Where there is a will there is a way! But what is "will" exactly?

[LadyVictoria]

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

The way will arises non-dualistically in you , it arises non-dualistically on others . If the will arising in you is good , well meaning , reasonable and not against the will and decisions of others non-dualistic beings , your will may get realized .

We need to realise non-dualistically our consciousness in the mind-body form is a mere cog in the giant wheel of cosmic spirit . It is the will of cosmic spirit collectively that translates into reality for sure ( and not a small will arising in the mind body form consciousness of an individual) .

Speaking non-dualistically there is no true separation between the individual and the "cosmic spirit". And people will negative painful trauma-inducing stuff into our collective reality all the time. Otherwise everything would be nothing but peace, love, rainbows and lovely smelling unicorn farts all day everyday and that simply is not so.

Look I don't see the point of existence being to find a place of love peace and happiness all the time and strive to reach a place of "higher consciousness" where we never experience pain or suffering.

As I see it we want the pain, we want to suffer, we think it's great fun and a lot of people are addicted to the stuff. We manifest it into our experience thinking it's something we don't like but really we want it. We're all inherently sado-masochistic and derive experiential pleasure from both giving pain and receiving it. It's the only thing that explains why our reality is the way it is.

And if that's the case then pain and suffering is both Divinely and individually willed into being.

The essential crux of the problem is that we view or individual life from the perspective of the finite and impermanent, whereas all-that-is views it from the perspective of the infinite and eternal. In a lot of ways the "drama" and "trauma" that occurs within our personal reality is way of breaking up and breaking through the boredom and monotony of eternal existence.

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by LadyVictoria

The essential crux of the problem is that we view or individual life from the perspective of the finite and impermanent, whereas all-that-is views it from the perspective of the infinite and eternal. In a lot of ways the "drama" and "trauma" that occurs within our personal reality is way of breaking up and breaking through the boredom and monotony of eternal existence.

Spirituality (Only rightly understood & followed ) is all about adopting / maximizing the 'drama' and minimizing the trauma in our personal reality and bringing life and vigour in our journey of eternity.

[LadyVictoria]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Truly. Take the analogy of clay and pot. Pot cannot exist without clay but clay can exist without pot. Is the pot real? Sure, but does it have existence independent of clay? No.
Is clay real? Yes. Does it have existence independent of pot? Yes.

I disagree. The pot does have an existence without the clay. In fact the pot had to exist as an idea before the clay could be formed into it. Clay cannot spontaneously form itself into a pot. The idea of forming the clay into the pot had to come first.

Also thoughts are things. An idea is just as much a thing as clay or a pot is a thing. Thoughts however are immaterial things and therefore they are even more fleeting and transitory than physical things but some thoughts can result in the production of physical things and thereby gains a stronger and less transient vibrational reality. Although that reality like all of reality has no real permanence.

All-that-is will always BE all that is but my body, my car, all the tree and plants in my backyard, the planet Earth itself will all be dead and reduced to dust someday, however it will all still be a part of all-that-is just in a different form.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

As I said if all is within One and One within all there cannot be two identities, that of Self and that of self. Something has to give.

Well if there cannot be two identities why are you talking about them as if they are two identities? And if there cannot be two identities then there is nothing that "has to give". If you can see them as two identities then you have two identities. In actuality I think the individual Self's identity is extremely multifaceted. I would even go as far as saying it is multidimensional as well.

Unfortunately the problem with discussing non-dualism is our language and the English vernacular truly fails us here.

I get the sense we are talking about the same things but you are calling it non-existent and illusionary and I'm calling it finite and transitory. I refuse to apply words like illusion and non-existent to the concept of non-duality and reality itself because I think those words and their meaning is extremely misguiding and comes from Westerners trying to translate Eastern philosophical concepts into Western language and a Christian-Judaic world view that negates the validity of the internal self and emphasizes external forces. From my own personal philosophical point of view I see that the power contained within internalized self is what creates our external experiences.

Also we trying to define this thing called "physical reality" but reality isn't just time-space 3 dimensional physical phenomena. There's also the reality of our imagination and our dreams and what is that in relation to the so-called physical?

We're not giving our inner reality enough credence.

If you see our perception of reality as an illusionary trick, as in Plato's cave allegory. Where the reality we perceive is light and shadow reflecting what is actually "real" and then if we are capable of breaking through the chains of our misperceptions and turn around (look inwardly) then we can actually see it clearly for what it really is. That I agree with.

The Great Illusionist's trick is showing us a world that is impermanent and separated when in actually it is Eternal and connected. This misdirection or joke being played on our perceptions is both intentional and necessary in order for us to have the experience of both self and other.

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

Spirituality (Only rightly understood & followed ) is all about adopting / maximizing the 'drama' and minimizing the trauma in our personal reality and bringing life and vigour in our journey of eternity.

Just because you stated it I have to ask what is "spirituality only rightly understood and followed"? Be very careful in your response, that's some seriously muddy water you are treading in. In fact don't answer that because I have serious adverse allergic reactions when people try to tell me what the right way to do anything is. I may break out in hives and be in need of a cortisone shot in my behind.

We all have different belief systems and paradigms that we follow and these ideas are constantly shifting and morphing. Something you think you understand today you may look at completely differently tomorrow.

As far a maximizing drama and minimizing trauma there's not too much to disagree with but it depends on the drama. Can't we minimize both the drama and trauma and maximize the fun and comedy of it all? It all depends on your choices really.

Originally Posted by LadyVictoria

I disagree. The pot does have an existence without the clay. In fact the pot had to exist as an idea before the clay could be formed into it. Clay cannot spontaneously form itself into a pot. The idea of forming the clay into the pot had to come first.

Also thoughts are things. An idea is just as much a thing as clay or a pot is a thing. Thoughts however are immaterial things and therefore they are even more fleeting and transitory than physical things but some thoughts can result in the production of physical things and thereby gains a stronger and less transient vibrational reality. Although that reality like all of reality has no real permanence.

All-that-is will always BE all that is but my body, my car, all the tree and plants in my backyard, the planet Earth itself will all be dead and reduced to dust someday, however it will all still be a part of all-that-is just in a different form.




Well if there cannot be two identities why are you talking about them as if they are two identities? And if there cannot be two identities then there is nothing that "has to give". If you can see them as two identities then you have two identities. In actuality I think the individual Self's identity is extremely multifaceted. I would even go as far as saying it is multidimensional as well.

Unfortunately the problem with discussing non-dualism is our language and the English vernacular truly fails us here.

I get the sense we are talking about the same things but you are calling it non-existent and illusionary and I'm calling it finite and transitory. I refuse to apply words like illusion and non-existent to the concept of non-duality and reality itself because I think those words and their meaning is extremely misguiding and comes from Westerners trying to translate Eastern philosophical concepts into Western language and a Christian-Judaic world view that negates the validity of the internal self and emphasizes external forces. From my own personal philosophical point of view I see that the power contained within internalized self is what creates our external experiences.

Also we trying to define this thing called "physical reality" but reality isn't just time-space 3 dimensional physical phenomena. There's also the reality of our imagination and our dreams and what is that in relation to the so-called physical?

We're not giving our inner reality enough credence.

If you see our perception of reality as an illusionary trick, as in Plato's cave allegory. Where the reality we perceive is light and shadow reflecting what is actually "real" and then if we are capable of breaking through the chains of our misperceptions and turn around (look inwardly) then we can actually see it clearly for what it really is. That I agree with.

The Great Illusionist's trick is showing us a world that is impermanent and separated when in actually it is Eternal and connected. This misdirection or joke being played on our perceptions is both intentional and necessary in order for us to have the experience of both self and other.



Just because you stated it I have to ask what is "spirituality only rightly understood and followed"? Be very careful in your response, that's some seriously muddy water you are treading in. In fact don't answer that because I have serious adverse allergic reactions when people try to tell me what the right way to do anything is. I may break out in hives and be in need of a cortisone shot in my behind.

We all have different belief systems and paradigms that we follow and these ideas are constantly shifting and morphing. Something you think you understand today you may look at completely differently tomorrow.

As far a maximizing drama and minimizing trauma there's not too much to disagree with but it depends on the drama. Can't we minimize both the drama and trauma and maximize the fun and comedy of it all? It all depends on your choices really.

Pot and clay is only an analogy. Same as ocean and wave. They are both internally consistent.

I don't think I used the term non-existent. I think I phrased it as no inherent existence which is different. Does a table have inherent existence without wood? Does wood have inherent existence without cells? Do cells have inherent existence without molecules? Do molecules have inherent existence with atoms? Atoms without electrons, protons and neutrons? Protons and neutrons without quarks? Quarks without collapse of the wave function?

So yes, I'm speaking to that which is changing, finite and impermanent vs. that which is unchanging and infinite. One has inherent existence and the other borrowed existence. That is the language of Advaita non-dualism and I'm pretty much quoting it. I'm not ad-libbing.

Concerning the Self, there's One. One within all and all within One. Self has inherent existence, all has borrowed existence. All includes mind-body and everything associated with it including thoughts, memories, emotions and sense of self's ownership and doership (ego).

If I'm going to subscribe to a philosophy I want to understand it and I've spent a lot of time studying Advaita.

[LadyVictoria]

I have no idea what Advaita is but if you're reading it through English translations and not in it's original written language it's already being distorted from what it was originally intended to express and that's even before interpretation comes into play.

And again, yes, table has inherent existence without wood. Why? Because table is an an idea that's formed out of wood. Again the idea of a table has to exist before the table can be carved from the wood.

From your point of view you are saying ideas have no inherent existence, but if ideas don't exist why do we have them? Also how does the term "no inherent existence" differ from "non-existence"?

We're stuck in a tautology now.

Going back to the subject of will power and you had an interesting word there "doership". What is doership? Is that something to do with will?

As far I'm concerned the concept of ego is mythic. Ego has no inherent reality. Rather it's an invention of human ingenuity such as tables are.

Tables are very useful but I think the concept of ego is more like the invention of the revolver. It's self-destructive and self-depreciating.

As for me I don't subscribe to outdated esoteric texts, my perceptions and ideas about the nature of personal reality are the result of deep self reflection and inner work. But please don't mistake that for being unread. I have a degree in philosophy and I'm very well read in many abstract and esoteric subjects but for me insight and intuition trump written works. You need to possess the ability to read between the lines to truly understand the ideas that are trying to be conveyed.

Originally Posted by LadyVictoria

I have no idea what Advaita is but if you're reading it through English translations and not in it's original written language it's already being distorted from what it was originally intended to express and that's even before interpretation comes into play.

And again, yes, table has inherent existence without wood. Why? Because table is an an idea that's formed out of wood. Again the idea of a table has to exist before the table can be carved from the wood.

From your point of view you are saying ideas have no inherent existence, but if ideas don't exist why do we have them? Also how does the term "no inherent existence" differ from "non-existence"?

We're stuck in a tautology now.

Going back to the subject of will power and you had an interesting word there "doership". What is doership? Is that something to do with will?

As far I'm concerned the concept of ego is mythic. Ego has no inherent reality. Rather it's an invention of human ingenuity such as tables are.

Tables are very useful but I think the concept of ego is more like the invention of the revolver. It's self-destructive and self-depreciating.

As for me I don't subscribe to outdated esoteric texts, my perceptions and ideas about the nature of personal reality are the result of deep self reflection and inner work. But please don't mistake that for being unread. I have a degree in philosophy and I'm very well read in many abstract and esoteric subjects but for me insight and intuition trump written works. You need to possess the ability to read between the lines to truly understand the ideas that are trying to be conveyed.

I suppose it all depends on what one thinks one is.

Think on this. Are not ideas dependent on mind? That is if there are no minds there are no ideas? So existence of ideas is dependent on existence of mind, so ideas have no inherent existence. That is they are not just floating around all by themselves and independent of mind.

Here's a playlist on non-duality teachings on my YT channel.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...yrF2rGcUqIb4OF

Here's another where I started down this path and on consciousness.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...XfywQvhBzzdrQA

I've delved deeply into both topics, put in a lot of meditation and also played around with lucid dreaming. Speaking of lucid dreaming, imagine a similar experience during waking reality. Realizing there was another, more fundamental reality then the one you find yourself in.

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by LadyVictoria

As I've been contemplating my spiritual lessons from both inner and outer sources I'm trying to ponder these ideas of "free will", "will power" and "Divine Will" from a non-dualistic perspective. ...

Originally Posted by LadyVictoria

I have no idea what Advaita is but if you're reading it through English translations and not in it's original written language it's already being distorted from what it was originally intended to express and that's even before interpretation comes into play.
...
As for me I don't subscribe to outdated esoteric texts, my perceptions and ideas about the nature of personal reality are the result of deep self reflection and inner work. But please don't mistake that for being unread. I have a degree in philosophy and I'm very well read in many abstract and esoteric subjects but for me insight and intuition trump written works. You need to possess the ability to read between the lines to truly understand the ideas that are trying to be conveyed.

I read only your opening post and this last one. I share much of your views.

I believe that although obviously we are part of "everything" by definition ("all-that-is" phrase seems to have lost its intrinsic meaning and now sounds too much as "god"), our relation to "everything" isn't closer than our relation, in the opposite direction, with the cells our physical bodies are made of, or with the units of consciousness that make us.

Hence, my will isn't the same with your will, nor in a meaningful way identical or even a non-negligible part of the all-encompassing will(s) of "everything". This doesn't bother me.

Although the phrase "where there is a will there is a way" is used to mean whatever its user thinks it does, to me it conveys the idea that "each one of us creates their own reality". Thought (will) always expresses itself (way). It can't not do that.

Will doesn't imply conscious volition, and we aren't only these conscious selves. This conscious self is just one component of the entity that I, as an individual points of awareness, can focus on, making it my primary focus.

It makes the same sense to say "where there is a way there is a will", as there isn't anything that isn't a thought expression. Surely, the connotation being "here it is, so there has to be somebody who did it".

What Neuroscience Says about Free Will

We're convinced that it exists, but new research suggests it might be nothing more than a trick the brain plays on itself

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...out-free-will/

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

What Neuroscience Says about Free Will

We're convinced that it exists, but new research suggests it might be nothing more than a trick the brain plays on itself

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...out-free-will/

You put a smile on my face.

[LadyVictoria]

Originally Posted by Iamit

The most common view in Neo Advaita is that there are no separate persons, so noone to have willpower. So what appears to be a person with willpower is Oneness appearing as the illusion of a separate person with will power.

Also there is the view in some nondual circles that there is an infinate automatic balancing system, which is an illusion of separation referred to as duality, that determines what happens to maintain that balance on an infinate scale that is not always apparent locally.

I can accept this idea of a "balancing system" but again you need to define what you mean by "illusion". Is the individual's will power the same as the "Oneness's" will power?