|
Post by enigma on Apr 20, 2014 10:46:36 GMT -5
Talk 244 M. : "All right. What need be said has been said. Well. What is destiny? There is no destiny. Surrender, and all will be well. Throw all the responsibility on God. Do not bear the burden yourself. What can destiny do to you then?" Talk 408 D.: Has man any Free-Will or is everything in his life predestined and preordained? M. : Free-Will holds the field in association with individuality. As long as individuality lasts so long there is Free-Will. All the sastras are based on this fact and they advise directing the Free-Will in the right channel. Find out to whom Free-Will or Destiny matters. Abide in it. Then these two are transcended. That is the only purpose of discussing these questions. To whom do these questions arise? Find out and be at peace.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 20, 2014 10:57:41 GMT -5
talk 30
M.: Yes. Free-will is the present appearing to a limited faculty of sight and will. The same ego sees its past activity as falling into a course of 'law' or rules - its own free-will being one of the links in that course of law.
Omnipotence and omniscience of God are then seen by the ego to have acted through the appearance of his own free-will. So he comes to the conclusion that the ego must go by appearances. Natural laws are manifestations of God's will and they have been laid down.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 20, 2014 11:00:26 GMT -5
Talk 244 M. : "All right. What need be said has been said. Well. What is destiny? There is no destiny. Surrender, and all will be well. Throw all the responsibility on God. Do not bear the burden yourself. What can destiny do to you then?" Talk 408 D.: Has man any Free-Will or is everything in his life predestined and preordained? M. : Free-Will holds the field in association with individuality. As long as individuality lasts so long there is Free-Will. All the sastras are based on this fact and they advise directing the Free-Will in the right channel. Find out to whom Free-Will or Destiny matters. Abide in it. Then these two are transcended. That is the only purpose of discussing these questions. To whom do these questions arise? Find out and be at peace. The references to wisdom and transcendence tie the three talks together. There is no actual parambigudox here, only the appearance of contradiction in the form of mental confusion for the thinker.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 20, 2014 11:02:18 GMT -5
talk 30 M.: Yes. Free-will is the present appearing to a limited faculty of sight and will. The same ego sees its past activity as falling into a course of 'law' or rules - its own free-will being one of the links in that course of law. Omnipotence and omniscience of God are then seen by the ego to have acted through the appearance of his own free-will. So he comes to the conclusion that the ego must go by appearances. Natural laws are manifestations of God's will and they have been laid down. Free-will is inferred by appearances and inquiry reveals the nature of appearances and thereby the nature of the inference.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 20, 2014 11:04:42 GMT -5
Axchooly, choices only arise in the mind as a reflective process. If the mind is quiescent, the body goes about its business without thinking about choices. Someone might say, "But you had a choice whether to walk through door 1 or door 2, didn't you?" For the person whose mind is quiescent, this question does not apply; the body simply walked through a door and the issue of choice never arose. Probably 95% of one's waking hours can be spent without the issue of choice arising. At times, however, it is necessary to solve problems and consider various hypothetical choices involve in the problem solving. Even then, if there is no reflection about the reflection, the body functions appropriately and does one thing or another without the "what if" line of thought ever arising.
On the other subject under discussion--predetermination--it is helpful to remember that the universe is non-local. Many people, particularly sages who don't reflect much, occasionally exhibit what appears to be "inside knowledge" about future events. If the biblical account is accurate, Jesus seemed to know what was going to happen to him in advance, and many Buddhist sages have foretold the time and manner of their death. The best known tale is the one about the ZM (I think it was Basho) who told his disciples that he would die three years in the future and would give a great shout at that time. Three years later lawlessness broke out in that part of Japan, and bandits roamed the countryside. The monks fled the monastery but the ZM remained behind. Bandits murdered the ZM by cutting his throat and he apparently yelled so loudly at that time that the scream was heard from more than a mile away. This story helped precipitate Hakuin's first enlightenment experience hundreds of years later. There are dozens of other stories similar to this one, and many people who have had deep experiences of psychological unity have reported non-local ("inside") types of knowledge.
Laughter's point, and Quinn's equivalent observation, seem on point; what difference does it make? Even if we knew that every single event is predetermined, the only advantage to knowing that fact would probably be to relax more and enjoy the ride.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 20, 2014 11:10:54 GMT -5
Talk 244 M. : "All right. What need be said has been said. Well. What is destiny? There is no destiny. Surrender, and all will be well. Throw all the responsibility on God. Do not bear the burden yourself. What can destiny do to you then?" Talk 408 D.: Has man any Free-Will or is everything in his life predestined and preordained? M. : Free-Will holds the field in association with individuality. As long as individuality lasts so long there is Free-Will. All the sastras are based on this fact and they advise directing the Free-Will in the right channel. Find out to whom Free-Will or Destiny matters. Abide in it. Then these two are transcended. That is the only purpose of discussing these questions. To whom do these questions arise? Find out and be at peace. Precisely! Great quotes.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 20, 2014 11:27:01 GMT -5
talk 30 M.: Yes. Free-will is the present appearing to a limited faculty of sight and will. The same ego sees its past activity as falling into a course of 'law' or rules - its own free-will being one of the links in that course of law. Omnipotence and omniscience of God are then seen by the ego to have acted through the appearance of his own free-will. So he comes to the conclusion that the ego must go by appearances. Natural laws are manifestations of God's will and they have been laid down. Free-will is inferred by appearances and inquiry reveals the nature of appearances and thereby the nature of the inference. Was Maharshi always this obscure, or was he just hedging on free will and destiny?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2014 11:48:24 GMT -5
Free-will is inferred by appearances and inquiry reveals the nature of appearances and thereby the nature of the inference. Was Maharshi always this obscure, or was he just hedging on free will and destiny? Yes, the non-volitional appropriate response from Marharshi, would be to be a free will and destiny hedge fund manager.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 20, 2014 11:56:44 GMT -5
Axchooly, choices only arise in the mind as a reflective process. If the mind is quiescent, the body goes about its business without thinking about choices. Someone might say, "But you had a choice whether to walk through door 1 or door 2, didn't you?" For the person whose mind is quiescent, this question does not apply; the body simply walked through a door and the issue of choice never arose. Probably 95% of one's waking hours can be spent without the issue of choice arising. At times, however, it is necessary to solve problems and consider various hypothetical choices involve in the problem solving. Even then, if there is no reflection about the reflection, the body functions appropriately and does one thing or another without the "what if" line of thought ever arising. On the other subject under discussion--predetermination--it is helpful to remember that the universe is non-local. Many people, particularly sages who don't reflect much, occasionally exhibit what appears to be "inside knowledge" about future events. If the biblical account is accurate, Jesus seemed to know what was going to happen to him in advance, and many Buddhist sages have foretold the time and manner of their death. The best known tale is the one about the ZM (I think it was Basho) who told his disciples that he would die three years in the future and would give a great shout at that time. Three years later lawlessness broke out in that part of Japan, and bandits roamed the countryside. The monks fled the monastery but the ZM remained behind. Bandits murdered the ZM by cutting his throat and he apparently yelled so loudly at that time that the scream was heard from more than a mile away. This story helped precipitate Hakuin's first enlightenment experience hundreds of years later. There are dozens of other stories similar to this one, and many people who have had deep experiences of psychological unity have reported non-local ("inside") types of knowledge. Laughter's point, and Quinn's equivalent observation, seem on point; what difference does it make? Even if we knew that every single event is predetermined, the only advantage to knowing that fact would probably be to relax more and enjoy the ride. It's precisely because there is no volition that everything will play out in a certain way and no other, which is not to imply that somebody/something else is in control, only that nothing is in control. As such, predetermination is false as it implies a determiner, but destiny could be said to be correct. The term 'destiny' could lead one to conclude that their choices don't matter, but it's these choices that lead to that destiny. One cannot help but make the choices one makes, and do what one does, not because the self center is impotent but because there is no self center. The universe will unfold as it does in it's wholeness. Remaining whole, moving as one complex movement; the expression of the singularity of formless Intelligence. The whole issue of free will is based on a misconception born of the illusion of self identification with a separate self. There isn't somebody who has no free will.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2014 12:02:14 GMT -5
Axchooly, choices only arise in the mind as a reflective process. If the mind is quiescent, the body goes about its business without thinking about choices. Someone might say, "But you had a choice whether to walk through door 1 or door 2, didn't you?" For the person whose mind is quiescent, this question does not apply; the body simply walked through a door and the issue of choice never arose. Probably 95% of one's waking hours can be spent without the issue of choice arising. At times, however, it is necessary to solve problems and consider various hypothetical choices involve in the problem solving. Even then, if there is no reflection about the reflection, the body functions appropriately and does one thing or another without the "what if" line of thought ever arising. On the other subject under discussion--predetermination--it is helpful to remember that the universe is non-local. Many people, particularly sages who don't reflect much, occasionally exhibit what appears to be "inside knowledge" about future events. If the biblical account is accurate, Jesus seemed to know what was going to happen to him in advance, and many Buddhist sages have foretold the time and manner of their death. The best known tale is the one about the ZM (I think it was Basho) who told his disciples that he would die three years in the future and would give a great shout at that time. Three years later lawlessness broke out in that part of Japan, and bandits roamed the countryside. The monks fled the monastery but the ZM remained behind. Bandits murdered the ZM by cutting his throat and he apparently yelled so loudly at that time that the scream was heard from more than a mile away. This story helped precipitate Hakuin's first enlightenment experience hundreds of years later. There are dozens of other stories similar to this one, and many people who have had deep experiences of psychological unity have reported non-local ("inside") types of knowledge. Laughter's point, and Quinn's equivalent observation, seem on point; what difference does it make? Even if we knew that every single event is predetermined, the only advantage to knowing that fact would probably be to relax more and enjoy the ride. It's precisely because there is no volition that everything will play out in a certain way and no other, which is not to imply that somebody/something else is in control, only that nothing is in control. As such, predetermination is false as it implies a determiner, but destiny could be said to be correct. The term 'destiny' could lead one to conclude that their choices don't matter, but it's these choices that lead to that destiny. One cannot help but make the choices one makes, and do what one does, not because the self center is impotent but because there is no self center. The universe will unfold as it does in it's wholeness. Remaining whole, moving as one complex movement; the expression of the singularity of formless Intelligence. The whole issue of free will is based on a misconception born of the illusion of self identification with a separate self. There isn't somebody who has no free will. Listening to this on the radio whilst reading your post just made me laugh
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 20, 2014 12:03:29 GMT -5
Was Maharshi always this obscure, or was he just hedging on free will and destiny? Yes, the non-volitional appropriate response from Marharshi, would be to be a free will and destiny hedge fund manager. Maybe he found that talking plainly about free will resulted in nobody listening.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 20, 2014 12:08:20 GMT -5
It's precisely because there is no volition that everything will play out in a certain way and no other, which is not to imply that somebody/something else is in control, only that nothing is in control. As such, predetermination is false as it implies a determiner, but destiny could be said to be correct. The term 'destiny' could lead one to conclude that their choices don't matter, but it's these choices that lead to that destiny. One cannot help but make the choices one makes, and do what one does, not because the self center is impotent but because there is no self center. The universe will unfold as it does in it's wholeness. Remaining whole, moving as one complex movement; the expression of the singularity of formless Intelligence. The whole issue of free will is based on a misconception born of the illusion of self identification with a separate self. There isn't somebody who has no free will. Listening to this on the radio whilst reading your post just made me laugh Hey, can we focus a little bit here, sharon?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2014 12:57:53 GMT -5
Axchooly, choices only arise in the mind as a reflective process. If the mind is quiescent, the body goes about its business without thinking about choices. Someone might say, "But you had a choice whether to walk through door 1 or door 2, didn't you?" For the person whose mind is quiescent, this question does not apply; the body simply walked through a door and the issue of choice never arose. Probably 95% of one's waking hours can be spent without the issue of choice arising. At times, however, it is necessary to solve problems and consider various hypothetical choices involve in the problem solving. Even then, if there is no reflection about the reflection, the body functions appropriately and does one thing or another without the "what if" line of thought ever arising. On the other subject under discussion--predetermination--it is helpful to remember that the universe is non-local. Many people, particularly sages who don't reflect much, occasionally exhibit what appears to be "inside knowledge" about future events. If the biblical account is accurate, Jesus seemed to know what was going to happen to him in advance, and many Buddhist sages have foretold the time and manner of their death. The best known tale is the one about the ZM (I think it was Basho) who told his disciples that he would die three years in the future and would give a great shout at that time. Three years later lawlessness broke out in that part of Japan, and bandits roamed the countryside. The monks fled the monastery but the ZM remained behind. Bandits murdered the ZM by cutting his throat and he apparently yelled so loudly at that time that the scream was heard from more than a mile away. This story helped precipitate Hakuin's first enlightenment experience hundreds of years later. There are dozens of other stories similar to this one, and many people who have had deep experiences of psychological unity have reported non-local ("inside") types of knowledge. Laughter's point, and Quinn's equivalent observation, seem on point; what difference does it make? Even if we knew that every single event is predetermined, the only advantage to knowing that fact would probably be to relax more and enjoy the ride. It's precisely because there is no volition that everything will play out in a certain way and no other, which is not to imply that somebody/something else is in control, only that nothing is in control. As such, predetermination is false as it implies a determiner, but destiny could be said to be correct. The term 'destiny' could lead one to conclude that their choices don't matter, but it's these choices that lead to that destiny. One cannot help but make the choices one makes, and do what one does, not because the self center is impotent but because there is no self center. The universe will unfold as it does in it's wholeness. Remaining whole, moving as one complex movement; the expression of the singularity of formless Intelligence. The whole issue of free will is based on a misconception born of the illusion of self identification with a separate self. There isn't somebody who has no free will. I think even after the belief in control has collapsed, there seems to be a reassigning of control to a higher power, like the cosmos, or consciousness, source, or whatever. But those things are the exact opposite of control or the function of restraining or resisting. They are in fact the absence of control as you point out. The absence of control is what freedom is. So the belief in a higher power with control must also be collapsed.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 20, 2014 13:29:45 GMT -5
Axchooly, choices only arise in the mind as a reflective process. If the mind is quiescent, the body goes about its business without thinking about choices. Someone might say, "But you had a choice whether to walk through door 1 or door 2, didn't you?" For the person whose mind is quiescent, this question does not apply; the body simply walked through a door and the issue of choice never arose. Probably 95% of one's waking hours can be spent without the issue of choice arising. At times, however, it is necessary to solve problems and consider various hypothetical choices involve in the problem solving. Even then, if there is no reflection about the reflection, the body functions appropriately and does one thing or another without the "what if" line of thought ever arising. On the other subject under discussion--predetermination--it is helpful to remember that the universe is non-local. Many people, particularly sages who don't reflect much, occasionally exhibit what appears to be "inside knowledge" about future events. If the biblical account is accurate, Jesus seemed to know what was going to happen to him in advance, and many Buddhist sages have foretold the time and manner of their death. The best known tale is the one about the ZM (I think it was Basho) who told his disciples that he would die three years in the future and would give a great shout at that time. Three years later lawlessness broke out in that part of Japan, and bandits roamed the countryside. The monks fled the monastery but the ZM remained behind. Bandits murdered the ZM by cutting his throat and he apparently yelled so loudly at that time that the scream was heard from more than a mile away. This story helped precipitate Hakuin's first enlightenment experience hundreds of years later. There are dozens of other stories similar to this one, and many people who have had deep experiences of psychological unity have reported non-local ("inside") types of knowledge. Laughter's point, and Quinn's equivalent observation, seem on point; what difference does it make? Even if we knew that every single event is predetermined, the only advantage to knowing that fact would probably be to relax more and enjoy the ride. It's precisely because there is no volition that everything will play out in a certain way and no other, which is not to imply that somebody/something else is in control, only that nothing is in control. As such, predetermination is false as it implies a determiner, but destiny could be said to be correct. The term 'destiny' could lead one to conclude that their choices don't matter, but it's these choices that lead to that destiny. One cannot help but make the choices one makes, and do what one does, not because the self center is impotent but because there is no self center. The universe will unfold as it does in it's wholeness. Remaining whole, moving as one complex movement; the expression of the singularity of formless Intelligence. The whole issue of free will is based on a misconception born of the illusion of self identification with a separate self. There isn't somebody who has no free will. Yup yup. Total agreement here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2014 14:56:01 GMT -5
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 Christsakes is one word?
|
|