Fate and Free-will

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Sri Sravana -

I dont have a POV, I dont think I am trying to come up with a POV.
If I were to discuss politics or some other topics, POV is significant.

Here we are talking about subject matter that described universal truths. There is only one yardstick - either we have a correct understanding or we dont.
One way to find out if we have a correct understanding is to not make things up that is not described, and that there is no contradiction in the understanding.
The reason to take this approach is because this subject matter has been most scrutinized over centuries and there is not contradictions in what it teaches. I approached the subject with great deal of skepticism and I have not found contradictions yet. I am still a learner and student.

In my understanding of your posts you mentioned many things that are not in our Upanishads but you have the free will and right to believe anything.
I asked you a number of questions to challenge your understanding in post #96. You have not answered them - you dont have to.
My point is if you are clear about the model you have in your mind that is great, there is no debate possible or needed.

Dear Shri TKS,

I do not want to quibble over semantics.

In my view advaita describes the reality exactly. Again in my view there are contradictions in dualism and other hypotheses of reality as reality cannot be both dualistic and non-dualistic.I think I have not said anything that is inconsistent with the philosophy of non-dualism. My views are open to discussion.If you are not willing to discuss that is your choice.

But anyway I think rather just than one saying that the understanding of the other is wrong, it is right to give the reasons one thinks so. In that spirit let me say why I don't agree with the following views:

You said:

"- You can recognize that you are endowed with certain free will; you chose to write this message, you make decisions everyday - some come true , some do not. But it does not diminish your ability to assert your free will. An animal does not have this capacity. You even have the free will to deny to yourself that you lack capacity for free will "

What makes you conclude that it is our freewill that is making us to do what we do. Your last sentence also can be subject to this same argument.

You said:

"- There are really no 'right' or 'wrong' in an absolute sense! What determines what is right? If you say - Dharma - I will say how did you figure that out?
Why should a person really turn to a spiritual path? What does spiritual path anyway? is it reading about some scriptures, or going to some temples?
Why must one do any of this? To me words like 'spiritual' is vague - it has too many meanings depending on who you ask."

There are two opposite tendencies, one of which is predominant in a jeeva . One is being selfish and the other is being selfless. Being former is when one is wrong and being latter is when one is right. They relate to whether one is moving towards moksha or not. You may chose to use any term you want to, to refer to the latter but I use the word spiritual for it which I think is consistent with the usage in the hindu texts.

You said:

"- You are making up a theory about some 'light' that is blinding. You have the free will to make up anything you want but there is no basis for this. Also what does err on positive side anyway? Who determined what is positive, negative and errors? Where is the mid point? Some scripture can unconditionally tell you what is right or wrong. Remember our Vedas do not have any commandments like the Biblical religions. (There is a profound reason for this and is a big topic by itself in my view.)"

I have given my interpretation of what is right or wrong. One would be erring on the negative side if one is being too much selfish or in the extreme totally selfish. Erring on the positive side would be excessive compassion to the detriment of even self. A person sacrificing his life for someone would be an example. The midpoint would be perfect balance transcending both positive and negative emotions. Vedas very much stress that this balance is what one should strive for.

You said:

"- Why is compassion so great? It is the same Iswara that created opposite of compassion too and that exists too in the world in abundance. By the way, in [COLOR=#DA7911 ! important][FONT=inherit ! important][COLOR=#DA7911 ! important][FONT=inherit ! important]Gita[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR] - Lord Krishna says he is manifested as desire in all beings. That is an unconditional statement. He is there in the desires of a person wanting to go on a pilgrimage or wanting a nice car as well as desires of a pedophile or a serial killer! If you say Iswara makes up lower level and higher level beings then the whole thing make no sense since there is no reason why Iswara must create such good and bad things in life.

- Why should Iswara create souls, bind them and then provide a light so blinding that the soul is led to do right things and then grant that soul a way to be 'liberated'? If there is none other than Iswara in the world it would be nonsensical do to thing like this to the souls that he or she creates!"

I have replied to this in my previous post.

 

[sravna]

A simple reason why we do not have freewill in this physical world:

According to the vedas which say moksha is the goal of every soul, then every soul gets liberated. To be fair to each soul, each has to undergo the equivalent in terms of the pain, pleasure, happiness etc. experienced. All the above may not be possible if the soul is let to chose its path. Thus abilities and environment which decide every thought and deed of a person are not under his control. Thus perception of freewill is false

 

[zebra16]

Sri TKS,

Sri Narayan -

It has been hard to keep up with all the posts and identify important ones for me. I know you posted these questions a while ago and are probably satisfied with all the discussions to the point that this thread may be winding down. Let me share my brief thoughts on this topic that you correctly observe has fascinated opponents and proponents.

Thanks for taking time out to reply.

First, no one knows and cannot claim to know what happens to any being after death or if any of us had any existence before birth. So this theory of Karma is but a model relying on an objectively unverifiable belief system but claimed to be subjectively validated assuming the subject understand the full aspect of this model. In my understanding, this is a complex model and your questions, particularly the last one underscores this point.

I am in agreement with the above

The main questions then are:

1. Do we understand this model fully and be able to explain phenomena we observe in a satisfactory manner without contradictions in what we observe in day to day life? For example it would seem unacceptable and even incorrect to think that when a large number of people simultaneously die a tragic death (e.g., Tsunami events, 9/11/2001 event where many died jumping off of World Trade Center) that they all somehow 'deserved to die' based on some past Karma.

I do not understand the karma model fully, hence I have doubts and my questions. To my mind also mega catastrophic events cannot be explained by karma theory.

This complex Karma model does not require this to be true though I have known many with flimsy knowledge of the model explain such event away with simplistic ideas. My point is that to validate or invalidate any of this and to see if the model is correct (within its scope of axioms and assumptions) one has to first understand the richness of this model.

If the Law of karma does not apply to them, then which law or theory of equity apply to those cases? Is anyone aware of reasons (from karmic point or others, except those of physical nature) for such disasters?

2. In my view - who cares that there is a model - complex or simple -is it useful here and now as we go thorough our life.

My approach is similar.

Your questions are phrased in terms of a 'God' - so let me share my thoughts on this point.

I have kept the karma phala-data as "Ishvara or God" because I find it rather easier to relate to that concept. I understand that It could be an impersonal entity or a set of universal laws.

At an objective level all we have and what we are able discern with sense organs and reasoning capacity is that there seem to be a set of laws that are operating. If they seem to 'fail' then we may end up discovering another law that augments the previous understanding. In that sense laws of physics, laws of Physiology, biological systems, etc to name a few are infallible and could be considered as a personification of Iswara.

I agree.

After all the universe as we observe is intelligently put together, this intelligence reflected in any phenomena we observe. Random systems are very predictable - otherwise we could not have a field of statistics or statistical mechanics. Chaos is understandable in terms of strange attractors.

Hitherto before I thought the universe was put together in orderly fashion. May be I am biased that I can not give or conceive of intelligence to inanimate objects/things Orderliness and intelligence are not synonyms, so what extra attribute does intelligence brings to the universe, in addition to apparent orderliness.

So intelligence of laws could be a model for an impersonal Iswara.

May be if I am able to understand the intelligence of the universe (stated in the previous para) I may be able to comprehend the impersonal Ishwara.

When there is a notion of a 'limited' free will experienced by us (for example I chose to spend time to respond to this and I could have chosen any other activity) and there are sets if laws that hold the system together then there has to he a need for a concept of Karma. Free will is only free when one is allowed to use or abuse or disuse

No doubts here

When abuse is possible the system has to react when the abuse threatens the constitution of the system held by a set of infallible laws. Otherwise the system will not survive.

Ok. But when would the reaction by system take place? My question was why it is not at the time of abuse itself? Now I have the additional question as to whether the system is geared to tolerate temporary or consistent abuses (seems possible) and may be minor infringements will be condoned (may be that is the reason for time lag between action and reaction. This is just my guesswork and I am not theorising it)[/QUOTE]

There is no reason why the 'reaction' to abuse for example has to be instantaneous. It is hard to define exactly what the time frame constitute as instantaneous. If the universe is 14 billion years old then reaction to our action (within this model) in a few years in our life time or within few million years could be considered instantaneous.

I am not able to grasp this point. What has the age of universe got to do with the assignment of "reaction" to my "action" by an intelligent entity. This is possible, to my limited understanding, only on the premise that my actions are sort of "seeds" for reactions and may take various time spans to germinate. Are you hinting or suggesting that?

Besides there is an assumption in your question and that is the idea that time as we experience is absolute. What is 'then and there' depends on the frame of reference based on our understanding of the physical world.

Yes. My question assumed absoluteness of time and space, because the body which undergoes pain and pleasure is wrapped up in these constraints. Is my assumption wrong? If so how?

There was nice article in Scientific American in May 2010 that begins to show time is not necessary to describe any physical phenomena. I found the description interesting because current understanding of 'time' is more in alignment with subjective (Vedic) view of time. I dont want to get into a detailed debate on this but as a subscriber I have a pdf version of this article and can email anyone that is interested. Also stories in Yoga Vasishtam deal with time being not absolute. My point is not to prove that Vedas describe science as we know (which is not true in my view) but that conceptually the ideas of time and space are aligned with current view we have come to understand in the last 100 years.

I would be interested in that article in Scientific American and if you do have, also the PDF of Scientific American of July 2011 which addresses the issue of "The Limits of Intelligence" Would it be okay to pm you furnishing my email ID?

So 'impersonal God' in the form of 'Dharma-Karma' laws acts - there is only action and reaction, they are relatively instantaneous depending on a point of view. We have no control over this 'law' anymore than we have control over experience of Gravity.

The only approach then is learn the model and see if it is useful in our life.

There is no punishment or reward - only action and reaction that will go on 'forever'.

I have some difficulty in equating punishment with reaction. Let me give my understanding with the following analogy:

a) I hit you - action
b) You hit me back - reaction
c) Someone (or something intelligent) hits me for my original action of hitting you - punishment
d) Someone (or something intelligent) gives you sops for refraining you from hitting me back or for bearing my hit - reward

We did not get to choose our gender, home, parents, height, weight, our gene pool, our level of intelligence and capacities, etc.
We do not get to change this 'action - reaction' effect either. Free will creates new action and thereby new reaction. In a simplistic model, past karmas are expressions of reactions to assertion of free will in the 'past'!

There is an assumption in your question that is made universally by everyone , but wrong.
We did not create this body, we do not control how any of the physiology works, we do not control how our brain or more abstractly how our mind works. We could make body parts but we do so by enabling the natural laws to take place, we do not create new laws. 'Our' Body and Mind are parts of nature and subject to natural laws (impersonal Isvara) . This is explicitly Visible when we 'die' and the body is seen to disintegrate in nature.

Since we are able to objectify our body and mind, they are objects and therefore not the Subject ( I)! However in day today experience we think we are this physical beings (where we equate ourselves (subject) with the items we objectify (body, mind)). When we see a chair (an item objectified by us), we do not say I am chair .. If we do then we have to go to Agra

This I keep for the next message, as this post is already quite lengthy

I would prefer to take this up only if you are interested under a Philosophy section.



Could not be more brief - I am bit of an extrovert!

Regards

Regards,

narayan

 

[tks]

Dear Shri TKS,

I do not want to quibble over semantics.

Semantics is key; Definitions in Upanishads are very specific and detailed. Wrong notions will result in wrong models and wrong understanding

In my view advaita describes the reality exactly. Again in my view there are contradictions in dualism and other hypotheses of reality as reality cannot be both dualistic and non-dualistic.I think I have not said anything that is inconsistent with the philosophy of non-dualism. My views are open to discussion.If you are not willing to discuss that is your choice.

1. If there are contradictions in dualism, why do you think great Vedantist are associated with temple (Ramana Maharishi) or undertake pilgrimage (Swami Vivekananda) for example?
2.What is reality - please define it with precision!
3. You acknowledged that I have a choice?? Or is that all predetermined and programmed?

You said:

"- You can recognize that you are endowed with certain free will; you chose to write this message, you make decisions everyday - some come true , some do not. But it does not diminish your ability to assert your free will. An animal does not have this capacity. You even have the free will to deny to yourself that you lack capacity for free will "

What makes you conclude that it is our freewill that is making us to do what we do. Your last sentence also can be subject to this same argument.

Nothing is making us do what we do. We are talking about your experience - this requires no proof other than acknowledge your personal experience.

4. Do you think you are making choices everyday like when you go to a hotel and order from the menu.
5.Do you feel that you are being driven and pre-programmed, all your life choices?

If you do not experience free will, and feel programmed then all I have to say I do not experience that. Hence there cannot be any further discussion. Most human beings experience the ability to choose.

You said:

"- There are really no 'right' or 'wrong' in an absolute sense! What determines what is right? If you say - Dharma - I will say how did you figure that out?
Why should a person really turn to a spiritual path? What does spiritual path anyway? is it reading about some scriptures, or going to some temples?
Why must one do any of this? To me words like 'spiritual' is vague - it has too many meanings depending on who you ask."

There are two opposite tendencies, one of which is predominant in a jeeva . One is being selfish and the other is being selfless. Being former is when one is wrong and being latter is when one is right. They relate to whether one is moving towards moksha or not. You may chose to use any term you want to, to refer to the latter but I use the word spiritual for it which I think is consistent with the usage in the hindu texts.

This is something you have made up in your understanding.

6. Please cite the basis for above statements - opposing tendencies in a jeeva?
7. Do you think millions of bacteria and virus that exhibit life and death are Jeevas? What is selfish anyway in this case?
8. There are millions of bacteria in your body . Are they selfish, does that make you selfish?
8. Every being wants to survive - is that selfish?
9. I have no idea what you mean by 'moving towards Moksha' - Describe Moksha as you understand it and basis for 'moving towards it' as if it is a long journey

You said:

"- You are making up a theory about some 'light' that is blinding. You have the free will to make up anything you want but there is no basis for this. Also what does err on positive side anyway? Who determined what is positive, negative and errors? Where is the mid point? Some scripture can unconditionally tell you what is right or wrong. Remember our Vedas do not have any commandments like the Biblical religions. (There is a profound reason for this and is a big topic by itself in my view.)"

I have given my interpretation of what is right or wrong. One would be erring on the negative side if one is being too much selfish or in the extreme totally selfish. Erring on the positive side would be excessive compassion to the detriment of even self. A person sacrificing his life for someone would be an example. The midpoint would be perfect balance transcending both positive and negative emotions. Vedas very much stress that this balance is what one should strive for.

10. Please provide basis in Upanishads for all the above.
11. Do humans choose to be selfish - indicating free will?
12. Do animals choose to be selfish - indicating free will?
13. Do virus and bacteria , other living organisms choose to be selfish?
14. How can Vedas stress what one should strive for, if you say you experience no free will in this physical worlds?

You said:

"- Why is compassion so great? It is the same Iswara that created opposite of compassion too and that exists too in the world in abundance. By the way, in [COLOR=#DA7911 ! important][FONT=inherit ! important][COLOR=#DA7911 ! important][FONT=inherit ! important]Gita[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR] - Lord Krishna says he is manifested as desire in all beings. That is an unconditional statement. He is there in the desires of a person wanting to go on a pilgrimage or wanting a nice car as well as desires of a pedophile or a serial killer! If you say Iswara makes up lower level and higher level beings then the whole thing make no sense since there is no reason why Iswara must create such good and bad things in life.

- Why should Iswara create souls, bind them and then provide a light so blinding that the soul is led to do right things and then grant that soul a way to be 'liberated'? If there is none other than Iswara in the world it would be nonsensical do to thing like this to the souls that he or she creates!"

I have replied to this in my previous post.

15. I did not understand what your reply was and where you answered these questions. Are you referring to a recent post. I want detailed and specific responses with basis for your answers. Otherwise it comes to making things up by you in which case by definition .

16. Within the model you have in your mind, do you have any confusion or you think you have figured out everything? If there is confusion, what is it?

 

[sravna]

My replies in italics:

Semantics is key; Definitions in Upanishads are very specific and detailed. Wrong notions will result in wrong models and wrong understanding

In this case I thought both knew what I meant and there was little room for ambiguity. Anyway everything is a point of view only as long as the understanding remains tentative or unproved.


1. If there are contradictions in dualism, why do you think great Vedantist are associated with temple (Ramana Maharishi) or undertake pilgrimage (Swami Vivekananda) for example?

I don't understand what you mean by the above? Can you elaborate?

2.What is reality - please define it with precision!

Reality is something which doesn't vary according to persons. It is something that is constant with respect to everyone. But you need the necessary development of self to perceive that reality. Once that is attained everyone sees it the same way.


3. You acknowledged that I have a choice?? Or is that all predetermined and programmed?

Come on, I thought about it before writing it. I was not using the word in a strict sense but in the way we understand it in our day to day usage.

4. Nothing is making us do what we do. We are talking about your experience - this requires no proof other than acknowledge your personal experience. Do you think you are making choices everyday like when you go to a hotel and order from the menu.

5.Do you feel that you are being driven and pre-programmed, all your life choices?

If you do not experience free will, and feel programmed then all I have to say I do not experience that. Hence there cannot be any further discussion. Most human beings experience the ability to choose.

How can you be so sure about what your experience says? The experience says nothing about how it is caused. This is where maya comes in. You are seeing a different reality. If it were the true self it sees the right reality. So it is not the true self or YOU who is creating the thoughts or actions. It should rightly be attributed to maya.

6. Please cite the basis for above statements - opposing tendencies in a jeeva?

I mentioned two broad tendencies. One is selfish and other being selfless. The scriptures say that one's goal is to transcend the feeling of self, as implied in selfish, to become one with brahman.

7. Do you think millions of bacteria and virus that exhibit life and death are Jeevas? What is selfish anyway in this case? There are millions of bacteria in your body . Are they selfish, does that make you selfish?
8. Every being wants to survive - is that selfish?

Everything which is physical or biological has a jeeva. The selfish tendency it exhibits is indeed its goal of survival which is the sole goal found in many humans too. Survival at what cost? At the cost of others and at any cost? How many persons are you willing to slay for your survival? You may need to read this answer in combination with my answer to Q.14.

9. I have no idea what you mean by 'moving towards Moksha' - Describe Moksha as you understand it and basis for 'moving towards it' as if it is a long journey

Moksha is the transcending of the ego or the selfish thoughts. You are moving towards it when your experiences teach you that being selfless is the basis for eternal existence and peace and it is indeed a long journey spanning innumerable births, and mentioned in the vedas.

10. Please provide basis in Upanishads for all the above.

Why do you need this? I am willing to answer your questions with reasons. And whereever it is relevant, I have mentioned whether vedas says so, given my knowledge of the vedas. If anything is contrary to the vedas I request the learned members to point out the contradicting statements.

11. Do humans choose to be selfish - indicating free will?
12. Do animals choose to be selfish - indicating free will?
13. Do virus and bacteria , other living organisms choose to be selfish?

No to all.

14. How can Vedas stress what one should strive for, if you say you experience no free will in this physical worlds?

Ok, read it as one should strive to learn or understand from what one goes through. I think the ability to understand and learn in the physical world, which is what I consider to be important., is there to the soul


15. I did not understand what your reply was and where you answered these questions. Are you referring to a recent post. I want detailed and specific responses with basis for your answers. Otherwise it comes to making things up by you in which case by definition .

Do the above replies answer your questions?

16. Within the model you have in your mind, do you have any confusion or you think you have figured out everything? If there is confusion, what is it?

There are many parts of the scriptures that I have not attempted to learn but from what I have understood of the scriptures I think there is no confusion.

 

[C RAVI]

Sri tks and Sri Sravna,

Both of you are having a wonderful debate. I loved Sri tks's style of shooting questions in detail AND the eloquent, consistent and clear explanations without any ambiguity by Sri Sravna.

Sri Sravna,

For me, I have understood and accepted your explanations. I believe in the same and could easily grasp your elaboration.

 

[sravna]

Sri tks and Sri Sravna,

Both of you are having a wonderful debate. I loved Sri tks's style of shooting questions in detail AND the eloquent, consistent and clear explanations without any ambiguity by Sri Sravna.

Sri Sravna,

For me, I have understood and accepted your explanations. I believe in the same and could easily grasp your elaboration.

Thanks Ravi. We seem to have similar views in almost all the topics that we have participated !

 

[C RAVI]

Thanks Ravi. We seem to have similar views in almost all the topics that we have participated !

Absolutely....

 

[renuka]

Thanks Ravi. We seem to have similar views in almost all the topics that we have participated !

Dear Ravi and Sravna,

This I have to fully agree that you both really have similar views.
Even though my views differ with both you guys but debating with you both is really nice and really makes one think at every angle.

Hoping to debate soon.I miss the Advaita post the most.Sravna if you could just reactivate it, it would be nice.

 

[sravna]

Dear Ravi and Sravna,

This I have to fully agree that you both really have similar views.
Even though my views differ with both you guys but debating with you both is really nice and really makes one think at every angle.

Hoping to debate soon.I miss the Advaita post the most.Sravna if you could just reactivate it, it would be nice.

Dear Renuka,

I love your presentations. Especially all the relevant quotes from the scriptures you give in support of your arguments. You seem to be very well read in the scriptures.

If you can suggest a topic in advaita to discuss and in the process it can contribute to a better understanding that would be great?

 

[tks]

Dear Ravi and Sravna,

This I have to fully agree that you both really have similar views.
Even though my views differ with both you guys but debating with you both is really nice and really makes one think at every angle.

Hoping to debate soon.I miss the Advaita post the most.Sravna if you could just reactivate it, it would be nice.

Sri Ravi -

I have to agree with Smt Renuka that you and Sravana may have the same model in your mind that you understand each other,

Sri Ravi, Sri Sravana -

My understanding is different and Sri Sravana did not really answer most of the questions in my view with rigor demanded in any such discussions reconciling many apparent contradictions (that I alluded to in the thread), without making things up and citing appropriate references to sources . This is not a criticism but an acknowledgement where the gaps are in my view.

We dont need to delve deep and see if our experience of free will is not really true or some such thing. It is irrelevant from the vantage point of conducting our life activities. Unlike animals we seem to be able to choose given options. That is a the experience of most of us. Again one is welcome to think that everything is pre-programmed. All I say then is "You dont know what you dont know"

Our Upanishads do not say we do not have free will. Even the famous BG sloka "Karmanye ..." says that we have the rights to our action - very simple statement that you have control (free will) over our action but not the result of our actions.

However one can believe whatever one wants - that is the beauty of Hinduism. Everyone can stay under the same umbrella.

However Sravana is very clear in his mind , has no confusion and he seem to resonate so well with your thinking - that is great - may be i am the odd person out here

All the best with ongoing debates with Smt Renuka

 

[C RAVI]

Sri tks,

Certainly you are not the odd person out here.

I could well understand your stand on Free Will. As you have referred to - "karmanye va dikarasthe ma phaleshu kadhachana", I believe in the same and would still relate this with your claim on Free Will and my perception of "all Fate".

As per my understanding, there exists a fine line between Free Will and Fate. The Free Will would act as per the sub conscious mind and that sub consicious mind is nothing but the maturity of the soul.

If we see successful people out of blue, they would tell that they could succeed as per their killer instint, sheer determination and hard work. Here hard work is the last. The initial process towards hard work is the instinct from the sub conscious mind. The sub consicous mind has the influence from past karma, present karma, environment and the maturity of the soul.


The sub consicous mind can well play its trick. We can find an atheist changing himself as theist and theist as atheiest. This is just an example. There are many incidents where a person, who believes in one, totally changes his mind towards other and act differently.

To sum up, I could conlude that Free Will can not act independently in a physical world, full of Maya. Our cummulative karma (experiences) helps our soul to mature in the physical wold of maya (where the sub conscious mind fixes some conclusion in each janma with determinations) and get liberated.

IMO, you are just not taking the subconscious mind into account to determine "Free Will".


The spiritual path helps fine tuning our sub consious mind and helps maturing our soul. This spiritual path helps us to follow - "Karmanye va dikarasthe ma phaleshu kadhaachana".

We can rarely find a person who is not spiritually inclined and still be doing all good deeds, having clean heart. This shows the maturity of the soul.

The spiritual path, helps us in realization of human surival, the purpose of survival, the way of survival and taking efforts to refine ourself for the sake of liberation. In flip side, these realizations depends on how much our subconscious mind got the capacity. To enhance the capacity of sub conscious mind, Meditions are recomended.

In all, Free Will can be practiced somewhat effectively through spiritual path, but still not in physical world. In phsycal world we are under illusion that we are practicing Free Will.

By saying, we can somewhat practice Free Will though spiritual path, I mean to say that, we would have the clarity as where are we going, how far we can go and how much efforts we can put towards peacufull and happy living.

 

[sravna]

My replies in itlics:

"I have to agree with Smt Renuka that you and Sravana may have the same model in your mind that you understand each other,"

"Our Upanishads do not say we do not have free will. Even the famous BG sloka "Karmanye ..." says that we have the rights to our action - very simple statement that you have control (free will) over our action but not the result of our actions."

There is no new model. It is just doing inferencing of what is said in the scriptures that is in line with advaita. I think Ravi too believes in that school of thought. Any way I wouldn't venture to directly interpret upanishads or the BG.

I think there is nothing more I could add since you haven't presented any counter arguments. If you say my arguments lack rigor which I would agree with but which I would say is due to the informal nature of the exchanges. If you can be more specific about where I need to elaborate, I will attempt an elaboration?

 

[tks]

My replies in itlics:

"I have to agree with Smt Renuka that you and Sravana may have the same model in your mind that you understand each other,"

"Our Upanishads do not say we do not have free will. Even the famous BG sloka "Karmanye ..." says that we have the rights to our action - very simple statement that you have control (free will) over our action but not the result of our actions."

There is no new model. It is just doing inferencing of what is said in the scriptures that is in line with advaita. I think Ravi too believes in that school of thought. Any way I wouldn't venture to directly interpret upanishads or the BG.

I think there is nothing more I could add since you haven't presented any counter arguments. If you say my arguments lack rigor which I would agree with but which I would say is due to the informal nature of the exchanges. If you can be more specific about where I need to elaborate, I will attempt an elaboration?

Sri Sravana -

This is a well known verse:

कर्मणये वाधिकारस्ते मां फलेषु कदाचन । मां कर्मफलहेतुर्भू: मांते संङगोस्त्वकर्मणि ।।
Bhagavad Gita, Chapter II, Verse 47.

If there is no new model then you have to take the time to go to source scriptures and make sure your understanding is correct.
Once you have understood, you can venture to differ. The best way to test accuracy of any model is to see if life situations we confront is explainable.

This is the verse I was referring to. This is the counter argument and at some point you have to venture into understanding (not necessarily agreeing) what is in BG.

In very simple terms it starts saying you have Adhikara in doing Karma - as humans you are endowed with the ability to control your action. An animal lacks this capacity.
You and Ravi can go against this basic statement of existence of free will. More importantly you can deny the 'free will' experience having some unjustified idea of Maya which has a very precise definition.

If you have no free will to choose why bother to do anything at all? If learning were to take place it will. Since we are all puppets programmed into action no need to do make any choices or rather say to yourselves "I may think I am making a choice but really I am under the spell of Maya and it is all illusion - so I am not responsible for anything, I should not be punished or rewarded since it is Maya that is providing me the illusion that I am doing something"

Such reasoning would mock what is taught in Upanishads and is patently false.

I usually do not argue or debate with people of faith or belief because there is no reasoning involved. You are welcome to go along with your belief system.

Over the course of this thread alone I have provided a few references to make a case. If your responses do not show that you have read or internalized (even if you do not agree) but say the same thing (even if it resonates with another person) there cannot be a meaningful discussion.

If you are at peace with your model and it works for you, I respect your faith.

 

[C RAVI]

Shri tks,

Kindly excuse me to butt in your conversation with Shri Sarvana,

I am enjoying your counter argument and I would love to share my views with you. Hope you will not mistake me.

Sri Sravana -

This is a well known verse:

कर्मणये वाधिकारस्ते मां फलेषु कदाचन । मां कर्मफलहेतुर्भू: मांते संङगोस्त्वकर्मणि ।।
Bhagavad Gita, Chapter II, Verse 47.

If there is no new model then you have to take the time to go to source scriptures and make sure your understanding is correct.
Once you have understood, you can venture to differ. The best way to test accuracy of any model is to see if life situations we confront is explainable.

- "Karmanye Vadhikaraste Ma Phaleshu Kadachana, Ma Karma Phala Hetur Bhurmatey Sangostva Akarmani"
Meaning: Do your duty and be detached from its outcome, do not be driven by the end product, enjoy the process of getting there. -

Here getting where? Getting to attain Moksha. Do your duty unmindful of it's fruits and through this process, get to attain Moksha.



This is the verse I was referring to. This is the counter argument and at some point you have to venture into understanding (not necessarily agreeing) what is in BG.

In very simple terms it starts saying you have Adhikara in doing Karma - as humans you are endowed with the ability to control your action. An animal lacks this capacity.

- Absolutely right. That's what we all believe. As a human we all understand that we are capable by God's grace to control our actions unlike animals, be in right path of love, humility, peace and be fair. A human could achieve such righteousness in the process of janma and punar janma. The deeds and vasna he/she got, makes him/her into recurring rebirth. A person in present janma doing all bad deeds are considered equal to animals and we find many such humans in this world with animal instinct and consider them equal to animals.

There are stories of criminals emerging from very good families and a very righteous person from a criminal/thief/prostitute family. Here it reveals the past deed of such person and the maturity of his/her soul/sub conscious mind.

Yes, a person have Adhikara in doing karma. This Adhikara a person can attain, if his/her subconscious mind/soul could grasp [through spirituality/good environment/realizations (either hard way or easily, depending on the past karma phala)] the righteous way of living and in gradual refinement process attain Moksha.

However a child is brought up with all good advices by parents, a child may not able to follow and would able to understand and be in right way after some bitter experiences, in a hard way.

You and Ravi can go against this basic statement of existence of free will. More importantly you can deny the 'free will' experience having some unjustified idea of Maya which has a very precise definition.

- Existence of Free Will can not be denied altogether. Free Will do exists as an illusion. Every stage of life, every day of life got choices to do. We tend to choice the one that we find sensible and useful to us. Here we make a choice and consider it as our Free Will. My point is, this choice by Free Will is nothing but the influence of our subconscious mind that got a determination from the learning of Past Karma and Present Karma. Here Maya plays a trick by confusing us. If we choose something that's not harming others would add to our good Karma. If we choose something else that could harm other would add to our bad karma. Maya plays the trick with our subconscious mind and put us in trial. Maya tempts us to be selfish to attain our goals some how to keep our self happy. That's why spirituality dictates us to be selfless in the context of not harming others in any may (do what you want for your and your family's betterment, but at no one's cost). Do your Karma in a righteous way without concentrating on how/whether you could be benefited. The righteous karma would for sure give it's results positively sooner or later, depending on our Past Karma and present karma.

If you have no free will to choose why bother to do anything at all? If learning were to take place it will. Since we are all puppets programmed into action no need to do make any choices or rather say to yourselves "I may think I am making a choice but really I am under the spell of Maya and it is all illusion - so I am not responsible for anything, I should not be punished or rewarded since it is Maya that is providing me the illusion that I am doing something"

- However we think and understand saying "If you have no free will to choose why bother to do anything at all", our soul/subconscious mind would not heed to our day to day thinking/learning/understanding altogether. The subconscious mind/soul would act and react as per the determinations and the powers (bestowed upon it by the result of good Past Karma) it has manifested and would act accordingly. It may be influenced by such thoughts momentarily, but would not conclude. The spiritual path/the grace of God, would lead the subconscious mind/soul towards choosing the right path. Here right path of the soul is not just the fulfillment of material/pleasurable desires. But the realization and acceptance of life and live happily in peace, get refined stage by stage and get liberated.

Such reasoning would mock what is taught in Upanishads and is patently false.

I usually do not argue or debate with people of faith or belief because there is no reasoning involved. You are welcome to go along with your belief system.

- People tend to make many interpretations. Because the subconscious mind/soul differs.

Subconscious mind/Soul is the reason for all sorts of understanding/acceptance/rejections. If we say that we are making assumptions for anything (can be in terms of understanding texts, the other human, research work etc), well, that's what is the trick of Maya. Fate/Free Will/Maya/Karma are all inter-related and can't act independently. That's how assumptions can go wrong and can go right. The results of the assumptions are the results of our Intuition. Intuition is the result of the strength and maturity of our Sub conscious mind/Soul - "Sookshmam".


Over the course of this thread alone I have provided a few references to make a case. If your responses do not show that you have read or internalized (even if you do not agree) but say the same thing (even if it resonates with another person) there cannot be a meaningful discussion.

- I leave this for now. I would love to express my views on your references separately, if I could be able to, . And if you could permit me.


If you are at peace with your model and it works for you, I respect your faith.

- That's the Free Will. Indeed a very righteous Free Will. Such mind set towards others shows the maturity of our Subconscious Mind/Soul. It's the result of the maturity that the subconscious mind/sookshmam/Soul have accumulated during the course of Karma (Past and Present). As every actions got reaction, each good deeds in our life adds credit to the maturity of our Subconscious Mind/Soul.

Just for an example Sir. This applicable to all including ME - When we declare that "I respect your faith", our subconscious mind knows and in facts that acts according to its maturity, as whether we have accepted others' faith really in true spirit and with full honesty OR we have just expressed it to be civil

Shri tks,

I have expressed all my views above, as a subject matter under debate with true sense of exchanging ideas/understanding etc. I am not a scholar and I am not thorough with Vedas, Upanishads and other religious philosophies.

I believe you would not mistake me to have expressed my views here, being not a qualified scholar. I have taken for granted with my subconscious mind/intuition that you would spare me for any of my mistakes in my comments.

Thank you Sir.

 

[tks]

Sri tks,




As per my understanding, there exists a fine line between Free Will and Fate. The Free Will would act as per the sub conscious mind and that sub consicious mind is nothing but the maturity of the soul.

Sri - Ravi -

I missed seeing your post when I just responded to Sri Sravana!

Again one can come up with any model. You and Sravana have your model.

There is a Christian theological model of original sin, Jesus as a savior, acceptance of this assures 'soul' to have forever joy at heaven, or the 'soul' rots forever in Hell. Billion or more people believe this model ( I have not done full justice to their theology with this meager description).

What you say about sub-conscious mind and whatever you mean by 'maturity' of 'soul' (as in definition of Christians?) have basis only as a (blind) belief in a person's mind. Furthermore our Upanishads do not support such ideas - you are welcome to investigate this on your own.'

If we see successful people out of blue, they would tell that they could succeed as per their killer instint, sheer determination and hard work. Here hard work is the last. The initial process towards hard work is the instinct from the sub conscious mind. The sub consicous mind has the influence from past karma, present karma, environment and the maturity of the soul.

In our Vedic model, there is this Sanksara ("imprints in our mind from past lives" - determines our character at the start), there is Prarabdha Karma which acts on you. There is also as a human ability to choose among limited options - free will. A person's results in their chosen goals are determine by all of these.

There are metaphors in Upanishads to describe all these and you are welcome to do further research

The sub consicous mind can well play its trick. We can find an atheist changing himself as theist and theist as atheiest. This is just an example. There are many incidents where a person, who believes in one, totally changes his mind towards other and act differently.

To sum up, I could conlude that Free Will can not act independently in a physical world, full of Maya. Our cummulative karma (experiences) helps our soul to mature in the physical wold of maya (where the sub conscious mind fixes some conclusion in each janma with determinations) and get liberated.

IMO, you are just not taking the subconscious mind into account to determine "Free Will".

You have just reiterated your belief and called it a conclusion. There is no connection to your summation with the verse itself. Whatever you call subconscious mind in terms of Sanskara is experienced as our character. The 'luck factor' explained by 'Papa - Punya' in an experience also. The 'freewill' to choose our actions when there are options presented is also our experience. So the effect of Sanskara is taken into account in terms of results ("fruits") achieved but that is independent of the ability to assert free will. The sum total coupled with natural laws determine the outcome (result). I dont have a model of my own.

The spiritual path helps fine tuning our sub consious mind and helps maturing our soul. This spiritual path helps us to follow - "Karmanye va dikarasthe ma phaleshu kadhaachana".

Again I dont know what 'spiritual path means'. These are vague words. Fine tuning and maturing of 'souls' are your own belief system. The so called spiritual path does not help us to follow anything (if it helps us to choose then it is free will, if the path is not chosen by us why bother bringing this up ).

Also that verse states a universal truth applicable to all persons including a Aborigini not exposed to any teaching. Those human beings or whatever you mean by 'soul' are not any less evolved!

We can rarely find a person who is not spiritually inclined and still be doing all good deeds, having clean heart. This shows the maturity of the soul.

There are no definition of 'good deeds'. I mentioned in one of my posts that our Upanishads do not have anything like ten commandments of what is right and wrong! That is not accidental. Phrases like 'clean heart' is vague.
By the way, the Mahavakya 'Tat Tvam Asi' applies to the serial killer as well!

The spiritual path, helps us in realization of human surival, the purpose of survival, the way of survival and taking efforts to refine ourself for the sake of liberation. In flip side, these realizations depends on how much our subconscious mind got the capacity. To enhance the capacity of sub conscious mind, Meditions are recomended.

It would be a ludicrous model if Iswara has nothing better to do than create 'souls', force them in all kinds of action so that they get 'liberated' - from what?
Why recommend meditation if the person has no free will to choose to do this?

In all, Free Will can be practiced somewhat effectively through spiritual path, but still not in physical world. In phsycal world we are under illusion that we are practicing Free Will.

By saying, we can somewhat practice Free Will though spiritual path, I mean to say that, we would have the clarity as where are we going, how far we can go and how much efforts we can put towards peacufull and happy living.

I have no idea what this all means. But it is your belief system. If it works for you, that is wonderful!

Regards.

 

[tks]

Shri tks,

Kindly excuse me to butt in your conversation with Shri Sarvana,

I am enjoying your counter argument and I would love to share my views with you. Hope you will not mistake me.






Shri tks,

I have expressed all my views above, as a subject matter under debate with true sense of exchanging ideas/understanding etc. I am not a scholar and I am not thorough with Vedas, Upanishads and other religious philosophies.

I believe you would not mistake me to have expressed my views here, being not a qualified scholar. I have taken for granted with my subconscious mind/intuition that you would spare me for any of my mistakes in my comments.

Thank you Sir.

Sri Ravi -

We are all students! I am not a scholar
Please continue expressing your thoughts.
If I know something I will share and respond.

I like the way you participate, you are always very polite - things I can learn from you!
There are no mistakes - I hope you dont mind my direct style of response.

Since you are interested in the topic, my suggestion is for you to continue your quest to learn.
I recommend approaching any idea with skepticism and not take any explanation unless it is very sound and very logical.
Only such learning will remain and will be helpful as we traverse this journey of life

Regards

 

[sravna]

Sri Sravana -

This is a well known verse:

कर्मणये वाधिकारस्ते मां फलेषु कदाचन । मां कर्मफलहेतुर्भू: मांते संङगोस्त्वकर्मणि ।।
Bhagavad Gita, Chapter II, Verse 47.

If there is no new model then you have to take the time to go to source scriptures and make sure your understanding is correct.
Once you have understood, you can venture to differ. The best way to test accuracy of any model is to see if life situations we confront is explainable.

This is the verse I was referring to. This is the counter argument and at some point you have to venture into understanding (not necessarily agreeing) what is in BG.

In very simple terms it starts saying you have Adhikara in doing Karma - as humans you are endowed with the ability to control your action. An animal lacks this capacity.
You and Ravi can go against this basic statement of existence of free will. More importantly you can deny the 'free will' experience having some unjustified idea of Maya which has a very precise definition.

If you have no free will to choose why bother to do anything at all? If learning were to take place it will. Since we are all puppets programmed into action no need to do make any choices or rather say to yourselves "I may think I am making a choice but really I am under the spell of Maya and it is all illusion - so I am not responsible for anything, I should not be punished or rewarded since it is Maya that is providing me the illusion that I am doing something"

Such reasoning would mock what is taught in Upanishads and is patently false.

I usually do not argue or debate with people of faith or belief because there is no reasoning involved. You are welcome to go along with your belief system.

Over the course of this thread alone I have provided a few references to make a case. If your responses do not show that you have read or internalized (even if you do not agree) but say the same thing (even if it resonates with another person) there cannot be a meaningful discussion.

If you are at peace with your model and it works for you, I respect your faith.

Dear Shri TKS,

Consider an infant. The infant lacks the knowledge and the ability to interact in a physical world . The parents and others think for it and makes it learn to think and act on its own. Once it learns and matures it becomes an independent thinker.

Similar is the case with respect to spiritual development. People start as spiritual infants. They are taught through maya and are made to learn spiritual truths till they attain complete spiritual development. That is when they become fit for moksha.

In the case of a physical child it is guided by the adults. How will it learn the right wordly knowledge without any guidance? Only the ability to learn is coded into it. But it has to be taught anyway. It is similar in the case of spiritual journey. Just as a physical child cannot be left on its own if it has to gain the right knowledge, a spiritual child also cannot be left on its own.

Coming to your counterargument and the verse you quoted in support of it, is only to imprint in the mind of the learner that detachment of the mind towards wordly things, is the right attitude. So one needs to understand that, which one will, given the experiences that one goes through.

 

[sravna]

It is because of the ego and because one thinks one is the originator of one's thought and deeds, bad or wicked acts become possible. When the moment of truth arrives that it is an illusion, the change happens and one moves into the spiritual path. Then you surrender yourself to God. You are not affected by the thought of the absence of freewill or any such fears.

 

[C RAVI]

Sri Narayan,

I would like to share my views on your analogy..

Sri TKS,


I have some difficulty in equating punishment with reaction. Let me give my understanding with the following analogy:

a) I hit you - action
b) You hit me back - reaction
c) Someone (or something intelligent) hits me for my original action of hitting you - punishment
d) Someone (or something intelligent) gives you sops for refraining you from hitting me back or for bearing my hit - reward

Regards,

narayan

- a) “I hit you – action”: Yes its an action. Action inspired by your sub conscious mind to do so. Many interpretations can happen on the statement –“I hit you-actiion”.

To think of few interpretations –

1. Was your subconscious mind matured enough to evaluate the reasonability of “you hitting him”?
2. Could your subconscious mind understand that the other person is humble? So that you can just control you anger and settle the issue with dialogues rather by the force of your hands/legs. OR In other way, could your subconscious mind understand that hitting is the only solution to put things in order with the other person?
3. Was you subconscious mind was out of the control of basic instinct and you have turned to be a psycho?

- b) “You hit me back – reaction”: Yes, every action has reactions. Reactions may be equal or opposite. When the reaction is equal, there is high probability of continuation of actions and reactions (hitting each other one after the other). If the reactions are opposite (the person at receiving end don’t hit back), your hitting the other would not continue. You may (or may not) than end up with multiple stroke.

Whatever the actions and reaction as per one’s subconscious mind, it would certainly add up to the credit of good or bad karma as the case may be for each of the party involved, as per the justice of the law of the nature.

The erring person who initiated a wrong hit (knowingly or out of control of his anger and misunderstanding), if repents, ask for sincere apology to the person whom he hit and compensate him (if required in any way), ask apology within himself and be in true deep remorse, can expect to be relieved from accruing negative points to his Karma/molding of subconscious mind. The result in favor would also depends upon the quantum of forgiveness from the person at receiving end .


- c) "Someone (or something intelligent) hits me for my original action of hitting you – punishment - "

Yes, punishment. The gravity of punishment depends on how and if you were into deep self remorse for our mistakes and the accumulated positive points to the credit of your karma.

- d) ”Someone (or something intelligent) gives you sops for refraining you from hitting me back or for bearing my hit – reward”

It can not be considered as outright reward. The tendency of bearing the hit meekly or with the gracious thoughts and composed attitude (as per the maturity of Subconscious mind/Soul), is the impact of past / present karma of some sort. A unexpected negative influence on us can take place without any straight and clear reasoning. We may or may not able to figure it out. If we could figure out the reasoning, we can know and realize how wrong were we and as a consequence we got the impact now and with this thought we carry on without any grudges and developing negative attitude. If we could not figure it out, its that, either it’s the impact of past karma or we may end up being revengeful. We may end up changing our attitude altogether and in this process may either do wrong things blindly or just be rude, hostile, hitting on every given chance for anything that we consider we are right to do so, having done nothing wrong from our side. Each of these actions would be as per the modulation of our subconscious mind

Reward can be in terms of gaining self consciousness, fine tuning our subconscious mind with positive qualities/attitudes


All the above said four actions and reactions are based on the realization/determination of the subconscious mind/soul, that need to over come all negative determinations/motives in each janma, get refined and ultimately get liberated.

The subconscious mind/soul in each janma is challenging itself with the force/rule of the nature, maya, free will. Once the Subconscious mind/Soul gets in harmony with the rule of the nature/God, in a perfect manner, the soul qualifies for liberation.

During this qualifying process the soul (we, as an individual) come across many other souls (fellow human beings) to learn and manifest. We/the soul come across many healing techniques namely spirituality, yoga, meditation, offered to mankind ages ago. What we learn and manifest by way of Free Will can be truly a Free Will and a righteous Free Will, if we be on spiritual path.

The maturity of the Subconscious mind/Soul determines when and how one can be truly into spiritual/righteous path and can effectively practice Free will as no illusion and only real.

That level of Free Will (as real) is possible by the sense of “SELFLESSNESS” alone. This sense of “Selflessness” in full and true strength can confer liberation to Soul. Until then all the Free Wills are illusionary.

Free Will what we consider now (until liberated and get merged/dissolved with God/Nature/Cosmos) with the sense of even tiniest selfishness of any form, is nothing but our own ignorance of what we got stored in our Subconscious mind/Soul, in accumulation from the past and the present birth.

 

[tks]

Sri TKS,



.
.

I have kept the karma phala-data as "Ishvara or God" because I find it rather easier to relate to that concept. I understand that It could be an impersonal entity or a set of universal laws.

Since Isvara in the form of laws determine the result he/she is a karma phala-data. Often people confuse this interpretation with God being responsible for the reaction they suffer which was a reaction to the assertion of their own free will in the past.

Hitherto before I thought the universe was put together in orderly fashion. May be I am biased that I can not give or conceive of intelligence to inanimate objects/things Orderliness and intelligence are not synonyms, so what extra attribute does intelligence brings to the universe, in addition to apparent orderliness.

May be if I am able to understand the intelligence of the universe (stated in the previous para) I may be able to comprehend the impersonal Ishwara.

To get anything orderly requires intelligence. To make a running motor cycle from parts requires detailed knowledge of every part and how to put that together intelligently. There is an end to end knowledge needed to make anything. The mass of earth has to be so precise for a very thin layer of atmosphere to be sustained for life form to exist. The earth's axis of rotation is precisely set such that seasons are possible which serve to sustain life and other environmental and biological cycles. The value of electron's mass and size if altered even by tiniest of fraction will mean physics will be so different and universe as we know cannot exist. These are a few relatively trivial examples to show how knowledge of what we would call many different disciplines are integrated in the way the universe seem to have been put together. Water traverses up 20 feet in a tree to its leaves - an ordinary event but extraordinarily hard to accomplish at that scale. A mosquito while small has so much intelligence in self survival. The act of lifting our hand requires billions of chemical messages to be communicated and processed very precisely for the event to occur. Think about any phenomena and you will see the enormity of knowledge that has gone into putting that together. I am not doing justice with flimsy definition and examples. I am sure you get the idea. This orderliness is due to knowledge. I call it intelligence when the knowledge spans many domains.

Ok. But when would the reaction by system take place? My question was why it is not at the time of abuse itself? Now I have the additional question as to whether the system is geared to tolerate temporary or consistent abuses (seems possible) and may be minor infringements will be condoned (may be that is the reason for time lag between action and reaction. This is just my guesswork and I am not theorising it)



I am not able to grasp this point. What has the age of universe got to do with the assignment of "reaction" to my "action" by an intelligent entity. This is possible, to my limited understanding, only on the premise that my actions are sort of "seeds" for reactions and may take various time spans to germinate. Are you hinting or suggesting that?

Internalizing that time, space, mass is not absolute concepts/measures is not easy. The special theory of relativity is not easy to swallow since it mocks common sense. What is instantaneous for one is not the same for another in a different frame of reference. This is the nature of time!

There is another unrelated way to understand why relative time only make sense. When you use the phrase 'at the time of the abuse' you have an interval in mind. It could be seconds, or minutes or months. This is based on our life span of 80-100 years. You would think that if 'justice' happens in a a few months or so that it might be reasonable (0.5 years out of 80 years of life span) . But the age of the universe is of the order of billions of years. So if the system reacted within 100 years it would be still considered instantaneous (100 out of 14 billion years). In other words a systems reaction has to be measured by the age of the system not by any other yardstick.

Yes. My question assumed absoluteness of time and space, because the body which undergoes pain and pleasure is wrapped up in these constraints. Is my assumption wrong? If so how?

As I said absolute time does not make sense even by understanding of today's science. Also there is a problem of taking ownership to 'your' body which is all part of nature operating within nature's cycle time. Pain and pleasure is your characterization of the experience. In nature there is just action and reaction. Here I am making a distinction between you the subject and your body which is objectified by you like every other objects that you see in the world.

I would be interested in that article in Scientific American and if you do have, also the PDF of Scientific American of July 2011 which addresses the issue of "The Limits of Intelligence" Would it be okay to pm you furnishing my email ID

?

yes, please do send my your email address via PM. By the way, where in the globe do you live, just curious.

I have some difficulty in equating punishment with reaction. Let me give my understanding with the following analogy:

a) I hit you - action
b) You hit me back - reaction
c) Someone (or something intelligent) hits me for my original action of hitting you - punishment
d) Someone (or something intelligent) gives you sops for refraining you from hitting me back or for bearing my hit - reward

Any theory or model should employ least number of axioms and assumptions. It should be able to explain almost all the phenomena in many domains for the underlying model to be viewed as useful. That is why I have critiqued people making up things or introducing vague or new terms. I do not mock those attempts because if it works for them I have no business to be critical.

With that said let me give another way to look at the whole thing.

When it comes to physical events in a day today sense Newton's laws are good in describing the world. The third law states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

This law does not apply to life events as stated but with some modification.

Let me state the law of Karma
Disclaimer; I am not making this up, there is strong basis for this explanation - I am not going to quote references at this time. The way I describe this is using my own words since laws are not stated that way in Upanishads but the information presented will be self evident (hopefully)

Every action can have up to TWO reaction:
1. Visible reaction
2. Invisible (अदृष्ट, adRSTa) reaction

These reaction 'fructify' only when conditions are right (in that sense they are not 'instantaneous')
Sometimes there may be no Invisible reaction but one will never know by the very definition.

Let us illustrate with an example.

A boy in college does wild things, possibly questionable things. He wants to boast his 'accomplishments' to his friends and posts a number of compromising pictures in his Facebook page. He does out of his free will may be influenced by his character (Sanskara) and perhaps reaction of past karma. It does not matter for this discussion. It is an explicit action on his part. The existence of free will could mean with some thinking he could have stopped doing so but he does anyway.

A few days later his friends around the world all comment on the pictures and say how 'cool' the pictures are. This is the visible reaction being fructified.

Some years later this boy , now a man of 21 years old applies for a job. The employer unbeknownst to this applicant employs an agency to do background checks and quickly uncovers irresponsible acts from the facebook pages posted many years ago. They dont tell him anything but politely reject him. This repeats with other employers and the applicant here has no clue ( Invisible reaction fructifying after many years when conditions are right)

You could say it is the system of Dharma that holds the universe is providing the reaction.

Regards