free will and karma

[Dennis Waite]

I apologise for re-opening this topic, which I am sure most members thought
(hoped?) they had seen the back of. I have been re-reading the posts on the
subject over the past month or so and find that I am still confused. I will
itemise the points as I see them and hope that someone who has also been
following the threads and has fully understood them can summarise the
position. It would seem to be potentially extremely valuable to do so for
future reference, inclusion on the FAQ or on the several excellent web sites
held by members.

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.

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.

4) Similarly, the concept of dharma seems to imply that one must have a
choice to be able to follow ones duties or not.

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. 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
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.

7) In conclusion, it seems that there must ACTUALLY be no such thing as free
will. There seems to be to the illusary ego but everything is really
happening automatically with apparent choices only being made as the result
of past conditioning. Thus samsara continues ad infinitum until the Self,
which is always free, but has no free will, is suddenly realised for no
apparent reason. It could not be said that the Self 'chooses' to reveal
itself because that would again mean free will. It would not make any sense
to say that the covering of ignorance is eventually removed because that
would imply progress (and choice) on behalf of the body-mind.

8) I remain confused and hope someone can offer some clarification.

Dennis