Free will, determinism, and Dharma.

[Cadcam]

So the great mystics and sages created laws to bring order and prosperity to man. These Divinely inspired thinkers created civilization. Acknowledged by God and man, these systems were adopted to guide our course.

 

Our free will is put to the test by our choices responding to Dharmas. The consequences of going against a Dharma we understand and agree with are dire, and brings about a limitation on future choices, and can have undesirable results. 

[Tommy]

I do not believe it was the great mystics  or sages that brought about laws which society abides by. Rather it was the rulers of the realm which created the laws. They defined the offenses and the punishment. And also provide the organization by which the laws was dispensed. Divinely inspired thinkers did not create civilization. The first recorded civilization were the Sumerians and the first recorded laws were the Code of Ur-Nammu in the Sumerian city of Ur.  Civilization believed to come about thru people living together in close proximity. Laws came about as the ruler of the realm needed to keep order in the land. In the words of Mel Brooks, "It is good to be the king." Or better known as Might makes right.

 

Free will was thought to be brought about by Eve and Adam eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Having knowledge of good and evil gave a person choice. The ability to choose their actions. There is the law of man and there is the law of the divine. Each overlaps the other.

 

So far, I do not agree with your premise. Can you expand on your thoughts about this so as to present a more solid argument??

Edited 10 hours ago by Tommy

[stirling]

Dharma(s) is/are teachings, not rules or regulations. No person created it/them. You can actually reduce the causes of suffering to a simple formulae: What are you attached or averse to? If you are in the world and have no attachment or aversion there is equanimity. You are in alignment with the Dao, and generating NO karma. Congratulations, you are actualizing the fundamental point.

 

"Free will" is a mind generated fantasy created the moment we imagine that we are a separate person and experience attachment or aversion to our delusion of a reality with separate things. Look for "free will" when your mind is still in meditation. Look for "self" when the mind is still. How about "suffering"? If you are looking closely you will see that none of these appear in consciousness when it is still, just blissful being-ness. How is this possible? Where did it all go? Watch what happens when your thinking process comes back online - there is suddenly and "I", and all of your suffering, attachment, and aversion to separate things begins anew. The suffering has always been "yours"... so also the "liberation".

[Nungali]

3 hours ago, Tommy said:

I do not believe it was the great mystics  or sages that brought about laws which society abides by. Rather it was the rulers of the realm which created the laws. They defined the offenses and the punishment. And also provide the organization by which the laws was dispensed. Divinely inspired thinkers did not create civilization. The first recorded civilization were the Sumerians and the first recorded laws were the Code of Ur-Nammu in the Sumerian city of Ur.  Civilization believed to come about thru people living together in close proximity. Laws came about as the ruler of the realm needed to keep order in the land. In the words of Mel Brooks, "It is good to be the king." Or better known as Might makes right.

 

Free will was thought to be brought about by Eve and Adam eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Having knowledge of good and evil gave a person choice. The ability to choose their actions. There is the law of man and there is the law of the divine. Each overlaps the other.

 

So far, I do not agree with your premise. Can you expand on your thoughts about this so as to present a more solid argument??

 

here is 'the thing' though :   although I agree with you  in nearly all cases , I have found an example  where a 'sage or mystic '   ( the term is a complex name which translates as  ' visionary artist ' )  did bring about laws and society . So far this is the only case I have found where a nationwide sweeping change came about that changed society and made law but not due to invasion, conquest , or natural or man made  disaster . 

 

however this may because these people did not have  ' rulers of the realm'   ?  In any case , you seem to be right , one exception doesnt really disrupt the genera; 'trend' ... however it does make this exception outstanding in its own right . ( research is ongoing... my research,, that is  ) 

 

https://www.ifrao.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/31-1-Doring.pdf

 

[Nungali]

Another aspect can be understood via the example of Zoroastrianism .

 

At first glance Zoroaster was a mystical prophet that bought good law and order to the people ... by actually re-forming the old religion . 

But when one looks deeper one can see the clear political motivations behind it . 

 

First there was Mazdayasni ;  'Mazda Worship' . Then later defined as ' Paoriyo - tkaesha ( keepers of original law )  . Then we see some hints of division in the Aryan  ( Indo-Iranian ) religion  with 'Mazdayasni Paoriyo - tkaesha ' .  This seems reflected in Vedanta  and later Zoroastrianism  with the 'Deva / Asura division ' 

 

Then Zarathustra  refined it  to ' Ahura - tkaesha ( the laws of the Lord Ahura - 'Ahura' signifying dominion over creation though order and laws  )  .  But then after some trouble with 'neighbours '   it bacme known as ''   Mazdayasno Zarathushtrish Vidaevo Ahura-Tkaesho, that is, Zarathushtrian Mazda-Worship opposed to the daeva through the laws of the Lord.  Ooppsed to the devas .  The devas , in this case seem to be the Turanians (or similar )  ... or some tribe more 'Indian' than 'Iranian ' ( ie 'proto' - before they became Indians or Iranians )

 

 

However of course there are also spiritual moral or religious ideas behind Zoroastrian 'reformation ' as well.