Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 17:44:06 GMT -5
The chooser was created by a choosing 'thought'. In other words, the 'thought' itself was the chooser. So, it is accurate to say there is no chooser. We have to be careful though because just as the choosing 'thought' created a chooser. A non-choosing 'thought' creates a non-chooser. Absent the unique perspective, dependent on a unique body-mind's understanding, there is no choice made that is consistent with that particular body-mind's understandings.. that is the 'chooser' and the choice, the unique happening that results from the actions of a person's understanding of their relationship with the whole.. the 'thought' is sourced from and through the understandings of the mindscape unique to the 'thinker'/body-mind.. such is the diversity of thought, dependent on the understandings of its vehicle.. It is a common expedient of the 'no person/no volition' belief.. by describing the choices that are made as non-volitional, those choices inconsistent with the chooser's preferences or those choices that result in consequences the chooser doesn't like, those choices are deflected as 'non-volitional', beyond the experiencer's capacity to manage into a choice that has consequences favorable to to the holistic whole.. using the term 'non-volitional' allows the choice, but deflects the responsibility, similar to the 'no person', claim.. allowing for the deed, but deflecting unfavorable consequences by claiming 'no doer thereof'.. a conceptual model inconsistent with what is actually happening.. Yes, as far as conceptual models go, I haven't found one that 'is' consistent with what is actually happening. If you mean realty when you say "what is actually happening". Conceptual models are objects, just like thoughts. As long as there are objects a subject is created. It is the subject that veils reality. The concept that there is no chooser but only choosing thoughts, can be one step closer towards experiencing reality without the veil.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 4, 2014 18:44:12 GMT -5
The chooser was created by a choosing 'thought'. In other words, the 'thought' itself was the chooser. So, it is accurate to say there is no chooser. We have to be careful though because just as the choosing 'thought' created a chooser. A non-choosing 'thought' creates a non-chooser. Absent the unique perspective, dependent on a unique body-mind's understanding, there is no choice made that is consistent with that particular body-mind's understandings.. that is the 'chooser' and the choice, the unique happening that results from the actions of a person's understanding of their relationship with the whole.. the 'thought' is sourced from and through the understandings of the mindscape unique to the 'thinker'/body-mind.. such is the diversity of thought, dependent on the understandings of its vehicle.. It is a common expedient of the 'no person/no volition' belief.. by describing the choices that are made as non-volitional, those choices inconsistent with the chooser's preferences or those choices that result in consequences the chooser doesn't like, those choices are deflected as 'non-volitional', beyond the experiencer's capacity to manage into a choice that has consequences favorable to to the holistic whole.. using the term 'non-volitional' allows the choice, but deflects the responsibility, similar to the 'no person', claim.. allowing for the deed, but deflecting unfavorable consequences by claiming 'no doer thereof'.. a conceptual model inconsistent with what is actually happening..On what basis do you say "a conceptual model inconsistent with what is actually happening"? sdp
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on May 4, 2014 19:26:20 GMT -5
Absent the unique perspective, dependent on a unique body-mind's understanding, there is no choice made that is consistent with that particular body-mind's understandings.. that is the 'chooser' and the choice, the unique happening that results from the actions of a person's understanding of their relationship with the whole.. the 'thought' is sourced from and through the understandings of the mindscape unique to the 'thinker'/body-mind.. such is the diversity of thought, dependent on the understandings of its vehicle.. It is a common expedient of the 'no person/no volition' belief.. by describing the choices that are made as non-volitional, those choices inconsistent with the chooser's preferences or those choices that result in consequences the chooser doesn't like, those choices are deflected as 'non-volitional', beyond the experiencer's capacity to manage into a choice that has consequences favorable to to the holistic whole.. using the term 'non-volitional' allows the choice, but deflects the responsibility, similar to the 'no person', claim.. allowing for the deed, but deflecting unfavorable consequences by claiming 'no doer thereof'.. a conceptual model inconsistent with what is actually happening..On what basis do you say "a conceptual model inconsistent with what is actually happening"? sdp As a participant with the happening, as a participant who has indisputable evidence of doers.. i am hopeful you and others are not the beneficiaries of such indisputable evidence, but.. the 'doer' shooting at me ceased when the doer's body-mind was rendered fatally inoperable.. that doer's choice try to end my choosing ended when the vehicle of his choices ceased functioning.. the choices, tailored to that experiencer's understanding, didn't continue without the 'doer thereof'.. The claim that there is no 'doer of deeds' or 'chooser of choices', is an idea about what still-minded observation would otherwise contradict.. given the option of choosing between the 'three doors', it is observable that the body-mind/vehicle of perception is 'doing the choosing', no choice happens otherwise.. the claim of no chooser, is a model chosen to fit the claimant's preferences.. There was an interval where i was aware of 'no chooser/doer', then i realized that i had chosen that model apart from the simple observation of what was happening, and without the counsel of practical consequences.. now, i am without the need of a model, but not without theories consistent with practical observations, theories that i will willingly discard in favor of a more comprehensive understanding of what is happening..
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 4, 2014 20:10:17 GMT -5
On what basis do you say "a conceptual model inconsistent with what is actually happening"? sdp As a participant with the happening, as a participant who has indisputable evidence of doers.. i am hopeful you and others are not the beneficiaries of such indisputable evidence, but.. the 'doer' shooting at me ceased when the doer's body-mind was rendered fatally inoperable.. that doer's choice try to end my choosing ended when the vehicle of his choices ceased functioning.. the choices, tailored to that experiencer's understanding, didn't continue without the 'doer thereof'.. The claim that there is no 'doer of deeds' or 'chooser of choices', is an idea about what still-minded observation would otherwise contradict.. given the option of choosing between the 'three doors', it is observable that the body-mind/vehicle of perception is 'doing the choosing', no choice happens otherwise.. the claim of no chooser, is a model chosen to fit the claimant's preferences.. There was an interval where i was aware of 'no chooser/doer', then i realized that i had chosen that model apart from the simple observation of what was happening, and without the counsel of practical consequences.. now, i am without the need of a model, but not without theories consistent with practical observations, theories that i will willingly discard in favor of a more comprehensive understanding of what is happening.. Schopenhauer said that "Man can indeed do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants". So everything boils down to what constitutes self. How did your identity arise? What is self? These questions have to be answered before the question of volition can be answered. If one cannot choose otherwise than self dictates, when we cannot say how self came to be (wishes, goals, aims, desires etc), then in what sense can it be said that one really chooses? sdp
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on May 4, 2014 21:28:34 GMT -5
As a participant with the happening, as a participant who has indisputable evidence of doers.. i am hopeful you and others are not the beneficiaries of such indisputable evidence, but.. the 'doer' shooting at me ceased when the doer's body-mind was rendered fatally inoperable.. that doer's choice try to end my choosing ended when the vehicle of his choices ceased functioning.. the choices, tailored to that experiencer's understanding, didn't continue without the 'doer thereof'.. The claim that there is no 'doer of deeds' or 'chooser of choices', is an idea about what still-minded observation would otherwise contradict.. given the option of choosing between the 'three doors', it is observable that the body-mind/vehicle of perception is 'doing the choosing', no choice happens otherwise.. the claim of no chooser, is a model chosen to fit the claimant's preferences.. There was an interval where i was aware of 'no chooser/doer', then i realized that i had chosen that model apart from the simple observation of what was happening, and without the counsel of practical consequences.. now, i am without the need of a model, but not without theories consistent with practical observations, theories that i will willingly discard in favor of a more comprehensive understanding of what is happening.. Schopenhauer said that "Man can indeed do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants". So everything boils down to what constitutes self. How did your identity arise? What is self? These questions have to be answered before the question of volition can be answered. If one cannot choose otherwise than self dictates, when we cannot say how self came to be (wishes, goals, aims, desires etc), then in what sense can it be said that one really chooses? sdp No, your stipulations are not valid, and your question calls for speculation about a model conforming with your notion of what "really chooses' means.. stop building conceptual models, and just pay attention to what's happening.. there is peace in understanding what is, less so in trying to conform what 'is' to the experiencer's beliefs about what 'is' is.. The choices are experienced, observed and self-evident.. the story about no-volition or 'no-chooser', requires explanation and faith contrary to what is actually happening.. the experiencer can see/experience people making choices, but has to be convinced to believe there is no volition nor chooser..
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 4, 2014 21:33:14 GMT -5
Schopenhauer said that "Man can indeed do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants". So everything boils down to what constitutes self. How did your identity arise? What is self? These questions have to be answered before the question of volition can be answered. If one cannot choose otherwise than self dictates, when we cannot say how self came to be (wishes, goals, aims, desires etc), then in what sense can it be said that one really chooses? sdp No, your stipulations are not valid, and your question calls for speculation about a model conforming with your notion of what "really chooses' means.. stop building conceptual models, and just pay attention to what's happening.. there is peace in understanding what is, less so in trying to conform what 'is' to the experiencer's beliefs about what 'is' is.. The choices are experienced, observed and self-evident.. the story about no-volition or 'no-chooser', requires explanation and faith contrary to what is actually happening.. the experiencer can see/experience people making choices, but has to be convinced to believe there is no volition nor chooser.. Nope, now you're using a conceptual model to make this judgment. If you look deeply enough at what I said, you can see it's the case. Can you say how your self came to be? Everything happens in the only way it can happen, when you say yes you couldn't have said no, when you say no you couldn't have said yes. sdp
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on May 5, 2014 5:30:16 GMT -5
No, your stipulations are not valid, and your question calls for speculation about a model conforming with your notion of what "really chooses' means.. stop building conceptual models, and just pay attention to what's happening.. there is peace in understanding what is, less so in trying to conform what 'is' to the experiencer's beliefs about what 'is' is.. The choices are experienced, observed and self-evident.. the story about no-volition or 'no-chooser', requires explanation and faith contrary to what is actually happening.. the experiencer can see/experience people making choices, but has to be convinced to believe there is no volition nor chooser.. Nope, now you're using a conceptual model to make this judgment. If you look deeply enough at what I said, you can see it's the case. Can you say how your self came to be? Everything happens in the only way it can happen, when you say yes you couldn't have said no, when you say no you couldn't have said yes. sdp Why do you presume to impose your beliefs on others? If i say 'yes', i could have said no, but chose not to.. yours is a chosen position that seeks to be absolved from the responsibility of its actions, wanting the consequences to be assigned to fate.. this is your choice, just as you could choose to let go of that conceptual model.. Everything happens.. and we influence that happening by our included participation and the choices we make, that is observable/experiencable...
|
|
|
Post by quinn on May 5, 2014 6:00:22 GMT -5
Schopenhauer said that "Man can indeed do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants". So everything boils down to what constitutes self. How did your identity arise? What is self? These questions have to be answered before the question of volition can be answered. If one cannot choose otherwise than self dictates, when we cannot say how self came to be (wishes, goals, aims, desires etc), then in what sense can it be said that one really chooses? sdp No, your stipulations are not valid, and your question calls for speculation about a model conforming with your notion of what "really chooses' means.. stop building conceptual models, and just pay attention to what's happening.. there is peace in understanding what is, less so in trying to conform what 'is' to the experiencer's beliefs about what 'is' is.. The choices are experienced, observed and self-evident.. the story about no-volition or 'no-chooser', requires explanation and faith contrary to what is actually happening.. the experiencer can see/experience people making choices, but has to be convinced to believe there is no volition nor chooser.. Yes, there is peace in understanding what is. You're confusing perceiving and understanding, though. Yes, of course choosing happens. That is obvious and self-evident. You seem to have decided that the will to choose is also self-evident, but that's actually an assumption about the choice. If looked at closely, where exactly do you see that will? What is it based on? I have not found anything concrete or self-evident in regards to will. All I see behind those choices are thoughts that are believed. When the thoughts change, or the belief is let go of, then the choices change.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 5, 2014 7:05:55 GMT -5
I know this is hopeless, but what the heck. Imagine a mechanical robot that goes through a series of programmed motions. Imagine that the robot has circuits that can look at what is happening and make various judgments. From the robot's perspective it might appear, and might be concluded, that it is making certain choices as it turns one way and then another, or performs various actions, but the creator of the robot programmed all such movements in advance, so the robot never had any choice at all. Even the robot's thoughts about choice were programmed into the logic of the machine, so its conclusions about choices were not choices either. How would such a robot ever realize that its actions were not of its own choosing?
Ramesh Balsekar has pointed out that humans have no choice about their genetics, their conditioning, the things that happen to them, or even the thoughts that appear in their minds.
The most important point, however, is that none of this really matters. The robot goes about its programmed business regardless of what it thinks. If the same thing were true for humans, it wouldn't change a thing.
If the mind is still, the issue of choice versus no-choice never arises. The body/mind sees and interacts with "what is," but no conclusions arise or are even necessary. No thoughts are present, and the body/mind goes about its business. If a thought later arises, "I exercised my volition," or "There is no personal self to exercise volition," it doesn't make any difference as far as what happened. The thoughts are an abstract conclusion about what may or may not have happened in the past.
The forehead itches, and a hand reaches up and scratches it. In the total absence of thought the heart continues to beat, blood flows through the body, and no one imagines that volition is involved in these activities. If thought is absent, and the mind is totally still, the body/mind does what it does. Is there any reason to think that whatever is happening is NOT happening in exactly the same way as blood flowing through the body?
Regardless of what one thinks, it makes no difference. Any thoughts are afterthoughts.
FWIW, peace ensues from ACCEPTING what is.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 5, 2014 8:32:51 GMT -5
Nope, now you're using a conceptual model to make this judgment. If you look deeply enough at what I said, you can see it's the case. Can you say how your self came to be? Everything happens in the only way it can happen, when you say yes you couldn't have said no, when you say no you couldn't have said yes. sdp Why do you presume to impose your beliefs on others? If i say 'yes', i could have said no, but chose not to.. yours is a chosen position that seeks to be absolved from the responsibility of its actions, wanting the consequences to be assigned to fate.. this is your choice, just as you could choose to let go of that conceptual model.. Everything happens.. and we influence that happening by our included participation and the choices we make, that is observable/experiencable... I'm not imposing my beliefs on anybody, I know that would be futile, almost everybody lives behind a fortress of self, heavily defended. I'm just sharing a POV. With everything I write do I have to say?, It is my opinion that.......... If something is the truth, it's not the truth because I say it's the truth. It only becomes truth for any one individual when they come to see it as truth.... ....... I don't think you actually looked at anything I wrote. Your ego formed before you had any choice in the matter. Have you gone through a process of seeing what you are....observing thoughts, feeling and actions? Your attention is separate from your thinking, feeling and doing. It is only by seeing what you are that you can possibly some day actually control actions, by ceasing to function through ego/persona. sdp
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 5, 2014 10:36:40 GMT -5
Why do you presume to impose your beliefs on others? If i say 'yes', i could have said no, but chose not to.. yours is a chosen position that seeks to be absolved from the responsibility of its actions, wanting the consequences to be assigned to fate.. this is your choice, just as you could choose to let go of that conceptual model.. Everything happens.. and we influence that happening by our included participation and the choices we make, that is observable/experiencable... I'm not imposing my beliefs on anybody, I know that would be futile, almost everybody lives behind a fortress of self, heavily defended. I'm just sharing a POV. With everything I write do I have to say?, It is my opinion that.......... If something is the truth, it's not the truth because I say it's the truth. It only becomes truth for any one individual when they come to see it as truth.... ....... I don't think you actually looked at anything I wrote. Your ego formed before you had any choice in the matter. Have you gone through a process of seeing what you are....observing thoughts, feeling and actions? Your attention is separate from your thinking, feeling and doing. It is only by seeing what you are that you can possibly some day actually control actions, by ceasing to function through ego/persona. sdp One never actually gains control of actions. Maybe what we could say is that what one wants becomes more aligned with what's happening.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 5, 2014 11:03:37 GMT -5
I'm not imposing my beliefs on anybody, I know that would be futile, almost everybody lives behind a fortress of self, heavily defended. I'm just sharing a POV. With everything I write do I have to say?, It is my opinion that.......... If something is the truth, it's not the truth because I say it's the truth. It only becomes truth for any one individual when they come to see it as truth.... ....... I don't think you actually looked at anything I wrote. Your ego formed before you had any choice in the matter. Have you gone through a process of seeing what you are....observing thoughts, feeling and actions? Your attention is separate from your thinking, feeling and doing. It is only by seeing what you are that you can possibly some day actually control actions, by ceasing to function through ego/persona. sdp One never actually gains control of actions. Maybe what we could say is that what one wants becomes more aligned with what's happening. Only if you forget to say, "Simon says". ......... ......... sdp
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 5, 2014 11:27:11 GMT -5
One never actually gains control of actions. Maybe what we could say is that what one wants becomes more aligned with what's happening. Only if you forget to say, "Simon says". ......... ......... sdp Doh! Actually, sumthin else happens which might be in the far left field of the same ballpark as control. When one is conscious, which by definition one is if one is self realized, the connection between thought/feeling and what actually happens in one's experience becomes very clear. It doesn't mean that one can start thinking/feeling differently in order to get what one wants, rather it's realized that one is always getting what one wants, sometimes in very convoluted ways. Mostly, it means ending the split mind that leads to both wanting and not wanting at the same time, and therefore struggling with what happens regardless.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on May 5, 2014 20:58:24 GMT -5
I know this is hopeless, but what the heck. Imagine a mechanical robot that goes through a series of programmed motions. Imagine that the robot has circuits that can look at what is happening and make various judgments. From the robot's perspective it might appear, and might be concluded, that it is making certain choices as it turns one way and then another, or performs various actions, but the creator of the robot programmed all such movements in advance, so the robot never had any choice at all. Even the robot's thoughts about choice were programmed into the logic of the machine, so its conclusions about choices were not choices either. How would such a robot ever realize that its actions were not of its own choosing? That is the issue, people imagining 'what if' 'as if' the imagining is real, and the actual happening is not.. i am curious, what purpose do you suppose is served by creating beings to act-out a known script with no variables, but whom are under the illusion that there are variations? People have developed sophisticated methods for communicating what is happening, language being one of the most widely used ways to communicate people's interactions with their environment.. that same language will communicate what those same people imagine, and when the person imagining stops imagining the concept imagined ceases.. but, the same person can deny the existence of the bees whose nest they disturbed, and those bees will still be there.. Many people have pointed-out many things, and you have chosen the one you favor, choosing also to set aside the totality of your capacity to understand the existence you are experiencing.. The most important point, is that you are free to choose that belief.. it is that unpredictable spontaneity that unexplainable choice, that brings sincerity and authenticity into the evolving exploration by 'that which is' to explore its own potential.. Largely agree, here, with the bolded part, but.. rather than remain clear that neither choice/no-choice are happening, which is experienced with a clear minds awareness.. you demonstrate the evidence that it is worthy to argue/conflict about which one of those beliefs experiencers prefer, when it is observable that the mind-play involved in the choice/no-choice game is theater for its own amusement, adding another degree of separation between the experiencer and the experience.. The forehead itches, and a hand carefully reaches for the doorknob, hoping to get outside so the wasp can fly away without stinging you.. there is a totality of the human experience, an understanding rippling through the infinite field of potential, a pattern of knowledge that when informed by the awareness of a still mind's clarity it experiences the totality of its existence, unobstructed fluidity, no hesitation, no attachment.. Now, you're just building a structure, an anchor, limitations.. what's happening is what's happening, and sometimes thoughts are creative, the inspiration to create, to happen..
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Oct 13, 2015 13:00:39 GMT -5
What is meant by nonduality, Mahatmi? "It means that light and shade, long and short, black and white, can only be experienced in relation to each other; light is not independent of shade, nor black of white. There are no opposites, only relationships. " –from The Lankavatara Sutra ==== “Advaita” in Sanskrit means “Non-Duality.” This is a difficult concept for most people as we look about us and see multiple objects. But what we see are only transformations not permanent forms, whether we are speaking of a chair, a tree, or a human being. Each exists provisionally, but is certainly not lasting. One day the tree may become the chair and the human body will be eaten by worms. The “I” that observes all this may disappear and become another “I”. –Justin Stone: T’ai Chi Chih and Non-Duality === Noted scholar Georg Feuerstein summarizes the advaita realization as follows: “The manifold universe is, in truth, a Single Reality. There is only one Great Being, which the sages call Brahman, in which all the countless forms of existence reside. That Great Being is utter Consciousness, and It is the very Essence, or Self (Atman) of all beings.” === Lama Yeshe: When you contemplate your own consciousness with intense awareness, leaving aside all thoughts of good and bad, you are automatically led to the experience of non-duality. How is this possible? Think of it like this: the clean clear blue sky is like consciousness, while the smoke and pollution pumped into the sky are like the unnatural, artificial concepts manufactured by ego-grasping ignorance. Now, even though we say the pollutants are contaminating the atmosphere, the sky itself never really becomes contaminated by the pollution. The sky and the pollution each retain their own characteristic nature. In other words, on a fundamental level the sky remains unaffected no matter how much toxic energy enters it. The proof of this is that when conditions change, the sky can become clear once again. In the same way, no matter how many problems maybe created by artificial ego concepts, they never affect the clean clear nature of our consciousness itself. From the relative point of view, our consciousness remains pure because its clear nature never becomes mixed with the nature of confusion.
|
|