Guest guest Posted August 11, 2001 Report Share Posted August 11, 2001 Hi Cyber Dervish and list members, My name is Cüneyt.I am from Turkey.I have a similar problem on freewill.I have read I am That and couldn't arrive a satisfactory answer on freewill.Here are some quotes.. Quote 1 Q:I may be fully aware of what is going on,and yet quite unable to influence it in any way. MAHARAJ:You are mistaken.What is going on is a projection of your mind.A weak mind can not control its own projections.Be aware therefore,of your mind and its projections..Page121 Quote2 Q:But if their destiny is to suffer?How can you interfere with destiny? M:Their destiny is what happens.There is no thwarting of destiny.You mean to say evrybody's life is totally determined at his birth?What a strange idea!were it so,the power that determines would see to it that nobody should suffer. Q:What about cause and effect? M:Each moment contains the whole of the past and creates the whole of the future....Page115 >Are we here just as witnesses, observers and nothing we do influences any >worldly outcome as suggested by Ramana and Nisargadatta. > So I think we are not here just as witnesses, observers.I doubted that If it is suggested by Nisargadatta that nothing we do influences any worldly outcome.If what is going on is projections of our minds as suggested in the quote then we can control our projections thus our futures.Here I'd like to add that in my opinion these projections can not take place alone ýf they are not for our highest good-spiritually. Love CUNO(Your friend from Turkey) >______________________ > >Message: 5 > Sat, 11 Aug 2001 05:04:17 +0300 > Jan Sultan <swork >Doer, Non-doer. Freewill or just here for the ride? > >Another thing that I have failed to get a clear answer on is the question >about freewill. > >Are we here just as witnesses, observers and nothing we do influences any >worldly outcome as suggested by Ramana and Nisargadatta. > >Or do we have an active role to play to make this world a better place as >suggested by others? > >Your opinions and explanations will be highly appreciated. > >______________________ >With Love, >Cyber Dervish >```````````````````````````````````````` _______________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2001 Report Share Posted August 15, 2001 Hi All, > Message: 2 > Tue, 14 Aug 2001 10:08:30 -0700 > Gary Schouborg <garyscho > Re: Non-identification with body > > > As Jan describes it, it sounds like a state of depression or some sort of > defensive reaction to the difficulties in life. There are several excellent Cant understand Garys logic that lack of desire should result in depression! In fact my modest understanding is that depression sets in when one doesnt get whatever one wants. So if one can act witout any wants how come depression should result? Ofcourse, putting that in practice is a completely different ball game. > developmental theory. Buddhism supposes a functioning self and is interested > in the next stage: realizing that however we have represented ourselves to > date (whatever picture of self we have painted for ourselves), it does not > capture the whole reality and will have to change as future demands are > placed on it (nonself). That is one distinction I have wondered about, In buddhism, ultimately there is 'noself' . So then, what is there!? Where as sages like Ramana/Nisargadatta stress the underlying presence of one absolute unity 'self'. > > As for the references to deep sleep, that is the only time that the average > > person is without his " me " sensation and that is why the sages refer to it > > as an example. That is the time there is awareness without the " I am aware " > > feeling. (That there is awareness can be deduced from the fact that after > > waking up one is aware of having been asleep). I think Gary is understanding this statement as " the person whom he identifies now in awake state was aware while sleeping " , and hence his analysis of the problems with such a statement. I dont think that is what is meant. My understanding is that, as many sages state, awareness exists with no qualities, observers etc( which would enable somebody to describe it) in deep sleep, without the person who is awake and identifying himself with the body. They state that awareness still exists in awake or dream states, but the ego superimposes himself and his doership so as to miss the absolute reality underlying. > ______________________ > > Message: 5 > Tue, 14 Aug 2001 14:46:06 -0400 > " Rob Sacks " <editor > Re: Non-identification with body > > I'm with Jan on this, based on my own experience. > Yes, there has been increasing detachment from > the desires that continue, but there has also been > a decrease in the time spent desiring and a reduction > in the " unobtainibility " of the objects desired. > Hi Rob, I am intersted in knowing your experiences. I read that you have been practicing self enquiry. At the same time you wrote that waves of some feeling was over powerng you....., but arent you supposed to ask yourself who feels this when that happens, as per the method of self enquiry?!! It may be true that if one constantly keeps up ones awareness about who is it that feels the desire one may become detached from it. I dont know! With regards to all Raj ______________________________ BabuRaj A.Puthenveettil, IISc, Bangalore, 560012 ______________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2001 Report Share Posted August 15, 2001 Hi Raj, > I am intersted in knowing your experiences. I read that you have > been practicing self enquiry. At the same time you wrote that waves of > some feeling was over powerng you....., but arent you supposed to ask > yourself who feels this when that happens, as per the method of self > enquiry?!! It may be true that if one constantly keeps up ones awareness > about who is it that feels the desire one may become detached from it. I > dont know! Yes, I guess I'm supposed to... but I'm a bad boy, I was lazy, I just sat back and enjoyed God. I'm just joking... let me give you a real answer. Umm... Actually, I guess that *is* the answer! By the way, those bhakti states began (I think) as a result of self-inquiry. I had a super-duper self-inquiry experience last January, and after that, I couldn't meditate at all for several months because effort was impossible for a while. During that period, the bhakti states began spontaneously. Lately, though, I've started doing self-inquiry again very " effortfully. " Regards, Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2001 Report Share Posted August 15, 2001 Raj, > > Hi All, > >> Message: 2 >> Tue, 14 Aug 2001 10:08:30 -0700 >> Gary Schouborg <garyscho >> Re: Non-identification with body >> >> As Jan describes it, it sounds like a state of depression or some sort of >> defensive reaction to the difficulties in life. There are several excellent > > Cant understand Garys logic that lack of desire should result in > depression! In fact my modest understanding is that depression sets in > when one doesnt get whatever one wants. So if one can act witout any wants > how come depression should result? Ofcourse, putting that in practice is a > completely different ball game. > There are two different states of no-desire, if you will, one enlightened and the other pathological. In general, Eastern literatures suppose a functional ego and never deal with the issues related to pathological no-desire. The enlightened no-desire is non-attachment. Clearly, Raj wanted to communicate something in posting his email, as I do in replying. Attachment is basing our happiness on our success in achieving these goals. Raj is right, if you can maintain this sort of no-desire, you will not become depressed. On the other hand, depression is learned helplessness, where you have too many desires, the wrong attitude toward (attachment to) these desires, and fail to satisfy them. Eventually enough failure creates learned helplessness, a pathological state of no-desire where you really have no desire, because you are defeated, not because you are liberated and experience your deepest happiness within. >> developmental theory. Buddhism supposes a functioning self and is interested >> in the next stage: realizing that however we have represented ourselves to >> date (whatever picture of self we have painted for ourselves), it does not >> capture the whole reality and will have to change as future demands are >> placed on it (nonself). > > That is one distinction I have wondered about, In buddhism, > ultimately there is 'noself' . So then, what is there!? Where as sages > like Ramana/Nisargadatta stress the underlying presence of one absolute > unity 'self'. > No-self is distinguished from the self that is the sum of whatever is attributed to you, sometimes called your empirical self. The sum of all the things we might say about you. No-self is YOU. That is, you are more than all your attributes. >>> As for the references to deep sleep, that is the only time that the average >>> person is without his " me " sensation and that is why the sages refer to it >>> as an example. That is the time there is awareness without the " I am aware " >>> feeling. (That there is awareness can be deduced from the fact that after >>> waking up one is aware of having been asleep). > > I think Gary is understanding this statement as " the person whom > he identifies now in awake state was aware while sleeping " , and hence his > analysis of the problems with such a statement. I dont think that is what > is meant. My understanding is that, as many sages state, awareness exists > with no qualities, observers etc( which would enable somebody to describe > it) in deep sleep, without the person who is awake and identifying himself > with the body. They state that awareness still exists in awake or dream > states, but the ego superimposes himself and his doership so as to miss > the absolute reality underlying. > I basically agree with that. My point was that that particular notion of awareness is a theoretical or explanatory concept, not a descriptive or phenomenological or experiential one. By definition it is not descriptive of any experience, since what you're referring to can't be described. Yet " awareness " usually involves an experience, so that using the term in a theoretical way is unnecessarily confusing. Eastern mystical literatures raise all kinds of unnecessary pradoxes, though their strong suit is that they are expressing real experiences. Western analytical philosophy is weak on conscious experience but strong on conceptual clarity, so that paradoxes aren't unnecessarily created in trying to describe what is, as Raghu say, difficult to describe. With these recent exchanges, I have been trying to bring the best of East and West together. What color is an atom? You could use that as a koan to get someone to realize that an atom is not something you can directly perceive. Similarly, koans have been used in the East to try to get us to see that we are not merely the sum of our attributes. This helps us not to identify with any of our attributes, so that we don't take either our failures or successes personally, making our happiness depend on how well we achieve our desires. Gary Schouborg Performance Consulting Walnut Creek, CA garyscho Publications and professional services: http://home.att.net/~garyscho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2001 Report Share Posted August 15, 2001 Hi Gary, > There are two different states of no-desire, if you will, one enlightened > and the other pathological... I think it's very valuable to point this out. Until you did, I had not considered how easily somebody who is depressed might imagine him or herself to be in an " enlightened " desireless state. Is it a safe generalization that depression feels despairing and enlightenment feels content? Can people become so depressed that they feel nothing? Regards, Rob > > >> developmental theory. Buddhism supposes a functioning self and is interested > >> in the next stage: realizing that however we have represented ourselves to > >> date (whatever picture of self we have painted for ourselves), it does not > >> capture the whole reality and will have to change as future demands are > >> placed on it (nonself). > > > > That is one distinction I have wondered about, In buddhism, > > ultimately there is 'noself' . So then, what is there!? Where as sages > > like Ramana/Nisargadatta stress the underlying presence of one absolute > > unity 'self'. > > > No-self is distinguished from the self that is the sum of whatever is > attributed to you, sometimes called your empirical self. The sum of all the > things we might say about you. No-self is YOU. That is, you are more than > all your attributes. > > >>> As for the references to deep sleep, that is the only time that the average > >>> person is without his " me " sensation and that is why the sages refer to it > >>> as an example. That is the time there is awareness without the " I am aware " > >>> feeling. (That there is awareness can be deduced from the fact that after > >>> waking up one is aware of having been asleep). > > > > I think Gary is understanding this statement as " the person whom > > he identifies now in awake state was aware while sleeping " , and hence his > > analysis of the problems with such a statement. I dont think that is what > > is meant. My understanding is that, as many sages state, awareness exists > > with no qualities, observers etc( which would enable somebody to describe > > it) in deep sleep, without the person who is awake and identifying himself > > with the body. They state that awareness still exists in awake or dream > > states, but the ego superimposes himself and his doership so as to miss > > the absolute reality underlying. > > > I basically agree with that. My point was that that particular notion of > awareness is a theoretical or explanatory concept, not a descriptive or > phenomenological or experiential one. By definition it is not descriptive of > any experience, since what you're referring to can't be described. Yet > " awareness " usually involves an experience, so that using the term in a > theoretical way is unnecessarily confusing. Eastern mystical literatures > raise all kinds of unnecessary pradoxes, though their strong suit is that > they are expressing real experiences. Western analytical philosophy is weak > on conscious experience but strong on conceptual clarity, so that paradoxes > aren't unnecessarily created in trying to describe what is, as Raghu say, > difficult to describe. With these recent exchanges, I have been trying to > bring the best of East and West together. > > What color is an atom? You could use that as a koan to get someone to > realize that an atom is not something you can directly perceive. Similarly, > koans have been used in the East to try to get us to see that we are not > merely the sum of our attributes. This helps us not to identify with any of > our attributes, so that we don't take either our failures or successes > personally, making our happiness depend on how well we achieve our desires. > > Gary Schouborg > Performance Consulting > Walnut Creek, CA > garyscho > > Publications and professional services: > http://home.att.net/~garyscho > > > ..........INFORMATION ABOUT THIS LIST.......... > > Email addresses: > Post message: Realization > Un: Realization- > Our web address: http://www.realization.org > > By sending a message to this list, you are giving > permission to have it reproduced as a letter on > http://www.realization.org > ................................................ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2001 Report Share Posted August 15, 2001 P.S. After reading Gary's comment about the need to distinguish between desirable and pathological states, I'd like to clarify the following remark: > and after that, I couldn't meditate at all for > several months because effort was impossible > for a while. This sounds like I couldn't brush my teeth or go to work. That's not what I meant. I was talking only about effort with regard to deliberate meditation. I meant that I became convinced that deliberate meditation is futile and therefore could not " make myself " do it. It would be less confusing to say that I chose not to do it. - " Rob Sacks " <editor <Realization > Wednesday, August 15, 2001 10:38 AM Re: Digest Number 236 > Hi Raj, > > > I am intersted in knowing your experiences. I read that you have > > been practicing self enquiry. At the same time you wrote that waves of > > some feeling was over powerng you....., but arent you supposed to ask > > yourself who feels this when that happens, as per the method of self > > enquiry?!! It may be true that if one constantly keeps up ones awareness > > about who is it that feels the desire one may become detached from it. I > > dont know! > > Yes, I guess I'm supposed to... but I'm a bad boy, I was > lazy, I just sat back and enjoyed God. > > I'm just joking... let me give you a real answer. Umm... > > Actually, I guess that *is* the answer! > > By the way, those bhakti states began (I think) as a result > of self-inquiry. I had a super-duper self-inquiry experience > last January, and after that, I couldn't meditate at all for > several months because effort was impossible for a while. > During that period, the bhakti states began spontaneously. > > Lately, though, I've started doing self-inquiry again > very " effortfully. " > > Regards, > - " Rob Sacks " <editor <Realization > Wednesday, August 15, 2001 10:38 AM Re: Digest Number 236 > Hi Raj, > > > I am intersted in knowing your experiences. I read that you have > > been practicing self enquiry. At the same time you wrote that waves of > > some feeling was over powerng you....., but arent you supposed to ask > > yourself who feels this when that happens, as per the method of self > > enquiry?!! It may be true that if one constantly keeps up ones awareness > > about who is it that feels the desire one may become detached from it. I > > dont know! > > Yes, I guess I'm supposed to... but I'm a bad boy, I was > lazy, I just sat back and enjoyed God. > > I'm just joking... let me give you a real answer. Umm... > > Actually, I guess that *is* the answer! > > By the way, those bhakti states began (I think) as a result > of self-inquiry. I had a super-duper self-inquiry experience > last January, and after that, I couldn't meditate at all for > several months because effort was impossible for a while. > During that period, the bhakti states began spontaneously. > > Lately, though, I've started doing self-inquiry again > very " effortfully. " > > Regards, > > Rob > ..........INFORMATION ABOUT THIS LIST.......... > > Email addresses: > Post message: Realization > Un: Realization- > Our web address: http://www.realization.org > > By sending a message to this list, you are giving > permission to have it reproduced as a letter on > http://www.realization.org > ................................................ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2001 Report Share Posted August 15, 2001 > Hi Gary, > >> There are two different states of no-desire, if you will, one enlightened >> and the other pathological... > > I think it's very valuable to point this out. > Until you did, I had not considered how easily > somebody who is depressed might imagine > him or herself to be in an " enlightened " desireless > state. The two books to which I referred are written by psychologists or psychiatrists who have treated many meditators who did not have the ego strength necessary for the letting go required in meditation. Their need was first to get it together; letting go is then a later process. The authors' legitimate concern was there were many vulnerable people who were susceptible to making dysfunctional interpretations of ambiguous enlightenment literature. > > Is it a safe generalization that depression feels > despairing and enlightenment feels content? > Can people become so depressed that they feel > nothing? > > Regards, > > Rob There are a couple of interesting relationships between depression and enlightenment. The first is their difference, which you inquire about above. I think your generalization is a good rule of thumb. As to feeling nothing, if we're feeling helpless enough, we might just feel numb. After all, emotion is our lived experience of moving toward action. So if we're helpless enough, we may have no impulse to do anything and therefore feel little or no emotion. Even feeling " depressed " tends to move us toward something -- getting out of it or masochistically punishing ourselves. The second relationship is this: what is the beginning of enlightenment can easily be confused with depression. At least one door to enlightenment, a very common one, is that we begin to see that the conventional sorts of happiness aren't going to cut it. So we take little or no pleasure in anything, because we know that it won't satisfy this deepest of all hungers within us. So in what sense, we're depressed, since we've lost our taste for living. But more fundamentally, we're on the threshhold of a major discovery ‹ that we've been looking for love in all the wrong places. If we can sit with that, eventually we will finally gain access to our innermost source of happiness, which is independent of any desire-related happiness. Best to all, Gary Schouborg Performance Consulting Walnut Creek, CA garyscho Publications and professional services: http://home.att.net/~garyscho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.