Saiden said:
From a non-materialist point of view, the self is illusory, but the Self is not. Free will is a fundamental property of the Self, not the self. The self has limited free will as it has been programmed from the moment of birth, conditioned by every stimuluous it encounters. But this does not effect the Self in any form, and thus free will is maintained and can be better accessed the more consciously aware an individual is (the more aware you are, the more access you have to the Self). The best way to activate this is by meditation or being present. It takes practice, but is certainly achievable by anyone.
joedirt said:
I think will certainly comes in levels. Many people barely appear self aware and thus have little conscious control over their will. Others are very aware and are very deliberate with their choices. This seems to imply that the more aware person has access to more free will?
Albert Einstein said:
All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards FREEDOM.
Lao Tsu said:
The Tao that can be understood cannot be the primal, or cosmic, Tao. Just as an idea that can be expressed in words cannot be the Infinite reality.
And yet this ineffable Tao was the source of all spirit and matter, and being expressed was the creator of all manifested existence.
gibran2 said:
If a choice has a cause, then it isn’t free. If a choice doesn’t have a cause, then it isn’t free.
Socrates said:
My knowledge comes from an unknowing.
So, someone finally came right out and actually said it... the polarity of
self VS Self. I am hardly surprised, as this discussion has largely been, thus far, elucidated upon with such brilliant philosophical hair-splitting... that little has been said of the nature of the mirrored and mysterious dichotomy of ego-self and God-Self. Not so much only the nature of personal, organic self, as
Saiden states, but the inclusion of the Universal Self. What I have a predilection for calling the
Omniself. For if each individuated being is truly connected to the whole,
The Godhead, then freewill would also have a parallel existence, independent of physical cause and effect. We gain a deeper perspective of "self" when seen through the lens of this perspective.
As has been stated by millions of intelligent people before, not just religious zealots operating from a stance of blind faith, there is a direct access into the Omniself. This access is as natural as breathing for our species, yet it is apparently, a rarity with 21st century psychonauts? This seemed more topical and prevalent in the usage of psychedelia during the 1960's-1970's...
Fact is, there appears to be a scarcity of talk about such a miraculous process on the Nexus. Now, if we never move beyond questioning if our subjective impressions of this Indivisible force, the Divine, whether it truly exists or can be perceived by the individuated soul, little can be accomplished about discussing such a plane of being. I truly believe it is a topic which needs to be discussed with earnest. That being said, without the immersion (having a direct merging into this state of mind), little can be understood of it's indivisible reality.
And so, for the sake of friendly argument, let's just say that there is this presence that we might label
God or the Indivisible Field of Unified Energy. How would an interphase with such a level of being effect the concept of freewill? For if we are attuned to the Oneness and are shattered by said current of Spirit, who remains the observer? As Patanjali extolled many centuries ago, we are more than merely physical and mental entities... we are living expressions of the Spirit. And so, if awakened, does this Omni-observer have freewill? One must take into account that from the spiritual state of consciousness or universal mind, the relative laws of human thought are quite moot. :idea:
No matter how clever our rationale, we might find that the relative laws which influence the existence of a sentient incarnation, are NOT able to shape the perception of the transcendent Self. Insofar as it has been echoed within the circular game of logic, which has been so prevalent in this discussion, which might imply that it does (or does not/cannot). So if not from the ramifications of manifestation, what causative force influences the freewill of the soul? Possibly the nature of the Divine? Simply put, I believe it to be so, yet, cannot prove so to another being.
Saiden raises a significant point here. Of course, his/her previous points were also most significant but they were applied to the personal, subjective potentiality of the individual's subjective experience in the here and now. I do not think it was speculative, his/her proclamation about there being a repository of freewill in the present moment and it's heart in eternity. Still, it falls into the laws of relativity and subjective interpretation. The last reply shows that quite another level of self is at play in the existential equation. Perhaps, the dual nature of the self is taken into consideration. The existence of the individual self within the expanse of the universal or Omnipotent
Self.
I am reminded of the teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi. His words often stated that the self was illusory and the Self was the only indivisible reality. this 20th century Indian sage was a staunch Advaitist. So if the inclusion of the greater Self is contemplated upon, in reference to freedom of choice, this shifts some of our understanding of freewill into new territory.
Now, this changes everything... or does it really? With this broader assessment, it is plain to see, that without at least entertaining the notion of a living, Omni-conscious Spirit... further discussion is wholly speculative.
Again, we arrive back to the subjective nature of the spiritual experience. The paradigm of immersion within the Divine. Either one has crossed into the realm of Godhead or not. If not, this is just more mental dialog to ponder. If so, and many of us have, there is the profound understanding that the
Singularity of Unified Being is the central and most quintessential aspect of awareness, at it's very core.
These words can be interpreted through myriad semantical spins, so only those who have
stopped the mind and seen the Clear Light of the Void, will have any true reference point to discuss these levels, with any clarity or authenticity. Is this somehow cause to reject the premise of said observation? Hardly. Anymore than the average lay-person's inability to comprehend advanced mathematics or astrophysics.
Saiden uses the dual usage of the word
SELF, as it is dealt with within non-dualist theologies like Indian Advaita. In this context, self is meant to identify Atman. One could easily associate Atman with the Western concept of the human soul. That individualized, materially incarnated persona, which inhabits the body and mind of each person.
This idea of Atman is described as a tiny reflected point of light, within a greater collective of lightness. Or if you will, a strand of awareness which is interwoven within the fabric of the one Omni-awareness. The greater collective of light is the greater Self, so to speak. It is important to note that the Self is what is referenced as Ishvara, in the Vedantic cosmology. Ishvara is the manifest expression of the unmanifest and insubstantial being, Brahman. This is largely what the Judea/Christian/Islamic idea of God Almighty is based upon. The Self-aware, aspect of the
Eternal Tao.
Brahman exists in the void and so, has nothing which we could possibly refer to as freewill since we are not capable of conceiving of anything which is beyond the dualistic interplay of subject and object. Yet, for not reason which we will ever be able to comprehend, Brahman initiates quantum fluctuations and manifests Divine will. The individual can hardly know the intent of the void, so most of such talk is theoretical. Yet the universe exists and it came form "nothing". The insubstantial causes the substantial for reasons we cannot understand, nor do we really need to understand. This Godhead creates all that we can perceive and far more that we are hard-wired to access.
So, if the Self is a direct manifestation of the insubstantial and indivisible Brahman, the real question is does this force have free will? Is it bound to the same relativity that the individual is? Again, hardly. This contention can be debated for centuries, literally, as it has already been, but just for the sake of objectivity, might we entertain the idea that there is a perceivable symbiosis between the Atman and Ishvara, the self and the Self? Even if one chooses to reject this whole philosophy, it is at least apparent that those who do accept it as a reality, have found ways to enter into conscious union and discover aspects of awareness which are, for lack on any better word, Omniscient.
For to realize that the appearance of things are illusory and that underneath all of the dynamics of the existential paradigm, the Omniself exists in total freedom. This state of being would absolutely include freewill. but how is it free? And is this freedom not also subject to some predetermination? So, if by this premise, we take such a line of thought to the next conclusion, we might just find that we do have freewill ourselves, yet, it is not the same as the freedom to choose what to eat or drink. It is a choice that follows a natural spiritual law. So is it truly freewill? I suspect that there is no such thing, after all. as
gibran2 expressed, self and freewill are both, mirages our minds play upon our subjectivity. I do not disagree. 8)
We do seem to have relative freedom of choice and yet, if we are the sum total of our experiences and bound by cause and effect, this too is a illusory. We are challenged to redefine freedom of choice, as paradox matches each step we take in this direction. It appears that only when the self is silenced and the Self is revealed as the interior awareness and nature of being, can freewill have it's full potentiality activated. This "freedom to decide" it not a thought process, however, it is a spontaneous unfolding in the here and now. Like
gibran2 says about a flower unfolding by it's very natural state of being. Ultimately, we do choose to awaken. We make such a choice when and only when we have
stopped the mind, can this be an option. In no mind, harmony is intuited directly from it's source, God. but is this not to some significant degree a form of predetermination? The will of
The Godhead?
Interestingly enough, this would suggest that once again, the issue of freewill come up. Is this predetermined by the Omni-personal aspect of Atman, Ishvara or the Self, which simple KNOWS what to do? Does it simply reflect Divine Law and so has it's directive set in realms of light consciousness? So where is the freedom of choice, if th Omniself makes these decisions based on what is a sort of
Cosmic law?
This raises a further query about the nature of freewill. Can it ever truly be free, as in randomly spontaneous, if the Self acts of its own universal volition, by the decree of some Divine mandate? This brigs us to some kind of existential house of mirrors, eh? For at what point was any decision the priority of the individual, Atman? And if Brahman manifests itself within the creation of duality, the interplay between subject and object, WHO is deciding WHAT for WHOM?
It becomes clear that at any level of consciousness, there are causative elements shaping each choice being made. If those choices are culled from sentient, human reason and are founded in logical deduction... they are naturally bound to the laws of cause and effect. So too, if the freedom to choose is culled from the transcendental, intuitive level of being, it is bound by
Divine Intention. In both cases, there can be no actual free will, as everything in the dualistic plane of existence is interwoven with specific laws, which define our reality.
So what is this freedom which is suggested, as perceived by existing in the now? If we are attuned to the present in a deep way, we are able to release the burden of making any choices and this sure seems like freedom. Yet, the truth behind this sensation may well be that such a freedom is not our choice at all. It is the will of the Self, the dictate of Divinity. So is this freedom? I suggest that it is a type of freedom. Freedom from the limitations of the self. On quite another level, it is subject to the intent of Spirit and not the kind of "freewill" which makes logical decision making thoughts. It simply is.
The Omniself refracts the light of the Infinite Being in accordance with transcendental aspects of it's unbound being, which we will, as individuals, never know completely. Not as selves in a universe of duality. But we can attune to this current and reflect some of it's truth. For we die subjectively, temporarily, as egos in the process. So who witnesses what? From this side of the looking glass, there is a journey taken, from the other side of the looking glass,
each step IS the destination. In a manner of speaking... and purely as a conceptual hypothesis, but of course.
Peace, love & light
