Contradiction in Ramana Maharshi?

[Giri]

On Sat, 19 Apr 1997, Dennis Waite wrote:

> In respect of the ongoing discussions on free will etc., things have started
> to become clearer now, especially with Charles Wikner's recent excellent
> posts.
[..]
> reasonable. Further, at the vyaavahaarika level, dharma, karma etc., it
> seems reasonable that there must be free will as perceived by the ego.
> However, how does this tie up with the quote from RM given by Cameron on
> 31st Oct last year?

Namaste. As Cameron notes, i gave the quote of RM to him to post on the net.
Naturally, I would not have posted them both if i found them to be
contradictory. Both of these quotes may be found in 'Day by Day with
Bhagavan.' though it has been requoted in newsletters. Here is my reason
on why i don't find them to be contradictory,

        Obviously, the quotes are given to students of differing caliber.
If a person who has attained sattvic quality and will uphold dharma at any
cost, but is still worried about some things in the past or is worried
that his body is not able to visit pilgrimage spots or become sanyas etc,
it is said 'What happened/happens was/is God's will. All actions which
happened were His will.  All actions which your body does is His will.
Don't worry about what your body does and instead go "inside" and
enquire." For example, when a person in the same book says that he is
worried that he is unable to visit certain pilgrimage spots, RM says 'Only
if there is prarabdha karma, one can visit those places.' (paraphrased)
basically, asking the person to find the Ganges inside him instead of
outside. Devi-Bhagavatam says exactly the same thing, dipping in the
Ganges will not remove the sins, if it is Ganges the river, but one should
dip in Ganges (the Self).

        Even a good aspirant worries about the past and the future, and by
consoling himself with the statement that everything is God's will, he
will not deviate from his spiritual sadhana and invets his complete
energies on the sadhana (though the sadhana itself is only the
'realization' that the sought and seeker are one). It is the nature of the
ajnani to live in the past and future, but not in the present and devote
all the energies to "realize" the Self. The *acceptance* of the absence of
free will (i.e., everything is God's will) is great provided it is a
movement from tamas and rajas *to* sattva. Acceptance of everything is
God's will should be there even if one becomes a king or becomes a pauper.
When one suffers or enjoys, if one has surrendered to God's will, there is
nothing to complain or rejoice. In fact, a true surrender will eventually
eliminate the sufferer and the enjoyer- the ego.

        However this acceptance of the absence of free will is usually a
movement from rajas to tamas and leads to fatalism (In Tamilnadu,
thousands just say 'Thalaividi.' and don't do anything about anything).
This sort of fatalism makes one lazy, and worse, allows the ego and mind
to engage in pleasures as it likes. Only when the bottom falls out, and
the consequences of the adharma have to be faced, free will is suddenly
admitted.

        If the latter quote of RM is said to a person who wants to use
"Everything is God's will" as an EXCUSE to be lazy, not to uphold dharma,
then the quote won't have any value to *that* person. For him, it is said,
you have to be responsible for your actions, follow the scriptures etc.
The problem obviously is when a person is not tutored by a Guru and reads
these quotes and puts them all together for the convinence of the ego.
Thus, such a person whose body commits a crime will just quote RM to prove
that all actions of the body are predetermined without understanding the
true meaning of God's will or even RM statements. It is unfortunate but
true that the ego will try to manipulate all sentences to its liking so
that it can exist - and then suffer, enjoy and complain.

AUM shaantiH.