non-reality of free will

[Jonathan Bricklin]

On Friday, May 2, Jaldhar Vyas wrote:

"The Vedas were emphatically not authored by anyone even God.
Rshi means mantra-drshta or see-er of mantras.) As the Mimamsa shastra
explains, the association of certain names to certain texts is purely a
matter of convention and we are under no obligation to believe the Vedic
sages ever even existed."
_______________.
What else in Advaitism requires this kind of suspension of disbelief?  Its
deepest truths make more sense out of 
the world of experience not less. 

In response to my comment that the authority of advaita lies not in the
words themselves but in 
the experience upon which the words are based, and that this was a
traditional point of view he replied
"Which tradition?  Certainly not Advaita Vedanta which as mentioned above
follows the Mimamsak view on the apaurusheyatva of Shruti."
-----------------
 Well, Shankara followed the Mimamsakas like Jesus followed the Pharisees. 
He defended the authority of the Vedas on different grounds than either the
Naiyayikas or Mimamsakas.  An essential part of that authority was
attributed to their self-evident and direct validity.  Still, I concede his
point.  The traditional point of view, even for Shankara, favors the
impersonality of Shruti.  But surely I am not the only student of advaitism
that sees that impersonality as present whenever avidya is absent, and thus
need not cling to an unimaginable tale of generated text.  If Ashtavakra
lived, then why deny a similar human intermediary for Shruti?  I would very
much like to hear other's opinions about this.

He further stated: "
 all the words of the Upanishads describe a
free-standing agent
called Brahman.  Advaita Vedanta identifies this Brahman with the atma or
individual soul.  Therefore you cannot deny free will on these grounds."
------------------
I don't.  I deny free will on two grounds alone:  thoughts arise (that is,
you cannot make a thought) and precognition is real.  
Certainly I feel both these points are in harmony with Advaita Vedanta. 
And as
others have posted, there is no support in Advaitism for free will, as that
term is understood in the West, except as maya.
..
In response to my suggestion that the truths of advaitsm, being eternal,
transcend time and place, and are manifested by mystics of different
religions, such as the Bal Shem Tov, he replied:  "You do realize an
essential part of his teaching was the practice of the 613 commandments of
Judaism don't you?  I know there was mystical stuff too but this cannot be
ignored.  What relevance does that have to Advaita Vedanta?  None."
-------------------------
First of all, it perhaps need to be said that we know next to nothing about
the actual life or practices of the Bal Shem Tov.  Inferring orthodoxy is
not too much of a leap (although he was pronounced as a heretic by the
Talmudists).  I'm sure Jesus read the whole Haggadah at the last supper. 
It's not what he's remembered for.  What he is remembered for, in part, is
the same thing that Bal Shem Tov is remembered for:  an insistence that
purity of heart is more pleasing to God than learning.  Or, as Shankara put
it, "Disease is not cured by pronouncing 'medicine,' but by taking it.".

To my remark that "I prefer to equate smirti with dhyana, as Vacaspati
Mishra did, and defer to its authority, he correctly guessed that this
definition comes from the Tattva-Vaisharadi, but then disparaged it as a
"work on Yoga not Vedanta."  I take it that he does not agree with those
Hindu authorities who identify the Vivarana with Shankara.  But at any
rate, if any mystical or religious tradition penetrates to a deep,
spiritual truth, then its relevance to Advaitism seems to me to be secure.

He also gave his interpretation of Brahman in Advaita Vedanta:  "
Brahman
is limitless and is capable 
of doing anything. In fact it does do everything.  It is everything.  So
you cannot say
Brahman lacks free will.  The individual soul or atma is not different
from Brahman.  (You wanted a quote.  Ahambrahmasmi .)  It only considers
itself different because of Maya or delusion.  Therefore, only the
delusional person will think he is not free.  In truth you are as free as
Brahman is.
---------------------
An apple is not different from brahman either, but that hardly makes it
limitless. To equate the jiva  or the aham (where the illusion of free will
is felt to
occur) with the atman as if it were a simple one to one correspondence
rather than an identity of a part to the whole, like fingers to a hand or a
wave to the ocean, is to turn a truth into a travesty.  As Ramakrishnan
Balusabramian pointed out, 
the interpretation you have given of Ahambrahmasmi is not central to
Advaitism but to Kashmiri Shaivism.  
It is only there that the aham designates a transcendental self rather than
its usual meaning of a 
conditional self, the self fashioned, in part, by the mayic illusion of
free will.