Guest guest Posted February 19, 2002 Report Share Posted February 19, 2002 Hi All, Advaita says: There is no free will Let what comes, come And let what goes, go Leave the world alone In moments of clarity, I've realized that "there is no free will" because there are no individuals. I've also realized that in "letting what comes, come and what goes, go" I am accepting life rather than resisting it. Yet, in spite of these realizations, I've been left with the nagging feeling that following this path leaves me at the mercy of circumstances. During a satsang I attended, led by Catherine Ingram, a woman said that she had been offered a job that she didn't want, but that because this was what had come to her, she felt that non-dual philosophy was telling her that she had to accept the job. That by doing so, she would be "letting what comes, come." Catherine told her that just because the job offer came to her, didn't mean that she HAD to take it. Catherine recommended to this woman that she take whatever appears in her life within and wait in silence to see if it is met with YES. To not act until she gets that YES. I liked her answer, but didn't really understand what prompted it. Until yesterday. For some reason, this was really nagging at me yesterday, and I finally got it!!! I'm not being asked to surrender to circumstances, but to Self. Yes, circumstances are the play of Self, but the proper response to whatever circumstance may arise is not, you must do this because this is what came to you, the proper response is Stillness. And from this Stillness, Self will reveal ITS response. And when our response rises from the Self, we HAVE left the world alone. No matter what action we end up taking. Namaste, Julie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2002 Report Share Posted February 19, 2002 , Julie Isaac <jei@m...> wrote: [snip] > Catherine recommended to this woman > that she take whatever appears in her life within and wait in silence to see > if it is met with YES. To not act until she gets that YES. According to Shankara, this "YES" cannot come from the Self. It would come from the buddhi, the discriminating intellect. > I liked her answer, but didn't really understand what prompted it. Until > yesterday. For some reason, this was really nagging at me yesterday, and I > finally got it!!! I'm not being asked to surrender to circumstances, but to > Self. Yes, circumstances are the play of Self, According to Shankara, all circumstances are the play of Maya. > but the proper response to > whatever circumstance may arise is not, you must do this because this is > what came to you, the proper response is Stillness. And from this Stillness, > Self will reveal ITS response. And when our response rises from the Self, we > HAVE left the world alone. No matter what action we end up taking. > > Namaste, > Julie I wouldn't count on the Self revealing anything but Itself, but you can count on your heart's inner feeling to guide you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2002 Report Share Posted February 19, 2002 Julie & Friends, Julie, will, self effort, determination, compassion, ambition, ethics and what the Christian's call, long-suffering, also come to one from the Self. Looking for a deep 'Yes' can't be a bad idea, and even a superficial level of "Witnessing" will show you that most day to day decisions seem to make themselves. yours in the bonds, eric , Julie Isaac <jei@m...> wrote: > Hi All, > > Advaita says: > > There is no free will > > Let what comes, come > And let what goes, go > > Leave the world alone > > In moments of clarity, I've realized that "there is no free will" because > there are no individuals. I've also realized that in "letting what comes, > come and what goes, go" I am accepting life rather than resisting it. Yet, > in spite of these realizations, I've been left with the nagging feeling that > following this path leaves me at the mercy of circumstances. > > During a satsang I attended, led by Catherine Ingram, a woman said that she > had been offered a job that she didn't want, but that because this was what > had come to her, she felt that non-dual philosophy was telling her that she > had to accept the job. That by doing so, she would be "letting what comes, > come." Catherine told her that just because the job offer came to her, > didn't mean that she HAD to take it. Catherine recommended to this woman > that she take whatever appears in her life within and wait in silence to see > if it is met with YES. To not act until she gets that YES. > > I liked her answer, but didn't really understand what prompted it. Until > yesterday. For some reason, this was really nagging at me yesterday, and I > finally got it!!! I'm not being asked to surrender to circumstances, but to > Self. Yes, circumstances are the play of Self, but the proper response to > whatever circumstance may arise is not, you must do this because this is > what came to you, the proper response is Stillness. And from this Stillness, > Self will reveal ITS response. And when our response rises from the Self, we > HAVE left the world alone. No matter what action we end up taking. > > Namaste, > Julie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2002 Report Share Posted February 19, 2002 , "eblack101" <EBlackstead@c...> wrote: > Julie & Friends, > > Julie, will, self effort, determination, compassion, ambition, ethics > and what the Christian's call, long-suffering, also come to one from > the Self. I realize this is more of a semantics thing, but the above begs the question: comes to who from whom? The "one" who supposedly receives this "will, self effort, etc." does not exist from the regard of the Self. The "Self" you are referring to is Ishvara, or God. According to Shankara, Ishvara is the highest level of apparent being within the realm of Maya. Ishvara as an apparent being can be in a relationship with various other apparent beings, dispensing all the good things a good devotee can look forward to. The Self is utterly uninvolved in the time/space-based going-ons of life, which do not exist at all to the Self. > Looking for a deep 'Yes' can't be a bad idea, and even a superficial > level of "Witnessing" will show you that most day to day decisions > seem to make themselves. > > yours in the bonds, > eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2002 Report Share Posted February 19, 2002 On 2/19/02 at 9:26 PM jodyrrr wrote: º, Julie Isaac <jei@m...> wrote: º º[snip] º º> Catherine recommended to this woman º> that she take whatever appears in her life within and wait in silence to ºsee º> if it is met with YES. To not act until she gets that YES. º ºAccording to Shankara, this "YES" cannot come from the Self. ºIt would come from the buddhi, the discriminating intellect. The discriminating intellect doesn't work as if in the background, independent of other mentation. The reverse is true: so called 'gut feelings' dominate. When calm and serene, the discriminating intellect can be used . Since there is but the Self (God) the so called "come from" or "creation" issues are pointless, suggesting a cause/effect relation- ship stretching into infinity. º º> I liked her answer, but didn't really understand what prompted it. Until º> yesterday. For some reason, this was really nagging at me yesterday, and ºI º> finally got it!!! I'm not being asked to surrender to circumstances, but ºto º> Self. Yes, circumstances are the play of Self, º ºAccording to Shankara, all circumstances are the play of Maya. Isn't that a matter of labeling? In the middle ages it was thought that the earth was flat although the ancient Greeks through Atlas, indicated to know better than that The mere act of observing changes the observed... Could that prove, opinions are among the rarest to be observed? º º> but the proper response to º> whatever circumstance may arise is not, you must do this because this is º> what came to you, the proper response is Stillness. And from this ºStillness, º> Self will reveal ITS response. And when our response rises from the ºSelf, we º> HAVE left the world alone. No matter what action we end up taking. º> º> Namaste, º> Julie º ºI wouldn't count on the Self revealing anything but Itself, but ºyou can count on your heart's inner feeling to guide you. That's one reason why in Buddhism, mind as noumenon/phenomenon is quite enough: how to distinguish 'empty mind' from a static Self? Perhaps an issue is 'can educated gut feelings disguise as intuition'? Peace, Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2002 Report Share Posted February 19, 2002 , "jb" <janb@a...> wrote: > On 2/19/02 at 9:26 PM jodyrrr wrote: [snip] > ºAccording to Shankara, this "YES" cannot come from the Self. > ºIt would come from the buddhi, the discriminating intellect. > > The discriminating intellect doesn't work as if in the background, > independent of other mentation. The reverse is true: so called 'gut feeli= ngs' > dominate. When calm and serene, the discriminating intellect can be used = .. > Since there is but the Self (God) the so called "come from" or > "creation" issues are pointless, suggesting a cause/effect relation- > ship stretching into infinity. I see your point, jan. I meant to express that the Self is always actionless. [snip] > ºAccording to Shankara, all circumstances are the play of Maya. > > Isn't that a matter of labeling? Yes. I guess I'm being petty, but using the label "Self" to describe God (or the world) brings action into the picture, and no matter how intense the action gets, the Self is always actionless. > In the middle ages it was thought that the earth was flat although the an= cient Greeks > through Atlas, indicated to know better than that > The mere act of observing changes the observed... > Could that prove, opinions are among the rarest to be observed? Until they are reflected back at us and we can see them from a new perspective. Thank you. [snip] > ºI wouldn't count on the Self revealing anything but Itself, but > ºyou can count on your heart's inner feeling to guide you. > > That's one reason why in Buddhism, mind as noumenon/phenomenon > is quite enough: how to distinguish 'empty mind' from a static Self? > > > Perhaps an issue is 'can educated gut feelings disguise as intuition'? > > Peace, > Jan If it's educated it's not from the gut. The question I would ask is, where does the gut come from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2002 Report Share Posted February 19, 2002 On 2/20/02 at 2:50 AM jodyrrr wrote: [...] º ºIf it's educated it's not from the gut. The question I would ask ºis, where does the gut come from? The term gut suggests a link to the basics of biological functioning: a sensed threat like the smell of H2S causes natural revulsion as the gas is rather toxic whereas CO, rather toxic too, is odorless and often not perceived despite the ongoing malfunctioning caused by it. The power of suggestion/indoctrination can have the same effect as sensing a danger like H2S when that isn't appropriate which is a matter of education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2002 Report Share Posted February 20, 2002 Hi Jan, , "jb" <janb@a...> wrote: > That's one reason why in Buddhism, mind as noumenon/phenomenon > is quite enough: how to distinguish 'empty mind' from a static Self? The question is non-relevant: the act of distinguishing something from another is an 'absence' of 'empty mind'. > Perhaps an issue is 'can educated gut feelings disguise as > intuition'? Interesting question... the "gut answer" is yes, the "intellectual answer" is "I don't know" and the intuitive answer is "can't say" :-). Peace, Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2002 Report Share Posted February 21, 2002 Julie, Jodie & Friends, Jody says: > I realize this is more of a semantics thing, but the above > begs the question: comes to who from whom? > > The "one" who supposedly receives this "will, self effort, etc." > does not exist from the regard of the Self. eric: I wasn't speaking from the "regard of the Self", Jody, nor the view point of Ishvara, which, I may as well admit, is only known to me from hearsay. I'm somewhat surprised to hear, however, that you haven't noticed that many of those credited by strict nondualists with having achieved knowledge or union with the Self have no difficulty recognizing other mayavic beings, or feeling compassion for them, just as they have no difficulty recognizing "will, self effort, etc.". Harsha's recent story of Ramana's recognition of, and compassion for Gandhi upon hearing of his death, is a synchronisticly opportune example of what I'm talking about. On the above occasion, do you think Ramana was expressing the "regard of the Self", or merely that of Ishvara, or do you suppose he is just colluding with Maya? Just to make my own stance clear, Jody, I was speaking from the position of the relative or mayavic personal self, and I was trying to offer a little advice and comfort in an apparent time of difficulty to one of the same. That shouldn't seem so difficult to understand now, should it? yours in the bonds, eric , "jodyrrr" <jody@k...> wrote: > , "eblack101" <EBlackstead@c...> wrote: > > Julie & Friends, > > > > Julie, will, self effort, determination, compassion, ambition, ethics > > and what the Christian's call, long-suffering, also come to one from > > the Self. > > I realize this is more of a semantics thing, but the above > begs the question: comes to who from whom? > > The "one" who supposedly receives this "will, self effort, etc." > does not exist from the regard of the Self. > > The "Self" you are referring to is Ishvara, or God. According to > Shankara, Ishvara is the highest level of apparent being within > the realm of Maya. Ishvara as an apparent being can be in a > relationship with various other apparent beings, dispensing all > the good things a good devotee can look forward to. The Self > is utterly uninvolved in the time/space-based going-ons of life, > which do not exist at all to the Self. > > > Looking for a deep 'Yes' can't be a bad idea, and even a superficial > > level of "Witnessing" will show you that most day to day decisions > > seem to make themselves. > > > > yours in the bonds, > > eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2002 Report Share Posted February 21, 2002 , "eblack101" <EBlackstead@c...> wrote: [snip] > On the above occasion, do you think Ramana was expressing the "regard > of the Self", or merely that of Ishvara, or do you suppose he is just > colluding with Maya? Ramana was expressing himself as a human being. Human beings engage in action, and the collusion with Maya is unavoidable by the body/mind. The somewhat clumsy point I was trying to make is that the Self is always actionless. It doesn't "speak" to us in any interpretable way. It exists as the foundation of our being, resting in Its own existence. Any messages we get about our lives come from elsewhere. > Just to make my own stance clear, Jody, I was speaking from the > position of the relative or mayavic personal self, and I was trying > to offer a little advice and comfort in an apparent time of difficulty > to one of the same. Your compassion is always evident here. I didn't see Julie's post as expressing any difficulty in her life, but I did see an interpretation I wanted to comment on. > That shouldn't seem so difficult to understand now, should it? > > yours in the bonds, > eric Nope, I read you loud and clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2002 Report Share Posted February 21, 2002 Jody, Jody says: Ramana was expressing himself as a human being. Human beings engage in action, and the collusion with Maya is unavoidable by the body/mind. Eric says: There you go. Reading you back, loud and clear. yours in the bonds, eric , "jodyrrr" <jody@k...> wrote: > , "eblack101" <EBlackstead@c...> wrote: > > [snip] > > > On the above occasion, do you think Ramana was expressing the "regard > > of the Self", or merely that of Ishvara, or do you suppose he is just > > colluding with Maya? > > Ramana was expressing himself as a human being. Human beings > engage in action, and the collusion with Maya is unavoidable > by the body/mind. > > The somewhat clumsy point I was trying to make is that the Self > is always actionless. It doesn't "speak" to us in any interpretable > way. It exists as the foundation of our being, resting in Its > own existence. Any messages we get about our lives come from > elsewhere. > > > Just to make my own stance clear, Jody, I was speaking from the > > position of the relative or mayavic personal self, and I was trying > > to offer a little advice and comfort in an apparent time of difficulty > > to one of the same. > > Your compassion is always evident here. I didn't see Julie's > post as expressing any difficulty in her life, but I did see > an interpretation I wanted to comment on. > > > That shouldn't seem so difficult to understand now, should it? > > > > yours in the bonds, > > eric > > Nope, I read you loud and clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.