Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2014 15:36:18 GMT -5
Yes, there are two ways of pointing. The first way is to say, "Because you imagine that you are a separate doer, shift attention away from thoughts to what can be seen, heard, felt, etc." The second way of pointing is to say, "There is nothing "you" can do because who you THINK you are is NOT who you are." Both pointers are pointing to exactly the same thing, and both pointers seem to be successful for certain people. I prefer the first pointer because it usually results in numerous other realizations (besides seeing through the illusion of the personal doer) which make life a lot simpler and easier. Freedom from the mind leads to an acceptance of "what is" and a detachment from the kinds of thoughts that typically create psychological problems. Ultimately it won't matter whether the mind is busy or still, but "getting out of one's head" on a regular basis makes it a lot easier to see what's going on and to penetrate cognitive illusions. Yes, I understand what your saying. I think we have to be very clear though about who we think it is that is pointing. Non-volition means no choice. But like Enigma says, that doesn't mean there aren't responses to situations. Since we both agree there is no doer, than a response to a situation may be appropriate or not appropriate. A thought arises and the mind says 'I' chose that thought but it actually didn't. It's like if I asked you if you wanted vanilla ice cream or chocolate? A thought of chocolate arises and you say chocolate. The mind looks back and says 'I' chose chocolate. But of course it didn't. And it's not the cosmos either that chooses chocolate over vanilla. Pure knowing doesn't know what ice cream is. It only ever knows itself.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 19, 2014 18:41:02 GMT -5
Yes, there are two ways of pointing. The first way is to say, "Because you imagine that you are a separate doer, shift attention away from thoughts to what can be seen, heard, felt, etc." The second way of pointing is to say, "There is nothing "you" can do because who you THINK you are is NOT who you are." Both pointers are pointing to exactly the same thing, and both pointers seem to be successful for certain people. I prefer the first pointer because it usually results in numerous other realizations (besides seeing through the illusion of the personal doer) which make life a lot simpler and easier. Freedom from the mind leads to an acceptance of "what is" and a detachment from the kinds of thoughts that typically create psychological problems. Ultimately it won't matter whether the mind is busy or still, but "getting out of one's head" on a regular basis makes it a lot easier to see what's going on and to penetrate cognitive illusions. Yes, I understand what your saying. I think we have to be very clear though about who we think it is that is pointing. Non-volition means no choice. But like Enigma says, that doesn't mean there aren't responses to situations. Since we both agree there is no doer, than a response to a situation may be appropriate or not appropriate. A thought arises and the mind says 'I' chose that thought but it actually didn't. It's like if I asked you if you wanted vanilla ice cream or chocolate? A thought of chocolate arises and you say chocolate. The mind looks back and says 'I' chose chocolate. But of course it didn't. And it's not the cosmos either that chooses chocolate over vanilla. Pure knowing doesn't know what ice cream is. It only ever knows itself. OMG, don't mention the issue of volition! Ha ha. The idea of no-choice brings people out of the woodwork and generates huge foodfights that proceed for dozens or hundred of pages. FWIW, I'm in E.'s camp concerning this. I don't think there's any choice at all. From my POV everything is an unfolding of "what is," but the issue seems totally unimportant to me. OTOH, you wrote: ""It's not the cosmos that chooses chocolate or vanilla. Pure knowing doesn't know what ice cream is." I would certainly disagree strongly with this idea. If there is only "what is," or "cosmos," or "Source," THAT is the only chooser. THAT certainly knows what ice cream is, and THAT certainly knows which ice cream it wants to eat as a particular human being. "Pure knowing" is an idea ABOUT "what is," and it is an idea that leads in a less-than-useful direction.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2014 18:54:26 GMT -5
Yes, I understand what your saying. I think we have to be very clear though about who we think it is that is pointing. Non-volition means no choice. But like Enigma says, that doesn't mean there aren't responses to situations. Since we both agree there is no doer, than a response to a situation may be appropriate or not appropriate. A thought arises and the mind says 'I' chose that thought but it actually didn't. It's like if I asked you if you wanted vanilla ice cream or chocolate? A thought of chocolate arises and you say chocolate. The mind looks back and says 'I' chose chocolate. But of course it didn't. And it's not the cosmos either that chooses chocolate over vanilla. Pure knowing doesn't know what ice cream is. It only ever knows itself. OMG, don't mention the issue of volition! Ha ha. The idea of no-choice brings people out of the woodwork and generates huge foodfights that proceed for dozens or hundred of pages. FWIW, I'm in E.'s camp concerning this. I don't think there's any choice at all. From my POV everything is an unfolding of "what is," but the issue seems totally unimportant to me. OTOH, you wrote: ""It's not the cosmos that chooses chocolate or vanilla. Pure knowing doesn't know what ice cream is." I would certainly disagree strongly with this idea. If there is only "what is," or "cosmos," or "Source," THAT is the only chooser. THAT certainly knows what ice cream is, and THAT certainly knows which ice cream it wants to eat as a particular human being. "Pure knowing" is an idea ABOUT "what is," and it is an idea that leads in a less-than-useful direction. What does the knowing that we are, the what is, the source, or the cosmos, choose in deep sleep? Isn't it the absence of a mind that arises as an 'I', a subject that then chops the seemless-ness of existence into the multiplicity of objects, feelings and sensations. Isn't the reason we find deep sleep so peaceful is because all of that is absent? Peace is the absence of a chooser.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 20, 2014 3:26:56 GMT -5
Yes, I understand what your saying. I think we have to be very clear though about who we think it is that is pointing. Non-volition means no choice. But like Enigma says, that doesn't mean there aren't responses to situations. Since we both agree there is no doer, than a response to a situation may be appropriate or not appropriate. A thought arises and the mind says 'I' chose that thought but it actually didn't. It's like if I asked you if you wanted vanilla ice cream or chocolate? A thought of chocolate arises and you say chocolate. The mind looks back and says 'I' chose chocolate. But of course it didn't. And it's not the cosmos either that chooses chocolate over vanilla. Pure knowing doesn't know what ice cream is. It only ever knows itself. OMG, don't mention the issue of volition! Ha ha. The idea of no-choice brings people out of the woodwork and generates huge foodfights that proceed for dozens or hundred of pages. FWIW, I'm in E.'s camp concerning this. I don't think there's any choice at all. From my POV everything is an unfolding of "what is," but the issue seems totally unimportant to me. OTOH, you wrote: ""It's not the cosmos that chooses chocolate or vanilla. Pure knowing doesn't know what ice cream is." I would certainly disagree strongly with this idea. If there is only "what is," or "cosmos," or "Source," THAT is the only chooser. THAT certainly knows what ice cream is, and THAT certainly knows which ice cream it wants to eat as a particular human being. "Pure knowing" is an idea ABOUT "what is," and it is an idea that leads in a less-than-useful direction. In all seriousness though, an exploration of the subject, while very rarely not TMT can be very informing to mind ... agreement on the question between the two obvious polarities is never possible though, and the conversation can never not take the form of a debate. Such a debate though, is of course, completely on topic!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 20, 2014 4:06:13 GMT -5
Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi Talk 193 Maharshi observed: Free-will and destiny are ever-existent. Destiny is the result of past action; it concerns the body Let the body act as may suit it. Why are you concerned with it? Why do you pay attention to it?
Free-will and Destiny last as long as the body lasts. But wisdom (jnana) transcends both. The Self is beyond knowledge and ignorance. Should anything happen, it happens as the result of one's past actions, of divine will and of other factors.
=== So how does that work? How can two apparently completely opposite movements be "ever-existent"? Turns out that similar to Niz's "wisdom tells me I'm nothing", this statement has an interesting resonance with either scientific understanding or a statement of down-to-earth common sense .. from what can be inferred from appearances. It's TMT from the get go, but it does put the statement into a perspective that's interesting simply because Maharshi wasn't exactly a scientist, nor was he your typical down-to-earth westerner.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Apr 20, 2014 5:36:32 GMT -5
Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi Talk 193 Maharshi observed: Free-will and destiny are ever-existent. Destiny is the result of past action; it concerns the body Let the body act as may suit it. Why are you concerned with it? Why do you pay attention to it?
Free-will and Destiny last as long as the body lasts. But wisdom (jnana) transcends both. The Self is beyond knowledge and ignorance. Should anything happen, it happens as the result of one's past actions, of divine will and of other factors.
=== So how does that work? How can two apparently completely opposite movements be "ever-existent"? Turns out that similar to Niz's "wisdom tells me I'm nothing", this statement has an interesting resonance with either scientific understanding or a statement of down-to-earth common sense .. from what can be inferred from appearances. It's TMT from the get go, but it does put the statement into a perspective that's interesting simply because Maharshi wasn't exactly a scientist, nor was he your typical down-to-earth westerner. From my common-sense Western perspective, I'd say this makes a lot of sense. Destiny is surely in place - born in some culture to a certain family in certain circumstances, having particular inherent traits, exposed to particular experiences...and so on. All body related. There's also the karmic force - the results of our actions. Free will is also in place in varying degrees when we break out of those circumstances. (Seems to me, more mind-related, but that's body too in a sense.) IMO, Maharshi is saying that paying attention to it is assuming a 'personal director' that's orchestrating the whole thing. Through great effort, we can probably affect those things to some degree but it's often temporary because there's a strong current of destiny. Unless that whole effort and its consequences are part of the current! Which puts in a plug (as in 'sales plug') for following desires. I think the 'paying attention' part is more easily misunderstood. To me, it's saying this is not where Wisdom is found (wisdom in the big sense). And that's all it's saying. It's not saying one should not pay attention to their life or their body/mind.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 20, 2014 7:01:10 GMT -5
Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi Talk 193 Maharshi observed: Free-will and destiny are ever-existent. Destiny is the result of past action; it concerns the body Let the body act as may suit it. Why are you concerned with it? Why do you pay attention to it?
Free-will and Destiny last as long as the body lasts. But wisdom (jnana) transcends both. The Self is beyond knowledge and ignorance. Should anything happen, it happens as the result of one's past actions, of divine will and of other factors.
=== So how does that work? How can two apparently completely opposite movements be "ever-existent"? Turns out that similar to Niz's "wisdom tells me I'm nothing", this statement has an interesting resonance with either scientific understanding or a statement of down-to-earth common sense .. from what can be inferred from appearances. It's TMT from the get go, but it does put the statement into a perspective that's interesting simply because Maharshi wasn't exactly a scientist, nor was he your typical down-to-earth westerner. From my common-sense Western perspective, I'd say this makes a lot of sense. Destiny is surely in place - born in some culture to a certain family in certain circumstances, having particular inherent traits, exposed to particular experiences...and so on. All body related. There's also the karmic force - the results of our actions. Free will is also in place in varying degrees when we break out of those circumstances. (Seems to me, more mind-related, but that's body too in a sense.) IMO, Maharshi is saying that paying attention to it is assuming a 'personal director' that's orchestrating the whole thing. Through great effort, we can probably affect those things to some degree but it's often temporary because there's a strong current of destiny. Unless that whole effort and its consequences are part of the current! Which puts in a plug (as in 'sales plug') for following desires. I think the 'paying attention' part is more easily misunderstood. To me, it's saying this is not where Wisdom is found (wisdom in the big sense). And that's all it's saying. It's not saying one should not pay attention to their life or their body/mind. The body/mind is going to die (destiny) but it's not predetermined when or how (free will). The question of directing attention to circumstances, which is what I take that question to be about, can translate into lots of little specific questions, generally along the lines of "why me? how did I happen to get here? what happens next?". The wisdom referenced isn't about the story of our life situation or any other story for that matter. The inquiry that RM consistently directs his questioners toward isn't about the appearances that make up the details of those stories. On the other hand, those stories are going to go on regardless of whether or not the dichotomy is seen for what it is, or more precisely, for what it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Apr 20, 2014 7:51:55 GMT -5
From my common-sense Western perspective, I'd say this makes a lot of sense. Destiny is surely in place - born in some culture to a certain family in certain circumstances, having particular inherent traits, exposed to particular experiences...and so on. All body related. There's also the karmic force - the results of our actions. Free will is also in place in varying degrees when we break out of those circumstances. (Seems to me, more mind-related, but that's body too in a sense.) IMO, Maharshi is saying that paying attention to it is assuming a 'personal director' that's orchestrating the whole thing. Through great effort, we can probably affect those things to some degree but it's often temporary because there's a strong current of destiny. Unless that whole effort and its consequences are part of the current! Which puts in a plug (as in 'sales plug') for following desires. I think the 'paying attention' part is more easily misunderstood. To me, it's saying this is not where Wisdom is found (wisdom in the big sense). And that's all it's saying. It's not saying one should not pay attention to their life or their body/mind. The body/mind is going to die (destiny) but it's not predetermined when or how (free will). The question of directing attention to circumstances, which is what I take that question to be about, can translate into lots of little specific questions, generally along the lines of "why me? how did I happen to get here? what happens next?". The wisdom referenced isn't about the story of our life situation or any other story for that matter. The inquiry that RM consistently directs his questioners toward isn't about the appearances that make up the details of those stories. On the other hand, those stories are going to go on regardless of whether or not the dichotomy is seen for what it is, or more precisely, for what it isn't. I don't see how you got free will from an indeterminate death timing/circumstances. Those two don't seem related to me. And how do you know death's not predetermined anyway? For the second paragraph, attention to life is a pretty broad way of talking about attention to 'me'. But you would know better than I what he's referring to there. Never read his stuff. I'm leery of trying to extract meaning from conversations a teacher has with a particular student.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 20, 2014 8:05:51 GMT -5
The body/mind is going to die (destiny) but it's not predetermined when or how (free will). The question of directing attention to circumstances, which is what I take that question to be about, can translate into lots of little specific questions, generally along the lines of "why me? how did I happen to get here? what happens next?". The wisdom referenced isn't about the story of our life situation or any other story for that matter. The inquiry that RM consistently directs his questioners toward isn't about the appearances that make up the details of those stories. On the other hand, those stories are going to go on regardless of whether or not the dichotomy is seen for what it is, or more precisely, for what it isn't. I don't see how you got free will from an indeterminate death timing/circumstances. Those two don't seem related to me. Uncertainty (randomness) and free will are intimately related. If there are not actually multiple possible outcomes for a future event, then the question of free will is mooted before it's asked. If the date and manner of our death is already preordained, then no apparent choices that you make between now and then will change it and the logical conclusion really is that what concern, what difference does any apparent choice make? Either I eat my next meal or I don't, so what difference does it make if I think about how to go about getting it? Either I get into a horrific accident between here and grandma's house or I don't, so what's the point of paying attention to the traffic signals along the way? And how do you know death's not predetermined anyway? This is asking for proof of a negative. How do you know that it is? I can never be certain that there is no such pre-determined date, and there's no way to prove that there isn't. We can ask the question though, is the time and date of death preordained, and try to prove that there is in fact a way to determine it. In terms of physicality, in terms of appearances, there is a currently accepted consensus answer with regard to the nature of events in general, but that implicates all that science jazz.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2014 8:11:34 GMT -5
]Uncertainty (randomness) and free will are intimately related. If there are not actually multiple possible outcomes for a future event, then the question of free will is mooted before it's asked. If the date and manner of our death is already preordained, then no apparent choices that you make between now and then will change it and the logical conclusion really is that what concern, what difference does any apparent choice make? Either I eat my next meal or I don't, so what difference does it make if I think about how to go about getting it? Either I get into a horrific accident between here and grandma's house or I don't, so what's the point of paying attention to the traffic signals along the way? This is asking for proof of a negative. How do you know that it is? I can never be certain that there is no such pre-determined date, and there's no way to prove that there isn't. We can ask the question though, is the time and date of death preordained, and try to prove that there is in fact a way to determine it. In terms of physicality, in terms of appearances, there is a currently accepted consensus answer with regard to the nature of events in general, but that implicates all that science jazz. Let's simplify this babble. Everything is intimately related. End of story
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Apr 20, 2014 9:56:02 GMT -5
I don't see how you got free will from an indeterminate death timing/circumstances. Those two don't seem related to me. Uncertainty (randomness) and free will are intimately related. If there are not actually multiple possible outcomes for a future event, then the question of free will is mooted before it's asked. If the date and manner of our death is already preordained, then no apparent choices that you make between now and then will change it and the logical conclusion really is that what concern, what difference does any apparent choice make? Either I eat my next meal or I don't, so what difference does it make if I think about how to go about getting it? Either I get into a horrific accident between here and grandma's house or I don't, so what's the point of paying attention to the traffic signals along the way? And how do you know death's not predetermined anyway? This is asking for proof of a negative. How do you know that it is? I can never be certain that there is no such pre-determined date, and there's no way to prove that there isn't. We can ask the question though, is the time and date of death preordained, and try to prove that there is in fact a way to determine it. In terms of physicality, in terms of appearances, there is a currently accepted consensus answer with regard to the nature of events in general, but that implicates all that science jazz. To the predetermined thing...I wasn't asking for proof. I'm basically saying you can't know (and neither can I). Let's assume the time and manner of death is preordained. We don't know when or how, just that it's already set. Would you live your life (make choices) any differently? I don't think so. That time you decide to tempt fate and jump in front of a train? Well, you just found out when and how. Haha. Free will, to me, goes well beyond that and says we get to decide the circumstances. I sincerely doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Apr 20, 2014 10:01:55 GMT -5
]Uncertainty (randomness) and free will are intimately related. If there are not actually multiple possible outcomes for a future event, then the question of free will is mooted before it's asked. If the date and manner of our death is already preordained, then no apparent choices that you make between now and then will change it and the logical conclusion really is that what concern, what difference does any apparent choice make? Either I eat my next meal or I don't, so what difference does it make if I think about how to go about getting it? Either I get into a horrific accident between here and grandma's house or I don't, so what's the point of paying attention to the traffic signals along the way? This is asking for proof of a negative. How do you know that it is? I can never be certain that there is no such pre-determined date, and there's no way to prove that there isn't. We can ask the question though, is the time and date of death preordained, and try to prove that there is in fact a way to determine it. In terms of physicality, in terms of appearances, there is a currently accepted consensus answer with regard to the nature of events in general, but that implicates all that science jazz. Let's simplify this babble. Everything is intimately related. End of story Hey, we're chewing on some concepts here. You're gonna give me agita! Besides, "intimately related" is too vague.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 20, 2014 10:07:59 GMT -5
Uncertainty (randomness) and free will are intimately related. If there are not actually multiple possible outcomes for a future event, then the question of free will is mooted before it's asked. If the date and manner of our death is already preordained, then no apparent choices that you make between now and then will change it and the logical conclusion really is that what concern, what difference does any apparent choice make? Either I eat my next meal or I don't, so what difference does it make if I think about how to go about getting it? Either I get into a horrific accident between here and grandma's house or I don't, so what's the point of paying attention to the traffic signals along the way? This is asking for proof of a negative. How do you know that it is? I can never be certain that there is no such pre-determined date, and there's no way to prove that there isn't. We can ask the question though, is the time and date of death preordained, and try to prove that there is in fact a way to determine it. In terms of physicality, in terms of appearances, there is a currently accepted consensus answer with regard to the nature of events in general, but that implicates all that science jazz. To the predetermined thing...I wasn't asking for proof. I'm basically saying you can't know (and neither can I). Let's assume the time and manner of death is preordained. We don't know when or how, just that it's already set. Would you live your life (make choices) any differently? I don't think so. That time you decide to tempt fate and jump in front of a train? Well, you just found out when and how. Haha. Free will, to me, goes well beyond that and says we get to decide the circumstances. I sincerely doubt it. Choices happen every day multiple times a day. The question of free will can be seen to be reduced to the question of whether or not events are deterministic or random by asking the simple question: do any of these apparent choices matter? Is it possible that a different choice could have been made, or is the world just some sort of clockwork device and whatever's going to happen is going to happen no matter what decisions we make? If only some of the choices don't matter, if it is possible to influence future events by making present decisions, then how would it be possible to maintain an exact predetermined date with the reaper? If any choices matter, then the nature of destiny is inherently limited. If you sign on for the consensus rational scientific belief about the way the world operates then no, it's not possible to predict the exact time of the future death of the body/mind because the events between now and then are inherently random and unpredictable. It's not possible for me to prove that there is no predetermined date of death, but if we take science at it's word, we can rule out the possibility of making such a prediction -- the difference might seem subtle, but that's just a trick of logic. Destiny (death) and free-will (the impact of decisions on when that occurs) are both, as RM said, "ever existent" ... as long as there is the body/mind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2014 10:13:25 GMT -5
Let's simplify this babble. Everything is intimately related. End of story Hey, we're chewing on some concepts here. You're gonna give me agita! Besides, "intimately related" is too vague. Happy to read you're not one of those "indigestion happens" types. Time for brunch inter-being/ intimately related. Same-same
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2014 10:22:10 GMT -5
Hey, we're chewing on some concepts here. You're gonna give me agita! Besides, "intimately related" is too vague. Happy to read you're not one of those "indigestion happens" types. Time for brunch inter-being/ intimately related. Same-same ahh c'mon SS, its Easter fer christsakes, go find something to resurrect
|
|