Causality, free will.. Re Richard

[Guest guest]

Dear Richard:

Here is my replies to your post. I make no claims to knowing much about this

subject and may change my views in a flash.

 

Richard wrote:

"Your view seems clearly one of "Destiny" or "Fate" vs. "Free Will."

Ramana repeatedly advised those who came to him with such views to

then complete the surrender to God, and surrender all sense of ego,

doership, and to surrender their stand as an individual personality."

 

To believe that every event already happened when the zygote came into

existence, is to me to believe that God or the universe is the doer. This belief

has been quite freeing for me. When something goes wrong, even if I react, I let

it go quickly because of the no free will view. That is what I was trying to

impress on my grandson, who had a tantrum. He was feeling self condemnatory

about it. It wasn't his reaction in the moment that was so destructive, it was

his holding on to it and believing that he was the doer and wallowing in self

pity.

 

Richard again:

"My own sense of this can be stated in a poem that I heard read once,

attributed to Rumi (though I have never been able to find it).

 

"You should praise your power to make choices.

Saying 'nothing can be done' denies the gifts that have been given.

So when you praise your power to choose you will receive your reward,

Which is more power for choosing."

 

I see the "no choices" view as a quick route to non attachment. That is how it

appears to be working for me. Compare me before and after the teachings and

practice and you will find a vast improvement in, "letting come what comes and

go what goes". For example, someone on a alternative energy stock board, who

previously attacked me personally, caused me to react and not want to go online

for weeks. Yesterday, he did the same thing and I had absolutely no reaction.

Why should I be bothered with something that already was destined. This life is

all deja vous to me now.

It's the same with those "unwanted thoughts". They used to really bother me

because there was nothing that I did not think of. Now that I have more than a

suspicion that they are not my thoughts, I am relieved to say the least.

 

 

Richard again:

"A couple of other points to consider:

 

Your stand determines your experience. Does your stand as the

product of the causal process of the universe bring you to

the "Freedom" that the sages talk about, when discussing Self-

realization? Ramana talked about "no world, no ego." Where does

this causal pattern fit in that? It seems like this view is just

another assertion of the reality and primacy of the universe and its

causation. Does this causal view form yet another way of holding to

the reality of the world (as opposed to the reality of Self, or Being-

Consciousness-Bliss?"

 

There are different levels of perception. When you are the "person" there is

causality, when you are the self there is no causality; because the Self is

uncaused and non conceptual. If you ask how can I say this when I don't know the

Self, I will have to say that I am not talking from my own experience and that

you should not rely on my views. .

 

Nisargadatta on the person and free will.

Q: Is there such a thing as using one's will to do something? If one is trying

to stay awake, saying a mantra, or meditating, and keeps pulling himself back

from sleep, is he not doing something?

M: At the stage of a seeker what he is doing may be right, but he will soon find

out that the seeker disappears in the seeking . When the seeker disappears

there is not question of doing. Later the seeker will understand that it was

not his true nature which was doing all this, but that to which the label "born"

was attached--that is the consciousness which has identified itself with the

body and the states of waking and sleeping. That whole bundle is what was doing

and he in not that. This body is perceptible, but my true nature is That which

was before the body and the consciousness come in to being. Any thing that is

sensorially seen and interpreted by the mind is an appearance in consciousness,

and is not true.

I am not telling you anything which is foreign to my experience, I am telling

you what I have understood and experienced. .It is very simple: this is

time-bound and anything which is time-bound is untrue, because time itself is a

concept.

What I am telling you is based on this simple fact, as it is based on my

experience. If it appeals to you as a concept at the moment, accept it.

Otherwise not. If at all you want to do something, do that which you cannot do

at all. That is the state of no-being.

 

>From transcribed dialogues with the sage Nisargadatta

 

 

 

Richard again:

"Until Self-realization we respond to the world/ego/body ideas from

our mind. Self-Realizations comes as we either relinquish this

world/ego/body through surrender, or as Ramana recommended eliminate

the separate world/ego/body through the intellect's practice of

inquiry until the mind and intellect is burnt up by the inquiry, like

the stick used to stir the fire.

 

My sole purpose in bringing up any of this is to keep returning your

mind to the Self. Who knows of this universe and its causes? Is

this knower found within any of the known within the universe?

 

I knew I was just "causing trouble" with my reply to you. I was

causing this trouble for a reason though. I see an idea that you

have of who you are that can limit your spiritual depth (unless you

take in to complete surrender - and even surrender that idea). I am

suggesting that who you are is like what is stated in the Avadhut

Gita,

 

"I am without beginning and without end. Never was I bound. By

nature pure, Taintless is my Self."

 

Keep plunging inside. What is you seek is who you are. Do not be

limited, even by your ideas of who you are and what the universe is,

and how the universe works. Seek within yourself to know what is

real and to see what is just passing and changing. Know that You are

That."

 

We are Not two.

Richard

 

 

I hold all the right views to attain my freedom. Now all I need is the universe

to grant it to me.

I am posting this on MillionPaths too, in case someone else has some input.

 

I am two now, but soon I will be 1..2...

Alton

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Alton,

 

Enjoying this discussion. Like you, I am answering to the best of my

understanding - as a seeker, not a sage.

 

> To believe that every event already happened when the zygote came

into existence, is to me to believe that God or the universe is the

doer. This belief has been quite freeing for me.

<

 

A respectable position. Surrender. Just make sure that you take it

all the way and give God your ego, too.

 

> I see the "no choices" view as a quick route to non attachment. <

 

I am less sure about this. I understand the logic of the position. I

certainly appreciate the need for non-attachment. For me the active

choice of what is real over what is transient provides a deep path to

this non-attachment. I want non-attachment to the circumstance, and

even more, non-attachment to the state (i.e. waking state as the

basis for my sense of reality). Maybe from a position of full

surrender. On this path of Self-inquiry I see choices, and that

making deeper choices, choosing to focus "on the first" rather

than "the second or third" is an integral part of the process.

 

> It's the same with those "unwanted thoughts". They used to really

bother me because there was nothing that I did not think of. <

 

For whom are these thoughts? This inquiry quiets the thoughts. For

whom does these thoughts have reality? This points the mind to the

Source.

 

> he will soon find out that the seeker disappears in the seeking .

When the seeker disappears there is not question of doing <

 

Could not disagree with a word. Much of this depends on the stand of

the seeker. If the stand is as a body, then there will be birth,

death and all between. If the stand is as the Self, then the

body/mind/ego/world is Brahman, indivisible.

 

> It is very simple: this is time-bound and anything which is time-

bound is untrue, because time itself is a concept.

<

 

Again, no disagreement. Well said, in fact. Deeper still, anything

objective is a concept.

 

Alton, rather than me discussing this with you, I would really rather

you come to satsang some time and ask Nome about all this. From what

I know, I think that there are ways that you can take a deeper stand,

and that this stand would bring you what seek. I am not enough of a

spiritual dialectician to bring this out in this dialog. Certainly I

respect your desire for liberation.

 

We are Not two,

Richard