KR WAYNE, STEINER AND SO MANY IN WEST HAD THOUGHTS ON FREEDOM
CONNECTING TO VARIOUS FACTORS BUT CONCURRING WITH THE IDEA OF FREEDOM BLOWN
SECOND IS UNKNOWN.
Steiner begins exploring the nature of human freedom by accepting
"that an action, of which the agent does not know why he performs it,
cannot be free," but asking what happens when a person becomes conscious of
his or her motives for acting. He proposes that through introspective
observation we can become conscious of the motivations of our actions, and
that the sole possibility of human freedom, if it exists at all, must be
sought in an awareness of the motives of our action.
Steiner's summary of Part I of The Philosophy of Freedom, at the
start of Chapter 8 in Part II, contains the following passage:
The world comes to meet me as a multiplicity, a sum of separate
details. As a human being, I am myself one of these details, an entity
among other entities. We call this form of the world simply the given
and—insofar as we do not develop it through conscious activity but find it
ready-made—we call it percept. Within the world of percepts, we perceive
ourselves. But if something did not emerge out of this self-percept that
proved capable of linking both percepts in general and also the sum of all
other percepts with the percept of our self, our self-percept would remain
simply one among many. This emerging something, however, is no longer a
mere percept; nor is it, like percepts, simply present. It is produced
through activity and initially appears linked to what we perceive as our
self, but its inner meaning reaches beyond the self. It adds conceptual
determinates to individual percepts, but these conceptual determinates
relate to one another and are grounded in a whole. It determines
conceptually what is achieved through self-perception conceptually, just as
it determines all other percepts. It places this as the subject or "I" over
against objects. This "something" is thinking, and the conceptual
determinates are concepts and ideas.
Freedom arises most clearly at the moment when a human being
becomes active in pure, individualized thinking; this is, for Steiner,
spiritual activity. Achieving freedom is then accomplished by learning to
let an ever larger portion of one's actions be determined by such
individualized thought, rather than by habit, addiction, reflex, or
involuntary or unconscious motives. Steiner differentiates pure thinking
into "moral intuition" (formulation of individual purposes), "moral
imagination" (creative strategies for realizing these larger purposes in
the concrete situation), and "moral technique" (the practical capacity to
accomplish what was intended). He suggests that we only achieve free deeds
when we find an ethically impelled but particularized response to the
immediacy of a given situation. Such a response will always be radically
individual; it cannot be predicted or prescribed.
* The Philosophy of Freedom* Steiner had made the claim, 'That an
action, of which the agent does not know why he performs it, cannot be
free, goes without saying' (ist selbstverständlich). 'I carry it [the
action] out because I love it. In the long paragraph containing this
statement, Steiner sets the love of the action within the context that a
free action is not influenced by any "moral maxim". This is clearly an
attack on Kant. The action is carried out the moment '. . . I have grasped
the idea of it, on the basis of love, and I am not a "superior automaton"
obeying the maxim. 'An action is felt to be free in so far as the reasons
for it spring from the ideal part of my individual being; every other part
of an action [?] . . . is felt to be unfree'; . . . every other part of an
action . . . is felt to be unfree. 'Man is free in so far as he is able to
obey himself in every moment of his life. Here the topic has changed. In
(CHAP 2) we were offered a definition of the free act. Now in (CHAP 3) the
question seems to be what a free man or human being is. 'Man is free .
. .' ('Frei
ist der Mensch')[GERMAN-MAN IS FREE ] . The requirement is remarkably
demanding: 'in so far as he is able to obey himself in every moment of his
life . . .', so that it only takes one failure of the ability in one
"Augenblick" to make him unfree. Besides, Definition (3) suffers from a
formal defect to the extent that it must include the modal formulation ("is
able to obey himself") which seems to presuppose freedom ("is able to . .
.", "in der Lage ist"). Definition (3) is also surprisingly Spinozist, in
the sense that the freedom of a being is for Spinoza, in the Letter to
Schuller of 1674, quoted by Steiner in Steiner [Wilson translation], 1965,
p. 5, "the ability to act from the necessity of its nature". It is a
consequence of (3) that freedom is the antithesis of duty,because "duty
does not acknowledge the individual element" in our actions. In the case
of man the free spirit, unlike in every other case, the concept and percept
of our being do not coincide, in reality, or belong together originally,
until man himself brings it about, in his own consciousness, that they
should. 'Concept and percept coincide in this case only if man makes them
coincide. This he can only do if he has found the concept of the free
spirit, that is, if he has found the concept of his own self.'Only he
himself can make of himself a free man('Ein freies Wesen kann er nur selbst
aus sich machen.)'
*Freedom is (1) love; (2) thinking, which Steiner also calls "love in its
spiritual form"; (3) Obedience to Oneself; (4) "Non-Objective Determination
of the Self".*
* ----------------------------------------------*
*The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda [hereafter Complete Works]. 2:34.*
It is well known that ethics and morality are not one and the same.
Morality refers to actual behaviour, whereas ethics is a systematic study
of the criterion or standard for the judgement of moral conduct or
character. Western theories of ethics may be broadly divided into two
groups: deontological and teleological. By deontology is meant the study of
moral obligation (from Greek deont = obligatory). Deontological theories
hold that the basis of ethics is man’s sense of moral obligation. We all
feel an inherent urge to act morally and, if we don’t act morally, we feel
guilty about it. Judeo Christian ethics is mostly based on this inherent
sense of moral obligation. Immanuel Kant tried to develop an ethical theory
independent of religion but ended up by reaffirming man’s inherent sense of
moral obligation which he called ‘categorical imperative’.
Teleological theories hold that our actions are guided by our desire to
attain some goal. That goal is usually regarded as happiness; this view is
known as hedonism. Most of the teleological theories are really hedonistic
theories. The best known theory of this kind is utilitarianism propounded
by Bentham, Mill, and others.
In India the deontological theory of ethics was held by the Mimamsakas
(especially the Prabhakara school), and teleological theory of ethics was
held by the Naiyayikas.
Both the types of theories take into consideration only the urges, desires,
and actions of man which belong to the mind and body. They do not take into
consideration the true ontic essence of man, his true Self, the Atman.
Since the Atman is beyond body and mind, it is regarded as beyond the field
of ethics. This has been stated clearly by Sri Shankaracharya in his
commentary on the first aphorism of Brahma-Sutra, and in several other
contexts.
*It was Swami Vivekananda who showed that the freedom and purity of the
Atman can form the basis of human thinking and actions. Swamiji laid the
foundation for a truly ontological theory of ethics which is much superior
to the deontological and hedonistic theories mentioned above.* It makes
ethics a study of the way the freedom of the Self manifests itself in a
multitude of ways. This does not mean that Swami Vivekananda overlooked the
evil tendencies in man or the compulsive nature of human actions. Like
Mencius, who said that man has only ‘potentialities of goodness’, *Swamiji
too stated that man is only potentially divine. Man as man is not divine,
but he has in him the potential to become divine.*
The soul’s divinity and freedom remain in a potential state because their
manifestation is restricted by mental and physical automatisms. All normal
thinking, feeling and willing are controlled by latent impression of past
experiences called samskaras. It is under the influence of samskaras that
people do good actions or bad actions. Says Swami Vivekananda, “What are
you but mere machines until you are free? Should you be proud because you
are good? Certainly not. You are good because you cannot help it. Another
is bad because he cannot help it.”17
Mere talking about morality is not enough; it is necessary to control the
samskaras.
Therefore, mere talking about morality is not enough; it is necessary to
control the samskaras. Swamiji again says, “We hear ‘Be good,’ and ‘Be
good,’ and ‘Be good,’ taught all over the world. There is hardly a child,
born in any country in the world, who has not been told, ‘Do not steal’,
‘Do not tell a lie’, but nobody tells the child how he can help doing them.
Talking will not help him. Only when we teach him to control his mind do we
really help him.”18
The minds of most people are conditioned by their samskaras. Good and bad
actions are the result of this mental conditioning. True moral freedom is
freedom from the hold of samskaras. How to attain this inner freedom?
According to Swamiji, it is done through yoga. “We have to get the power to
become moral;” says Swamiji, “until we do that we cannot control our
actions. Yoga alone enables us to carry into practice the teachings of
morality.”19 The more a person is freed from the hold of samskaras, the
greater the freedom of Atman that he feels within himself. Only a yogi who
has realized the Atman enjoys moral freedom without the need for rules and
regulations.
*This view resolves the conflict between ‘free will’ and ‘determinism’
(also known as ‘freedom’ and ‘necessity’) that has plagued Western thought
all through its history. The basic question here is whether human actions
are all determined by instincts and desires or by God, and whether man has
the freedom to choose between good and evil*. In the religious context, the
more moderate Catholic view is that God has given man the freedom to choose
between good and evil but, left to themselves, most people would choose
evil rather than good because of the presence of ‘Original Sin’ in their
souls. Protestantism denies free will to man. According to Martin Luther,
“Man is as unfree as a pillar of salt.” John Calvin’s doctrine of
predestination would make even sinful actions willed by God. In secular
philosophy Schopenhauer, Spinoza, Hume and others upheld determinism .
According to Schopenhauer, “A man can surely do what he wills to do, but he
cannot determine what he wills.” As Bertrand Russell put it, “We can do as
we please but we can’t please as we please.”20
This conflict between determinism and free will never figured prominently
in Indian thought. In Hindu philosophy the will, known as dhriti or iccha,
is only a special function of buddhi known as adhyavasaya o r
determination. The whole mind (known as antahkarana), including the buddhi,
is governed by the action of samskaras. The only thing that is free is the
Atman or the Self in its true nature; but, being limited by, and reflected
in the buddhi, it appears as the empirical self known as the jiva or
jivatman. It is this empirical self that experiences the urge to be free.
Thus freedom and bondage refer to the self, and not to the will, in Hindu
philosophy.
s the identification of the Self with mind and body gets reduced by the
practice of yoga, the person experiences greater inner freedom and his will
gets freed from the hold of desires and instincts. As Swami Vivekananda has
stated, “Remember, only the free have free will.”
It should, however, be noted that these higher ideas of religion are known
only to a small number of educated people in India. The common people are
very often guided by superstitions, fatalistic thinking and village customs
which have introduced a sense of helplessness, futility and hopelessness
into their lives. Swamiji wanted to free their minds from this inner
stranglehold and rouse the inherent strength to shape their own destiny.
Hence he very much wanted to disseminate the liberating and strengthening
higher ideas of religion in India. This leads us to the next topic.
Spiritual freedom
>From the above discussion it is clear that all the types of freedom
discussed thus far— social freedom, intellectual freedom and moral
freedom—are freedom only in a relative sense. Absolute freedom is the
absolute freedom of the Self, and this is what spiritual freedom means. To
attain freedom of the Self means to cease to identify oneself with one’s
body and mind and to identify oneself with the Supreme Self. This state of
absolute freedom is known as mukti or moksha. In traditional Hinduism mukti
is regarded as freedom from transmigration or rebirth. But since the cause
of rebirth is the identification of the Self with body and mind, and the
cause of this identification is ignorance of the true nature of the Self,
Advaitins regard mukti as freedom from original ignorance resulting from
the attainment of true knowledge.
The Advaita tradition speaks of two kinds of mukti. One is the state of
immediate and ultimate release; this is known as sadyomukti. The other
type, known as krama-mukti, takes place in stages . According to Sri
Shankaracharya, those who practice meditation (upasana) on Saguna Brahman
attain identity with Hiranyagarbha after death. Later on they may attain
identity with the Supreme Impersonal Brahman and attain final liberation.
Several Hindu sects hold the view that mukti is a state which is attained
only after death; this is known as videha-mukti. But the Advaita tradition
holds that, since total destruction of ignorance is possible even when a
person is alive, mukti is possible even while living; this kind of mukti is
called jivanmukti. The goal of all spiritual endeavour is to attain this
state of liberated-in-life.
In almost all the schools of Hindu thought, mukti, whatever be its nature,
is an individual event, and only a few exceptionally qualified individuals
can attain it. Hence, there will remain many millions who have not attained
liberation. Although this is the most commonly held belief, there have been
a few teachers who believed in collective salvation, in the liberation of
all; this is known as sarva-mukti.
Swami Vivekananda has referred to the idea of sarva-mukti on more than one
occasion. In the course of a conversation with his disciple Sharat Chandra
Chakravarty, Swamiji once remarked, “What is the good of that spiritual
practice or realisation which does not benefit others, does not conduce to
the well-being of people sunk in ignorance and delusion, does not help in
rescuing them from the clutches of lust and wealth? Do you think, so long
as one jiva endures in bondage, you will have any liberation? So long as he
is not liberated— it may take several lifetimes—you will have to be born to
help him, to make him realize Brahman. Every jiva is a part of
yourself—which is the rationale of all work for others.”
In India Swamiji emphasised social freedom more because that was the crying
need of the masses. For millions of sunken people living in destitution the
only meaningful freedom is freedom from hunger. So Swamiji said, “Bread!
Bread! I do not believe in a God, who cannot give me bread here, giving me
eternal bliss in heaven! Pooh!”25 Swamiji’s words criticising
untouchability, exploitation, and priestcraft fell like bombshells upon
Indian society and blasted the bastions of vested interests, superstition
and selfishness, and had a tremendous liberating influence on the Indian
mind.
Swami Vivekananda developed a holistic view of life which unifies all the
different types of freedom into an integral quest and liberates man from
all bonds at all levels of existence. The goal of life according to him is
to manifest the potential divinity of the soul. Swamiji said, “My ideal,
indeed, can be put into a few words, and that is: to preach unto mankind
their divinity, and how to make it manifest in every movement of life.”28
When the social freedom, intellectual freedom, moral freedom and spiritual
freedom that we seek become unified into a single evolutionary purpose,
every second of human life becomes a meaningful and liberating experience.
In conclusion, we may state that Swami Vivekananda has made significant
contributions to our understanding of different dimensions of human freedom
at the individual and collective levels; he has given us an integral
paradigm of liberating life; and he himself strove to extend the frontiers
of human freedom.
For centuries to come there will echo in different parts of the civilized
world the song of his soul, “Freedom, O freedom! Freedom, O freedom.”
----------------------------------------
I HAVE NOT GONE BACK TO ANCIENT ERA AS WEST THOUGHTS ARE ONLY
IN THIS ERA; SO VIVEKAMADA BASED ON HIODUISM WAS ADOPTED AS EXTRACTED FRON
HIS VOLUMES. I THINK TAGORE SAID IT RIGHT:
Where The Mind Is Without Fear
Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high
Where knowledge is free
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments
By narrow domestic walls
Where words come out from the depth of truth
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way
Into the dreary desert sand of dead habit
Where the mind is led forward by thee
Into ever-widening thought and action
*Into that heaven of freedom*, my Father, let my country awake.
K RAJARAM IRS 11626
On Thu, 11 Jun 2026 at 07:41, Dr Sundar <[email protected]> wrote:
> May 2026
>
> Wayne writes:
>
> "Freedom is the realization that what you fundamentally Are cannot be
> diminished, altered, or threatened by the loss of what was never yours in
> the first place."
>
>
>
> Your question is:
> "Can you tell me in words what I am fundamentally?"
>
>
>
> According to Advaita, the honest answer is that what you fundamentally are
> cannot be fully captured in words. That is why Wayne refers to the
> "Unknowable."
>
> Still, pointers can be given.
>
> You are not fundamentally:
>
> your body (it changes constantly),
>
> your thoughts (they come and go),
>
> your emotions (they arise and disappear),
>
> your possessions,
>
> your social roles,
>
> your personal history.
>
>
> All these are known by you.
> Wayne would likely point to that silent, aware presence that is here
> before every thought and remains when thoughts pass.
>
> You might call it:
>
> Awareness
>
> Consciousness
>
> Being
>
> Presence
>
> the Self
>
> the God
>
> But these are only names.
>
> For example, right now:
>
> You are aware of these words.
>
> You are aware of your body sitting or standing.
>
> You are aware of thoughts arising as you read.
>
>
> The body is an object of awareness. Thoughts are objects of awareness.
> Feelings are objects of awareness.
>
> But the awareness itself is not an object you can look at.
>
> That aware presence is what Advaita points to as your fundamental nature.
>
> This is why Advaita says that freedom comes when you realize that what you
> fundamentally are cannot be diminished, altered, or threatened.
>
> Your money can be lost. Your possessions can be lost.Your relations and
> friends can go. Your health can change. Even the body will one day die.
>
> But the Awareness in which all experiences appear is not a possession and
> therefore cannot be taken away.
>
> It might put as
>
> What you fundamentally are is not the changing content of experience, but
> the ever-present Awareness in which all experience arises and passes.
>
>
> That is not a belief to adopt, but an invitation to investigate directly
> from our own experience/(s).
>
> Namaskaram
>
> *"KNOW THYSELF .*
> *SELF KNOWLEDGE IS REAL KNOWLEDGE.*
> *ALL OTHER KNOWLEDGE IS IGNORANCE AND THEY ARE NO KNOWLEDGE " *
> *~~~ Bhagavan Ramana*
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "societyforservingseniors" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/society4servingseniors/CAF%3D8Bw1vyh4c%3DzCtathZ7y-Qu2BB9UwXw5e34vuNH0RhRMtdLA%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/society4servingseniors/CAF%3D8Bw1vyh4c%3DzCtathZ7y-Qu2BB9UwXw5e34vuNH0RhRMtdLA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZorb7LKx%3DqwDjtP0O0sq2mWQYCS3hO_Z0T6ShDLEPXS6Ng%40mail.gmail.com.
