Guest guest Posted October 11, 2004 Report Share Posted October 11, 2004 > Pete, > > when you say that things just happen, that isn't a good enough > explanation. > The eyes don't just open. There is a will and an intention to open > them that gets transmitted by nerves to muscles and then translated > into the action of opening the eyelids. > > Somewhere inside the psyche there is the arising of the will for > action. Together with that, there is the choice of either opening > the eyes or not. This choice is the free will. > > Chris Hi Chris, Let me start by saying: my post was in defense of practice. I don't much care if people want to think there is free will. But let's take a brief look ( brief because it's a popular football and by now well kicked around, and to me, boring)no doubt there is 'willing,'a form of energy or desire which sparks an action. But is it initiated by an entity? Is there inside my brain something called 'a Pete' who decides to open his eyes? What really happens is that the sleep control center of the brain switches off, consciousness returns. Once consciousness is there, the motor part of the brain in charge of eyelids, does its thing. There is no Pete involved in any of these. If there, have been enough drowsiness in the brain, the sleep center would have overruled the motor center, and the thought, " It's still early, I could stay here here a little longer. " would have appeared given me the illusion of a choice, and a decision made. All decisions could be traced back this way to underlying causes. So one could ask, where is the freedom in all of these, if there is no doer, but only causes leading to an action? Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2004 Report Share Posted October 11, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > > Pete, > > > > when you say that things just happen, that isn't a good enough > > explanation. > > The eyes don't just open. There is a will and an intention to open > > them that gets transmitted by nerves to muscles and then translated > > into the action of opening the eyelids. > > > > Somewhere inside the psyche there is the arising of the will for > > action. Together with that, there is the choice of either opening > > the eyes or not. This choice is the free will. > > > > Chris > > Hi Chris, > > Let me start by saying: my post was in defense of practice. > I don't much care if people want to think there is free will. > But let's take a brief look ( brief because it's a popular > football and by now well kicked around, and to me, boring)no > doubt there is 'willing,'a form of energy or desire which > sparks an action. > > But is it initiated by an entity? Is there inside my brain > something called 'a Pete' who decides to open his eyes? > What really happens is that the sleep control center > of the brain switches off, consciousness returns. Once consciousness > is there, the motor part of the brain in > charge of eyelids, does its thing. There is no Pete > involved in any of these. If there, have been enough > drowsiness in the brain, the sleep center would have > overruled the motor center, and the thought, " It's > still early, I could stay here here a little longer. " > would have appeared given me the illusion of a choice, > and a decision made. > > All decisions could be traced back this way to > underlying causes. So one could ask, where is the > freedom in all of these, if there is no doer, > but only causes leading to an action? > > Pete Freedom lies perhaps in the snapping, breaking of the cause-and- effect chain. Then what happens.......is experienced as a total movement........and then one's will is possibly truly free. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2004 Report Share Posted October 11, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > > > > Pete, > > > > > > when you say that things just happen, that isn't a good enough > > > explanation. > > > The eyes don't just open. There is a will and an intention to open > > > them that gets transmitted by nerves to muscles and then > translated > > > into the action of opening the eyelids. > > > > > > Somewhere inside the psyche there is the arising of the will for > > > action. Together with that, there is the choice of either opening > > > the eyes or not. This choice is the free will. > > > > > > Chris > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > Let me start by saying: my post was in defense of practice. > > I don't much care if people want to think there is free will. > > But let's take a brief look ( brief because it's a popular > > football and by now well kicked around, and to me, boring)no > > doubt there is 'willing,'a form of energy or desire which > > sparks an action. > > > > But is it initiated by an entity? Is there inside my brain > > something called 'a Pete' who decides to open his eyes? > > What really happens is that the sleep control center > > of the brain switches off, consciousness returns. Once consciousness > > is there, the motor part of the brain in > > charge of eyelids, does its thing. There is no Pete > > involved in any of these. If there, have been enough > > drowsiness in the brain, the sleep center would have > > overruled the motor center, and the thought, " It's > > still early, I could stay here here a little longer. " > > would have appeared given me the illusion of a choice, > > and a decision made. > > > > All decisions could be traced back this way to > > underlying causes. So one could ask, where is the > > freedom in all of these, if there is no doer, > > but only causes leading to an action? > > > > Pete > > Freedom lies perhaps in the snapping, breaking of the cause-and- > effect chain. Then what happens.......is experienced as a total > movement........and then one's will is possibly truly free. > > /AL Al, take a closer look at what you wrote, your paragraph has 3 sentences which are not logically related. Only one of those sentences rings true. The cause an effect chain never snaps. It's how nature works. It is a given. " Will " , just being a link in the above chain, can never exist by itself, and therefore, can never be free, uncontaminte by other causes. Yes, what happens can be experienced as a total movement, but this has nothing to do with 'will.' Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2004 Report Share Posted October 11, 2004 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > wrote: > > > > > > > Pete, > > > > > > > > when you say that things just happen, that isn't a good enough > > > > explanation. > > > > The eyes don't just open. There is a will and an intention to > open > > > > them that gets transmitted by nerves to muscles and then > > translated > > > > into the action of opening the eyelids. > > > > > > > > Somewhere inside the psyche there is the arising of the will for > > > > action. Together with that, there is the choice of either > opening > > > > the eyes or not. This choice is the free will. > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > > > Let me start by saying: my post was in defense of practice. > > > I don't much care if people want to think there is free will. > > > But let's take a brief look ( brief because it's a popular > > > football and by now well kicked around, and to me, boring)no > > > doubt there is 'willing,'a form of energy or desire which > > > sparks an action. > > > > > > But is it initiated by an entity? Is there inside my brain > > > something called 'a Pete' who decides to open his eyes? > > > What really happens is that the sleep control center > > > of the brain switches off, consciousness returns. Once > consciousness > > > is there, the motor part of the brain in > > > charge of eyelids, does its thing. There is no Pete > > > involved in any of these. If there, have been enough > > > drowsiness in the brain, the sleep center would have > > > overruled the motor center, and the thought, " It's > > > still early, I could stay here here a little longer. " > > > would have appeared given me the illusion of a choice, > > > and a decision made. > > > > > > All decisions could be traced back this way to > > > underlying causes. So one could ask, where is the > > > freedom in all of these, if there is no doer, > > > but only causes leading to an action? > > > > > > Pete > > > > Freedom lies perhaps in the snapping, breaking of the cause-and- > > effect chain. Then what happens.......is experienced as a total > > movement........and then one's will is possibly truly free. > > > > /AL > > Al, take a closer look at what you wrote, your paragraph has 3 > sentences which are not logically related. Only one of those > sentences rings true. > > The cause an effect chain never snaps. It's how nature works. It is a > given. > > " Will " , just being a link in the above chain, can never exist by > itself, and therefore, can never be free, uncontaminte by other > causes. > > Yes, what happens can be experienced as a total movement, but this > has nothing to do with 'will.' > > Pete Cause and effect as a chain is an illusion of a fragmented view. Cause and effect is an interrelated web where no event happens in isolation. When we focus on a part of this wholeness there is the appearance of isolated chains of cause and effect........but when seen from the perspective of the whole all separate chains are illusions. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2004 Report Share Posted October 11, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Pete, > > > > > > > > > > when you say that things just happen, that isn't a good enough > > > > > explanation. > > > > > The eyes don't just open. There is a will and an intention to > > open > > > > > them that gets transmitted by nerves to muscles and then > > > translated > > > > > into the action of opening the eyelids. > > > > > > > > > > Somewhere inside the psyche there is the arising of the will > for > > > > > action. Together with that, there is the choice of either > > opening > > > > > the eyes or not. This choice is the free will. > > > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > > > > > Let me start by saying: my post was in defense of practice. > > > > I don't much care if people want to think there is free will. > > > > But let's take a brief look ( brief because it's a popular > > > > football and by now well kicked around, and to me, boring)no > > > > doubt there is 'willing,'a form of energy or desire which > > > > sparks an action. > > > > > > > > But is it initiated by an entity? Is there inside my brain > > > > something called 'a Pete' who decides to open his eyes? > > > > What really happens is that the sleep control center > > > > of the brain switches off, consciousness returns. Once > > consciousness > > > > is there, the motor part of the brain in > > > > charge of eyelids, does its thing. There is no Pete > > > > involved in any of these. If there, have been enough > > > > drowsiness in the brain, the sleep center would have > > > > overruled the motor center, and the thought, " It's > > > > still early, I could stay here here a little longer. " > > > > would have appeared given me the illusion of a choice, > > > > and a decision made. > > > > > > > > All decisions could be traced back this way to > > > > underlying causes. So one could ask, where is the > > > > freedom in all of these, if there is no doer, > > > > but only causes leading to an action? > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > Freedom lies perhaps in the snapping, breaking of the cause-and- > > > effect chain. Then what happens.......is experienced as a total > > > movement........and then one's will is possibly truly free. > > > > > > /AL > > > > Al, take a closer look at what you wrote, your paragraph has 3 > > sentences which are not logically related. Only one of those > > sentences rings true. > > > > The cause an effect chain never snaps. It's how nature works. It is > a > > given. > > > > " Will " , just being a link in the above chain, can never exist by > > itself, and therefore, can never be free, uncontaminte by other > > causes. > > > > Yes, what happens can be experienced as a total movement, but this > > has nothing to do with 'will.' > > > > Pete > > Cause and effect as a chain is an illusion of a fragmented view. > Cause and effect is an interrelated web where no event happens in > isolation. When we focus on a part of this wholeness there is the > appearance of isolated chains of cause and effect........but when > seen from the perspective of the whole all separate chains are > illusions. > > /AL PS. There are levels of will, where the separate egoic will is the most limited. When the focus embraces more and more of totality then one's will becomes more and more open, more and more in line with the God-Force. May the Force be with you! :-) /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2004 Report Share Posted October 11, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > PS. There are levels of will, where the separate egoic will is the > most limited. When the focus embraces more and more of totality then > one's will becomes more and more open, more and more in line with the > God-Force. May the Force be with you! :-) > > /AL Hi, you told me some time ago, that we are living always in the past since the moment we experience something it has already passed. So, how can there emerge a free will from a person living in the past? And be it even only a tiny little bit? Where should it originate? The origin would have to be in the presence... but how? I am sorry, I am really trying, but I cannot find any such sort of free will, initiating any kind of phenomenon. The moment I do something it seems to me as if it is happening, because there is no other way it could happen. If I watch it. Some actions seem to come from thoughts. But they are the same, they come from somewhere... The engine is always running... no full stop. Whenever I feel relatively good it is, because I flow. I guess that you are interested in Nisargadarras work, so I give you a quote from him to contemplate on: " As long as you take yourself to be a person, a body and a mind, separate from the stream of life, having a will of its own, pursuing its own aims, you are living merely on the surface, and whatever you do will be short-lived and of little value, mere straw to feed the flames of vanity. " Love S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2004 Report Share Posted October 11, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > PS. There are levels of will, where the separate egoic will is the > > most limited. When the focus embraces more and more of totality > then > > one's will becomes more and more open, more and more in line with > the > > God-Force. May the Force be with you! :-) > > > > /AL > > Hi, > > you told me some time ago, that we are living always in the past since > the moment we experience something it has already passed. So, how can > there emerge a free will from a person living in the past? And be it > even only a tiny little bit? Where should it originate? The origin > would have to be in the presence... but how? I am sorry, I am really > trying, but I cannot find any such sort of free will, initiating any > kind of phenomenon. The moment I do something it seems to me as if it > is happening, because there is no other way it could happen. If I > watch it. Some actions seem to come from thoughts. But they are the > same, they come from somewhere... The engine is always running... no > full stop. Whenever I feel relatively good it is, because I flow. > > I guess that you are interested in Nisargadarras work, so I give you a > quote from him to contemplate on: > > " As long as you take yourself to be a person, a body and a mind, > separate from the stream of life, having a will of its own, pursuing > its own aims, you are living merely on the surface, and whatever you > do will be short-lived and of little value, mere straw to feed the > flames of vanity. " > > Love > S. The past is genetic inheritance and social conditioning. This past is not the real you but a control-structure which we can call the Matrix. The true you, is, as Nisarhadatta says, not the so-called personal choices which are not personal at all but rather a carrying out the orders given by the fear-based structure which is the past. When you are guided by the past you are a mere puppet controlled by the Matrix. The true you is the infinite potential in the living moment. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2004 Report Share Posted October 11, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: >The past is genetic inheritance and social conditioning. This past is >not the real you but a control-structure which we can call the >Matrix. The true you, is, as Nisarhadatta says, not the so-called >personal choices which are not personal at all but rather a carrying >out the orders given by the fear-based structure which is the past. >When you are guided by the past you are a mere puppet controlled by >the Matrix. The true you is the infinite potential in the living >moment. > > /AL So, can you see it now? No free will... Haha!!! And the next thing to understand (especially as you are talking about Nisargadatta now -smiles- ): there is no " true you " in the sense of a personality which can be called " you " . ... except in the past (or in science fiction movies... haha!) take care S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2004 Report Share Posted October 11, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > >The past is genetic inheritance and social conditioning. This past > is > >not the real you but a control-structure which we can call the > >Matrix. The true you, is, as Nisarhadatta says, not the so-called > >personal choices which are not personal at all but rather a carrying > >out the orders given by the fear-based structure which is the past. > >When you are guided by the past you are a mere puppet controlled by > >the Matrix. The true you is the infinite potential in the living > >moment. > > > > /AL > > So, can you see it now? No free will... Haha!!! > > And the next thing to understand (especially as you are talking about > Nisargadatta now -smiles- ): there is no " true you " in the sense of a > personality which can be called " you " . ... except in the past (or in > science fiction movies... haha!) > > take care > S. The past me = phony free will. The present me = true free will. :-) /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2004 Report Share Posted October 11, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > The past me = phony free will. The present me = true free will. :-) > > /AL My friend, dont you see that there is no " me " in the presence? Dont you see that " presence " simply means that whatever was " thinking " to be a wave is now the river itself again, flowing... ? You cannot have both: be an individual person and be free from the past. This is nice entertaining fiction. Once you arrive in the presence you will see: you are free from " you " , from everything... no question of " free will " anymore: there is nobody who could have a will... simply presence... the idea of " will " becomes absurd... Inside presence is no time/space conception. It cannot be, because there is no past, Think about it. There is no time/space in the state of presence. So, there is no room for a will. There is just one consciousness... And there is no seamless transition from " you " living in the past to the same " you " living in the presence. Presence can only be reached by a quantum leap. The presence that can be experienced by " you " is not the presence, it is a hallucination like everything else... S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2004 Report Share Posted October 11, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > The past me = phony free will. The present me = true free will. :- ) > > > > /AL > > My friend, dont you see that there is no " me " in the presence? Dont > you see that " presence " simply means that whatever was " thinking " to > be a wave is now the river itself again, flowing... ? You cannot have > both: be an individual person and be free from the past. This is > nice entertaining fiction. Once you arrive in the presence you will > see: you are free from " you " , from everything... no question of " free > will " anymore: there is nobody who could have a will... simply > presence... the idea of " will " becomes absurd... > > Inside presence is no time/space conception. It cannot be, because > there is no past, Think about it. There is no time/space in the state > of presence. So, there is no room for a will. There is just one > consciousness... > > And there is no seamless transition from " you " living in the past to > the same " you " living in the presence. Presence can only be reached by > a quantum leap. The presence that can be experienced by " you " is > not the presence, it is a hallucination like everything else... > > S. In the present moment there is the shining presence that itself _is_ you, and that presence is free will unbound. When this light is obscured by a past and a projected future observed as being more important than this moment we are trapped in a mental cage, which we mistake as being a personal self with individual free will. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2004 Report Share Posted October 11, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: >In the present moment there is the shining presence that itself _is_ >you, and that presence is free will unbound. Ok, if you insist: it is free will, unbound, but with no possibility nor need to perform. The river flows as it flows, and even this is a poor helpless picture only... already the term " flow " (like " will " ) implies cause. But there cannot be cause nor will nor flow without the conception of the past. And, ok, presence itself *is* you... but it has nothing to do with " you " as a personality. It is you because it is one-ness. You are presence and presence is you. Therefor it can be said " you " disappears in presence. In presence only ONE can exist. " You " with a cause in time continuum has to disappear. But why shall we make everything so complicated? Truth is literally simple and even to talk about those things we must use lingual conceptions and can easily misunderstand each other. Therefor I prefer to listen closely to the masters. S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 12, 2004 Report Share Posted October 12, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > >In the present moment there is the shining presence that itself _is_ > >you, and that presence is free will unbound. > > Ok, if you insist: it is free will, unbound, but with no possibility > nor need to perform. The river flows as it flows, and even this is a > poor helpless picture only... already the term " flow " (like " will " ) > implies cause. But there cannot be cause nor will nor flow without the > conception of the past. > > And, ok, presence itself *is* you... but it has nothing to do with > " you " as a personality. It is you because it is one-ness. You are > presence and presence is you. Therefor it can be said " you " disappears > in presence. In presence only ONE can exist. " You " with a cause in > time continuum has to disappear. > > But why shall we make everything so complicated? Truth is literally > simple and even to talk about those things we must use lingual > conceptions and can easily misunderstand each other. Therefor I prefer > to listen closely to the masters. > > S. The 'me' as a personality is a unique pattern, but that pattern itself can never perform. That's the illusion! The pattern can give the impression of being a cause, but behind every event are innumerable causes. Someday you may have to be on your own without any master to lean on. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 12, 2004 Report Share Posted October 12, 2004 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Someday you may have to be on your own without any master to lean on. Ha... nice one... Anders, may I tell you something? A master is not there to lean on him... those guys where you can lean on are not masters at all. The real master is always there... and at the same time he is not... and you are always on your own... and at the same time you are not... and it is not in your hands... I am leaving now, all the best S. 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.