This is in continuation of an earlier thread.
A friend sent me this:
You were absolutely right in saying Free Will has no part to play at all in one' s life. The same was said by Sri Ramana Maharshi, a renowned and revered saint of Tiruvannamalai.
As we have already seen, we are the cause of our experiences in this life.The results of our actions performed in innumerable births,slowly fructify in consequent births. There is no hard and fast rule that we reap whatever we sow in this or the immediate next birth itself. We have no control over this aspect. It is in accordance with the laws.
In this connection, even the incarnations of Lord Vishnu had to endure the pains for their actions in their previous births. To prove this statement, from the worldly standpoint, Sri Rama killed Vali by deceit. As a result of this act, He was killed by a hunter Jara in His incarnation as Sri Krishna (mistaken by the hunter to be a deer). This law does not apply to the Omniscient One but He took it upon Himself as an atonement to set an example to the world that the law is applicable to all equally.
Moving to ordinary human beings,in affinity to the aforesaid paragraph,we happen to meet many people at different points of our lifetime, but very few of them seem to be our own since ages though the acquaintance is only for a short span. An introspection into this will enable us to believe that the connection with that person or people is from some past birth or births,not from here.All of us would be experiencing this at some point.
Actions are grouped into three kinds.Two of them are storehouses awaiting to confer the consequences of our actions upon us.
- Known by the term "Agami"-This is a store-house of actions of many many births, yet to be released.
- Known by the term "Sanchita"-This is also a store-house of actions which are nearing fruition i.e. will commence next birth.
- Known as "Prarabdha".
Those actions which have already commenced fructifying i.e. experiences of the current life. This in all probability would not change as it has begun operating at the commencement of this birth There is nothing we can do about it,we need to endure till the last breath.
But the first two kinds can certainly be exhausted and it is in our hands to nullify its effects.By working on this, when all actions are exhausted, it is assured that we do not return in any form on any plane which is the goal of human birth and each of us is treading towards this only knowingly or unknowingly.
A silver lining in a dark cloud is,be it any situation, "Even this shall pass away." Just as the bitterness of bitter gourd or the sweetness of a sweet, both are momentary.
My reply:
No, I am not satisfied [with your explanation above]. My reason (take a deep breath. It's long): to me it doesn't matter who says something - Ramana maharishi, sage Vyaas or Valmiki - (that's why I don't like quotes). What is important is what is said.
God for me is truth and understanding, I mean intellectual understanding and not the feminine "being understanding =accepting in nature". Most people can't appreciate this nor do they live by this - devotion to truth to the large exclusion of other things. That doesn't make them bad people - they just have a different value system. I may not be right in what I say but if you understand what I said you will understand me better.
The passages that I have received till now seem to fail the criteria I listed above. I believe the essential difference between us is that you may have a tendency to accept gospel on faith while I don't, I would necessarily test and try to verify its correctness. Faith is not part of my nature.
If the teachings had a single (or 2 or 3) set of rules of life from which one could derive other conclusions, then those set of rules could be an attempt to get at truth. Ayn Rand's philosophy was one such attempt, all the more interesting because she revealed "her truth" through fiction. I am not able to see Mahabharata, another great work of fiction, in the same light as I see Ayn Rand - not that Ayn Rand's truth doesn't have its flaws. In Mahabharata I am not able to see a single truth pervading the whole story, or am I being blind? A person's desire should be based on truth. Any statement that resembles "I am one of the best known and the most popular actors that India has seen - hence you should use Reynolds pen or eat Maggi" is not going to be accepted by me.
What is Krishna's truth? Or Ramana Maharishi's? Or Hindu Dharma's? I am not going into Islam or Chrisianity - that would be frivolous.
Destiny and free will cannot coexist. In a universe where there is no free will, people cannot be held responsible for their actions. If everything that I do is pre-decided (or preordained) without my control, I cannot be held responsible for my actions. This is basic. Astrology and the incident mentioned in the earlier post with respect to Krishna and Kalyavan seem to go along with destiny. Hence, astrology and that story about Krishna do not gel with the concept of personal responsibility.
Just trying to fence the issue...Creating a boundary around it..
Incidentally "rationality" as defined while describing Eddie Willers here is very similar to what I define as "truth". I happened to stumble on this article while reading about Eddie and Cameron, some of the less admired heroes of Ayn Rand.
- Does it fit in with other things I believe or know? If not either my understanding or what I heard is wrong
- Is it consistent with other things the person himself has said
- is his assertion a valid conclusion? - meaning, does it have a basis or is the assertion something like "we should love our country or our mother tongue" - just a belief or a desire and cannot be deduced from other accepted (by me) things...
God for me is truth and understanding, I mean intellectual understanding and not the feminine "being understanding =accepting in nature". Most people can't appreciate this nor do they live by this - devotion to truth to the large exclusion of other things. That doesn't make them bad people - they just have a different value system. I may not be right in what I say but if you understand what I said you will understand me better.
The passages that I have received till now seem to fail the criteria I listed above. I believe the essential difference between us is that you may have a tendency to accept gospel on faith while I don't, I would necessarily test and try to verify its correctness. Faith is not part of my nature.
If the teachings had a single (or 2 or 3) set of rules of life from which one could derive other conclusions, then those set of rules could be an attempt to get at truth. Ayn Rand's philosophy was one such attempt, all the more interesting because she revealed "her truth" through fiction. I am not able to see Mahabharata, another great work of fiction, in the same light as I see Ayn Rand - not that Ayn Rand's truth doesn't have its flaws. In Mahabharata I am not able to see a single truth pervading the whole story, or am I being blind? A person's desire should be based on truth. Any statement that resembles "I am one of the best known and the most popular actors that India has seen - hence you should use Reynolds pen or eat Maggi" is not going to be accepted by me.
What is Krishna's truth? Or Ramana Maharishi's? Or Hindu Dharma's? I am not going into Islam or Chrisianity - that would be frivolous.
Destiny and free will cannot coexist. In a universe where there is no free will, people cannot be held responsible for their actions. If everything that I do is pre-decided (or preordained) without my control, I cannot be held responsible for my actions. This is basic. Astrology and the incident mentioned in the earlier post with respect to Krishna and Kalyavan seem to go along with destiny. Hence, astrology and that story about Krishna do not gel with the concept of personal responsibility.
Just trying to fence the issue...Creating a boundary around it..
Incidentally "rationality" as defined while describing Eddie Willers here is very similar to what I define as "truth". I happened to stumble on this article while reading about Eddie and Cameron, some of the less admired heroes of Ayn Rand.
No comments:
Post a Comment