|
|
Post by lolly on Jun 25, 2013 3:55:47 GMT -5
It's not really a debate about individuals' volition or lack thereof, the debate is really a self inquiry. It's about the one who is volitional.
We'll have the free-willers insisting it exists, and the nay sayers, but no one made the moon glow... yet you can control your bowels. In other things, such as yoga, the more you practice the more control you have over your self.
For all practical purposes, there's the things you can control and there's the things you can't... otherwise you'd be sullying yer daks... and drooling.
Even the dual or non-dual is a point of view, it just depends if you pay attention to the contrasted principles or the relationship between them...
This applies to the person because things happen to people. The sun shines on them and the rain falls on them and wasps sting them. The person doesn't choose it or anything. It just happens. The control factor doesn't apply to that, the choice only applies to the person themself.
|
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jun 25, 2013 5:55:32 GMT -5
So what do you think about the response to the choice, by the person? Whatever choice/decision is made is going to be impacted by so many things, it's hard to say that a choice has been actually made. Childhood 'training', environment supportive/unsupportive of it, biological make-up, low-pressure systems (hehe). The whole issue of Will Power is one that interests me. Can it be sustained? Is there such a thing or is it really that all the stars become lined up for a particular course of action? (Speaking figuratively there.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 25, 2013 7:19:11 GMT -5
**Braces for the 'misconceived question' comments**
|
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 25, 2013 8:18:02 GMT -5
Greetings.. So what do you think about the response to the choice, by the person? Whatever choice/decision is made is going to be impacted by so many things, it's hard to say that a choice has been actually made. Childhood 'training', environment supportive/unsupportive of it, biological make-up, low-pressure systems (hehe). The whole issue of Will Power is one that interests me. Can it be sustained? Is there such a thing or is it really that all the stars become lined up for a particular course of action? (Speaking figuratively there.) What other options were there at the time you posted this? The world is full of examples of people choosing to escape their conditioning.. the no-volition belief is actually suggesting that the people just accept the 'role' they were conditioned to play, which is still another choice.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jun 25, 2013 8:19:31 GMT -5
**unbraces so'z I can hear what's said**
|
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jun 25, 2013 8:24:18 GMT -5
Greetings.. So what do you think about the response to the choice, by the person? Whatever choice/decision is made is going to be impacted by so many things, it's hard to say that a choice has been actually made. Childhood 'training', environment supportive/unsupportive of it, biological make-up, low-pressure systems (hehe). The whole issue of Will Power is one that interests me. Can it be sustained? Is there such a thing or is it really that all the stars become lined up for a particular course of action? (Speaking figuratively there.) What other options were there at the time you posted this? The world is full of examples of people choosing to escape their conditioning.. the no-volition belief is actually suggesting that the people just accept the 'role' they were conditioned to play, which is still another choice.. Be well.. Are they actually escaping their conditioning, or was there new conditioning available - a mentor, or an inspiring book, or any number of things that opened them to new possibilities? I didn't say anything about a "no-volition belief". |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 25, 2013 8:40:08 GMT -5
Greetings.. What other options were there at the time you posted this? The world is full of examples of people choosing to escape their conditioning.. the no-volition belief is actually suggesting that the people just accept the 'role' they were conditioned to play, which is still another choice.. Be well.. Are they actually escaping their conditioning, or was there new conditioning available - a mentor, or an inspiring book, or any number of things that opened them to new possibilities? I didn't say anything about a "no-volition belief". I didn't suggest that you said anything about "no-volition belief".. Are you suggesting that exposure to new options is the same as 'conditioning'? Be well? |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 25, 2013 8:56:19 GMT -5
It's not really a debate about individuals' volition or lack thereof, the debate is really a self inquiry. It's about the one who is volitional. We'll have the free-willers insisting it exists, and the nay sayers, but no one made the moon glow... yet you can control your bowels. In other things, such as yoga, the more you practice the more control you have over your self. For all practical purposes, there's the things you can control and there's the things you can't... otherwise you'd be sullying yer daks... and drooling. Even the dual or non-dual is a point of view, it just depends if you pay attention to the contrasted principles or the relationship between them... This applies to the person because things happen to people. The sun shines on them and the rain falls on them and wasps sting them. The person doesn't choose it or anything. It just happens. The control factor doesn't apply to that, the choice only applies to the person themself. I would not say I have control over my bowels. This is clear during unwanted bouts of diahria. The only place where it looks like I have control is during healthy functioning of the bowels, but that illusion is quickly SHATtered when the prairie dog starts wanting to stick his head out of the hole... While there is a clear necessity for the development of self-control and self-mastery for healthy and efficient functioning of the organism, i.e. cultivating an efficient controller, it is also important to look at what is controlling the controller. With continued examination of all the factors which influence the controller's decision making and continued observation of the controller doing it's thang, it becomes clear that the controller (the decision maker) is mostly programming and itself has little room for dynamism. The dynamism comes in when the controller starts to release it's control over things and allows for spontaneity and allows for the loss of the pre-image of how it thinks the world should be. What you get then is a highly efficient organism that is geared towards facilitating whatever is emerging in the present moment. But the controller always operates from conditioning and is fairly deterministic in it's behavior (deterministic does not mean predictable). It is when the controller enters into a mode of listening, a mode of receptiveness to a non-personal will, that randomness (dynamism) is allowed, facilitating the possibility of synchronicity and a sense of being more than just an individual person. It's in the loss of the individual control that non-individuality is realized. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 25, 2013 10:02:45 GMT -5
It's not really a debate about individuals' volition or lack thereof, the debate is really a self inquiry. It's about the one who is volitional. We'll have the free-willers insisting it exists, and the nay sayers, but no one made the moon glow... yet you can control your bowels. In other things, such as yoga, the more you practice the more control you have over your self. For all practical purposes, there's the things you can control and there's the things you can't... otherwise you'd be sullying yer daks... and drooling. Even the dual or non-dual is a point of view, it just depends if you pay attention to the contrasted principles or the relationship between them... This applies to the person because things happen to people. The sun shines on them and the rain falls on them and wasps sting them. The person doesn't choose it or anything. It just happens. The control factor doesn't apply to that, the choice only applies to the person themself. I would not say I have control over my bowels. This is clear during unwanted bouts of diahria. The only place where it looks like I have control is during healthy functioning of the bowels, but that illusion is quickly SHATtered when the prairie dog starts wanting to stick his head out of the hole... While there is a clear necessity for the development of self-control and self-mastery for healthy and efficient functioning of the organism, i.e. cultivating an efficient controller, it is also important to look at what is controlling the controller. With continued examination of all the factors which influence the controller's decision making and continued observation of the controller doing it's thang, it becomes clear that the controller (the decision maker) is mostly programming and itself has little room for dynamism. The dynamism comes in when the controller starts to release it's control over things and allows for spontaneity and allows for the loss of the pre-image of how it thinks the world should be. What you get then is a highly efficient organism that is geared towards facilitating whatever is emerging in the present moment. But the controller always operates from conditioning and is fairly deterministic in it's behavior (deterministic does not mean predictable). It is when the controller enters into a mode of listening, a mode of receptiveness to a non-personal will, that randomness (dynamism) is allowed, facilitating the possibility of synchronicity and a sense of being more than just an individual person. It's in the loss of the individual control that non-individuality is realized. Both conditions exist simultaneously.. we 'can' choose between them, as we explore our whole existence.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 25, 2013 10:09:29 GMT -5
It's not really a debate about individuals' volition or lack thereof, the debate is really a self inquiry. It's about the one who is volitional. We'll have the free-willers insisting it exists, and the nay sayers, but no one made the moon glow... yet you can control your bowels. In other things, such as yoga, the more you practice the more control you have over your self. For all practical purposes, there's the things you can control and there's the things you can't... otherwise you'd be sullying yer daks... and drooling. Even the dual or non-dual is a point of view, it just depends if you pay attention to the contrasted principles or the relationship between them... This applies to the person because things happen to people. The sun shines on them and the rain falls on them and wasps sting them. The person doesn't choose it or anything. It just happens. The control factor doesn't apply to that, the choice only applies to the person themself. I would not say I have control over my bowels. This is clear during unwanted bouts of diahria. The only place where it looks like I have control is during healthy functioning of the bowels, but that illusion is quickly SHATtered when the prairie dog starts wanting to stick his head out of the hole... While there is a clear necessity for the development of self-control and self-mastery for healthy and efficient functioning of the organism, i.e. cultivating an efficient controller, it is also important to look at what is controlling the controller. With continued examination of all the factors which influence the controller's decision making and continued observation of the controller doing it's thang, it becomes clear that the controller (the decision maker) is mostly programming and itself has little room for dynamism. The dynamism comes in when the controller starts to release it's control over things and allows for spontaneity and allows for the loss of the pre-image of how it thinks the world should be. What you get then is a highly efficient organism that is geared towards facilitating whatever is emerging in the present moment. But the controller always operates from conditioning and is fairly deterministic in it's behavior (deterministic does not mean predictable). It is when the controller enters into a mode of listening, a mode of receptiveness to a non-personal will, that randomness (dynamism) is allowed, facilitating the possibility of synchronicity and a sense of being more than just an individual person. It's in the loss of the individual control that non-individuality is realized. (Oh, Top...) Mr. Hanky - is - King!  |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 25, 2013 10:31:18 GMT -5
I would not say I have control over my bowels. This is clear during unwanted bouts of diahria. The only place where it looks like I have control is during healthy functioning of the bowels, but that illusion is quickly SHATtered when the prairie dog starts wanting to stick his head out of the hole... While there is a clear necessity for the development of self-control and self-mastery for healthy and efficient functioning of the organism, i.e. cultivating an efficient controller, it is also important to look at what is controlling the controller. With continued examination of all the factors which influence the controller's decision making and continued observation of the controller doing it's thang, it becomes clear that the controller (the decision maker) is mostly programming and itself has little room for dynamism. The dynamism comes in when the controller starts to release it's control over things and allows for spontaneity and allows for the loss of the pre-image of how it thinks the world should be. What you get then is a highly efficient organism that is geared towards facilitating whatever is emerging in the present moment. But the controller always operates from conditioning and is fairly deterministic in it's behavior (deterministic does not mean predictable). It is when the controller enters into a mode of listening, a mode of receptiveness to a non-personal will, that randomness (dynamism) is allowed, facilitating the possibility of synchronicity and a sense of being more than just an individual person. It's in the loss of the individual control that non-individuality is realized. Both conditions exist simultaneously.. we 'can' choose between them, as we explore our whole existence.. Be well.. If that is truly a choice, I have no idea how to make that choice. I can't help doing what I do. It arises of its own accord. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 25, 2013 10:37:49 GMT -5
Greetings.. Both conditions exist simultaneously.. we 'can' choose between them, as we explore our whole existence.. Be well.. If that is truly a choice, I have no idea how to make that choice. I can't help doing what I do. It arises of its own accord. I choose to wish you well with that perspective.. keep in mind, you are free to choose otherwise.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 25, 2013 10:42:42 GMT -5
Penetrating any of the Zen koans concerning volition instantly puts this issue to rest. Ahab in the novel "Moby Di#k" asks, "Is it I or God who lifts this hand?" If someone opens his/her mouth in answer to this question, the truth of the matter is thereby overlooked.
|
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 25, 2013 10:44:39 GMT -5
Penetrating any of the Zen koans concerning volition instantly puts this issue to rest. Ahab in the novel "Moby Di#k" asks, "Is it I or God who lifts this hand?" If someone opens his/her mouth in answer to this question, the truth of the matter is thereby overlooked. Threadkiller! (J/K)  |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 25, 2013 11:03:41 GMT -5
It's not really a debate about individuals' volition or lack thereof, the debate is really a self inquiry. It's about the one who is volitional. We'll have the free-willers insisting it exists, and the nay sayers, but no one made the moon glow... yet you can control your bowels. In other things, such as yoga, the more you practice the more control you have over your self. For all practical purposes, there's the things you can control and there's the things you can't... otherwise you'd be sullying yer daks... and drooling. Even the dual or non-dual is a point of view, it just depends if you pay attention to the contrasted principles or the relationship between them... This applies to the person because things happen to people. The sun shines on them and the rain falls on them and wasps sting them. The person doesn't choose it or anything. It just happens. The control factor doesn't apply to that, the choice only applies to the person themself. . This is clear during unwanted bouts of diahria. The only place where it looks like I have control is during healthy functioning of the bowels, but that illusion is quickly SHATtered when the prairie dog starts wanting to stick his head out of the hole... While there is a clear necessity for the development of self-control and self-mastery for healthy and efficient functioning of the organism, i.e. cultivating an efficient controller, it is also important to look at what is controlling the controller. With continued examination of all the factors which influence the controller's decision making and continued observation of the controller doing it's thang, it becomes clear that the controller (the decision maker) is mostly programming and itself has little room for dynamism. The dynamism comes in when the controller starts to release it's control over things and allows for spontaneity and allows for the loss of the pre-image of how it thinks the world should be. What you get then is a highly efficient organism that is geared towards facilitating whatever is emerging in the present moment. But the controller always operates from conditioning and is fairly deterministic in it's behavior (deterministic does not mean predictable). It is when the controller enters into a mode of listening, a mode of receptiveness to a non-personal will, that randomness (dynamism) is allowed, facilitating the possibility of synchronicity and a sense of being more than just an individual person. It's in the loss of the individual control that non-individuality is realized. Two words, Top-- adult diapers.  |
|
