|
|
Post by zazeniac on Oct 20, 2023 1:15:04 GMT -5
The biggest obstacle to this is the notion of free-will, the notion that we can choose what to do next. Try scrapping that and see what happens. Hard to do. Good to have you around Sifty. You cannot scrap the notion of free will by using free will to scrap it. You only think you're choosing to scrap it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2023 1:16:18 GMT -5
You can ignore a TV even when it's on. It can be there in the background, but you needn't be entranced by it, and you needn't respond to it as if it were reality. When you think you've ignored the TV, then you realize that where your attention remains now is in fact another TV. You ignore that too. And repeat. It would be interesting to hear the views of the other usual suspects. You can only turn away from the TV if you have first been exposed to it so it has already left its impression. Then a thought may arise and you might ignore it but of course it's too late because the thought has already been and gone, so you are just experiencing another thought which is saying I must ignore that last thought. Then you feel a pain in your toe and you decide to ignore it. Can you? Then your phone rings and you decide to ignore it. That might have been an important call. For me this is a very unnatural way of living. On the other hand if you are able to cultivate regular deep samadhis in practice there will be no TV suddenly popping into existence to distract you which you will have to subsequently reject by turning away from it or thoughts for that matter, or at least very few. Then when you start to experience that silent non-dual awareness more and more it will start to be spontaneously experienced simultaneously in the foreground of your experience in daily activity quite naturally without you having to do anything. As a result of cultivating this awareness, witnessing consciousness will become more and more apparent, effortlessly and choicelessly. Trying to keep rejecting your worldly experience takes constant effort and I'm against effort. But to go back to the source just requires the most subtle intention and then you are pulled in to infinite silence and Bliss. It's effortless. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 20, 2023 1:19:35 GMT -5
Robert Sapolsky's book. I read a headline about it. He's a neuroscientist who argues free will is an illusion. Makes things so much easier. Given the same circumstances, we're all likely to be Hamas or the IDF. Kind of undoes the anger and hatred. I like it. No interest in reading the book though. You know there's a lot of shit we ignore. Tigray, CAR, Myanmar, South Sudan. Violence and war, slaughter somewhere at any given moment. We focus on Ukraine and Israel, why? I think I know why. It doesn't matter. It's not my focus. "First take the plank out of your eye." I'd argue Hamas and ilk are exercising will. I think what undoes anger and hatred is more like 'they know not what they do'.
There's a difference between predestination and no-will. People say surrender, but they specifically refer to the will. I don't like the nebulous terms like 'surrender 'that are not specific. I prefer to be precise. I've already ranted at length about will being perpetuated by psychological reactivity so won't bang on, but surrender is difficult because it's not easy to cease reactivity.
The Hamas ilk are highly reactive, and there's reasons in the sense that reactivity is tied into and perpetuates identity by inciting will.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2023 1:21:52 GMT -5
You cannot scrap the notion of free will by using free will to scrap it. You only think you're choosing to scrap it. If you think you are the doer then deeds will be done. If you don't think you are the doer then deeds will still be done. So why be concerned about doership or the lack thereof? I was simply pointing out the contradiction in the language. It is neither here nor there whether you think you have free will or not. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2023 1:24:58 GMT -5
Robert Sapolsky's book. I read a headline about it. He's a neuroscientist who argues free will is an illusion. Makes things so much easier. Given the same circumstances, we're all likely to be Hamas or the IDF. Kind of undoes the anger and hatred. I like it. No interest in reading the book though. You know there's a lot of shit we ignore. Tigray, CAR, Myanmar, South Sudan. Violence and war, slaughter somewhere at any given moment. We focus on Ukraine and Israel, why? I think I know why. It doesn't matter. It's not my focus. "First take the plank out of your eye." I'd argue Hamas and ilk are exercising will. I think what undoes anger and hatred is more like 'they know not what they do'.
There's a difference between predestination and no-will. People say surrender, but they specifically refer to the will. I don't like the nebulous terms like 'surrender 'that are not specific. I prefer to be precise. I've already ranted at length about will being perpetuated by psychological reactivity so won't bang on, but surrender is difficult because it's not easy to cease reactivity.
The Hamas ilk are highly reactive, and there's reasons in the sense that reactivity is tied into and perpetuates identity by inciting will.
The Mother Theresa's of this world are also highly reactive. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Oct 20, 2023 1:34:30 GMT -5
You can ignore a TV even when it's on. It can be there in the background, but you needn't be entranced by it, and you needn't respond to it as if it were reality. When you think you've ignored the TV, then you realize that where your attention remains now is in fact another TV. You ignore that too. And repeat. Then your phone rings and you decide to ignore it. That might have been an important call. For me this is a very unnatural way of living. Whether "you" ignore the phone ringing has nothing to do with whether your mind and body decide to pick up the call. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2023 1:42:08 GMT -5
Then your phone rings and you decide to ignore it. That might have been an important call. For me this is a very unnatural way of living. Whether "you" ignore the phone ringing has nothing to do with whether your mind and body decide to pick up the call. That's kind of my point. There's no need to turn away from the world at all. Vedanta is very clear about not rejecting the world when it speaks of the two powers of Maya. There is the projecting power of Maya which gives rise to the appearance of the world. That isn't a problem. You should fully engage with the world. It is the veiling power of Maya that one must address which is that which prevents you from knowing Brahman. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 20, 2023 4:02:59 GMT -5
I'd argue Hamas and ilk are exercising will. I think what undoes anger and hatred is more like 'they know not what they do'.
There's a difference between predestination and no-will. People say surrender, but they specifically refer to the will. I don't like the nebulous terms like 'surrender 'that are not specific. I prefer to be precise. I've already ranted at length about will being perpetuated by psychological reactivity so won't bang on, but surrender is difficult because it's not easy to cease reactivity.
The Hamas ilk are highly reactive, and there's reasons in the sense that reactivity is tied into and perpetuates identity by inciting will.
The Mother Theresa's of this world are also highly reactive. Probably not. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 20, 2023 6:35:41 GMT -5
Let's just say, you are both not wrong. What sifty suggests is a contradiction of terms, of course. In that sense, you are right and he is wrong. However, from the perspective of only THIS unfolding spontaneously in the eternal now, it is not a contradiction. In that sense, you are wrong and he is right.  Surrender for the seeker could be seen from at least three different perspectives (a trinity, if you will -- three that are in fact one). The gradual: The seeker who feels like they have will exerts this will to do "the practice of surrender" -- the practice consists of hypervigilantly preventing the will & attention from being entrapped in anything BUT the practice. It is, in effect, what laughter just called "arousing the mind without resting it anywhere." This practice tends to increase a relative sense of peace, and in the process, weakens other attachments and identifications. A mind where attachments are weakened is less resistant to seeing the truth. Also, crucially, surrender in this practice sense is an act of continuous discernment between the me and not-me (because it constantly asks the question: what is happening now? I need to know so that I can refrain from taking it seriously and getting my attention & willpower entrapped in it). So the "gradual" practice of surrender sets the stage for the next perspective. The sudden: This surrender cannot be "willed" but can come about in a flash -- either a temporary one, which is a glimpse, or a permanent one, which is realization. It's an insight. It's transitional moment of recognition that there is no independent surrenderer, no one who wills (not even to will surrender in the gradual sense above). Often this is a 'unity' kind of experience. The message contained in this insight envelope is in fact the next perspective. The absolute: This perspective is really no perspective at all. Because from this perspective there was never any problem, never any ignorance, never any surrenderer, never any finder. This is only a perspective, really, when seen from one of the other two perspectives above. The other two perspectives, from this 'non-perspective perspective,' cannot be said to be perspectives at all. And so the "gradual practice of surrender" is itself no such thing, really, since its doing is not what it seems to be, and it is "done" by an entity that is not what it seems to be. Well written guy. For me, following Low's prescription was at times exhilarating, and involved a sort of counterpoint to a profound bliss from the sudden absence of "I". A sort of existential kick-in-the-ass. I'd also add that this "practice of surrender" seems to me to describe a sort of universal Christian koan: If every hair is counted, and nothing happens that is not God's will, then surely, the only choice of free will in any given instant is whether one is in acceptance of God's love, or not. One can never know. Perhaps a choice involves sin, perhaps not.  This, further, seems to me to implicate something similar to the Zen Rinzai/Soto dichotomy. On one hand, the practitioner of such a moment-by-moment "Christian koan" hasn't realized the existential truth. But I can imagine, that in some instances, this eventually won't really matter, at all. I'd also imagine that those cases are likely as rare as the realized flavor of state. But of course, there's always necessary caveat: the rest of the Heart Sutra, which kind of strikes me as rather neo-Advaitan  : No ignorance or end of it,
Nor all that comes of ignorance;
No withering, no death,
No end of them.
Nor is there pain, or cause of pain,
Or cease in pain, or noble path
To lead from pain;
Not even wisdom to attain!
Attainment too is emptiness. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 20, 2023 6:46:22 GMT -5
Yes, good points, relatively speaking. But an intellectual position that there is no free will is similar to a true Christian believer's absolute trust in God .. just without the God part.  The precipice is about insight, and at the precipice .. what are we standing on? The void, which is one step away, is a free fall. Even the intellect can get a shadow of this: neither destiny nor free will is the case. Albert Low, a Zen master put it as "arouse the mind, without resting it anywhere". So much about one’s spiritual journey can be pleasure full, especially the surrendering bit. That why I think I wrote about the snickers bar incident, it was the 1st thing that came to mind when I watched Sifty’s video. The ‘act’ of surrendering can be so pleasure full that you get addicted to the act, and keep consciously ‘doing it’. But at some point ALL must be let go of, including the letting go. In my own journey it was all about enlightenment, I had an insatiable curiosity and wanted to ‘know’ what all the Buddhas knew, I wanted to experience the same things and plumb the depth and breath of our existence. For decades I practiced nearly every kind of meditation and exploration technique possible. Including the practice of surrendering, and I had many many keen insights and even cosmic experiences that in aggregate helped evolve me into a more functional, more chill, more patient and compassionate and capable human being. But it wasn’t until one day I had the realization that nothing anywhere is true, even perceived universal truths are subjective to the observer, so no truth can or should be trusted implicitly. With that I realized that my decades long search to KNOW the TRUTH was utterly pointless. With that realization I literally kind of ‘pop’d’ into aware oblivion, and stay that way for about 3 days. After that my hungry search was over, and I lost all interest in this ‘spiritual stuff’ that had absorbed my life for decades, and I became much more interested in just living my life as is. There are a thousand paths, millions, trillions of paths to arrive there, but no matter the path of the individual, no matter the goal or the practice, it all has to be let go off to enter completely into that effervescent aware living void. In my experience you cannot actively consciously choose when where and how that last letting go happens, when the time and conditions are right, you just sort of ‘pop’. Like a soap bubble floating on the breeze. Can relate to the bottom falling out of the conceptual firmament. Our culture conditions in an objective assumption, one that it seems to me can survive even profound and subtle non-intellectual insight. An assumption about identity grounded in function. That void, is an ungrounding, a free-fall. When one suddenly realizes that they were looking for answers in all the wrong places .. well ... What I have to imagine though, is what you write about that sort of realization in the context of how much of your experiential identity was wrapped up in the spiritual culture. What E' and reefs used to joke about as the "spiritual circus". That must have been a dooozy. But you know, there is some value in that. There is material value in spiritual scholarship, and I mean that, quite seriously. And anyone who spends time with seekers, especially in person, my hat's off, regardless of what my opinion might be about the value of what they have to say. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 20, 2023 6:50:25 GMT -5
Yes, good points, relatively speaking. But an intellectual position that there is no free will is similar to a true Christian believer's absolute trust in God .. just without the God part. The precipice is about insight, and at the precipice .. what are we standing on? The void, which is one step away, is a free fall. Even the intellect can get a shadow of this: neither destiny nor free will is the case. Albert Low, a Zen master put it as "arouse the mind, without resting it anywhere". Yes. Ideas about the truth always fall short, but some are useful at the right time. "There but for the grace of God go I," has become a mantra for.me lately. It really lowers my blood pressure. Whatever works! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 20, 2023 6:52:00 GMT -5
So much about one’s spiritual journey can be pleasure full, especially the surrendering bit. That why I think I wrote about the snickers bar incident, it was the 1st thing that came to mind when I watched Sifty’s video. The ‘act’ of surrendering can be so pleasure full that you get addicted to the act, and keep consciously ‘doing it’. But at some point ALL must be let go of, including the letting go. In my own journey it was all about enlightenment, I had an insatiable curiosity and wanted to ‘know’ what all the Buddhas knew, I wanted to experience the same things and plumb the depth and breath of our existence. For decades I practiced nearly every kind of meditation and exploration technique possible. Including the practice of surrendering, and I had many many keen insights and even cosmic experiences that in aggregate helped evolve me into a more functional, more chill, more patient and compassionate and capable human being. But it wasn’t until one day I had the realization that nothing anywhere is true, even perceived universal truths are subjective to the observer, so no truth can or should be trusted implicitly. With that I realized that my decades long search to KNOW the TRUTH was utterly pointless. With that realization I literally kind of ‘pop’d’ into aware oblivion, and stay that way for about 3 days. After that my hungry search was over, and I lost all interest in this ‘spiritual stuff’ that had absorbed my life for decades, and I became much more interested in just living my life as is. There are a thousand paths, millions, trillions of paths to arrive there, but no matter the path of the individual, no matter the goal or the practice, it all has to be let go off to enter completely into that effervescent aware living void. In my experience you cannot actively consciously choose when where and how that last letting go happens, when the time and conditions are right, you just sort of ‘pop’. Like a soap bubble floating on the breeze. You need to give up giving up all truths. Even the notion that you can't make it happen. I like Cadbury bars. The ones with roasted almonds. Someone at my preferred store buys them all when they come in. I'm hunting him or her. Competitive emptiness and competition for empty calories. Aces! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 20, 2023 7:01:00 GMT -5
What it means is that you vigilantly watch your experience and prevent your attention from being engrossed into anything particular (i.e. in some sense ignore them, without requiring that they literally leave the mind), continuously withdrawing your attention from all particular experiences as they occur. It also means, and this is implied by the last sentence, that you refrain from exerting willpower onto anything except this very practice of watching-and-ignoring-and-relaxing. When one practices surrender in this way, the mind is led to continuously discern more and more subtle components of experience that were previously overlooked -- and to ignore them too. This process generates a peace that weakens other attachments and that eventuates (when Grace wills it) into a final discernment that leads to realization. When I disappears then the world disappears along with all the experiences of world. Why attend to these innumerable experiences when you can deal with all by subduing I? You might say yes maybe when sitting with the eyes closed, but what about when you're active in the world? The same applies by turning the attention inwards to the source rather than trying to lose interest in what your senses are showing you. There is a difference and it's a significant one. Just examinate this carefully. If an experiences arises and you decide to ignore it how does that actually work? You cannot ignore what is placed in front of you as far as the senses are concerned. You are captured by your experiences. Doesn't it seem to you far easier to specifically attend to the source of that which appears in experience. Instead of trying to subdue what I is experiencing. Just find out who am I that is experiencing and then you will subdue everything with one fell swoop. Take the axe to egoity and quite automatically you will be withdrawing from the senses instead of trying to withdraw from every sensory impression you experience. Surely this must make sense to you. Turning back to the source is not the same as rejecting the world although by turning back to the source the world automatically disappears. Big difference! The 16/7 eyes-open walking/talking practice is very different, but quite complimentary to sitting practice. There are times when mind is used as a tool, and sometimes there are long periods where this isn't necessary. I'm sure that this spins out as many ways as there are people who have ever practiced. Some people write about only one, and not the other. Some people express the clarity of realization without having done either sort of practice. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 20, 2023 7:06:51 GMT -5
You only think you're choosing to scrap it. If you think you are the doer then deeds will be done. If you don't think you are the doer then deeds will still be done. So why be concerned about doership or the lack thereof? I was simply pointing out the contradiction in the language. It is neither here nor there whether you think you have free will or not. Seems to me that the irony was consciously expressed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2023 7:13:04 GMT -5
The Mother Theresa's of this world are also highly reactive. Probably not. I can't think of anything more reactive than the iron will of Mother Theresa helping the poor in the slums of Calcutta who identified as an individual soul doing God's work. That's just as reactive as Hamas but without the evil of course. |
|
