will

[Guest guest]

The question of will is problematic when viewed from the reflective level of the

unity but resolved if viewed from the unity level of self existent functioning.

 

We do have an individual will in the human sense which as an analogy is exactly

the same as the will of the unity's functioning as a whole.

 

It can be thought of as an aspect of the ‘unitys will’; these two facets cannot

be separated logically into rational compartmentalized events, they both exist

in simultaneous is-ness.

 

In unity there is no thinking or decision making, it is self existent.

 

In infinite reflections however there is mind and willing.

 

Will is NOT the consequence of the unity, it is an aspect of the functioning of

the unity.

 

There is a marked difference between these two.

 

In human terms; Will is the consequence of an individual will and an ‘event’ in

the unity, neither of which precedes the other. In the truest sense of the word

simultaneous do these seemingly separate actions occur.

 

The human mind cannot resolve unwilled is-ness and infinite reflective willing,

except to place them as simultaneous events in the human construct of space

time.

 

Much depends on perspective, from the human perspective will exists, from the

unity's perspective there is no will; in the purest essence of BEINGNESS there

is no will period, for the infinite overlapping of wills is what makes the

beingness of unity what it is.

 

This is a very difficult notion to try and put down using words but let me say

that the answer to the question ‘Is there will or isn’t there’ is ‘No, there

isn’t.

 

If you want you can think of a human exercising a will on an ‘external world’.

If you like you can imagine that the human will acts in the manner that we

humans are accustomed to thinking.

 

To a reflected self the unity does something through a someone, to the unity

nothing is done through no-one. This is one of the deepest mysteries.

 

These two apparent contradictions are in fact truly only one thing, one that,

one movement in suchness.

 

 

 

 

 

Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more

 

 

[Guest guest]

Scott Where were you all these days?

 

Beautifully presented the state of affiars.

 

The simultaneous is-ness is what I referred to as spontaneous is-ness.

 

Excellent post. My hats off for well analyzed problem.

 

God Bless you|

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

--- Scott Andersen <sga_email wrote:

>

> The question of will is problematic when viewed from the reflective

> level of the unity but resolved if viewed from the unity level of self

> existent functioning.

>

> We do have an individual will in the human sense which as an analogy

> is exactly the same as the will of the unity's functioning as a whole.

>

>

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more

http://tax.

[Guest guest]

Dear Scott,

 

That was a stupendous message and one that I will need to contemplate

on deeply for a full understanding. I found certain passages of your

post particularly difficult and would request you to provide further

elucidation on them:

 

 

1) Scott :We do have an individual will in the human sense which as

an analogy is exactly the same as the will of the unity's functioning

as a whole.

 

Venkat: How do I reconcile this statement with 4. below.

 

2) Scott: Will is NOT the consequence of the unity, it is an aspect

of the functioning of the unity.

 

Venkat: I suppose the 'aspect of functioning' you talk about here is

only apparent.

 

3) Scott: The human mind cannot resolve unwilled is-ness and infinite

reflective willing, except to place them as simultaneous events in

the human construct of space time.

 

Venkat: I have a feeling that this statement carries the solution to

1. above. I will need your help to see the connection especially

because I am not able to fully appreciate the term 'infinite

reflective willing'

 

4. Scott: Much depends on perspective, from the human perspective

will exists, from the unity's perspective there is no will; in the

purest essence of BEINGNESS there is no will period, for the infinite

overlapping of wills is what makes the beingness of unity what it is.

 

Venkat: see 1 above. What is infinite overlapping of wills?

 

5. Scott: To a reflected self the unity does something through a

someone, to the unity nothing is done through no-one. This is one of

the deepest mysteries.

 

Venkat: The apparent coming into being of the reflected self can

happen only when the unity is lost sight of. If so can unity do

something to the reflected self?

 

Many thanks,

Venkat

[Guest guest]

Dear Venkat,

 

I found certain passages of your

post particularly difficult and would request you to provide further

elucidation on them:

 

 

Sorry for the delay in replying, below is some clarification on what you asked

about;

 

 

 

1) Scott :We do have an individual will in the human sense which as

an analogy is exactly the same as the will of the unity's functioning

as a whole.

 

Venkat: How do I reconcile this statement with 4. below.

 

They are both true simulataneously in the truest sense of the word simultaneous.

 

These two apparently contradictory points can and do sit comfortably together as

one thing only.

 

Again,

 

We DO have a will in the HUMAN sense, which is EXACTLY the same as the

functioning of the unity. They are the SAME *ONE* thing.

 

My advice is don't try to reconcile them; they don't have to be reconciled. It

is only when you split one thing into two that the opposites appear.

 

2) Scott: Will is NOT the consequence of the unity, it is an aspect

of the functioning of the unity.

 

Venkat: I suppose the 'aspect of functioning' you talk about here is

only apparent.

 

The unity functions, human will, there is no difference.

 

Human will and unity functioning is the same ONE thing.

 

3) Scott: The human mind cannot resolve unwilled is-ness and infinite

reflective willing, except to place them as simultaneous events in

the human construct of space time.

 

Venkat: I have a feeling that this statement carries the solution to

1. above. I will need your help to see the connection especially

because I am not able to fully appreciate the term 'infinite

reflective willing'

 

By 'infinite reflective willing' I mean all those monadic units of awareness

that comprise the unity, each reflecting the whole through themselves. All

together this infinite reflective willing is what makes the unity *WHAT IT IS*

 

 

 

4. Scott: Much depends on perspective, from the human perspective

will exists, from the unity's perspective there is no will; in the

purest essence of BEINGNESS there is no will period, for the infinite

overlapping of wills is what makes the beingness of unity what it is.

 

Venkat: see 1 above. What is infinite overlapping of wills?

 

Ultimately it is WHAT IS. As you see it *right now* The unity is the 'action' of

its aspect as infinite monadicity ''willing''.

 

5. Scott: To a reflected self the unity does something through a

someone, to the unity nothing is done through no-one. This is one of

the deepest mysteries.

 

Venkat: The apparent coming into being of the reflected self can

happen only when the unity is lost sight of. If so can unity do

something to the reflected self?

 

The unity cannot *DO* anything, it simply IS.

 

The unity '''does things''' ''through'' the reflected selves. Note the

quotations marks; this is not strictly correct.

 

The infinite reflected selves are 'doing the doing' the unity is 'being the

BEing'.

 

Many thanks,

Venkat

 

 

You're welcome, Kind Regards,

 

Scott.

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and

 

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.