What we fundamentally are "Freedom is the realization that what we fundamentally are cannot be diminished, altered, or threatened by the loss of what was never ours in the first place." The question is: "Can you tell me in words what I am fundamentally?" According to Advaita, the honest answer is that what you fundamentally are cannot be fully captured in words. That is why it refers to the "Unknowable." Still, pointers can be given. You are not fundamentally: your body (it changes constantly), your thoughts (they come and go), your emotions (they arise and disappear), your possessions, your social roles, your personal history. All these are known by you. I would likely point to that silent, aware presence that is here before every thought and remains when thoughts pass. You might call it: Awareness Consciousness Being Presence the Self But these are only names. For example, right now: You are aware of these words. You are aware of your body sitting or s...
Dr Sundar
Rajaram Krishnamurthy
KR WAYNE, STEINER AND SO MANY IN WEST HAD THOUGHTS ON FREEDOM CONNECTING TO VARIOUS FACTORS BUT CONCURRING WITH THE IDEA OF FREEDOM BLOWN SECOND IS UNKNOWN.
Steiner begins exploring the nature of human freedom by accepting "that an action, of which the agent does not know why he performs it, cannot be free," but asking what happens when a person becomes conscious of his or her motives for acting. He proposes that through introspective observation we can become conscious of the motivations of our actions, and that the sole possibility of human freedom, if it exists at all, must be sought in an awareness of the motives of our action.
Steiner's summary of Part I of The Philosophy of Freedom, at the start of Chapter 8 in Part II, contains the following passage:
The world comes to meet me as a multiplicity, a sum of separate details. As a human being, I am myself one of these details, an entity among other entities. We call this form of the world simply the given and—insofar as we do not develop it through conscious activity but find it ready-made—we call it percept. Within the world of percepts, we perceive ourselves. But if something did not emerge out of this self-percept that proved capable of linking both percepts in general and also the sum of all other percepts with the percept of our self, our self-percept would remain simply one among many. This emerging something, however, is no longer a mere percept; nor is it, like percepts, simply present. It is produced through activity and initially appears linked to what we perceive as our self, but its inner meaning reaches beyond the self. It adds conceptual determinates to individual percepts, but these conceptual determinates relate to one another and are grounded in a whole. It determines conceptually what is achieved through self-perception conceptually, just as it determines all other percepts. It places this as the subject or "I" over against objects. This "something" is thinking, and the conceptual determinates are concepts and ideas.
Freedom arises most clearly at the moment when a human being becomes active in pure, individualized thinking; this is, for Steiner, spiritual activity. Achieving freedom is then accomplished by learning to let an ever larger portion of one's actions be determined by such individualized thought, rather than by habit, addiction, reflex, or involuntary or unconscious motives. Steiner differentiates pure thinking into "moral intuition" (formulation of individual purposes), "moral imagination" (creative strategies for realizing these larger purposes in the concrete situation), and "moral technique" (the practical capacity to accomplish what was intended). He suggests that we only achieve free deeds when we find an ethically impelled but particularized response to the immediacy of a given situation. Such a response will always be radically individual; it cannot be predicted or prescribed.
The Philosophy of Freedom Steiner had made the claim, 'That an action, of which the agent does not know why he performs it, cannot be free, goes without saying' (ist selbstverständlich). 'I carry it [the action] out because I love it. In the long paragraph containing this statement, Steiner sets the love of the action within the context that a free action is not influenced by any "moral maxim". This is clearly an attack on Kant. The action is carried out the moment '. . . I have grasped the idea of it, on the basis of love, and I am not a "superior automaton" obeying the maxim. 'An action is felt to be free in so far as the reasons for it spring from the ideal part of my individual being; every other part of an action [?] . . . is felt to be unfree'; . . . every other part of an action . . . is felt to be unfree. 'Man is free in so far as he is able to obey himself in every moment of his life. Here the topic has changed. In (CHAP 2) we were offered a definition of the free act. Now in (CHAP 3) the question seems to be what a free man or human being is. 'Man is free . . .' ('Frei ist der Mensch')[GERMAN-MAN IS FREE ] . The requirement is remarkably demanding: 'in so far as he is able to obey himself in every moment of his life . . .', so that it only takes one failure of the ability in one "Augenblick" to make him unfree. Besides, Definition (3) suffers from a formal defect to the extent that it must include the modal formulation ("is able to obey himself") which seems to presuppose freedom ("is able to . . .", "in der Lage ist"). Definition (3) is also surprisingly Spinozist, in the sense that the freedom of a being is for Spinoza, in the Letter to Schuller of 1674, quoted by Steiner in Steiner [Wilson translation], 1965, p. 5, "the ability to act from the necessity of its nature". It is a consequence of (3) that freedom is the antithesis of duty,because "duty does not acknowledge the individual element" in our actions. In the case of man the free spirit, unlike in every other case, the concept and percept of our being do not coincide, in reality, or belong together originally, until man himself brings it about, in his own consciousness, that they should. 'Concept and percept coincide in this case only if man makes them coincide. This he can only do if he has found the concept of the free spirit, that is, if he has found the concept of his own self.'Only he himself can make of himself a free man('Ein freies Wesen kann er nur selbst aus sich machen.)'
Freedom is (1) love; (2) thinking, which Steiner also calls "love in its spiritual form"; (3) Obedience to Oneself; (4) "Non-Objective Determination of the Self".
----------------------------------------------
The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda [hereafter Complete Works]. 2:34.
It is well known that ethics and morality are not one and the same. Morality refers to actual behaviour, whereas ethics is a systematic study of the criterion or standard for the judgement of moral conduct or character. Western theories of ethics may be broadly divided into two groups: deontological and teleological. By deontology is meant the study of moral obligation (from Greek deont = obligatory). Deontological theories hold that the basis of ethics is man’s sense of moral obligation. We all feel an inherent urge to act morally and, if we don’t act morally, we feel guilty about it. Judeo Christian ethics is mostly based on this inherent sense of moral obligation. Immanuel Kant tried to develop an ethical theory independent of religion but ended up by reaffirming man’s inherent sense of moral obligation which he called ‘categorical imperative’.
Teleological theories hold that our actions are guided by our desire to attain some goal. That goal is usually regarded as happiness; this view is known as hedonism. Most of the teleological theories are really hedonistic theories. The best known theory of this kind is utilitarianism propounded by Bentham, Mill, and others.
In India the deontological theory of ethics was held by the Mimamsakas (especially the Prabhakara school), and teleological theory of ethics was held by the Naiyayikas.
Both the types of theories take into consideration only the urges, desires, and actions of man which belong to the mind and body. They do not take into consideration the true ontic essence of man, his true Self, the Atman. Since the Atman is beyond body and mind, it is regarded as beyond the field of ethics. This has been stated clearly by Sri Shankaracharya in his commentary on the first aphorism of Brahma-Sutra, and in several other contexts.
It was Swami Vivekananda who showed that the freedom and purity of the Atman can form the basis of human thinking and actions. Swamiji laid the foundation for a truly ontological theory of ethics which is much superior to the deontological and hedonistic theories mentioned above. It makes ethics a study of the way the freedom of the Self manifests itself in a multitude of ways. This does not mean that Swami Vivekananda overlooked the evil tendencies in man or the compulsive nature of human actions. Like Mencius, who said that man has only ‘potentialities of goodness’, Swamiji too stated that man is only potentially divine. Man as man is not divine, but he has in him the potential to become divine.
The soul’s divinity and freedom remain in a potential state because their manifestation is restricted by mental and physical automatisms. All normal thinking, feeling and willing are controlled by latent impression of past experiences called samskaras. It is under the influence of samskaras that people do good actions or bad actions. Says Swami Vivekananda, “What are you but mere machines until you are free? Should you be proud because you are good? Certainly not. You are good because you cannot help it. Another is bad because he cannot help it.”17
Mere talking about morality is not enough; it is necessary to control the samskaras.
Therefore, mere talking about morality is not enough; it is necessary to control the samskaras. Swamiji again says, “We hear ‘Be good,’ and ‘Be good,’ and ‘Be good,’ taught all over the world. There is hardly a child, born in any country in the world, who has not been told, ‘Do not steal’, ‘Do not tell a lie’, but nobody tells the child how he can help doing them. Talking will not help him. Only when we teach him to control his mind do we really help him.”18
The minds of most people are conditioned by their samskaras. Good and bad actions are the result of this mental conditioning. True moral freedom is freedom from the hold of samskaras. How to attain this inner freedom? According to Swamiji, it is done through yoga. “We have to get the power to become moral;” says Swamiji, “until we do that we cannot control our actions. Yoga alone enables us to carry into practice the teachings of morality.”19 The more a person is freed from the hold of samskaras, the greater the freedom of Atman that he feels within himself. Only a yogi who has realized the Atman enjoys moral freedom without the need for rules and regulations.
This view resolves the conflict between ‘free will’ and ‘determinism’ (also known as ‘freedom’ and ‘necessity’) that has plagued Western thought all through its history. The basic question here is whether human actions are all determined by instincts and desires or by God, and whether man has the freedom to choose between good and evil. In the religious context, the more moderate Catholic view is that God has given man the freedom to choose between good and evil but, left to themselves, most people would choose evil rather than good because of the presence of ‘Original Sin’ in their souls. Protestantism denies free will to man. According to Martin Luther, “Man is as unfree as a pillar of salt.” John Calvin’s doctrine of predestination would make even sinful actions willed by God. In secular philosophy Schopenhauer, Spinoza, Hume and others upheld determinism . According to Schopenhauer, “A man can surely do what he wills to do, but he cannot determine what he wills.” As Bertrand Russell put it, “We can do as we please but we can’t please as we please.”20
This conflict between determinism and free will never figured prominently in Indian thought. In Hindu philosophy the will, known as dhriti or iccha, is only a special function of buddhi known as adhyavasaya o r determination. The whole mind (known as antahkarana), including the buddhi, is governed by the action of samskaras. The only thing that is free is the Atman or the Self in its true nature; but, being limited by, and reflected in the buddhi, it appears as the empirical self known as the jiva or jivatman. It is this empirical self that experiences the urge to be free. Thus freedom and bondage refer to the self, and not to the will, in Hindu philosophy.
s the identification of the Self with mind and body gets reduced by the practice of yoga, the person experiences greater inner freedom and his will gets freed from the hold of desires and instincts. As Swami Vivekananda has stated, “Remember, only the free have free will.”
It should, however, be noted that these higher ideas of religion are known only to a small number of educated people in India. The common people are very often guided by superstitions, fatalistic thinking and village customs which have introduced a sense of helplessness, futility and hopelessness into their lives. Swamiji wanted to free their minds from this inner stranglehold and rouse the inherent strength to shape their own destiny. Hence he very much wanted to disseminate the liberating and strengthening higher ideas of religion in India. This leads us to the next topic.
Spiritual freedom
From the above discussion it is clear that all the types of freedom discussed thus far— social freedom, intellectual freedom and moral freedom—are freedom only in a relative sense. Absolute freedom is the absolute freedom of the Self, and this is what spiritual freedom means. To attain freedom of the Self means to cease to identify oneself with one’s body and mind and to identify oneself with the Supreme Self. This state of absolute freedom is known as mukti or moksha. In traditional Hinduism mukti is regarded as freedom from transmigration or rebirth. But since the cause of rebirth is the identification of the Self with body and mind, and the cause of this identification is ignorance of the true nature of the Self, Advaitins regard mukti as freedom from original ignorance resulting from the attainment of true knowledge.
The Advaita tradition speaks of two kinds of mukti. One is the state of immediate and ultimate release; this is known as sadyomukti. The other type, known as krama-mukti, takes place in stages . According to Sri Shankaracharya, those who practice meditation (upasana) on Saguna Brahman attain identity with Hiranyagarbha after death. Later on they may attain identity with the Supreme Impersonal Brahman and attain final liberation.
Several Hindu sects hold the view that mukti is a state which is attained only after death; this is known as videha-mukti. But the Advaita tradition holds that, since total destruction of ignorance is possible even when a person is alive, mukti is possible even while living; this kind of mukti is called jivanmukti. The goal of all spiritual endeavour is to attain this state of liberated-in-life.
In almost all the schools of Hindu thought, mukti, whatever be its nature, is an individual event, and only a few exceptionally qualified individuals can attain it. Hence, there will remain many millions who have not attained liberation. Although this is the most commonly held belief, there have been a few teachers who believed in collective salvation, in the liberation of all; this is known as sarva-mukti.
Swami Vivekananda has referred to the idea of sarva-mukti on more than one occasion. In the course of a conversation with his disciple Sharat Chandra Chakravarty, Swamiji once remarked, “What is the good of that spiritual practice or realisation which does not benefit others, does not conduce to the well-being of people sunk in ignorance and delusion, does not help in rescuing them from the clutches of lust and wealth? Do you think, so long as one jiva endures in bondage, you will have any liberation? So long as he is not liberated— it may take several lifetimes—you will have to be born to help him, to make him realize Brahman. Every jiva is a part of yourself—which is the rationale of all work for others.”
In India Swamiji emphasised social freedom more because that was the crying need of the masses. For millions of sunken people living in destitution the only meaningful freedom is freedom from hunger. So Swamiji said, “Bread! Bread! I do not believe in a God, who cannot give me bread here, giving me eternal bliss in heaven! Pooh!”25 Swamiji’s words criticising untouchability, exploitation, and priestcraft fell like bombshells upon Indian society and blasted the bastions of vested interests, superstition and selfishness, and had a tremendous liberating influence on the Indian mind.
Swami Vivekananda developed a holistic view of life which unifies all the different types of freedom into an integral quest and liberates man from all bonds at all levels of existence. The goal of life according to him is to manifest the potential divinity of the soul. Swamiji said, “My ideal, indeed, can be put into a few words, and that is: to preach unto mankind their divinity, and how to make it manifest in every movement of life.”28 When the social freedom, intellectual freedom, moral freedom and spiritual freedom that we seek become unified into a single evolutionary purpose, every second of human life becomes a meaningful and liberating experience.
In conclusion, we may state that Swami Vivekananda has made significant contributions to our understanding of different dimensions of human freedom at the individual and collective levels; he has given us an integral paradigm of liberating life; and he himself strove to extend the frontiers of human freedom.
For centuries to come there will echo in different parts of the civilized world the song of his soul, “Freedom, O freedom! Freedom, O freedom.”
----------------------------------------
I HAVE NOT GONE BACK TO ANCIENT ERA AS WEST THOUGHTS ARE ONLY IN THIS ERA; SO VIVEKAMADA BASED ON HIODUISM WAS ADOPTED AS EXTRACTED FRON HIS VOLUMES. I THINK TAGORE SAID IT RIGHT:
Where The Mind Is Without Fear
Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high
Where knowledge is free
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments
By narrow domestic walls
Where words come out from the depth of truth
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way
Into the dreary desert sand of dead habit
Where the mind is led forward by thee
Into ever-widening thought and action
Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake.
K RAJARAM IRS 11626
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "societyforservingseniors" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to society4servingse...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/society4servingseniors/CAF%3D8Bw1vyh4c%3DzCtathZ7y-Qu2BB9UwXw5e34vuNH0RhRMtdLA%40mail.gmail.com.