|
Post by laughter on Jun 26, 2013 7:30:36 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. Ramana Maharsi said something to the effect of "Free will and destiny are both ever evident" ... and also “There is neither creation nor destruction, neither destiny nor free will, neither path nor achievement. This is the final truth.” It's actually surprisingly easy to confirm the idea that mind projects this onto both with simple common sense or, in the alternative, some deep sciencology. None of that is within light-years of penetrating a koan but it can point the mind toward the notion that logic and reason aren't of much use here.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 26, 2013 7:52:03 GMT -5
Greetings.. 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. Ramana Maharsi said something to the effect of "Free will and destiny are both ever evident" ... and also “There is neither creation nor destruction, neither destiny nor free will, neither path nor achievement. This is the final truth.” It's actually surprisingly easy to confirm the idea that mind projects this onto both with simple common sense or, in the alternative, some deep sciencology. None of that is within light-years of penetrating a koan but it can point the mind toward the notion that logic and reason aren't of much use here. Once the direct experience becomes thought and concept/belief there can be truth.. 'truth' is the obstacle, the belief that is attached to as if it were 'true'.. 'truth' is the obstacle to dynamic and fluid existence.. Be well..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2013 7:54:44 GMT -5
Separation is always the choice. If imagining a chooser continues to be the preference, then yes, it must be. Cool. I want a non-Volition merit badge. Anyone?
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 26, 2013 10:27:48 GMT -5
It's our preference to change preferences, which isn't really changing preferences at all but rather just following them without choice. The illusion of being able to change preferences is the result of ignoring the new preference while focusing on the old one. Every time we prefer something new, we could declare that we volitionaly chose to change it, but of course we didn't. That's if there is no volition. Those that see volition are often observing an aspect of themselves that is always free from conditioning. They're not wrong in their observation, on the other hand, whether that constitutes 'volition' is debatable. I don't care much either way, the fact that the ability to make choices is present is enough. The ability to make a choice only becomes available when the thought of "there is a choice to make between A and B" occurs. Without the thought arising, action is automatic and spontaneous.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 26, 2013 10:28:47 GMT -5
It's our preference to change preferences, which isn't really changing preferences at all but rather just following them without choice. The illusion of being able to change preferences is the result of ignoring the new preference while focusing on the old one. Every time we prefer something new, we could declare that we volitionaly chose to change it, but of course we didn't. That's if there is no volition. Those that see volition are often observing an aspect of themselves that is always free from conditioning. They're not wrong in their observation, on the other hand, whether that constitutes 'volition' is debatable. I don't care much either way, the fact that the ability to make choices is present is enough. That we don't have volition doesn't have direct implications for our day to day choices, but rather for our attachment to outcome, judgment and mind/body identification. As such, it is mucho important.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2013 10:34:30 GMT -5
The choice I'm talking about is to turn the attention away from the beingness that we are. As demonstrated by your thoughts which are quite right by the way... Are you saying that particular choice is a volitional one? I don't know, if I drop the desire for the world to be other than it is, is that volition?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 26, 2013 10:36:36 GMT -5
Greetings.. It's our preference to change preferences, which isn't really changing preferences at all but rather just following them without choice. The illusion of being able to change preferences is the result of ignoring the new preference while focusing on the old one. Every time we prefer something new, we could declare that we volitionaly chose to change it, but of course we didn't. That logic could also be used thusly: The water only seems wet, it's not really wet.. i think most people understand that the menu is not the meal, and they understand how to 'choose' from the menu.. heck, i sometimes ask if the chef can make changes not indicated on 'the menu'.. volition is the engine of existence, of evolution, a choice outside the direction of conditioning changes the direction of evolution, physically and spiritually.. Be well.. I don't see how that applies at all. I wasn't saying it just seems like we have volition, though that's true. I'm saying the idea that we can change a preference is nothing more than the arrival of a new preference that somebody wants to claim authorship of.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 26, 2013 10:47:07 GMT -5
Are you saying that particular choice is a volitional one? I don't know, if I drop the desire for the world to be other than it is, is that volition? I don't see how it's any more volitional than choosing chicken Mcnuggets over a Big Mac.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 26, 2013 10:52:19 GMT -5
That's if there is no volition. Those that see volition are often observing an aspect of themselves that is always free from conditioning. They're not wrong in their observation, on the other hand, whether that constitutes 'volition' is debatable. I don't care much either way, the fact that the ability to make choices is present is enough. The ability to make a choice only becomes available when the thought of "there is a choice to make between A and B" occurs. Without the thought arising, action is automatic and spontaneous. Maybe. Or maybe its just that they are made without a whole load of conscious awareness. In that sense 'automatic and spontaneous' is more of a pointer than a reality.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 26, 2013 10:53:40 GMT -5
That's if there is no volition. Those that see volition are often observing an aspect of themselves that is always free from conditioning. They're not wrong in their observation, on the other hand, whether that constitutes 'volition' is debatable. I don't care much either way, the fact that the ability to make choices is present is enough. That we don't have volition doesn't have direct implications for our day to day choices, but rather for our attachment to outcome, judgment and mind/body identification. As such, it is mucho important. seeing no volition didn't shift my need to attach and identify but I would say that it can be good for non-judgement, understanding, empathy and compassion, but only when we are starting from a place of judgement and rigidity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2013 10:56:08 GMT -5
I don't know, if I drop the desire for the world to be other than it is, is that volition? I don't see how it's any more volitional than choosing chicken Mcnuggets over a Big Mac. How about choosing to drop the feeling that what I post is of great importance, self-righteous and preachy... Same volition as choosing chicken McNuggets over a Big Mac?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 26, 2013 10:57:37 GMT -5
Greetings.. That logic could also be used thusly: The water only seems wet, it's not really wet.. i think most people understand that the menu is not the meal, and they understand how to 'choose' from the menu.. heck, i sometimes ask if the chef can make changes not indicated on 'the menu'.. volition is the engine of existence, of evolution, a choice outside the direction of conditioning changes the direction of evolution, physically and spiritually.. Be well.. I don't see how that applies at all. I wasn't saying it just seems like we have volition, though that's true. I'm saying the idea that we can change a preference is nothing more than the arrival of a new preference that somebody wants to claim authorship of. Your perspective comes across to me as somewhat...Newtonian i.e. one thing leads to the next thing. Is that your perspective...that what is happening in one moment determines what is happening in the next moment?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 26, 2013 11:57:07 GMT -5
In the absence of all thought, self-reflection, or self-consciousness life continues. In total silence the body intelligently functions and actively interacts with its environment. In the psychological absence of a person (a chooser), anything said about that which is happening must be self-contradictory. In his quote Ramana Maharshi used statements with opposite meanings as a way of pointing beyond opposites to ________________.
The Buddha used to do this same sort of thing all the time (though in a far more pedantic fashion). He would say, "If you call it a 'tree,' that is a mistake. If you say that it is NOT a tree, that is also a mistake. If you say that it is BOTH a tree and not a tree, that is a mistake. If you say that it is NEITHER a tree nor not a tree, that is a mistake....." And so on. IMO Ramana's usual silence is a far more powerful teaching.
ZM Seung Sahn used to say, "If you open your mouth, you've already made a mistake." Ha ha.
Suzanne Segal used to say, "All that we see is an undulation of the Vastness." The word "undulation" has a nice flavor to it--suggesting the immense waviness of a cosmic ocean.
*smiles and takes another sip of coffee*
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 26, 2013 12:06:48 GMT -5
In the absence of all thought, self-reflection, or self-consciousness life continues. In total silence the body intelligently functions and actively interacts with its environment. In the psychological absence of a person (a chooser), anything said about that which is happening must be self-contradictory. In his quote Ramana Maharshi used statements with opposite meanings as a way of pointing beyond opposites to ________________. The Buddha used to do this same sort of thing all the time (though in a far more pedantic fashion). He would say, "If you call it a 'tree,' that is a mistake. If you say that it is NOT a tree, that is also a mistake. If you say that it is BOTH a tree and not a tree, that is a mistake. If you say that it is NEITHER a tree nor not a tree, that is a mistake....." And so on. IMO Ramana's usual silence is a far more powerful teaching. ZM Seung Sahn used to say, "If you open your mouth, you've already made a mistake." Ha ha. Suzanne Segal used to say, "All that we see is an undulation of the Vastness." The word "undulation" has a nice flavor to it--suggesting the immense waviness of a cosmic ocean. *smiles and takes another sip of coffee* That's really nice image about the undulation thing. This brought to mind something very much like this>>>
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 26, 2013 12:37:22 GMT -5
Greetings..
As long as you're fondling imagery that makes your beliefs 'about' what is actually happening seem real or true, it's likely you'll continue fondling that imagery.. just look, no beliefs, no right/wrong, no attachment to 'being right/wrong', if you really want to 'get it'.. just look, with unconditional sincerity..
Be well..
|
|