The Riddle of Fate and Freewill

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, Greg Goode wrote:

[..]

> that even make sense before one sees all is Brahman.  Consider:  the entity
> that
> supposedly HAS free will cannot be found.  Therefore free will cannot be a
> characteristic of this "entity."

Cannot be found where? The entity that is talking of free will or of fate
is the individual *I*, however falsely constructed. That the "I" is
falsely constructed does not make an iota of difference to that "I" so
long as the error persists.

> Also:  there is the experience of making
> a choice,
> but in every case the response by the body/mind mechanism is automatic,
> responding
> to the strongest influence happening at that moment.  These influences depend
> on the characterics of that body/mind organism.  If the person is a

Then the debate about free will and fate is also an automatic response by
the body/mind mechanism, no?

> You might say, OK, there are impulsive choices.  Totally on a whim, I
> choose to
> go to the beach this weekend.   But the strong preference or impulse just
> arose in me,
> there was no one there to CHOOSE this impulse.  After the choice is made,
> the ego,
> that will'o'the wisp that can't be located, rushes in to take credit for the
> choice.

Okay, let us put down the arising of the impulse to a biochemical reaction
in the brain, governed totally by the statistical laws of probability.
Then, there is still a material basis for the impulse and the thing that
chooses this impulse. In a purely logical argument, why should one deny
this material basis?


> >> There is evidence, such as precognition, to support fate.  But such
> >
> >This cannot be admissible evidence, for your precognition is accessible
> >only to you.
>
> Not admissable?  Not necessarily.  One can write the precognition down.
> Also, there are some psychics who can "see" other people's precognitions.
> But, as you might say, this won't be publicly available.
>
> > Moreover, thousands of supposed precognitions do not come true.
>
> TRUE!
>

Okay, let me modify my statement to say that such evidence is
inconclusive, if inadmissible is too strong a word.

Vidyasankar