The Myth of Free Will

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Noticing that something is an illusion ends the belief of the illusion. It's not as if after noticing an illusion one goes about repeatedly stating 'this is an illusion, that's real etc. etc.' The only reason that it is relentlessly mentioned here is that the context of the conversations keep requiring the mentioning of these things. Stating that everything just IS doesn't mean that certain things are not illusions and that certain things are true and others aren't. This sort of humbleness to resist noticing what's true and what's not is another flavor of mind resistance. You see it repeatedly with people authoritatively mentioning that it's absolutely impossible to truly notice the truth of ones nature. Therefor immediately clouding the obvious already even further.

Zakly. I didn't catch on that she was imagining others are continually distinguishing between real and illusion, but it makes sense now.

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Zakly. I didn't catch on that she was imagining others are continually distinguishing between real and illusion, but it makes sense now.

So that's where the idea of hugging them in a full circle comes from.

[inri]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Noticing that something is an illusion ends the belief of the illusion.

It's not as if after noticing an illusion one goes about repeatedly stating 'this is an illusion, that's real etc. etc.' The only reason that it is relentlessly mentioned here is that the context of the conversations keep requiring the mentioning of these things.

Of course. However, when an underlying belief system (truth) is in place, the entire experience is colored by it. The vantage point that we 'notice' from when our reality is divvied up into 'actual' and 'not' is a different point of awareness than the one we notice from when the delineation between real and illusive becomes unnecessary.

And it's important to note; I'm not saying there is anything wrong with being in a place where we are very aware of illusion vs. real......some seem to get stuck here though, maybe because they believe it is so important...or perhaps the end all and be all...?

Stating that everything just IS doesn't mean that certain things are not illusions and that certain things are true and others aren't.

It means that it no longer matters. The need to differentiate is simply no longer there.

This sort of humbleness to resist noticing what's true and what's not is another flavor of mind resistance.

That's just it though. This absence of noticing what's true and what's not is not due to any kind of resistance...there is none...and without resistance, no judgment . I know it can be very hard to understand how it could be unimportant to delineate between illusion and not when you're currently holding a belief that says this ability to decipher between the two is everything.

And I don't see at all what 'humbleness' has to do with it at all.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by inri

Of course. However, when an underlying belief system (truth) is in place, the entire experience is colored by it. The vantage point that we 'notice' from when our reality is divvied up into 'actual' and 'not' is a different point of awareness than the one we notice from when the delineation between real and illusive becomes unnecessary.

And it's important to note; I'm not saying there is anything wrong with being in a place where we are very aware of illusion vs. real......some seem to get stuck here though, maybe because they believe it is so important...or perhaps the end all and be all...?




It means that it no longer matters. The need to differentiate is simply no longer there.



That's just it though. This absence of noticing what's true and what's not is not due to any kind of resistance...there is none...and without resistance, no judgment . I know it can be very hard to understand how it could be unimportant to delineate between illusion and not when you're currently holding a belief that says this ability to decipher between the two is everything.

And I don't see at all what 'humbleness' has to do with it at all.

Truth isn't a belief system that is loaded into place. There's no time being spent delineating what is actual and not except when on this forum to explain things contextually and inevitably conceptually. Perhaps we can now move past this subtle form of judgment you keep making about others being stuck and passing judgment while you are doing precisely this?

The ability to delineate between illusion and not as you say is very important in a discussion pertaining to free will. You know, the thread we're in.

Humbleness is precisely why you have repeatedly stated you have no interest in any "ultimate truth" as you call it and likely the reason you keep coming to these discussions with your ideals of not passing judgment and stick closely to a more comfortable personal oneness.

[inri]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

There's no time being spent delineating what is actual and not except when on this forum to explain things contextually and inevitably conceptually.

Of course not..... Just as I'm not roaming about my day muttering to myself that it doesn't matter whether aspects of the experience is real or not.

It's about the cocoon of perception that surrounds any given vantage point or state of awareness.

Perhaps we can now move past this subtle form of judgment you keep making about others being stuck and passing judgment while you are doing precisely this?

As I've said...there's nothing 'wrong' with any place we may find ourselves. Even...stuck. Seems to me, you, yourself have alluded to those who cannot see through the illusion in a manner that might cause one to perceive a certain amount of judgment....no?

The ability to delineate between illusion and not as you say is very important in a discussion pertaining to free will. You know, the thread we're in.

So...beyond the context of a conversation about illusion vs. real, you don't see any importance in an ability to decipher between the two?

Humbleness is precisely why you have repeatedly stated you have no interest in any "ultimate truth" as you call it

It has nothing to do with humbleness...I really don't get that...."Humbleness" as in, lack of pride, lowly, meek, modesty? I don't even understand how that would apply.

So..... you believe that a lack of pride or modesty is behind my reason for sharing my views on 'ultimate truth'...?

and likely the reason you keep coming to these discussions with your ideals of not passing judgment and stick closely to a more comfortable personal oneness.

Really..........I'm partaking in a conversation for the enjoyment of it...and I'm sharing my perspectives. Not much beyond that. There really is nothing that I'm trying accomplish other than presenting my view in a way that might be understood and attempting to understand where others are coming from.

And...when I'm using the word 'judgement' here it is with regards to the nature of reality....in this context, 'judgment' about the nature of reality, is a distinction made due to an attachment to a particular underlying belief.

[evolutionarypathways]

Originally Posted by Reefs

Real means existing in its own right. Illusions only appear to be real, but they don't exist in their own right. But both do exist. One stands for itself and does not change, the other does come and go and does not stand for itself. Everything that happens in both your dream and waking state does come and go. The "I am this/ I am that" changes constantly. Your identity in your dreams is not the same as in your waking state. Therefore it is not real. What is present both in your waking state and your dream state is the sense of "I am". So you might think that should be real. But in dreamless deep sleep there isn't even "I am". And when you start dreaming or wake up, the "I am" is there again. So even "I am" does come and go.

So what is real?

What 'comes and goes' is real. What always stays the same is equally real. Why make one more real than the other?

Wait...this gets even stranger.

My exact point is that illusions do exist in their own right. In fact, that's the only way that they exist - in their own right. So does 'non-illusion' (for lack of a better term) exist in it's own right.

They both exist and they are both real. It is only when you plunk yourself on the side of either a completely subjective perspective or a completely objective/universal perspective that you can start judging the untruth or unreality of the perspective you are now looking at from your one-sided perch. It may be an interesting intellectual exercise to do this (ie. to take sides) but it distorts or ignores the totality of the situation.

To hold both the subjective/personal and objective/universal as equally true and equally real is to embrace a paradox.

Can you hold it? Can you live it?

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by evolutionarypathways

What 'comes and goes' is real. What always stays the same is equally real. Why make one more real than the other?

Wait...this gets even stranger.

My exact point is that illusions do exist in their own right. In fact, that's the only way that they exist - in their own right. So does 'non-illusion' (for lack of a better term) exist in it's own right.

They both exist and they are both real. It is only when you plunk yourself on the side of either a completely subjective perspective or a completely objective/universal perspective that you can start judging the untruth or unreality of the perspective you are now looking at from your one-sided perch. It may be an interesting intellectual exercise to do this (ie. to take sides) but it distorts or ignores the totality of the situation.

To hold both the subjective/personal and objective/universal as equally true and equally real is to embrace a paradox.

Can you hold it? Can you live it?

do you consider duality to be a paradox?

are you saying something can exist without everything else?

Can you dig it?

[evolutionarypathways]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

You have established two truths, and are suggesting that which truth applies depends upon universal or personal perspective. This means there is no absolute Truth but only truth relative to how you look at it. Based on that idea, you imagine that I'm applying truth in one realm to the truth in another realm, and you call this illogical.

You misunderstand me. Yes, I have established two equal truths that are part of a totality, part of a whole. This doesn't mean, however, that I'm saying that there is no absolute truth and that truth is only relative.

What I am saying is that there are two absolute truths. The subjective/personal side of things - is absolutely true. The objective/universal side of things is also absolutely true.

Both absolute truths aren't in conflict with each other. They are both absolute truths that are part of the same whole.

Originally Posted by Arcanum

I don't buy your idea of truth and so I'm not bound by the 'logic' of it. There's only one absolute Truth, which we can call oneness, and this Truth applies regardless of perspective. It transcends all perspectives. In the context of relative experience we can talk about a relative truth, but it only has validity in a given context. For example, we can say that you chose to post on the forum today, which is true in a relative sense, but it is not the absolute Truth because separation is an illusion and the posting was done as part of the movement of the totality of consciousness. The absolute Truth is oneness and this doesn't change.

Well, you probably know what's coming by now...

It is absolutely true that I chose to post on this forum today. It isn't true in a relative sense. If it was true only in a relative sense then I would have to ask you, 'relative to what?'

If your answer is, 'relative to absolute truth' or 'relative to the truth of oneness' then I would have to disagree. From the perspective of oneness there is no choice. From the perspective of oneness (or the objective/universal perspective as I called it in previous posts) there is no such things as free will.

So how could it be relatively true that I made the choice to post today. It can't. It is absolutely true, not relatively true. Do you see the difference?

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Again, paradox is the attempt to hold onto a contextually limited truth (that you chose to post today) while also grasping a larger Truth (that everything remains one regardless of appearances). This is mind's way of denying the illogical contradiction by placing it in it's own mysterious category of a paradox that mind just doesn't have the ability to resolve. Mind is making all of this up conceptually and can't actually build a conceptual trap that it can't get out of. It can only imagine the trap.

As a person I chose to post today. This is absolutely true. It is exercising the absolute truth of my free will as a person. From a universal/objective perspective I didn't choose to post today, because as pointed out at length in the first post I made on this thread, 'free will' doesn't even make sense from a universal perspective. For the term 'free will' to even begin to have any meaning, you have to be talking about individuated/personal existence to begin with.

So the question is posed to 'bait out' the 'person'. Then once the 'person' shows it's head, it gets clobbered using arguments from the universal/objective perspective that 'free will' is a fiction and it doesn't really exist.

Funny me thinks

[evolutionarypathways]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

do you consider duality to be a paradox?

are you saying something can exist without everything else?

Can you dig it?

The paradox I talk about is the paradox of living duality and oneness simultaneously. Equally. Without placing one above or below the other.

Caveat: probably not recommended for those who find themselves deeply mired in one side of a duality. What do I mean by this? Let's look at an example...

If someone has been overly materialistic for most of their life then it might actually be highly beneficial for them to swing to the other side of that duality for a while. It will help balance them out in the long run. So they might beneficially take on a spiritually/universally biased perspective and live with that for a while. This isn't bad. It's good.

On the other hand, if a person has been overly 'spiritual' for most of their life, they may very well benefit from swinging to the materialistically biased end of things for a while.

After visiting both sides of the coin, the pendulum might start to slow down and you become closer and closer to finding your center. This center doesn't need to be biased to one end or the other. It sees both. It accepts both and it lives it's life as both. No higher or lower truth. No need to pick and choose sides. One would say that from this vantage point you can have it all.

Dig it?

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by evolutionarypathways

What 'comes and goes' is real. What always stays the same is equally real. Why make one more real than the other?

Wait...this gets even stranger.

My exact point is that illusions do exist in their own right. In fact, that's the only way that they exist - in their own right. So does 'non-illusion' (for lack of a better term) exist in it's own right.

They both exist and they are both real. It is only when you plunk yourself on the side of either a completely subjective perspective or a completely objective/universal perspective that you can start judging the untruth or unreality of the perspective you are now looking at from your one-sided perch. It may be an interesting intellectual exercise to do this (ie. to take sides) but it distorts or ignores the totality of the situation.

To hold both the subjective/personal and objective/universal as equally true and equally real is to embrace a paradox.

Can you hold it? Can you live it?

What paradox? There are no paradoxes except for mind. Paradoxes belong to the conceptual realm.

There are no degrees of realness. There is only real or not real. There are no transition zones.

And the only thing you can hold and try to live is a concept.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by evolutionarypathways

The paradox I talk about is the paradox of living duality and oneness simultaneously. Equally. Without placing one above or below the other.

Caveat: probably not recommended for those who find themselves deeply mired in one side of a duality. What do I mean by this? Let's look at an example...

If someone has been overly materialistic for most of their life then it might actually be highly beneficial for them to swing to the other side of that duality for a while. It will help balance them out in the long run. So they might beneficially take on a spiritually/universally biased perspective and live with that for a while. This isn't bad. It's good.

On the other hand, if a person has been overly 'spiritual' for most of their life, they may very well benefit from swinging to the materialistically biased end of things for a while.

After visiting both sides of the coin, the pendulum might start to slow down and you become closer and closer to finding your center. This center doesn't need to be biased to one end or the other. It sees both. It accepts both and it lives it's life as both. No higher or lower truth. No need to pick and choose sides. One would say that from this vantage point you can have it all.

Dig it?

There's nobody 'living oneness'. What you're noticing is that you, the real you has the power to identify. You can identify as a person and duality will appear to be real. You can also identify with the concept of oneness as your mind understands it. There won't seem to be any problem in this situation and it may even appear to be beneficial to the person. In other words, it's just the mind creating simultaneously opposing stories that it somehow reconciles and you notice that you can identify with both stories just fine. To actually notice oneness is to notice that you have no center. All of the stories about being able to experience a paradox, finding beneficial things for the person and choosing what fits best all goes right out the window.

[Arz Sra]

What paradox? There are no paradoxes except for mind. Paradoxes belong to the conceptual realm

Paradox is a hit upon the mind of 'what is'.

There are no degrees of realness. There is only real or not real. There are no transition zones.

May I suggest that there are both - real/unreal - at the same time. Can real survive without the unreal? Can unreal be without the real? NO. Because both are interdependent contrast(ual) entities, concepts. When the real/unreal is conceived as one, this is the Hit upon the mind that is called Paradox. Mind realizes its limitation, its stunned into silence. The paradox cannot be explained or verbalized away. One has to bear it. One can escape it by verbalizing but then its no longer a paradox. A paradox is annihilator of the mind . Its the blow of 'what is'.

And the only thing you can hold and try to live is a concept

Think again. In the sense you are saying it , its the concept living itself and sustaining itself.

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Arz Sra

May I suggest that there are both - real/unreal - at the same time. Can real survive without the unreal? Can unreal be without the real? NO. Because both are interdependent contrast(ual) entities, concepts. When the real/unreal is conceived as one, this is the Hit upon the mind that is called Paradox. Mind realizes its limitation, its stunned into silence. The paradox cannot be explained or verbalized away. One has to bear it. One can escape it by verbalizing but then its no longer a paradox. A paradox is annihilator of the mind . Its the blow of 'what is'.

The definition of 'real' is: existing in it's own right. So no both sides of the coin or something.
There are no paradoxes except for mind. And mind will find a way to get around it and live with it, eg by calling it both sides of the same coin like EP tries to convince everyone.


What is your definition of mind by the way?

[Arz Sra]

The definition of 'real' is: existing in it's own right. So no both sides of the coin or something.

Illusion does exist its in own right. Doesn't it?

What is your definition of mind?

Mind - causality-duality mechanism. The dissector of 'what is'.

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Arz Sra

Illusion does exist its in own right. Doesn't it?

Are there illusions in dreamless deep sleep?

Mind - causality-duality mechanism. The dissector of 'what is'.

Says who?

So mind is an entity?

[Arz Sra]

Are there illusions in dreamless deep sleep?

Who knows?

Says who?

Observer.

So mind is an entity?

It is , in my definition..

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Reefs

The definition of 'real' is: existing in it's own right. So no both sides of the coin or something.

Reefs, would you include all phenomena and characteristics as illusory?

Is there just the one, tranquil undifferentiated void/absolute reality, and everything else is illusory and does not exist?

Or, can phenomena and characteristics be classed as relative reality which is undifferentiated from absolute reality, i.e. there is no difference between the two as they are one.

I am asking this, as in some of my Zen Buddhist readings, there seems to be a swing between these two ways of describing reality, even within a few pages of text by the same author (Huang Po, for instance).

Could we say illusions/erroneous perceptions exist as illusions/erroneous perceptions, and if they do, wouldn't they be included within the totality of oneness/absolute reality? Otherwise, how can something stand outside of 'all that is', even if it is a an erroneous thought that lasts for a micro second?

Some teachings say there is no difference between the Buddha and sentient beings, no difference between enlightened and unenlightened, no difference between the undifferentiated void and phenomena.

So, is there any difference between the Buddha-Mind and erroneous perceptions?

I don't know. Maybe, I'm just looking at an 'apparent' paradox with my conceptual mind. Time to let get off!

Cantando

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Arz Sra

Who knows?

That's my point. It's the end of conceptualizing. Therefore mind can't know it. It will be a gap in memory which gets filled in with a lot of assumptions.

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Arz Sra

It is , in my definition..

Okay, by your definition mind is an entity. Something like a container that contains the phenomenal world?

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Cantando

Reefs, would you include all phenomena and characteristics as illusory?

Is there just the one, tranquil undifferentiated void/absolute reality, and everything else is illusory and does not exist?

Illusory does not mean not existing. It just means that it does not stand by itself, does not exist in its own right.

There's a story in the book of Zhuangzi.

Once Zhuangzi dreamt he was a butterfly, a butterfly flitting and fluttering around, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn't know he was Zhuangzi. Suddenly he woke up and there he was, solid and unmistakable Zhuangzi. But he didn't know if he was Zhuangzi who had dreamt he was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming he was Zhuangzi.

So, obviously both the butterfly and Zhuangzi do exist. But they are illusory. If Zhuangzi is there, the butterfly identity isn't. If the butterfly is there, the Zhuangzi identity isn't. Their appearance seems to depend on certain circumstances. So there is not really a difference between waking state and dream state. The difference is only in content. In the dream state the identity is "I am a butterfly" and in the waking state the identity is "I am Zhuangzi". But what is present in both states and not changing is the "I am".

Or, can phenomena and characteristics be classed as relative reality which is undifferentiated from absolute reality, i.e. there is no difference between the two as they are one.

I am asking this, as in some of my Zen Buddhist readings, there seems to be a swing between these two ways of describing reality, even within a few pages of text by the same author (Huang Po, for instance).

Could we say illusions/erroneous perceptions exist as illusions/erroneous perceptions, and if they do, wouldn't they be included within the totality of oneness/absolute reality? Otherwise, how can something stand outside of 'all that is', even if it is a an erroneous thought that lasts for a micro second?

Some teachings say there is no difference between the Buddha and sentient beings, no difference between enlightened and unenlightened, no difference between the undifferentiated void and phenomena.

So, is there any difference between the Buddha-Mind and erroneous perceptions?

I don't know. Maybe, I'm just looking at an 'apparent' paradox with my conceptual mind. Time to let get off!

Cantando

Both enlightened and unenlightened are concepts.

How do they describe Buddha Mind?

[Eric Randolph]

I can say that without control over the physical body and the senses then one has no hope of obtaining free will. One must master the physical body in order to gain this precious gift.

[Arz Sra]

Originally Posted by Reefs

That's my point. It's the end of conceptualizing. Therefore mind can't know it. It will be a gap in memory which gets filled in with a lot of assumptions.

Want A little elaboration on this point. Thanks. ( the last line).

[Arz Sra]

Something like a container that contains the phenomenal world?

You can call phenomenal world the product of mind ( points to the presence of raw material also) . Just see, Both senses as well as mind work through contrasts. Without the 'other' the phenomenal world cannot stand. Its all a game of contrast and dissection.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by evolutionarypathways

The paradox I talk about is the paradox of living duality and oneness simultaneously. Equally. Without placing one above or below the other.

what if duality is just the more immediate apparent in your face version of oneness and there really isn't duality and also oneness? That duality is the expression of oneness in a spectrum of high/low. After all duality doesn't come as two separate parts that then come together to be one, they come as mutually dependent relative appearances that actually is one.

Caveat: probably not recommended for those who find themselves deeply mired in one side of a duality. What do I mean by this? Let's look at an example...

If someone has been overly materialistic for most of their life then it might actually be highly beneficial for them to swing to the other side of that duality for a while.

what other side? Are you there is polar spectrum that has duality on one side and oneness on the other? That doesn't jive to me. Do you think oneness has an opposite?

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Reefs

Both enlightened and unenlightened are concepts.

You may have just killed the Buddha on the road, even though he was in a bullet proof maserati.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Eric Randolph

I can say that without control over the physical body and the senses then one has no hope of obtaining free will. One must master the physical body in order to gain this precious gift.

That would drive my crazy if I had to keep track of what that liver cell on the top left side is doing right now.

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Arz Sra

You can call phenomenal world the product of mind ( points to the presence of raw material also) . Just see, Both senses as well as mind work through contrasts. Without the 'other' the phenomenal world cannot stand. Its all a game of contrast and dissection.

That would mean when there are no thoughts the whole phenomenal world would disappear. Is that so?

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Arz Sra

Want A little elaboration on this point. Thanks. ( the last line).

Is there a memory of falling asleep? What's happening between your last waking thought and your first dream thought?

When you wake up in the morning and there are some dream memories left in your mind you might assume that you've dreamed all night. But did you dream all night? How can you know? Or did your waking world just got switched off at night and switched on again in the morning? And could what you call dream just be the first sensations that appear when your system gets rebooted which you interpret according to your waking world circumstances?

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

You may have just killed the Buddha on the road, even though he was in a bullet proof maserati.

Hehe, silly Buddha.

Jeff Vader killed him with a single thought (or with a tray?).

[Arz Sra]

Originally Posted by Reefs

That would mean when there are no thoughts the whole phenomenal world would disappear. Is that so?

Yes. Phenomenal world.