non-reality of free will

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Fri, 9 May 1997, Jonathan Bricklin wrote:

> What else in Advaitism requires this kind of suspension of disbelief?

As Advaitism seems to be something you just invented, I don't know.  As
for Advaita Vedanta, I'd say there is very little which doesn't require at
least an initial suspension of disbelief.  If you're going to take a
skeptical view, Why stop with the Apaurusheyatva of the Vedas when there
are much easier targets.

>
> Its
> deepest truths make more sense out of
> the world of experience not less.

You haven't experienced the authors of the Vedas so why should this
concept make less or more sense to you?

>  Well, Shankara followed the Mimamsakas like Jesus followed the Pharisees.

Another unfounded assertion.  From the very beginning the two traditions
have been intertwined.  Jaimini the author of the Mimamsa Sutras is
mentioned several times in the Brahma Sutras.  Badarayana the author of
the Brahma Sutras is mentioned several times in the Mimamsa Sutras.
Several other teachers are mentioned in both.  Sureshvaracharya the pupil
of Shankaracharya was the Mimamsaka Mandana Mishra.  Swami Vidyaranya in
his purvashrama wrote works on Mimamsa.  Appaya Dikshita is another
great name in Vedanta who also wrote works on Mimamsa.  Even today, the
Jagadgurus and their students are well versed in both.

> He defended the authority of the Vedas on different grounds than either the
> Naiyayikas or Mimamsakas.

As Vidyashankar as eloquently shown, he did not.

> But surely I am not the only student of advaitism
> that sees that impersonality as present whenever avidya is absent, and thus
> need not cling to an unimaginable tale of generated text.

I don't know any other students of advaitism so I can't answer that.

> And as
> others have posted, there is no support in Advaitism for free will, as that
> term is understood in the West, except as maya.

My views on this and those of others have been covered in other posts.

> -------------------------
> First of all, it perhaps need to be said that we know next to nothing about
> the actual life or practices of the Bal Shem Tov.

Then why make assumptions?

> Inferring orthodoxy is
> not too much of a leap (although he was pronounced as a heretic by the
> Talmudists).  I'm sure Jesus read the whole Haggadah at the last supper.
> It's not what he's remembered for.  What he is remembered for, in part, is
> the same thing that Bal Shem Tov is remembered for:  an insistence that
> purity of heart is more pleasing to God than learning.

Remembered by who?  Your memmory hasn't proven to be that reliable so far.
On the other hand, there are approximately 500,000 Hasidim alive today who
are followers of the Besht.  Do you think they value purity of the heart
more than Talmudic learning?

>
> To my remark that "I prefer to equate smirti with dhyana, as Vacaspati
> Mishra did, and defer to its authority, he correctly guessed that this
> definition comes from the Tattva-Vaisharadi, but then disparaged it as a
> "work on Yoga not Vedanta."

I didn't exactly disparage it.  I stated a fact.

> I take it that he does not agree with those
> Hindu authorities who identify the Vivarana with Shankara.

As a matter of fact I don't.  We had a thread on it a while back.  In any
case we are talking about Tattva Vaishradi which is indisputably a work on
Yoga.  The genius of Vachaspati Mishra is he wrote works in several
darshans each of which became an authority in that darshan.  That's why he
has the title "sarvatantra svatantra".

 But at any
> rate, if any mystical or religious tradition penetrates to a deep,
> spiritual truth, then its relevance to Advaitism seems to me to be secure.
>

If you say so.  You after all invented it.  Advaita Vedanta has different
criteria.

> An apple is not different from brahman either, but that hardly makes it
> limitless.

Because you don't understand its true nature.

>To equate the jiva  or the aham (where the illusion of free will is felt to
> occur) with the atman as if it were a simple one to one correspondence
> rather than an identity of a part to the whole, like fingers to a hand or a
> wave to the ocean, is to turn a truth into a travesty.

Jiva = Brahman.  It's as simple as that.

--
Jaldhar H. Vyas [jaldhar at braincells.com]   And the men .-_|\ who hold
Consolidated Braincells Inc.                          /     \
http://www.braincells.com/jaldhar/ -)~~~~~~~~  Perth->*.--._/  o-
"Witty quote" - Dead Guy   /\/\/\ _ _ ___ _  _ Amboy       v      McQ!