Guest guest Posted January 26, 2002 Report Share Posted January 26, 2002 Forwarded-- Hi, It seems that Ramesh gets raked over the coals sometimes for his 'concept' of destiny/no free will. At least a lot of people 'seem' to get stuck there anyway. I realize that there are as many reactions/responses/interpretations as there are people. But I wanted to ask: Do you find any holes in these two concepts? Signed: X --------------------------- Hi X: Separate individuals amongst other individuals, are concerned with free will-- freedom of choice, or no freedom of choice. It is a mind-game. Bouncing back and forth between the (remembered) past and the (projected) future. The awake one, the dog, such ideas never even arise, he is just supremely focus'd in the NOW, living spontaneously from moment to moment. Signed: the dog .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2002 Report Share Posted January 27, 2002 Any and every moment of space-time is included in and with every other moment. The reality is beyond " destiny " or " free will. " If it seems that someone awake has arisen, or if it seems that someone unawake has arisen, the arising is just the same. It is all simultaneous and interpenetrating, yet allowing for " perceptions " of " distinctions " as " time " ... Subject arises with/as object, and object arises with/as subject. Saying that each and every apparent manifestation could be no other way than it is, is a way of saying that there is no one separate any of it is manifesting to, never has been, never will be ... Peace, Dan Nisargadatta, " elizabeth_wells2001 " <elizabeth_wells2001> wrote: > > > > Forwarded-- > > > Hi, > > It seems that Ramesh gets raked over the coals sometimes for > his 'concept' of destiny/no free will. At least a lot of people 'seem' > to get stuck there anyway. I realize that there are as many > reactions/responses/interpretations as there are people. But I > wanted to ask: > > Do you find any holes in these two concepts? > > Signed: X > > > --------------------------- > Hi X: > > Separate individuals amongst other individuals, > are concerned with free will-- freedom of choice, or > no freedom of choice. It is a mind-game. Bouncing > back and forth between the (remembered) past > and the (projected) future. > > The awake one, the dog, such ideas never even > arise, he is just supremely focus'd in the NOW, > living spontaneously from moment to moment. > > Signed: the dog > > > . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2002 Report Share Posted January 29, 2002 Nisargadatta, " elizabeth_wells2001 " <elizabeth_wells2001> wrote: > Forwarded-- > > > Hi, > > It seems that Ramesh gets raked over the coals sometimes for > his 'concept' of destiny/no free will. Ramesh espouses a lot of conceptual B.S., with very little of the " heart " Nisargadatta displayed. Not to judge him from published books, having never met the man... but if only books were available, i would say he's one to avoid at all costs. A whole lot of nonsense. I rarely espouse opinions on 'gurus', but that one raises a flag or two here. > Do you find any holes in these two concepts? I find holes in every known concept (in fact, concepts are imaginings with all the solidity of a drug-induced hallucination), so the specificity of the question is unnecessary :-). Cheers, Tim 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.