Bhagavad Gita Quotes - and Determinism

[Dimmesdale]

Bhagavad Gita Quotes - On Determinism

2.19 "Neither he who thinks the living entity the slayer nor he who thinks it slain is in knowledge, for the self slays not nor is slain."

If the self slays not, what is it that apparently slays? What, if anything, does the self do?

2.47 "You have a right to perform your prescribed duty, but you are not entitled to the fruits of action. Never consider yourself the cause of the results of your activities, and never be attached to not doing your duty."

In what way is one not the cause of the results of his activities? Obviously forces in nature are multitudinous in their influence on results. For example, one may plant a seed, as though by free will seemingly, yet it can be argued that it is the rains, the sunlight and the nutritive properties of the soil which give the actual increase.

This verse seems to be ambiguous regarding whether or not one is absolutely not the cause of any of his actions. Or perhaps even one's miniscule free will is obliterated herein. I cannot tell.

3.5 "Everyone is forced to act helplessly according to the qualities he has acquired from the modes of material nature; therefore no one can refrain from doing something, not even for a moment."

If we act according to the qualities, just how free are we? Are the modes alone really at work? Do we not have at the least a minute degree of freedom, though influenced tremendously by the modes?

5.14 "The embodied spirit, master of the city of his body, does not create activities, nor does he induce people to act, nor does he create the fruits of action. All this is enacted by the modes of material nature."

Does this refer to material activities? Or are perhaps even the subtlest activities, likewise included? This quote seems to cast great doubt on our, at least terrestrial, free will.

And likewise:

13.30 "One who can see that all activities are performed by the body, which is created of material nature, and sees that the self does nothing, actually sees."

13.32 "Those with the vision of eternity can see that the imperishable soul is transcendental, eternal, and beyond the modes of nature. Despite contact with the material body, O Arjuna, the soul neither does anything nor is entangled."

13.33 "The sky, due to its subtle nature, does not mix with anything, although it is all-pervading. Similarly, the soul situated in Brahman vision does not mix with the body, though situated in that body."

It appears here that there can be no crossover of the material with the spiritual, so that the soul cannot tell the hand to lift, but that both occur due to their respective modes.

This, by the way, bears much resemblance to Spinoza's own thought regarding the modes of Thought and Extension (matter) and their parallelism but separateness.

[Dimmesdale]

5.14 "The embodied spirit, master of the city of his body, does not create activities, nor does he induce people to act, nor does he create the fruits of action. All this is enacted by the modes of material nature."

This appears to be the penultimate verse regarding freedom and determinism, and it seems to uphold both, paradoxically. For, in fact, the embodied spirit is "master of the city of his body." How could one be the master, and yet not be free?

[Divine Insight]

I'd be glad to offer my views on some of this.

To begin with, I consider all of this to be nothing more than secular philosophy that doesn't require anything mystical. But it can be seen as deep wisdom and truth, depending on how it is perceived.

Let's consider the following:

2.47 "You have a right to perform your prescribed duty, but you are not entitled to the fruits of action. Never consider yourself the cause of the results of your activities, and never be attached to not doing your duty."

In what way is one not the cause of the results of his activities?

I suggest that you may not be thinking of "results" in the same way as the philosophers who stand by this saying.

Obviously if you think in extremely simple terms the saying appears to be complete nonsense.

If you decide to lift your right hand, and your right hand goes up, are you not then the cause of this result? Well of course you are. But that's not what the philosopher had in mind here.

Let's try this:

I go through the activity of building a brick house.

You go through the activity of building a brick house.

After a few years the mortar in my house starts to crack and crumble. This ends up being the "result" of my activities. But this wasn't "caused" by me. Apparently I just had terrible mortar.

Your house, on the other hand, remains rock solid and undamaged over time. The idea is that you should not be overwhelmed with pride that your actions produced better "results" than mind. Be cause in reality (according to the philosopher) you were just lucky to have had good mortar.

So in this sense we are not the "cause" of the "results".

My analogy is probably not all that great, but I hope you get the idea. We aren't always responsible for how things turn out. Two people can do precisely the same activities where one person succeeds and the other person fails.

The philosopher is basically telling us not to get hung up on the idea that we are the one who is causing our successes or failures. A lot of it may have to do with the nature of the world around us. Like whether or not the mortar we used was any good.

Now let's take a look at 5.14

5.14 "The embodied spirit, master of the city of his body, does not create activities, nor does he induce people to act, nor does he create the fruits of action. All this is enacted by the modes of material nature."

This appears to be the penultimate verse regarding freedom and determinism, and it seems to uphold both, paradoxically. For, in fact, the embodied spirit is "master of the city of his body." How could one be the master, and yet not be free?

Again you have to think like a crazy philosopher.

Probably my best answer to this one in particular is to simply say that no matter what you do you cannot change other people. You might think you are "inducing people to act". But from the philosopher's perspective you aren't.

Suppose you do something to really make someone angry.

They may or may not become angry. Also, even if they do become angry they may or may not react the way you might expect.

In short, while you may have some people "pegged" and have a pretty good idea of how to provoke (induce) them to react a certain way. In truth they are reacting however they react. All that really happened is that you noticed how they naturally react and you have decided to push those particular buttons.

So you aren't really inducing them to do anything that they wouldn't natural do themselves. All you are doing is pushing buttons that already exist.

Again, probably not the best explanation. But I'm thinking that this is the kind of thing that these philosophers had in mind.

They don't mean to imply that your actions don't have any effect on the world around you. What they are trying to say is that you really don't have a whole lot of control over how other people might act.

~~~~~

I think this kind of philosophy is aimed at social interactions. It's not intended to be a science of absolute hardcore physics.

This is all just my opinion of course. This is just how I view these philosophical sayings. I'm not about to take them as absolute laws of nature. I don't think they were ever intended as such. These are more like social behavior type of philosophy.

It's meant to address the "human spirit" (i.e. how humans behave), more than a statement of absolute laws of physics.

Don't get too arrogant about our successes as much of it has to do with downright dumb luck. Don't get too depressed about failures for the same reasons. Don't think you are too much in control of situations, because in truth, you probably don't have nearly the control you think you have.

That sort of thing.

It's just social philosophical ideologies. Meant to address the "Human Spirit". Not intended to be a thesis on particle physics.

[Dimmesdale]

I'd be glad to offer my views on some of this.

Oh ok. I didn't expect you to chime in, as these are just my own personal ramblings, but if you want to, then go right ahead!

To begin with, I consider all of this to be nothing more than secular philosophy that doesn't require anything mystical. But it can be seen as deep wisdom and truth, depending on how it is perceived.

It is certainly perceived differently by different people and different traditions. Sometimes it is even interpreted contrary to what I think is the plain meaning of the text, logically. The different traditions, different sampradayas explain it differently. I'm not sure what exegetical rules they follow, but that's that.

Let's consider the following:

2.47 "You have a right to perform your prescribed duty, but you are not entitled to the fruits of action. Never consider yourself the cause of the results of your activities, and never be attached to not doing your duty."

In what way is one not the cause of the results of his activities?

I suggest that you may not be thinking of "results" in the same way as the philosophers who stand by this saying.

Obviously if you think in extremely simple terms the saying appears to be complete nonsense.

If you decide to lift your right hand, and your right hand goes up, are you not then the cause of this result? Well of course you are. But that's not what the philosopher had in mind here.

This is not what everyone believes, that we are the active cause of actions. Spinoza for example posited that the mental can have no effect on the physical and that the physical can have no effect on the mental. When we perceive that our thoughts initiate an action, that is not a sign of causation but rather parallelism. The modes of thought (the mental) and extension (matter) run parallel to each other and reflect the one reality differently. Just like for example two differently shaped mirrors reflect the same image but in different, perhaps distorted ways.

Let's try this:

I go through the activity of building a brick house.

You go through the activity of building a brick house.

After a few years the mortar in my house starts to crack and crumble. This ends up being the "result" of my activities. But this wasn't "caused" by me. Apparently I just had terrible mortar.

Your house, on the other hand, remains rock solid and undamaged over time. The idea is that you should not be overwhelmed with pride that your actions produced better "results" than mind. Be cause in reality (according to the philosopher) you were just lucky to have had good mortar.

So in this sense we are not the "cause" of the "results".

My analogy is probably not all that great, but I hope you get the idea. We aren't always responsible for how things turn out. Two people can do precisely the same activities where one person succeeds and the other person fails.

The philosopher is basically telling us not to get hung up on the idea that we are the one who is causing our successes or failures. A lot of it may have to do with the nature of the world around us. Like whether or not the mortar we used was any good.

That is perhaps one way of looking at it.

Now let's take a look at 5.14

5.14 "The embodied spirit, master of the city of his body, does not create activities, nor does he induce people to act, nor does he create the fruits of action. All this is enacted by the modes of material nature."

This appears to be the penultimate verse regarding freedom and determinism, and it seems to uphold both, paradoxically. For, in fact, the embodied spirit is "master of the city of his body." How could one be the master, and yet not be free?

Again you have to think like a crazy philosopher.

Maybe, maybe not....

Probably my best answer to this one in particular is to simply say that no matter what you do you cannot change other people. You might think you are "inducing people to act". But from the philosopher's perspective you aren't.

Suppose you do something to really make someone angry.

They may or may not become angry. Also, even if they do become angry they may or may not react the way you might expect.

Yes....

In short, while you may have some people "pegged" and have a pretty good idea of how to provoke (induce) them to react a certain way. In truth they are reacting however they react. All that really happened is that you noticed how they naturally react and you have decided to push those particular buttons.

So you aren't really inducing them to do anything that they wouldn't natural do themselves. All you are doing is pushing buttons that already exist.

Again, probably not the best explanation. But I'm thinking that this is the kind of thing that these philosophers had in mind.

They don't mean to imply that your actions don't have any effect on the world around you. What they are trying to say is that you really don't have a whole lot of control over how other people might act.

I think I see what you're saying.

~~~~~

I think this kind of philosophy is aimed at social interactions. It's not intended to be a science of absolute hardcore physics.

This is all just my opinion of course. This is just how I view these philosophical sayings. I'm not about to take them as absolute laws of nature. I don't think they were ever intended as such. These are more like social behavior type of philosophy.

I'm not surrrrrre.

It's meant to address the "human spirit" (i.e. how humans behave), more than a statement of absolute laws of physics.

Don't get too arrogant about our successes as much of it has to do with downright dumb luck. Don't get too depressed about failures for the same reasons. Don't think you are too much in control of situations, because in truth, you probably don't have nearly the control you think you have.

That sort of thing.

It's just social philosophical ideologies. Meant to address the "Human Spirit". Not intended to be a thesis on particle physics.

In a sense you may be right, to some extent. The Bhagavad Gita itself is a form of poetry/song attributed to Krishna, so perhaps not all these verses point to a scientific analysis of reality. You may indeed have a point. Still, I like to tease out different things.....

Grateful 4 your input