|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 20, 2023 14:04:00 GMT -5
Apparently, that isn't the case. How do you define "volition"? Never given it much thought, hehe. But I guess it would be along similar lines to 'directed intent'.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 20, 2023 14:35:38 GMT -5
How do you define "volition"? Never given it much thought, hehe. But I guess it would be along similar lines to 'directed intent'. Again, in this convo, definitions/meanings are important.
The term "volition" as used in Nonduality circles has a very specific meaning. Thus, when it's said that SR reveals personal volition to be false/a misconception or an illusion, what's being referenced there is very much the "underlying, actuality of power...ability to determine/act with personal doership," referenced in this Merriam-Webster definition of the term: "Volition: the power of choosing or determining."
The fact that there is no fundamental separation....no inherent, independent existence to the apparent me character/person/body-mind, means there's also no actual "power" to choose/determine.
Truth always addresses what is "actually/fundamentally so." The term "volition" as well as "causation" have built-in reference to actuality/fundamentals.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 20, 2023 15:29:43 GMT -5
Never given it much thought, hehe. But I guess it would be along similar lines to 'directed intent'. Again, in this convo, definitions/meanings are important.
The term "volition" as used in Nonduality circles has a very specific meaning. Thus, when it's said that SR reveals personal volition to be false/a misconception or an illusion, what's being referenced there is very much the "underlying, actuality of power...ability to determine/act with personal doership," referenced in this Merriam-Webster definition of the term: "Volition: the power of choosing or determining."
The fact that there is no fundamental separation....no inherent, independent existence to the apparent me character/person/body-mind, means there's also no actual "power" to choose/determine.
Truth always addresses what is "actually/fundamentally so." The term "volition" as well as "causation" have built-in reference to actuality/fundamentals.
I dunno about all this actual stuff, coz it's all in the realm of appearance. Which isn't to say it's somehow unreal (even though I know some like to make that distinction). I'm saying that in the context of the individuated mind-body expression, there is the power to influence or determine outcomes. To inter-actively shape the directionality of experientiality. (Which I know does sound a lot like the positing of fundamental separation, but I don't think so). It's a feedback loop.
I'm talking about will power, and saying I acknowledge it happens predominantly subconsciously but also overtly consciously. In terms of the individuated mind-body expression, this 'directed intent' arises in conjunction with the expression itself, and more broadly, individuated experientiality as a whole. And in that sense I'm talking about the creative process that is perception, in action. All of which, is transient in nature and ultimately empty [of inherent and abiding existence]. Hence, it is in the realm of appearance only, and it can be said that, 'there is doing even though there is no doer per se'.
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 20, 2023 17:08:51 GMT -5
Again, in this convo, definitions/meanings are important.
The term "volition" as used in Nonduality circles has a very specific meaning. Thus, when it's said that SR reveals personal volition to be false/a misconception or an illusion, what's being referenced there is very much the "underlying, actuality of power...ability to determine/act with personal doership," referenced in this Merriam-Webster definition of the term: "Volition: the power of choosing or determining."
The fact that there is no fundamental separation....no inherent, independent existence to the apparent me character/person/body-mind, means there's also no actual "power" to choose/determine.
Truth always addresses what is "actually/fundamentally so." The term "volition" as well as "causation" have built-in reference to actuality/fundamentals.
I dunno about all this actual stuff, coz it's all in the realm of appearance. Which isn't to say it's somehow unreal (even though I know some like to make that distinction). I'm saying that in the context of the individuated mind-body expression, there is the power to influence or determine outcomes. To inter-actively shape the directionality of experientiality. (Which I know does sound a lot like the positing of fundamental separation, but I don't think so). It's a feedback loop.
I'm talking about will power, and saying I acknowledge it happens predominantly subconsciously but also overtly consciously. In terms of the individuated mind-body expression, this 'directed intent' arises in conjunction with the expression itself, and more broadly, individuated experientiality as a whole. And in that sense I'm talking about the creative process that is perception, in action. All of which, is transient in nature and ultimately empty [of inherent and abiding existence]. Hence, it is in the realm of appearance only, and it can be said that, 'there is doing even though there is no doer per se'.The relative experience is rife with various assumptions that if you look closer, are not really appearing at all. Does "power" actually appear or it inferred in the experience/relative happenings of stuff getting done?
The same means by which it is realized that there is ultimately "no doer" despite the fact that experientially, stuff seemingly "gets done," is the same realization by which it's seen that the experiencing of being a me character who makes choices, is not actually evidence of "volition."
Just as the 'doer' gets seen through, so does "volition/personal agency/power to choose."
While it may very much seem as though there is personal "power/agency" in play to influence and determine outcomes, SR, a seeing from beyond/prior to it all, clearly reveals that that was only ever an erroneous assumption....if you really look, 'where' exactly is that power....'who' exactly holds it?....who/what does it belong to?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 20, 2023 17:10:28 GMT -5
FWIW, most of us use the word "person" to refer to people lost in the concensus paradigm; we use the word "character" or "individual" or "Mind-body organism" to refer to humans who have seen through the illusion of selfhood. That's one reason that many sages refer to themselves as "this character" rather than "I" or "me." It feels more accurate and in alignment with what one has realized. I don't have a problem with that. It's said that the Buddha referred to himself as the tathagata for similar reasons. I was using 'personing' in a similar sense to the individuated mind-body expression. No doubt that sort of 'autonomic' response is quite prevalent and likely accounts for the bulk of experientiality. However, just because choices are routinely being made on a subconscious level doesn't negate the fact that choices are being made. I guess we might conclude that differently. Additionally, such choice would be coloured by kamma, which may well encompass what we think of as genetic and biological predisposition, i.e innate behaviour. I consider variations in levels of apparent individuated consciousness to be a factor here too. What I mean is, someone who is generally 'being [more] conscious' than another may respond differently to the same stimuli, even subconsciously.
That said, there are also instances where informed conscious decisions/choices are being made after in depth consideration. And I'm not one who subscribes to this notion that things can only ever unfold one way. In either instance actually.
I rez with that Tao line but perhaps interpret it a bit differently. There is doing even though there is no doer per se. But that isn't to say there is an ultimate doer, such as THIS or the Unborn. I suppose it depends upon what has been seen and/or experienced. On the day that "the little guy in the head" was seen to have vanished without a trace and the past sense of selfhood collapsed, it became obvious that who I had thought I was had been a total illusion about a fictional character who had never existed in any sense-- a story of mistaken identification. The consequent realization that was verbalized internally at that time was, "OMG, everything that ever happened was done by the process of reality, itself." This character had apprehended the Infinite in some unimaginable way fifteen years earlier, so it then became obvious that what had been seen at that earlier point in time was the underlying "doer" of everything or force behind everything. Later, I began to call it "the unified field of all being," and later still, "THIS." It's hard to put into words, but during that earlier apprehension of the Infinite there was a sense that a foundational aspect of what was apprehended was a living presence that loved everything. Whether we call it "the Unborn," THIS, Brahman, or "Buddha Nature" all we can do is point to THAT and acknowledge that THAT is totally beyond human comprehension. One of my first major existential questions of importance was, "Is there really such a thing as God?" On March 5, 1984 that question got answered, but not in a way that I could have ever expected. Somehow this character saw in some direct way what the word "God" pointed to, and anyone who apprehends THAT will never be the same. As Kabir so eloquently wrote, "I saw the truth for fifteen seconds and became a servant for life."
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 21, 2023 7:29:43 GMT -5
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The only part of 'no SVP' I agree with is the 'no S' part. The volitioning and the personing are entirely apparent. Yet even they, ultimately, are divine expression. But apparent nonetheless. Hence, from my pov the issue is not the limitation of language, but a lack of clarity. It's complicated. Correct, no separation (I don't even know what separation would mean). But I think we have to distinguish between the *person* (OTOH) and the conditioning (OToH). We are all conditioned to one extent or another. Plus you can consider samskaras and vasanas baggage we might even be born with. So if a person is acting out from their conditioning, then it's not volitional, it's the conditioning operating. So, for me, nothing works without 3 aspects, [1] the Ground-Source, [2] True Self-true individuality, [3] the false self-persona-mask as conditioning (which I also consider including samskaras-vasanas). If one is acting from conditioning, one is not free, and you can't consider it volitional (it's "knee-jerk compulsive-acting). IOW, correct, no separation. If one is acting from conditioning, no volition. If one is acting from the small s self, this is the false self and can't be called the person, no person. I fully accept with these qualifications no SVP. IOoW, no Separation, period. Volition, acting from True Self- Person begins with the many forms of "meditation", including ATA-T, and only that.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 21, 2023 7:30:54 GMT -5
Apparently, that isn't the case. How do you define "volition"? It's complicated (see post above).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 21, 2023 7:36:06 GMT -5
Never given it much thought, hehe. But I guess it would be along similar lines to 'directed intent'. Again, in this convo, definitions/meanings are important.
The term "volition" as used in Nonduality circles has a very specific meaning. Thus, when it's said that SR reveals personal volition to be false/a misconception or an illusion, what's being referenced there is very much the "underlying, actuality of power...ability to determine/act with personal doership," referenced in this Merriam-Webster definition of the term: "Volition: the power of choosing or determining."
The fact that there is no fundamental separation....no inherent, independent existence to the apparent me character/person/body-mind, means there's also no actual "power" to choose/determine.
Truth always addresses what is "actually/fundamentally so." The term "volition" as well as "causation" have built-in reference to actuality/fundamentals.
I've been disagreeing on this for 14 years here. (Explained in the post above). No Person doesn't follow from no Separation. Person doesn't mean independent existence. No Volition (period) doesn't follow from no Separation.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 21, 2023 7:42:13 GMT -5
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The only part of 'no SVP' I agree with is the 'no S' part. The volitioning and the personing are entirely apparent. Yet even they, ultimately, are divine expression. But apparent nonetheless. Hence, from my pov the issue is not the limitation of language, but a lack of clarity. Indeed, a me character/you character/person DOES appear. And choosing freely can be said to be a facet of experience, even in seeing through separation.
However, the very definition of "volition" (the power to make your own decisions) speaks to something deeper than relative, experiential content. It's the same with the word "causaulity/causation/creation." There's an inherent reference to "fundamental/actuality" in the very definition of those terms.
In order to have "actual" volition, there would have to be "actual" separation.
The realization of "One singular, undivided movement," illuminates 'actual' personal volition and causation as ultimately, illusive.
No, doesn't follow.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 21, 2023 7:42:54 GMT -5
Indeed, a me character/you character/person DOES appear. And choosing freely can be said to be a facet of experience, even in seeing through separation.
However, the very definition of "volition" (the power to make your own decisions) speaks to something deeper than relative, experiential content. It's the same with the word "causaulity/causation/creation." There's an inherent reference to "fundamental/actuality" in the very definition of those terms.
In order to have "actual" volition, there would have to be "actual" separation.
The realization of "One singular, undivided movement," illuminates 'actual' personal volition and causation as ultimately, illusive.
Apparently, that isn't the case. Correct.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 21, 2023 8:06:41 GMT -5
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The only part of 'no SVP' I agree with is the 'no S' part. The volitioning and the personing are entirely apparent. Yet even they, ultimately, are divine expression. But apparent nonetheless. Hence, from my pov the issue is not the limitation of language, but a lack of clarity. FWIW, most of us use the word "person" to refer to people lost in the concensus paradigm; we use the word "character" or "individual" or "Mind-body organism" to refer to humans who have seen through the illusion of selfhood. That's one reason that many sages refer to themselves as "this character" rather than "I" or "me." It feels more accurate and in alignment with what one has realized.Volition is an interesting subject. What are your thoughts about various scientific experiments that have shown that when there seems to be a choice between two options, the body acts BEFORE there is conscious awareness of the choice that the body has made? IOW, the sense of having made a choice comes AFTER the body has already begun responding to the issue at hand. As the Tao Te Ching puts it, "The sage does nothing, but everything gets done." From a sage's POV THIS, or the Unborn, is what does whatever is done. Yes, this is what I mean when I say there are 3 aspects. [1] Ground-Source; [2] "character" or "individual" (individuation), "Mind-body organism", True Self, my word is essence; [3] "person" lost, the false self, the small s self, the conditioning-itself. This is virtually precisely what I mean by essence. Volition (in my view) begins only by observing-attending-being aware of thoughts, feelings, bodily actions, people, places, things, events. Explained more fully in a post above. I really should stop here, but, You have [1] Ground-Source-All That Is; [2] essence-True Self is the beginning of Volition; [3] The false self can't do anything-no volition, it's only knee-jerk response. Being-acting from True Self is being in flow (with All That Is), is wu wei, doing nothing yet nothing remains undone. Acting from the false self, is being out of the natural flow (and this results in crime-poverty-war-terrorism-"evil" etc.). All this just could not be more clear to sdp. But such actions are still not outside All That Is (obviously).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 21, 2023 8:24:39 GMT -5
FWIW, most of us use the word "person" to refer to people lost in the concensus paradigm; we use the word "character" or "individual" or "Mind-body organism" to refer to humans who have seen through the illusion of selfhood. That's one reason that many sages refer to themselves as "this character" rather than "I" or "me." It feels more accurate and in alignment with what one has realized. Volition is an interesting subject. What are your thoughts about various scientific experiments that have shown that when there seems to be a choice between two options, the body acts before there is conscious awareness of the choice that the body has made? IOW, the sense of having made a choice comes AFTER the body has already begun responding to the issue at hand. As the Tao Te Ching puts it, "The sage does nothing, but everything gets done." From a sage's POV THIS, or the Unborn, is what does whatever is done.That's a cool 'in the dream' facet that demonstrates the inherent wisdom of the body....body/intuitive responses that lie beyond intellect/overt, obvious minding/mental processes.
The firing of neurons/synapses (whatever) in the brain, is a physical phenomena. "One singular movement" points beyond ALL physical phenomena that that which is prior to/beyond.
The problem with using that scientific finding to try to make the point for Oneness/no separation is that is reifies the apparent body and brain processes as fundamentally "causal" to the experiential making of a choice. When really, those brain processes AND the sense of choosing are BOTH facets of experience.....neither has actual causal/catalyzing, "inherent power," over the ohter. Both are temporal expressions of the unchanging.
Here is the distinction (I've made for 14 years here), what we are born with-as belongs to essence-True Self, this includes the body-brain-neurons. The false self is acquired after birth. This includes thoughts and negative emotions (learned from other people's negative emotions). And these come-from the connections between neurons, that's the distinction. Neurons essence; connections between neurons, the false self. The wisdom of the body as pumping blood and breathing air etc., is essence-connected to Source-Ground-All That Is. "Meditation" is something new, ATA-T is something new. But it's not-new, it's a return to bare-attention, bare-awareness, a return to essence-True Self. In meditation-ATA-T one doesn't go-with the firing of connected-neurons (of which the false self consists). That, begins taking the energy out of what perpetuates the false self. That, is true not-doing.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 21, 2023 8:38:43 GMT -5
FWIW, most of us use the word "person" to refer to people lost in the concensus paradigm; we use the word "character" or "individual" or "Mind-body organism" to refer to humans who have seen through the illusion of selfhood. That's one reason that many sages refer to themselves as "this character" rather than "I" or "me." It feels more accurate and in alignment with what one has realized. I don't have a problem with that. It's said that the Buddha referred to himself as the tathagata for similar reasons. I was using 'personing' in a similar sense to the individuated mind-body expression. No doubt that sort of 'autonomic' response is quite prevalent and likely accounts for the bulk of experientiality. However, just because choices are routinely being made on a subconscious level doesn't negate the fact that choices are being made. I guess we might conclude that differently. Additionally, such choice would be coloured by kamma, which may well encompass what we think of as genetic and biological predisposition, i.e innate behaviour. I consider variations in levels of apparent individuated consciousness to be a factor here too. What I mean is, someone who is generally 'being [more] conscious' than another may respond differently to the same stimuli, even subconsciously.
That said, there are also instances where informed conscious decisions/choices are being made after in depth consideration. And I'm not one who subscribes to this notion that things can only ever unfold one way. In either instance actually.
I rez with that Tao line but perhaps interpret it a bit differently. There is doing even though there is no doer per se. But that isn't to say there is an ultimate doer, such as THIS or the Unborn. Bingo. Bingo on two cards. Adding to posts above, if one is acting from conditioning, the connections between neurons, one stays in the feedback loop of the false self. If one is 'being [more] conscious' (being-in {bare} attention and/or {bare} awareness), this is not-living from the self-perpetuating feedback loops of the false self neural connections, this is disengaging the gears of (small s) self-"person". And yes, one most definitely begins to respond differently (thoughts and feelings happen differently), and yes, even subconsciously.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 21, 2023 8:56:43 GMT -5
Again, in this convo, definitions/meanings are important.
The term "volition" as used in Nonduality circles has a very specific meaning. Thus, when it's said that SR reveals personal volition to be false/a misconception or an illusion, what's being referenced there is very much the "underlying, actuality of power...ability to determine/act with personal doership," referenced in this Merriam-Webster definition of the term: "Volition: the power of choosing or determining."
The fact that there is no fundamental separation....no inherent, independent existence to the apparent me character/person/body-mind, means there's also no actual "power" to choose/determine.
Truth always addresses what is "actually/fundamentally so." The term "volition" as well as "causation" have built-in reference to actuality/fundamentals.
I dunno about all this actual stuff, coz it's all in the realm of appearance. Which isn't to say it's somehow unreal (even though I know some like to make that distinction). I'm saying that in the context of the individuated mind-body expression, there is the power to influence or determine outcomes. To inter-actively shape the directionality of experientiality. (Which I know does sound a lot like the positing of fundamental separation, but I don't think so). It's a feedback loop.
I'm talking about will power, and saying I acknowledge it happens predominantly subconsciously but also overtly consciously. In terms of the individuated mind-body expression, this 'directed intent' arises in conjunction with the expression itself, and more broadly, individuated experientiality as a whole. And in that sense I'm talking about the creative process that is perception, in action. All of which, is transient in nature and ultimately empty [of inherent and abiding existence]. Hence, it is in the realm of appearance only, and it can be said that, 'there is doing even though there is no doer per se'. This is important. If one *~practices~*, lives-from {bare} attention and/or {bare} awareness, things happen differently, things unfold differently, as practicing disengages the gears of the connections-between neurons AKA the false self-"person" (see posts above). Specifically, events, thinking, feelings-emotions happen differently, nothing is directly done, but things unfold differently. This is why practice is necessary. Without practice, the connections between neurons remain intact, and the false self can lead us (essence-True Self) around like a bull with a ring in its nose, no matter what one has realized. This is the meaning of nothing is done yet nothing remains undone (wu wei). And all this is why Dogen said: Enlightenment is practice, practice is enlightenment, he resolved the issue, if we already have Buddha-nature, why practice?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 21, 2023 9:10:43 GMT -5
I dunno about all this actual stuff, coz it's all in the realm of appearance. Which isn't to say it's somehow unreal (even though I know some like to make that distinction). I'm saying that in the context of the individuated mind-body expression, there is the power to influence or determine outcomes. To inter-actively shape the directionality of experientiality. (Which I know does sound a lot like the positing of fundamental separation, but I don't think so). It's a feedback loop.
I'm talking about will power, and saying I acknowledge it happens predominantly subconsciously but also overtly consciously. In terms of the individuated mind-body expression, this 'directed intent' arises in conjunction with the expression itself, and more broadly, individuated experientiality as a whole. And in that sense I'm talking about the creative process that is perception, in action. All of which, is transient in nature and ultimately empty [of inherent and abiding existence]. Hence, it is in the realm of appearance only, and it can be said that, 'there is doing even though there is no doer per se'.The relative experience is rife with various assumptions that if you look closer, are not really appearing at all. Does "power" actually appear or it inferred in the experience/relative happenings of stuff getting done?
The same means by which it is realized that there is ultimately "no doer" despite the fact that experientially, stuff seemingly "gets done," is the same realization by which it's seen that the experiencing of being a me character who makes choices, is not actually evidence of "volition."
Just as the 'doer' gets seen through, so does "volition/personal agency/power to choose."
While it may very much seem as though there is personal "power/agency" in play to influence and determine outcomes, SR, a seeing from beyond/prior to it all, clearly reveals that that was only ever an erroneous assumption....if you really look, 'where' exactly is that power....'who' exactly holds it?....who/what does it belong to?
Again, this is important. There doesn't have to be a doer for things to unfold differently. Again, living from {bare} attention and/or {bare} awareness takes the energy out of the connections between neurons AKA the false self. This disengages the gears of the false self, and frees the True Self to emerge. Thoughts, feelings-emotions and events unfold differently because the feedbacks loops of the false self are no longer operational. (See posts above). Now, all this is not so easy to see, because the false self feedback loops continue to lead one astray, your thoughts jump to the existing ruts. (Why do I know this is true? Because I've been here 14 years).
|
|