We have seen that the pure ātman does not have free will, simply because desire implies knowledge, and knowledge is not intrinsic to the ātman. And yet, the śāstras mentions duties and responsibilities for people in society. Such discussions appear to suggest that the jīva has free will. Here we examine the different conceptions of ‘free will’ on the three different paths of jñāna, karma and bhakti.
The jīva has zero free will because the mind is not the jīva’s energy but Bhagavān’s energy. Although everyone thinks that they are free to make decisions, a simple point for introspection is that we are not in control of our thoughts. One cannot predict what the next thought is going to be. Thoughts come, and then we become conscious of them, and then incorrectly own them as ours. As all desires are a form of thought, naturally desires are also not under our own control.
However, even though we don’t have any free will, we inevitably assume that we do. The śāstras recognize this, and in fact, discuss three paths whose practitioners have distinct conceptions toward free will.
For those that think there is complete free will, there is the karma mārga on which one is allowed to make the assumption that one has 100 % free will. Therefore the emphasis is on dharma or duty, and the person is supposed to diligently follow the prescriptions of scripture. Once one follows the karma mārga, that is, one assumes responsibility for one’s actions, then one is obligated to perform their dharma correctly. Performance of dharma brings positive rewards, while not performing them reaps negative consequences.
On the jñāna mārga, the person thinks (correctly) that he/she has zero free will. The jñāni takes the role of an observer, and knows that all actions are performed in the body, all desires originate in the mind, and the ātman is not active. The jñāni assumes zero responsibility or ‘my-ness’ for his or her actions, and therefore reaps neither positive nor negative consequences for performing them. In general, the jñāni avoids action, which is the path of nivṛtti.
The bhakti mārga is the middle path. Jīva Goswami does not favor the zero free will view, nor the 100% free will view, but rather accepts both realities. That there is no free will is ontological reality, but to function on the path of bhakti, one must assume that there is some free will as ultimately, bhakti is a path of pravṛtti or action. Thus, on the bhakti path, one knows that one has no free will, but acts as if one has it. One thinks that one is acting, but one also knows that it is only by Bhagavān’s power that one acts. Therefore, the bhakta acts only for the pleasure of Bhagavān, and eschews acts that displease Him.
Once one decides to follow a specific path, then one has to stick to that path. For example, if one chooses karma yoga, there is not the option now of rejecting the consequences by thinking that there is no free will. One cannot simultaneously take responsibility and disavow it.
There is a fourth class of people who are confused about free will- they are neither following karma yoga properly nor jñāna yoga nor bhakti yoga. Kṛṣṇa would like people to take up a path and stick to it, rather than shifting their ground continuously. The scriptures are amazing in this way- they acknowledge that different people have different tendencies toward free will, and therefore prescribe different paths accordingly.
*This article is based on a lecture by Śrī Babaji on the Bhagavat Sandarbha, Anuccheda 23
Hare Krishna. Thank you for sharing your insights on the topic of free will in this article; I resonate with your conclusion that the jīva has “zero free will.” I noticed the article concludes with, “This article is based on a lecture by Śrī Babaji on the Bhagavat Sandarbha, Anuccheda 23.” If possible, could you kindly share the full lecture by Babaji where he discusses this? I observed on page 37 of his book, “The Self and Free Will”, he mentions that the jīva has “some freedom of choice” rather than “zero” free will.
Additionally, could you share your understanding of CC Adi 7.116, where the analogy of a large fire and a small spark from that fire is given? It appears to suggest that we are similar in quality to the Lord, though quantitatively minute. Since the Lord possesses free will, and we share His qualitative nature on a smaller scale, wouldn’t this imply that we also have a minute degree of free will? While I don’t personally subscribe to the libertarian concept of free will, I would be interested to know how you scripturally respond to the analogy presented in CC Adi 7.116 by Krishnadasa Kaviraja Goswami. Do you have any relevant verses from Jiva Goswami on this topic?
Yes, Babaji mentions the ‘freedom of choice’ in some places, but he also denies free will completely elsewhere. He has done so also in personal conversation with me. So his statements about freedom of choice are to be understood as explaining the role of buddhi in controlling the mind. This is to prevent someone from thinking that they have absolutely no role to play and taking advantage of such a notion.
Babaji’s lecture is available for purchase from the jiva store. I cannot provide it here.
The idea that we are similar in quality with Bhagavan but quantitatively minute is false. Bhagavan is made of antaranga sakti, and He is the owner of maya sakti and jiva sakti. We are the jiva sakti, i.e. one type of sakti of Bhagavan. We are not made of antaranga sakti, and our bodies, which are external to us, are made of maya sakti. So we are totally dependent on Sri Krsna- this is the meaning of the words ‘jivera svarupa haya krsnera nitya dasa’.
Sri Krsnadasa Kaviraja is simply presenting what Sri Jiva Goswami has presented in the Paramatma Sandarbha. There, he explains that the fire and spark analogy. It basically means that the jiva is conscious, and shares this property with Bhagavan. Note that Sri Krsnadasa makes no mention of qualitatively similarity or quantitative minuteness.
Thank you for your reply. Could you please share the specific verse from the Paramatma Sandarbha that discusses the fire and spark analogy?
The verse is as follows:
Just as fire is distinct from the sparks and smoke [arising conditionally from] the burning kindling wood, of which it is the [fiery] source, and just as it is distinct even from the kindling wood itself, which is taken to be identical with it, so too the Self, the Seer, Bhagavān, known as Brahman, is distinct from the gross elements, the external senses, the internal senses, pradhāna , and [the self] who is called jīva . ( SB 3.28.40–41 )
See Anuccheda 68 of Paramatma Sandarbha- and there are other places. If you get the ebook, you will be able to search for ‘spark’ and get the proper Anucchedas and references.
Here is another one from Sri Visvanatha ..
asyārthaḥ—yat-taṭasthaṁ viśeṣato jñeyaṁ cidvastu sa jīvaḥ yathāgneḥ kṣudrā visphuliṅgā vyuccaranti [bṛ.ā.u. 2.1.20] iti śruteḥ |
The meaning is as follows. That entity, which is taṭastha, which is to be known specifically as a conscious substance, is the jīva. The śruti says, “[the jīvas are like] small sparks of fire that come out in various directions from the fire.
Maybe this helps —
https://bhaktitattva.com/2021/01/10/the-atma-is-not-like-a-drop-to-bhagavans-ocean/
I wrote an article on this that may be useful
https://bhaktitattva.com/2024/11/02/making-a-principle-out-of-an-example-misconceptions-about-the-jiva/
I read your new article. Thank you for your time. By the way, are you aware of any other Vaishnava sampradaya that doesn’t believe in free will? Perhaps the Tenkalai school of thought in Sri Vaishnavism, since they emphasize dependence on Vishnu a lot? One of the main reasons Sri Vaishnavism split into two was because of differing views on the nature of salvation and the role of grace. Tenkalais use the cat and kitten analogy to illustrate their perspective. But I’m not fully sure if their official doctrine is zero free will. Have you heard of any zero-free-will views from other Vaishnava sampradayas?
And since Krishna chooses to save some and not others, how does this align with BG 9.29, where He says that He is not partial? I understand that He is God and can choose whomever He likes, and we are in no position to question Him. But just to play devil’s advocate—how would you respond scripturally to someone if they brought up BG 9.29 or any other verse that says God is not partial?
I cannot say about other sampradayas. But there is no such word as ‘free will’ in the scriptures.
I do not understand your question. What do you mean Krsna chooses to save some and not others? How is this related to the topic of free will?
Well, if there is no free will, it means that those who come to Krishna Consciousness were chosen to choose to come to Krishna Consciousness, and those who do not come to Krishna Consciousness were not chosen to choose to come to Krishna Consciousness. A concern among those who support free will is that this perspective makes God appear partial.
Those who are chosen are not chosen for any particular quality they have. The grace is yadrcchaya. So where is the partiality?
Okay, I think I see what you mean by your argument on partiality. Thank you for your time. To continue playing devil’s advocate, how would you respond to this objection from someone who believes in free will—someone who argues that without free will, there is no true love between Krishna and the jiva?
“If free will doesn’t exist, it’s like telling a pre-programmed calculator, “I love you,” and having it respond with, “I love you.” That isn’t real love; it’s just pressing a button and seeing a light come on. Krishna isn’t interested in puppets that only echo back what they’re programmed to say.”
True love? This isn’t a Hollywood movie. When people use this term, they have no idea what they are talking about. But that doesn’t prevent them from such vacuous argumentation.
Anyway, ignore my irritation above. Prema is a function of Bhagavan’s Svarupa sakti. He gives it to the devotee. This sakti then moves toward Bhagavan from the devotee who acts as the container.
In this dynamic, things are not predictable. For example, can you predict what your next thought will be? No. But yet, you are undeniably programmed.
The role of the devotee is to act as a container for the prema to act towards Bhagavan. In all these dealings, Bhagavan and the devotee relish the prema. That is what it is all about.
By the way, I came across the above concept in the Caitanya caritamrta the first time(many years ago). Of course Sri Kaviraj tried to explain these ideas as described in the Priti sandarbha. Search CC for the word patra- the devotee acts as a patra. (If memory serves correctly)
But doesn’t all this knowledge, to some extent, hamper the loving exchanges between Krishna and the jiva? If, while offering a flower to Krishna, one thinks that he is just like a robot programmed to offer it, where is the rasa in that? Could this be why, most of the time, Yogamaya conceals this knowledge from the Vrajavasis in the spiritual world, allowing them to interact with Krishna as if He is a simple cowherd boy and not someone who has programmed them to dance with Him and engage in other pastimes?
Do you go through your day thinking that you have no free will? That you are a programmed robot?
No. You are programmed to forget it. You behave like you have free will. Even if you are told a hundred times that you don’t.
I was reflecting on this a bit more. Does one need to be composed of antaranga shakti to have free will? May I ask where this is mentioned? Any verse?
Essentially, I am trying to understand what Krishna possesses that grants him free will, while we do not.
Krsna is the possessor of saktis. He is their controller. Unlike us.