|
Post by lolly on Dec 7, 2013 11:05:21 GMT -5
I see dogma as the application of one idea to all contexts/situations. When it comes to volition, in a certain situation there might be value in telling someone (or ourselves) that there is a free and independent choice available to us to change our lives, or to make something happen. So I wouldn't write volition off on the basis of seeing that there is none, or that its an illusion. All these things can be seen from different angles. For example, seeing that there is no volition can presuppose a kind of 'continuity' or 'unfolding' or 'linear time' effect, which is questionable in itself. I'm not saying there IS volition, I spent a lot of time a few years ago on a forum arguing that there is none, and I wouldn't say that what I was arguing was wrong....but it was dogmatic and looking from a particular angle. I have new dogmas these days hehe It depends because if you choose to go to town, but dang car won't start, circumstance dictates that you don't go to town. I guess trying to convince people that they can't choose is some kinda 'helpful' thing... you know... 'the Truth' and all that. What does it even mean 'it's an illusion'... that is isn't 'real'? In any case, if anyone just drops the volition, then there's just unfolding, and if they set to work, they become productive.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 7, 2013 11:06:47 GMT -5
Tzu is a very strong willed and disciplined character and still he can't let go of such minor attachments you've mentioned in your post. Laughter showed him a trillion times his contradictions and where he isn't walking his talk but to no effect. Which, assuming that Tzu is for real about letting go and such, begs the question about the person's actual control of its beliefs again. The appearance of control is there, of course. 'It can be observed'. So, is it really just an appearance of control or is it also actual control? That's a question worth asking before diving into what and how to release beliefs and which tools TM to apply. Yes, it really comes down to volition doesn't it. The belief in personal will is like a scaffolding - once it's there, all sorts of construction gets built on it. I can see where it's hard to let go of, because the building of beliefs just collapses. Then, where do you go to figure out what to do? Quite unsettling. Be that as it may, there's a practical side, too. Choices are made and experience influences choices. Part of experience is the relationship between people and our influences on each other. That's all happening, too. I don't see 'no volition' as an excuse for negative or destructive behavior. It can be pointed out, but with a light touch and the understanding that a body's gonna do what a body's gonna do. Yes, sooner or later it's about volition again. However, the question of free will or not is misconceived and basically a straw man giraffe. So debating it is a recipe for getting irretrivably lost in minding. It's more about taking a step back instead of taking everything at face value. That's where realization comes in again. When that has happened, existential questions about volition and purpose and such or how to live in the world take care of themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 7, 2013 11:09:55 GMT -5
Then you are talking about a dualistic experience. But that's not what U.G. was referring to. Noper In any case, dualistic...non-dualistic...its all just some cool sounding stuff that makes you feel speerrutchally edgimicated and 'in the know'....your whole paradigm, everything you think you understand, its all useless gobbledygook ;-) Whatever you may hope that someone here may gain from this conversation is also utterly useless... Gain? It seems you've misunderstood completely. Non-duality is not about something newly acquired. U.G. is going to tell you the same.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 7, 2013 11:15:33 GMT -5
I see dogma as the application of one idea to all contexts/situations. When it comes to volition, in a certain situation there might be value in telling someone (or ourselves) that there is a free and independent choice available to us to change our lives, or to make something happen. So I wouldn't write volition off on the basis of seeing that there is none, or that its an illusion. All these things can be seen from different angles. For example, seeing that there is no volition can presuppose a kind of 'continuity' or 'unfolding' or 'linear time' effect, which is questionable in itself. I'm not saying there IS volition, I spent a lot of time a few years ago on a forum arguing that there is none, and I wouldn't say that what I was arguing was wrong....but it was dogmatic and looking from a particular angle. I have new dogmas these days hehe The problem with volition is that on the one hand it feels real, that it's part of being a person. But on the other hand it's utterly illogical that we have free will, that can be seen even from the personal point of view with a little investigation. So, that's good stuff for never-ending debates. However, free will or not is a misconceived question that can be seen clearly and has to be seen clearly before that volition question will stop bugging you. Which brings us back to the topic of taking a step further back, i.e. realization.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 7, 2013 11:17:14 GMT -5
There's the flaw. Read what U.G. actually said. Not knowing and not doing go hand in hand. Not knowing has nothing to do with what's happening with the mind, still or not still. If it requires stillness of the mind then it's conditional and dualistic. You are referring to a dualistic experience which can be achieved at will. But that's not what U.G. was referring to. The reason why they can't let go of beliefs at will is because the beliefs are not really under the control of their will, although it may appear otherwise, or else letting go of beliefs would be a piece of cake for everyone who intents to do so. Your scholarship of UG is flawed....erroneous....useless. Seems we've hit a soft spot there again with Steve.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 7, 2013 11:20:22 GMT -5
I see dogma as the application of one idea to all contexts/situations. When it comes to volition, in a certain situation there might be value in telling someone (or ourselves) that there is a free and independent choice available to us to change our lives, or to make something happen. So I wouldn't write volition off on the basis of seeing that there is none, or that its an illusion. All these things can be seen from different angles. For example, seeing that there is no volition can presuppose a kind of 'continuity' or 'unfolding' or 'linear time' effect, which is questionable in itself. I'm not saying there IS volition, I spent a lot of time a few years ago on a forum arguing that there is none, and I wouldn't say that what I was arguing was wrong....but it was dogmatic and looking from a particular angle. I have new dogmas these days hehe It depends because if you choose to go to town, but dang car won't start, circumstance dictates that you don't go to town. I guess trying to convince people that they can't choose is some kinda 'helpful' thing... you know... 'the Truth' and all that. What does it even mean 'it's an illusion'... that is isn't 'real'? In any case, if anyone just drops the volition, then there's just unfolding, and if they set to work, they become productive. I see 'depends' as the key word there, its basically what I was suggesting, though I can see value in the 'no choice' thing.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 7, 2013 11:24:26 GMT -5
I see dogma as the application of one idea to all contexts/situations. When it comes to volition, in a certain situation there might be value in telling someone (or ourselves) that there is a free and independent choice available to us to change our lives, or to make something happen. So I wouldn't write volition off on the basis of seeing that there is none, or that its an illusion. All these things can be seen from different angles. For example, seeing that there is no volition can presuppose a kind of 'continuity' or 'unfolding' or 'linear time' effect, which is questionable in itself. I'm not saying there IS volition, I spent a lot of time a few years ago on a forum arguing that there is none, and I wouldn't say that what I was arguing was wrong....but it was dogmatic and looking from a particular angle. I have new dogmas these days hehe The problem with volition is that on the one hand it feels real, that it's part of being a person. But on the other hand it's utterly illogical that we have free will, that can be seen even from the personal point of view with a little investigation. So, that's good stuff for never-ending debates. However, free will or not is a misconceived question that can be seen clearly and has to be seen clearly before that volition question will stop bugging you. Which brings us back to the topic of taking a step further back, i.e. realization. 'Free will or no free will' can be seen as a misconceived, yes. I can agree that its a good thing to see. The way the word 'volition' was used back there, I'm not really seeing a lot of difference between free will and volition. I wouldn't say free will is illogical though, I would say the notion arises from a sense of there being something that is unconditioned, untouchable, always free.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Dec 7, 2013 11:36:03 GMT -5
It depends because if you choose to go to town, but dang car won't start, circumstance dictates that you don't go to town. I guess trying to convince people that they can't choose is some kinda 'helpful' thing... you know... 'the Truth' and all that. What does it even mean 'it's an illusion'... that is isn't 'real'? In any case, if anyone just drops the volition, then there's just unfolding, and if they set to work, they become productive. I see 'depends' as the key word there, its basically what I was suggesting, though I can see value in the 'no choice' thing. It's all conceptual frameworks, but really, of course there's choice... it gets a bit silly because people say no free will, though there is willingness, no volition, but there is intention... and that's what it's like, because anything we ourselves hold as an intellectual understanding must form seamlessly into our world view, or we simply don't believe it. The world view is a large structure and we could probably represent it as the neuron pathways in the brain... it's pretty much socially constructed, and maybe some genetics in the mix, but nature vs. nurture is another story.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2013 11:38:39 GMT -5
Noper In any case, dualistic...non-dualistic...its all just some cool sounding stuff that makes you feel speerrutchally edgimicated and 'in the know'....your whole paradigm, everything you think you understand, its all useless gobbledygook ;-) Whatever you may hope that someone here may gain from this conversation is also utterly useless... Gain? It seems you've misunderstood completely. Non-duality is not about something newly acquired. U.G. is going to tell you the same. Haha...other than a little chuckle at what feels like an inside joke, I could give a rats ass what UG has to say :-) You started a conversation Here by offering an 'important' thing to 'understand' about not knowing my friend...no understanding needs to 'be gained' about 'not knowing' ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 7, 2013 11:40:50 GMT -5
The problem with volition is that on the one hand it feels real, that it's part of being a person. But on the other hand it's utterly illogical that we have free will, that can be seen even from the personal point of view with a little investigation. So, that's good stuff for never-ending debates. However, free will or not is a misconceived question that can be seen clearly and has to be seen clearly before that volition question will stop bugging you. Which brings us back to the topic of taking a step further back, i.e. realization. 'Free will or no free will' can be seen as a misconceived, yes. I can agree that its a good thing to see. The way the word 'volition' was used back there, I'm not really seeing a lot of difference between free will and volition. I wouldn't say free will is illogical though, I would say the notion arises from a sense of there being something that is unconditioned, untouchable, always free. It's illogical or at least questionable when you investigate it a little. And that kind of investigation can be done in less than 2 minutes or so. The real question is, do you want to go there? Some say, no, because I take everything at face value. Some say, yes, because it seems I'm was just operating on an assumption then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2013 11:44:00 GMT -5
Let yourself be silently drawn by the strange pull of what you really love. It will not lead you astray. -Rumi
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 7, 2013 11:49:40 GMT -5
Gain? It seems you've misunderstood completely. Non-duality is not about something newly acquired. U.G. is going to tell you the same. Haha...other than a little chuckle at what feels like an inside joke, I could give a rats ass what UG has to say :-) You started a conversation here by offering an 'important' thing to 'understand' about not knowing my friend...no understanding needs to 'be gained' about 'not knowing' ;-) As long as you are talking about the benefits of not knowing and how it can be achieved, then I'd say we are firmly grounded in lalaland and in that context there's some important understanding lacking, indeed.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 7, 2013 11:56:46 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure everyone has beliefs anyway, and volition and intent are like kin. I have no sense of where intent comes from or how it got there. If it's strictly conditioning, then I'd be intending to go to a bar right now. I think choices and intent are like kin. Volition...I've yet to see where I made a choice that wasn't a product of experience, influences, beliefs and personality. I haven't seen anything working independently of that making a choice, which is what volition would be. Part of your conditioning tells you that you shouldn't go to a bar right now.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 7, 2013 12:02:43 GMT -5
I have no sense of where intent comes from or how it got there. If it's strictly conditioning, then I'd be intending to go to a bar right now. I think choices and intent are like kin. Volition...I've yet to see where I made a choice that wasn't a product of experience, influences, beliefs and personality. I haven't seen anything working independently of that making a choice, which is what volition would be. Intent is like a matter of purity and virtue and karma, people often say that they have good intentions, but I wonder if that's the same as pure intention. The volition is like, one can visualize something, chant or otherwise induce a desired experience, that's the whole LOA thang innit. Choice is like a selection between options. What this gets to or what it's about is empowerment... for example a dude is homeless and because of that unstable life, there's no real means of securing a job, having a reasonable relationship and lots of other things, so his intention might be pure and volition is pretty fine, but choices are very limited compared with most people. Now we get to the concept of empowerment. If the guy was given a place to sleep, shower, keep some stuff and make a home base, the realm of possibility opens up for him. Having that foundation then enables employment of whatever it is he wants. Now that intent and volition is also complimented with more choices... the feller is empowered to make his money improve his health deal with aaddiction, reconcile with family... or deal with what ever it is that put the cat on the street and move forward. We do get guys who are pretty comfortable there on their meditation cushions and the sweet smell of nag champa preaching no will no volition, but... intent, volition and choice and also belief, are the key's to empowerment... it's really a matter of how it applies, and the existence or non existence of it is dogma. No, because the intent or desire is not volitional.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Dec 7, 2013 12:05:47 GMT -5
Intent is like a matter of purity and virtue and karma, people often say that they have good intentions, but I wonder if that's the same as pure intention. The volition is like, one can visualize something, chant or otherwise induce a desired experience, that's the whole LOA thang innit. Choice is like a selection between options. What this gets to or what it's about is empowerment... for example a dude is homeless and because of that unstable life, there's no real means of securing a job, having a reasonable relationship and lots of other things, so his intention might be pure and volition is pretty fine, but choices are very limited compared with most people. Now we get to the concept of empowerment. If the guy was given a place to sleep, shower, keep some stuff and make a home base, the realm of possibility opens up for him. Having that foundation then enables employment of whatever it is he wants. Now that intent and volition is also complimented with more choices... the feller is empowered to make his money improve his health deal with aaddiction, reconcile with family... or deal with what ever it is that put the cat on the street and move forward. We do get guys who are pretty comfortable there on their meditation cushions and the sweet smell of nag champa preaching no will no volition, but... intent, volition and choice and also belief, are the key's to empowerment... it's really a matter of how it applies, and the existence or non existence of it is dogma. No, because the intent or desire is not volitional. Ok, let's not use 'volitional'...
|
|