Illusion of free-will?

[joedirt]

Half the population dieing off would not benefit the species. It would only be a temporary solution unless certain lessons were learned after the mass suicide/genocide/plague/starvation. I think that learning to share apples throughout the world would indicate a shift in attitudes that were more beneficial to our longevity.

First off all solutions are temporary depending upon the time scale with which one chooses to view them. One could make the argument that all attempts to save the planet are futile and in the REALLY long term they would be absolutely correct.

Just out of curiosity do you think the current growth of our species is sustainable to the planet?

It seems completely obvious to me that anyone up on current environmental disasters could easily understand how halving the human population would be an immense boon to life on the planet and thus our species by extension in a given time frame.

We are in fact not separate from the environment anymore than our consciousness is separate from the universe at large...and like it or not you are in fact nothing more, and nothing less than the entire universe looking at itself and that statement is based on science...and folks like Neil DeGrass Tyson agree with me. He uses his words I use mine. The entire universe is literally responsible for you. You simply can not exist without the entire whole...Every atom of your body contains the entire universe just as the entire universe contains every atom in your body.

You ARE the universe and the universe is you and YES the universe is in fact conscious through you.. and that my friend is one of the most beautiful things I have ever woken up to and I sincerely hope that you are able to wake up to this realization at some point as well. But alas you have to walk your path and your journey is your own. No amount of me asserting it in this thread will make you or others see it.. and in fact if I continue to do it you will likely dig your heels in on the issue even further...and I truly don't want that because as I said this realization is the most amazing thing I have come to understand...

Why do you think it is that you have genuine empathy and compassion? I think that i have genuine empathy and compassion (to an extent) and i believe that a large part of the reason is that it makes me feel good about myself and is probably down to how i have been nurtured over the years by various people and experiences.

Funny you question my empathy and compassion and then assert your own. :? But to answer your question empathy means to seek to understand the feelings of another person. I do specific meditation (Metta) with this very act in mind. Me feeling better is a side product produced by not thinking of my self. The less self focus the better I feel... That is the basis of empathy. Beyond that, having lived on the street for a brief spell in my youth it's rather easy for me to identify with those in similar situations. Because my empathy allows me to identify with them I can use compassion to help them. Am I a perfect empath? Clearly not nor have I ever claimed any such thing.

And I never said others didn't have genuine empathy. It is something that all people have access to. However, in the context we are talking about those that would only give because it makes them feel good couldn't be using empathy because empathy by it's very definition is to NOT think of self. If you do something with hope for self gain then it's absolutely not an empathetic actions..though it very well may still be a good action.

So when I say I give to others out of empathy you can choose to either believe me or not. That choose is yours and not one I really feely compelled to defend any further. though I suppose you would argue that you don't actually have a choice.

I've really kinda become a flexitarian, but I adhere to a plant based diet.

WTF is a flexitarian????

A vegetarian that doesn't make a big deal about it. If I need to eat and there is only meat then I'll at meat. If my body craves a piece of fish I will eat it. I don't make a big deal about it, but I am by and large vegetarian. I'm guessing you would have figured that out if you used some empathy though LOL :d

 

[hug46]

We are in fact not separate from the environment anymore than our consciousness is separate from the universe at large...and like it or not you are in fact nothing more, and nothing less than the entire universe looking at itself and that statement is based on science...and folks like Neil DeGrass Tyson agree with me. He uses his words I use mine. The entire universe is literally responsible for you. You simply can not exist without the entire whole...Every atom of your body contains the entire universe just as the entire universe contains every atom in your body.

I am not going to get back into a debate about me being indistinguishable from the universe. I know that i come from the universe and that it is responsible for my being alive. Will that make you just a little bit happy? We don"t have to return to that circular discussion.

Funny you question my empathy and compassion and then assert your own

Dont take offence. I really think that you are misunderstanding my question. Either that or i didnt word it right. I wasnt questioning your empathy but asking you where it comes from and why you have it, for the very reason that i question my own. I think that i am compassionate and kind but is it real because it makes me happy to be kind? It benefits me to see what another person thinks about where compassion and empathy come from. What is so wrong about questioning things like that?

I have a good friend that is a creationist. He is very intelligent and i love him dearly but he get"s a bit tetchy when i question his beliefs and positively foams at the mouth when i mention Richard Dawkins.

So when I say I give to others out of empathy you can choose to either believe me or not. That choose is yours and not one I really feely compelled to defend any further. though I suppose you would argue that you don't actually have a choice

Ofcourse i have a choice. I was arguing for the illusion of freewill not choice.You yourself said in an earlier post that they were not the same thing. I also think that i have freewill. I just believe that the freewill that i think i have is an illusion.

A vegetarian that doesn't make a big deal about it. If I need to eat and there is only meat then I'll at meat. If my body craves a piece of fish I will eat it. I don't make a big deal about it, but I am by and large vegetarian. I'm guessing you would have figured that out if you used some empathy though LOL

I am sorry. I just thought that it was a bloody funny description of someones eating habits. I am going to start using it myself.

 

[bodhi]

There is no free will.

The universe is perfection.

.

 

[joedirt]

Ofcourse i have a choice. I was arguing for the illusion of freewill not choice.You yourself said in an earlier post that they were not the same thing. I also think that i have freewill. I just believe that the freewill that i think i have is an illusion.

I guess to me that is like me saying I have a ghost...only he is an illusion. Do I have a ghost or not? Can someone have something that is an illusion? The closest example I could give (to argue for your point) would be say the ego. It appears to be an illusion based on everything I understand about science. When I look deeply it's obvious that I'm not separate from anything else, and yet there is a self referencing part of mind that seems to claim individuality....it really is the strangest of concepts. In that sense I think I can understand what you are saying.

Dont take offence. I really think that you are misunderstanding my question. Either that or i didnt word it right. I wasnt questioning your empathy but asking you where it comes from and why you have it, for the very reason that i question my own. I think that i am compassionate and kind but is it real because it makes me happy to be kind? It benefits me to see what another person thinks about where compassion and empathy come from. What is so wrong about questioning things like that?

Ok offense dropped. To answer your question it comes from the only place that it could possible come from... the universe. Where everything comes from.. There is only universe. All of the component parts are illusory. Consider that these things like planets, rocks, trees, people, are only divisions created by thoughts.. Has anyone ever actually seen a thought? Aren't thoughts illusory just like the concept of free will? In the truest of all true senses there is no me that is in any way shape, form, or fashion separate from the universe. I'm not trying to draw you back into that argument (seriously), but I am not sure how to proceed. This is one of the most obvious of truths once it's pointed out that I have a hard time arguing without it. If there is freewill it comes from the universe. If there is no free will then everything that is happening is still just the universe doing its thing. I don't really know how to get past that at a very deep level. Again the illusion is seeing 'things' where no things exist.

I suppose we can go back and talk about the illusion of free will and I readily agree that there is definitely an illusion of self and as part of this illusion the self believes it's in control. But free will is an oxymoron... Go listen to the talk by Ajahn Brahm I linked a few posts back. His take is very close to my take. This will that we are so enamored with is the exact concept that keeps us from being free... So free will in that sense is clearly not possible. Though it does appear that we have a choice whether or not we use this will.. and yep that certainly could be an illusion as well. I suspect on a deep level it is illusion to. I think everythign is illusion on a deep level...

And no, viewing things as an illusion doesn't really help one get by in daily life... but this is what I come up with with I examine everything in the finest detail. I see illusion. Concepts and fabrications at all levels. I could be wrong, though honestly I haven't yet been able to conjure up an example of anything this exists apart from the unified whole... what I can conjure up is thoughts that like to divide this into that.. but these thoughts when stared at directly in meditation literally vanish into a void of nothing.. I mean what does that even mean?

From my vantage point there literally is none other than the universe (some call this God)...and when I say universe I mean all encompassing...if there are multiverses to me that is still universe... if there are different vibratory realms...still universe. Hyperspace==universe. Subspace==universe. Anything and everything that has been or ever will be discovered is the universe. If that word doesn't work then insert what ever word does.. because ultimate reality isn't composed of things. Things are created by mental divisions in our mind and no where else. So I see it all as one unified whole. To me it's a continuous manifestation. It's not a thing as thing implies static and there is nothing static in the universe. What is a currently a cup will quickly turn to shattered glass when dropped on the floor. What happened to the glass? I see everything like that. To me there is no discoverable beginning and likely no discoverable end to this.

And to me this isn't really just a fancy philosophy. I'm a scientist. It's important to see how science stacks up. I can't really find an argument against it from a science stand point...because science is also just a way of dividing up this into that and measuring this aspect while holding that aspect constant.. but science by the same token has proven the interconnection of it all... so there is a fundamental contradiction... and yes this all only exists in an absolute way. In a more human relativistic way none of this is useful for daily survival. Thus the paradox is born. The illusion (me) has conceived of itself as an illusion. WTF does that even mean? That is beyond my current level of insight.

Or what does it mean for beings that have no freewill to sit and debate free will? I mean seriously the absurdity of that is a thread unto itself I think.

I have a good friend that is a creationist. He is very intelligent and i love him dearly but he get"s a bit tetchy when i question his beliefs and positively foams at the mouth when i mention Richard Dawkins.

I'm not a big fan of religion per say either, but I can't stand Dawkins because he's such a crass ass about everything. I'm guessing your creationist friend feels similar. The problem with Dawkins is that he acts self righteous about his supposedly superior beliefs in science over the religionists belief in creationism. Both are in fact beliefs... Not science in general, but Dawkins belief that the universe wasn't created. Science really can't answer the question now..nor will it likely ever be able to if we are honest.. and no I don't personally believe it was created. I believe it alway's was and alway's will be...though I openly admit that is just a belief and nothing more.. Perhaps if Dawkins could do the same people wouldn't be so put off by him.

I am sorry. I just thought that it was a bloody funny description of someones eating habits. I am going to start using it myself.

Agreed it is rather funny... it's just far easier to either say that or to say I eat a plant based diet than to try and explain to everyone my actual stance on it.. and yes I definitely think factory farming is immoral in as much as morals are non illusory...but then morals are illusory so that doesn't make sense either... which is why I just go with flexetarian.

 

[joedirt]

Tat Tvam Asi - this literally sums up everything I have said and everything I could say about it. Ultimately anytime words are used to describe it there are inherent contradictions.

 

[Synkromystic]

'' I wasnt questioning your empathy but asking you where it comes from and why you have it''

For me, empathy and compassion comes from experiential knowledge that we are one consciousness, experiencing itself subjectively (as Bill Hicks would say)...So if you truly love yourself, why would you ever want to hurt yourself? Now I have not completely realized this, nor can I live it out to it's fullest....... yet. But I know ''where'' I am ''going''.

 

[jamie]

"like Jamie said, i think the ideal of having freewill is good as well"

I think I have not been fully understood in my take on all of this. I don't think the idea of free will is good, in the sense that I feel we don't have it but should act like we do..

What I am saying is much more radical.

I am saying that if we don't have free will, I am going to say screw that anyway..and screw any god that sits over me, my soul, my light etc and says I cant act of my own accord.

I am saying I reject that god, or that universe..or any god or absolute that claims to BE the absolute.

I am saying that If I cant have free will, I will try to take it anyway...

I am saying that I embrace my own imagination as my asset..I am saying that I don't think all desire leads to suffering and I reject the notion that I should not desire in order to attain enlightenment. My desire is what drives my unflolding...

Gnosticism is the only path I have encountered that feels truely honest to me...the only one that looks around at the sh*t of this world, and calls it the sh*t that it is...does not cake it over with pretty icing, cheap slogans about it all being one..does not dismiss it with references to "karma"...it's the antithesis of the spiritual guilt trip.

Gnosticism is that voice that tells me clearly where I am without glossing it. It tells me to look around, and take note of what I see...

I see dualism...and no way to dispute that.

I don't view gnosticism as embracing the dualism, or as simply the result of whiny pessimists..The dualism within the gnostic mythology, is the main problem..the dualism is an error(and I think people dont leave that open to wide enough interpretation) that requires correction...this is key..and just saying we are all one and chanting Om, might not really be a solution.

Vedanta offers a roadmap for the mystic who realizes the dualism. Vedanta in the tradion that speaks to me does NOT ascribe the label of illusion to the things of this world. These things, are very real.

We only even ask this question about free will because we exist in this dualism..but if I see the dualism as something to be transcended, why would I submit to it's rules?

This is what I think many people are missing..the ability to discern. Without that, it's just new age fully crapola hardly worth the paper it is written on..We are not all just one..if you punch me in the face, I feel it..in a way you will never feel it. Dispute it all you want..because we must all be one..but that means something very different to me than the impression I get when many other people say it...there are levels of seperation in this life that are concrete...and there is good, and evil in this life and that is concrete.

There is something beyond this. It is manifest in the realm of the mystics..and it's not something you can speak about. All your books, all your youtube lectures, gurus etc..this is like introduction..that's all. The true mystical initation is beyond all of that. No one's talking ABOUT it..they all talk AROUND it.

Your imagination is what makes you a god. Never accept the label of another..even if it's gods.

If you don't have free will, and upon this realization never try to take it anyway, than you truely wont have free will.

We may be one..but I am not the same as you.

Take nothing I say literally.

Mystical union beyond polarity is always the goal. Everything in between is valid.

 

[hug46]

Can someone have something that is an illusion? The closest example I could give (to argue for your point) would be say the ego. It appears to be an illusion based on everything I understand about science. When I look deeply it's obvious that I'm not separate from anything else, and yet there is a self referencing part of mind that seems to claim individuality....it really is the strangest of concepts. In that sense I think I can understand what you are saying.

OMG Joe you have actually written something that i, not only understand, but agree with (i am fully aware that my malcomprehension of some of your ideas is probably down to my own mental ineptitude with a tiny sprinkle of stubborness thrown in). Maybe the illusion of reality is a construct of the ego? I am sure that other members may have brought this point up in this thread and i apologise to anyone who did (or yourself) for not picking up on it.

Or what does it mean for beings that have no freewill to sit and debate free will? I mean seriously the absurdity of that is a thread unto itself I think

Yeah. Why do you think this thread is going for 7 pages? There"s nothing wrong with a bit of absurdity.

I'm not a big fan of religion per say either, but I can't stand Dawkins because he's such a crass ass about everything. I'm guessing your creationist friend feels similar.

I quite like Dawkins but i can understand why he gets up some peoples noses and you are probably right in respect to my friends dislike for him. I think it"s ok to disagree on things as long as everyone keeps their toys in the pram.

For me, empathy and compassion comes from experiential knowledge that we are one consciousness, experiencing itself subjectively (as Bill Hicks would say)...So if you truly love yourself, why would you ever want to hurt yourself? Now I have not completely realized this, nor can I live it out to it's fullest....... yet. But I know ''where'' I am ''going''.

But there must be a point where empathy breaks down in favour of self survival. If someone starts beating me i will have a distinct lack of empathy for them and probably hit them back. Maybe the idea of living life to the fullest is an illusory concept and we should just be happy with what we"ve got. Maybe just being happy with what wev"e got is living life to the fullest;

I don't think the idea of free will is good, in the sense that I feel we don't have it but should act like we do..

What I am saying is much more radical.

I am saying that if we don't have free will, I am going to say screw that anyway..and screw any god that sits over me, my soul, my light etc and says I cant act of my own accord.

I am saying I reject that god, or that universe..or any god or absolute that claims to BE the absolute.

I am saying that If I cant have free will, I will try to take it anyway...

Isn"t that saying the same thing but just in radical sounding language? Also how can you take something that isn"t there? If you think that i have an ice cream behind my back and you decide to take it, i can understand you forcing yourself on me to take it. But if i say that there really isn"t an ice cream behind my back (and that i am not lying) and you say "screw this i"m having that ice cream", you are chasing something that isn"t there and if you still want it and take it after seeing that there is nothing behind my back, you would be delusional.

Your imagination is what makes you a god. Never accept the label of another..even if it's gods

I like that.

Take nothing I say literally.

Don"t take this the wrong way Jamie as i quite enjoy your gnostic rantings (i live in the Cathar country) but doesn"t "take nothing i say literally" translate as "Don"t listen to me, i talk bollocks"??

if one knew all possible outcomes of a choice without subjective context, would it still be a choice?

Yes i think it would. You make choices based on probable outcomes. If you already knew the outcomes you"d make the choice based on the preferred outcome (but i can only relate to this question in a subjective way, so i am probably wrong).

 

[joedirt]

Vedanta offers a roadmap for the mystic who realizes the dualism. Vedanta in the tradion that speaks to me does NOT ascribe the label of illusion to the things of this world. These things, are very real.

Everyone sees duality... seeing duality is easy because it's the base line state of all of us. I see a tree over there.. I am over here. That is the default mode of all beings as far as I can tell.

Vedanta seeks to teach the student to see past the subject object into the realm of nonduality... And that applies to every school of duality I have looked at including Adviata Vedanta and all schools of Buddhism I openly admit that I can't claim full knowledge of vedanta, but I am curious Jamie if you could point me in a direction to learn more about this vedanta that teaches a mystic to realize duality? I mean by that extend I am already awake and so is everyone else because I se duality... and yet that is wreaks of western Neo Adviata Vedanta which is like the McDonalds of spirituality as far as I'm concerned...and even Neo Adviata teaches a direct pointing towards no self.. Which transcends duality... So I'm definitely curious what you are talking about here...

And yes I noted your last comment to take nothing you said literally...

 

[○]

^^ joedirt

If you want to study Vedanta in depth, look into the 13 major Upanishads (chandogya, kena, aitareya, kaushitaki, katha, mundaka, taittriyaka, brihadaranyaka, svetasvatara, isa, prasna, mandukya and maitri). Although there's over 200 Upanishads, though those I listed are the main ones that embody the core teachings. Also, look into the Bhagavad Gita if you haven't read it, as it too is part of Vedanta. There's also the Brahma Sutras, but I haven't looked too much in depth at those.

If you study those, then you'll have a reasonable understanding of Vedanta (obviously though, nothing trumps direct experience). I've found Eknath Easwaran to be one of the better authors/translators for the text out of the books I looked over. Not too sure on the Sutras though.

 

[joedirt]

^^ joedirt

If you want to study Vedanta in depth, look into the 13 major Upanishads (chandogya, kena, aitareya, kaushitaki, katha, mundaka, taittriyaka, brihadaranyaka, svetasvatara, isa, prasna, mandukya and maitri). Although there's over 200 Upanishads, though those I listed are the main ones that embody the core teachings. Also, look into the Bhagavad Gita if you haven't read it, as it too is part of Vedanta. There's also the Brahma Sutras, but I haven't looked too much in depth at those.

If you study those, then you'll have a reasonable understanding of Vedanta (obviously though, nothing trumps direct experience). I've found Eknath Easwaran to be one of the better authors/translators for the text out of the books I looked over. Not too sure on the Sutras though.

Tat I own a copy of the Upanishads.. and have read much of the Vedas and Bagavad Gita (several version of the Gita actually).. I still say I don't recall anything like what Jamie is describing. Vedanta is a non dual teaching through and trough while what jamie is describing is a teaching in duality... It just doesn't jive with what I've read.

BTW I started with vedanta and yoga teachings (really I started with Kriya Yoga via Paramahansa Yogananda) then branched out into the vedas and eventually read the upanishads as well. Ultimately I ended up embracing more of a Buddhist path after reading much of the Pali Canon... For me the Buddhist teachings on anatta were just a more direct means that really resonated with me... I had a hard time getting out of my way embracing an atman that would merge with Brahman...though I can easily see how that is the exact same thing as no self in hind site. Adviata Vedanta teachings are really close to Buddhist in many way's.

Just out of curiosity Tat which of the above mentioned schools to you lean towards? BTW The Buddhist school I resonate with the most is the old Yogacara school... But ultimately I think all the schools are pointing on the same thing... it's the students that get lost looking at the fingers doing the pointing. IMHO.

Peace


BTW Tat... Thank you for talking me down a little bit the other day. I'm still not really sure what the hell happened to me with the intense body tremors... The warm bath certainly helped a good bit!

 

[Swarupa]

Good studying advice for sure, i'd just like to mention again about direct experience being of foremost importance, that if you want to truly understand vedanta, put down the books and understand yourself, the nature of consciousness

Vedanta itself means 'the end of the vedas'

I'm reminded of a quote from Ramana Maharshi

'eventually, all that one has learned will have to be forgotten'

or

'even a learned man must bow before an illiterate sage'

 

[joedirt]

Good studying advice for sure, i'd just like to mention again about direct experience being of foremost importance, that if you want to truly understand vedanta, put down the books and understand yourself, the nature of consciousness

Vedanta itself means 'the end of the vedas'

I'm reminded of a quote from Ramana Maharshi

'eventually, all that one has learned will have to be forgotten'

or

'even a learned man must bow before an illiterate sage'

^This for sure.

 

[jamie]

Vedanta offers a roadmap for the mystic who realizes the dualism. Vedanta in the tradion that speaks to me does NOT ascribe the label of illusion to the things of this world. These things, are very real.

Everyone sees duality... seeing duality is easy because it's the base line state of all of us. I see a tree over there.. I am over here. That is the default mode of all beings as far as I can tell.

Vedanta seeks to teach the student to see past the subject object into the realm of nonduality... And that applies to every school of duality I have looked at including Adviata Vedanta and all schools of Buddhism I openly admit that I can't claim full knowledge of vedanta, but I am curious Jamie if you could point me in a direction to learn more about this vedanta that teaches a mystic to realize duality? I mean by that extend I am already awake and so is everyone else because I se duality... and yet that is wreaks of western Neo Adviata Vedanta which is like the McDonalds of spirituality as far as I'm concerned...and even Neo Adviata teaches a direct pointing towards no self.. Which transcends duality... So I'm definitely curious what you are talking about here...

And yes I noted your last comment to take nothing you said literally...

I never meant that in the sense that the result of vedanta is to realize duality..I meant you have to realize the duality even exists before you can really approach vedanta. I don't think many people do realize the duality in the way that I am referring to, because if they did, they would also have that same calling towards something else beyond.

My thing is, that I don't like the term "illusion". Some have suggested that is a wrong translation of the vedas. I don't believe this world is an illusion..I feel personally this is not an appropriate term to use. I like the term "reflectional reality". Of course there is a deeper awareness of non-dual states once you move past the dualism..but how does that make one an illusion while the other is not? This is my main issue with the use of that word in this context..I could flip it around and say that the non-dual state of union is illusion because if I kick you in the balls really hard, your going to probly fall down in great pain, and I(nor the rest of us) will not. In that scenario, I can argue that your non dual awareness is an illusion and the world of dualism is the true reality.

I just see perspectives, not illusions and truths. Perspectives, which are accompanied by differing ramifications for the individual.

It's the modern new age movement where I find that there is this sort of "all is illusion" level of flakiness draped over tired attempts to be mystical..and it means nothing. So what if all is illusion? That only holds up until someone kicks ya in the balls...

so I say, let go of that..make peace with the fact that this world seems as real as any other..and then let go of that as well..and then just figure out where you want to go..

I think there is a lot of beauty in this reality, but until you can learn to let go of it all, you end up stuck in a sort of dream..cycling in and out of misery and joy and pain etc..everyone is into lucid dreaming..yet no one mentions lucid living..why is that? I would think one would start with lucid living, and then move on to lucid dreaming..

 

[joedirt]

So I think I understand you position better now for sure. Thanks for the clarification.

but how does that make one an illusion while the other is not?

For me it's because the illusions is seeing things as separate or isolated when in fact nothing really is like this... as even science can confirm. A glass cup today was once sand. A tree today was once clouds, rain, soil and sun.

In Buddhism they talk of sunyata which has been horribly translated as emptiness. Really it means lacking inherent existence. What this means is that nothing exists alone or without dependance or causation. All things are dependently originated.

BTW I do not think the universe is necessarily an illusion. I think the subject object duality is the real illusion. Though even as I say that I think of sub atomic particles jumping in and out of existence..

But to your point, I'm not sure that 'enlightenment' is ever the ultimate end of this so called illusion. It is however a deep understanding (born of experience and not intellect) into this illusions such that one is no longer troubled by it... that is my take on what enlightenment is anyway.

So at least from a Buddhist perspective, which has many parallels with Vedanta since it grew out of the same culture, this universe is real. But the illusion is that we are separate or distinct from it all. Seeing through the illusion doesn't mean the sun doesn't shine or the moon falls out of the sky and disappears.

And yes you are you and I am me. But what are you composed of? You might say your heart is your heart and my heart is my heart. Your brain is your brain and my brain is my brain. Those are obviously necessary for you to live.. You might even say those are your lungs and these are my lungs as they are also necessary for our individual existence... But I wonder.. who's air is it?

It is only when reality is looked at deeply that duality obviously falls away. Driving in traffic there is no time for this deep thinking.. you better damn well acknowledge that the semi truck in front of you is real and going to kill you if you don't turn to miss it. In this way you are certainly right duality is a very real and persistent illusion that can't simply be tossed away by an understanding. Even Jesus died on a cross in a world of duality and even Buddha succumbed to sickness after a bad meal... and even Krishna died of a hunters arrow...

So in essence Jamie I think I both agree with you and disagree with you. Lol.. just to keep the paradox alive

I'll watch your video tomorrow... looks interesting

Tat Tvam Asi.

 

[spacexplorer]

"like Jamie said, i think the ideal of having freewill is good as well"

I think I have not been fully understood in my take on all of this. I don't think the idea of free will is good, in the sense that I feel we don't have it but should act like we do..

What I am saying is much more radical.

I am saying that if we don't have free will, I am going to say screw that anyway..and screw any god that sits over me, my soul, my light etc and says I cant act of my own accord.

I am saying I reject that god, or that universe..or any god or absolute that claims to BE the absolute.

I am saying that If I cant have free will, I will try to take it anyway...

I am saying that I embrace my own imagination as my asset..I am saying that I don't think all desire leads to suffering and I reject the notion that I should not desire in order to attain enlightenment. My desire is what drives my unflolding...

Gnosticism is the only path I have encountered that feels truely honest to me...the only one that looks around at the sh*t of this world, and calls it the sh*t that it is...does not cake it over with pretty icing, cheap slogans about it all being one..does not dismiss it with references to "karma"...it's the antithesis of the spiritual guilt trip.

Gnosticism is that voice that tells me clearly where I am without glossing it. It tells me to look around, and take note of what I see...

I see dualism...and no way to dispute that.

I don't view gnosticism as embracing the dualism, or as simply the result of whiny pessimists..The dualism within the gnostic mythology, is the main problem..the dualism is an error(and I think people dont leave that open to wide enough interpretation) that requires correction...this is key..and just saying we are all one and chanting Om, might not really be a solution.

Vedanta offers a roadmap for the mystic who realizes the dualism. Vedanta in the tradion that speaks to me does NOT ascribe the label of illusion to the things of this world. These things, are very real.

We only even ask this question about free will because we exist in this dualism..but if I see the dualism as something to be transcended, why would I submit to it's rules?

This is what I think many people are missing..the ability to discern. Without that, it's just new age fully crapola hardly worth the paper it is written on..We are not all just one..if you punch me in the face, I feel it..in a way you will never feel it. Dispute it all you want..because we must all be one..but that means something very different to me than the impression I get when many other people say it...there are levels of seperation in this life that are concrete...and there is good, and evil in this life and that is concrete.

There is something beyond this. It is manifest in the realm of the mystics..and it's not something you can speak about. All your books, all your youtube lectures, gurus etc..this is like introduction..that's all. The true mystical initation is beyond all of that. No one's talking ABOUT it..they all talk AROUND it.

Your imagination is what makes you a god. Never accept the label of another..even if it's gods.

If you don't have free will, and upon this realization never try to take it anyway, than you truely wont have free will.

We may be one..but I am not the same as you.

Take nothing I say literally.

Mystical union beyond polarity is always the goal. Everything in between is valid.

Everything is one, just because every perspective isn't exactly the same doesn't detract from this, you feeling the pain of a punch in the face obviously wouldn't be the same as the person doing the punching but that's just because the one consciousness is experiencing from a different viewpoint. Do concrete evil and good exist? How could it? When what's perceived as good to someone could be evil to someone else? Why do you say there are concrete levels of separation? To me, all separation is an illusion, it's ultimately not separation, just one consciousness experiencing itself as separate in some kind of self trick. Our mind likes to separate out "objects" based on their color or texture or whatever and then label them and say that one object is obviously not another object. Well obviously one energy pattern of the "object" is not exactly the same as another energy pattern just like no two waves in the ocean are alike but it's all part of the same ocean.

On another note...you almost seem angry for some reason, are you angry? I'm a little angry too at how spiritual truths can be used to rationalize the most obnoxious egos and how much crap there is out there but I try not to let it get to me. How's the 5 meo dmt trips coming along btw?

 

[nemesauce]

Lots of good stuff here! Obviously I have no reason to jump into many of these lines of thought, I just wanted to add my opinion about the "free will vs fate" argument that has been with us since the dawn of time. If you truly believe that all things are equal, experiences, probability, thoughts, etc... Then the conclusion that both are true is probably the only one.

Here's my 2¢: an observer to reality has free will when a choice is presented (should I do this or should I do that?) Once a choice is made, either this or that, it then becomes fate, no other outcome is possible or could have been possible. You can either accept is argument or disregard it, the choice is yours

 

[joedirt]

Lots of good stuff here! Obviously I have no reason to jump into many of these lines of thought, I just wanted to add my opinion about the "free will vs fate" argument that has been with us since the dawn of time. If you truly believe that all things are equal, experiences, probability, thoughts, etc... Then the conclusion that both are true is probably the only one.

Here's my 2¢: an observer to reality has free will when a choice is presented (should I do this or should I do that?) Once a choice is made, either this or that, it then becomes fate, no other outcome is possible or could have been possible. You can either accept is argument or disregard it, the choice is yours

Yep this is in essence my take on it as well.

 

[jamie]

Watts explains my feelings on this at like 4 minutes in.

 

[spacexplorer]

Watts explains my feelings on this at like 4 minutes in.

Yes I like what he says I don't know if it's entirely true though, he's saying just because we say all is one all is in harmony etc it's implying it's not? Hmmmm :?