Is Enlightenment a choice?

[Prinie]

Perhaps it's necessary for us to travel far before we can appreciate the things we have near.

[Prinie]

:/ No, I don't think it's a choice. It happens when the time is right. But the decision to begin the search in the first place, I feel that it is a choice stimulated by some sort of catalyst. Whatever that is...

[raykilleen]

Originally Posted by Irisha

My question was:
How do you know that what you have experienced is the verification that you are God?

You answer:
"God, Divine, Absolute, Brahna; do you have a definition in mind?"


I don't understand your answer.



You said that God can be directly experienced, otherwise there would be no verification. How can the experience of God be verification at the same time? How do you know that what you experience as God is really God?
And even more than that. That YOU are God?

So let’s recap our exchange:

{Arcanum: You are God.. }

{Irisha: You mean in potential. Which can never be realized.}

{RayKilleen: Perhaps not realized intellectually but directly experienced, otherwise there would be no verification.}

Perhaps is a key word here; The intent of this comment was to recognize you are entering the realm of the conceptual infinite therefore the finite/limited human mind and its attempts of communicating via language may no longer be an effect means to convey what lies beyond the mind, however direct experience may be an option.

{Irisha: How do you know that what you have experienced is the verification that you are God?}

{RayKilleen: God, Divine, Absolute, Brahma; do you have a definition in mind?}

Your question was valid and logical but I wanted to understand your definition of God before pursuing intellectual gymnastics into the infinite and any possibilities of confirmation.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Now let me assume something here; I lead you to believe that I have experienced God and you wanted me to communicate valid proof of my personal glimpse, oh my, this can never be accomplished. I’ve developed a sense that none are separate from the Absolute realizing levels of awareness/consciousness amongst humans seem to vary due to clarity (turning off the murky Maya machine) and even though humans have similarities dispositions differ greatly therefore paths towards clarity vary. My personal path seemed to have means but there came a point where even the Maya of the means was revealed, realizing unity was the driving force nothing to do with me on a personal level. My sense of verification came from beyond the mind, my personal path included; Yoga (Bhagavad Gita, Patañjali’s Yoga Sutras), a branch of yoga Tantra, readings of Advaita Vedanta, Swami Vivekananda, and Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi. Clear glimpses appear spontaneously and are apply to this existence the transformation continues with no expectations of conclusion.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

In actuality.

Someone used my term! YAY!

[Irisha]

Originally Posted by raykilleen

So let’s recap our exchange:

{Arcanum: You are God.. }

{Irisha: You mean in potential. Which can never be realized.}

{RayKilleen: Perhaps not realized intellectually but directly experienced, otherwise there would be no verification.}

Perhaps is a key word here; The intent of this comment was to recognize you are entering the realm of the conceptual infinite therefore the finite/limited human mind and its attempts of communicating via language may no longer be an effect means to convey what lies beyond the mind, however direct experience may be an option.

{Irisha: How do you know that what you have experienced is the verification that you are God?}

{RayKilleen: God, Divine, Absolute, Brahma; do you have a definition in mind?}

Your question was valid and logical but I wanted to understand your definition of God before pursuing intellectual gymnastics into the infinite and any possibilities of confirmation.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Now let me assume something here; I lead you to believe that I have experienced God and you wanted me to communicate valid proof of my personal glimpse, oh my, this can never be accomplished. I’ve developed a sense that none are separate from the Absolute realizing levels of awareness/consciousness amongst humans seem to vary due to clarity (turning off the murky Maya machine) and even though humans have similarities dispositions differ greatly therefore paths towards clarity vary. My personal path seemed to have means but there came a point where even the Maya of the means was revealed, realizing unity was the driving force nothing to do with me on a personal level. My sense of verification came from beyond the mind, my personal path included; Yoga (Bhagavad Gita, Patañjali’s Yoga Sutras), a branch of yoga Tantra, readings of Advaita Vedanta, Swami Vivekananda, and Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi. Clear glimpses appear spontaneously and are apply to this existence the transformation continues with no expectations of conclusion.

You want me to give the definition of what God is, but God cannot be defined with words as you have said yourself.

So you cannot give a proof that you have experienced God. This is what I
meant. It's impossible.

[raykilleen]

Originally Posted by Irisha

You want me to give the definition of what God is, but God cannot be defined with words as you have said yourself.

So you cannot give a proof that you have experienced God. This is what I
meant. It's impossible.

God cannot be intellectualized and what other way would there be for me to conclusively relay any experience of mine to you other than a feeble attempt of communicating my thoughts with words, so you win (smirk!).

[raykilleen]

Originally Posted by Irisha

In actuality with potentiality which can never be actually realized?

Sounds like a philosophy to me

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Irisha

You want me to give the definition of what God is, but God cannot be defined with words as you have said yourself.

So you cannot give a proof that you have experienced God. This is what I
meant. It's impossible.

Truth is self evident.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Truth is self evident.

The truth is true.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

How can the truth be a personal preference?

How can the truth be words? The truth is that there is only god's will, but we are all god, so that will is collectively ours.

Originally Posted by Arcanum

It doesn't mean that you are a slave, it means that you are not a person; not a part. You are God and God is whole. There is no difference between what you are and what I am. When what you are steps into a human mind/body, you function according to the conditioning of that individuation, and that functioning is not separate from the functioning of all other individuations. All mind/bodies function as one, because they are all your expression. No expression acquires independent choice.

Well, I've never really been advocating that anything is totally independent.

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Yes, it's not pleasant to establish one's identity as a separate, vulnerable person, and try to grasp the idea of no choice. We want to talk about oneness and everything being God because that brings God a little closer and makes us feel more safe as separate individuals, but we don't want God to get so close that he threatens our independence, our separateness. It's a difficult paradigm shift to release one's separate identity and "Be still and know that you are God", because separation and independent choice collapse completely in this absolute unification.

See I don't see it that way at all. I'm not disagreeing because it is unpleasant to me. If you'll notice, I don't really disagree with you, I just don't like the words you use to describe it. Some people like classical, some people like jazz.

Originally Posted by Arcanum

It IS damn convincing because you are God creating the expression of your beliefs. The physical expression must be seamless and foolproof, which is why it is advised by all of our greatest teachers to turn the attention away from that physical expression and turn within toward the source of that creation, which cannot be hidden because the source IS that attention.

If you rob a bank then it is your destiny to make such a choice. The fact that you have done so says nothing about your ability to freely choose. Choices happen. You have no choice about that.

But didn't you say god was the author of all choices and thoughts everywhere? And we are god, so actually we did have a choice about that.

Originally Posted by Arcanum

What is it that doesn't make sense about destiny? If you are not the author of your choices, destiny makes perfect sense. The notion of free will and control arises from the belief in separateness.

I think I object mostly to your use of the word "free". I see a lot of freedom, so it doesn't seem accurate to me. The way I would phrase that last sentence of yours would go like: the notion of independent will and control arises from the belief in separateness.

Originally Posted by Arcanum

From within that belief it makes sense and is logical, but separateness is just an idea. Life is a singular unfolding. It remains whole and fully integrated because God remains whole. Likewise, you are that wholeness. You are not the separate person you have come to believe you are. That person is one of your own countless expressions.

Ditto.

Originally Posted by wolfgang

It's a common reaction that comes up when people hear "you have no free will".

It becomes a reason to be depressed because some will feel there's no purpose if they have no control.

That having no free will means no control and therefore no influence on the circumstances of life, and jump to the conclusion that life will suck.

This leads to feeling powerless with thinking "no free will" means being at the mercy of whatever the universe does "to you".

No free will means you aren't at the mercy of something? You lost me.

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

Isn't separation a convincing illusion?

All of the arguments you have in your post rely on the illusion of separation. Can you give me one way, without relying on the illusion of separation, that free will can exist?

We are god, and god's will is free (because its the only will there is). So we have free will.

Originally Posted by wolfgang

The truth is true.

That is a tautology.

[Irisha]

We don't have free will even if we are God. Why? Nobody knows why and will never know. It's God's Will to create us in this way. Yes, we are God in the sense that God is everything and everywhere, and we are the One with Him. But if we cannot fully know what God is, we cannot fully know about anything. How to have free will in this case? Something which we don't know about always influences our choice, and if we are not fully aware, this choice cannot be fully our choice.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

No free will means you aren't at the mercy of something? You lost me.

What some will conclude is that, without free will there is a big bad universe that thrusts it's ways onto your life.

You would be at the mercy of the universe.

"At the mercy" is a bit of an idiom. So I could have said: you would be in a situation in which you cannot do anything to protect yourself from something or someone unpleasant.

That is a tautology.

Yes I know. I wonder if "Truth is self evident." is.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

We are god, and god's will is free (because its the only will there is). So we have free will.

In order to see that we are god, we must see that we have no free will.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Yes I know. I wonder if "Truth is self evident." is.

Yes, it might as well be.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

In order to see that we are god, we must see that we have no free will.

I don't really agree with that. After all, I see that we are god, but I also see that god has freedom of choice even whilst entertaining that human vantage point.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Beingist

I think I see what CL is asking (since I have the question myself)--

"Me", as opposed to "you" or "he" or "she" or "it", implies separation, yet you state (bolded above) that separation doesn't exist. This appears to be a contradiction (but, most of us know how deceiving appearances can be ).

Ok, I get all that, and argue similarly, and I believe CL likewise concurs, so why on earth would he ask (as if there isn't) ... "If there is no separation, then how is there a "me" that is a person?", yet at the same time he also argues .... "because the person is itself non existing"?

I can't help but recognise (if not delusion) contradictions all over the place. So in trying to gain a handle on what it all means, and under the assumption the one presenting as confused actually knows what he's talking about, I conclude that we may be using different definitions for the same term/s, in a similar way as we've ascertained 'mind' has a few alternative definitions on this site. Yet I'm now warned off making such enquiries.

In any case, to answer your question, let me try this; imagine for example; soccer team A. with eleven players on the field. Their coach goes to great lengths to instil within the mentality of each the concept they are not eleven soccer players at all, but ONE team. The more he gets this across to them, the more they play with harmony, with a knowingness about each other, with a common genuine compassion for one and all, especially the team as a whole. They not only work for the team on the field but during the rest of the week, they choose to live optimally - eating healthily, getting sufficient sleep, avoiding smoking, alcohol and drugs etc. This team is quite successful in the games they play and even when they lose are happy that they spent time with their team.

Now consider another team B, which doesn't have such an understanding coach. These players could each be individually better than team A., however they all play for themselves - their own glory. They don't even know the names of most of the other players, and have at best one or two of them that they even talk to. During the rest of the week, they party hard and partake in whatever is going without concern for the team. When they play, they bicker among themselves with derogatory remarks and are jealous of the skills the others on the team display.

Now which team A. or B., do you expect to win more games and why?

The answer is; team A probably doesn't care nearly so much as B., yet are far more likely to win. This is because they play as ONE, a united unit. Each player's perspective is outward, his concern is for his team mates and the team as a ONE rather than upon themselves. Their coach has been successful in instilling into their mentality the importance of OBJECTIVITY, an 'out there' perspective. This objectivity of perspective results in the team playing with great accord, consistency and understanding.

Team B as portrayed here, has a woeful coach. Each player has a far more inward perspective, an attitude of 'check out how good I am'. The more each player can attract the limelight, the happier his emotional being is, for that is precisely why he joined the team in the first place - to have his emotions/ego caressed. This team, or rather the individual players on it, do not have any concept of ONEness, for they play as a fragmented rabble, as separated as they could be. Their perspective on the show is of course, far more SUBJECTVE than team A.

The key to ONE then, is not at all to be found through a delusion, but in the perspective upon which we focus. We all have both perspectives available to us, yet one of these - SUBJECTIVITY is our default focus, so the other; OBJECTIVITY requires us to step back to some extent from the demands of our emotions, in order to re-focus upon the other side of our consciousness - indeed Intelligence.

So the more our perspective is OBJECTIVE, the more ONE we'll be with all else, for in pure objectivity there is no separation possible. Yet through a SUBJECTIVE interpretation, everything is separated, fragmented.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Ok, I get all that, and argue similarly, and I believe CL likewise concurs, so why on earth would he ask (as if there isn't) ... "If there is no separation, then how is there a "me" that is a person?", yet at the same time he also argues .... "because the person is itself non existing"?

Because that is what you imply in your post, AR.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

The truth is true.

It's true that you just posted on this forum too, but it's also not ultimately True.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

It's true that you just posted on this forum too, but it's also not ultimately True.

busted. back to the drawing board.

[RonSouther]

Originally Posted by raykilleen

i had an instantaneous/spontaneous response and felt compelled to reply after reading your philosophy but i see arcanum’s already stated it. It seems as though everyone has held this notion of yours at some point, perhaps closer examination will reveal illusions fueling this belief, recognizing these are mind altering ideas and one needs to take time to absorb them. Be assured that arcanum’s response came from a well intentioned absolutely loving place; it becomes obvious after reading his writings that he has a unique gift and sophisticated technique of straightforwardness and consistency when trying to build a sense of conceptual complexities with words, belief nothing he says, rather ponder and question everything with your own natural intelligence. It seems wise to take advantage of him and others on this forum especially the ones who freely invest time and patience without expectations of monetary gain. Unfortunately many people seem to come here to reinforce embedded beliefs instead of purging towards clarity.

My two cents, no more valuable then yours.

+1

[RonSouther]

Originally Posted by raykilleen

I only need one, give me one confirmation in separation and of course accepting the belief of non-dualistic philosophy is depressing, I have yet to find any belief that does not head towards suffering and those damn mirrors reflecting mirrors need to be seen for what they are, illusions.

+1 again....

[RonSouther]

Originally Posted by Irisha

We don't have free will even if we are God. Why? Nobody knows why and will never know. It's God's Will to create us in this way. Yes, we are God in the sense that God is everything and everywhere, and we are the One with Him. But if we cannot fully know what God is, we cannot fully know about anything. How to have free will in this case? Something which we don't know about will always influence our choice, and if we are not fully aware, this choice cannot be fully our choice.

We have free will to imagine whatever we want, even to the peril of our joy as we try to force those illusions on life.

Other than that, I can't think of what free will we have.

[Irisha]

Originally Posted by RonSouther

We have free will to imagine whatever we want, even to the peril of our joy as we try to force those illusions on life.

Other than that, I can't think of what free will we have.

We cannot imagine things we don't know about. So, again it's an incomplete free will, and it means it's not a free will.

[RonSouther]

Originally Posted by Irisha

We cannot imagine things we don't know about. So, again it's an incomplete free will, and it means it's not a free will.

What I mean is that we have free will to pretend to be something we are not. We have free will to have the ego. I haven't seen another creature live it's life trying to convince the world around it that it's something other than what it is.

Only man pretends. That's his free will. His human will.

[Beingist]

I'll repeat--

Free will is but the freedom of man to surrender his will to the Divine Will.

[Irisha]

Originally Posted by RonSouther

What I mean is that we have free will to pretend to be something we are not. We have free will to have the ego. I haven't seen another creature live it's life trying to convince the world around it that it's something other than what it is.

Only man pretends. That's his free will. His human will.

But it's not enough to call it free will. It's again some limited will which is about pretending. And nobody can convince the world around about something they don't know about, and by that pretending cannot be anything but limited. Why does a human have ego? Who has created humans with ego, and in the way they are? It's again God's Will.

[RonSouther]

Originally Posted by Beingist

I'll repeat--

Free will is but the freedom of man to surrender his will to the Divine Will.

A surrender that is a choice is still human will....not a real surrender...it's simply altering the ego.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by RonSouther

A surrender that is a choice is still human will.....

That's why it's called "free will"

[RonSouther]

Originally Posted by Irisha

But it's not enough to call it free will. It's again some limited will which is about pretending. And nobody can convince the world around about something they don't know about, and by that pretending cannot be anything but limited. Why does a human have ego? Who has created humans with ego, and in the way they are? It's again God's Will.

But unless you heard it from God, you don't know what his will is or that he is in fact the Creator.

Projections on top of projections is available in free will.

Ask yourself why you have an ego....

Free will is the illusion that you can convince the world to see you differently than you are.

[Beingist]

I just realized that we're having another Free Will discussion in a spirituaility thread.