Why one behaves like this! (E O M - 13)

Swami Vijnananand provided guidance to the teenagers through series of discourses on various subjects. In one such

series of discourses he talked about the behavioral aspects. Our mind is expressed through the behavior. “Why one

behaves in certain way” and “How should one behave in proper way” were the subjects covered. While dealing with

the human behavior, he related its origin to the process of evolution of mind. His views expressed in informal language

are summarized as follows:

While we were thinking of ‘why do we behave like this?’ we explored various areas and said that we behave in that

manner because of our anatomy (the science dealing with the structure of animals and plants).

Human beings haven’t been born all of a sudden on the Earth. This progress is happening over a long period of time. Right

from that of the smallest particles which were created in the world, from the time the world came into existence the

progress took place in minute steps.

Where is the root of a child’s existence?

If you take this link into consideration, you would realize that the stream of evolution that is flowing over thousands of

millions of years, is responsible for our behavior and also for child's existence.

How did evolution take place? how did it happen? How human beings came into existence? Let us try to explore with some

l
ogical thinking.

Newton has told how a stone behaves. But how does a human behave? That was told by Darwin. So remember, Darwin

is Newton of Biology.

Newton made mistakes, Darwin also made mistakes.

what was the difference between Darwin and Lamarck?

It was that Lamarck unified Anthropology and Evolutionism. Darwin separated them

The contribution of Lamarck was also quite huge. Now, many people have begun agreeing with Lamarck’s views. We are

gradually getting more proofs supporting Lamarck even today, but still, there are more supporters on Darwin’s views.

We (New way philosophy)) are saying that the truth is even beyond this.

It won’t be sufficient to study merely Neurology and Physiology. As we are of the opinion that we should study psychology

too! While understanding the evolution process, we also have to bear in mind that the scientists of that era and many

scientists today have accepted Darwin, between Darwin and Lamarck.

Darwin held the opinion that , “Human being makes effort. He struggles while doing efforts and if he succeeds in those

efforts, nature appreciates the success. Nature favors him (the human being). Favor meaning, it becomes gracious and

there is a chance of changes taking place in his body. And then those changes can reflect in his descendants.”

As per Darwin, first the human being has a desire, then he makes efforts for fulfilling the same. After this efforts, if the

nature accepts it and if that effect is stable, then it enters into the descendants, in the children. It means human beings

have achieved permanent progress.

If it is so, then why the children of great people aren’t great?

Our conclusion should be that Darwin’s theorem is not sufficiently pervasive. 

If the only rule in the nature is that you gain strength while thrashing others, and you live, expand your community and

develop further, and if only this much is written as the motive of the nature, you should say ‘ Go! close all the schools 

down  and start gymnasiums.’ Everyone is well-nourished and hence so strong

Everyone with a big tummy, with both hands placed on it. “Come here and I will thrash you.” But effect of it will only be 

that everyone will be so swollen, so huge! How much will you swell? …Many time we have stated that comfort will eat you 


up. Nature cannot have such a rule. (Rule which says “might is right”)

Why did Dinosaurs die? They died because of comfort; they died due to eating too much. The situation came when no

competition was left. Hence, if you restrict the meaning of ‘might is right’ as relating only to physical power, then it won’t

be correct. We should gather another proof. That is, it will be realized that the world is not sustaining merely by “Might is

Right”, nor has the world grown further by merely attacking others The species which came afterward haven’t grown by

merely killing each other; they have grown by helping each other as well.

Symbiosis: What does Symbiosis mean?

When crocodile wants to eat flesh, the pieces of the flesh are stuck in its teeth. The birds fly down from the trees. This

crocodile opens its jaw wide & sits in the sun, its mouth wide open. Then these birds come and they pick food from its

teeth. Now, the crocodile can easily eat up a number of birds by merely closing the jaw. But the crocodile doesn’t eat

them. Why so? It certainly knows that someone is helping him. There we come across symbiosis. Hence ‘might is right’

does not apply there.

Here the so called mighty one is tortured by that mere piece of flesh. Hence we state that the cooperation & 


surrendering  are also the two methods of evolution. It is called as symbiosis. That means the phenomenon of helping 


each other.

If you want to build the life afresh, if you want to give new meaning to life, then you should be studying scientifically while

applying logic and appropriate tools. Only then you would be able to do something different. Remember, it is 

not  sufficient to know how the world is. You should also understand how to change the world.

Almost all of the scientists accept Darwin’s principle of evolution from one perspective; maximum of them, not all of them,

but most of them. But again there are so many proofs against Darwinism.

Still Darwin is generally considered as a great man. Even critics call him a great man. There is a minority which considers

him to be an utter crook. So if you leave out that, we have to consider with a calm mind and should say that he was great.

He conducted deep study. He studied in detail. We have to accept him. When Darwin died, a woman in his neighborhood

had said: “This Darwin was not believing in God lately. Yet, he was such a nice person by nature that God will pardon him

after his death.”

He provided a new direction to the world. That went wrong. That’s fine; you correct it. But until the point that he took the

effort and made you say ‘His direction is wrong’ at least, he made you undertake a new study -- be thankful to him for this

at least!

You ought to be thankful to Darwin. It doesn’t mean that ‘whatever Darwin does is correct’. No, not because ‘Darwin says

so!’.

Natural selection functioned in combination with qualitatively new social-economic factors but its importance grew less as

the role of the latter increased.”

It means that the principle of natural selection, meaning ‘might is right’ was there at the beginning of the world, but it

changed later.

Who changed it? He has given an answer for the same below. He said, it was changed by human beings who came later. A

community was created by humans. He has stated that many a times it is apparent that humans changed the nature.

Columbus discovered America. Then the natural selection ceased to remain a natural selection. Then what happened?

Mixed breeds of humans were created, hybrid races were produced. A few new sprouts were added to the human race

But my question is simple. You will get only contradictions. Why so? because you deny (the existence) of mind.

See what Darwin has stated “ But I was continually struck with surprise how closely the three natives on board H.M.S.

Beagle, who had lived some years in England and could talk a little English, resembled us in disposition and in most of our

mental faculties.” He says that the races or the communities weren’t produced unequally. Then what has happened? Then 

races…meaning African is dumb, black. And who is this European? He is fair, tall, huge, mighty, very strong. Then the

differences are actually apparent, but this author says that it isn’t correct ($). See the interesting argument. An African

mentioned was short, small, evil, stupid, and the European was big, huge by physique; he was mighty. So don’t say that he

is different. Why so? Then he has stated that, on our ship called ‘Beagle’, the person of a (so called) lower race, that is of

African race, stayed for three years, he slowly started to look like us. He started to behave like us. And he started to speak

English like us. Isn’t it right? Then you take his principle for consideration. This means Darwin has waged a war against

Darwin (himself)

($). Reference : This was the book by Popular Publications for ‘Steps in Biology’ Standard 12^th. By Prof. Apsangikar, Dr.

Dhage and Dr. Golatkar

Even Darwin himself has given several examples in his original book that, this can be changed in one lifetime, and now

several new proofs are coming to light that in one lifetime itself, meaning within a short span, few generations, few years,

this wonder can happen.

Darwin has made an interesting statement. “When discussing the expression of emotions, of spiritual experiences by

means of the face muscles, Darwin came to the conclusion that there is an amazing similarity in this respect among

representatives of different races.” Remember this. Now could an atheist have a spiritual experience? And again the word

‘mental faculties’ is used. So ‘mind’ has to come. You will realize the same thing here as well.

See how that interesting word has appeared here. Whose wish is it? Nature has chosen the mighty.

Who is mighty? The one who won the fight. He had a wish ‘I want to be powerful’ isn’t it? It is right. The wishes

originate from mind, don’t they? It is correct. Now the question arises that if this wish is of mind, then whether he

became ‘mighty’ for being capable of the desire or because he was chosen by the nature? Tell me who gets the credit?

See what a big confusion he has created! The human being accumulated power with efforts, did he get the status of

‘mighty’ because of the consistency of efforts or because of being chosen by the nature? And if because of power, meaning

if he had earned this status of ‘mighty’ because of the unwavering efforts, then the choice of nature has no consequence.

Who is nature to choose that? Tell me in certain terms what it is. Are you getting what I am trying to say?

Well, you have to draw only one conclusion:

• the mind is beyond this brain and body
• it is the one which has desires.
• As long as it keeps doing justice to its task, it will keep on winning until that point.

Real Evolution is here. The balance between power and peace, even the feeling of helping each other, has helped to gain

victory in the nature.

The second example is important. ‘Dedication’

Balanced dedication is needed. To convince a wise person to come round on your side, to surrender to him, to bow down

to him – this is what is meant by Samarpan (Dedication), Sama plus Arpana means to dedicate to the wiser so that he and I

can come together. If you cannot do it yourself, then bring the person who has been successful in this, on your side.

So the word ‘might’ doesn’t mean only the physical power but the sturdiness of mind, steadfastness of

intellect, ability to surrender, each of these factors or their appropriate mix. Evolution has taken place as a

result of these attributes. It is not sufficient to describe evolution merely as ‘might is right’.






Vijay R. Joshi.

ONLY MATTER MATTERS.(E O M - 6)

MYTH CONCEPTION 1: ONLY MATTER MATTERS.(Ref. Book – Excerpts from Spontaneous Evolution, Authors: Bruce H. Lipton and Steve Bhaerman)

As repeatedly propagated by Swami Vijnananand, we have been mentioning in these blogs the role of mind and the importance and inevitability of mind's role for inclusion in the scope of science. Such opinions are echoed by a few scientists and thinkers in the 21^st century. Next few blogs to follow cover these topics.

In order to examine why the materialistic attitude has been created among the scientists, we need to review the milestones of the science journey in the past.

Aristotle and other thinkers:

As the interference of church in the life proved mysterious and troublesome, the revolution based on the rational, logic based thinking got initiated in the society. The book ‘On the revolution of heavenly spheres’ by Copernicus created first challenge to the church’s authority in 1543 and marked the advent of modern scientific revolution.

The mission statement of science that time meant to “To gain an understanding of the natural order so that we can live in harmony with it”. The present (21st century?) mission of the science appears to be “To obtain knowledge that can be used to control and dominate nature”. (This is how the modern medicine controls the disease).

Essentially the scientific method involves making observation and measurements, creating explanatory hypothesis, and conducting experiments designed to test the hypotheses. The results of the experiments are then used to refine the hypothesis so they become more predictive of the experimental results. In the end predictability is the primary hallmark of the scientific truth.

Rene Descartes further called for completing the scientific reforms. He boldly suggested throwing out the existing ancient Greek beliefs and replacing them with verifiable truths. ‘Doubt everything’ said Descartes. That time the science search was only restricted to matter. The concept of invisible energy, matrix – which modern quantum physicist named “the field” and which Einstein later attributed as “the sole governing agency of matter” – was not clearly accessible to scientific observation at the time of Newton and Descartes.

Consequently, the parameters of the scientific method unavoidably limited science to the studies of the physical material world. By narrowing its focus of study and determining the non material concepts, such as spirit and mind which were out of the box of analytical science, these elements of the invisible realm were happily left to the church not subjected to the rigid rules of physical science. Thus science officially acquired the status of scientific materialism.

(This truce of distributing the ownership of matter to the science and that of non-matter to the church and creating separate kingdoms though suited to science at that time, the bad effects of negligence of science towards the spiritual realities of life are clearly seen today).

Rather than viewing the universe as controlled by spiritual forces, scientists pursued the notion that the Universe was a physical machine. To them the planets, stars, plants, and animals were merely mechanical gears in a giant clockwork mechanism.

Scientists supported the notion that God created the machine, they also believed that once the machine was set in motion, God was not personally involved in day-to-day operation.

Later the great contribution of Newton to science established the mechanics, (also known as physics) of the Universe and substantiated the Descartes theory.

Since the 1700s, three main tenets of Newtonian philosophy have shaped how scientists approached their study of the Universe.

1. Materialism: Physical matter is the only fundamental reality. Rather than dealing with unseen vital forces or spirits (viz. mind) science need to study and understand only visible physical parts. Simply stated: “All that matters is matter”.
2. Reductionism: To understand anything, take it apart and study its pieces.
3. Determinism: We (scientists) can predict and control the outcome of natural processes. An outcome can be predicted by the linear progression of the discrete (distinct, separate) events.

At the end of 19^th century the entire material universe rested on foundation of irrefutable Newtonian truth. In fact that time physicists were so pleased with themselves that they publicly acknowledged that the science of physics was complete and there was nothing more to learn. But later cracks in the mechanical world view started arriving.

Cracks to Materialism:

1. Investigation by German physicist Wilhelm Concard Roentgen of X-rays.
2. Detection of electron by Sir Joseph John Thompson and findings of Max Plank.
3. Einstein postulated the existence of Photons (1905).
4. Louis-Victor de Broglie later confirmed hypothesis that all particles of matter should also behave as non-material waves.
5. The particle-verses-wave confusion was eventually resolved with advent and establishment of Quantum Mechanics.

Einstein showed that atoms are actually not made out of matter but consist of non-material energy. Today it is fully established that physical atoms are comprised of a menagerie (collection) of sub-atomic units such as quarks, bosons, and fermions.

Jerk to “Reductionism”:

Plank demonstrated that some events cannot be linear cause-effect reaction but seem to occur simultaneously as a part of inter-acting energy matrix called “The field”. In order to understand the nature of the Universe, we must abandon reductionism and, instead, turn to holism, where-in everything interacts with everything else.

Determinism:

Science of quantum physics also dispenses with the notion of determinism. The doctrine that all events, including human choices and decisions, are predicted on a specific sequence of causal reaction that adhere to natural law. Simply stated, the determinism proposed that, with enough data, we can predict the future. Heisenberg theory of uncertainty applies to any two conjugate (joined together, coupled) variables such as position and velocity, time and energy, or angle of rotation and angular momentum. The theory implies that the measurement of one variable results in the disturbance of its conjugate partner, so that both variables can never be accurately predicted at the same time.

Existence of matter uncertainty: Not only Heisenberg theory is direct affront (open insult) to determinism, it also suggests that the existence of matter is itself, an uncertainty.

Dilemma:

This is the predicament we find our self in if we try to make sense of our world by only focusing on material realm (dominance).

What Einstein meant was that the field is the Universe’s energy matrix that governs all matter. He also said that “There is no place in this new kind of physics both for the field and matter, for the field is the only reality”.

Still, many people tenaciously (firmly) hang onto the illusion of material reality. After a century passed, in spite of the Einstein’s establishing the mass-energy equation, it is hard to reconcile with such attitude of the so-called scientists.

Spirit: Interestingly, the invisible energy field that shapes matter, as defined by quantum physicist, has the same characteristics as the invisible shaping fields that meta physicians define as “Spirit”.

Newtonian Physics not negated (invalidated): Quantum physics is a larger realm of awareness that includes and substantially adds to the information provided by the Newtonian physics. Consequently, quantum physics accounts for what was already known plus a whole new realm of heretofore-unrecognized forces that control the unfolding of our Universe.

Science can’t have a Dogma.

If the established science cannot prove the existence of ‘the field’ by their known methods, it can’t avoid acknowledging the power of invisible field. We should open an entirely new field of inquiry and challenge science to explore what it has previously ignored.

Conclusion : 

It is the “non matter mind” which matters most. Swami Vijnananand (S. V.) has clearly stated that science can't reach to the TRUTH unless it opens its doors for the entry of 'MIND'.

Vijay R. Joshi.

CAUSALITY, FREE WILL CONVERSATION

CONCEPTS SIMPLIFIED (Purpose - 4)

For three centuries stretched between Newton and Heisenberg, causality ruled scientific thought in full glory, scientific method as synonymous with it. Curiously though, during this long span of time opponents of causality were never defeated (vanquished) completely. There is no reason why now in their turn, believers of causality should not hold their fort in the present period of so-called suspense, after the advent of Heisenberg-era.

For the benefit of a layman an imaginary discussion between a causal law believer and free will believer is reproduced below.

Free-will is not synonymous with the ‘principle of indeterminacy’ in scientific terminology though the latter is supposed to have scientifically allowed existence of free will. As Eddington says, commenting on situation in science after 1927, "Science withdraws its moral opposition to free will".

CONVERSATION

Free Will Believer: I feel allured to shoot one of the white featured birds on the top of the tree. It looks as if an inspiration, a result of 'free-will' that I enjoy.

Causal Law Believer: From where comes free will? Has it no source?

F.W.B.: I do not know. We all are in dark about the first cause.

C.L.B.: That is so. There is no opposition from any quarter, worth mention for 'first cause' being taken for granted. We are at present concerned about your immediate origin of free-will that induces will to kill.

F.W.B.: -Possibly, in the present case, I am pressed to touch the target to test my capacity of shooting accurately. However, others may do it with entirely different intentions, say, for eating it.

C.L.B.: Let us pursue your case as given. Your intense desire at aiming at the bird springs from a cause Mind. Eventually your individual mind turns out to be a specific cause of the proposed shooting.

F.W.B.: Do you insist that I shall shoot?

C, L.B.: Yes, as based on your own statement (averment).

F.W.B.: Then I don’t shoot to put you in the wrong.

C.L.B.: Be that so. I will hold that your ‘individual mind' were not to shoot in the next few moments. Have I not made myself explicit beforehand, admitting that my assertion is based on your own declaration?

F.W.B.: Your stand seems to be soapy. You change as it suits your purpose.

.

C.L.B.: Yes, because you yourself change. I believe in causal relation, but I do not claim predictability of each event. If I had known all the components of your mind from its existence, in all its details the prediction was possible. But such knowledge in all details remains beyond human comprehension. That does not mean uncertain nature of action. I moot a question. Why hanker (restless desire) after shooting?

F.W.B.: To kill the nice little bird for shooting practice. .

C.L.B.: So you endorse a relation between your action and the desired result. Thus, if your present freak of will causes to produce a correlated ‘effect', logically you present 'will to kill' in its role as an effect up with a 'cause' in the unknown past.

 

F.W.B.: But supposing I shoot at the top of the tree, I wonder whether the specific bird chosen as a target in my mind can get a correct hit or otherwise.

C.L.B.: Very true. That can be understood, given, as I said all the authentic record of your personality, in its true perspective. In the absence of the relevant account, "causality" as a logical mode of Nature's operations, need be only course of deductions.

F.W.B.: Do you vote against individuals, possessing free-will at all?

C. L. B.: They have free will. Each one has a free will to understand causal laws, according to one's own individual way.

F.W.B.: If causality has created my individuality, has it no omnipotence (God like infinite power) to dictate me, instead of leaving things to my free will?

C.L.B.: Causality has not created you. Nature has created you or not obstructed your creation. But as we all rightly hold, we can never fathom into the depths of Nature directly, nevertheless, nature of Nature can be apprised of, through the inklings (indication or hint) she gives on her own. Causality is merely a "process of Nature", a primary manifestation which assists us to build a coherent picture of objective reality.

F.W.B.: This assumption absolves me from any charge of cruelty, in the event I successfully hit at my target, it is indeed the bird that invites death.

C. L. B.: It must be presumed that the bird has invited death. In process of evolution, death has played a part of heightening (increasing) the value of organism. Death, at most of the stages, has been paid as a price of a given development. In the opinion of Dr. Walker, every sensation of pain makes the concerned organism wiser. If that is so, approach of death; that we often suppose / consider inflict piercing torture; ought to be taken to shelve out still higher knowledge. Well. This need be made clear in great details, as it is expounded (stated in details) in "New Way'' series. For the present, we can but suppose the bird itself to have caused its own death, through you. Rather the bird also was the ‘party to the event’, that is how I would like to put it, since my statement must be objective.

As for the charge of cruelty against you, that again would vary according to observers. A sportsman, would applaud for the fine shooting, a member of 'animal-protection committee' will report to a police, an over-passionate pseudo philosopher will- tend to accuse you of barbarism and a science lover like me would just keep quiet. All happenings, actions and reactions, have bearing upon respective causes and those causes develop growing complexity as we attempt to trace it back step by step. In the ultimate analysis, it all presents a perplexing picture. The more we hanker after 'remote causes’ there universal causality becomes our unmistakable guide.

F.W.B.: But you have already declared inability of setting back to first cause. Eventually, we become helpless spectators to a predetermined course of events. Ultimately you seem to suggest that whatever be the first cause, rational man at this level of understanding gives up all his action and struggle. This looks an utterly pessimistic picture. End of the world, virtually.

C.L.B.: Remember, that there was no man on this earth a million years back and it is likely that there will be no man on this globe in distant future, says science. I recommend you to go through the literature on evolution, geology and thermodynamics. Ignoring these theoretical postulates, your anxiety that causality shall demolish prospects of true enjoyment and useful action are far from having valid foundation, in the immediate future.

Give a proposal to ten budding youths who earn a specific sum per month, that they should accept an equivalent sum as a pension and sit quiet completely under compulsion. A minority of them will accept it, the majority would choose to act and earn. And those who would prefer an idle income may continue to work for work’s sake because action is taken to be mental oxygen for them. Assuming however two youngsters of the lot appreciate causal laws in its true perspective, the frame of reference changes. Not that the enlightened twin can abruptly stop action; they however shall utilize their action-and enthusiasm in promoting the unimpeachable (above suspicion) laws of causality. Devoid (not possessing) of any craving for material gain, they are hardly bound by their new stride of action. In due course, they may reduce themselves to inaction, which having a potential to inspire others can ever (or never) be termed as inaction.

F.W.B.: This holds out no charm.

C. l. B.: Not the charms, but causal laws are under discussion. Objectivity holds well to a hair, whether it means a treat or a trial for you.

F.W.B.: Causal laws in philosophical sense do concern themselves with pleasure. They strictly pronounce, "Good begets good".

C.L.B.: This no doubt reflects on a state of development at a very high level. Yet, in the last analysis, till 'good' in the maxims speaks of 'good action', the law that unavoidably follows is: 'Action begets reaction'. In the realm of ultimate’s, 'good' and 'bad' carry little sense, but the laws of motion rule supreme as the 'process' of Nature'. From here should science and philosophy go hand in hand.

F.W.B.: If every action is bound by causal laws chances of upward development are negativated (denied).

C.L.B.: In the days of 'relativity', such 'one directional' phenomenon finds no place.

F. W.B.: It reduces to this predicament (unpleasant difficulty): every action of my personality is predetermined, as per causal process and so I should submit to any evil dispensation (exemption from rule) Cool and collected, I should continue with the work on hand- Is this what do you mean?

C. L. B.: Mostly so. Everything is predetermined in a sense every action initiates reaction. Your longing for effect to be -produced by present action renders itself invalid; unless you imbibe belief in your present 'will' having a previous cause. Understanding of this characteristic, absolute phenomenon makes you feel 'action' itself to be redundant. You consequently quell (put an end to) the new action and invite no new reaction.

F. W. B.: But whether I would rest on the oars (cease to make efforts) or not, again depends on my personality. If I am destined to realize what you propound, I will, otherwise not.

C.L.B: This statement itself amounts to encomium (expressing higher praise) of causal laws. Most wonderful part of the situation is: Causal law believer's decision to indefinitely differ action itself involves free will. On the other hand, when a free will believer wishes to cause all his actions by his free will he essentially hails causality in practice, in as much as he expects every action to meet a desired reaction. The outcome is, the free-will follower, as a necessity adheres to causal laws, which causal law believer esteem as a code. In effect, causality excels.

F. W. B. We have no grudge for not obtaining the desired result, because we believe in probability only.

C.L.B.: It certainly does not mean that an abortive attempt evokes no depression in the free will believer. His adjustment with a frustration is much the same “as action of readjustment" of mind, after his cheerfully optimistic hope of probable fortunate stroke terminates without producing result. This action obeys laws of motion and so of causality. About probability I have already explained above as to how probability must be a component of total causality though unknown to us.

F.W.B.: But then, as I have argued if everything is predetermined so is my moment of knowing causality of your conviction. 

C.L.B.: For me, I hold in mind (harbor) a notion that all of us are believers of existence of causality. Some scientists rule out 'causality' because predictability of the events has been beyond the reach of experiments. They indirectly do concede causality to be one of the alternative possibilities. A probability theory cannot discard causality as one of the probabilities to be true law of Nature, if probability seeks to retain spirit of the theory. A probability believer finds it impossible to observe Nature in its totality or to its microscopic details, as he himself admits. But then how are you justified in being dogmatic about the unseen process, particularly in face of the fact that a very reliable section of scientist - never mind esoterically (secretly or confidentially) in your opinion - adheres to causality?

F.W.B.: Assuming I yield an assent to the theory by my free-will just now-and don’t shoot the bird then the bird that I was to kilt, will miss the predetermined event.

C.L.B.: We have already agreed upon the complex mode of Nature's innermost features. There can evolve a number of alternatives,

First: That the bird may have been destined to miss a probable hit.

Second: Process of Nature might have provided the bird with an alternative self- punishment. Third: Even on your accepting causality at the moment, you may open fire, as death of the flying animal by itself carries no special meaning and torture for you after realization.

Fourth: Even after self-realization, certain time for adjustment may be required. So you may choose to go ahead with your hunting, at the present juncture.

Fifth: Other mechanism inherent in nature might bring about adjustments, in keeping with her main Process, though the details of this process are lacking and the lacuna lies in human limitations.

F.W.B.: Without knowing the process and entire design of Nature, why should causality be taken as a faithful guide?

C.L.B.: Because it is inexorable (unalterable) and more logical. Besides, admittedly indeterminacy also involves ignorance of total objectivity. So, at least you should have no objection in embracing causality, on this plea alone.

F.W.B: Well, after this long argument, if I remain dogmatic about free-will, will it not repudiate (the authority of the) causality- since all your labor on me would cause no effect on me?

C.L.B.: Your taking part in the polemic (controversial argument) lends support to causality, in as much as you wish to "effect" change in me by the 'cause' of your argument. So far as the endeavor to convert you is concerned, I had myself admitted that change in you can keep pace with your own personality and not beyond.

Vijay R. Joshi.

Source: Appendix A to the Book "PURPOSE OF THE UNIVERSE'. Author Swami Vijnananand. (December 1961), with minor changes.