Guest guest Report post Posted July 23, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > Have you read Anders' answer why belief in free will result in sin, > > feelings of guilt and insufficency complex ? Great reply, isn't it ? > > And such simple ! > > He has not answered your assertions that a belief in free will > results in feelings of guilt and insufficiency complex. > > I have included his answer below and my response to it also; > > > <As long as you believe that you can do anything wrong, then the > shadow of sin will be hovering over you - and in you - all day long> > > > This is not about 'right' and 'wrong' as in the concept of sin with > subsequent punishment. > > > <And personal free will means that you *can* do something wrong.> > > > > > <I like to use this hellish scenario: > <Not even God wants to have free will. Why? Because being all > powerful, God could will itself into an infinite nightmare.> > > > You have just created an entity called God, then given him the > attribute of all power. > Does such an entity exist outside of your minds conceptualization? People believe and feel they have free will, and an entity with free will can alter the course of the universe. If this is true then these people would be real creators; they would be mini-gods! :-) Then people extrapolate this free will they feel they have and 'create' an entity called 'God'. This entity is often believed to be all powerful. For me God is the Totality of everything and this God has no power over anything; this God *is* everything, and everything cannot alter itself; everything is a timeless and complete state. > > This is the same as I was saying with your notion about fear causing > a ME to be seperate, the *initial* assumption is *itself* an > invention. > > This incorrect initial assumption is then used to further perpetuate > more incorrect guesses, like for instance saying that fear causes a > ME to be seperate and then finding ways to avoid fear or alleviate > fear SO that a ME can be dissolved or that there can be no seperation. > > Fear was never in the beginning the cause of seperation, it was > simply a guess about what a ME sought to seek in explanation for a > belief it held. > > Creating an all powerful entity called God above, giving it absolute > power and then suggesting what it would, could or shouldn't do is the > same thing. > > The other point is that you have used the word 'God' on some > occasions to mean the whole ( in which case will does not apply ) and > in the case above as being a seperate entity capable of willing. My theory is that everything is already complete and cannot be altered in any way. Free will is the ability to change what is. No one, not even a 'God' can change what is. That is my belief. > > > > > <And if > that was possible, then God would always be afraid of its own free > will.> > > > You have created God and are now telling him how he behaves. > This is the same as writing a fairy tale and saying how the actors > should or would behave. All I am saying is that an all-powerful entity does not want to have free will. I am not saying that there is an all powerful entity. > > > <Now, see clearly, that God and you are not two.> > > Who is this 'God' that you are referring to? See above. Life, evolution as it is what I call 'God'. You are not separate from Life. Life doesn't want to have free will. You don't want to have free will, you only *think* you do, until you don't anymore. :-) /AL > > > > I know you don't like to think but here is another riddle for you: > > Not *Know ´thyself* has to get the real base but *Don't know > > thyself*. Why ? > > > What is 'self' you are referring to? > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " > > <sga_email> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi again, > > > > > > > Then what is your message ? > > > > > > Do I have a message for the world? > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > >God ? > > > > > > > > > Depends on your definition. > > > > > > > > > >Union with the Beloved ?> > > > > > > > > > What is the beloved? > > > > > > Speaking of union with God, the beloved, etc, cosmic > consciousness > > > and so on cannot help to bring clarity, it is just pidgeon- holing > > > spiritual adjectives. How can talking about this help? > > > > > > > > > Are you a > > > > Sufi ?> > > > > > > No. > > > > > > Or are you trying to convey non-dual thinking (which would be > > > > a joke) ? > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > These 'Stop thinking' and 'Know thyself' are commonplaces since > > many > > > > hundreds of years and only a few did it or mostly pretented > they > > did > > > > it. > > > > > > People who meditate do both of these everyday, people are doing > > this > > > all around the world right now. > > > > > > Stop thinking does not mean to become a zombie, it means like I > > said > > > previously to stop conceptualizing and quieten the mind to find > > > essence or what 'you' are. > > > > > > Know thyself does not mean to know your like / dislikes and > > > personality etc, it means to find out WHO or WHAT 'you' are and > if > > > what you commonly think of as yourself is in fact what you truly > > are. > > > > > > Although personal introspection can be invaluable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you stopped thinking or still trying ?> > > > > > > In order to participate in the world one must think, for a ME to > > > interact there must be thinking. Stop thinking as I meant it > means > > to > > > stop conceptualizing about God, reality etc, and find out what > > *your* > > > relationship to reality is. > > > > > > > > > Have you found yourself > > > > or still trying ?> > > > > > > This is an ignorant question for the same reasons as the other > one > > I > > > mentioned. > > > > > > > > > You are trying hard, don't you ? How can you give > > > > advices if you yet haven't done it yourself ?> > > > > > > > > > Haven't done what? What is this 'it' that gets done? > > > > > > > > > Because many before > > > > told the same ? > > > > > > > > > As I said this is not new advice and I think that you will find > > that > > > an understanding of mind is the *one* commonality to be found in > > > every single spiritual or religious tradition worthy of mention. > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > Scott. > > > > > > > > > > " The lightning instantly shall strike those who tell others the > > path > > > > to God without having finished it themselves " . (Gurdjeff) > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " > > > > <sga_email> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi again, > > > > > > > > > > > Free will implies: An entity with autonomy - no matter how > > you > > > > twist > > > > > > it to fit into your strange unity system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What makes the unity / whole what it is? > > > > > > > > > > The only contradiction that arises as I said is when one > option > > > is > > > > > excluded to the choice of the other. > > > > > > > > > > A ME is selecting or trying to say which one of 2 it believes > > is > > > > > correct yet these 2 are one thing only. The choice of either > > one > > > > > means a contradiction. > > > > > > > > > > If you fall on either side of the fence you will find > > > inconsistency > > > > > and have a *belief to defend*. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And if it doesn't fit you > > > > > > draw your joker card: Stop thinking !> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This was advice. > > > > > > > > > > Advice that has been echoed throughout centuries by man in > > search > > > > of > > > > > himself and God. > > > > > > > > > > Stop thinking, 'know thyself' by looking inside and find out > > > > > WHO 'you' are. > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe you are thinking of something totally different, but > > then > > > > try > > > > > > to find a better expression of what you meant BUT NOT FREE > > > WILL ! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By 'free will' I mean and think of what you and most people > > mean > > > > when > > > > > they speak of free will. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Start thinking again and ponder about your unity system how > > to > > > > find > > > > > a > > > > > > better way to sell it. > > > > > > > > > > I'm not trying to sell, preach, convert, defend or otherwise, > > > > anyone > > > > > or anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 23, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > > " Thy will be done " means God's will be done. God's will and your > will > > are not two. :-) > > > What do you mean by 'God'? > > If you mean the unity, there is no will, and 'God' doesn't think, act > or do, and so cannot be compared to the will of a ME. By God I mean Totality, yes, and this Totality in action creates the ME as an aspect of itself. I don't like to use the word 'action', nor the word 'create', because I believe that Totality is already complete and changeless. Nor do I like to use the word 'aspect' as an object, but rather as a filtered view of Totality. I think of Totality as 'All possibilities' in a 'not two' state: the unmanifested absolute. What we see now as the world is this unmanifested absolute unfolding forever in the form of the manifested universe(s). It's like an infinitely complex fractal unfolding, and like the Mandelbrot set, this fractal is changeless. " 5. Change is an illusion, taught by those who cannot see themselves as guiltless. " -- A Course in Miracles, T:15:1:10 /AL > > If you mean God as a ME then there is no 'your will' that can be used > in a comparison with 'Gods will'. > > > " From discrimination between this and that a host of demons spring > forth " --- Huang Po > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 23, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > Hi Scott, > > Sorry, I cannot discuss Anders' views, you have to address himself. > > Werner Getting anywhere with these two, Werner? Do you think they will ever shut up? Sometimes, I think they could be the same guy. Hur might as well chance the name of the list to Anders/Scott Darshan. ) How about it Hur? Pete > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " > <sga_email> wrote: > > > > Hi again, > > > > > > > Have you read Anders' answer why belief in free will result in > sin, > > > feelings of guilt and insufficency complex ? Great reply, isn't > it ? > > > And such simple ! > > > > He has not answered your assertions that a belief in free will > > results in feelings of guilt and insufficiency complex. > > > > I have included his answer below and my response to it also; > > > > > > <As long as you believe that you can do anything wrong, then the > > shadow of sin will be hovering over you - and in you - all day long> > > > > > > This is not about 'right' and 'wrong' as in the concept of sin with > > subsequent punishment. > > > > > > <And personal free will means that you *can* do something wrong.> > > > > > > > > > > <I like to use this hellish scenario: > > <Not even God wants to have free will. Why? Because being all > > powerful, God could will itself into an infinite nightmare.> > > > > > > You have just created an entity called God, then given him the > > attribute of all power. > > Does such an entity exist outside of your minds conceptualization? > > > > This is the same as I was saying with your notion about fear > causing > > a ME to be seperate, the *initial* assumption is *itself* an > > invention. > > > > This incorrect initial assumption is then used to further > perpetuate > > more incorrect guesses, like for instance saying that fear causes a > > ME to be seperate and then finding ways to avoid fear or alleviate > > fear SO that a ME can be dissolved or that there can be no > seperation. > > > > Fear was never in the beginning the cause of seperation, it was > > simply a guess about what a ME sought to seek in explanation for a > > belief it held. > > > > Creating an all powerful entity called God above, giving it > absolute > > power and then suggesting what it would, could or shouldn't do is > the > > same thing. > > > > The other point is that you have used the word 'God' on some > > occasions to mean the whole ( in which case will does not apply ) > and > > in the case above as being a seperate entity capable of willing. > > > > > > > > > > <And if > > that was possible, then God would always be afraid of its own free > > will.> > > > > > > You have created God and are now telling him how he behaves. > > This is the same as writing a fairy tale and saying how the actors > > should or would behave. > > > > > > <Now, see clearly, that God and you are not two.> > > > > Who is this 'God' that you are referring to? See above. > > > > > > > I know you don't like to think but here is another riddle for you: > > > Not *Know ´thyself* has to get the real base but *Don't know > > > thyself*. Why ? > > > > > > What is 'self' you are referring to? > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Scott > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " > > > <sga_email> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi again, > > > > > > > > > Then what is your message ? > > > > > > > > Do I have a message for the world? > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > >God ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on your definition. > > > > > > > > > > > > >Union with the Beloved ?> > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the beloved? > > > > > > > > Speaking of union with God, the beloved, etc, cosmic > > consciousness > > > > and so on cannot help to bring clarity, it is just pidgeon- > holing > > > > spiritual adjectives. How can talking about this help? > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you a > > > > > Sufi ?> > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > Or are you trying to convey non-dual thinking (which would be > > > > > a joke) ? > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > > These 'Stop thinking' and 'Know thyself' are commonplaces > since > > > many > > > > > hundreds of years and only a few did it or mostly pretented > > they > > > did > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > People who meditate do both of these everyday, people are doing > > > this > > > > all around the world right now. > > > > > > > > Stop thinking does not mean to become a zombie, it means like I > > > said > > > > previously to stop conceptualizing and quieten the mind to find > > > > essence or what 'you' are. > > > > > > > > Know thyself does not mean to know your like / dislikes and > > > > personality etc, it means to find out WHO or WHAT 'you' are and > > if > > > > what you commonly think of as yourself is in fact what you > truly > > > are. > > > > > > > > Although personal introspection can be invaluable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you stopped thinking or still trying ?> > > > > > > > > In order to participate in the world one must think, for a ME > to > > > > interact there must be thinking. Stop thinking as I meant it > > means > > > to > > > > stop conceptualizing about God, reality etc, and find out what > > > *your* > > > > relationship to reality is. > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you found yourself > > > > > or still trying ?> > > > > > > > > This is an ignorant question for the same reasons as the other > > one > > > I > > > > mentioned. > > > > > > > > > > > > You are trying hard, don't you ? How can you give > > > > > advices if you yet haven't done it yourself ?> > > > > > > > > > > > > Haven't done what? What is this 'it' that gets done? > > > > > > > > > > > > Because many before > > > > > told the same ? > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said this is not new advice and I think that you will find > > > that > > > > an understanding of mind is the *one* commonality to be found > in > > > > every single spiritual or religious tradition worthy of mention. > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > > > Scott. > > > > > > > > > > > > > " The lightning instantly shall strike those who tell others > the > > > path > > > > > to God without having finished it themselves " . (Gurdjeff) > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " > > > > > <sga_email> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi again, > > > > > > > > > > > > > Free will implies: An entity with autonomy - no matter > how > > > you > > > > > twist > > > > > > > it to fit into your strange unity system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What makes the unity / whole what it is? > > > > > > > > > > > > The only contradiction that arises as I said is when one > > option > > > > is > > > > > > excluded to the choice of the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > A ME is selecting or trying to say which one of 2 it > believes > > > is > > > > > > correct yet these 2 are one thing only. The choice of > either > > > one > > > > > > means a contradiction. > > > > > > > > > > > > If you fall on either side of the fence you will find > > > > inconsistency > > > > > > and have a *belief to defend*. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And if it doesn't fit you > > > > > > > draw your joker card: Stop thinking !> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This was advice. > > > > > > > > > > > > Advice that has been echoed throughout centuries by man in > > > search > > > > > of > > > > > > himself and God. > > > > > > > > > > > > Stop thinking, 'know thyself' by looking inside and find > out > > > > > > WHO 'you' are. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe you are thinking of something totally different, > but > > > then > > > > > try > > > > > > > to find a better expression of what you meant BUT NOT > FREE > > > > WILL ! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By 'free will' I mean and think of what you and most people > > > mean > > > > > when > > > > > > they speak of free will. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Start thinking again and ponder about your unity system > how > > > to > > > > > find > > > > > > a > > > > > > > better way to sell it. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not trying to sell, preach, convert, defend or > otherwise, > > > > > anyone > > > > > > or anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 23, 2004 Hi cerosoul, I realized that I don't get anywhere. I myself should have shut up right from the beginning. Werner Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > wrote: > > Hi Scott, > > > > Sorry, I cannot discuss Anders' views, you have to address himself. > > > > Werner > > > Getting anywhere with these two, Werner? Do you think they will ever > shut up? Sometimes, I think they could be the same guy. Hur might as > well chance the name of the list to Anders/Scott Darshan. ) How > about it Hur? > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " > > <sga_email> wrote: > > > > > > Hi again, > > > > > > > > > > Have you read Anders' answer why belief in free will result in > > sin, > > > > feelings of guilt and insufficency complex ? Great reply, isn't > > it ? > > > > And such simple ! > > > > > > He has not answered your assertions that a belief in free will > > > results in feelings of guilt and insufficiency complex. > > > > > > I have included his answer below and my response to it also; > > > > > > > > > <As long as you believe that you can do anything wrong, then the > > > shadow of sin will be hovering over you - and in you - all day > long> > > > > > > > > > This is not about 'right' and 'wrong' as in the concept of sin > with > > > subsequent punishment. > > > > > > > > > <And personal free will means that you *can* do something wrong.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <I like to use this hellish scenario: > > > <Not even God wants to have free will. Why? Because being all > > > powerful, God could will itself into an infinite nightmare.> > > > > > > > > > You have just created an entity called God, then given him the > > > attribute of all power. > > > Does such an entity exist outside of your minds conceptualization? > > > > > > This is the same as I was saying with your notion about fear > > causing > > > a ME to be seperate, the *initial* assumption is *itself* an > > > invention. > > > > > > This incorrect initial assumption is then used to further > > perpetuate > > > more incorrect guesses, like for instance saying that fear causes > a > > > ME to be seperate and then finding ways to avoid fear or > alleviate > > > fear SO that a ME can be dissolved or that there can be no > > seperation. > > > > > > Fear was never in the beginning the cause of seperation, it was > > > simply a guess about what a ME sought to seek in explanation for > a > > > belief it held. > > > > > > Creating an all powerful entity called God above, giving it > > absolute > > > power and then suggesting what it would, could or shouldn't do is > > the > > > same thing. > > > > > > The other point is that you have used the word 'God' on some > > > occasions to mean the whole ( in which case will does not apply ) > > and > > > in the case above as being a seperate entity capable of willing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <And if > > > that was possible, then God would always be afraid of its own free > > > will.> > > > > > > > > > You have created God and are now telling him how he behaves. > > > This is the same as writing a fairy tale and saying how the > actors > > > should or would behave. > > > > > > > > > <Now, see clearly, that God and you are not two.> > > > > > > Who is this 'God' that you are referring to? See above. > > > > > > > > > > I know you don't like to think but here is another riddle for > you: > > > > Not *Know ´thyself* has to get the real base but *Don't know > > > > thyself*. Why ? > > > > > > > > > What is 'self' you are referring to? > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > Scott > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " > > > > <sga_email> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi again, > > > > > > > > > > > Then what is your message ? > > > > > > > > > > Do I have a message for the world? > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >God ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on your definition. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Union with the Beloved ?> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the beloved? > > > > > > > > > > Speaking of union with God, the beloved, etc, cosmic > > > consciousness > > > > > and so on cannot help to bring clarity, it is just pidgeon- > > holing > > > > > spiritual adjectives. How can talking about this help? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you a > > > > > > Sufi ?> > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > Or are you trying to convey non-dual thinking (which would be > > > > > > a joke) ? > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > These 'Stop thinking' and 'Know thyself' are commonplaces > > since > > > > many > > > > > > hundreds of years and only a few did it or mostly pretented > > > they > > > > did > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > People who meditate do both of these everyday, people are > doing > > > > this > > > > > all around the world right now. > > > > > > > > > > Stop thinking does not mean to become a zombie, it means like > I > > > > said > > > > > previously to stop conceptualizing and quieten the mind to > find > > > > > essence or what 'you' are. > > > > > > > > > > Know thyself does not mean to know your like / dislikes and > > > > > personality etc, it means to find out WHO or WHAT 'you' are > and > > > if > > > > > what you commonly think of as yourself is in fact what you > > truly > > > > are. > > > > > > > > > > Although personal introspection can be invaluable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you stopped thinking or still trying ?> > > > > > > > > > > In order to participate in the world one must think, for a ME > > to > > > > > interact there must be thinking. Stop thinking as I meant it > > > means > > > > to > > > > > stop conceptualizing about God, reality etc, and find out > what > > > > *your* > > > > > relationship to reality is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you found yourself > > > > > > or still trying ?> > > > > > > > > > > This is an ignorant question for the same reasons as the > other > > > one > > > > I > > > > > mentioned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are trying hard, don't you ? How can you give > > > > > > advices if you yet haven't done it yourself ?> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Haven't done what? What is this 'it' that gets done? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because many before > > > > > > told the same ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said this is not new advice and I think that you will > find > > > > that > > > > > an understanding of mind is the *one* commonality to be found > > in > > > > > every single spiritual or religious tradition worthy of > mention. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Scott. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " The lightning instantly shall strike those who tell others > > the > > > > path > > > > > > to God without having finished it themselves " . (Gurdjeff) > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " > > > > > > <sga_email> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi again, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Free will implies: An entity with autonomy - no matter > > how > > > > you > > > > > > twist > > > > > > > > it to fit into your strange unity system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What makes the unity / whole what it is? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only contradiction that arises as I said is when one > > > option > > > > > is > > > > > > > excluded to the choice of the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A ME is selecting or trying to say which one of 2 it > > believes > > > > is > > > > > > > correct yet these 2 are one thing only. The choice of > > either > > > > one > > > > > > > means a contradiction. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you fall on either side of the fence you will find > > > > > inconsistency > > > > > > > and have a *belief to defend*. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And if it doesn't fit you > > > > > > > > draw your joker card: Stop thinking !> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This was advice. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Advice that has been echoed throughout centuries by man > in > > > > search > > > > > > of > > > > > > > himself and God. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stop thinking, 'know thyself' by looking inside and find > > out > > > > > > > WHO 'you' are. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe you are thinking of something totally different, > > but > > > > then > > > > > > try > > > > > > > > to find a better expression of what you meant BUT NOT > > FREE > > > > > WILL ! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By 'free will' I mean and think of what you and most > people > > > > mean > > > > > > when > > > > > > > they speak of free will. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Start thinking again and ponder about your unity system > > how > > > > to > > > > > > find > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > better way to sell it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not trying to sell, preach, convert, defend or > > otherwise, > > > > > > anyone > > > > > > > or anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 23, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > Hi cerosoul, > > I realized that I don't get anywhere. I myself should have shut up > right from the beginning. > > Werner Not at all, keep trying. You are the voice of sanity in this never ending duet. ) I always enjoy reading what you post, Pete > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > Hi Scott, > > > > > > Sorry, I cannot discuss Anders' views, you have to address > himself. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > Getting anywhere with these two, Werner? Do you think they will > ever > > shut up? Sometimes, I think they could be the same guy. Hur might > as > > well chance the name of the list to Anders/Scott Darshan. ) How > > about it Hur? > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " > > > <sga_email> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi again, > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you read Anders' answer why belief in free will result > in > > > sin, > > > > > feelings of guilt and insufficency complex ? Great reply, > isn't > > > it ? > > > > > And such simple ! > > > > > > > > He has not answered your assertions that a belief in free will > > > > results in feelings of guilt and insufficiency complex. > > > > > > > > I have included his answer below and my response to it also; > > > > > > > > > > > > <As long as you believe that you can do anything wrong, then the > > > > shadow of sin will be hovering over you - and in you - all day > > long> > > > > > > > > > > > > This is not about 'right' and 'wrong' as in the concept of sin > > with > > > > subsequent punishment. > > > > > > > > > > > > <And personal free will means that you *can* do something > wrong.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <I like to use this hellish scenario: > > > > <Not even God wants to have free will. Why? Because being all > > > > powerful, God could will itself into an infinite nightmare.> > > > > > > > > > > > > You have just created an entity called God, then given him the > > > > attribute of all power. > > > > Does such an entity exist outside of your minds > conceptualization? > > > > > > > > This is the same as I was saying with your notion about fear > > > causing > > > > a ME to be seperate, the *initial* assumption is *itself* an > > > > invention. > > > > > > > > This incorrect initial assumption is then used to further > > > perpetuate > > > > more incorrect guesses, like for instance saying that fear > causes > > a > > > > ME to be seperate and then finding ways to avoid fear or > > alleviate > > > > fear SO that a ME can be dissolved or that there can be no > > > seperation. > > > > > > > > Fear was never in the beginning the cause of seperation, it was > > > > simply a guess about what a ME sought to seek in explanation > for > > a > > > > belief it held. > > > > > > > > Creating an all powerful entity called God above, giving it > > > absolute > > > > power and then suggesting what it would, could or shouldn't do > is > > > the > > > > same thing. > > > > > > > > The other point is that you have used the word 'God' on some > > > > occasions to mean the whole ( in which case will does not > apply ) > > > and > > > > in the case above as being a seperate entity capable of willing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <And if > > > > that was possible, then God would always be afraid of its own > free > > > > will.> > > > > > > > > > > > > You have created God and are now telling him how he behaves. > > > > This is the same as writing a fairy tale and saying how the > > actors > > > > should or would behave. > > > > > > > > > > > > <Now, see clearly, that God and you are not two.> > > > > > > > > Who is this 'God' that you are referring to? See above. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I know you don't like to think but here is another riddle for > > you: > > > > > Not *Know ´thyself* has to get the real base but *Don't know > > > > > thyself*. Why ? > > > > > > > > > > > > What is 'self' you are referring to? > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > > > Scott > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " > > > > > <sga_email> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi again, > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then what is your message ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Do I have a message for the world? > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >God ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on your definition. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Union with the Beloved ?> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the beloved? > > > > > > > > > > > > Speaking of union with God, the beloved, etc, cosmic > > > > consciousness > > > > > > and so on cannot help to bring clarity, it is just pidgeon- > > > holing > > > > > > spiritual adjectives. How can talking about this help? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you a > > > > > > > Sufi ?> > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > Or are you trying to convey non-dual thinking (which would > be > > > > > > > a joke) ? > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > These 'Stop thinking' and 'Know thyself' are commonplaces > > > since > > > > > many > > > > > > > hundreds of years and only a few did it or mostly > pretented > > > > they > > > > > did > > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > People who meditate do both of these everyday, people are > > doing > > > > > this > > > > > > all around the world right now. > > > > > > > > > > > > Stop thinking does not mean to become a zombie, it means > like > > I > > > > > said > > > > > > previously to stop conceptualizing and quieten the mind to > > find > > > > > > essence or what 'you' are. > > > > > > > > > > > > Know thyself does not mean to know your like / dislikes and > > > > > > personality etc, it means to find out WHO or WHAT 'you' are > > and > > > > if > > > > > > what you commonly think of as yourself is in fact what you > > > truly > > > > > are. > > > > > > > > > > > > Although personal introspection can be invaluable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you stopped thinking or still trying ?> > > > > > > > > > > > > In order to participate in the world one must think, for a > ME > > > to > > > > > > interact there must be thinking. Stop thinking as I meant > it > > > > means > > > > > to > > > > > > stop conceptualizing about God, reality etc, and find out > > what > > > > > *your* > > > > > > relationship to reality is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you found yourself > > > > > > > or still trying ?> > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an ignorant question for the same reasons as the > > other > > > > one > > > > > I > > > > > > mentioned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are trying hard, don't you ? How can you give > > > > > > > advices if you yet haven't done it yourself ?> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Haven't done what? What is this 'it' that gets done? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because many before > > > > > > > told the same ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said this is not new advice and I think that you will > > find > > > > > that > > > > > > an understanding of mind is the *one* commonality to be > found > > > in > > > > > > every single spiritual or religious tradition worthy of > > mention. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Scott. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " The lightning instantly shall strike those who tell > others > > > the > > > > > path > > > > > > > to God without having finished it themselves " . (Gurdjeff) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " > > > > > > > <sga_email> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi again, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Free will implies: An entity with autonomy - no > matter > > > how > > > > > you > > > > > > > twist > > > > > > > > > it to fit into your strange unity system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What makes the unity / whole what it is? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only contradiction that arises as I said is when > one > > > > option > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > excluded to the choice of the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A ME is selecting or trying to say which one of 2 it > > > believes > > > > > is > > > > > > > > correct yet these 2 are one thing only. The choice of > > > either > > > > > one > > > > > > > > means a contradiction. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you fall on either side of the fence you will find > > > > > > inconsistency > > > > > > > > and have a *belief to defend*. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And if it doesn't fit you > > > > > > > > > draw your joker card: Stop thinking !> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This was advice. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Advice that has been echoed throughout centuries by man > > in > > > > > search > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > himself and God. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stop thinking, 'know thyself' by looking inside and > find > > > out > > > > > > > > WHO 'you' are. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe you are thinking of something totally > different, > > > but > > > > > then > > > > > > > try > > > > > > > > > to find a better expression of what you meant BUT NOT > > > FREE > > > > > > WILL ! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By 'free will' I mean and think of what you and most > > people > > > > > mean > > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > they speak of free will. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Start thinking again and ponder about your unity > system > > > how > > > > > to > > > > > > > find > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > better way to sell it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not trying to sell, preach, convert, defend or > > > otherwise, > > > > > > > anyone > > > > > > > > or anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 23, 2004 Hi again, > > > " Thy will be done " means God's will be done. God's will and your > > will > > > are not two. :-) > > What do you mean by 'God'? > > > > If you mean the unity, there is no will, and 'God' doesn't think, > act > > or do, and so cannot be compared to the will of a ME. > > By God I mean Totality, yes, and this Totality in action creates the > ME as an aspect of itself. If you mean by 'God' totality then there is no 'Gods will' to compare with a 'your will'. This is what I meant about making statements and concepts to *fit* beliefs, like deriving a meaning for 'Thy will be done' in the context above. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 23, 2004 :-) hi Werner and Cerosoul..this exchange between u 2 was funny..even I was feeling like..hmmm..u know there's a murphy management law which says that in any hierarchy, each individual rises to his own level of incompetence, and then remains there. We can easily edit this to all of us " so called " looking for " so called " enlightenment.. cerosoul <Pedsie2 wrote:Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > Hi cerosoul, > > I realized that I don't get anywhere. I myself should have shut up > right from the beginning. > > Werner Not at all, keep trying. You are the voice of sanity in this never ending duet. ) I always enjoy reading what you post, Pete > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> > > wrote: > > > Hi Scott, > > > > > > Sorry, I cannot discuss Anders' views, you have to address > himself. > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > Getting anywhere with these two, Werner? Do you think they will > ever > > shut up? Sometimes, I think they could be the same guy. Hur might > as > > well chance the name of the list to Anders/Scott Darshan. ) How > > about it Hur? > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " > > > <sga_email> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi again, > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you read Anders' answer why belief in free will result > in > > > sin, > > > > > feelings of guilt and insufficency complex ? Great reply, > isn't > > > it ? > > > > > And such simple ! > > > > > > > > He has not answered your assertions that a belief in free will > > > > results in feelings of guilt and insufficiency complex. > > > > > > > > I have included his answer below and my response to it also; > > > > > > > > > > > > <As long as you believe that you can do anything wrong, then the > > > > shadow of sin will be hovering over you - and in you - all day > > long> > > > > > > > > > > > > This is not about 'right' and 'wrong' as in the concept of sin > > with > > > > subsequent punishment. > > > > > > > > > > > > <And personal free will means that you *can* do something > wrong.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <I like to use this hellish scenario: > > > > <Not even God wants to have free will. Why? Because being all > > > > powerful, God could will itself into an infinite nightmare.> > > > > > > > > > > > > You have just created an entity called God, then given him the > > > > attribute of all power. > > > > Does such an entity exist outside of your minds > conceptualization? > > > > > > > > This is the same as I was saying with your notion about fear > > > causing > > > > a ME to be seperate, the *initial* assumption is *itself* an > > > > invention. > > > > > > > > This incorrect initial assumption is then used to further > > > perpetuate > > > > more incorrect guesses, like for instance saying that fear > causes > > a > > > > ME to be seperate and then finding ways to avoid fear or > > alleviate > > > > fear SO that a ME can be dissolved or that there can be no > > > seperation. > > > > > > > > Fear was never in the beginning the cause of seperation, it was > > > > simply a guess about what a ME sought to seek in explanation > for > > a > > > > belief it held. > > > > > > > > Creating an all powerful entity called God above, giving it > > > absolute > > > > power and then suggesting what it would, could or shouldn't do > is > > > the > > > > same thing. > > > > > > > > The other point is that you have used the word 'God' on some > > > > occasions to mean the whole ( in which case will does not > apply ) > > > and > > > > in the case above as being a seperate entity capable of willing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <And if > > > > that was possible, then God would always be afraid of its own > free > > > > will.> > > > > > > > > > > > > You have created God and are now telling him how he behaves. > > > > This is the same as writing a fairy tale and saying how the > > actors > > > > should or would behave. > > > > > > > > > > > > <Now, see clearly, that God and you are not two.> > > > > > > > > Who is this 'God' that you are referring to? See above. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I know you don't like to think but here is another riddle for > > you: > > > > > Not *Know ´thyself* has to get the real base but *Don't know > > > > > thyself*. Why ? > > > > > > > > > > > > What is 'self' you are referring to? > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > > > Scott > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " > > > > > <sga_email> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi again, > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then what is your message ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Do I have a message for the world? > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >God ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depends on your definition. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Union with the Beloved ?> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the beloved? > > > > > > > > > > > > Speaking of union with God, the beloved, etc, cosmic > > > > consciousness > > > > > > and so on cannot help to bring clarity, it is just pidgeon- > > > holing > > > > > > spiritual adjectives. How can talking about this help? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you a > > > > > > > Sufi ?> > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > Or are you trying to convey non-dual thinking (which would > be > > > > > > > a joke) ? > > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > These 'Stop thinking' and 'Know thyself' are commonplaces > > > since > > > > > many > > > > > > > hundreds of years and only a few did it or mostly > pretented > > > > they > > > > > did > > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > People who meditate do both of these everyday, people are > > doing > > > > > this > > > > > > all around the world right now. > > > > > > > > > > > > Stop thinking does not mean to become a zombie, it means > like > > I > > > > > said > > > > > > previously to stop conceptualizing and quieten the mind to > > find > > > > > > essence or what 'you' are. > > > > > > > > > > > > Know thyself does not mean to know your like / dislikes and > > > > > > personality etc, it means to find out WHO or WHAT 'you' are > > and > > > > if > > > > > > what you commonly think of as yourself is in fact what you > > > truly > > > > > are. > > > > > > > > > > > > Although personal introspection can be invaluable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you stopped thinking or still trying ?> > > > > > > > > > > > > In order to participate in the world one must think, for a > ME > > > to > > > > > > interact there must be thinking. Stop thinking as I meant > it > > > > means > > > > > to > > > > > > stop conceptualizing about God, reality etc, and find out > > what > > > > > *your* > > > > > > relationship to reality is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you found yourself > > > > > > > or still trying ?> > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an ignorant question for the same reasons as the > > other > > > > one > > > > > I > > > > > > mentioned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are trying hard, don't you ? How can you give > > > > > > > advices if you yet haven't done it yourself ?> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Haven't done what? What is this 'it' that gets done? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because many before > > > > > > > told the same ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I said this is not new advice and I think that you will > > find > > > > > that > > > > > > an understanding of mind is the *one* commonality to be > found > > > in > > > > > > every single spiritual or religious tradition worthy of > > mention. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Scott. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " The lightning instantly shall strike those who tell > others > > > the > > > > > path > > > > > > > to God without having finished it themselves " . (Gurdjeff) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " > > > > > > > <sga_email> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi again, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Free will implies: An entity with autonomy - no > matter > > > how > > > > > you > > > > > > > twist > > > > > > > > > it to fit into your strange unity system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What makes the unity / whole what it is? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only contradiction that arises as I said is when > one > > > > option > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > excluded to the choice of the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A ME is selecting or trying to say which one of 2 it > > > believes > > > > > is > > > > > > > > correct yet these 2 are one thing only. The choice of > > > either > > > > > one > > > > > > > > means a contradiction. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you fall on either side of the fence you will find > > > > > > inconsistency > > > > > > > > and have a *belief to defend*. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And if it doesn't fit you > > > > > > > > > draw your joker card: Stop thinking !> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This was advice. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Advice that has been echoed throughout centuries by man > > in > > > > > search > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > himself and God. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stop thinking, 'know thyself' by looking inside and > find > > > out > > > > > > > > WHO 'you' are. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe you are thinking of something totally > different, > > > but > > > > > then > > > > > > > try > > > > > > > > > to find a better expression of what you meant BUT NOT > > > FREE > > > > > > WILL ! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By 'free will' I mean and think of what you and most > > people > > > > > mean > > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > they speak of free will. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Start thinking again and ponder about your unity > system > > > how > > > > > to > > > > > > > find > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > better way to sell it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not trying to sell, preach, convert, defend or > > > otherwise, > > > > > > > anyone > > > > > > > > or anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Scott. ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 24, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > > " Thy will be done " means God's will be done. God's will and > your > > > will > > > > are not two. :-) > > > > > What do you mean by 'God'? > > > > > > If you mean the unity, there is no will, and 'God' doesn't think, > > act > > > or do, and so cannot be compared to the will of a ME. > > > > By God I mean Totality, yes, and this Totality in action creates > the > > ME as an aspect of itself. > > > If you mean by 'God' totality then there is no 'Gods will' to compare > with a 'your will'. > > This is what I meant about making statements and concepts to *fit* > beliefs, like deriving a meaning for 'Thy will be done' in the > context above. What we call will is just a process in nature. There is no one *owning* this will. This will is no-thing happening. /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 24, 2004 Hi again, > > If you mean by 'God' totality then there is no 'Gods will' to > compare > > with a 'your will'. > > > > This is what I meant about making statements and concepts to *fit* > > beliefs, like deriving a meaning for 'Thy will be done' in the > > context above. > > What we call will is just a process in nature. There is no one > *owning* this will. There can be no will *without* a reflected self or ME. It takes a ME. Nature, if you call it life or the whole cannot make decisions, think, will or act. <This will is no-thing happening> Will is not a happening / event, will is a term we use to describe a *capacity* of volition, decision making, choice or doing. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 24, 2004 Hi again, > > You have just created an entity called God, then given him the > > attribute of all power. > > Does such an entity exist outside of your minds conceptualization? > > People believe and feel they have free will, and an entity with free > will can alter the course of the universe> A ME willing is the course the universe takes, it is not seperate. A ME willing and the unity functioning are not two except when they are split into two and one is chosen and selected to be correct to the exclusion of the other. The whole does not *make* the universe what it is, the whole IS *what* the universe IS. >If this is true then these > people would be real creators; they would be mini-gods! :-)> The *whole* does not create. There are many 'Gods' just as real as 'you' and 'me'. >Then > people extrapolate this free will they feel they have and 'create' an > entity called 'God'. This entity is often believed to be all > powerful> But this entity is an imagining of mind, and so too are it's attributes? <For me God is the Totality of everything> If you call God the totality then this 'God' cannot DO, think or act. and this God has > no power over anything; this God *is* everything, and everything > cannot alter itself; everything is a timeless and complete state> Yes, totality ( by definition ) cannot alter itself, simply because what it IS, is what IS, if the God that we speak of is *everything* ( and nothing ) there is nothing not included in the definition. It is not then correct to say that the *totality* makes itself what it IS. > My theory is that everything is already complete and cannot be > altered in any way. Free will is the ability to change what is. No > one, not even a 'God' can change what is. That is my belief. No-one, God or otherwise can change what IS if your definition of what is is everything, because that definition includes all change and any happening. > > <And if > > that was possible, then God would always be afraid of its own free > > will.> > > > > > > You have created God and are now telling him how he behaves. > > This is the same as writing a fairy tale and saying how the actors > > should or would behave. > > All I am saying is that an all-powerful entity does not want to have > free will> But an all powerful entity is just an imagining in mind whose behaviour you are guessing. We are creating unicorns and then riding them. We have already said that 'God' as the whole cannot think act or do. And that this God as an entity is an imagining. What does an imagined all powerful entity defined as 'God' whose behaviour you are guessing have to do with your definition of 'God' as totality? > > <Now, see clearly, that God and you are not two.> > > > > Who is this 'God' that you are referring to? See above. > > Life, evolution as it is what I call 'God'. You are not separate from > Life. Life doesn't want to have free will. If you define Life as God and God as everything then the issue of DOing or will is not relevant because the whole cannot think, act or do. It is not that what you call Life, 'God' / the whole doesn't *want* to have free will; the whole cannot *want* to have anything, nor can it DO, act or think to *have* any will. You don't want to have > free will, you only *think* you do, until you don't anymore. :-) Again, it is not a matter of wanting, will is *inherent* within each participating reflection, MEs are the only things that can will. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 24, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > Hi again, > > > > If you mean by 'God' totality then there is no 'Gods will' to > > compare > > > with a 'your will'. > > > > > > This is what I meant about making statements and concepts to > *fit* > > > beliefs, like deriving a meaning for 'Thy will be done' in the > > > context above. > > > > What we call will is just a process in nature. There is no one > > *owning* this will. > > > There can be no will *without* a reflected self or ME. > > It takes a ME. > > Nature, if you call it life or the whole cannot make decisions, > think, will or act. In the vast ocean of existence a little wave called ME says, " Look, how independent I am, I have my own free fill, I can do things you other waves cannot " . > > > <This will is no-thing happening> > > Will is not a happening / event, will is a term we use to describe a > *capacity* of volition, decision making, choice or doing. The little wave says, " Look, I have the capacity to lift that boat over there! " . /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 24, 2004 Hi again, > > > What we call will is just a process in nature. There is no one > > > *owning* this will. > > > > > > There can be no will *without* a reflected self or ME. > > > > It takes a ME. > > > > Nature, if you call it life or the whole cannot make decisions, > > think, will or act. > > In the vast ocean of existence a little wave called ME says, " Look, > how independent I am, I have my own free fill, I can do things you > other waves cannot " . What are the close similarities between a ME and an ocean wave, and the ocean and existence as a whole that give you the confidence to make such a comparison? A ME is not a wave, and existence is not an ocean. This metaphor is useful in explaining *certain* points, if used in other ways it can hamper understanding. > > <This will is no-thing happening> > > > > Will is not a happening / event, will is a term we use to describe > a > > *capacity* of volition, decision making, choice or doing. > > The little wave says, " Look, I have the capacity to lift that boat > over there! " . *What makes a ME what it is, is what makes a ME seperate* To use your metaphor, a wave is water, the ocean is water, what makes them seperate is not what they both are since they are both water. What makes a ME what it IS is what makes it a seperate thing. All metaphors are limited, they can be used to *point* to certain things but not as justifications for *the way things are*. Kind Regards, Scott Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 24, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > You have just created an entity called God, then given him the > > > attribute of all power. > > > Does such an entity exist outside of your minds conceptualization? > > > > People believe and feel they have free will, and an entity with > free > > will can alter the course of the universe> > > > A ME willing is the course the universe takes, it is not seperate. > > A ME willing and the unity functioning are not two except when they > are split into two and one is chosen and selected to be correct to > the exclusion of the other. > > The whole does not *make* the universe what it is, the whole IS > *what* the universe IS. In the vast ocean of existence a little superstring says: " Hey, I can do things, I really can! I have free will " , then a voice appears, " No, you cannot, I am an atom and you are in my belly, *I* am the one having free will " . The atom feels very confident and sure about its own free will when another voice says, " I am a molecule, it is I who have free will, you cannot do anything without me dictating to you what to do, you are a part of me " . The atom thinks, " A molecule, I have not seen any molecule, I must have been hallucinating. " The molecule is watching the atom and thinks: " What if that atom in me really do have free will, then it could be the same with all atoms in me; they could rebell and kill me! " . While the molecule was being troubled by the question of free will yet another voice came: " I am a cell, and you cannot do anything without me making you do it. I can tell you to go left, and you will go left, I have the power over you, but I have not the power over my commander. " The molecule listens to this and thinks: " I hear a voice commanding me, is it God? " Then the cell replies: " No, I am not God, I have my free will, but it is limited, I am only here to do what I am meant to do, I am a part of a human brain " . The human brain listens to this conversation going on and thinks " I better make my cells not listen to that crap about free will, or they may rebell against me " , so the brain says to the cell, " I am the commander here, I will tell you what to do, it is my will that is the law " . Then from the depths of exitence itself come a strange message registered in the brain as a thought: " We are the midichlorians - may the Force be with you " . :-) > > > >If this is true then these > > people would be real creators; they would be mini-gods! :-)> > > > The *whole* does not create. > > There are many 'Gods' just as real as 'you' and 'me'. No-thing happening can be realized by the no-mind. > > > >Then > > people extrapolate this free will they feel they have and 'create' > an > > entity called 'God'. This entity is often believed to be all > > powerful> > > > But this entity is an imagining of mind, and so too are it's > attributes? When Jesus said, " I and the Father are one " , he didn't mean this as an imagination. > > > <For me God is the Totality of everything> > > > If you call God the totality then this 'God' cannot DO, think or act. That's right, becuase God is all doing, all thinking, and all acting. > > > > and this God has > > no power over anything; this God *is* everything, and everything > > cannot alter itself; everything is a timeless and complete state> > > > Yes, totality ( by definition ) cannot alter itself, simply because > what it IS, is what IS, if the God that we speak of is *everything* ( > and nothing ) there is nothing not included in the definition. > > It is not then correct to say that the *totality* makes itself what > it IS. What is is, and nothing else is. This 'what is' is Totality. > > > > My theory is that everything is already complete and cannot be > > altered in any way. Free will is the ability to change what is. No > > one, not even a 'God' can change what is. That is my belief. > > No-one, God or otherwise can change what IS if your definition of > what is is everything, because that definition includes all change > and any happening. Quite so. > > > > > > <And if > > > that was possible, then God would always be afraid of its own free > > > will.> > > > > > > > > > You have created God and are now telling him how he behaves. > > > This is the same as writing a fairy tale and saying how the > actors > > > should or would behave. > > > > All I am saying is that an all-powerful entity does not want to > have > > free will> > > > But an all powerful entity is just an imagining in mind whose > behaviour you are guessing. > > We are creating unicorns and then riding them. > > We have already said that 'God' as the whole cannot think act or do. > And that this God as an entity is an imagining. > > What does an imagined all powerful entity defined as 'God' whose > behaviour you are guessing have to do with your definition of 'God' > as totality? I use the term all-powerful God in order to point out the ridiculous belief that a person has any power at all. A person believs himself or herself having some power, and that makes them believe themselves to be mini-gods with the power to alter the course of the universe. > > > > > <Now, see clearly, that God and you are not two.> > > > > > > Who is this 'God' that you are referring to? See above. > > > > Life, evolution as it is what I call 'God'. You are not separate > from > > Life. Life doesn't want to have free will. > > > If you define Life as God and God as everything then the issue of > DOing or will is not relevant because the whole cannot think, act or > do. > > It is not that what you call Life, 'God' / the whole doesn't *want* > to have free will; the whole cannot *want* to have anything, nor can > it DO, act or think to *have* any will. There no one who is doing, wanting or thinking anything. All this is just an *automatic* appearance in what is. You don't have the power to do *anything*. > > > > You don't want to have > > free will, you only *think* you do, until you don't anymore. :-) > > > Again, it is not a matter of wanting, will is *inherent* within each > participating reflection, MEs are the only things that can will. Yes, will is there, the ego is there. These are illusions. There is no 'you' existing as a separate entity. No-thing is happening. /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 24, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > > > What we call will is just a process in nature. There is no one > > > > *owning* this will. > > > > > > > > > There can be no will *without* a reflected self or ME. > > > > > > It takes a ME. > > > > > > Nature, if you call it life or the whole cannot make decisions, > > > think, will or act. > > > > > > In the vast ocean of existence a little wave called ME says, " Look, > > how independent I am, I have my own free fill, I can do things you > > other waves cannot " . > > > What are the close similarities between a ME and an ocean wave, and > the ocean and existence as a whole that give you the confidence to > make such a comparison? > > A ME is not a wave, and existence is not an ocean. > > This metaphor is useful in explaining *certain* points, if used in > other ways it can hamper understanding. The human mind/body mechanism is a little more elaborate wave perhaps that a wave in an ocean, but both are just waves. You have to understand the Buddhist concept of emptiness to see this (or relational quantum physics). There are no separate objects. The ME is a concept valid just as much as the concept 'apple', yes, but we remain caught in the world of concepts here. Contemplate emptiness. > > > > > > <This will is no-thing happening> > > > > > > Will is not a happening / event, will is a term we use to > describe > > a > > > *capacity* of volition, decision making, choice or doing. > > > > The little wave says, " Look, I have the capacity to lift that boat > > over there! " . > > > *What makes a ME what it is, is what makes a ME seperate* > > To use your metaphor, a wave is water, the ocean is water, what makes > them seperate is not what they both are since they are both water. > > What makes a ME what it IS is what makes it a seperate thing. > > All metaphors are limited, they can be used to *point* to certain > things but not as justifications for *the way things are*. You see, the ME has no independent existence, and something without independent existence cannot have free will. /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 24, 2004 Hi again, > > The whole does not *make* the universe what it is, the whole IS > > *what* the universe IS. > In the vast ocean of existence a little superstring says: " Hey, I can > do things, I really can! I have free will " , then a voice > appears, " No, you cannot, I am an atom and you are in my belly, *I* > am the one having free will " . The atom feels very confident and sure > about its own free will when another voice says, " I am a molecule, it > is I who have free will, you cannot do anything without me dictating > to you what to do, you are a part of me " . The atom thinks, " A > molecule, I have not seen any molecule, I must have been > hallucinating. " The molecule is watching the atom and thinks: " What > if that atom in me really do have free will, then it could be the > same with all atoms in me; they could rebell and kill me! " . While the > molecule was being troubled by the question of free will yet another > voice came: " I am a cell, and you cannot do anything without me > making you do it. I can tell you to go left, and you will go left, I > have the power over you, but I have not the power over my commander. " > The molecule listens to this and thinks: " I hear a voice commanding > me, is it God? " Then the cell replies: " No, I am not God, I have my > free will, but it is limited, I am only here to do what I am meant to > do, I am a part of a human brain " . >The human brain listens to this > conversation going on and thinks " I better make my cells not listen > to that crap about free will, or they may rebell against me " , so the > brain says to the cell, " I am the commander here, I will tell you > what to do, it is my will that is the law " . Then from the depths of > exitence itself come a strange message registered in the brain as a > thought: " We are the midichlorians - may the Force be with you " . :-) Will is the capacity for volition, decision, thinking and choice, this is only possible to a ME. It is a part of what makes a ME what it is. The whole does not make itself what it IS. > > >If this is true then these > > > people would be real creators; they would be mini-gods! :-)> > > > > > > The *whole* does not create. > > > > There are many 'Gods' just as real as 'you' and 'me'. > > No-thing happening can be realized by the no-mind. What is no-mind? What is no-thing happening? > > >Then > > > people extrapolate this free will they feel they have > and 'create' > > an > > > entity called 'God'. This entity is often believed to be all > > > powerful> > > > > > > But this entity is an imagining of mind, and so too are it's > > attributes? > > When Jesus said, " I and the Father are one " , he didn't mean this as > an imagination. If I and my father are *one* then there is no I *and* my father. > > If you call God the totality then this 'God' cannot DO, think or > act. > > That's right, becuase God is all doing, all thinking, and all acting. If you define 'God' to be so, then yes. > > What is is, and nothing else is. This 'what is' is Totality. What is is what IS, without anything further limitation. If you call that 'totality' then yes. > > I use the term all-powerful God in order to point out the ridiculous > belief that a person has any power at all. A person believs himself > or herself having some power, and that makes them believe themselves > to be mini-gods with the power to alter the course of the universe. A ME willing is the altering of the course of the universe, they are the same ONE thing. The only problem as I said is when exclusion happens. > > It is not that what you call Life, 'God' / the whole doesn't *want* > > to have free will; the whole cannot *want* to have anything, nor > can > > it DO, act or think to *have* any will. > > There no one who is doing, wanting or thinking anything. All this is > just an *automatic* appearance in what is. You don't have the power > to do *anything*. Everything is 'automatic' yes, everything 'spontaneously arises' 'within' the whole. When a ME wills it uprises as an event in the unity, the functioning of the unity and will and *not two* > > You don't want to have > > > free will, you only *think* you do, until you don't anymore. :-) > > > > > > Again, it is not a matter of wanting, will is *inherent* within > each > > participating reflection, MEs are the only things that can will. > > Yes, will is there, the ego is there> Yes. >These are illusions. There is > no 'you' existing as a separate entity> The only thing that *can* will is a ME, and what makes a ME what it is is what makes a ME a *seperate* thing. 'The being of *seperate* beings is non-seperate being* ~ Chuang Tzu <No-thing is happening> Many things are happening, being done by seperate MEs. Kind Regards, Scott, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 24, 2004 Hi again, > > > In the vast ocean of existence a little wave called ME > says, " Look, > > > how independent I am, I have my own free fill, I can do things > you > > > other waves cannot " . > > > > > > What are the close similarities between a ME and an ocean wave, and > > the ocean and existence as a whole that give you the confidence to > > make such a comparison? > > > > A ME is not a wave, and existence is not an ocean. > > > > This metaphor is useful in explaining *certain* points, if used in > > other ways it can hamper understanding. > > The human mind/body mechanism is a little more elaborate wave perhaps > that a wave in an ocean, but both are just waves> 'The distance a metaphor will stretch is as far as you can make it stretch' What is lost makes the stretching meaningless. >You have to > understand the Buddhist concept of emptiness to see this (or > relational quantum physics)> Can *one*, a ME, '*understand* emptiness' using concepts e.g relational quantum physics? >There are no separate objects> There *are* seperate objects, and *being* objects are what makes them seperate. There is no seperaTION. Again 'The BEing of *seperate* beings is non-seperate being' The ME is > a concept valid just as much as the concept 'apple', yes, but we > remain caught in the world of concepts here. *Who* remains caught in the world of concepts? <Contemplate emptiness> Contemplating emptiness is a part of what makes a ME a seperate thing. 'Contemplating emptiness' binds a ME TO a ME. > > What makes a ME what it IS is what makes it a seperate thing. > > > > All metaphors are limited, they can be used to *point* to certain > > things but not as justifications for *the way things are*. > > You see, the ME has no independent existence, and something without > independent existence cannot have free will. Nothing has independent existence, everything arises spontaneously and there is no contradiction between this arising ( functioning ) and the willing of a ME, except when we exclude. Kind Regards, Scott Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 24, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > Hi again, > > > > > The whole does not *make* the universe what it is, the whole IS > > > *what* the universe IS. > > > > In the vast ocean of existence a little superstring says: " Hey, I > can > > do things, I really can! I have free will " , then a voice > > appears, " No, you cannot, I am an atom and you are in my belly, *I* > > am the one having free will " . The atom feels very confident and > sure > > about its own free will when another voice says, " I am a molecule, > it > > is I who have free will, you cannot do anything without me > dictating > > to you what to do, you are a part of me " . The atom thinks, " A > > molecule, I have not seen any molecule, I must have been > > hallucinating. " The molecule is watching the atom and thinks: " What > > if that atom in me really do have free will, then it could be the > > same with all atoms in me; they could rebell and kill me! " . While > the > > molecule was being troubled by the question of free will yet > another > > voice came: " I am a cell, and you cannot do anything without me > > making you do it. I can tell you to go left, and you will go left, > I > > have the power over you, but I have not the power over my > commander. " > > The molecule listens to this and thinks: " I hear a voice commanding > > me, is it God? " Then the cell replies: " No, I am not God, I have my > > free will, but it is limited, I am only here to do what I am meant > to > > do, I am a part of a human brain " . > >The human brain listens to this > > conversation going on and thinks " I better make my cells not listen > > to that crap about free will, or they may rebell against me " , so > the > > brain says to the cell, " I am the commander here, I will tell you > > what to do, it is my will that is the law " . Then from the depths of > > exitence itself come a strange message registered in the brain as a > > thought: " We are the midichlorians - may the Force be with you " . :-) > > > Will is the capacity for volition, decision, thinking and choice, > this is only possible to a ME. > > It is a part of what makes a ME what it is. > > The whole does not make itself what it IS. The whole *is* what is. > > > > > >If this is true then these > > > > people would be real creators; they would be mini-gods! :-)> > > > > > > > > > The *whole* does not create. > > > > > > There are many 'Gods' just as real as 'you' and 'me'. > > > > No-thing happening can be realized by the no-mind. > > > What is no-mind? > What is no-thing happening? No-mind and no-thing happening go together. First see that there cannot be any independent objects, and this means that there cannot be any objects at all. Then you will notice that awareness is a no- thing happening, and that awareness is no-mind, or what Eckhart Tolle calls 'space consciousness' as opposed to 'object consciousness'. In object consciousness, then there is a ME, a Ferrari, an apple and so on, but in space consciousness all are one. These are just two aspects of the same consciousness, but ordinary persons are caught 100% in object consciousness. > > > > > >Then > > > > people extrapolate this free will they feel they have > > and 'create' > > > an > > > > entity called 'God'. This entity is often believed to be all > > > > powerful> > > > > > > > > > But this entity is an imagining of mind, and so too are it's > > > attributes? > > > > When Jesus said, " I and the Father are one " , he didn't mean this as > > an imagination. > > > If I and my father are *one* then there is no I *and* my father. The 'I' is a wave and the 'Father' is the ocean. > > > > > > If you call God the totality then this 'God' cannot DO, think or > > act. > > > > That's right, becuase God is all doing, all thinking, and all > acting. > > > If you define 'God' to be so, then yes. > > > > > > What is is, and nothing else is. This 'what is' is Totality. > > > What is is what IS, without anything further limitation. > > If you call that 'totality' then yes. > > > > > > > I use the term all-powerful God in order to point out the > ridiculous > > belief that a person has any power at all. A person believs himself > > or herself having some power, and that makes them believe > themselves > > to be mini-gods with the power to alter the course of the universe. > > > A ME willing is the altering of the course of the universe, they are > the same ONE thing. > > The only problem as I said is when exclusion happens. Yes, this is what I believe is the meaning of Jesus saying: " Me and the Father are one " . So when a person wants to move his or her arm, for example, then there is will and motion, and it is the Totality in motion. If the movement of the arm is preordained or not we don't know, but I believe that no change is possible, so I would say that the movement of the arm was preordained. > > > > > > It is not that what you call Life, 'God' / the whole doesn't > *want* > > > to have free will; the whole cannot *want* to have anything, nor > > can > > > it DO, act or think to *have* any will. > > > > There no one who is doing, wanting or thinking anything. All this > is > > just an *automatic* appearance in what is. You don't have the power > > to do *anything*. > > > Everything is 'automatic' yes, everything 'spontaneously > arises' 'within' the whole. > > When a ME wills it uprises as an event in the unity, the functioning > of the unity and will and *not two* I believe in destiny. That whatever will happen will happen exactly that way and no one can do a single shit about it. That's my belief. I do not believe in chance. I do not believe in free will. Am I right or wrong? I don't know, but I have a strong feeling that everything is just unfolding according to a pre-arranged pattern. > > > > > > You don't want to have > > > > free will, you only *think* you do, until you don't anymore. :-) > > > > > > > > > Again, it is not a matter of wanting, will is *inherent* within > > each > > > participating reflection, MEs are the only things that can will. > > > > Yes, will is there, the ego is there> > > Yes. > > > >These are illusions. There is > > no 'you' existing as a separate entity> > > > The only thing that *can* will is a ME, and what makes a ME what it > is is what makes a ME a *seperate* thing. > > 'The being of *seperate* beings is non-seperate being* ~ Chuang Tzu > > > <No-thing is happening> > > > Many things are happening, being done by seperate MEs. When a DVD-record is being played, many things are happening in the movie, yes, but utlimately, has the DVD-record changed? /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 24, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > > > In the vast ocean of existence a little wave called ME > > says, " Look, > > > > how independent I am, I have my own free fill, I can do things > > you > > > > other waves cannot " . > > > > > > > > > What are the close similarities between a ME and an ocean wave, > and > > > the ocean and existence as a whole that give you the confidence > to > > > make such a comparison? > > > > > > A ME is not a wave, and existence is not an ocean. > > > > > > This metaphor is useful in explaining *certain* points, if used > in > > > other ways it can hamper understanding. > > > > The human mind/body mechanism is a little more elaborate wave > perhaps > > that a wave in an ocean, but both are just waves> > > > 'The distance a metaphor will stretch is as far as you can make it > stretch' > > What is lost makes the stretching meaningless. I am just saying that nothing can be *truly* separate from everything else. If something was truly separate then it would not be a part of what is. > > > >You have to > > understand the Buddhist concept of emptiness to see this (or > > relational quantum physics)> > > > Can *one*, a ME, '*understand* emptiness' using concepts e.g > relational quantum physics? Concepts are pointers. Concepts will remain on the level of concepts, but underlining concepts there is a deeper connectedness, a sense of, aha, yes, I know, I know because I am that. > > > >There are no separate objects> > > > There *are* seperate objects, and *being* objects are what makes them > seperate. > > There is no seperaTION. > > Again 'The BEing of *seperate* beings is non-seperate being' The being of separate being is non-separate being just *because* separate being is an illusion. Separate being cannot exist *without* non-separate being. It is the non-separate being that is the deeper reality, that is what this quote is pointing to. > > > The ME is > > a concept valid just as much as the concept 'apple', yes, but we > > remain caught in the world of concepts here. > > > *Who* remains caught in the world of concepts? The 'object consciousness' will remain in objects, in concepts. There is a shift that has to happen in order to go from object consciousness to space consciousness. > > > <Contemplate emptiness> > > > Contemplating emptiness is a part of what makes a ME a seperate thing. > 'Contemplating emptiness' binds a ME TO a ME. Yes, one is stuck in object consciousness, but understanding and getting a grip of the fact that objects are not everything, but rather no-things can invite 'space consciousness'. > > > > > > What makes a ME what it IS is what makes it a seperate thing. > > > > > > All metaphors are limited, they can be used to *point* to certain > > > things but not as justifications for *the way things are*. > > > > You see, the ME has no independent existence, and something without > > independent existence cannot have free will. > > > Nothing has independent existence, everything arises spontaneously > and there is no contradiction between this arising ( functioning ) > and the willing of a ME, except when we exclude. The idea of being a separate person breeds conflict. Curiosity will lead to a non-separate state of being I believe. There is no contradiction between the belief in Santa Claus and the possible fact that there is no Santa Claus. /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 24, 2004 Hi again, > > The whole does not make itself what it IS. > > The whole *is* what is. Yes. > > What is no-mind? > > What is no-thing happening? > > No-mind and no-thing happening go together. First see that there > cannot be any independent objects, and this means that there cannot > be any objects at all> There are objects. And being what they *are* is what makes them objects. >Then you will notice that awareness is a no- > thing happening, and that awareness is no-mind> Who will notice? >or what Eckhart Tolle > calls 'space consciousness' as opposed to 'object consciousness'> How many types of consciousnesses are there? In > object consciousness, then there is a ME, a Ferrari, an apple and so > on, but in space consciousness all are one> All objects are not 'one'. Oneness is not 'everything is one thing'. These are just two > aspects of the same consciousness, but ordinary persons are caught > 100% in object consciousness. What about enlightened people? > > If I and my father are *one* then there is no I *and* my father. > > The 'I' is a wave and the 'Father' is the ocean. Would you tell Jesus the same if he were here right now > > A ME willing is the altering of the course of the universe, they > are > > the same ONE thing. > > > > The only problem as I said is when exclusion happens. > > Yes, this is what I believe is the meaning of Jesus saying: " Me and > the Father are one " . So when a person wants to move his or her arm, > for example, then there is will and motion, and it is the Totality in > motion> When someone decides to move their arm or DO anything it arises in the unity as an event, the unity functions, a ME wills, these are not seperated except by a ME. If the movement of the arm is preordained or not we don't > know, but I believe that no change is possible, so I would say that > the movement of the arm was preordained. Preordained means considering time. Actions and events create time, they do not occur IN time. > > When a ME wills it uprises as an event in the unity, the > functioning > > of the unity and will and *not two* > > I believe in destiny. That whatever will happen will happen exactly > that way and no one can do a single shit about it. That's my belief. > I do not believe in chance. I do not believe in free will. Am I right > or wrong? I don't know, but I have a strong feeling that everything > is just unfolding according to a pre-arranged pattern. Ok. > > Many things are happening, being done by seperate MEs. > > When a DVD-record is being played, many things are happening in the > movie, yes, but utlimately, has the DVD-record changed? Again, metaphors are useful in describing certain things or to help understand certain aspects, but the longer distance they are stretched the more *meaning* is lost, and the bigger the extrapolation of conclusions. Metaphors cannot be used to *draw* conclusions, they can only be used to assist in understanding or to *point* in a direction of understanding. For example; To use your metaphor, what makes time change on the DVD player and how does this compare with what makes time change in the reality that it is being compared to? Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 24, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > Hi again, > > > > > The whole does not make itself what it IS. > > > > The whole *is* what is. > > Yes. > > > > > What is no-mind? > > > What is no-thing happening? > > > > No-mind and no-thing happening go together. First see that there > > cannot be any independent objects, and this means that there cannot > > be any objects at all> > > > There are objects. > And being what they *are* is what makes them objects. On the level of thinking there are objects. On a deeper level there are no objects. The deeper level is reached by the state of no-mind I suppose. > > > >Then you will notice that awareness is a no- > > thing happening, and that awareness is no-mind> > > > Who will notice? Some say: awareness being aware of itself and not just awareness being aware of 'objects'. > > > >or what Eckhart Tolle > > calls 'space consciousness' as opposed to 'object consciousness'> > > How many types of consciousnesses are there? Probably space consciousness and object consciousness, and object consciousness can be categorized into many more, but space consciousness is the 'non-dual', the unmanifested connection. > > > In > > object consciousness, then there is a ME, a Ferrari, an apple and > so > > on, but in space consciousness all are one> > > > All objects are not 'one'. > Oneness is not 'everything is one thing'. All are one does not mean all are one 'thing'. > > > These are just two > > aspects of the same consciousness, but ordinary persons are caught > > 100% in object consciousness. > > > What about enlightened people? They are aware of space consciousness. > > > > > If I and my father are *one* then there is no I *and* my father. > > > > The 'I' is a wave and the 'Father' is the ocean. > > > Would you tell Jesus the same if he were here right now Jesus as the human being has never happened. Nor has Abraham Lincoln happened. There is only now, and the now is no-thing happening. But if Jesus were here right now, I would probably not have told him anything about this stuff. Either Jesus would be one with the Father, or he would be a fake. If he was a fake, then there is no need to tell him anything. And if he was not a fake, then there would no need to tell him anything. But what I really would say I don't know. Nobody *really* knows what he or she is going to say in any given situation. Even if a person rehersed an entire speach, he or she may forget or alter some lines, other thoughts may come in e t c. And even writing a speach comes from thinking over which the person has no control over. No one has any control over his or her own thoughts and feelings. > > > > > > A ME willing is the altering of the course of the universe, they > > are > > > the same ONE thing. > > > > > > The only problem as I said is when exclusion happens. > > > > Yes, this is what I believe is the meaning of Jesus saying: " Me and > > the Father are one " . So when a person wants to move his or her arm, > > for example, then there is will and motion, and it is the Totality > in > > motion> > > > When someone decides to move their arm or DO anything it arises in > the unity as an event, the unity functions, a ME wills, these are not > seperated except by a ME. And the separation is an illusion. > > > If the movement of the arm is preordained or not we don't > > know, but I believe that no change is possible, so I would say that > > the movement of the arm was preordained. > > > Preordained means considering time. Actions and events create time, > they do not occur IN time. Can free will alter the speed of time? > > > > > > When a ME wills it uprises as an event in the unity, the > > functioning > > > of the unity and will and *not two* > > > > I believe in destiny. That whatever will happen will happen exactly > > that way and no one can do a single shit about it. That's my > belief. > > I do not believe in chance. I do not believe in free will. Am I > right > > or wrong? I don't know, but I have a strong feeling that everything > > is just unfolding according to a pre-arranged pattern. > > Ok. > > > > > Many things are happening, being done by seperate MEs. > > > > When a DVD-record is being played, many things are happening in the > > movie, yes, but utlimately, has the DVD-record changed? > > > Again, metaphors are useful in describing certain things or to help > understand certain aspects, but the longer distance they are > stretched the more *meaning* is lost, and the bigger the > extrapolation of conclusions. > > Metaphors cannot be used to *draw* conclusions, they can only be used > to assist in understanding or to *point* in a direction of > understanding. > > For example; To use your metaphor, what makes time change on the DVD > player and how does this compare with what makes time change in the > reality that it is being compared to? Yes, metaphors are pointers. That is a tool we have for pointing to oneness e t c. To use this particular metaphor on Totality, we can say that Totality can be pictured as a changeless DVD record. This changeless DVD is all-there-is. Now, how can time appear? The answer is that the DVD is self-aware, and right now this awareness observes all that is possible to observe, timelessly now. So, an infinite number of 'points' on this DVD is being observed timelessly now, and one of these points makes you experience yourself in this moment. One point experienced leads to another point which leads to another point *changelessly*. In one 'second' an infinite number of these points are experienced by you. Similarly, I experience an infinite number of different points in one 'second', but it is the same DVD being timelessly observed. So the material universe has absolutely no reality of its own, it is a 'virtual' reality or Maya, the DVD has no size, substance or form, and the substance of the material universe is just a 3D 'projection' a la the Matrix movie, only this projection is reality, and not some fear-based construct made by evil machines. So there is no cause and effect in this model other than the cause and effect being there already timelessly in the 'DVD', and no time flowing, other than timeless chains of points being experienced in the now. Do I believe in this model? Yes, or some variant of it, like Julian Barbour's Platonia. But that is only a belief, I know, and that may change. But it will be interesting to see if more scientists will begin to look at the possibility of existence being timeless. /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 24, 2004 Hi again, > > There are objects. > > And being what they *are* is what makes them objects. > > On the level of thinking there are objects. On a deeper level there > are no objects. The deeper level is reached by the state of no-mind I > suppose. At the level of objects there are objects because being as such is what makes them what they are, at 'another level' it is meaningless to talk of objects because an apple is no longer an apple. These levels exist *simultaneously* Have you heard the Zen saying; First mountains are mountains, then mountains cease to be mountains and then mountains are once again mountains. > > Who will notice? > > Some say: awareness being aware of itself and not just awareness > being aware of 'objects'. Is awareness ever not aware? > > How many types of consciousnesses are there? > > Probably space consciousness and object consciousness, and object > consciousness can be categorized into many more, but space > consciousness is the 'non-dual', the unmanifested connection. What is it that divides consciousness into space and object consciousness? > > All objects are not 'one'. > > Oneness is not 'everything is one thing'. > > All are one does not mean all are one 'thing'. Yes. >>What about enlightened people? > They are aware of space consciousness. Who is enlightened? > > > The 'I' is a wave and the 'Father' is the ocean. > > > > > > Would you tell Jesus the same if he were here right now > > Jesus as the human being has never happened> There is quite some debate as to whether Jesus was a true historical figure, if you read material by Gerald Massey he presents interesting facts comparing the historical Jesus and the mythical Christ. Almost certainly some aspects of Jesus's life have stemmed from Egyptian or earlier mythology. Nor has Abraham Lincoln > happened> Abraham Lincoln was a true historical figure. >There is only now, and the now is no-thing happening> Yes, there is only now, and NOW is not a 'thing' if that is what you mean. But > if Jesus were here right now, I would probably not have told him > anything about this stuff> Ok. Would be interesting though wouldn't it if he could join in Either Jesus would be one with the Father, > or he would be a fake. If he was a fake, then there is no need to > tell him anything. And if he was not a fake, then there would no need > to tell him anything> It took a ME to say 'I and my father are one' <No one has any control over his or her own thoughts > and feelings> We do have control over our thoughts and feelings, it is a part of what makes a ME what it is. > > When someone decides to move their arm or DO anything it arises in > > the unity as an event, the unity functions, a ME wills, these are > not > > seperated except by a ME. > > And the separation is an illusion. They are not 2 TO be seperate, they are one thing that gets divided into two and then one choice selected to the *exclusion* of the other. > > If the movement of the arm is preordained or not we don't > > > know, but I believe that no change is possible, so I would say > that > > > the movement of the arm was preordained. > > > > > > Preordained means considering time. Actions and events create time, > > they do not occur IN time. > > Can free will alter the speed of time? What is the speed of time now? This > changeless DVD is all-there-is. Now, how can time appear? The answer > is that the DVD is self-aware, and right now this awareness observes > all that is possible to observe, timelessly now> Are you saying that awareness creates time? >So, an infinite > number of 'points' on this DVD is being observed timelessly now, and > one of these points makes you experience yourself in this moment> Are you and me observation points? >One > point experienced leads to another point which leads to another point > *changelessly*> What are points and how does one point lead to another? In one 'second' an infinite number of these points > are experienced by you. Similarly, I experience an infinite number of > different points in one 'second'> Time is not a quantative thing that events can occur IN, it is not an 'available resource' in which things can happen. So the material universe has absolutely no > reality of its own, Yes, no-thing has any independent existence. > So there is no cause and effect in this model other than the cause > and effect being there already timelessly in the 'DVD', and no time > flowing, other than timeless chains of points being experienced in > the now> What are these 'timeless chains of points'? Cause and effect and any events and happenings that arise are time, there is no time without phenomenal change. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 24, 2004 Hi again, > I am just saying that nothing can be *truly* separate from everything > else. If something was truly separate then it would not be a part of > what is. Yes. > > Can *one*, a ME, '*understand* emptiness' using concepts e.g > > relational quantum physics? > > Concepts are pointers. Concepts will remain on the level of concepts, > but underlining concepts there is a deeper connectedness, a sense of, > aha, yes, I know, I know because I am that. This 'deeper connectedness' is itself a concept of belief in what is expected will or can happen. > > Again 'The BEing of *seperate* beings is non-seperate being' > > The being of separate being is non-separate being just *because* > separate being is an illusion> *Seperate* beings is not an illusion. Separate being cannot exist *without* > non-separate being> Yes. It is the non-separate being that is the deeper > reality, that is what this quote is pointing to. Compare with this from the Avadhuta Gita; 'How shall I salute the formless Being, indivisible, auspicious and immutable, who fills all this with His self and also fills the self with His self?' > > *Who* remains caught in the world of concepts? > > The 'object consciousness' will remain in objects, in concepts. There > is a shift that has to happen in order to go from object > consciousness to space consciousness. What 'object consciousness'? Object consciousness is another unicorn as is the shift from it. > > Contemplating emptiness is a part of what makes a ME a seperate > thing. > > 'Contemplating emptiness' binds a ME TO a ME. > > Yes, one is stuck in object consciousness, but understanding and > getting a grip of the fact that objects are not everything, but > rather no-things can invite 'space consciousness'. This is a conceptualization about what a ME thinks is A or THE process of what will happen to *them* > > Nothing has independent existence, everything arises spontaneously > > and there is no contradiction between this arising ( functioning ) > > and the willing of a ME, except when we exclude. > > The idea of being a separate person breeds conflict> Why? > *necessarily* should this be so? >Curiosity will > lead to a non-separate state of being I believe> If a ME is curious a ME is bound. > There is no contradiction between the belief in Santa Claus and the > possible fact that there is no Santa Claus. Contradiction cannot occurr with 'possible facts'. A belief in Santa Claus can only be contradictory if the 'possible fact' is known, only then can a contradiction be shown. i.e that Santa Claus is not real *yet* someone believes that he is. The contradiction I mentioned had not to do with belief, or whether something existed or didnft exist. The contradiction arises with attributing causation *exclusively* to either the whole as functioning or *exclusively* to a ME willing. Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 24, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > > Hi again, > > > > There are objects. > > > And being what they *are* is what makes them objects. > > > > On the level of thinking there are objects. On a deeper level there > > are no objects. The deeper level is reached by the state of no- mind > I > > suppose. > > At the level of objects there are objects because being as such is > what makes them what they are, at 'another level' it is meaningless > to talk of objects because an apple is no longer an apple. > These levels exist *simultaneously* > > Have you heard the Zen saying; > > First mountains are mountains, then mountains cease to be mountains > and then mountains are once again mountains. Yes, I believe this statement is about going from seeing everything as objects (without oneness) then to see everything as no objects then to everything as objects (within oneness). > > > > > Who will notice? > > > > Some say: awareness being aware of itself and not just awareness > > being aware of 'objects'. > > > Is awareness ever not aware? Awareness is aware of different levels of being, but only when it becomes aware of itself it can know itself directly. > > > > > How many types of consciousnesses are there? > > > > Probably space consciousness and object consciousness, and object > > consciousness can be categorized into many more, but space > > consciousness is the 'non-dual', the unmanifested connection. > > > What is it that divides consciousness into space and object > consciousness? It is the filtering, the narrowing down of the view that makes consciousness experience divisions and these divisions form the relative structure of objects. Consciousness unfiltered is space consciousness. > > > > > > All objects are not 'one'. > > > Oneness is not 'everything is one thing'. > > > > All are one does not mean all are one 'thing'. > > Yes. > > > >>What about enlightened people? > > > They are aware of space consciousness. > > > Who is enlightened? It is consciousness itself that comes back into its total perspective and not just the narrow and filtered consciousness as a person. > > > > > > > The 'I' is a wave and the 'Father' is the ocean. > > > > > > > > > Would you tell Jesus the same if he were here right now > > > > Jesus as the human being has never happened> > > There is quite some debate as to whether Jesus was a true historical > figure, if you read material by Gerald Massey he presents interesting > facts comparing the historical Jesus and the mythical Christ. Almost > certainly some aspects of Jesus's life have stemmed from Egyptian or > earlier mythology. > > > Nor has Abraham Lincoln > > happened> > > > Abraham Lincoln was a true historical figure. Yes, there is a difference between Abraham Lincoln and for example Santa Claus. On the level of 'things' Abe was a real person and Santa a fictional person. But I am talking about the possibility of _all_ objects being Maya in the form of a 3D projection happening now and _only_ now, so that there in fact never has been any Abraham Lincoln being a conscious being. How can Abraham Lincoln be conscious if he is *dead*? I am saying that there never has been a past, that the past is 'created' now, only now. How can Abraham Lincoln be a conscious person if now is the only 'time' he has existed? > > > >There is only now, and the now is no-thing happening> > > Yes, there is only now, and NOW is not a 'thing' if that is what you > mean. Yes, I mean that the now is not a thing and the 'things' in the now are only Maya having no substance. Just like in a dream, a stone can feel solid, but is it? The stone in the dream is 'made' of only thoughts, images and feelings. Similarly, the real world has no substance. What is substance? We can say that the stone in the dream is an object, but it is just a thought pattern. Similarly, the whole world nay 'only' be a thought pattern. > > > But > > if Jesus were here right now, I would probably not have told him > > anything about this stuff> > > Ok. > Would be interesting though wouldn't it if he could join in Yes, it would be interesting to heat his comments on the world situation today. :-) > > > Either Jesus would be one with the Father, > > or he would be a fake. If he was a fake, then there is no need to > > tell him anything. And if he was not a fake, then there would no > need > > to tell him anything> > > > It took a ME to say 'I and my father are one' Yes, Jesus was a person, but he was enlightened so the One Consciousness flowed freely from 'him'. > > > <No one has any control over his or her own thoughts > > and feelings> > > > We do have control over our thoughts and feelings, it is a part of > what makes a ME what it is. Hehe. Good luck with your control. > > > > > When someone decides to move their arm or DO anything it arises > in > > > the unity as an event, the unity functions, a ME wills, these are > > not > > > seperated except by a ME. > > > > And the separation is an illusion. > > > They are not 2 TO be seperate, they are one thing that gets divided > into two and then one choice selected to the *exclusion* of the other. Even the divison is an illusion. > > > > > > If the movement of the arm is preordained or not we don't > > > > know, but I believe that no change is possible, so I would say > > that > > > > the movement of the arm was preordained. > > > > > > > > > Preordained means considering time. Actions and events create > time, > > > they do not occur IN time. > > > > Can free will alter the speed of time? > > > What is the speed of time now? Ask the people at Greenwich, and ask if they can speed up time by using personal free will. Can material stuff be transported in different speeds than regulated by physical laws? If no, then what then can free will do? According to me the speed of time is infinite, there are and infinite number of 'points' of Totality experienced by a person every 'second'. > > > This > > changeless DVD is all-there-is. Now, how can time appear? The > answer > > is that the DVD is self-aware, and right now this awareness > observes > > all that is possible to observe, timelessly now> > > > Are you saying that awareness creates time? Not creates. Awareness is. The DVD is. They are not two. Nothing is being created. > > > >So, an infinite > > number of 'points' on this DVD is being observed timelessly now, > and > > one of these points makes you experience yourself in this moment> > > > Are you and me observation points? Yes! Think of your Self as pure consciousness and that this is all there is. This consciousness is aware of itself in every possible configuration of itself. So the Self is the All timelessly aware of itself as the All. The ultimately boring state. Fortenately, the All being aware of the All will lead to no experience, so nobody can experience this boring state. It is only when this total awareness is focused on a subset of all configuration that any experience can happen. So instead of a point, we might say subset. You and me are subsets in the All. But not a real subset, because a real subset contains discrete elements, and we cannot have real discrete elements in existence. Something discrete means separate, and if an element was really separate it would have no relation to anything else, and would thus not be a part of the All. The All is an interconncted wholeness. So I use the picture of a point instead, because a point is not a separate element, a point is a no-thing. > > > >One > > point experienced leads to another point which leads to another > point > > *changelessly*> > > > What are points and how does one point lead to another? We can use the concept wave function instead of point, and this wave function is in such way that it contains the entire history track for any individual entity. So the wave function is what a person is and these wave functions are happening now. We can say that a wave function contains an infinite number of 'points' in time and also contain the order in which these points happen. A wave function is a stupefyingly complex 'thing' because they do not only contain the information about a person, but also information about the entire universe experienced by this person, down to every single particle. But a wave function is not a thing, it is rather a no-thing. We are no-things happening now. > > > > In one 'second' an infinite number of these points > > are experienced by you. Similarly, I experience an infinite number > of > > different points in one 'second'> > > > Time is not a quantative thing that events can occur IN, it is not > an 'available resource' in which things can happen. That's correct. There is only now. It is the appearance of time passing I am talking about. > > > > So the material universe has absolutely no > > reality of its own, > > Yes, no-thing has any independent existence. > > > > So there is no cause and effect in this model other than the cause > > and effect being there already timelessly in the 'DVD', and no time > > flowing, other than timeless chains of points being experienced in > > the now> > > > What are these 'timeless chains of points'? > > Cause and effect and any events and happenings that arise are time, > there is no time without phenomenal change. What I described above as wave functions can be called timeless chains of points. These wave functions are already complete and they contain all cause and effect, and all temporal ordering needed in order to make the universe 'happen'. Think of a wave function as a single event happening now: BANG! A single wave function (a no-thing) 'creates' you as you experience yourself now *and* the entire universe around you *and* the start of the Big Bang. The wave function explodes into infinity. I have one wave function and you have another. But we are not these wave functions, we are timeless awareness experiencing these wave functions happening now. But a wave function is not a thing, so we can instead say that we are timeless awareness from unique points of views being experienced now. Or, we can say: All there is is consciousness. /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 24, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Scott Andersen " <sga_email> wrote: > Hi again, > > > > I am just saying that nothing can be *truly* separate from > everything > > else. If something was truly separate then it would not be a part > of > > what is. > > > Yes. > > > > > > Can *one*, a ME, '*understand* emptiness' using concepts e.g > > > relational quantum physics? > > > > Concepts are pointers. Concepts will remain on the level of > concepts, > > but underlining concepts there is a deeper connectedness, a sense > of, > > aha, yes, I know, I know because I am that. > > > This 'deeper connectedness' is itself a concept of belief in what is > expected will or can happen. Yes, I have only the spiritual teachers and teachings words about this. > > > > > > Again 'The BEing of *seperate* beings is non-seperate being' > > > > The being of separate being is non-separate being just *because* > > separate being is an illusion> > > > *Seperate* beings is not an illusion. > > > Separate being cannot exist *without* > > non-separate being> > > > Yes. > > > It is the non-separate being that is the deeper > > reality, that is what this quote is pointing to. > > > Compare with this from the Avadhuta Gita; > > 'How shall I salute the formless Being, indivisible, auspicious and > immutable, who fills all this with His self and also fills the self > with His self?' The formless Being is what *is*, the manifested world is an differentiated view of this indivisible Being. There is no real division. > > > > > > *Who* remains caught in the world of concepts? > > > > The 'object consciousness' will remain in objects, in concepts. > There > > is a shift that has to happen in order to go from object > > consciousness to space consciousness. > > > What 'object consciousness'? > Object consciousness is another unicorn as is the shift from it. The state where awareness is aware only of 'things' can be called object consciousness. This is the ordinary state of a human being. Trapped in a cage of 'things'. > > > > > > Contemplating emptiness is a part of what makes a ME a seperate > > thing. > > > 'Contemplating emptiness' binds a ME TO a ME. > > > > Yes, one is stuck in object consciousness, but understanding and > > getting a grip of the fact that objects are not everything, but > > rather no-things can invite 'space consciousness'. > > > This is a conceptualization about what a ME thinks is A or THE > process of what will happen to *them* These are my speculations yes. > > > > > > Nothing has independent existence, everything arises > spontaneously > > > and there is no contradiction between this arising ( > functioning ) > > > and the willing of a ME, except when we exclude. > > > > The idea of being a separate person breeds conflict> > > > Why? > *necessarily* should this be so? A limited mind cannot be entirely in synch with another limited mind. But this limitation is only the illusion called the ego I think. > > > > >Curiosity will > > lead to a non-separate state of being I believe> > > > If a ME is curious a ME is bound. Curiosity will help the process of removing the ego. > > > > There is no contradiction between the belief in Santa Claus and the > > possible fact that there is no Santa Claus. > > > Contradiction cannot occurr with 'possible facts'. > > A belief in Santa Claus can only be contradictory if the 'possible > fact' is known, only then can a contradiction be shown. i.e that > Santa Claus is not real *yet* someone believes that he is. > > The contradiction I mentioned had not to do with belief, or whether > something existed or didnft exist. > > The contradiction arises with attributing causation *exclusively* to > either the whole as functioning or *exclusively* to a ME willing. Causation is changeless. So there is no one who can do anything. Everything is already written in the stars, so to speak. /AL > > > Kind Regards, > > Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted July 26, 2004 Hi again, > > 'How shall I salute the formless Being, indivisible, auspicious and > > immutable, who fills all this with His self and also fills the self > > with His self?' > > The formless Being is what *is*, the manifested world is an > differentiated view of this indivisible Being. There is no real > division. This is not the revelation of the statement. *Imagine that GOD as a person is the one saying the statement* > > What 'object consciousness'? > > Object consciousness is another unicorn as is the shift from it. > > The state where awareness is aware only of 'things' can be called > object consciousness. How many states of awareness are there? >This is the ordinary state of a human being> What about enlightened human beings? > Trapped in a cage of 'things'> That human being is a 'thing' itself. > > The idea of being a separate person breeds conflict> > > Why? > *necessarily* should this be so? > A limited mind cannot be entirely in synch with another limited mind.> How many minds are there? The idea that conflict follows necessarily with seperate beings is only a belief held, saying that 'two limited minds cannot be in sync' is a way of explaining this *belief*. The mind goes out on a limb initially to state a belief then *further* out along the branch to explain ideas which support why the belief is held or how that belief can be explained ( using other beliefs ). > But this limitation is only the illusion called the ego I think. Could thinking ( any thinking at all ) also be a limitation, and trying to explain self-generated beliefs even more so? Any thinking binds a ME. > > >Curiosity will > > > lead to a non-separate state of being I believe> > > > > > > If a ME is curious a ME is bound. > Curiosity will help the process of removing the ego> The ego cannot be removed, nor is there a '*need*' to remove it. The ego needs to be '*accepted*'. > Causation is changeless> Causation cannot be seperated from the change happening. <So there is no one who can do anything.> DOers, seperate beings, are the only things capable of doing, God doesn't DO. > Everything is already written in the stars, so to speak. Do you mean pre-destined? Kind Regards, Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
