To clarify, you claim that karma derives from the lack of free will in "maya", and that to escape from maya we pass from lack of free will, into not having free will, and in both stages we act from a deterministic "script". The only difference than is that in one state we think we have, or CAN have, free will, and in the other we don't. To obfuscate matters still further you claim that we "are here for the purpose of learning". But then you say that it is Brahmin, the ultimate, from whence maya, as manifestation, proceeds, who is doing the learning. You sort of have this immanent dualism in our nature going here. How you equate this with the notion of free will-- for you the opinion of the lack thereof- does not seem clear to me. Nor does the reason why you brought any of that up in the first place.
I take it upon myself to say that free will does exist, it can exist. Most people do not possess it however- it is a matter of experience. It can be cultivated, and the only sort of free will worth consideration- not the metaphysically based, transcendent "soul" type of free agency-- follows upon an examination and an entering into, and a subsequent development of the nature of thinking. Using mindfulness and attention to our unconscious we can become aware of the psychic forces impelling us into our patterns of consciousness. And by bringing them into consciousness we can work upon them and shape them, and their consequent actions, on the basis of our Ideals- if I may so speak. Slowly, but surely, our consciousness and actions will change as a result, in the full light of consciousness and reason. You can either experience this or ignore it, even ignore the possibility of it. But for those who do experience this, it results in the sort of freedom I'm talking about. In fact, 'free will' MEANS NOTHING apart from experience. Getting trapped in metaphysical logics surrounding 'free will' is what has hampered its development in most people. In truth, their is no way to argue against this-- either you experience it or you don't; that is the whole of which one can argue about. No amount of discursive rambling, nor the manipulations of logicians can deny the barest facts of experience. This is the ground from which all thinking must proceed if it is to lay claim to any sort of knowledge-of-phenomena.
Now, as an example of 'free will' at work: why did I write this? I wrote this primarily as an example of the sort of path which relates to my above commentary on approachin genius. My own "progress" on this path is still only the beginning- but also, the end-in-itself as long as we're thinking purposively and categorically- and developing my thoughts thorugh writing, in response to the wide panorama of divergent views, helps to bind together my thinking as a greater and greater referent of my experience, and my experience-of-thinking. Psychologically, I would presume that it also satifies a desire for expression- and my choosing of this form for that, in full consciousness, is entirely appropriate. Finally, I think that it benefits everyone to read words which point them towards an experience of themselves. I feel that this discursive method, while inadequate and easily deceptive, is the only medium which can adequately speak to a secular, 'Western' audience. If we were in a Zen Monastery I would not feel this need at all. If I were speaking to poets I'd speak in poetry. To engineers, I might even draw them a diagram...but the medium 'is not' the experience. Remember this and be well,
KO
