Guest guest Posted April 22, 2003 Report Share Posted April 22, 2003 Shawn, I agree, it is interesting. I'd be interested to know how you relate this to the teachings of many other enlightened masters? Why does Nisargadatta, for example, instruct people to focus on " I am " ? Is it not assuming they have, to some extent at least, the ability to choose what they focus on? Otherwise, what is the point of even mentioning such a teaching? Nisargadatta says: " Let go of your attachment to the unreal. " " Stop imagening yourself being or doing this or that. " Who is he talking to? Is he giving an instruction to God to change His will within the universe, or to the individual to exercise some level of choice they have available to them? Jesus said, " Judge not and ye shall not be judged. " Was Jesus living in an illusion, thinking people had some level of choice available to them, as to whether they judged or not? If he did not consider there was at least some level of free will available, why did he bother wasting his breathe in stating this? What are your thoughts on this? Toby > > shawn [sMTP:shawn] > Wednesday, April 23, 2003 5:36 AM > Nisargadatta > Re: Radical Ramana strikes again-regarding freewill > > Toby, > > I thought it is interesting that the *whole perspetive* of Ramana is > different. People are an illusion. To atually see the truth of this beyond a > shadow of a doubt is radial! He is saying that when the Truth is seen or > Reality is seen, then the whole question of free will is undermined. There > is in reality no one there to have free will or not! > > )))))))Shawn > > > > > on 4/21/03 6:53 PM, Wilson, Toby at toby.wilson wrote: > > > > > Thanks Shawn. An interesting analogy, but an analogy just the same. > > Comparing a human with a radio is like comparing water with petrol. Put a > > flame to each and you will notice a small difference. > > > > The more we discuss, the more I feel it is illustrated that words are simply > > not enough to communicate with acurately. > > > > Let's say someone stands in a fruit shop, trying to decide whether to buy a > > banana or a peach to eat. Whether the outcome of this activity is the result > > of a human choice or God's will, what is the difference? The activity is the > > same and the outcome is the same, so what difference does it make if it was > > predestined or not? Why even spend time entertaining such a concept, other > > than simply for intellectual stimulation? These are just concepts emposed on > > reality. The reality itself does not change either way. > > > > It reminds me of when a friend of mine once said, " Every word ever written is > > a lie. " > > > >> From an " absolute " perspective, the statement is correct, because how can any > >> words fully capture, embrace and explain " absolute Truth " ? And anything less > >> than absolute Truth must to some extent be a lie. > > > >> From a relative perspective, the above statement is false, as I can write, " I > >> own a computer " and I am not lying. This statement is true. > > > > It seems to be similar to us discussing predestination. The reality stays the > > same, but we are just playing with concepts and perspectives. > > > > What are your thoughts on this? > > > > Toby > > > > > > > > > >> > >> shawn [sMTP:shawn] > >> Saturday, April 19, 2003 7:21 PM > >> Nisargadatta > >> Radical Ramana strikes again-regarding free will > >> > >> Toby, > >> > >> Regarding the question of free will, this came up on the NDS Highlights > >> recently: > >> > >> > >> > >> However, for what it's worth, here is a quote from The Teachings of > >> Ramana Maharshi in His Own Words about the question of > >> predestination. > >> > >> " It is as though a group of people who had never heard of radio were> > >> to stand around one, arguing whether the man in it has to sing what > >> the transmitting station tells him to or whether he can change parts > >> of the songs. The answer is that there is no man in the equipment, > >> and therefore the question does not arise. " > >> > >> Thanks to AdvaitGirl on NDS > >> > >> > >> > >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2003 Report Share Posted April 23, 2003 on 4/22/03 11:49 AM, Wilson, Toby at toby.wilson wrote: > Shawn, > > I agree, it is interesting. > > I'd be interested to know how you relate this to the teachings of many other > enlightened masters? > > Why does Nisargadatta, for example, instruct people to focus on " I am " ? Is it > not assuming they have, to some extent at least, the ability to choose what > they focus on? Otherwise, what is the point of even mentioning such a > teaching? There is no pending personal urgency to the teaching. The Great Teachers did not find it imperative to save anyone. They were followed. We are already One with the divine or however you wish to put it, the trick is in knowing it. We are already saved due to our heredity. People who argue for free will are always those who wish to take pride in their hard work, their " good " choices etc. People who argue against would like to place the blame of all their misfortunes on God (or Satan). I couldn't care less about either way. Of course we can chose things freely, but if we are all ONE in " reality " , then who is it who is choosing? Do you beat your own heart? This is all lela, there is no point. ))))))))Shawn > Nisargadatta says: > > " Let go of your attachment to the unreal. " > > " Stop imagening yourself being or doing this or that. " > > Who is he talking to? Is he giving an instruction to God to change His will > within the universe, or to the individual to exercise some level of choice > they have available to them? > > Jesus said, " Judge not and ye shall not be judged. " > > Was Jesus living in an illusion, thinking people had some level of choice > available to them, as to whether they judged or not? If he did not consider > there was at least some level of free will available, why did he bother > wasting his breathe in stating this? > > What are your thoughts on this? > > Toby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2003 Report Share Posted April 23, 2003 Why does Nisargadatta, for example, instruct people to focus on " I am " ? devi: nisargadatta was from the indian culture and *Aham Brahmasmi " which i think means *I Am God* was a popular thought to meditate on.. He thought that the GOd word could be left out....any kind of focus on anythng brings about concentration and concentration is needed to go into samadhi on purpose...you know there is a whole religios practice devoted to I Am teachings in america? and it has nothing to do with nisargadatta...they are a channelling from ascended masters.. Is it not assuming they have, to some extent at least, the ability to choose what they focus on? Otherwise, what is the point of even mentioning such a teaching? > > Nisargadatta says: > > " Let go of your attachment to the unreal. " > > " Stop imagening yourself being or doing this or that. " > > Who is he talking to? Is he giving an instruction to God to change His will within the universe, or to the individual to exercise some level of choice they have available to them? > > Jesus said, " Judge not and ye shall not be judged. " > > Was Jesus living in an illusion, thinking people had some level of choice available to them, as to whether they judged or not? If he did not consider there was at least some level of free will available, why did he bother wasting his breathe in stating this? > > What are your thoughts on this? > > Toby > > > > > > shawn [sMTP:shawn@w...] > > Wednesday, April 23, 2003 5:36 AM > > Nisargadatta > > Re: Radical Ramana strikes again- regarding freewill > > > > Toby, > > > > I thought it is interesting that the *whole perspetive* of Ramana is > > different. People are an illusion. To atually see the truth of this beyond a > > shadow of a doubt is radial! He is saying that when the Truth is seen or > > Reality is seen, then the whole question of free will is undermined. There > > is in reality no one there to have free will or not! > > > > )))))))Shawn > > > > > > > > > > on 4/21/03 6:53 PM, Wilson, Toby at toby.wilson@t... wrote: > > > > > > > > Thanks Shawn. An interesting analogy, but an analogy just the same. > > > Comparing a human with a radio is like comparing water with petrol. Put a > > > flame to each and you will notice a small difference. > > > > > > The more we discuss, the more I feel it is illustrated that words are simply > > > not enough to communicate with acurately. > > > > > > Let's say someone stands in a fruit shop, trying to decide whether to buy a > > > banana or a peach to eat. Whether the outcome of this activity is the result > > > of a human choice or God's will, what is the difference? The activity is the > > > same and the outcome is the same, so what difference does it make if it was > > > predestined or not? Why even spend time entertaining such a concept, other > > > than simply for intellectual stimulation? These are just concepts emposed on > > > reality. The reality itself does not change either way. > > > > > > It reminds me of when a friend of mine once said, " Every word ever written is > > > a lie. " > > > > > >> From an " absolute " perspective, the statement is correct, because how can any > > >> words fully capture, embrace and explain " absolute Truth " ? And anything less > > >> than absolute Truth must to some extent be a lie. > > > > > >> From a relative perspective, the above statement is false, as I can write, " I > > >> own a computer " and I am not lying. This statement is true. > > > > > > It seems to be similar to us discussing predestination. The reality stays the > > > same, but we are just playing with concepts and perspectives. > > > > > > What are your thoughts on this? > > > > > > Toby > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> shawn [sMTP:shawn@w...] > > >> Saturday, April 19, 2003 7:21 PM > > >> Nisargadatta > > >> Radical Ramana strikes again- regarding free will > > >> > > >> Toby, > > >> > > >> Regarding the question of free will, this came up on the NDS Highlights > > >> recently: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> However, for what it's worth, here is a quote from The Teachings of > > >> Ramana Maharshi in His Own Words about the question of > > >> predestination. > > >> > > >> " It is as though a group of people who had never heard of radio were> > > >> to stand around one, arguing whether the man in it has to sing what > > >> the transmitting station tells him to or whether he can change parts > > >> of the songs. The answer is that there is no man in the equipment, > > >> and therefore the question does not arise. " > > >> > > >> Thanks to AdvaitGirl on NDS > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2003 Report Share Posted April 23, 2003 > > People who argue for free will are always those who wish to take pride in > their hard work, their " good " choices etc. People who argue against would > like to place the blame of all their misfortunes on God (or Satan). devi: you have no faith in the goodness or sincerity of people do you.?..you think always theres some ulterior or negative agenda behind everything... not all people argue for free will becuase they take pride in their work, or good choices they made, and people who argue for God Will Only aren't necessarly wanting to blame anyone or anything.. i can't believe that your so negative and rigid in your thoughts.. some people alot of people by the way have genuine interst in knowing how the universe works.. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2003 Report Share Posted April 23, 2003 > Do you beat your own heart? > I beat all hearts. > This is all lela, there is no point. > Well said 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.