Guest guest Posted February 19, 2005 Report Share Posted February 19, 2005 A common view of free will is that " I " have free will, therefore I am in control. Another view is " I " have no free will, the universe is unfolding by itself and I have no power at all. For will to become truly free, these both views have to become reconciled. First of all, who is this " I " who has free will or has no free will? Isn't this " I " a part of what is? Isn't this " I " the _same_ as what is? If the duality split between " I " and " the world " is healed and integrated into a larger understanding, then " who " is having free will? Can a fragment do anything, or is it powerless? Can a fragment _not_ do anything? The idea of not doing is as false as the idea of doing when it comes to the manequin view of individual free will. What is it to be an individual? The true meaning of the word, according to J. Krishnamurti, is to be whole, not split. To be choiceless is to have freedom. But if that choicelessness is based on the idea of an " I " being choiceless, then we are back into a manequin view of reality. The true nature of choicelessness is from a personal point of view full choicefullness. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2005 Report Share Posted February 19, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > A common view of free will is that " I " have free will, therefore I am > in control. Another view is " I " have no free will, the universe is > unfolding by itself and I have no power at all. For will to become > truly free, these both views have to become reconciled. > > First of all, who is this " I " who has free will or has no free will? > Isn't this " I " a part of what is? > the usual human " I " is animal, and therefore obviously has limited free will. It is driven by memory and instincts. > Isn't this " I " the _same_ as what is? If the duality split between " I " > and " the world " is healed and integrated into a larger understanding, the human animal ego is based on fear. eat or be eaten. what differentiates humans from animals? the potential for compassion. what differentiates buddhas from humans? actualization of compassion and awareness, that's all. > then " who " is having free will? Can a fragment do anything, or is it > powerless? Can a fragment _not_ do anything? The idea of not doing is > as false as the idea of doing when it comes to the manequin view of > individual free will. > only the buddhas have free will. others are trapped within the mechanical brain-mind. > What is it to be an individual? The true meaning of the word, > according to J. Krishnamurti, is to be whole, not split. To be > choiceless is to have freedom. But if that choicelessness is based on freedom is not choicelessness. freedom is living with awareness, skill and compassion. in real life we have to make choices, whether we are animals or buddhas. anyone who aims for choicelessness has fantasies of truth being some sort of spaced out state. > the idea of an " I " being choiceless, then we are back into a manequin > view of reality. The true nature of choicelessness is from a personal > point of view full choicefullness. > too much has been said on these matters in the past. less needs to be said and more experienced. what we are looking for is _much_ simpler than all these fancy treatises. it cares nothing for these theories. it is pure love. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 Nisargadatta , " hemantbhai100 " <hemantbhai100@h...> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > A common view of free will is that " I " have free will, therefore I > am > > in control. Another view is " I " have no free will, the universe is > > unfolding by itself and I have no power at all. For will to become > > truly free, these both views have to become reconciled. > > > > First of all, who is this " I " who has free will or has no free > will? > > Isn't this " I " a part of what is? > > > > the usual human " I " is animal, and therefore obviously has limited > free will. It is driven by memory and instincts. > > > Isn't this " I " the _same_ as what is? If the duality split > between " I " > > and " the world " is healed and integrated into a larger > understanding, > > the human animal ego is based on fear. eat or be eaten. what > differentiates humans from animals? the potential for compassion. > what differentiates buddhas from humans? actualization of compassion > and awareness, that's all. > > > then " who " is having free will? Can a fragment do anything, or is > it > > powerless? Can a fragment _not_ do anything? The idea of not doing > is > > as false as the idea of doing when it comes to the manequin view of > > individual free will. > > > > only the buddhas have free will. others are trapped within the > mechanical brain-mind. > > > What is it to be an individual? The true meaning of the word, > > according to J. Krishnamurti, is to be whole, not split. To be > > choiceless is to have freedom. But if that choicelessness is based > on > > freedom is not choicelessness. freedom is living with awareness, > skill and compassion. in real life we have to make choices, whether > we are animals or buddhas. anyone who aims for choicelessness has > fantasies of truth being some sort of spaced out state. > > > the idea of an " I " being choiceless, then we are back into a > manequin > > view of reality. The true nature of choicelessness is from a > personal > > point of view full choicefullness. > > > > too much has been said on these matters in the past. less needs to > be said and more experienced. what we are looking for is _much_ > simpler than all these fancy treatises. it cares nothing for these > theories. it is pure love. Maybe there can be choices made by the self and choices made by the Self. The difference would then be that the self is only an idea in the Self. The self can be removed, but not the Self. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " hemantbhai100 " > <hemantbhai100@h...> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > A common view of free will is that " I " have free will, therefore I > > am > > > in control. Another view is " I " have no free will, the universe is > > > unfolding by itself and I have no power at all. For will to become > > > truly free, these both views have to become reconciled. > > > > > > First of all, who is this " I " who has free will or has no free > > will? > > > Isn't this " I " a part of what is? > > > > > > > the usual human " I " is animal, and therefore obviously has limited > > free will. It is driven by memory and instincts. > > > > > Isn't this " I " the _same_ as what is? If the duality split > > between " I " > > > and " the world " is healed and integrated into a larger > > understanding, > > > > the human animal ego is based on fear. eat or be eaten. what > > differentiates humans from animals? the potential for compassion. > > what differentiates buddhas from humans? actualization of compassion > > and awareness, that's all. > > > > > then " who " is having free will? Can a fragment do anything, or is > > it > > > powerless? Can a fragment _not_ do anything? The idea of not doing > > is > > > as false as the idea of doing when it comes to the manequin view of > > > individual free will. > > > > > > > only the buddhas have free will. others are trapped within the > > mechanical brain-mind. > > > > > What is it to be an individual? The true meaning of the word, > > > according to J. Krishnamurti, is to be whole, not split. To be > > > choiceless is to have freedom. But if that choicelessness is based > > on > > > > freedom is not choicelessness. freedom is living with awareness, > > skill and compassion. in real life we have to make choices, whether > > we are animals or buddhas. anyone who aims for choicelessness has > > fantasies of truth being some sort of spaced out state. > > > > > the idea of an " I " being choiceless, then we are back into a > > manequin > > > view of reality. The true nature of choicelessness is from a > > personal > > > point of view full choicefullness. > > > > > > > too much has been said on these matters in the past. less needs to > > be said and more experienced. what we are looking for is _much_ > > simpler than all these fancy treatises. it cares nothing for these > > theories. it is pure love. > > Maybe there can be choices made by the self and choices made by the > Self. The difference would then be that the self is only an idea in > the Self. The self can be removed, but not the Self. > there is no contradiction between the ego and the Self. The ego is just another mode of the Self, although one which causes endless suffering. The ego is an important part of our evolution. the ego is the egg from which the buddha emerges. eventually the egg-shell will be discarded, but we should not forget the ego was the embryo from which the Self could emerge. a healthy environment for the ego is essential for a healthy buddha to emerge. Some of the patients in the asylums know the Self.. but their ego has become disoriented by the experience (or other experiences, genetics, whatever). you cannot survive in modern world without (atleast maintaining the facade of) an ego. our entire civilization, legal, religious and social structures are based on an individual which is unchanging. mess with that and they'll lock you up. Self or no-self, power flows from the barrel of a gun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 Nisargadatta , " hemantbhai100 " <hemantbhai100@h...> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " hemantbhai100 " > > <hemantbhai100@h...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > A common view of free will is that " I " have free will, therefore I > > > am > > > > in control. Another view is " I " have no free will, the universe is > > > > unfolding by itself and I have no power at all. For will to become > > > > truly free, these both views have to become reconciled. > > > > > > > > First of all, who is this " I " who has free will or has no free > > > will? > > > > Isn't this " I " a part of what is? > > > > > > > > > > the usual human " I " is animal, and therefore obviously has limited > > > free will. It is driven by memory and instincts. > > > > > > > Isn't this " I " the _same_ as what is? If the duality split > > > between " I " > > > > and " the world " is healed and integrated into a larger > > > understanding, > > > > > > the human animal ego is based on fear. eat or be eaten. what > > > differentiates humans from animals? the potential for compassion. > > > what differentiates buddhas from humans? actualization of compassion > > > and awareness, that's all. > > > > > > > then " who " is having free will? Can a fragment do anything, or is > > > it > > > > powerless? Can a fragment _not_ do anything? The idea of not doing > > > is > > > > as false as the idea of doing when it comes to the manequin view of > > > > individual free will. > > > > > > > > > > only the buddhas have free will. others are trapped within the > > > mechanical brain-mind. > > > > > > > What is it to be an individual? The true meaning of the word, > > > > according to J. Krishnamurti, is to be whole, not split. To be > > > > choiceless is to have freedom. But if that choicelessness is based > > > on > > > > > > freedom is not choicelessness. freedom is living with awareness, > > > skill and compassion. in real life we have to make choices, whether > > > we are animals or buddhas. anyone who aims for choicelessness has > > > fantasies of truth being some sort of spaced out state. > > > > > > > the idea of an " I " being choiceless, then we are back into a > > > manequin > > > > view of reality. The true nature of choicelessness is from a > > > personal > > > > point of view full choicefullness. > > > > > > > > > > too much has been said on these matters in the past. less needs to > > > be said and more experienced. what we are looking for is _much_ > > > simpler than all these fancy treatises. it cares nothing for these > > > theories. it is pure love. > > > > Maybe there can be choices made by the self and choices made by the > > Self. The difference would then be that the self is only an idea in > > the Self. The self can be removed, but not the Self. > > > > there is no contradiction between the ego and the Self. The ego is > just another mode of the Self, although one which causes endless > suffering. The ego is an important part of our evolution. the ego is > the egg from which the buddha emerges. > > eventually the egg-shell will be discarded, but we should not forget > the ego was the embryo from which the Self could emerge. a healthy > environment for the ego is essential for a healthy buddha to emerge. > > Some of the patients in the asylums know the Self.. but their ego has > become disoriented by the experience (or other experiences, genetics, > whatever). you cannot survive in modern world without (atleast > maintaining the facade of) an ego. our entire civilization, legal, > religious and social structures are based on an individual which is > unchanging. > > mess with that and they'll lock you up. Self or no-self, power flows > from the barrel of a gun. Yes, the ego as a shell is also what I believe it is. It will be interesting to see if this is true and if I and other people will break out of the shell. Some people (spiritual teachers) today seem to have already broken out of the shell. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2005 Report Share Posted February 24, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > there is no contradiction between the ego and the Self. The ego is > > just another mode of the Self, although one which causes endless > > suffering. The ego is an important part of our evolution. the ego is > > the egg from which the buddha emerges. > > > > eventually the egg-shell will be discarded, but we should not forget > > the ego was the embryo from which the Self could emerge. a healthy > > environment for the ego is essential for a healthy buddha to emerge. > > > > Some of the patients in the asylums know the Self.. but their ego has > > become disoriented by the experience (or other experiences, genetics, > > whatever). you cannot survive in modern world without (atleast > > maintaining the facade of) an ego. our entire civilization, legal, > > religious and social structures are based on an individual which is > > unchanging. > > > > mess with that and they'll lock you up. Self or no-self, power flows > > from the barrel of a gun. > > Yes, the ego as a shell is also what I believe it is. It will be > interesting to see if this is true and if I and other people will > break out of the shell. Some people (spiritual teachers) today seem to > have already broken out of the shell. > " breaking " the shell is not the best word - the effort and violence seem reminscent of the ego. actually the ego just withers once the seeker starts noticing her own emotional dramas and vanities. it does involve conscious decision from the individual (the free will) to be aware of the present. while finding the self seems straightforward enough, keeping that ego from arising again and again is a most difficult task. i doubt if many of the teachers who proclaim to be self-realized are actually in that state 24 hours. or maybe they are - who knows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 Nisargadatta , " hemantbhai100 " <hemantbhai100@h...> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > there is no contradiction between the ego and the Self. The ego is > > > just another mode of the Self, although one which causes endless > > > suffering. The ego is an important part of our evolution. the ego is > > > the egg from which the buddha emerges. > > > > > > eventually the egg-shell will be discarded, but we should not forget > > > the ego was the embryo from which the Self could emerge. a healthy > > > environment for the ego is essential for a healthy buddha to emerge. > > > > > > Some of the patients in the asylums know the Self.. but their ego has > > > become disoriented by the experience (or other experiences, genetics, > > > whatever). you cannot survive in modern world without (atleast > > > maintaining the facade of) an ego. our entire civilization, legal, > > > religious and social structures are based on an individual which is > > > unchanging. > > > > > > mess with that and they'll lock you up. Self or no-self, power flows > > > from the barrel of a gun. > > > > Yes, the ego as a shell is also what I believe it is. It will be > > interesting to see if this is true and if I and other people will > > break out of the shell. Some people (spiritual teachers) today seem to > > have already broken out of the shell. > > > " breaking " the shell is not the best word - the effort and violence > seem reminscent of the ego. actually the ego just withers once the > seeker starts noticing her own emotional dramas and vanities. it does > involve conscious decision from the individual (the free will) to be > aware of the present. > > while finding the self seems straightforward enough, keeping that ego > from arising again and again is a most difficult task. i doubt if many > of the teachers who proclaim to be self-realized are actually in that > state 24 hours. or maybe they are - who knows. Maybe there will be a struggle until one breaks free. Then ahhh, so nice! How light and lovely my perceptions and now I can walk as floating two inches above ground. But until then: oooh! ouch! such pain! such suffering suffocating emotions.........such fear.......hatred.........loath.......such physical nastiness to be trapped in. Infinite difficulty. Only infinite intelligence can blaze through such nightmare of sheer suffering I think. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > " breaking " the shell is not the best word - the effort and violence > > seem reminscent of the ego. actually the ego just withers once the > > seeker starts noticing her own emotional dramas and vanities. it does > > involve conscious decision from the individual (the free will) to be > > aware of the present. > > > > while finding the self seems straightforward enough, keeping that ego > > from arising again and again is a most difficult task. i doubt if many > > of the teachers who proclaim to be self-realized are actually in that > > state 24 hours. or maybe they are - who knows. > > Maybe there will be a struggle until one breaks free. Then ahhh, so > nice! How light and lovely my perceptions and now I can walk as > floating two inches above ground. But until then: oooh! ouch! such > pain! such suffering suffocating emotions.........such > fear.......hatred.........loath.......such physical nastiness to be > trapped in. Infinite difficulty. Only infinite intelligence can blaze > through such nightmare of sheer suffering I think. > actually nothing really changes. all these fantasies of being bathed in white light are just that - an escape drummed up by the ego. we suffer and to escape from it we conjure these spaced out fantasies. now what could " infinite intelligence " possibly mean? a trillion cpus? all that you need you already have. there may be a mind trillion times more powerful than us - who knows - more importantly will that mind fix your problem? the fact you are asking the right questions is an indication of the fire inside. this fire will burn your misconceptions. it is the sacrifice you have to make. the reason we need a guru is not because it is so difficult. it is because it is so simple we have trouble believing it is what we are looking for. and then there are these fairy tales of spaced out consciousness. these were a by-product of artificial breathing practices and other high energy prana manipulations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 Nisargadatta , " hemantbhai100 " <hemantbhai100@h...> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > " breaking " the shell is not the best word - the effort and violence > > > seem reminscent of the ego. actually the ego just withers once the > > > seeker starts noticing her own emotional dramas and vanities. it does > > > involve conscious decision from the individual (the free will) to be > > > aware of the present. > > > > > > while finding the self seems straightforward enough, keeping that ego > > > from arising again and again is a most difficult task. i doubt if many > > > of the teachers who proclaim to be self-realized are actually in that > > > state 24 hours. or maybe they are - who knows. > > > > Maybe there will be a struggle until one breaks free. Then ahhh, so > > nice! How light and lovely my perceptions and now I can walk as > > floating two inches above ground. But until then: oooh! ouch! such > > pain! such suffering suffocating emotions.........such > > fear.......hatred.........loath.......such physical nastiness to be > > trapped in. Infinite difficulty. Only infinite intelligence can blaze > > through such nightmare of sheer suffering I think. > > > actually nothing really changes. all these fantasies of being bathed > in white light are just that - an escape drummed up by the ego. we > suffer and to escape from it we conjure these spaced out fantasies. > > now what could " infinite intelligence " possibly mean? a trillion cpus? > all that you need you already have. there may be a mind trillion times > more powerful than us - who knows - more importantly will that mind > fix your problem? the fact you are asking the right questions is an > indication of the fire inside. this fire will burn your > misconceptions. it is the sacrifice you have to make. > > the reason we need a guru is not because it is so difficult. it is > because it is so simple we have trouble believing it is what we are > looking for. and then there are these fairy tales of spaced out > consciousness. these were a by-product of artificial breathing > practices and other high energy prana manipulations. Not a trillion cpus, but trillion cpus per square picometer of clear space. Nay, an infinite number of universes per cubic femtometer of sheer quantum foam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.