free will and karma

[Sankar Jayanarayanan]

Dennis Waite <dwaite at INTERALPHA.CO.UK> wrote:

> 1) The explanation that the body-mind is effectively merely a 'bio-computer'
> and is entirely subject to cause and effect is quite reasonable. However,
> advaita teaches that buddhi, part of the mind (antahkarana), is the organ of
> discrimination, which clearly implies choice.
>

Approximate translation from the KaTha upanishad: "Two things approach man:
the `good' and the `pleasurable'... The wise man chooses the good, and the
unwise man the pleasurable."

> 2) Recent discussions on the List have stated that, in reality (Paramartha)
> there is no such thing as free will but that it appears to the ego (in
> vyavahaara) that there is. After all, if everything were predetermined and
> no choice at all were possible, this would be a licence to hedonism and
> there would be no purpose or meaning in 'pursuing' a path towards realisation.
>
> 3) It seems that, for the concept of karma to have any meaning, there must
> be free will. If everything happens automatically, without any opportunity
> to influence anything, then sanskara would just continue to accumulate
> indefinitely and rebirth etc. would be certain. Karma yoga would have no
> meaning since it would be impossible to choose to act purely in response to
> the need, without any desire for results.
>

On the topic of free will, Shankara writes in his commentary on the
Gita (3.34.0) " The following objection may be raised: If all living beings
behave according to nature -- and there is none devoid of his own special
nature -- there remains no scope for individual initiative, and the Shastra
(scripture) is thus reduced to futility.

Answer:
Gita (3.34) "Senses have attachment and aversion to their respective objects;
none should be swayed by them. They indeed are obstacles in man's path." "

Shankara's commentary: "The senses have attachment and aversion in respect of
their objects such as sound -- attachment to what pleases and aversion to what
repels. Thus attachment and aversion are inevitable for each sense. In this
context, the scope of the individual and that of the mandate of the Shastra are
being indicated. Submitting to the mandate of the shastra at the very outset,
one should refuse to be swayed by attachment and aversion. Human nature indeed
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
forces man to work under the urges of his attachment and aversion. Thus result
the abandonment of one's conduct and conformity with those of alien conduct. On
the other hand when attachment and aversion are restrained by countervailing
forces, man's vision becomes that of the Shastra; he ceases to be Nature's
thrall. Therefore none should submit to attachment and aversion; for those are
stumbling blocks on the path to betterment, like robbers infesting the public
road."

The only "will" in us is the will to like or dislike what is perceived
through the senses. The Shastra teaches us not to be disturbed by sensory data.

[..]

> 5) Looking at the subject from the other end, so to speak, although the Self
> must be totally free, it does not seem meaningful to talk of it having free
> will.

The Self-realized man sees the Self as actionless.

> Recent posts about Brahman being compared to the petrol in a car or
> the screen on which the film is projected provide analogies for this.
>
> 6) The school which I attend frequently refers to the 'Will of the
> Absolute', a term I have always found difficult to understand. It seems
> that, for the 'Absolute' to have any will it would have to be less than
> absolute, perfect and complete, since the will would presumably have to be

Advaita explains this "will of the absolute" by the concept of Saguna Brahman,
the impartial Ishvara who "takes care" of the living beings and the world.
Madhusudana Sarasvati's works explain this.

> for things to be other than they were or for something 'other' when there
> is, by definition, NOTHING other than the Self - an apparent contradiction.
> A recent posting on the list suggests that this concept is not in fact part
> of the teaching of advaita but of Kashmir Shaivism.
>

[..]

> Dennis
>

-Kartik