The Riddle of Fate and Freewill
vidya at CCO.CALTECH.EDU
Wed Oct 1 17:28:05 CDT 1997
On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, Greg Goode wrote:
> that even make sense before one sees all is Brahman. Consider: the entity
> 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,
> 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
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.
Okay, let me modify my statement to say that such evidence is
inconclusive, if inadmissible is too strong a word.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list