Free Will vs Divine Ordaination

[Joe Mc]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

Nicely put. "Free will" is indeed viewed differently from different angles of vision.

Thanks. I just posted to 'Within Silence' about action of 'good' and 'evil' to try and expand the the topic of 'Free Will and Determinism'. As i said it seems like the question of 'good' and 'evil' is never far away from the topic of 'Free Will and Determinism'. If within the liberated state there is no such difficulty or question of 'good' and 'evil' , 'free will', 'determinism' as was suggested by Within Silence's teacher then there is no difficulty but some philosophies such as madyamika buddhism have broken it down into 'Relative' and 'Absolute' reality, almost some kind of seperation so we can function in a 'moral way' ? Hey it's difficult to write about this ..and also the question has gone kinda cold for me ..it was one that came up a couple of weeks ago ? Any ideas ?

[r6r6]

Free will is about metaphysical-1, mind accessing creatures and their concerns about good and evil.

"U"niverse / God / Uni-Verse is not about good and evil, for the most part.


r6

[SleepyMind]

Originally Posted by Joe Mc

I read the article from your teacher and it is a nice article and useful.

I'm glad you liked it- it was actually my teacher. I highly suggest anyone who feels they are at the place where they need a teacher contact him. He is very accessible compared to others I've tried working with in the past. He still responds to contact requests at Nobodymind.com.

Originally Posted by Joe Mc

That thing that is said about not being in control has resonated with me many times and is a really deep and interesting way of coming to some partial or even absolute experience of oneness.

For me, this is key. I can see that there is something (the mind) that wants to control things. But when I just let things be as they are, I'm content. It's so simple.

Originally Posted by Joe Mc

However, what i think usually lies behind the question of 'Free Will vs Determinism' is the one of intentionality. Intentionality as regards acts of Good and evil .. do i intentionally choose and cause an act of evil lets say.

I'm going to channel my teacher here because I can hear him saying, "Do you intentionally choose to do evil?" You are the only one who can actually answer that. I doubt you do evil at all, but if you find yourself thinking you are doing evil, I would highly suggest reaching out to a teacher- that's exactly what they teach for. If not, then the question is just philosophical and probably won't help you get closer to that absolute experience of oneness.
Just my 2 cents!

[no1wakesup]

The foundation of this topic is control or rather the need to maintain control. Without a sense of separation that need would not be there. So it is exclusive for that separate one there. Ive referred to this in the past as the duality of non duality. A conceptual mind trying to understand a quality without any "duality" or "non duality" in it. The moment we attempt to understand it, it is not lost, cause you never had it. Its simply an assumtion we believe the mind can solve or come to terms with. It simply never existed. Its part of the same story line and charater that assumes it can remain in the picture where no separation exists (except as potential in an unconscious and unrealized state). This is just another interesting way for the mind to chase its own tail. It makes no difference what topic is spoken about, that assumption is there, until of course, its not.

[Joe Mc]

Originally Posted by SleepyMind

I'm glad you liked it- it was actually my teacher. I highly suggest anyone who feels they are at the place where they need a teacher contact him. He is very accessible compared to others I've tried working with in the past. He still responds to contact requests at Nobodymind.com.

For me, this is key. I can see that there is something (the mind) that wants to control things. But when I just let things be as they are, I'm content. It's so simple.
I'm going to channel my teacher here because I can hear him saying, "Do you intentionally choose to do evil?" You are the only one who can actually answer that. I doubt you do evil at all, but if you find yourself thinking you are doing evil, I would highly suggest reaching out to a teacher- that's exactly what they teach for. If not, then the question is just philosophical and probably won't help you get closer to that absolute experience of oneness.
Just my 2 cents!

Thankyou for your views, very helpful. I think we could downgrade the word Evil to wrong, I'm trying to make clearer the connection between ' The apparent seperate self which acts with free will and makes choices about right and wrong etc. and the Absolute self where there is no such thing as choice or duality of any kind.

Do you need or concede to the idea that there is an ' Apparent seperate self ' who acts within the confines of his or her life whilst knowing that there is 'Absolute Reality' which is one and also contains within it this type of reality of a seperate self ? The 'apparent seperate self' is connected to these ideas about morality and free will ..right and wrong ..and functions through them ..? I'm just trying to see where ...going into a bank for example with a gun and taking the money ..is wrong or right ?

Is it right or wrong at a certain level of reality, the relative level of reality to do something like that ...because at the absolute level of reality ..it is not wrong ? If there are both levels of reality ..how are they connected ? Is God a bank robber ? lol.

[Joe Mc]

Originally Posted by no1wakesup

The foundation of this topic is control or rather the need to maintain control. Without a sense of separation that need would not be there. So it is exclusive for that separate one there. Ive referred to this in the past as the duality of non duality. A conceptual mind trying to understand a quality without any "duality" or "non duality" in it. The moment we attempt to understand it, it is not lost, cause you never had it. Its simply an assumtion we believe the mind can solve or come to terms with. It simply never existed. Its part of the same story line and charater that assumes it can remain in the picture where no separation exists (except as potential in an unconscious and unrealized state). This is just another interesting way for the mind to chase its own tail. It makes no difference what topic is spoken about, that assumption is there, until of course, its not.

The duality of non duality you refer to, others have called the relative self or the apparent self. This relative self has free will and makes choices about right and wrong ? So the apparent self exists or appears to exist and this is mainly felt in its belief that it has free will and moral choices to make which it does ? Even an enligthened being such as Ramana Maharshi probably had to make the choice of how to cook and prepare the food in the kitchen which he did quite alot i am told. So who was counting or discerning how many mustard seeds to put into the dahl ? Was there anybody there ? Why didn't he just put the whole jar in ? lol. :)

[no1wakesup]

...........

[no1wakesup]

Originally Posted by Joe Mc

The duality of non duality you refer to, others have called the relative self or the apparent self. This relative self has free will and makes choices about right and wrong ? So the apparent self exists or appears to exist and this is mainly felt in its belief that it has free will and moral choices to make which it does ? Even an enligthened being such as Ramana Maharshi probably had to make the choice of how to cook and prepare the food in the kitchen which he did quite alot i am told. So who was counting or discerning how many mustard seeds to put into the dahl ? Was there anybody there ? Why didn't he just put the whole jar in ? lol. :)

No. Thats not it at all...

Im pointing to the redundancy of the chooser, a separate one there, IDENTIFIED exclusively with thought and anchored in linear time and space (separation).

What is a choice? Who or what is the chooser? A choice is made not with what appears to unfold externally but with the conditioning one holds within. That conditioning is illussion as it believes itself primary. That primary separate self, spiritual or otherwise, relative or apparant self, makes its choices soley within the boundaries (extremes) of its conditioning. Choice is for the tangible, the somethingness outcome for the percieved benefit or loss of someone there. Exclusive to that reality only. And even in those moments where there was some transparency... and the natural or aligned way was provided, even then it still became my authentic choice. That "my" relative to anything belongs to duality and a me not even there.

Choice is a conceptual result from an awareness which had first established its material world.
There is no separate you making choices. Choice is an apparent option we believe we have between a conceptual beginning and end. And so a choice is a final expression, our right, we believe to have. No choices in that conditioning means no freedom. So its almost threatening to hear, as we AGAIN, attempt to conceptualize it.

Your percieved choices come from your conditioning, your conditioning or the content of all that you know as experience comes from a prior assumption of separation. Your sense of separation came out of your original awareness which unfolded once other was established "out there". All that which filled that awareness, or rather all that content which rested on the foundation of an otherwise transparant space of awareness, eventually evolved into a singularity experiencing an existence we call my life.

We believe the same can be done with chosing to become enlightened or liberated. Thats not there either. Liberation is there when there is no more choice to be made, when you have no more skin in the game. Then choice is seen as another buffer and tool to veil the belief that there is an experiencer and experience (a conceptual life) to lose. Discovering or even understanding you have no choice is not what anyone has to accomplish, its the apparent chooser that is re-identified fully which collapses first. Everything else, choice, free will, personal karma, individuality.. etc..follows and comes down of its own accord.

Most fight for their right to have a choice. In this reality, thats fine. Its expected. However, no one wants to question the core assumption of the chooser to begin with. That becomes loose footing and unfamilar ground to say the least.

[SleepyMind]

Originally Posted by Joe Mc

Do you need or concede to the idea that there is an ' Apparent seperate self ' who acts within the confines of his or her life whilst knowing that there is 'Absolute Reality' which is one and also contains within it this type of reality of a seperate self ?

But where are you in all of this? That's the key question, I think.

If you are the small, separate self that knows about this absolute, then the question of good and evil is a relevant one.

If you are one with the absolute, knowing this small separate self to be illusion, then where is the question of good and evil.

Nisgardatta Maharaj wrote something in I am That, underlining is mine:
"Just look and remember, whatever you perceive is not you, nor yours. It is there in the field of consciousness, but you are not the field and its contents, nor even the knower of the field. It is your idea that you have to do things that entangle you in results of your efforts-the motive, the desire, the failure to achieve, the sense of frustration-all this holds you back. Simply look at whatever happens and know that you are beyond it."

I take that to mean: worrying about all of this is exactly what keeps people from the discovery of themselves as the absolute. This is something Maharaj constantly harped about.

[Joe Mc]

Originally Posted by no1wakesup

No. Thats not it at all...

Im pointing to the redundancy of the chooser, a separate one there, IDENTIFIED exclusively with thought and anchored in linear time and space (separation).

What is a choice? Who or what is the chooser? A choice is made not with what appears to unfold externally but with the conditioning one holds within. That conditioning is illussion as it believes itself primary. That primary separate self, spiritual or otherwise, relative or apparant self, makes its choices soley within the boundaries (extremes) of its conditioning. Choice is for the tangible, the somethingness outcome for the percieved benefit or loss of someone there. Exclusive to that reality only. And even in those moments where there was some transparency... and the natural or aligned way was provided, even then it still became my authentic choice. That "my" relative to anything belongs to duality and a me not even there.

Choice is a conceptual result from an awareness which had first established its material world.
There is no separate you making choices. Choice is an apparent option we believe we have between a conceptual beginning and end. And so a choice is a final expression, our right, we believe to have. No choices in that conditioning means no freedom. So its almost threatening to hear, as we AGAIN, attempt to conceptualize it.

Your percieved choices come from your conditioning, your conditioning or the content of all that you know as experience comes from a prior assumption of separation. Your sense of separation came out of your original awareness which unfolded once other was established "out there". All that which filled that awareness, or rather all that content which rested on the foundation of an otherwise transparant space of awareness, eventually evolved into a singularity experiencing an existence we call my life.

We believe the same can be done with chosing to become enlightened or liberated. Thats not there either. Liberation is there when there is no more choice to be made, when you have no more skin in the game. Then choice is seen as another buffer and tool to veil the belief that there is an experiencer and experience (a conceptual life) to lose. Discovering or even understanding you have no choice is not what anyone has to accomplish, its the apparent chooser that is re-identified fully which collapses first. Everything else, choice, free will, personal karma, individuality.. etc..follows and comes down of its own accord.

Most fight for their right to have a choice. In this reality, thats fine. Its expected. However, no one wants to question the core assumption of the chooser to begin with. That becomes loose footing and unfamilar ground to say the least.

Thank you. I've heard people speaking about the wave and the ocean. Is the wave the ocean or part of the ocean? Because the wave has individual characteristics does it mean that it is not part of the ocean ? Because there is thought, discrimination, choices or preferences going on doesn't mean that there is seperation ? We could say that the wave is seperate from the ocean on some level at least as we can identify and discriminate it as a wave.