A Mahabharat tale - The Brahmin and the Butcher (GP for Alka Narula)

Back in the Padmasan and again pontificating on the wisdom of the sages of yore. Alka Narula is again hosting me on her blog. And the exposition is still about the surprising attitudes in our epics towards caste discrimination and, indeed, about how the caste of a person is to be determined.

This is a tale of how a Brahmin learned from a Butcher. You can read it here - The Brahmin and the Butcher

Tales from the Mahabharat - GP for Alka Narula

As people who know me know, every now and I then I dust off my saffron robes, sit in the Padmasan and start pontificating on the wisdom of the sages of yore. It is true that I do it even without any active encouragement but, if I can find someone who encourages me, my enthusiasm is boundless.

Alka Narula is my major source of encouragement in this area. This time, I have written a guest post for her - a lesser known tale from the Mahabharat (known only to people like me who delve in detail into the epics OR people who patiently sat through all of Ramanand Sagar's serials based on epics.)

The tale of the Rishi Uttang is a surprising exposition of what our epics really had to say about caste discrimination. You can read it here - The Tale of Uttang Rishi

It's all in the mind - GP for Alka Narula

Every now and then, I let my beard flow down untrammeled (untrimmed?), put on my saffron robes (metaphorically), sit in a padmasan and pontificate on the thusness of things. Sometimes, I do manage to get my tongue to my cheek; at others, I am serious enough to seem like the understudy of Swami someone-or-the-other. (Not that any Swami, worth his saffron, is likely to even consider acknowledging my existence, leave alone actually knowing me.) A full list of my pontificating posts is indexed in this page.

It is not as though I wait upon encouragement to unleash my 'wisdom' on the unsuspecting populace. But, if there is someone who actually does encourage you, I must admit that it does lend a certain credence to your self-illusions. For lending me that credence, I must thank Alka Narula, who had been kind enough to publish my guest posts more than once, as witness "Does suffering negate the possibility of a compassionate God" and "In defense of Ram".

Once again, she invited me into her blog and once again you have the pleasure (dubious? I am not responsible for your doubts) of seeing my 'saffron-clad avatar'.

Not just happiness - even virtue and sin are all in the mind.

Karma and do-nothingism

I really have not tried to find any reasons for adopting the most enjoyable practice of do-nothingism. As far as I was concerned, the only problem with adopting it was the fact that the world, rather unreasonably, refuses to provide the wherewithal for me to survive unless I did something. I mean, even known and convicted criminals committing heinous sins were supposed to have human rights but I am denied my right to survive merely because I do nothing. What sort of logic is that?

I, however, am rather amused by the fact that people blame the theory of Karma for an attitude of do-nothingism in India. Of course, an interpretation of that theory does say that what you get in this birth is an outcome of the virtues you accumulated over the past births and, therefore, may not bear direct relevance to your own efforts in this birth. And, thus, if you believe in the theory of Karma, you would prefer to do nothing in this birth because what you get cannot be influenced by your efforts? Nonsense!

I, like most of us, used to work for monthly wages. The money I spent on sustaining myself on any given day was the outcome of my effort in the previous month. The efforts I put in during that month yielded me nothing to help me in that month. So, there is no point in working? After all, my efforts of this month were not helping me in feeding myself - or drinking myself silly - in this month. So, is it not absolutely logical to stop working right away?

What was that? What would happen to me next month? Well, if I truly believed that there would be a next month in my life and I would need to sustain myself in that month, I would need to work this month, would I? Then, do you mean to say that people believe that they had a few past births that got them what they have in this birth, but do not truly believe that there is a next birth where they would need the fruits of this birth?

That, precisely, seems to be the problem. Do-nothingism arises out of a belief in the past births without a conviction about the future ones. If one believed in both, one would still continue to work. But, then, it is customary for the 'rational' human beings to cherry-pick their beliefs to suit what they want to do, isn't it? So, I believe that my work in my past births will take care of me in this birth but I do not believe that there is a future birth for which I need to work in this birth. Sort of partial theory of Karma!

As for me, I do not indulge in reasons for my inaction. I do nothing because I absolutely love doing nothing!

Guest Post for Alka Narula Again

Just back from Yercaud and I find that my second guest post for Alka Narula has been up and running a few days. This link may be entirely superfluous but then it all counts towards adding to my post count. :)

Need I say that it is a serious post again.

http://floating-diamonds.blogspot.in/2012/08/in-defence-of-ram.html#links

Guest post for Alka Narula

When I joined Indiblogger about four months back, I had been blogging extremely desultorily for a year and a half. I hardly ever read any other blog and the whole exercise was one of maintaining a sort of personal record of my treks for my own reference, which others were welcome to see or avoid as the mood took them.

Reading other blogs on Indiblogger has been both a great pleasure and a pain. Reading good to great posts is wonderful as anyone who reads for pleasure can readily understand. The problem, however, was that, whenever I attempted to write humour, I realized I was ruing the fact that I could never attain the style of a Purba, Debajyoti, Cybernag or many such others who could make you laugh out aloud about the most mundane of things while you despaired of wringing a reluctant smile from your readers. When I started describing treks and travels, I became aware that I got nowhere close to the evocative prose of Bhavana nor can I describe people in the way Umashankar describes them, which makes them come alive to the reader.

When I started attempting fiction, I found that I could not approach the zany creativity of the misnamed 'The Fool' nor the detailing of moods achieved by young Kirti. I have not even come close to detailing the stand-out features of all the bloggers that I have read. I could probably write a book about the bloggers whose various capabilities I am only capable of envying and I am aware that the sampling of blogs that I have read is a minuscule proportion of what is available.

Poetry is the one form of writing that I do not even delude myself into attempting. Nor, indeed, do I have the ability to enjoy it. There are some extremely good poets in blogosphere and if I have mentioned none of them it is only because of my incapability to appreciate their output. I am, probably, missing out on a whole world of wonderful art from the minds of Saru, Leo, Alka, Amit and other such poets.

I am sure these bloggers will forgive me for saying that I come out of their blogs with my ego badly bruised. My own posts read so insipid, so pedestrian after reading theirs that I wonder about why I continue writing at all. Of course, most of them have been offering complimentary comments on my own posts but it seems to me to be more out of kindness than anything else. Yet, I continue writing because I love doing it and because I cannot entirely lose the illusion that I am capable of it.

When the-NRI accepts a couple of posts from me and when veteran bloggers like Pramod Lohia accept my guest posts, it gives me a boost. Now, one of the most popular poets - Alka Narula - has been kind enough to accept a guest post from me! Not for her poetry blog, obviously! Kindness can only extend so far! When something like this happens it makes me feel that maybe I am doing something right in blogosphere, after all.

This is one of my 'serious' posts.

http://floating-diamonds.blogspot.in/2012/07/does-suffering-negate-existence-o.html

Of Courage – Part II

Courage has normally, and instinctively, been identified with physical courage. Physical courage is more common among people than what I choose to call Social courage. By Social courage I mean the courage to stick by your value systems regardless of the fact that it may cause you to lose the respect of society.

Supposing you see a group of your friends bullying a young boy! Would you join them or stop them? The tamasik person would join them but both the Rajasik and Satvik persons would try to stop them even if that gets them ostracized from their group.

What, then, if your group of friends are engaged in a fight with another group of people? The tamasik person would join them, of course, if he can see no way of escaping the battle unseen. The Rajasik person would join the battle with his friends either because he is bound by personal loyalties or because to not do so would cause him to be labeled a coward and a traitor. The Satvik person would either try to stop the battle or join the side that is fighting for a just cause even if it is the side of the others. Thus, in the Ramayana, Ravan’s brother Kumbakarn fights against Ram, even when he knew it was Ravan who was in the wrong, as an exemplar of a Rajasik person. The Satvik Vibhishan, on the other hand, attempts to stop Ravan from battling Ram, despite being repeatedly insulted, and then joins hands with the just cause.

The fear of Scoiety’s disapprobation is a far stronger fear than physical fear. What armies call esprit de corps is a way of ensuring that soldiers would rather face death or disablement in battle than the contempt of their peers. In fact, many a noble deed as well as many an atrocity has been committed by people – against their own personal inclinations – out of fear of social disapprobation. Social courage is, therefore, rarer than physical courage.

Is that all there is to courage then? Physical and Social courage anchor behavior! It requires what I would call Moral courage to anchor your feelings. To be able to love when love has been repaid with disdain; to be able to trust when trust has been repaid with betrayal; to be able to be compassionate when compassion has been repaid with contempt and to be able to be truthful when truth has been repaid with disbelief requires a far higher and rarer order of courage. Please understand that I do not mean that you should love the person who treated you with disdain, trust the person who betrayed you etc. That is not courage but folly. What I meant was that you need rare courage to still be able to meet other people in life with an open mind and without letting your past experiences embitter you. This sort of courage is exclusively the province of the Satvik person.

Situations in life do not conveniently fall into categories. A physical confrontation may (and probably will) have social consequences – as in fisticuffs with the thug leading to a police case and, therefore, social disapprobation. A social confrontation would probably have physical consequences – as in standing up for a co-worker losing you your job and leading to problems of survival. All confrontations affect the realm of the emotions and, thus, have moral consequences. A good Social system is one where desirable actions by members of that Society do not lead to undesirable consequences and undesirable actions necessarily and inevitably lead to undesirable consequences. Social systems should not operate by depending on individual acts of courage.

People do not slot themselves conveniently into boxes either. Thus, a person with great physical courage may well have little Social courage and someone with no Physical courage may exhibit great Social courage. To know the fears that stop you from doing the right thing is to be able to confront those fears and to win. A good individual is one who stays true to his value systems regardless of consequences and even if the Society he lives in is dysfunctional.

In the past, a great deal of premium was placed on courage. Rightly so, since without courage none of our other virtues would stand the test of Life.

Of Courage – Part I

Courage goes hand-in-hand with fear. Where there is no fear there is no need for courage. Do you feel courageous when you walk across a two foot wide plank laid on your floor or when you walk across the same plank laid a hundred feet above the ground spanning the empty space between two buildings? It is the fear of the consequences of falling in the latter case that brings forth the need for courage.

A lack of imagination may allow a person to do things considered courageous merely because (s)he is unable to contemplate the consequences. Thus, someone who has the false assurance of invincibility or is reckless of consequences could appear to be courageous. Such an appearance of courage is mere bravado. In the true sense, one talks of courage only when what is being done is necessary and when the concerned person fears the consequences but still forges ahead. To risk consequences for no serious reason is also bravado since the option to retreat could exist when the goal is irrelevant or inconsequential. When we discuss courage going forth let us assume that it is a meaningful goal that calls forth the courage.

The most commonly acknowledged type of courage is physical courage. In fact, the metaphor of courage almost exclusively describes physical courage. Physical courage is required when you do something that has the potential to cause you physical inconvenience or pain, disability or death.

Hindu Philosophy talks of three gunas. One of the key elements that determine the difference between the three gunas – Satva, Rajas and Tamas – is the sort of courage exhibited by the respective people.

Let us assume a situation where you see a person being beaten up by a thug. Let us further assume that there would be no other consequences of interfering in the situation beyond the effects of a physical battle with the thug.

A tamasik person would prefer not to risk the consequences and, thus, would go his way without attempting to save the victim. Even if the thug appeared weaker than him, he would not be prepared to take the risk of suffering physical pain.

A Rajasik person would wade into the battle and be embroiled in a fight with the thug. The possibility of not being able to win the battle and getting severely injured would not weigh upon his mind.

A Satvik person would intervene in the altercation and save the victim but would not indulge in violence against the thug. Despite the fact that he can successfully thrash the thug and despite the fact that his non-violence would cause him to be injured, a Satvik person is expected to be steadfast in his non-violence, at least as long as he is the only likely sufferer. The requirement of physical courage from such a person is far higher because to stay non-violent when indulging in violence could save him physical pain requires a far higher order of courage.

The highest level of development of a soul is to be Nirguna. At this level, pain and pleasure seem the same to the concerned person. Such a person has no fear of consequences and, thus, there is no need of courage.

For everyone else, however, courage is the bedrock on which all your value systems rest.

Part II here

The theory of Maya: Is it all Illusion?

The problem with understanding Hindu philosophy is that the Sanskrit terms do not lend themselves to ready translation. The most common translation of Maya has been Illusion. Consequently, a lot of ridicule has been heaped on this theory since scientific experiments are considered to have proved the reality of what we perceive around us.

Four blind men encounter an elephant for the first time. One feels the tail and says, ‘I know what an elephant is! It is a rope’. Another feels the leg and says, “No! It is a pillar’. A third feels the body and says, “It is a wall” and the fourth feels the trunk and says “It is a snake!”

The reality, of course, is that the elephant is none of the above, which is not a denial of perceptions of the people concerned. Maya is what causes the difference between reality as it is and reality as it is perceived. Thus, Maya actually talks about the limitations of your perception and your inability to perceive reality truly.

The fact remains that human beings are capable of seeing and thinking only in three dimensions, incapable of imagining infinity and cannot understand most things except through the language of mathematics. Can you think of a number that is neither positive nor negative? We know that any number multiplied by itself can only yield a positive number. Yet we use the concept of the square root of -1, call these numbers imaginary numbers and use them in a bid to understand the universe! In more mundane terms, we cannot hear what a dog can hear or see the world as an owl would see it. The reality of the everyday world with perceptions enhanced would probably be much different from the way we perceive it.

Most of what science has discovered about the universe and yourself are not readily perceived by you. For example, babies are supposed to be about 75% water but the fact that you cannot pour your baby into a jar and carry her while traveling does not make you disbelieve that assertion. The biologist talks of a body made of multiple cells but we cannot perceive it directly except through the help of instruments. The physicist sees in everything atoms and sub-atomic particles and atoms are composed mostly of empty spaces. The fact that the wall in front of you is mostly empty space according to physics does not make it possible for you to walk through it. (Please do not try – unless you are a ghost!)

According to Einstein all mass is but concentrated energy. Thus, there is an essential oneness in the universe (leaving aside minor irritants like variations in the amplitude and frequency of energy waves which differentiates color in visible light etc.). We, certainly, do not see the person in front of us as concentrated gamma rays or some such thing and, yet, we do not disbelieve Einstein either!

If anything in Hindu philosophy is completely proven (and, possibly, endorsed by other schools of philosophy) it is the limitations of perception. Thus, the one singular truth should be the Mayavada. Advaita asserts that it is possible for the person to pierce the veil of Maya i.e achieve perfect perception. That may be open to question.

The nature of true reality, which is obscured by Maya, is also a matter of speculation. Whether true reality is as prescribed by one of the Vedantic philosophies or of one of the other schools of thought prevalent in the world is also open to question.

The one absolute truth is that Maya is not (an) Illusion!

Karma Yoga: Being ‘In the Zone’ always

The racquet seems like an extension of his hand. The opponent seems to be playing exactly the way he wants him to play. The shots he selects are the best possible shots for the situation. The ball seems to travel exactly where he wants to put it. For that period he can do no wrong and the entire game is totally under his control.

A tennis player calls this being ‘In the Zone’. For the period for which he is in the zone he is the game, he is the player, he is the racquet and he is the ball.

While he is in the zone, is he excited about being so close to a championship victory? Is he mentally spending the money that the victory will gain him? Is he, maybe, thinking of how his coach and cohorts will laud him or how his girl friend will reward him at night? Or, maybe, he is thinking of winning the Grand slam this year?

Perhaps he is afraid of losing that lucrative sponsorship deal if he loses the match? Afraid that his uber-cool girlfriend would leave him if he lost? Angry at the opponent for putting it across him in the Australian open and wanting revenge? Afraid of how the Press would write him off as a has-been with one more defeat?

Yeah! Right! The correct answer, as you have guessed it, is none of the above. At least when the player is ‘in the zone’ none of these thoughts can cross his mind. Whether playing the game without a thought for consequences is a sufficient condition for entering that state of mind called ‘being in the zone’, I do not know, but it certainly is a necessary condition.

Whatever game! Anything you do if you can do it without a thought for the consequences, at least for as long as you are doing it, it improves the possibility of entering the zone. Believe me, the times when you are operating in the zone gives you an ineffable pleasure quite apart from what you can materially get out of doing it. This, probably, is what was meant when they said, ‘Work is its own reward’. (Not the ‘if you do good work you will be rewarded with more work’, which is the common interpretation in corporate life).

Karma Yoga talks of work with detachment. Work, as in the definition of Karma Yoga, is whatever you say or do every moment of your life and not merely the time for which you punch the clock. Whatever life throws your way to be, to say or to do should be carried out without any expectations or fears of consequences. If you can detach yourself from hopes and fears, I believe that you can be perpetually ‘in the zone’! Thus, a tennis player who is ‘in the zone’ is, for that period, a Karma Yogi.

To be a Karma Yogi 24x7 is not given to us mortals. What we can strive to achieve is to increase the possibility of taking joy from work i.e of being in the zone. Firstly, it is best to choose an area of work where you do have interest if not passion. Secondly, even if consequences do matter, the work should also matter. Thirdly, while doing the job take pride in doing a good job regardless of whether the incremental efforts will lead to commensurate material rewards.

To exemplify it, let me take the community of bloggers. When you choose to write what you have a passion to write and not what you think will get you the most footfalls; when writing for a competition, you take up the subject and write what you feel about the subject and don’t try to write what you think the sponsor would most like and, while you are writing, you are lost in the act of writing and not in thoughts of the prizes you are more likely to be ‘in the zone’!

The biggest problem that comes in the way of people doing their best even in their own chosen area of work is that they feel a better job redounds to the benefit of the employer, who will take the benefits without so much as a ‘Thank you’! If that be the case, my only advice is ‘Screw the Employer, don’t screw up your work!’ Shoddy work does not give one a sense of self-worth and a lack of self-worth spoils everything in life.

Being a Karma Yogi 24x7 would be ideal. Even traveling the path to the ideal is rewarding. Material rewards, as well, for obviously you do a good job when you are ‘in the zone’ and you cannot keep a good man down, can you?

Some Clarifications-II: Of Karma and Predestination

An interesting question was asked on one of my posts on Karma. Do plants and animals also fall within the purview of Karma? I answered that Hindu philosophy does consider such to be the case but, I am aware, that that is not a complete answer.

The probable purpose of the questioner was to ask me how instinctive creatures can be said to acquire Karma when they do not make considered choices. Since I had said that the realm of the mind decided your Karma and since Plants and Animals are considered not to have a mind, how then could they be fitted into a system operating on the basis of Karma?

I have no facile answer to this question. If I considered that the framers of the Karma philosophy were philosophers like Descartes or Kant, I could well say that their world-view of their days assumed a mind for plants and animals and, thus, they assumed that the Karma philosophy applied to them. If they do not have minds then the Karma philosophy must be considered to be applied to human beings only.

The basis of Hindu philosophy, however, are that the Vedas are said to be given to the world by the Lord, himself. If so, this ignorance of a lack of mind in plants and animals cannot be a reason and, thus, Karma philosophy ought to be applicable to them. In what manner, then?

I have no pretensions to self-realization! I can only postulate the possible ways in which the philosophy could apply.

1. A soul may be housed in a plant or an animal in order to work off negative Karma without the means to add to it. Much like a criminal being jailed (Jails were primarily meant to be correctional institutions and not punitive) to work off what we called their ‘debt to Society’.

2. A soul may be housed in a plant or animal in order to live a life without choice so that the experience teaches it the value of the freedom to make choices and care in making choices.

I cannot think of an option that allows a soul in this condition to add to its Karma in either direction. So, it could well be that these are meant only to subtract from negative Karma.

All beliefs take a leap of faith and cannot always be rested four-square on a rational basis. Remember that even Mathematics starts off from a priori axioms, which do not necessarily admit of independent proof!

Some Clarifications-I: Of Karma and Predestination

Every time I think I have expressed myself clearly I find that I have only successfully muddied the waters. In my posts about Karma and Predestination, I have tried to explore the internal consistency of the theories without trying to bring in my own beliefs. It may be best to say that my own personal belief is in the Advaitic philosophy, though I cannot cite reasons why I repose my belief in it.

As for the areas where there is lack of clarity, the first is in the extent to which predestination operates. Theoretically predestination may be considered to operate in the following ways:

1. Predestination determines what you get in the world but not what you do or think.

2. Predestination determines what you do as well as what you get but not what you think.

3. Predestination determines everything.

I do not have any specific opinion between the first two, which is probably why my earlier post does not clearly clarify a position on this count. Equally as clearly, I do not believe in the third option. I believe that the realm of the mind is the realm of free choice.

The Karma philosophy does leave the realm of the mind to you. Firstly, you earn ‘Good Karma’ or ‘Bad Karma’ based on your life. If everything were to be predestined, you would be a mere puppet in the hands of destiny. To first make you a murderer and then assign ‘Bad Karma’ to you would be akin to sentencing the gun to death for having killed a person! Secondly, Hindu philosophy advocates ‘Nishkamya karma’ (doing your duty without desire). Tacitly then it says to desire or not desire is in your hands which, in effect, means that the realm of the mind is for you to control and not under the control of destiny.

It is easy to think of various options where I cannot give an answer to how my assumptions of predestination are suitable. I can think of some myself! But, then, my imagination is incapable of conceiving of ‘infinity’ or ‘eternity’ but that does not mean that my belief in either is misplaced!

Part-III: Of Karma and Predestination

The Vedantic philosophies – Advaita, Visishtadvaita, Dvaita and others – range from believing that all souls are actually one SOUL – BRAHMAN – to believing that all souls are different but totally interconnected. The entire universe may, thus, be considered as one all-encompassing BRAHMAN or all souls may be considered distinct but connected to BRAHMAN and all the variations in-between.

The purpose of life and the cycle of births is for the individual soul to either shed its illusion of distinctness or to realize the connections completely. If such be accepted, the entire process of what happens to you in life is merely a process that creates the circumstances to help you purify your soul to the extent that the realization of this oneness or interconnectedness becomes possible.

Looked at it this way, what you do in life has the motive of purifying your soul and whether you succeed or fail merely creates the crucible in which the dross on your soul is burnt off. Thus, where you have free will – in your motives and in your reactions to circumstances – are the only items on which you need free will since the only result that you are working towards is in altering as a person! All the rest is incidental.

Thus, your good deeds of this birth means that you have forged ahead as a person and in your next birth you need lesser purification. Prarabda Karma, in this case, works more to create the circumstances – for further purification - that are needed in the current conditions of your soul. So the circumstances of your next birth will well be determined by your motives and actions of this birth but whether more Punya will give you a better life in terms of materialistic values is debatable. It could well be that the purer soul is born poor and the grosser soul is born rich! Of course, the more realized soul could well be more content, while poor, than the grosser soul in its richness!

In the context of these philosophies, a man who claims predestination robs him of free will is like a person, who is put in to counting pins as the first step to becoming a CEO, interpreting the entire universe in the context of how it helps him count pins!!

Part-II: Of Karma and Predestination

The Karma philosophy, in its essence, says that what you do, why you do things and how you deal with what happens to you combine to determine the sort of life you will lead. Prarabda Karma – the Karma of previous births – is considered the reason why some are born poor, some are born rich, some are born healthy and some are born sick.

Karma does not restrict itself to the sort of cause and effect that material science prescribes. It goes into the motives of why you do things as well. When you do virtuous deeds you accumulate ‘Punya’ (Good Karma?) and when you are vicious you accumulate ‘Paap’ (Bad Karma?). Virtue is a combination of deed and motive. Giving to the poor in the spirit of giving is not the same as giving to the poor for the sake of publicity.

Thus, in essence, Prarabda Karma decides what is predestined for you. In effect, then, if your exercise of free will in determining your motives and consequences and your efforts may not much alter your circumstances in this life but they shall certainly determine the sort of life you lead the next time you are born.

Going by the philosophy of Karma, a person who sits on his hands doing nothing since everything is predestined for him is like a person who spends what he saved yesterday and saves nothing for tomorrow.

If you truly believe in a chain of rebirths, then the Karma philosophy gives you the perfect reason why you should work. After all, not everything that you do today gives you results today. Thus, put in the efforts in this birth in order to reap the fruits in the next!

Part-I: Of Karma and Predestination

Does a belief in predestination negate free will? Does predestination make efforts unnecessary? The normal arguments against a belief in predestination are all focused on these questions. Thus, whether or not the hypothesis of predestination is true or not, a belief in predestination is seen as detrimental to human progress.

Hindu philosophy has to be seen holistically. From the very earth from which the idea of predestination arose also sprang the Gita saying ‘Karmanyevadhikaraste ma phalesu kadacana’. This and the verses of Karma Yoga enjoin people to action without regard to whether or not such action would lead to success or failure. Thus, even if the results of the action are predestined, it is prescribed as the duty of the person to act.

In one form, you could see predestination as a form of self counseling. If your actions yield success, a belief in predestination would keep you from becoming arrogant about the success since you would not consider the success as the result of your own inimitable brilliance and hard work. If your actions fail, you would not get depressed since you would ascribe the failure to predestination rather than your own unworthiness.

The Hindu religion, probably, was not created to act as a home-made psycho-analyst for people. Thus, predestination is probably considered as the truth of the way the universe is rather than as a fiction to keep people sane. Then, if what happens to you is all predestined where, then, is the role for free will?

Assume that you are predestined to kill your grandfather and inherit property. You could want to inherit the property, push your grandfather down the stairs and inherit his property. You could love your grandfather but slip on the floor, bump into your grandfather and knock him down the stairs. In either case, predestination is served. Are both occurrences one and the same? So, if you are destined to kill your grandfather, you might as well go ahead and plan his murder since there is no room for free will?

As long as you see results exclusively in the realm of what is getting done, you would see predestination as something that negates free will. The moment you start seeing that the motives for what gets done are also important, you can see you have free will in deciding what motivates you. That, to me, is a far higher freedom.

The other aspect that predestination does not pre-define is the way you react to what happens to you in the world. You could feel rich with USD 1 million, Anil Ambani would feel poor with it and, a Saint, would be indifferent to the presence or absence of the money. Predestination would only define that you would have USD 1 million and not how you feel about it. Free Will, again!

What you get may be predetermined whether or not you put in efforts. The efforts, themselves, alter you as a person and changes the way you view what you have as well as how you see the world. If you are destined to be a millionaire, you could become one either because you earned your way or because someone gave you a hand-out. It is a miserably stunted person who would view both as being the same.

Efforts matter because they determine the sort of person you are and how much respect you have for yourself. Free will exists in determining the motives and in dealing with consequences. Predestination, thus, has room for both efforts as well as free will.

You can read the next two parts here - Part II and Part III