34 thoughts on “Some Thoughts and Questions on Free Will”

1. I posted this question because I thought that it was especially well written and interesting but also because I wanted to invite the other bloggers and all readers to respond and join in the discussion. Here are my own thoughts on what has been said:

   I found the McCabe extract very clearly expresses the situation as I see it. I hadn’t come across the metaphor of a balance before and this works well. When you can’t decide, ‘throwing something else onto the scale’ is exactly what you do mentally.

   Of course, none of what has been said here so far asks the question about action itself: how do we ‘do’ anything? Thoughts come unbidden, including those that trigger ‘decisions’. Fingers tap on the table awaiting the decision of what word to type next.

   I wrote the following in ‘Book of One’:

   “Have you ever watched yourself doing something, for example making a cup of coffee? If not, get up and do it now – I know you’d like one! Don’t interfere; just watch it happening. Legs walking, arm raising, hand moving etc. Incredible complexity even at this level but, below that, there are impulses moving along nerves, blood vessels contracting muscles and below that synapses triggering in the brain and below that enzymes and proteins interacting etc. Are ‘you’ doing any of this? Would you indeed have the slightest idea of where to begin?”

   This was written to illustrate the fact that ‘I am not a doer’ but of course it equally illustrates that I am not the decider either. The bottom line is that ‘things happen’ (which may or may not involve this body that I call ‘mine’) but all I can do is witness them. I agree that we do not choose to follow Advaita either or have any involvement in whether or not we become enlightened. But, as I think I explained in the five-part series, things still have their lawful effect. Once your ‘head is in the tigers mouth’ as the popular saying has it, you will inevitably continue to read this stuff, ask questions and receive answers and move inexorably towards Self-knowledge. No choice. (You don’t ‘experience non-duality, incidentally – not ever!) Once you have Self-knowledge, you will also eventually cease to identify with the body.

   What difference will it make to ‘you’? Which ‘you’ is that, then? It makes no difference at all to brahman (which is who you really are) because there is ONLY brahman in reality – no world, no individuals. You can call it what you like from the vantage point of the (non-existent) world or individual.

   But being pragmatic, treating the empirical world as real for the sake of argument, realizing the truth of your own nature and of the universe is unarguably the highest achievement that can be made by someone who imagines him/herself to be an individual. With such an achievement within reach, what a waste to commit suicide!

   It is certainly true that only the few come to Advaita. But within the paradigm of birth, death and reincarnation that is the basis of what might be called the first part of Advaita, it is said that everyone must come to it eventually. We have to go through all of the ambitions, desires and frustrations of life first until we come to the realization that all of it is worthless. Only then do we begin a path of spiritual seeking. That is almost certainly doomed to innumerable dead ends and mistakes before finding a system that works, i.e. Advaita. (Traditionally, this is said to take very many lifetimes, lots of which are not even human.)

   So don’t despair! Press on, you are nearly there!

   • Posted on behalf of Peregrinus:

     “This was written to illustrate the fact that ‘I am not a doer’ but of course it equally illustrates that I am not the decider either. The bottom line is that ‘things happen’ (which may or may not involve this body that I call ‘mine’) but all I can do is witness them. I agree that we do not choose to follow Advaita either or have any involvement in whether or not we become enlightened. But, as I think I explained in the five-part series, things still have their lawful effect. Once your ‘head is in the tigers mouth’ as the popular saying has it, you will inevitably continue to read this stuff, ask questions and receive answers and move inexorably towards Self-knowledge. No choice. (You don’t ‘experience non-duality, incidentally – not ever!) Once you have Self-knowledge, you will also eventually cease to identify with the body.”

     I suppose that answers that question—ultimately there is no choice as to whether one attains enlightenment or not. And, as Richard Sylvester points out, the non-existence of individuals (from an absolute standpoint) renders the question of choice irrelevant.

     “What difference will it make to ‘you’? Which ‘you’ is that, then? It makes no difference at all to brahman (which is who you really are) because there is ONLY brahman in reality – no world, no individuals. You can call it what you like from the vantage point of the (non-existent) world or individual.”

     I suppose I had in mind the apparent body-mind I know as myself. But once it dies, it will no longer make any difference to it whether ANYTHING ever made a difference to it.

     “But being pragmatic, treating the empirical world as real for the sake of argument, realizing the truth of your own nature and of the universe is unarguably the highest achievement that can be made by someone who imagines him/herself to be an individual. With such an achievement within reach, what a waste to commit suicide!”

     If I understand correctly, this apparent achievement is in the same category as, say, the achievement of earning a Nobel Prize, inventing something revolutionary, and creating a historically significant masterpiece of art/music/literature/etc.—but incomparably above and beyond all of these.

     Suicide would only be a waste to apparent individuals who believe there is such a thing as “achievement” or “death.” I find that it can be rather challenging to keep myself from mixing up the Absolute and the Relative. 🙂

     “It is certainly true that only the few come to Advaita. But within the paradigm of birth, death and reincarnation that is the basis of what might be called the first part of Advaita, it is said that everyone must come to it eventually. We have to go through all of the ambitions, desires and frustrations of life first until we come to the realization that all of it is worthless. Only then do we begin a path of spiritual seeking. That is almost certainly doomed to innumerable dead ends and mistakes before finding a system that works, i.e. Advaita. (Traditionally, this is said to take very many lifetimes, lots of which are not even human.)”

     I still fail to see how there can be reincarnation, even from a relative standpoint. Ramana Maharshi says that the mind attaches itself to a new body once the old one dies (I know this is only an explanation for use in the relative plane), but I don’t see how a mind can exist before the body it inhabits, perhaps because I tend to view the mind as an inextricable function of the brain (the standard materialist/physicalist view). I don’t see how there can be direct, unbroken continuity between my mind and any other individual lifeform that comes into being in the future. I think I need to read up on the concept of jiva.

     So “gradually but inevitably” (as Krishna Das is fond of saying), all jivas will ultimately find freedom. But even this is only from a relative, limited perspective. From the absolute perspective, nothing is really happening, and freedom is now, as Gaudapada’s marvelous statement declares: “there is neither birth nor dissolution, nor aspirant to liberation nor liberated nor anyone in bondage.” “I” need only to realize this.

2. Dear Peregrinus the Nihilist

   //Advaita claims that we do have one freedom, and that is to stop identifying with the body-mind.//

   Puruṣārtha (freewill) indicates the ability to do, not to do, or to do otherwise, an action. So it always pertains to an action and has nothing to do with knowledge or attitude. Therefore, your aforementioned statement of stopping to identify with the body-mind-sense complex is not a result of freewill, since no action is involved. It indicates an attitude, a certain disposition, which is as a result of knowledge gained from the upaniṣads. In knowledge, there is no freewill involved – since knowledge is vastu tantram (dependent on the object) and independent of the knower. Once we open our eyes, and if they are properly functional, and if there is light, and if one’s mind is behind the eyes, there is no option but to see what is in front, even though it is not a sight that one may behold. 🙂

   /What real difference would it make at the end of the day? If this particular body-mind, which I know as myself, becomes self-realized, it will probably be at peace for the rest of its days.//

   When advaita is read over dinner, (//I finished reading your five-part series on free will yesterday evening, after several sittings over dinner//) as a possibility book meant for intellectual digestion, these questions are very natural… advaita is meant for a qualified seeker. And qualifications include viveka (discrimination between whats eternal and whats not), vairāgya (dispassion towards ephemeral things born out of discrimination), śamādiṣaṭkasampattiḥ (6 fold sub-qualifications like mind-control, sense-control, withdrawal, forbearnace, open-mindedness, and single pointed focus), and mumukṣutva (intense desire for liberation).

   Advaita is not a possibility book. There are people who have dedicated their lives in gaining this knowledge, and once gained, invest the rest of their lives in remaining in this knowlegde. Advaita represents both the view and way of life; both are inseperably intertwined that without commiting to its way of life, some of its views will not be fully understood and viceversa. If someone where to look at only its view, then one is bound to arrive at conclusions such as you have.

   If you asked youeself, what you sought in advaita, that may clarify matters.

   By the way, your statement “If this particular body-mind, which I know as myself, becomes self-realized” is an oxymoron. Body-mind-sense complex are non-Self, according to advaita, and hence cannot become self-realized…

   I see a lot of wrong conclusions in you about Advaita – you need to learn advaita from a qualified guru, if you serious about it…

   with best wishes. and praṇams.

   Śuka.

   • Response from Peregrinus:

     “Puruṣārtha (freewill) indicates the ability to do, not to do, or to do otherwise, an action. So it always pertains to an action and has nothing to do with knowledge or attitude. Therefore, your aforementioned statement of stopping to identify with the body-mind-sense complex is not a result of freewill, since no action is involved.”

     So it looks like I have mistakenly assumed that “freedom” in this context means “freedom to act/choose.” And if there is no doer in the first place, the whole question becomes moot, as there is no one to do anything, including choosing not to identify with the body-mind.

     “advaita is meant for a qualified seeker. And qualifications include viveka (discrimination between whats eternal and whats not), vairāgya (dispassion towards ephemeral things born out of discrimination), śamādiṣaṭkasampattiḥ (6 fold sub-qualifications like mind-control, sense-control, withdrawal, forbearnace, open-mindedness, and single pointed focus), and mumukṣutva (intense desire for liberation).”

     Yes, that is one of the things I wanted to confirm and clarify: that Advaita is not for everyone, that it is, in fact, much more of an “aristocratic” philosophy/lifestyle than a “populist” one. Eliot Deutsch briefly outlines four general qualifications in ADVAITA VEDANTA: A PHILOSOPHICAL RECONSTRUCTION, and it seems that the qualifications you have listed match his almost point for point.

     “Advaita is not a possibility book. There are people who have dedicated their lives in gaining this knowledge, and once gained, invest the rest of their lives in remaining in this knowlegde. Advaita represents both the view and way of life; both are inseperably intertwined that without commiting to its way of life, some of its views will not be fully understood and viceversa. If someone where to look at only its view, then one is bound to arrive at conclusions such as you have.”

     That is indeed a problem for me, then, as that suggests that I must dive into the ocean before thoroughly testing the waters.

     I didn’t mean to come across as taking Advaita frivolously, as a form of intellectual entertainment. I study it just about every day, and when I’m not studying, I contemplate its implications in conjunction with observing everyday life. I’m not assuming that this by itself is sufficient—one of the one first things about Advaita that made an impression on me was the importance it attached to asceticism, which my background in Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christianity helped me to appreciate. Needless to say, the life of Shankara attests to the level of dedication you have described.

     “By the way, your statement “If this particular body-mind, which I know as myself, becomes self-realized” is an oxymoron. Body-mind-sense complex are non-Self, according to advaita, and hence cannot become self-realized…”

     I’ve recently come to understand this. “Enlightenment” and “self-realization” are but metaphorical descriptions of the apparent occurrence of “liberation.” As Richard Sylvester explains, “[A]n appearance cannot discover reality.” (He also says, in another place, “The idea that an illusory person can get themself to see that they are unreal is completely absurd.”)

     “If you asked youeself, what you sought in advaita, that may clarify matters.”

     I would say that I’ve sought the truth—the “nature of things”—in Advaita. Not infrequently do I suspect Advaita to be nothing less than the Holy Grail of philosophy—insofar as it can be called a “philosophy”…

     But being honest with myself, I would say that I’ve probably sought other things in Advaita as well: a hobby, an identity, another decoration for my ego. Recognizing these pitfalls, I try to be vigilant and focus on the real purpose of the Vedanta. However, given my general skepticism, I study it as a seeker, not as a convinced adherent.

     “I see a lot of wrong conclusions in you about Advaita – you need to learn advaita from a qualified guru, if you serious about it…”

     They may not be conclusions so much as they are queries. I may well have mistaken impressions/ideas about Advaita, but that is partly why I am asking questions—to fill in gaps in my knowledge and to iron out wrinkles in understanding.

     I am aware of the emphasis that traditional Advaita places on a guru-disciple relationship. This is a considerable investment. I feel that certain questions need to be satisfactorily answered before I am ready to take such a leap.

     • Dear Peregrinus

       //That is indeed a problem for me, then, as that suggests that I must dive into the ocean before thoroughly testing the waters.//

       Vedānta is a pramāṇa, a means of knowedge. It is not mere abstract philosophy.

       A person, who had become blind during the course of his life, was operated upon. Since he was extremely anxious about getting his vision back, and the prospect of a failed surgery would be too much to accept, on the day when the Doctor was about to remove his bandage, he asked the Doctor “Can you prove to me that the operation is a success and that I can actually see, before you remove my bandage? For, I will not be able to take it if the outcome was otherwise.”

       You can imagine what the plight of the Doctor would be. Eyes are the only pramāṇa by which one can see, is it anadhigata, there is no other way to see but through the eyes.

       Similarly, Vedānta is the pramāṇa, the only pramāṇa for self-knowledge. One has to use it in order to be able to ‘see’. There is no other way.

       Like even the eyes operate under some conditions, such as presence of light, within range of eyes, object should be of a certain minimum size, etc. so also, for Vedānta to operate as a pramāṇa, certain conditions must be satisfied – they are cittaśuddhi, purity of mind, and cittaikāgratha, single pointed focus, plus the qualifications listed earlier.

       I totally appreciate that it is difficult to dwelve into vedānta without testing waters. That is why I asked what is it that you seek in advaita. Unless one has attained vairāgya (dispassion) towards other puruṣārthas, such as artha (security in material gains), kāma (pleasures), and dharma (for after life), as a result of viveka (discrimination) of their impermenant nature, vedānta should ideally not be sought – if an unqualified one seeks, then one will naturally be hesitant to take the plunge as one has not seen the non-ulility of other puruṣārthas.

       So the keys are to regard vedānta as a pramāṇa, and to check if one has vairāgya. If the answer to these questions are in the affirmative, then your doubts, regarding the pursuit and the committment it demands, will drop.

       If this is not the case, any amount of testing the waters from outside will not result in conviction, for at best, if and when your doubts become exhausted, you will still hold it as the best hypothesis!!! 🙂

       // I feel that certain questions need to be satisfactorily answered before I am ready to take such a leap.//

       Please feel free to raise any amount of questions, without any hesitation. Śaṅkara is 2500 years old, and advaita precedes him, plus 1000s of ācāryas have written on it and analyzed it to the nth degree. So, I am sure advaita has all the answers.

       I read your question again, and most of what you have written appears more as conclusions than as queries to me. Maybe this is something cultural that I need to get used to. Looking forward to hearing more from you.. praṇams.

       Śuka.

       • “Similarly, Vedānta is the pramāṇa, the only pramāṇa for self-knowledge. One has to use it in order to be able to ‘see’. There is no other way.”

         I think you’re being unequivocal here, but I just want to make sure that I understand: you’re saying that Vedanta is the *only* way to the ultimate truth, and that all other paths are ultimately dead ends that only go so far?

         “If this is not the case, any amount of testing the waters from outside will not result in conviction, for at best, if and when your doubts become exhausted, you will still hold it as the best hypothesis!!! :-)”

         I guess it really comes down to Ishvara’s will, wouldn’t you say? If it happens, it happens. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t.

         “Śaṅkara is 2500 years old, and advaita precedes him, plus 1000s of ācāryas have written on it and analyzed it to the nth degree.”

         Didn’t Shankara live in the 8th-9th centuries? You bring up a couple of questions I am interested in: 1) how far back in history can Advaita be traced and 2) did Shankara introduce anything crucial into Advaita that wasn’t there prior to his life and teachings?

         Frithjof Schuon writes, “The Vedanta of Shankara…is divine and immemorial in its origin and by no means the creation of Shankara, who was only its great and providential enunciator.” (Quoted from THE ESSENTIAL FRITHJOF SCHUON)

         In other words, how far did Shankara’s contributions extend beyond synthesizing and systematizing already-extant Advaitin teaching?

         “I read your question again, and most of what you have written appears more as conclusions than as queries to me. Maybe this is something cultural that I need to get used to.”

         Conclusions or queries? I’m not sure which. If they were conclusions, I would say that they were *provisional/tentative* conclusions at worst. I stand ready to be corrected.

         • Dear Peregrinus

           //Vedanta is the *only* way to the ultimate truth, and that all other paths are ultimately dead ends that only go so far?//

           Yes. I am being unequiocal. Why? Eyes can see everything excepting itself – at best it can see only its reflection on a mirror. Similarly advaita vedānta, not just any vedānta, is the only mirror that can reveal the subject, ātmā.

           A question may arise as to why shoudl ātmā, which is self-evident as the knower, be revealed. ātmā as sat (existence) and cit (consciousness) is self-evident. That there is ONLY Brahman, and ātmā and brahman areone and the same, can never be known otherwise through śruti (vedas).

           //I guess it really comes down to Ishvara’s will, wouldn’t you say? If it happens, it happens. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t.//

           Puruṣārtha (effort) is human – frution is Īśvara’s grace; and when I say Īśvara’s grace, I don’t mean His whims and fancies, what I mean is administration of karma-phala. Even prayer is an effort. Without effort, there can be no fruition. We don’t control the phala anyways, so all that is left with us is effort alone. So, as an answer to my question, it is effort all the way…

           //Didn’t Shankara live in the 8th-9th centuries?//

           There are two schools of thoughts that put Śaṅkara either at 500BC or 8AD. I just took the older number, since it suited my statement. 🙂 This topic does not interest me. Sorry.

           //1) how far back in history can Advaita be traced and //

           Advaita has its based in the vedas – tattvamasi, aham brahmāsmi, ayam ātmā brahma, prajñānam brahma… So advaita goes back to the very beginning of creation, since vedas are as old as the creation itself.

           //2) did Shankara introduce anything crucial into Advaita that wasn’t there prior to his life and teachings?

           how far did Shankara’s contributions extend beyond synthesizing and systematizing already-extant Advaitin teaching?//

           I have’nt applied my mind sufficiently on this question to do justice to Śaṅkara. At the risk of misrepresenting him, I think that his primary contribution was synthesizing and systemizing the already-existent advaita teaching.

           His prasthāna-traya bhāṣya, his approach in terms of pūrva-pakṣa and siddhānta, his reconcilation of apparently contradicting revelations of śruti, are all significant contrinutions.

           But what impressed me most,has been his method to derive the meanings of the words of the veda from within veda itself. This is the only way to make sure that the tātparya (purport/intent) of the veda is never compromised and uninfluenced by subjectivity.

           //I would say that they were *provisional/tentative* conclusions at worst. I stand ready to be corrected.//

           This is what is called śraddhā, open-mindedness, open-minded enough to give the teaching a possibility to do its work, and open-minded to change provisional conclusions, if convinced otherwise. This will work…. best wishes.

           Praṇams

           Śuka.

   • Dear Shuka,

     I have to take issue with your statement that “Body-mind-sense complex are non-Self, according to advaita, and hence cannot become self-realized… ” Whilst I accept the first part of course, the second part does not follow at all. In fact, ONLY the mind (or intellect if you want to be pedantic) can gain enlightenment; the real Self, since that is all there is, does not need to become ‘Self-realized’. In fact, I would deprecate the use of terms like ‘Self-realized’ since they only cause confusion. ‘Enilghtenment’ is the same as Self-knowledge and this knowledge is the same as any other knowledge in that it takes place in the mind as a result of hearing/reading and subsequent questioning to remove doubts.

     Best wishes,
     Dennis

     • Dear Dennis

       //In fact, ONLY the mind (or intellect if you want to be pedantic) can gain enlightenment; the real Self, since that is all there is, does not need to become ‘Self-realized’.//

       I will have to disagree with you. Mind/Intellect is acetana and neither they can be subject to avidyā, nor to enlightment. The locus of avidyā is accepted as Brahman only, when it is considered to be there. Ofcourse, upon self-knowledge, it is understood that avidyā was never there.

       Śaṅkara gives an interesting answer when a pūrvapakṣi (prima facie) asks him this question “who is ignorant?” – Śaṅkara says “the one who questions – pṛṣṭhaḥ”.

       The jñāna happens in the intellect, however it is not the intellect that gains the jñāna. It is the jīva, who thought of himself as a baddha (bound), due to avidyā. So saying mind is the one that can gain enlightment cannot be a correct position, for it is merely an instrument – antaḥkaraṇa.

       I would never use the word self-realization for it connotes a later event, post self-knowledge. However, since the questioner had used the phrase self-realized, I thought asking “how can the non-self become self-realized” will effectively communicate the error in question.

       • Dear Shuka,

         This clearly illustrates how careful we need to be with our words! When I said “ONLY the mind (or intellect if you want to be pedantic) can gain enlightenment”, I meant that it TAKES PLACE in the mind/intellect. As you point out, if we are being really pedantic, the mind/intellect are only instruments so we should correctly say, as you do, that it is the jIva who gets enlightenment. So (I am relieved to say) we do not disagree!

         Regarding Shankara’s statement that brahman is the locus of avidyA, of course this has to be true in the end, since there is only brahman, but for practical purposes, it is the false notions in the mind that have to be eliminated before the jIva can gain enlightenment. I trust you will agree with this?

         Best wishes,
         Dennis

         • Dear Dennis

           //it is the false notions in the mind that have to be eliminated before the jIva can gain enlightenment. I trust you will agree with this?//

           It is too terse a statement, which can raise some doubts. So I shall put some caveats before I agree.

           1. avidyā is the cause of duality, as far as a jīva is concerned. Mind (antaḥkaraṇa) itself is a product of avidyā. So avidyā removal is liberation.

           2. Enlightenment is not mere elimination of wrong conclusions in the mind. Self-knowledge happens by using the śruti pramāṇa, when the guru gives the mahāvākya. It is pure pramāṇa opēration that removes avidyā. Avidyā removal is self-knowledge.

           3. However, after jñāna, viparīta-bhāvana continues (habitual tendencies) – these represent the false notions that you alluded to in your statement, which is removed overtime by nididhyāsana. This results in jñāna-niṣṭhā (firmness in knowledge).

           Praṇams

           Śuka.

         • “This clearly illustrates how careful we need to be with our words!”

           I wonder if Advaita dialogue could benefit from the linguistic tools of analytic philosophy, namely propositional calculus and symbolic logic? Would it be a help or a hindrance?

           • I think it would reduce the number of seekers prepared to investigate Advaita from ‘few’ to ‘zero’! 🙂

             Dennis

3. The notion of ‘free will’ is of Jewish-Christian origin, and is the other side of the coin which consists in that other nostrum, ‘(the problem of) evil’, and which complicates things even more. God, being the summum bonum, is not responsible for evil; therefore that responsibility falls entirely on (fallen) man.
   There is no notion in Plato (and generally among the ancient Greeks) of the concept of ‘free will’, in the sense of a faculty of the soul which determines a particular course of action, choice, in other words. Rather, it is an inclination or appetite (desire) which motivates action and which is either for the highest and noblest aspiration in man, or for his lower preferences (they correspond to Being and Becoming respectively). When the inclination is towards the Good Plato calls it Eros. This account of ‘good will’ was preserved in St. Augustine (dilectio or caritas).
   A similar view can be found in Br.U. 4.4.5: “Man is fashioned by desire; according to his desire is his discernment; according to his discernment he does his work.” Also: “For just as men here below pursue the aim after which each aspires, as it were done at command, whether it be a kingdom, or an estate, and live only for that, (so in their aspiration for heavenly rewards they are the slaves of their desires”) – Chand.U. 8.1.5). Paul Deussen, in ‘The Philosophy of the Upanishads’, from which I just quoted, concludes: “The standpoint of the Upanishads, therefore, is a rigid determinism”.
   That judgment, however, should be applied only to the empirical viewpoint of the everyday world, not to the higher one, where Atma (-Brahman), the only reality, reigns with absolute freedom. ‘That Thou art’.

   Incidentally, Schuon has stipulated that there is a universal esoterism underlying all religions, but I think that one should distinguish between different esoterisms, since there are many different characteristics and doctrines within each one of them when compared with one another.

   • “The notion of ‘free will’ is of Jewish-Christian origin, and is the other side of the coin which consists in that other nostrum, ‘(the problem of) evil’, and which complicates things even more.”

     Interesting—I’d assumed that the concept predated Judeo-Christianity. Then again, I think I remember reading in different places that the idea of libertarian free will originated with Augustine of Hippo and was furthered developed by Enlightenment thinkers.

     “That judgment, however, should be applied only to the empirical viewpoint of the everyday world, not to the higher one, where Atma (-Brahman), the only reality, reigns with absolute freedom. ‘That Thou art’.”

     I suppose that is what I wanted to clarify—that “liberation” is not a choice that one freely makes, but something that simply happens. It follows, I trust, that the steps that apparent individuals take to attain “liberation” are not really “taken”; they are occurrences/events in a chain of cause and effect.

     “Incidentally, Schuon has stipulated that there is a universal esoterism underlying all religions, but I think that one should distinguish between different esoterisms, since there are many different characteristics and doctrines within each one of them when compared with one another.”

     If I understand Schuon and the other Perennialists correctly, they essentially say that all religions radically differ from one another at the base level of exoterism but are identical at the apex of esoterism.

4. As a reply to Peregrinus from my part re. the need of a guru, I dare say that this cannot be an absolute rule; that, generally speaking, there is no rule without exceptions. This issue has not ceased being controversial, with good reason, I think. Indeed, having a spiritual teacher to guide one’s efforts is a great convenience in most cases, but, as with everything else, it may or may not happen; it is not up to you/me, the individual, as we have all seen so far from this discussion. Francis Lucille would say that it is up to the universe in its totality to decide at any time as to what is to happen (the Spirit goeth wherever It willeth – spiritus ubi vult spirat). A “general skepticism” (which you attribute to yourself) is a good platform to get a start from. Apart from opportunity there are many other factors involved.

   Ramesam has noted sometime ago the general, widespread availability of books, texts, and teachers (in Internet and You-tub) which would have been undreamed of a few years ago. If you need a teacher, it will happen, not to worry; have we not all agreed that one is neither a doer nor a chooser? From the highest perspective one is not a seeker either – there is no ignorance, no one that is bound, no one that seeks liberation… (Gaudapada).

   • “… I dare say that this cannot be an absolute rule; that, generally speaking, there is no rule without exceptions.”

     Your statement brings to mind something that Ramana Maharshi said regarding gurus:

     “The Guru is absolutely necessary. The UPANISHADS say that none but a Guru can take a man out of the jungle of intellect and sense-perceptions. So there must be a Guru.”

     But immediately *before* that, he says:

     “It all depends on what you call a Guru. He need not be in a HUMAN form. Dattatreya had twenty-four Gurus including the five elements – earth, water, etc. EVERY OBJECT in this world was his Guru.” (Quoted from BE AS YOU ARE: THE TEACHINGS OF SRI RAMANA MAHARSHI, emphasis added)

   • Dear Martin

     I beg to differ. Guru, and that too a living guru, is very essential and irreplaceable.

     In his bhāṣya on Muṇḍaka 1.2.12 the phrase ‘gurumeva abhigacchet’, Śaṅkara says the ‘evakāra’, the use of only, is to highlight the need for a guru.

     Swami Dayānanda while elaborating further on it, and also in his lectures in vedānta as a pramāṇa, puts forward the following reasons.

     Vedānta is a pramāṇa, it is at the same time a method of teaching. The various prakriyas (models) which are used in teaching, are meant to remove a variety of misconceptions a student may have. And every student is unique in the extent of his misconceptions (a dubious distinction!!!). Therefore, it becomes the responsibility of a guru to handle vedānta as pramāṇa. There is no one size fits all in vedānta, or a few sizes fits all. Every seeker is unique with his own bundle of vāsanas.

     If we ask a dozen people to read books, hear mp3, watch youtube and dvd lectures on a given vedānta subject, and test them, we will find almost each one has internalized it in his own way. All these aids can augment a guru, but can never replace him, for it is only by personal interactions can the student’s correctness or otherwise of the assimilation can be known.

     It is confirmed by the fact that the same question evokes different responses from each of the bloggers, and sometimes we discover that there is basic disagreement.

     From the highest perspective, there is no seeker, seeking or sought bheda. So looking at it from that standpoint and concluding that one need not be a chooser is incorrect in my opinion. One has to seek – it is puruṣārtha – and one has to seek the teaching rather than the teacher… to say that it will happen, is sign of lethargy. However I agree that even if one seeks, he may not find a teacher – for his seeeking to fructify, God’s grace is essential…

     Praṇams

     Śuka.

     • “… one has to seek the teaching rather than the teacher”.

       Your (Suka’s) words, last para. This is exactly what I conveyed, while admitting that having a teacher to guide one’s efforts is a great advantage. That the latter is ‘absolutely essential’, as you say, is something else. Those words of yours I quote above coincide with Buddha’s words:

       “Rely not on the teacher/person, but on the teaching. Rely not on the words of the teaching, but on the spirit of the words.
       Rely not on theory, but on experience. Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
       Do not believe anything because it is spoken and rumoured by many. Do not believe in anything because it is written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
       But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

       There is only one teacher; may you find him now.”

       • Dear Martin

         //while admitting that having a teacher to guide one’s efforts is a great advantage.//

         I need to make a clarification here. Having a teacher is not just a great advantage, it is essential. Without teacher, there can be no self-knowledge.

         //one has to seek the teaching rather than the teacher//

         I made this statement with the following in mind.

         Finding the right guru can be tricky. Upaniṣad describes him as śrotriyam brahmaniṣṭham.

         Śrotriya is one who has leanrt the vidyā from a sampradāyavit – one who teaches in line with traditional interpretation. This can be established by inquiry, but then the conclusion is only as good as the claim.

         Brahmaniṣṭha cannot be known.

         In light of the above two statements, if one seeks the teaching rather than the teacher, then if per chance he happened to land on not such a ‘good’ teacher, he will not be stuck, since he will ‘see through’ the inability of the teacher to handle śāstra as pramāṇa. This is the context in which I made the statement.

         //But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.//

         Reason, analysis all have their limitations. Śaṅkara in his commentary on Brahmasūtra II.i.11 says begins by saying that:

         “for this further reason, one should not on the strength of mere logic, challenge something that has to be know form the Vedas. For reasoning, that has no Vedic foundation and springs from the mere imagination of person, lacks conclusiveness. For man’s conjunctions have no limits. This it is seen that an argument discovered by adepts with great effort is falsified by other adepts; and an argument hit upon by the latter is proved to be hollow by still others. So nobody can rely on any argument as conclusive, for human intellect differs. If, however, the reasoning of somebody having wide fame, sat for instance, Kapila or someone else, be relied upon under the belief that this must be conclusive, even so it surely remains inconclusive, in as much as people, whose greatness is well recognized and who are the initiators of scriptures (or schools of thought) – for instance Kapila, Kaṇāda, and others – are seen to hold divergent views.”

         So the position ifo advaita is svataḥprāmāṇya-vāda. That every pramāṇa is a proof in itslef. All we need to take care is there is no anya-pramāṇa-kopa (contradiction by other means of knowledge), of revelations by one pramāṇa.

         Praṇams

         Śuka.

         • //Finding the right guru can be tricky. Upaniṣad describes him as śrotriyam brahmaniṣṭham…
           Śrotriya is one who has leanrt the vidyā from a sampradāyavit – one who teaches in line with traditional interpretation.//

           Thank you for your views, which I respect. But I see a problem with the above: which sampradaya to accept and follow – Shankara’s or Mandana’s? I read the following in the advaitin blog;

           “The teaching of Sri Vachaspati Mishra (Bhamatikara) and Swami Dayananda is opposed to the Sampradaya of Shankara… Swami Dayananda (and Jaisankar) , it would seem, belongs to Mandana’s Sampradaya not Shankara’s.
           … the post-Shankara theories leads to a number of logical problems, already pointed out by Ramanuja in his 1100th century critique of the Advaita school as he knew it (that is, the post-Shankara Advaita school). The critique of Ramanuja only applies to the standpoints of the post-Shankarites, and could have been avoided if the post-Shankarites had remained faithful to the teachings of Adi Shankara himself. And this critique makes way for the rise of the dualist schools. So, at least to some degree, the post-Shankara theories where responsible for the forming of rival Vedantic schools.”

           • Dear Martin

             I have not read enough of Maṇḍana to comment on areas where he differs.

             The Swami Dayānanda I was referring to is the contemporary Ārṣa-Vidyā-Gurukulam, who is my guru. The one you are referring to could be Ārya Samaj, who is not regarded as a sampradāyavit..

             I have also not read Bhāmati yet to respond on the extent, if at all, to which he differed from Śaṅkara. My guru paraṁparā is committed to the vivaraṇa school, which they defend as in line with Śaṅkara.

             In my opinion, Śaṅkara sampradāya is the one to be followed.

             Praṇams

             Śuka.

5. 1. I would like to submit that I fully concur with Dennis that the write up by Peregrinus the Nihilist on ‘Some Thoughts………’ “was especially well written and interesting…”
   So thanks to both the author and Dennis for this thought-provoking Post.

   2. Rupert Spira has just posted a 5-min May 2013 conversation of his at Parmoor on YouTube. It deals with ‘Thought, Choice and Surrender.’ As usual, it is very instructive, very advaitic and very simple.
   The Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sKdy7ve5YE&list=UUxXWjjtATq3OM545gMh9PUg

   3. In addition, here are a few random meandering thoughts that come to me:

   a) Re: “I have yet to grasp the relevant implications of quantum mechanics”
   I hope you have seen these links:

   i) The Wholeness of Quantum Reality: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/critical-opalescence/2013/11/04/the-wholeness-of-quantum-reality-an-interview-with-physicist-basil-hiley/
   ii) [P]hysicists are never able to conduct a fully controlled experiment, since the experimental setup they choose is not strictly independent of the processes that created the particles.
   http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/critical-opalescence/2013/10/07/does-some-deeper-level-of-physics-underlie-quantum-mechanics-an-interview-with-nobelist-gerard-t-hooft/
   iii) Conference on Emergent Quantum Mechanics (Oct 2013, Vienna): Testing Conspiracy Theories
   http://backreaction.blogspot.co.at/2013/10/testing-conspiracy-theories.html

   b) Re: “There is something about Advaita’s position on free will that puzzles me.”

   Advaita position is pretty simple and straightforward, unless people make it sound complicated. Choice (hence free will) exists for one who thinks that s/he is a separate ‘self’ (individual); there is no choice when the individuating ego is absent because then what remains is only all Oneness (= Aloneness) without any ‘separations’ (distances) – an impartite ‘Wholeness.’

   c) Re: In other words, Advaita Vedanta is ……. only open to “the few.” Do you agree?”

   NO. I do not agree.

   Advaita is for all. Unless one either plays the “I am holier than thou” game for self-aggrandizement or self-importance or feigns to be wiser and is fond of passing condescending statements on others.
   What Advaita demands is rigorous logic and an ability to shed all belief structures.

   d) Some Commentators seem to mean that puruShArtha is same as free will.

   The generally accepted translation, as per standard Sanskrit-English dictionaries, free will is svecha, swatantra.
   puruSArtha is human pursuit.

   e) When a full clarity of Advaita teaching emerges, it will be seen that there is no ‘not-Self’ anywhere. A provisional intermittent step of distinguishing Self and not-Self is used only for teaching purposes and discarded as quickly when it is understood that all is Self (Consciousness = brahman).

   f) The human body-mind is distressed because it can never conquer the ineluctable disease, decay and death. Advaita, strictly speaking, does not bestow any ability on the body-mind to surmount these predicaments at the level of the body-mind. It says that “you” suffer because you mis-identify yourself with the body-mind which any way will dissolve (because the body-mind is a percept which arises at the moment on “ignoring” who you are). Advaita points to the Truth that the Real “You” are self-effulgent eternal and unchanging Infinity (Happiness).

   regards,

   • “Re: In other words, Advaita Vedanta is ……. only open to “the few.” Do you agree?”

     Ramesam said: NO. I do not agree.
     Advaita is for all. Unless one either plays the “I am holier than thou” game for self-aggrandizement or self-importance or feigns to be wiser and is fond of passing condescending statements on others.
     What Advaita demands is rigorous logic and an ability to shed all belief structures.”

     My answer would be: YES. Even though Advaita is for all, only few will feel attracted to it. First of all, few are able to apply rigorous logic. But most of all, few want to shed belief structures – especially if these are not going to be replaced with new ones.

     This position has nothing to do with self-aggrandizement. After all, what did you do to feel attracted to Advaita? The attraction naturally occurred in your mind. Whereby we have again arrived at the issue of free will.

6. Dr. Alberto Martin Garcia (amartingarcia) succinctly articulated in his Comment of 14th Jan the true Advaita position re: the need of a Guru: “If you need a teacher, it will happen, not to worry;…”

   I found in the discussions a reference made to what Ramana said.

   I would like to quote here Ramana’s advice (copied from David Godman’s Blog):

   Bhagavan: He who instructs an ardent seeker to do this or that is not a true master. The seeker is already afflicted by his activities and wants peace and rest. In other words, he wants cessation of his activities. Instead of that he is told to do something in addition to, or in place of, his other activities. Can that be a help to the seeker?

   Activity is creation; activity is the destruction of one’s inherent happiness. If activity be advocated the adviser is not a master but the killer. Either the Creator (Brahma) or Death (Yama) may be said to have come in the guise of such a master. He cannot liberate the aspirant but strengthens his fetters. (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 601.)

7. Thanks Sitara for your observations.

   It looks to me that your disagreement with me on whether Advaita is for all or not comes from a slight misunderstanding of the way the words are parsed by you. Let me please clarify on the two points raised by you.

   1. Advaita IS for ALL:

   What I said means that the philosophical principles of Advaita by themselves DO NOT COME with “RESTRICTED ENTRY” boards. The seeker, out of his/her preferences/proclivities may or my not choose that road. But the road IS AVAILABLE TO ALL.

   You also admit as much when you say as a conditional statement “Even though Advaita is for all…”

   The self-imposed or imagined limitations of the seeker should not be attributed to the philosophy itself and say Advaita is not for all.

   2. Aggrandizement:

   I used this epithet to qualify the words of self-certifying, self-serving gurus who declare to a humble seeker : ” Advaita is only for a privileged few; you are unfit for Advaita..”

   You said it very correctly echoing Martin: “After all, what did you do to feel attracted to Advaita? The attraction naturally occurred in your mind.”
   Therefore, the True Guru is inside each one of us with the Advaita message already scripted there! (Remember the parody of a lion cub brought up by a flock of sheep “recognizing” its true self on hearing the ‘roar’ of a lion). How can anyone outlaw any one else from Advaita!

   regards,

   • Thank you for your kind comments and the links.

     From the little I have read on the relevant subject, it does seem that Advaita is open only to “the few”–not by virtue of restrictions imposed by self-appointed arbiters of who is qualified for Advaita (did not Ramana Maharshi, who treated everyone equally, say that there are no /ajnAnis/ from the perspective of a /jnAni/?), but by restrictions that come from within.

     Setting aside the question of who is fit for enlightenment and who isn’t, it seems undeniable that not everyone possesses /viveka/ or /mumukshutva/, or the capacity for /vairAgya/, /shama/, /dama/, /uparati/, /titikshA/, /samAdhAna/, /shraddhA/ (the four sets of qualifications as listed in Deutsch’s book). I would think that most people would much rather gamble and watch shows at Las Vegas than struggle through Hindu scriptures and the relevant Advaitin commentaries, to say nothing of practicing renunciation. This is said not to demean them, but to simply point out that the standards of Advaita seem to be far beyond the reach of the majority, given average temperament and ability. (I have serious doubts that I would qualify myself.)

     Incidentally, this is one of the things that I find so interesting about the split between traditional Advaita and neo-Advaita–that the latter appears to be an effort to simplify the traditional teaching in order to make it accessible to the masses (the “open secret,” as Tony Parsons calls it). Similar trends can surely be found in the early history of Buddhism, and it may not be too much of a stretch to find a parallel in the Reformation that took place within western Christianity about 497 years ago, and even the liberal/progressive movements in vogue today. Jan Kersschot is unequivocal in calling his approach to non-duality “democratic spirituality” (cf. NOBODY HOME). (One Amazon reviewer seems to suggest that Mr. Kersschot’s book signifies the “end of ‘spiritual Apartheid'”, and I think that says it well.)

     • Neo-advaita is an attempt to capitalize on the desires of naive seekers for an ‘enlightenment experience’ or permanent happiness or whatever other mistaken views such seekers may have. Of course these ‘teachers’ have to claim that there is ‘nothing to do’, otherwise no one would come to them. Also, they could not claim any significant teaching to be required because they do not stay around long enough to give any. They are off touring the world, giving short sessions to maximise their income. They are not ‘simplifying the teaching’; they are making a mockery of it.

       • If what you’re saying is true, neo-Advaita fits very nicely in the modern “fast food culture” of quick-and-easy gratification. Why use the stove when you can get essentially the same results with the microwave? No need for recipes or utensils–just add water and heat for 100 seconds!

         Speaking of food, in HOW TO ATTAIN ENLIGHTENMENT, James Swartz states: “A pepperoni pizza is the king of tamasic foods. Eat it and die.” No wonder traditional Advaita isn’t more popular! I would think that one of the last things a seeker of instant spiritual gratification would want to hear is a list of dietary prescriptions that precludes their favorite comfort food.

         • I thought you hadn’t yet read ‘Enlightenment: the Path through the Jungle’! Here is a quote from that book:

           456. It is as though the style and content of current satsangs is a parallel evolution to satisfy the requirements of the ‘evolved’ individual. The prolonged, in-depth, possibly lifelong teaching has been condensed and distilled into something that can be covered in a two-hour session. The message has now been reduced to an almost content-less ‘This is it!’ – a high-energy message, low in spiritual nourishment; the ‘fast food’ of non-dual teaching.
           
           But, unfortunately, there are no short-cuts and attempts to bypass the logical, step by step development of traditional methods are extremely unlikely to lead to the desired result. Far more likely is that additional confusion will be caused, which will have to be removed later before the proper teaching can begin.

8. Peregrinus: “If I understand Schuon and the other Perennialists correctly, they essentially say that all religions radically differ from one another at the base level of exoterism but are identical at the apex of esoterism.”

   You are quite correct. I am sorry to deviate from this interesting thread of questions and answers but felt it my due to respond to the above general opinion, with which I bear to disagree.

   Esoterism as such is metaphysics, to which an appropriate method of realization is necessarily added… the ultimate reality of metaphysics is a Supreme Identity in which the opposition of all contraries, even of being and not-being is resolved – F. Schuon, Two Esoterisms, in Survey of Metaphysics and Esoterism, p.115).

   Right, metaphysics or esoterism – the inner dimension of religion – being a view (drishti) of reality, is not reality itself; it is mithya from the perspective of advaita Vedanta. As to whether there is such a thing as a universal esoterism, I will come to this later, but we may note that in the above quotation it is stated that ‘an appropriate method of realization is necessarily added’. Thus, method is part and parcel of what is defined by Schuon as esoterism, which precludes esoterism from being universal (inherent, as defined by him, in all religions, or even generally accepted by their representatives) given the variety and multiplicity of methods and doctrines extant in the different religions and within each one of them, some of the latter definitely belonging to the esoteric dimension.
   .
   ‘Authentic esoterism’, which, Schuon wrote, stems from the nature of things, “is the way which is founded on total and essential truth and not merely on partial or formal truth” (Human Premises of a Religious Dilemma).

   The following excerpt is from an essay I wrote titled ‘Frithjof Schuon and Advaita Vedanta’, published by SOPHIA in 2010, and addressing this question at the beginning:

   “If we speak of different metaphysics or esoterisms , we are at a higher level of discourse than when dealing with the various religions, and thus we will find at least some cognitive approximations, if not identity, between them; but differences there are. Unquestionably, the esoterisms of Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism differ from each other, including, of course, the doctrinal aspect, and we could say of them, though the comparison is only approximate, what Reza Sha-Kazemi writes about spiritual realization and the religions:… is the summit of the mystical quest one and the same, or are there as many summits as there are religions? The overriding conclusion is that… one can justifiably speak of a single, transcendent essence of spiritual realization, whatever be the religious starting-point. The stress here is on the word ‘transcendent’; anything short of this level inescapably entails multiplicity and hence differences as well as similarities, but not unity: unity in an absolute sense is only to be found at the level of the Absolute, that is, at the transcendent level, precisely.”( ‘Paths to Transcendence – according to Shankara, Ibn Arabi, and Meister Eckhart, 2006 – p. xiv).

9. The discussions on “Some Thoughts and Questions on Free Will” seem to have veered towards a debate on the “means and methods of imparting Non-dual Knowledge”, democratization and marketing of the “message.”

   Without intending to comment even remotely in any way on the above issues, I would like to recapitulate here two oft-quoted stories taken from our scriptures regarding the Non-dual message, the means of instruction and the instructor.

   1. The Knowledge:
   A lady wearing a gold necklace forgets that she has been wearing it and searches for it all over the house. After a time, an outsider comes along and says that the necklace is right there on her body. She feels so happy that she could get back her necklace as if she really lost and found it again! Did the outside person find a necklace that was really lost? Had he given any necklace to her? No, he didn’t. He merely showed her what has been with her all the time and what she actually never lost.

   The Advaitic Knowledge imparted is NOT anything new nor is it unknown to the aspirant.

   2. The means of Knowledge and the role of the Teacher:
   As per the ancient Indian custom, a funeral pyre is lit on the head side of the corpse after performing the prescribed rituals by a close relative of the diseased. The entire grieving party then leaves the graveyard. It is now left to the Caretaker of the graveyard to see that the corpse is burnt fully. When half of the body is burnt, the Caretaker lifts the legs of the dead body with the help of a stick and folds them over so that they fall into the fire. The stick is also used to stir the fire so that the corpse is fully burnt. The stick is then thrown into the fire and not preserved or reused.

   In the same way, the means of Knowledge, the instructor etc. have only a temporary utility. They are required for a limited purpose. After that they have as much value as the stick used by the Caretaker in a graveyard.

   These stories would serve to deflate the bloated ‘importance’ given to themselves and their methods by the self-perpetuating and self-preserving gurus and their unabashed cohorts.

   The following extracts taken from other discussion groups on this topic will help throw more light on the issue:

   1. From both the East and West, we have many examples of Teachers who understood and conveyed the same Non-dual message though they had no prior exposure to or knowledge of Vedas or vedanta. Can we say then that there is only one means to the Knowledge?

   2. Octogenarian Shri S. N. Sastri, a highly knowledgeable sampradayi Vedantin and author of several authentic books on Advaita lamented earlier this month at one of the discussion fora on how narrow minded some youngsters have become in claiming glory only to one corner of the world and authenticity to a particular style for imparting the Non-dual teaching.

   Shri Sastri regretted: “Some members came down on me like a ton of bricks because they did not like my attributing vedantic thoughts to a westerner!” because Shri Sastri happened to appreciate Eckhort Tolle whose teaching was similar to vedanta .

   3. It is on record that “Mahamahopadhyaya R. Krishnamurthi Sastrigal, a former principal of the Madras Sanskrit College, once attended a seminar conducted by Swami Dayananda. In that Swami Dayananda severely criticised the views of Swami Satchidanandendra Sarasvati. Though Krishnamurthi Sastrigal is a follower of the traditional Acaryas and does not accept the views of SSS, he strongly resented Swami Dayananda’s criticism of SSS.Thus it turns out that Krishnamurthi Sastrigal who is an orthodox Brahmin and a traditional scholar is more open-minded than modern scholars who know English.

   Krishamurthi Sastrigal gives full respect to Swami Dayananda even though the latter’s knowledge of Sanskrit and vedanta is considerably less.” Is such tolerance becoming scarcer these days?

   4. Another well-respected member quoted a verse from sUta samhita, which is older than Shankaracharya and highly regarded by the Acharya too.

   “अन्येषामपि सर्वेषां ज्ञानाभ्यासो विधीयते।
   भाषान्तरेण कालेन तेषां सोऽप्युपकारकः॥

   The general context and meaning of the sloka is that mere human birth entitles a person for j~nAna, and all the teachers in all the languages and countries will be helping those people in attaining realization.”

   Are we then justified to say that there is only one method and none else?

   5. Another senior member quoted from a 2009 Post the following which clinches the argument:

   “When we say that brahman is the only reality and all jivas are brahman, it follows that every jiva, whether Indian or Westerner or African, is brahman. Otherwise we will be making brahman limited. Since every human being is brahman, God must have provided some means by which those who do not belong to the vedic tradition can also realize that they are brahman.”

   I would like to conclude this posting with the same words that I found in that 2009 Post:
   “So all that I wish to say is that we cannot say that there is only one way
   by which Self-knowledge will dawn.”

   regards,

10. Hi, everyone.

    Thought it was about time I entered into the fray.

    The exchange has thus far been quite lively and fraught with information.

    There are basically three issues I felt moved to address: the concept of free will, the common misconception that Vedanta is a philosophy, and the alleged elitist stance of Vedanta.

    Regarding free will, there are basically three perspectives from which the issue can be viewed.

    “What?” I can already hear your intellect bellowing. “Three perspectives in a non-dual reality? What the hell is up with that?”

    Well, being careful not to get derailed by a tangential point, let me just say that if one is going to properly assimilate self-knowledge, then one is going to have to cultivate the ability to shift perspectives, to hop back and forth between ontological orders. Self-knowledge is comprehensive, not exclusive. It is a matter not of denial, but discrimination. We can’t just say that since reality is non-dual and only awareness exists, then there is no one to do anything and nothing to be done anyway and none of it matters anyhow and actually nothing has ever happened at anytime and so I’m not putting forth any kind of effort anymore. Apparently deluded as I am, I who am actually pure limitless non-material awareness have already fallen down the rabbit hole and found myself in a Wonderland I take to be real. There is a escape plan called self-inquiry, but it has to be executed by the apparent individual I take myself to be in order for it to reveal the reality of non-doership that rests beneath the disguise of the apparent dualistic realm in which I currently seem to be an active participant. In short, I’ve got use the mind in order to assimilate the knowledge that I am not the mind.

    That said, let’s get back to the topic of free will.

    The first perspective from which the concept of free will can be viewed is that of pure awareness. Of course, from this perspective – which is actually not a perspective, as such, since it is altogether non-locatable – there is no doership for the simple reason that since nothing has ever happened, there can be no doing that was ever done and, thus, no doer to have not done it, which ironically would be a doing in itself had it been done. In other words, from the perspective of pure awareness, nothing is being willed, whether free or not, for pure awareness is not a person possessed of the capacity to will. In short, awareness neither wills nor does; awareness simply is.

    The second perspective from which we can view the concept of free will is that of Isvara or God-the-Creator. When for some unfathomable reason pure awareness “wields” its inherent power of maya or ignorance and in so doing projects the entire manifested cosmos in both its gross and subtle aspects, the creative power formed by the “conjunction” of pure awareness and ignorance is personified as Isvara. Or, in more technical terms, we can say that Isvara is the personification of the macrocosmic causal body or field of pure potentiality from which all forms, both gross and subtle, emanate, which results from pure awareness having inexplicably fallen under the apparent influence of its own inherent power of ignorance. Either way, the apparent practical effect is the same: the manifestation of an apparent transactional reality and the emergence of an apparent individual doer. In other words, there arises a context in which discrete deeds seem to be done and individual doers seem to do them. And while these apparent individual doers seem to be doing what they do by means of their own independent volition, such is not the case. All action is actually orchestrated by Isvara.

    In order to comprehend the machinations of Isvara’s “will,” however, we need to first understand what vasanas are and how they impact one’s desires, decisions, and deeds.

    The Sanskrit word “vasana” literally means “fragrance.” It is used to denote the impressions left in the mind as a result of one’s experience. Rather than every detail of each experience being retained, however, the mind filters out all but the essence of the experience, those impressions that give it a pleasant scent or a putrid stink. These fragrances or impressions are thereafter stored in the causal body or the subconscious memory, and from there they potentially wield a powerful influence over one’s actions. Basically, these impressions are the basis of all our attractions and aversions, likes and dislikes, desires and fears. Each time we are faced with a decision the intellect consults the causal body for advice on how to respond, and invariably the causal body instructs us to act in accordance with the character of our vasanas. In other words, it tells us to do what has produced a pleasurable result in the past and to avoid doing what has produced and adverse consequence. Moreover, each time we satiate the desire or circumvent the fear evoked by the vasana we strengthen it. Rather than remaining mild preferences and proclivities, the vasanas we have accrued and reinforced soon become demanding overlords who compel us to act at their behest and in such ways as will satisfy their voracious appetites. Hence, instead of being masters of our destiny, we become slaves to our desires. When a vasana becomes so strong that we are unable to resist its influence, we call it a binding vasana. Because the binding vasanas extrovert one’s attention, it is these vasanas that need to be neutralized before one can successfully practice self-inquiry. Despite the grim manner in which they have just been presented, however, it should be noted that vasanas, by which we mean habitual tendencies that are based on one’s likes and dislikes, are not all bad. Some vasanas compel us to do things that are quite helpful to either our enjoyment of the world or our inner spiritual growth. Whether positive or negative in character and despite the greater or lesser degree of their influence, however, vasanas are the fundamental impetus of our actions.

    The vasanas themselves are not independent sentient entities with a will of their own. Rather, they are merely cogs in the organic machine that is the mind-body-sense complex. They are both the fuel and the by-product, we might say, of the machine’s regenerative operation. That is, not only do they feed the machine the information it needs to carry out its functions, but they are also the subtle residues of that functioning that are stored in the form of informational energy that in turn fuels the continued functioning of the machine.

    As is the case with all manifested objects, the vasanas are time-sensitive and progress through a predictable series of stages during their lifespan. In other words, like all objects, they are born, grow, mature, decay, and die. Thus, once they are born of experience, they gain a greater or lesser degree of strength as they are reinforced through subsequent action until they reach the peak of their power. In the case of certain vasanas, this means that they become irresistible tendencies or binding habits that compel one to satisfy and thereby sustain their strength and thus they take a longer period of time to weaken and eventually wear out as all vasanas inevitably do.

    While this process follows a predetermined pattern – though the variations within its general progression are innumerable – that is part of the operational design of the mind-body-sense machine, the machine itself (i.e. the apparent individual person) believes it is functioning according to its own free will. The ideas, opinions, intuitions, interpretations, and impulses that arise in the mind prompted by the vasanas seem to the apparent individual person as though they are his or her own spontaneously generated thoughts and feelings. Thus, when one feels a decided like or dislike for certain objects, behaviors, or experiences, it means that the vasana driving that attraction or aversion is currently “ascending” through the growth and maturation phases of its lifespan. Conversely, when one is dispassionate toward these same objects, behaviors, or experiences, it means that the vasana that formerly drove one to seek these things is currently “descending” through the phase of decay and making its way toward “death,” which is essentially the complete neutralization of that preference or proclivity’s power to compel our actions.

    The progressively patterned “lifespan” of all manifested objects is part of what we might call Isvara’s “will.” As mentioned earlier, Isvara is basically a personification of the fundamental field of pure potentiality out of which the manifested universe arises. As such, Isvara can also be understood as the laws that govern the operation of that vast macrocosmic machine. In other words, everything that occurs in the manifested apparent reality is a predictable result of the impersonal and inviolable chain of cause-and-effect that is personified as Isvara. Hence, from Isvara’s perspective there is no such thing as individual free will. The process of individual spiritual growth, self-inquiry, and the eventual assimilation of self-knowledge is, thus, simply a predetermined progression of ever-expanding understanding occurring within the mind or subtle body of an apparent individual entity who is nothing more that a mechanistic component functioning within the larger macrocosmic machine that is Isvara.

    From the apparent individual person’s perspective, however, this process of self-realization does not seem to happen spontaneously. Rather, it most often appears to be the result of painstaking effort put forth over a long period of time. In other words, the inevitable unfoldment of Isvara’s “will” reveals itself through the apparent choices and actions of the apparent individual person.

    It is in this understanding that we at last find the reconciliation of determinism and free will.

    Though the apparent individual person is completely controlled by the vasanas, it appears as though he enjoys free will. That is, while the decisions that the vasanas compel him to make and the actions they compel him to take seem as though they are freely chosen on the basis of his personal preferences and proclivities, the vasanas themselves did not originate with the apparent individual person. Certainly, they seem to belong to a particular mind-body-sense complex, but the vasanas themselves actually come from Isvara, so to speak. In fact, it is the vasanas that mandated the manifestation of an appropriate mind-body-sense complex through which they could find expression, and not the mind-body-sense complex that generated the desires and fears that seemed to result from its experiences. In other words, while an apparent individual may like a certain object due to a pleasurable experience he had in association with it, that apparent individual did not choose to find that particular experience pleasurable. Thus, the vasanas and their influence come unbidden to the mind-body-sense complex at the behest of Isvara.

    For all practical purposes, however, the apparent individual person will seem to possess free will as long as he is associated with the mind-body-sense complex and, thus, appears as a functional component within the context of the apparent transactional reality that is the manifested universe. The only difference in terms of the self-realized or enlightened one is that he realizes that the whole apparent happening is a cosmic ruse, that when he apparently makes decisions it is actually Isvara in the form of the vasanas deciding through him, and moreover that even Isvara’s orchestrations are only apparent happenings within pure awareness. Or as Shakespeare put it, life is nothing more than “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

    Still, it’s the only game in town, so what’s to do?

    Well . . . since taking the game to signify something causes so much suffering and the endless pursuit of object-oriented happiness inevitably proves fruitless in terms of providing permanent peace of mind and lasting happiness, all apparent individuals (i.e. all subtle bodies) eventually come to the realization that the thing to do is to get free of it.

    And here, of course, is where Vedanta comes into play.
    About Vedanta, it must first and foremost be understood as neither a religion, a philosophy, nor even a spiritual path, per se.

    While religion asks people to unquestionably accept and adhere to its doctrines, Vedanta only asks that one place enough faith in its veracity to hear its teachings with an open mind and thereafter verify what one has heard through a logical analysis of one’s own heretofore unexamined or erroneously interpreted experience.

    Philosophy, on the other hand, though it does appeal to one’s rational mind, is something that is conjectured by a human being or a group of human beings. It is theoretical in nature, and thus vulnerable to interpretation or disagreement. Vedanta, however, is revealed truth. It did not come from the mind of human beings. It was “heard” or “seen” in deep states of meditation and through objective analysis of one’s experience. Moreover, these revealed truths are not simply the personal experiences of a chosen few. They have been thoroughly vetted through the millennia by thousands of seekers until all personal bias has been removed and only the essential and universal truth remains. Thus, anybody with a properly qualified mind to undertake self-inquiry can verify the same truth for himself.

    In the strictest sense, Vedanta is not even a spiritual path. Though self-inquiry is a practice as are the various yogas by means of which one can purify the mind and cultivate the qualifications necessary to successfully practice self-inquiry and ultimately assimilate self-knowledge, Vedanta is simply the knowledge itself that removes ignorance and sets one free. Admittedly, spiritual practices do play a vital role in the process of self-inquiry as they prepare one for the assimilation of self-knowledge. Knowledge, however, is not something acquired through action, for action, which is fundamentally dualistic in nature given the fact that it requires both a subject and an object, is not opposed to ignorance. Thus, knowledge itself is not a path of practice, but a matter of immediate understanding.

    To be clear, then, Vedanta is neither a religion nor a philosophy nor a spiritual path. It is a means of knowledge. Because the self, which is of the nature of pure awareness, cannot be objectified and thus seen or experienced as an object, Vedanta’s systematic unfoldment of the implied meanings of the words of scripture provide a “word mirror” that enables one to intuitively “see” (i.e. understand) the limitless truth of one’s being.

    In this light it is easy to see why it is said that while many spiritual paths and practices purport to help one successfully navigate the valley of the shadow of death (i.e. deal with and find experiential reprieve from the existential angst that characterizes life in the dualistic apparent reality, which is caused by ignorance), only Vedanta delivers one from evil (i.e. suffering) once and for all. This is not to say that the only means of emancipation is the systematic presentation and unfoldment of Upanishadic texts under the tutelage of a teacher schooled in the proven methodology of the Vedantic teaching tradition. Doubtless, many seekers have realized and continue to realize the fundamental non-dual truth of existence by other means and under the auspices of other traditions. It is to say, however, that due to the fact that there is only one truth and that truth is the end of all knowledge, which is the esoteric or implied meaning of the word “Vedanta,” by no matter what means one realizes it, that truth itself is nothing other than Vedanta.

    Leaving aside the argument that the traditional methodology by which formal Vedanta is taught is irrefutably the most effective means of revealing the true nature of reality and freeing one from suffering, it must nevertheless be emphasized that whether one makes a formal practice of self-inquiry under the “official” auspices of Vedanta or is graced with correct understanding through some other means certain qualifications are necessary if one is to properly and permanently assimilate self-knowledge. As has been pointed out, these qualifications are traditionally enumerated as discrimination, dispassion, control of the mind, control of the sense, withdrawal of the senses, forbearance, the ability to focus on one topic for an extended period of time, faith pending the results of one’s own investigation, and a burning desire for liberation.

    What is most interesting about the qualifications is the fact that all are concerned with the quality of one’s mind. Rather than having to have had mystical visions or acquired spiritual super powers, one simply needs a mind quiet enough to turn its focus from worldly pursuits, objective enough to put aside personal biases, and concentrated enough to persevere in the practice of self-inquiry until it bears the inevitable fruit of self-knowledge. Moreover, all of the qualifications are aspects of the nature of the self, and thus everyone has them to some degree.

    Vedanta does not list these qualifications as a means of ruling people out from the practice of self-inquiry. Rather, the qualifications simply function as a checklist by means of which one can take stock of one’s own present level of readiness. Thus, if one finds that one is not understanding the teachings, then one has a resource for helping to determine why such might be the case. For instance, if one says that one wants to know the self but every time a cute guy or gal walks by he or she is enraptured with fantasies about sex and romance and puts aside their self-inquiry in order to pursue a possible relationship, then one cannot be said to have a burning desire for liberation or self-knowledge. This is not elitist. It is simply a fact.

    Qualifications are a part of every endeavor we undertake in life. You can just say, for instance, “It is my right to know what string theory is.” If you truly want to understand the intricacies of this hypothesis, then you need to have made an adequate enough study of the fields of mathematics and quantum physics to enable you to do so. Thus, it should come as no surprise that certain qualifications preclude the ability to make effective self-inquiry and ultimately assimilate self-knowledge. Actually, such qualifications are a part of every spiritual path (i.e. the ten commandments of Christianity, the eight limbs of yoga, the eight-fold path of Buddhism, etc.), though due to the lack of a formal teaching methodology no other path enumerates them quite as clearly.

    Finally, Vedanta does not leave one in the lurch with regard to the qualifications. Should one find oneself deficient with regard to any of these psychological requirements, Vedanta offers spiritual practices in the form of four fundamental yogas – i.e. karma yoga, upasana yoga, jnana yoga, and triguna vibhava yoga – by means of which one can purify the mind and cultivate an “internal environment” more conducive to conducting self-inquiry and ultimately gaining the self-knowledge that is tantamount to eternal freedom.

    Rather than an elitist sect characterized by spiritual snobbery, therefore, Vedanta is a time-tested, self-verifiable, and practical means of knowledge that when properly unfolded by a qualified teacher enables one to see the essential non-dual nature of reality and one’s own true identity as whole and complete, limitless, actionless, ordinary, unborn, ever-present, all-pervasive, non-dual awareness.

11. Dear Ted:
    Your last contribution is quite full and interesting, covering many aspects of advaita Vedanta with clarity. Please allow me to make just a few brief comments.

    1) re: the “inherent power of maya or ignorance… “
    My understanding – following Sw. Satchidanandendra Saraswati and Shankara himself – is that maya is not the same thing as avidya; that it is “the illusory causal seed of the world due to avidya through adhyasa” (SSS). You know of course that maya is a provisional doctrine, unlike in Sankhya.

    2) “… within the mind or subtle body of an apparent individual entity who is nothing more than a mechanistic component functioning within the larger macrocosmic machine that is Isvara”.

    Surely you realize that that sentence is incomplete, or defective, as such, since the apparent individual is not other than Brahman, as per advaita. Also, you do not mention the possibility of a spontaneous, free action of Consciousness working through a ‘particular’ body-mind complex, apart from the supposed constraints of the vasanas. Some people would call this (occasional?) intervention by Grace, but this is unnecessary, since Grace is Consciousness and Consciousness is Grace, ever present.

    3) “… Vedanta “not a… philosophy, nor even a spiritual path per se”.

    It sounds awkward, but all right; call it a ‘science of ultimate, or absolute reality’, and everyone will be happy. Plato spoke of philosophia vs sophia (actual knowledge); so ‘veda’ or ‘vidya’ might be better terms, although Socrates never called himself ‘sophos’ (wise man) – who can?

    4) “… the fact that there is only one truth… that truth itself is nothing other than Vedanta…”

    As the sages of old pronounced, “Truth is One – the sages call it by many names”. You can call it Vedanta, but that will have the consequence of limiting it (the doctrinal content or way of what is known as Vedanta) to one particular culture – unless and until that term and what it signifies becomes universal.

Comments are closed.