a stroke with chisel and

mallet, whether one wants it or not, on one's own

character and its evolution is made better or worse

thereby. If I think evil today, I think it more

readily, persistently tomorrow, and likewise is it

with good thoughts. If I control or calm myself, it

becomes more spontaneous, more easy next time; and

this goes on progressively.

At death, the Hindu doctrine says, whatever character

has been hammered out by the thoughts and deeds and

repentances of the life that is closed continues to

attach itself as the initial start of character for

the Soul in its next journey. (Yes this we all call it

as poorva janma karma). We missed a chance to correct

it in that birth that is why we are all borne again to

redeem our self and lessen the load in this birth. A

person may argue that in the scheme of things on earth

the concept of "Karma" defies logic, hence the conduct

of a person in the current birth alone ought to be

taken into reckoning. However, there is a purpose

behind such an exercise, wherein past actions come to

haunt or bless a person in life. Without such a

symbiosis, one may tend to swing to either of the two

extremes —egoistic posturing or inertia caused by a

sense of fatalism, wherein one passively believes that

He who planted will water the plant. Neither of the

approaches is recommended for spiritual aspirants.

Karma is not fatalism. It is not an arbitrary and

external agency, which makes personal effort of no

avail. On the contrary, the theory places one's own

hands completely, and even death does not interfere

with progress of effort.

 

pranams to Sri rajaji and his book on Mahabharata and ramayana.

 

cdr b vaidyanathan

[Guest guest]

One has free-will until the freedom from free-will is recognized.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

> One has free-will until the freedom from free-will is recognized.

>

> Hari OM!

> Sadananda

 

Namaste S-ji,

 

One has the illusion of free will until one recognises there is no

will at all...........ONS..Tony.

[Guest guest]

Tony - if one knows that it is an illusion not as a thoght but as a

fact, the problem is already solved. Vyavahaara is as real as the

process of overcoming it. Until one recognizes the paaramaarthika, the

illusion remains not as an illusion but as real. When one recognizes

the paaramaarthika, there will not be any further discusson of free

will, whether it exists or not! Existence and non-existence of free

will, both will be illusary. One has to be careful from what reference

these statements are made.

 

Free will is there which is the basis for saadhana (seeking) until all

the duality including both sandhana and saadhaka (seeker) merge into

one. It is the recognition of the fact of advaita or non-duality inspite

of duality. Then only all concepts including free will or lack of it

dissolve into one. Hence my statement

One has free-will until the freedom from free-will is recognized.

Krishna says - nahi kaschit kshaNamapi jaatu tushTasya karma krit - no

one can remain without performing an action even for a second.

 

Later he says - prakrityeva ca karmaani kriyamaanaani sarvashaH - all

actions are being done by praKriti and one how knows this alone knows

the truth.

 

Let us not get confused from what reference the topic is discussed.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

 

--- Tony OClery <aoclery wrote:

> advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

> <kuntimaddisada> wrote:

> > One has free-will until the freedom from free-will is recognized.

> >

> > Hari OM!

> > Sadananda

>

> Namaste S-ji,

>

> One has the illusion of free will until one recognises there is no

> will at all...........ONS..Tony.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda >

> Later he says - prakrityeva ca karmaani kriyamaanaani sarvashaH -

all

> actions are being done by praKriti and one how knows this alone

knows

> the truth.

>

> Let us not get confused from what reference the topic is

discussed.

>

> Hari OM!

> Sadananda

>

>

 

Namaste S-ji,

 

I was responding to your 'one liner'. The only point that I have is

that there is only an illusion of free will even in this samsara.

There is no time, scientifically it is relative even. The actions we

perform are all prarabda. Ramana was asked about dropping a piece of

paper and was that predestined and he said of course.

The problem with many is that they don't appreciate that the

decision they make with their so called choice and free will, is the

decision and action that has already happened in illusion.

 

So I suppose what I am saying is that simply put there is only an

appearance of freewill.

 

Your wrote;

<Later he/Krishna, says - prakrityeva ca karmaani kriyamaanaani

sarvashaH - all

> actions are being done by praKriti and one how knows this alone

knows

> the truth.

 

So Prarabda and Prakriti are one and the same thing in

operation.......ONS..Tony.

[Guest guest]

The only point that I have is

that there is only an illusion of free will even in this samsara.

There is no time, scientifically it is relative even. The actions we

perform are all prarabda.

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

One thing I am not able to understand here....how prArabdha can accumulate

without excercising our free will (atleast once before the accumulation of

*first prArabdha karma phala* ) ?? There must be a free will which causes

us to store prArabdha karma phala....Either we have to accept both

prArabdha & free will or ignore both considering our real svarUpa........I

think accepting prArabdha eliminating free will is self

contradiction...karma & its fruits donot hold any bearing if we ignore the

free will in vyavahAra.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

>Namaste Sadananda, Tony and all

 

thank you for the words about free will...

maybe the meaning of "free will" is of importance for a busy

mind...on the path to non-duality......

 

Sadananda wrote:

"One has free-will until the freedom from free-will is recognized."

 

your words and whole message give some more precious explanations

about....Being

 

one can never have the "free will" to be something what one never

have been and never will be

one will ever have the "free will" to be That what one ever have been

and ever will be

 

That Being

 

Regards

 

love and peace

 

Marc

>

>

[Guest guest]

kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote:

Dear Sir

 

The idea of free will arises only with a sense of doership. Naaham Kartha Naaham

Boktha Shuudha Chinmatroham. In reality whether called Prakrithi or God, the

real only one doer is God. There are no idependent doers, to claim authorship

and then say that he or she execised Free Will and achieved something. It is the

illusory intelligence which tries to connect the effect with some cause.

 

Under this understanding if any thing at all happens, which is observed if at

all, then the doership should go only to the ultimate doer-God or Self. The

independent doer is only a thought.

 

I am planning to write " The Art of Being" as different from Art of Living.

Please send suggestions.

 

Pranams.

 

JS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

How much free photo storage do you get? Store your friends n family photos for

FREE with Photos.

http://in.photos.

 

 

[Guest guest]

>From “Vedanta in Day-to-Day Life”

- - - Swami Dayananda Saraswati

- - - - - -

Man alone among sentient things is self-conscious and

un-programmed. He is aware of himself and his

environment, and free to choose his attitude and

behavior. Self-awareness and free will are man’s

‘humanness’. All other beings are tied to a patter set

by their instincts. Man too, has instincts, but he is

not bound by their pattern. In fact, blessed with free

will, he cannot rely upon instinct as a guide for his

behavior, but must thoughtfully choose his actions in

accordance with ethical standards. If he allows his

actions just to “happen” triggered by instinct-born

impulses or some conditioned ‘mechanical-ness’, he is

not acting but merely reacting.

A life based on impulse or mechanical behavior will

run into problems.

When my ‘actions’ are really reactions, my mind will

be troubled because: Experience will not reach me.

Conflicts between thought and deed will bother me.

Painful actions will build up. Mood will be my master.

When I consciously, rationally choose my actions, I am

in a position to benefit from what has happened

before. When I let my actions ‘happen’, I am not

consciously there to learn from the past.

In addition, these actions that are ‘happenings’ will

lead to a split in me. No matter how constructive my

conditioning may have been, my impulse will not always

be in line with my ethical standards, leading to

behavior in conflict with values. Action in conflict

will produce a mind divided against itself. Like

Duryodhana in the Mahabharata, I will find myself

saying:

“I know what is right, but I cannot do it.

I know what is not right, but I cannot but do it.”

Pain in fact, is the companion of many reactions. When

I analyze the attitude and conflict that all religions

condemn as ‘bad’, I find that bad actions are really

painful actions. Impulse stems from desire/longing for

the agreeable and anger/aversion in the disagreeable.

In the Gita, Lord Krishna says:

“The one who is able to master the force born of anger

and desire here (in this world) before release from

the body is a Karmayogi. He indeed is a happy person.”

5.23

Finally, to the extent my actions are the result of

impulse, I will be ruled by mood. With mood as my

master I will be a question mark to myself and others.

A mind free from reactions is quiet, receptive,

objective, capable, and serene. Such a mind enjoys

relative happiness. It can learn from experience, not

wracked with conflict. It can deal with negative

emotions and it is master over its moods. A mind like

this is ready to discover the truth of Self through

the teaching of Vedanta.

- - - - - - -

 

Many Pranams

 

 

 

 

 

 

__

Start your day with - make it your home page

http://www./r/hs

[Guest guest]

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

> Hare Krishna

>

> One thing I am not able to understand here....how prArabdha can

accumulate

> without excercising our free will (atleast once before the

accumulation of

> *first prArabdha karma phala* ) ?? There must be a free will which

causes

> us to store prArabdha karma phala....Either we have to accept both

> prArabdha & free will or ignore both considering our real svarUpa

 

Namaste,IMHO,

 

How does 'free will' or 'choice' produce results or karma? The

action we perform in this life is a result or prarabda from a

previous life. It is not the action per se that causes the resulting

continuing action but our attitude or mental choice. We may be a

thief or dacoit in this life but if we make the choice to change,

there yet may be karma to serve,unless we become enlightened and it

is left to the body mind complex.

 

In the next life we may have something stolen from us, we may be

disappointed but if we react badly the lesson isn't learned. It is

like the yogi whose posession was stolen and he ran after the thief

with more go give him. We may be treated badly by somebody, we have

to rise above it for we are only meeting ourselves. If we react well

then the karma is dead and won't return in a future life.

 

I say 'lives' for all are really lived at the same time, so is the

karma. It is all illusion that never happened ultimately. 'God' as a

concept doesn't 'Do' anything or ever interfere, it is all reaction

and action or karma. Saints, Avatars are all part of karmic

reaction. There is only karma and prana in

illusion..........ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

--- jayantha srirama <jayanthasrirama wrote:

>

>

> kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote:

> Dear Sir

>

> The idea of free will arises only with a sense of doership.

 

Yes - the sense of doership is there as long as jiiva notion is there.

As long as jiiva notion is there - from jiiva’s reference, it is no more

'idea' but as real as jiiva who has the idea. For him, the doership,

the free-will, the associated karmas, the resulting vaasanas, prarabda

and the cycle of birth and death are all real.

 

The sense of doership is surrendered only in the awakening of the

knowledge - or more correctly, in the awakening of the knowledge the

sense of doership gets surrendered. The notion of the snake is

surrendered only in the vision of the rope. There is no point in arguing

that there is no snake for the one who can see only snake and afraid to

go anywhere close to it. His snake vision gets dissolved only when he

sees the object he thought it is a rope and not a snake.

 

Hence my statement - Freewill is there until the freedom from freewill

is recognized. Jiiva, freewill and vyavahaara are all ontologically at

the same level. Only from the paaramaarthika, all get surrendered in

the awakening of the knowledge - akarthaahm abhoktaahm, aham

evaahamavyayaH - I am neither doer nor enjoyer, I am that immutable

eternal existence that I am - this is the declaration of a jnaani not by

jiiva.

>From that reference any discussion of freewill is mute. From jiiva's

reference all the discussions, which is being freely done on this list,

is as valid as the discussor.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Dear Sir,

--- jayantha srirama <jayanthasrirama

wrote:

> I am planning to write " The Art of Being" as

> different from Art of Living. Please send

> suggestions.<<<<<

 

Your above statement itself is result of your having

Free Will. Even in a small matter as crossing a very

busy road, we use our free will and look left and

right before crossing. That is our part we have to

play, but it is not necessary that we cross the road

or we may cross the road safe also. That depends on

our Prarabdha, which must be again the result of using

our free will at some time.

Free Will itself is Mithya, no doubt, but it is

required and that is why we are blessed with that in

doing mithya vyavahara. From absolute point of

paramaarthika, we are all just acting, or made to act,

as per the scrips, and free will equips us to act our

roles efficiently, till we are able to leave the

stage. Once KNowledge takes place, though we know

there is neither stage, nor play, nor actors, nor even

a script writer/director, we continue to be on the

stage, and at the same time, we are witnesses for the

entire drama, and enjoy the whole "fun".

 

Pranams

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

in Oneness.....Brahman....the Self....

 

how can there be free will of somebody?.....except of us all.....which

is always exactly the same will........

 

(the will) to Be what we Are....

 

(the one who is lost in the identification of an individual time and

space limited ...mind.......has maybe also a "will".....but not the

One.....which let him/her ....be Free.)

 

Regards

 

love and peace

 

Marc

[Guest guest]

Hi Mani-ji,

 

You said:" Even in a small matter as crossing a very busy road, we use our

free will and look left and right before crossing."

 

I really should not react to statements such as these but I have no choice

in the matter! ;>)

 

Next time you cross a very busy road, try closing your eyes and then

crossing. Then come back and tell us that you are exercising free will when

you 'decide' to look!

 

Thanks for the quotation from Swami Dayananda. I believe he is possibly the

best living teacher of Advaita and tend to agree with practically everything

he says. I find myself unable, however, to be convinced by his arguments on

free will. All that he says could equally well be explained by mechanical

cause and effect. We 'choose' to do good or evil according to our nature,

upbringing etc. and such minor considerations as the laws of society. It

seems to me that a law that says I will be put into prison if I do something

that society considers undesirable just might have a direct causal effect on

my behaviour without free will based on moral considerations ever coming

into it. And if moral considerations override the law, this again is only

because my education, reading etc. have inculcated a belief that one action

is 'right' and another 'wrong' irrespective of the prevailing law. Again, it

is purely mechanical. I have previously challenged this group to put forward

a single example in which mechanical cause and effect could be ruled out. So

far no one has.

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Dear DW-ji,

> I have previously challenged this group to put forward

> a single example in which mechanical cause and effect could be ruled

> out. So far no one has.

 

Yesterday evening I had the choice of going to a yakshagAna performance

or going home. The former would give me the pleasure of art while the

later, the comfort of familial company. Both options being pleasurable,

I chose to attend the yakshagAna performance.

 

I don't see a mechanical cause-effect in my choice. Maybe, I'm missing

something from your explanation.

 

Best regards,

Ramachandra

[Guest guest]

Namaste and thank you Denisji,

 

<<<You said:" Even in a small matter as crossing a very busy road, we use our

free will and look left and right before crossing.">>>

 

The fact that there are Laws, Rules and Regulations; itself is ample proof that

we all have free will. Having free will is something but how we use that free

will is entirely another thing. While using my free will if I respect the

values, it does not mean that I do not have free will.

 

Freedom always involves responsibility and the freedom I have in using my free

will also involves responsibility on my part.

 

The animals do not have any law courts, nor any laws etc., and that is just

because they do not have free will. They act on instinctual impulsions. If a

donkey has free will, it will think twice before it kicks its master!

 

“There are mechanical considerations” does not mean that I do not have free

will. They help/guide me in using my free will for my good and for the good of

all. Free will is not an effect of any cause, and it is given to me by the Lord,

along with Gnana shakti, Ichashakti and Kriayashakti, but how I use my free will

maybe an effect having some cause.

 

I hope I am not wrong in my understanding about free will and more so about my

freedom to use my free will and that is why I do not cross any busy road with my

closed eyes!

 

Warm Regards

 

Mani

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

Hi Mani-ji,

 

I really should not react to statements such as these but I have no choice

in the matter! ;>)

 

Next time you cross a very busy road, try closing your eyes and then

 

 

 

Start your day with - make it your home page

 

 

[Guest guest]

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

>

> Thanks for the quotation from Swami Dayananda. I believe he is

possibly the

> best living teacher of Advaita and tend to agree with practically

everything

> he says. I find myself unable, however, to be convinced by his

arguments on

> free will. All that he says could equally well be explained by

mechanical

> cause and effect. We 'choose' to do good or evil according to our

nature,

> upbringing etc. and such minor considerations as the laws of

society. It

> seems to me that a law that says I will be put into prison if I do

something

> that society considers undesirable just might have a direct causal

effect on

> my behaviour without free will based on moral considerations ever

coming

> into it.

 

Namaste!

That society considers somethings desirable and somethings illegal

is an example of free will being expressed. My decision to do or not

do something based on the understanding of man-made or natural laws

implies choice and free will. If I know the consequences will be bad

and still do something, well, that's when I am unable to rise above

my nature.

 

I guess you can keep on saying all this only one's

nature/upbringing, etc. and hence mechanical :-)

 

Again, it

> is purely mechanical. I have previously challenged this group to

put forward

> a single example in which mechanical cause and effect could be

ruled out. So

> far no one has.

>

>

 

I am sure we can come up with such examples. But I suspect you will

use your free will to decide whether the example is valid or not. Or

maybe, you are predisposed to dismiss them as mechanical cause-

effect :-))

 

Harih Om!

Neelakantan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Maniji

 

there is no end to this realy. someone could say your writing thus is

itself a result of prarabdha and you could reply that such someone's

opinion is itself a result of his freewill... it can go on ad infinitum.

 

We are discussing this as if fate is at one end of a line and that

free will is at the other end. We then try to debate where exactly is

reality grounded in such a line.

 

Now, for the purposes of conducting one's life or for the purposes of

sadhana, one can take any position, extreme left, or extreme right or

anywhere inbetween.. how isit going to make any difference when

reality transcends both fate and free will.

 

I am also reminded of some classic fiery debates we have in tamilnadu

- whether the chastity of Kannagi ( a great lady renowned for her

pativrata) is superior or sita's chastity is superior! Brilliant and

eloquent arguements will emanate from both sides but there has never

been any conclusion favoring one or the other.

 

Many namaskarams to all

Sridhar

 

 

advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani> wrote:

>

> Dear Sir,

> --- jayantha srirama <jayanthasrirama>

> wrote:

>

> > I am planning to write " The Art of Being" as

> > different from Art of Living. Please send

> > suggestions.<<<<<

>

> Your above statement itself is result of your having

> Free Will. Even in a small matter as crossing a very

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sridharji.

 

Maniji has acknowledged that "freewill" is a given granted by the

Lord. It, therefore, corresponds to the rope-length in his previous

analogy of a cow tied to a pole. Thus, free-will varies from person

to person; in animals it is almost nil. The capacity to

exercise "freewill" also varies from person to person, as some are

able to always perform right actions, while others, with almost the

same knowledge of right action as the right doers have, find

themselves on the wrong side (our Duryodhana for example). Above

all, as acknowledged by Maniji, the result-giver is the Lord, which

means one can exercise freewill and cross the road in one piece if

only the Lord permits it. If He doesn't, despite all precautions,

the fellow parked beside might impulsively decide to go on the

reverse leaving one on a hospital bed or, well, in the city morgue,

if one is really that fortunate.

 

So, let us pause to think how much real 'freedom' is there in this

so-called freewill. If there isn't much, then freewill is a

misonomer and an unwarranted semblance. When Dennisji embarked on a

discussion on fate and freewill in March/April 2003, I had requested

him to provide the Sanskrit equivalents for both the words. I don't

think I got any for freewill. Even if someone brings it in,

freewill, the way we are debating on it today, is a term that

originated in the material West. Do we have to split our hair to

explain it while our ancient sages have advised total surrender to

the Lord without agency in actions? If Lord is the result-giver,

then the sense of seeming freewill is some sort of a 'result'

granted by Him only He knows for what!. Look! He has excluded the

poor animals and left us the freewillwallahs at the mercy of the

donkey's hind legs! There is no freedom in the seeming freewill as

long as we are bound by ignorance. Freedom belongs to Him. He is

Freedom. Let us, therefore, be Him which we unknowingly are! We

have the right means in Advaita.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

 

advaitin, "asridhar19" <asridhar19>

wrote:

> Namaste Maniji

>

> there is no end to this realy. someone could say your writing thus

is

> itself a result of prarabdha and you could reply that such

someone's

> opinion is itself a result of his freewill... it can go on ad

infinitum.

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

 

In my opinion, free will depends on the level of awareness.

 

Free will and determinism are just the same. They are the two faces of

the same coin. It only depends on the point of view.

 

Lack of awareness makes everything to seem deterministic. Total

awareness makes everything to seem as a result of our total free will.

 

However, things just happen...

 

Best wishes,

 

Jorge

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

Links

[Guest guest]

Hi Ramachandra-ji,

 

<<Yesterday evening I had the choice of going to a yakshagAna performance

or going home. The former would give me the pleasure of art while the

later, the comfort of familial company. Both options being pleasurable,

I chose to attend the yakshagAna performance.

 

I don't see a mechanical cause-effect in my choice. Maybe, I'm missing

something from your explanation.>>

 

Well, presumably *something* triggered the 'choice'. At one moment you were

standing/sitting there with these two options open to you. Since a decision

was made - what caused that decision? Did you flip a coin? I would guess

that a particular thought arose regarding one of the options. Possibly 'if I

go home, I will only end up watching television' or 'if I go to the

performance I might meet x'. Whatever the thought, 1) it arose without any

choice or action on your part and 2) it was sufficient to swing the balance

in favour of the performance - in an entirely mechanical way. And this

*must* have happened. Otherwise, you would still be sitting/standing there

now!

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis Waite

[Guest guest]

Hi Mani-ji,

 

<<The fact that there are Laws, Rules and Regulations; itself is ample proof

that we all have free will.>>

 

This seems a non-sequitur to me, I'm afraid. To my mind, the laws are simply

part of the causal nexus. If a law is sufficiently punitive, it will prevent

an evil nature from doing something considered undesirable by the majority.

And governments are caused to introduce laws precisely in order to have this

effect. I don't see that free will enters the equation anywhere.

 

<< Having free will is something but how we use that free will is entirely

another thing. While using my free will if I respect the values, it does not

mean that I do not have free will.>>

 

What you are now saying has no validity because you have begun your

statements with an unproven assumption, namely that we have free will.

 

<< The animals do not have any law courts, nor any laws etc., and that is

just because they do not have free will. They act on instinctual impulsions.

If a donkey has free will, it will think twice before it kicks its master!>>

 

I suggest that the reason animals do not have law courts etc. might have

more to do with such things as innate intelligence, language ability etc. If

you watch a fly buzzing about, landing now here, now there, why do you not

interpret this as free will?

 

<<"There are mechanical considerations" does not mean that I do not have

free will.>>

 

No, but using Ockham's Razor would suggest that there is no need to

introduce such a thing (except as a sop to our ego!).

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis Waite

[Guest guest]

praNAm Dennis-ji. I request you to further elaborate your assertion

regarding determinstic nature of actions. Is this assertion from

parmArthik drishti or vyAvahArik drishti? As far as parmArthik view is

concerned, both determinism and free-will are illusions. As far as

vyAvhArik drishti is concerned, as long as I feel I have a choice

(whether or not I actually have one), free will is evident.

 

An interesting analogy was given in this forum of a cow tied with a

rope, but free to graze. Is the cow's action free or fixed? It

appears, you can take either stand depending upon your point of

reference. A similar question applies here: If free will is part of

the order of nature and determined by the laws of nature, is it to be

taken as free or determined?

 

In the recent times, complete determinism is a view that has been

propounded by Sri Ramesh Balsekar-ji as Advaita, however there is

terrible mix-up of parmArthik and vyAvhArik drishtis in his

discussions.

 

An off-shoot of this discussion leads to the famous debate between

Einstein and Bohr. Einstein asserted that God does not play dice. His

assertions were challenged by Quantum theorists that God indeed plays

dice-- at least on the sub-atomic level. I may be wrong but I think,

it is the latter view that is generally accepted nowadays.

 

Regards,

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Sanjay Srivastava >

> An off-shoot of this discussion leads to the famous debate between

> Einstein and Bohr. Einstein asserted that God does not play dice. His

> assertions were challenged by Quantum theorists that God indeed plays

> dice-- at least on the sub-atomic level. I may be wrong but I think,

> it is the latter view that is generally accepted nowadays.

 

Namaste s,IMHO,

 

Einstein's quote about 'God' not playing dice is true in as much as

subtle prarabda goes.

 

However in the sub atomic quantum level, or even chaos if you like,

it is all at a less subtle level than mind and involves the movement

of waves and particles/waves in the action reaction modes.

 

So It depends on whether you are on the road or the mountain looking

at at the road. The man on the mountain can see more and visualise a

future.

 

Once the gunas have been disturbed it is by their own intereaction

that things are formed. So in that way it is like dice, at that

level.................ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Namaste madathilji, Maniji

What you Resonates a lot with my preference as an inner attitude .

Complete surrender corresponding to destiny or relentless enquiry

corresponding to free will are both solutions and not mutually exclusive.

 

I like the term seeming 'freewill' - in the rope tied to peg analogy

one can probably compare the rope to the BMI ( the equipment that

limits range of experiences possible) and the pole to ego. At a

certain level both can perhaps be argued to be non existent - they

exist only as the mental concept of the 'cow' that is grazing.

 

On your other question about sanskrity equivalents would not

purushartha vs. prarabdha be equivalent to fate vs. freewill.

 

I will try and look up the quote - but if i am not very mistaken i

think it was swami vivekananda who said that free-will is an oxymoron!

 

Going back to where i started i must agree with you that we can enjoy

the answer in a state of surrender.

 

Many namaskarams to all

 

Sridhar

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Sridharji.

>

> Maniji has acknowledged that "freewill" is a given granted by the

> Lord. It, therefore, corresponds to the rope-length in his previous

> analogy of a cow tied to a pole. Thus, free-will varies from person

> to person; in animals it is almost nil.

>

>

> granted by Him only He knows for what!. Look! He has excluded the

> poor animals and left us the freewillwallahs at the mercy of the

> donkey's hind legs! There is no freedom in the seeming freewill as

> long as we are bound by ignorance. Freedom belongs to Him. He is

> Freedom. Let us, therefore, be Him which we unknowingly are! We

> have the right means in Advaita.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

> ______________

>

> advaitin, "asridhar19" <asridhar19>

> wrote:

> > Namaste Maniji

> >

> > there is no end to this realy. someone could say your writing thus

> is

> > itself a result of prarabdha and you could reply that such

> someone's

> > opinion is itself a result of his freewill... it can go on ad

> infinitum.