Is Enlightenment a choice?

[RonSouther]

Originally Posted by Beingist

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

Only because of maya....

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by RonSouther

Only because of maya....

Yeah, so ... ?

[RonSouther]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Yeah, so ... ?

No one that gets maya bothers about free will.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by RonSouther

No one that gets maya bothers about free will.

"Gets," as in, "understands?"

Why even try to understand illusion?

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Beingist

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

Are you sure that is an implication on my part or could it be a misunderstanding according an insufficient interpretation on yours/CL's?

[RonSouther]

Originally Posted by Beingist

"Gets," as in, "understands?"

Why even try to understand illusion?

how can you understand an illusion....no, you understand that the illusion is there in your mind and then it no longer rules your life.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Are you sure that is an implication on my part or could it be a misunderstanding according an insufficient interpretation on yours/CL's?

I dunno, AR. Here's your original post, in it's entirety--

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Separation being an illusion is a misunderstanding of reality. Our conceptualisation of separation is due in full to our SUBJECTIVE perspective of our (personal) reality.

On the other hand, we also have an OBJECTIVE perception of the universe; the actual, unchangeable reality at any moment, which includes 'me' - the existent person. Through this far more authentic objective perspective, separation doesn't exist.

So we veer to the subjective perspective rather than the objective, and subsequently recognise only fragmentation/separation. Therefore this separation argument is merely a misreading of our two perspectives of reality.

Here's what I get from it--
--separation is an illusion, and a misunderstanding of reality
--conceptualization of separation is due to subjective perception
--objective perception includes me, the person
--separation doesn't exist
--we veer to the subjective, rather than the objective, and so recognize separation

Now, AR, this leaves me with several questions, and so I don't know if it's because of inconsistencies, or if it's just me, but, well, if it's me, I'm sorry.

The question of CL's that I would echo is basically this--if conceptualization of separation is an illusion AND subjective, how is it also objective, if the objective includes the person, when a person is subjective?

Unless you're saying that a person is both objective AND subjective, both real AND illusory, what you say just doesn't make any sense. Is that what you're saying?

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by RonSouther

how can you understand an illusion....no, you understand that the illusion is there in your mind and then it no longer rules your life.

And what does that have to do with 'free will?'

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

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.



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



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.



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.



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.



Ditto.



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



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



That is a tautology.

Jane Doe said the individual is in complete control, so I said nobody is in control. My 'choice of words' was determined by Jane's choice of words. The question of free will or control is ultimately misconceived and doesn't apply.

The notion that God is in control and we are God, hence we are in control, is an erroneous conclusion.

[RonSouther]

Originally Posted by Beingist

And what does that have to do with 'free will?'

What freedom you do really have except to imagine?

Once illusions are dropped, who cares about free will?

Silence takes over.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

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.

You believe we are God and you imagine God has freedom of choice. Believing and imagining is not the same as realizing.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by RonSouther

What freedom you do really have except to imagine?

Once illusions are dropped, who cares about free will?

Silence takes over.

Well, that's a good point, but then, what's that got to do with maya (illusions), if silence has taken over?

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

You believe we are God and you imagine God has freedom of choice. Believing and imagining is not the same as realizing.

Yeah, backing Arc up on this one (not that he needs backing up ).

[Arcanum]

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.

You will imagine or not imagine, according to your conditioning. You have no choice about that.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

I'll repeat--

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

Surrender will happen or not according to your desire, willingness, maturity, understanding, etc. You have no choice about that.

[Arcanum]

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.

Ego isn't a thing, it's a collection of self referential ideas. It's a belief system in the same way that the idea that God created egos because he wanted to, is a belief. They are both false beliefs that you hold. Don't blame God because you believe stuff.

[RonSouther]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Well, that's a good point, but then, what's that got to do with maya (illusions), if silence has taken over?

Silence doesn't take over until the understanding of the "existence" of the illusion. Before that understanding, the mental confusion destroys the silence. Out of the confusion come the illusions in a futile attempt to eliminate the confusion.

[RonSouther]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

You will imagine or not imagine, according to your conditioning. You have no choice about that.

Right, so the way out is to see the corruption of these kinds of conditionings so the whole thing can be dropped on it's own accord.

Observe the qualities of the mind and no longer be trapped by it.

[Irisha]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Ego isn't a thing, it's a collection of self referential ideas. It's a belief system in the same way that the idea that God created egos because he wanted to, is a belief. They are both false beliefs that you hold. Don't blame God because you stuff.

I can use different terminology. Free Will is an illusion which will disappear with the realization of Oneness at the end of my life. The ideas that constitute my Ego represent a system of false beliefs. Those beliefs are created by God that I am.

[RonSouther]

Originally Posted by Irisha

I can use different terminology. Free Will is an illusion which will disappear with the realization of Oneness at the end of my life. The ideas that constitute my Ego represent a system of false beliefs. Those beliefs are created by God that I am.

No, those beliefs are the illusion

[Irisha]

Originally Posted by RonSouther

No, those beliefs are the illusion

Yes, because I am also the illusion being God.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by RonSouther

Right, so the way out is to see the corruption of these kinds of conditionings so the whole thing can be dropped on it's own accord.

Observe the qualities of the mind and no longer be trapped by it.

Yes, understanding one's own mind is extremely helpful.

[RonSouther]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Yes, understanding one's own mind is extremely helpful.

So helpful it's enlightening....

[RonSouther]

Originally Posted by Irisha

Yes, because I am also the illusion being God.

retype please? No entiendo

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Irisha

I can use different terminology. Free Will is an illusion which will disappear with the realization of Oneness at the end of my life. The ideas that constitute my Ego represent a system of false beliefs. Those beliefs are created by God that I am.

Why do you think you must wait until death. That illusion has been seen through by many, including some in this thread. Once an illusion has been seen for what it is, there is no more illusion.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Beingist

This is where you lose me, AR.

I can understand your "objective perception" (which I must assume is for lack of a better phrase, since it appears to me to be oxymoronic)

Why is that exactly?

Originally Posted by Beingist

including the essence of reality (including the essence of 'me', I suppose), but I cannot see an 'exitent person' perceiving anything (including himself/herself) but subjectively.

Let me try to put it this way...

You are standing at a traffic lights waiting to cross the street. Suddenly there is a loud screech of tyres and an even louder bang right in front of you. Now there are two cars piled in a mangled heap and soon after, groaning and crying becomes evident. You feel compelled to help out if you possibly can, and so get into the action.

Now what you've experienced here, is an entirely OBJECTIVE reality. As an objective reality, (oversimplified for our purposes) two cars have collided and some people have been injured. There are a million or two other objective facts involved, yet nothing relating at all to any personal feeling regarding the event. Yet, as objective a reality as it is, you've fundamentally experienced it SUBJECTIVELY; that is - through your emotions. For instance;

A. The tyres screeching affected you emotionally, by your being startled, spontaneously spinning your head around in dread, to identify how much danger you were in.

B. The horrendous impact in front of you affected you emotionally, as by reflex the hairs on the back of your neck 'stood up' and you jumped back in a feeling of substantial fear in regards the unfolding events.

C. The mangled wreck in front of you affected you emotionally, as you felt a sense of anguish and horror with regards the destruction of two cars that were functional a minute previous.

D. The moaning and crying affected you emotionally as you identified with the occupants in their pain, feeling a level of sadness and a need to help out in a similar manner to what you would wish for, if you were in such a need.

So your are quite right my friend, we see virtually everything in existence, including 'me' through the magnifying glass of subjectivity. Yet if there wasn't an objective reality for this magnifying glass to focus upon, then we'd have nothing about which to be subjective, and in fact - obviously existence wouldn't exist.

Moreover, we are effectively required to have cognisance of the OBJECTIVE reality in order to know upon what to focus our magnifying glass of subjectivity. Ultimately though, our predominant subjective interpretation of reality is due to our inherent default to favouring our coercing slave-driver emotions, which presents, at best; a substantial imbalance into our consciousness. More emotional demands upon us will result in less objectivity to our overall view of reality, with misinterpretation after misconception after confusion after delusion of relaity. An excess will find us before the court regarding an out-of-control emotional rampage, and upwards we can go.

So clearly the less emotional we are, the more objective our perspective, yet again this perspective is merely a second magnifying glass we use, when we step back a little, deal with our emotional baggage some, and (whether we realise it or not) seek the reality to be found through our portion of the revealing Universal INTELLIGENCE.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Why is that exactly?

I say that the phrase, "objective perception" appears oxymoronic because perception is inherently subjective. Now, maybe this is another mix-up in definitions, but, well, this is based on my definitions of "objective" and "subjective"

Let me try to put it this way...

You are standing at a traffic lights waiting to cross the street. Suddenly there is a loud screech of tyres and an even louder bang right in front of you. Now there are two cars piled in a mangled heap and soon after, groaning and crying becomes evident. You feel compelled to help out if you possibly can, and so get into the action.

Now what you've experienced here, is an entirely OBJECTIVE reality.

No. And forgive me if I don't read the rest of your post, because if this isn't clear, the rest will likely only cause confusion, and when it comes to a lot of what you've already written, I'm confused enough, already.

All the events you describe above are what I perceive (i.e., with the senses). Perception is inherently subjective. So, for you to call it OBJECTIVE reality simply makes no sense to me. Again, apologies.

[Irisha]

Originally Posted by RonSouther

retype please? No entiendo

Si soy el Dios , soy la ilusion. Como no? No soy el Dios en la vida real.
I can be God only as an illusion. God is everything, me included. But I can be God only as a potential which will never be realized in actuality. It means being God for me is to be an illusion, though my status changes if I realize that it's possible.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Beingist

I dunno, AR. Here's your original post, in it's entirety--
Here's what I get from it--
--separation is an illusion, and a misunderstanding of reality
--conceptualization of separation is due to subjective perception
--objective perception includes me, the person
--separation doesn't exist
--we veer to the subjective, rather than the objective, and so recognize separation

Now, AR, this leaves me with several questions, and so I don't know if it's because of inconsistencies, or if it's just me, but, well, if it's me, I'm sorry.

No need to be sorry, this is not a simple concept to grasp, especially when one has never come across it previously.

Originally Posted by Beingist

if conceptualization of separation is an illusion AND subjective, how is it also objective, if the objective includes the person, when a person is subjective?

Unless you're saying that a person is both objective AND subjective, both real AND illusory, what you say just doesn't make any sense. Is that what you're saying?

In fact the person is indeed BOTH objective and subjective.

His physicality (at any moment) is entirely objective, yet evolves/changes from moment to moment through our primarily subjective choices, which once enacted upon, are added to the entirely objective individual. So all that has to deal with the physicality, now the spirituality - the indwelling consciousness.

The person's consciousness is comprises of two separated aspects into it; the emotions, and (our portion of) Intelligence. These two pre-eminent sources into our consciousness, provide our awareness with two distinct ways of appreciating reality, two options for dealing with reality and two perspectives of reality - subjective and objective. Therefore we continually have BOTH perspectives, however the subjective perspective is not illusory as such, yet provides all the ammunition to make such, and all other erroneous interpretation.

Moreover any conceptualisation of illusion is completely foreign to our objective perspective of reality.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by Beingist

All the events you describe above are what I perceive (i.e., with the senses). Perception is inherently subjective. So, for you to call it OBJECTIVE reality simply makes no sense to me. Again, apologies.

You really should have read the rest of the post. You may indeed perceive subjectively, yet if there wasn't an objective reality to focus upon in the first place, your subjectivity would be worthlessless to you. In fact existence wouldn't be anywhere, so neither would you nor your subjectivity.