View Full Version : Role of personal choice, will, in spiritual practice
Please comment on your opinion on the role of personal choice, will, attitude in spiritual practice. Thank you :smile:
StrawberryStrudel
22-09-2016, 02:39 AM
Free will is the crux of spirituality, in some sense. Based on what I've heard and believe.
Some (or all) of us have destiny, to some extent. Some (or all) of us have purpose, to some extent. Some (or all) of us have expectations that we are burdened with. Not necessarily in a bad way, but some of us have been honored with duties.
But, in the end, how do we get from point A to point B? We make a whole lot of choices.
We can ask for advice, guidance, insight. But in the end: "be your own human."
Your judgment is your greatest asset.
Thank you for your response, SS :smile:
BlueSky
22-09-2016, 10:32 AM
Please comment on your opinion on the role of personal choice, will, attitude in spiritual practice. Thank you :smile:
What I have I found in the journey of life with respect to spirituality is that it can be equally relevant, if not more, to ask yourself why you are asking. Especially so with these type of questions which challenge our sense of identity and role in life.
What I have I found in the journey of life with respect to spirituality is that it can be equally relevant, if not more, to ask yourself why you are asking. Especially so with these type of questions which challenge our sense of identity and role in life.
Good point. Question it, but question what purpose the question itself serves. In philosophy, for example, we aren't particularly concerned with answers to the questions, but are interested in the question itself. It is that air of mystery surrounding the unanswered question that is most satisfying, so the real art of philosophy constructing the perfect question - that is, one which is impossible to answer, which in turn, makes to whole exercise superfluous.
StrawberryStrudel
22-09-2016, 02:33 PM
Good point. Question it, but question what purpose the question itself serves. In philosophy, for example, we aren't particularly concerned with answers to the questions, but are interested in the question itself.
What? Questions are cool 'n all, but the answers are cool too.
It is that air of mystery surrounding the unanswered question that is most satisfying, so the real art of philosophy constructing the perfect question - that is, one which is impossible to answer, which in turn, makes to whole exercise superfluous.
What? I totally disagree.
You're saying that the real art of philosophy is crafting unanswerable questions?
Which makes the whole thing superfluous?
??? Disagree.
:-(
It is that air of mystery surrounding the unanswered question that is most satisfying...
This air of mystery provides the DRIVE to do philosophical work. To TRY to answer questions. This air of mystery does not allow us satisfaction. (in my opinion)
It is often not just an air of mystery, but an air of importance. Of critical relevance.
For example: what is the role of personal choice/free will, in spiritual practice? I am not satisfied with mystery; I want some dang answers, no matter how imperfect and subjective they may be. Because the answers matter.
BlueSky
22-09-2016, 04:17 PM
What? Questions are cool 'n all, but the answers are cool too.
What? I totally disagree.
You're saying that the real art of philosophy is crafting unanswerable questions?
Which makes the whole thing superfluous?
??? Disagree.
:-(
This air of mystery provides the DRIVE to do philosophical work. To TRY to answer questions. This air of mystery does not allow us satisfaction. (in my opinion)
It is often not just an air of mystery, but an air of importance. Of critical relevance.
For example: what is the role of personal choice/free will, in spiritual practice? I am not satisfied with mystery; I want some dang answers, no matter how imperfect and subjective they may be. Because the answers matter.
But by asking yourself why you want such answers, you just might see that it is in that answer that you will find what you are holding onto that demands answers.
Starman
22-09-2016, 06:50 PM
Please comment on your opinion on the role of personal choice, will, attitude in spiritual practice. Thank you :smile:
You have touched on some of the major attributes of human consciousness; discrimination or choice, will, and attitude are attributes of human consciousness. Other attributes are imagination, memory, attention, and intuition just to name a few. I think it is excellent to question these things and learn about their inner workings, but also acquire skill in their proper use.
Our innate attributes can become corrupted due to culture and societal conditioning, as well as personal choices. If we do not learn how to use our mind, and its attributes, then our mind will use us. There are lots of people with thought disorders and even more who are dragged around my their own mind.
According to the Hebrew Kabbalah there is but one will and that will is the animating principle of our source; GOD, the universe, however you might call it. We are custodians of that will and are given free animation with that will for a limited period in time. Free-will and pre-destiny coexist.
Will power is a cosmic energy, not a personal force. In all the universe there is only one will-power, it is the power expressed through all the various laws of life. Discrimination, or choices, help us in using that will which is in our custody. A person can lose touch with will power if their physical body is debilitated or their mind is severely damaged.
Will power is a force which flows through us and with spiritual development our will power can become more dynamic. Our habits of speech reveal the degree of our will development. This has nothing to do with using big or unusual words. It has to do with words we use everyday and the meaning which we attach to them; these influence the patterns of our life’s expression. Words have vibratory power.
Our attitude is directly connected to our ability to reason; it gives us our rational quality. Attitude rules our lives and directs it. Attitude is also connected to vision and how we see what we see. By seeing things as they really are and not merely by how they look all semblances which afflict humankind can be dissolved.
Deeper reasoning and insight are almost always against the views of mass-opinion. There is a higher reasoning not associated with the comparing and contrasting of things in this world. Attitude and reasoning go hand-in-hand. If you would have the harmony and peace of cosmic order, the proper attitude is required.
Mr Interesting
22-09-2016, 07:11 PM
Good point. Question it, but question what purpose the question itself serves. In philosophy, for example, we aren't particularly concerned with answers to the questions, but are interested in the question itself. It is that air of mystery surrounding the unanswered question that is most satisfying, so the real art of philosophy constructing the perfect question - that is, one which is impossible to answer, which in turn, makes to whole exercise superfluous.
There has been a little of some of the ideas of a Derren Brown of late finding their way to me and he has this fairly interesting premise that the huge tidal wave of self help books that advance positivity towards some future which is yet to exist is misleading at best and he counters with his own philosophical/psychological views that we are better off mixing and juggling, as it were, our progress forward, attainment of goals, with a very healthy does of making do with what's available.
And even that his views are appearing, and he admits to being an atheistic and a rationalist dependant on critical thinking and observation whilst also paying lip service to the ancient Greek ideals of what happiness is, seem to be a kind of resolution in human ideas of the moment where we have somehow gone too far with the Oprah school and need to be pulled back into a more grounded sense.
And in this I entirely agree with Gem and it is the sense of going after answers that somehow throws us off kilter, the expectations that answers will make it right, and so we go off swinging away from now into past and/or future dependencies and fit those with those answers which seem to abstractly to require such changes within ourselves.
And so the right questions aren't even about the right questions so much as it may be about the sitting within potential and letting possibility shape itself as opposed to taking potential only as a need for action and through action achievement.
What? Questions are cool 'n all, but the answers are cool too.
What? I totally disagree.
You're saying that the real art of philosophy is crafting unanswerable questions?
Which makes the whole thing superfluous?
??? Disagree.
:-(
This air of mystery provides the DRIVE to do philosophical work. To TRY to answer questions. This air of mystery does not allow us satisfaction. (in my opinion)
It is often not just an air of mystery, but an air of importance. Of critical relevance.
For example: what is the role of personal choice/free will, in spiritual practice? I am not satisfied with mystery; I want some dang answers, no matter how imperfect and subjective they may be. Because the answers matter.
Your question assumes there is free will, but the question of free will itself is good philosophical inquiry for the reason I described.
Look at all the aspects your question depends on: 1) the assumption of free will; and 2) What 'spiritual practice' actually refers to; and 3) The inquiry a quest for satisfaction. I'm sure someone will say something satisfying which will be imperfect and subjective but is that what constitutes an answer?
To me, it's a very simple question with a simple answer: Do whatever you want. You don't even need an answer to do that. Otherwise, you might think you have an answer and be compelled to act only in ways which affirm that knowledge.
The air of mystery surrounding philosophical questions might be perceived as an impetus to find answers, but in practice questioning the mystery actually only perpetuates conversation, dialogue, discourse, debate and so on. Free will is a presupposition...
StrawberryStrudel
23-09-2016, 12:13 AM
Your question assumes there is free will, but the question of free will itself is good philosophical inquiry for the reason I described.
Well sure. It seems that bees & I share that assumption. You are welcome to think about whether free will is an actual phenomenon, but bees & I are also welcome to ask other questions that require assuming that the answer is "yes."
Look at all the aspects your question depends on: 1) the assumption of free will
Covered above.
2) What 'spiritual practice' actually refers to
True. Bees & I seem to be less interested in the specific parameters here. We're interested in the role of free will & personal choice within the vague, subjective idea of "spiritual practice."
If you're gonna ask a question, you're allowed to focus on the part of the question that you're actually interested in. Otherwise you get nowhere fast.
3) The inquiry a quest for satisfaction. I'm sure someone will say something satisfying which will be imperfect and subjective but is that what constitutes an answer?
I don't understand.
To me, it's a very simple question with a simple answer: Do whatever you want. You don't even need an answer to do that. Otherwise, you might think you have an answer and be compelled to act only in ways which affirm that knowledge.
We are acting under the assumption that some choices are inherently better than others.
Children do whatever they want, often unwisely. They need parents.
Many adults do whatever they want, and I pity many of them.
I largely do whatever I want, but what I want to do is guided by what I've come to believe is good. And I try to do what I feel is the best thing to do. Because that's what I want to do.
If you just wanna throw your hands in the air and say ya gotta go back and question every aspect of the question, fine. But apparently that leaves you with absolutely no compass other than "do whatever you want."
Not my medicine.
StrawberryStrudel
23-09-2016, 12:38 AM
But by asking yourself why you want such answers, you just might see that it is in that answer that you will find what you are holding onto that demands answers.
I'm mostly interested in the role of free will/personal choice in spirituality because I'm interested in what might be an inherently better, inherently wiser way to approach life.
Maybe wiser entities than I recommend exercising free will. (And they do. To me, anyway. They recommend letting the buck stop at my judgment, rather than doing what I'm told, or following every suggestion because it's coming from a spiritual entity.)
Maybe I'm interested in what may be the most advantageous way of doing stuffz.
Or maybe I'm secretly trying to figure out what God wants.
And in this I entirely agree with Gem and it is the sense of going after answers that somehow throws us off kilter, the expectations that answers will make it right, and so we go off swinging away from now into past and/or future dependencies and fit those with those answers which seem to abstractly to require such changes within ourselves.
And so the right questions aren't even about the right questions so much as it may be about the sitting within potential and letting possibility shape itself as opposed to taking potential only as a need for action and through action achievement.
Good.., Obi-Wan Kenobi!?
Your intuition has hit nail on head for this one...thanks thee, Mr Interesting.
Starman, thanks for your valued perspectives..
Strawberry Strudel, inquiry is an honored and valuable tradition in all spiritual schools of mastery. Have faith in yourself and spot the diamonds in this forum.
Thanks for your inputs :smile:
Gem and Self, interesting perspectives..and has some merit too...thanks both. :smile:
Well sure. It seems that bees & I share that assumption. You are welcome to think about whether free will is an actual phenomenon, but bees & I are also welcome to ask other questions that require assuming that the answer is "yes."
Covered above.
True. Bees & I seem to be less interested in the specific parameters here. We're interested in the role of free will & personal choice within the vague, subjective idea of "spiritual practice."
If you're gonna ask a question, you're allowed to focus on the part of the question that you're actually interested in. Otherwise you get nowhere fast.
I don't understand.
We are acting under the assumption that some choices are inherently better than others.
Children do whatever they want, often unwisely. They need parents.
Many adults do whatever they want, and I pity many of them.
I largely do whatever I want, but what I want to do is guided by what I've come to believe is good. And I try to do what I feel is the best thing to do. Because that's what I want to do.
If you just wanna throw your hands in the air and say ya gotta go back and question every aspect of the question, fine. But apparently that leaves you with absolutely no compass other than "do whatever you want."
Not my medicine.
... so there is an assumption which is just taken-to-be-true, and consequentially, answers are not actually derived from a question, but contextualised with an assumption. This is to say, any answer depends on the terms specified in the question, which makes it a construct of discourse, which was my primary point.
There has been a little of some of the ideas of a Derren Brown of late finding their way to me and he has this fairly interesting premise that the huge tidal wave of self help books that advance positivity towards some future which is yet to exist is misleading at best and he counters with his own philosophical/psychological views that we are better off mixing and juggling, as it were, our progress forward, attainment of goals, with a very healthy does of making do with what's available.
And even that his views are appearing, and he admits to being an atheistic and a rationalist dependant on critical thinking and observation whilst also paying lip service to the ancient Greek ideals of what happiness is, seem to be a kind of resolution in human ideas of the moment where we have somehow gone too far with the Oprah school and need to be pulled back into a more grounded sense.
And in this I entirely agree with Gem and it is the sense of going after answers that somehow throws us off kilter, the expectations that answers will make it right, and so we go off swinging away from now into past and/or future dependencies and fit those with those answers which seem to abstractly to require such changes within ourselves.
And so the right questions aren't even about the right questions so much as it may be about the sitting within potential and letting possibility shape itself as opposed to taking potential only as a need for action and through action achievement.
I guess there's perspectives I have. One is philosophical and the other is research. In the former, the question isn't really supposed to be answered as much it is is supposed to be a topic of discussion, and it is amazing how differently the same thing can be 'known'. In the latter a question is a way of defining accurately what it is one wants to find out, and it's not easy to come up with 'the right question', so it really does depend on the right question more than the answer being right. In terms of the answer, there is a bunch of data which is interpreted, so the answer isn't actually 'right'; and data can be interpreted in different ways.
On the whole the entire exercise is to make meaning of what we might experience, and meaning is very deep. It's a shame when it becomes answers as this reduces it to mere knowledge.
StrawberryStrudel
23-09-2016, 08:10 AM
... so there is an assumption which is just taken-to-be-true, and consequentially, answers are not actually derived from a question, but contextualised with an assumption. This is to say, any answer depends on the terms specified in the question, which makes it a construct of discourse, which was my primary point.
The assumption allows us to meaningfully address the question.
If you want to go back and address assumptions, you eventually return to "is reality, as we perceive it, even real?"
Go for it. Have a field day.
Personally, I'll take my assumptions now and then, for the sake of talking about the things that interest me.
Also, you say that, due to us operating with a known assumption, "answers are not actually derived from a question, but contextualized with an assumption." These are not mutually exclusive. There is an implicit assumption, and THEN we derive answers from the question.
Ergh. ::frustration::
StrawberryStrudel
23-09-2016, 08:14 AM
Strawberry Strudel, inquiry is an honored and valuable tradition in all spiritual schools of mastery.
Sure, but I seem to be a little less interested in some types of inquiry than you. At least, within the context of a thread titled "role of personal choice, will, in spiritual practice." Personally, I came to discuss "role of personal choice, will, in spiritual practice."
Then again, you were the original poster, and you seem to be into it. Maybe I'm just grumpy.
The assumption allows us to meaningfully address the question.
If you want to go back and address assumptions, you eventually return to "is reality, as we perceive it, even real?"
Go for it. Have a field day.
Personally, I'll take my assumptions now and then, for the sake of talking about the things that interest me.
Also, you say that, due to us operating with a known assumption, "answers are not actually derived from a question, but contextualized with an assumption." These are not mutually exclusive. There is an implicit assumption, and THEN we derive answers from the question.
Ergh. ::frustration::
That's precisely characterises the construction of discourse. This is my basic point. Of course, it is for the sake of conversation ("talking about what interests me") which is the reason for constructing discourse. This brings me back to my earlier point, the question can't really arrive at an answer per-se, but it serves to generate conversation.
Sure, but I seem to be a little less interested in some types of inquiry than you. At least, within the context of a thread titled "role of personal choice, will, in spiritual practice." Personally, I came to discuss "role of personal choice, will, in spiritual practice."
Then again, you were the original poster, and you seem to be into it. Maybe I'm just grumpy.
I allow for i.e. Don't mind off topic discourse if it's genuine inquiry but really only focus on or follow what I resonate or can agree with. I have't followed your conversation with Gem or Self closely but isn't it true (at least to my mind) that there are two sides to this?
If I ask someone, how can I do this work project better, that feedback can absolutely help me. I don't need to ask why I am asking. I'm asking because the answers can help guide me or give me a perspective I may not yet have.
In other terms, I might ask, what can I do? And this is a strategy subconsciously to stall, as I already know what to do. Or I might keep asking and not take the advice I get.
Or as per what Mr Interesting says, sometimes a question is a way to not "sense" it out (without thinking) in the now...which could be more productive.
In other words, I believe there's Many different ways of seeing a topic and there's actually no absolute truth attached to any of those interpretations but we might take them in to see what might apply. Hope this helps..
:hug3:
lemex
23-09-2016, 04:53 PM
Please comment on your opinion on the role of personal choice, will, attitude in spiritual practice. Thank you :smile:
So far the conversation is idealic, a view of what personal spiritual concepts I've heard should be and the freedom to do so, how it should be practiced. The role of personal choice for me was comfort. :smile: What I realized some times ago, is that choice has consequence and cause and effect may be why the decision is made as it is. Maybe the role of comfort plays heavily which I haven't heard mentioned. Just something in the background that was my reason which may apply.
Lorelyen
23-09-2016, 05:29 PM
It’s actually a large question (as originally posted) – personal choice suggests we’re also affected by the choice of others about which we in turn may have a choice of reactions / actions; but which may constrain us to things we'd prefer not to do. As I see it, one’s life if conditioned by decisions on the choices we have, our wish to self-actualise if relevant, and this is fundamentally spiritual of which a spiritually inspired person will be aware. The “role” is conceptually more difficult thus because our lives are roles and singling this slant out is perhaps over-compartmentalising. Choice obviously affects our getting things done (to that extent it’s administrative which may impinge on our spirit) or it may concern our higher principles and be an aim (such as refinement). So whatever we’re aiming for – the several things that let us go on living in the material world – our choosing and deciding is the role. Attitude is a tao as I see it governing simply how we perform that role.
A lot could be said depending on interpretation which seems to have happened in this topic so far.
...
StrawberryStrudel
23-09-2016, 05:32 PM
This brings me back to my earlier point, the question can't really arrive at an answer per-se, but it serves to generate conversation.
We disagree.
Shades of grey, dude.
It might not be THE TRUTHIEST TRUTHY ANSWER, but it's not just for the sake of conversation. If we believe in the assumption enough, the conversation can certainly generate an answer that feels good enough to work with.
That is, the conversation can lead to a change in our decision making. Our lives. It can have an impact in the physical world.
I call that an answer.
Mr Interesting
23-09-2016, 05:56 PM
Mere knowledge... oh, I like this!
And assumptions, I see nothing wrong with assumptions, as long as you know they are assumptions and hold them as lightly as possible.
I always quite like that song by the Police about the servant to the master becoming the master over the servant and have found it alot more eerily true than I might want it to be. It seems this human tendency to acquire knowledge and have it as power, especially if there is still an intuitive sense that merely plays an unacknowledged supporting role, can't help but seek out the individual willing to serve and hold knowledge somewhat down the ladder in it's importance as if despite all that knowledge there is always something missing and that it somehow resides within the humble one that playfulness with knowledge.
lemex
23-09-2016, 06:58 PM
It’s actually a large question (as originally posted) – personal choice suggests we’re also affected by the choice of others about which we in turn may have a choice of reactions / actions; but which may constrain us to things we'd prefer not to do.
My comfort zone..... :smile:
sandalwood
24-09-2016, 12:17 AM
Existentialism and Determinism
Are two sides of the same coin
If you watch for only one
You will not see half of it
If you watch for each of them
You will notice a give and take
StrawberryStrudel
24-09-2016, 12:30 AM
Existentialism and Determinism
Are two sides of the same coin
If you watch for only one
You will not see half of it
If you watch for each of them
You will notice a give and take
True.
It's all shades of grey.
Mere knowledge... oh, I like this!
And assumptions, I see nothing wrong with assumptions, as long as you know they are assumptions and hold them as lightly as possible.
I always quite like that song by the Police about the servant to the master becoming the master over the servant and have found it alot more eerily true than I might want it to be. It seems this human tendency to acquire knowledge and have it as power, especially if there is still an intuitive sense that merely plays an unacknowledged supporting role, can't help but seek out the individual willing to serve and hold knowledge somewhat down the ladder in it's importance as if despite all that knowledge there is always something missing and that it somehow resides within the humble one that playfulness with knowledge.
When I was doing my tertiary courses in social research I took up some extra reading in metaphysical philosophy regarding knowledge - ontology (what things are) and epistemology (how we can know them). It's an incredibly deep subject, mainly because ontology fundamentally questions 'What is a thing?' Or even, 'Are there things?' Epistemology, concerning not things, but knowledge, fundamentally questions what is knowledge - but goes into how we can know things.
My little theory is, people like the idea of free will because it keeps power at the disposal of the individual, or in other words, the free will belief system is assumed because it reinforces self-reference. It is self-evident that the starring charcter in the free will story is 'me'.
This question, is there free will, more primarily questions if there is an individual self, and I suggest to you that free will is the last bastion of the ego. The meditation in most Buddhist contexts is an observation of what is without volitional action, without the exertion of will, so that one can see what is there, what is true - what is. Period. I am inclined, then, to say that free will has no place in spiritual practice, and this is why I question the OP title which is loaded with the implication that it does.
BlueSky
24-09-2016, 11:57 AM
When I was doing my tertiary courses in social research I took up some extra reading in metaphysical philosophy regarding knowledge - ontology (what things are) and epistemology (how we can know them). It's an incredibly deep subject, mainly because ontology fundamentally questions 'What is a thing?' Or even, 'Are there things?' Epistemology, concerning not things, but knowledge, fundamentally questions what is knowledge - but goes into how we can know things.
My little theory is, people like the idea of free will because it keeps power at the disposal of the individual, or in other words, the free will belief system is assumed because it reinforces self-reference. It is self-evident that the starring charcter in the free will story is 'me'.
This question, is there free will, more primarily questions if there is an individual self, and I suggest to you that free will is the last bastion of the ego. The meditation in most Buddhist contexts is an observation of what is without volitional action, without the exertion of will, so that one can see what is there, what is true - what is. Period. I am inclined, then, to say that free will has no place in spiritual practice, and this is why I question the OP title which is loaded with the implication that it does.
Or the starring character "me" is asking the wrong question. There is undoubtedly a "will" being exercised, it's just bigger than "me" and yet that part of me that makes me an individual in the sea of oneness is a participant.
lemex
24-09-2016, 03:35 PM
Hope this isn't taken as being off topic. But it does relate to how we see. If it is, I won't continue with it, so let me know it is. I just think it's part of the process. I had a realization last night about the quality free-will possesses and say it is a process. Free-will can be seen coming to fruition very slowly. Free-will operates slowly, that is what I felt. :smile: It is correct to say we behave in certain ways linked to DNA that condition as well as any society that uses that which is common to us, that become the pattern of behavior, instinct. I don't know if we overestimate or underestimate the brain, but the brain is not geared for free-will to operate in such a (conscious) state that probably comes from evolution. As we know, or at least have heard said, much of our thinking is and becomes passive and free-will isn't. We are seeing maybe what becomes, just a natural tendency imm. Just wanted to acknowledge the brain.
vBulletin v3.5.5, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.