Is Enlightenment a choice?

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by lifetimelearner

you are using one definition -mine is different

"Mine" is part of the "me" thought.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Beingist

This is the very reason why I don't participate all that much in 'Free Will' discussions.

You mean because the very question itself is presupposed on the belief of separation?

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

You mean because the very question itself is presupposed on the belief of separation?

No. Because I came to realize that I (my assumed separate self) have no control. So, 'Free Will' is basically meaningless.

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

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.

AR, I see what you are saying, but I still disagree. Your oneness is not actually oneness, only a virtual oneness. It is the oneness that people use to feel better about themselves and to feel like they have more power than they seem to. E.G., "If I'm God, then I can ...." But it's only an intellectual oneness, and consists of many parts.

Oneness doesn't have parts. One doesn't have two within it, only one. One doesn't know anything got two. So your soccer team might be virtually one, but they are still 11 in actuality.

In Oneness, it is always one, not 7 billion acting as one. It is a real oneness without separately-acting parts.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

You're projecting your idea of personal free will onto the impersonal. The individual is experiencing a personal thinking process apart from other individuals, but what we conceptualize as Consciousness is not a thinking entity, it is a concept that refers to the source of thinking entities. 'Consciousness', as a whole, does not think, hencely it does not choose.

I thought you said it was the author of all thoughts everywhere. Authoring implies choosing.

And consciousness as a whole does think, and does choose, and that thinking manifests as our existence. To be fair, though, my definition of thought is probably a lot different than yours.

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

If there is an ultimate self, is there a regular self or non-ultimate self/ non-expanded self? If I'm hearing you right, you're saying you are consciousness and you're calling all the shots? Is the appearance of control for you extend beyond Anagogy?

There have been moments in my life where I have experienced temporary expansions into the place you're talking about. But you have to understand that us not having total conscious control in this incarnation is a very deliberate free will choice we made beforehand. We chose all these limitations we experience. It's a game.

Ever played a game with no rules? Probably not. They aren't much fun.

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

I'm not talking about playing word games or concluding that everything is consciousness therefor if I'm consciousness I'm in total control. Anagogy is no more in control than the wave moving through the ocean. Life is unfolding in one singular movement in which one appearance can't decide to go left when life is going right. Consciousness is not thinking, or making choices. This process is appearing to consciousness much in the same way your dreams are unfolding and appearing to you who is not a character in the dream nor are choices being made to cause the dream to unfold. It simply does so spontaneously. Identification with a character in the dream may happen and illusory control appear but this is seen to be false upon waking.

Then one hasn't truly awakened. Because upon awakening, it is seen that control was always perceptual, was always there just below the surface, and the perceptual lack thereof was always a factor of, and directly proportional to, how unconscious one was in the dream. The unconsciousness creates the "rules" of the game. Unconsciousness creates the dynamic of the "wave" in the ocean. Consciousness breaks the rules. Awakeness changes the game.

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Much in the same way, the person in the 'waking' state may see themselves in control with an identity not limited to the vehicle of the person only to awaken to the truth that even this control was completely illusory.

As I said, the control or lack thereof was always a factor of how unconscious one was. If you become aware of the fact that you are dreaming inside the dream, your conscious control of said dream gradually expands until you finally just wake up altogether.

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

I'm not actually suggesting separation is true. I'm saying to believe you have free will/control you must have already erroneously concluded you are separate even if it's not by virtue of saying you're a separate person. The question of free will only becomes interesting and a conundrum once lines in the sand start becoming drawn.

I don't follow your logic at all. When I say free will, I simply mean that all consciousness is god and has the capability to change its circumstances if it so desires. Every particle contains the whole within it.

The needs of one are the needs of all. If my finger is hurting, does the rest of the body ignore it? No, the body as a whole is aware of it and attention is upon the appendage that is in need of assistance.

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

To decide that you are focused consciousness or some parcel of consciousness/God that is independently choosing requires a breaking down of that which is already whole and believing this separation to be true. In this process there can be only illusion.

I never said anything about independently choosing. You are making assumptions about what god wants and doesn't want. That which I want, god wants. We are the same. You are the same.

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

If you stopped pretending you were in control in this very moment would you be unable to move from your chair or would things continue on as they have?

It depends on the belief. Belief forms reality, so if one truly believed they weren't in control, they would become an observer to themselves doing whatever it is they believe they would do when "not in control". If you truly believed you could not move from your chair, you wouldn't be able to.

These examples sound absurd because belief is rarely focused that purely to where such an experience is realized. It does happen to some though.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

If there is an ultimate self, is there a regular self or non-ultimate self/ non-expanded self? If I'm hearing you right, you're saying you are consciousness and you're calling all the shots? Is the appearance of control for you extend beyond Anagogy?

Originally Posted by Anagogy

There have been moments in my life where I have experienced temporary expansions into the place you're talking about. But you have to understand that us not having total conscious control in this incarnation is a very deliberate free will choice we made beforehand. We chose all these limitations we experience. It's a game.

Ever played a game with no rules? Probably not. They aren't much fun.

I'm not talking about places. I'm looking to cut through all of the imagination and ask you who you are. You say the ultimate self is in total control but yet 'you' have to expand into states or places to experience this ultimate self. This is the movement of mind states that are appearing to you.

Who is 'we' and how is it you know outside of your imagination that we made deliberate free will choices beforehand?

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

I'm not talking about places. I'm looking to cut through all of the imagination and ask you who you are. You say the ultimate self is in total control but yet 'you' have to expand into states or places to experience this ultimate self. This is the movement of mind states that are appearing to you.

You aren't cutting through any imagination. You are engaging it even more fully by playing all sorts of word games. The particular series of distortions or patterns of consciousness called Anagogy is a lens through which the ultimate is looking through. When the creator looks through this lens, it experiences itself as Anagogy, when it doesn't look through that lens, it doesn't. When it looks through ChrisGinsburg it experiences itself as ChrisGinsburg. The movement you are referring to is the movement of consciousness.

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Who is 'we' and how is it you know outside of your imagination that we made deliberate free will choices beforehand?

"We" are the creator. I could say the "universal I" because it seems to imply less multiplicity, but it sounds kind of ego maniacal too so perhaps I wont . And I know because I've experienced a temporary defocusing from this lens called Anagogy, if only partially, and was privy to a broader perspective. From that broader perspective, it is seen that everything is a choice.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by lifetimelearner

you are using one definition -mine is different

Yup, I caught that too.

[Moriarty]

I'll say again, in response to everyone's replies to my post....

My thoughts are still, drop the enlightenment idea and take up focus instead.

What is the point of contemplating the 'you'? Anything you gain from that has no value other then to its beholder. Sure you can be that person in the cave isolated and detached from the world and that will get you where? Do you honestly think we experience this human state to spend it sitting in a cave contemplating 24/7 on not being here? Escapism! Nirvana is right here now. Where you are and what you are.

It's not about 'control'. Its not about 'who is the you'. Its not about a particular practice. Its about letting go of all of these and more to come back to a place that shows its perfectly right to have all of those and know they hold no value.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Moriarty

It's not about 'control'. Its not about 'who is the you'. Its not about a particular practice.

I tend to see it this way too. The question: Do we have control? is a question the Buddha never answered. Some questions are just not "positioned" in a way that answering them helps clear up things.

Its about letting go of all of these and more to come back to a place that shows its perfectly right to have all of those and know they hold no value.

Hmm... this sounds like a particular practice.

I'm not sure how it can be ok to have these "things" but also see no value in them. I mean, usually we believe something because we think it has value. As soon as there's no value in it I don't we have it in us anymore.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

AR, I see what you are saying, but I still disagree. Your oneness is not actually oneness, only a virtual oneness. It is the oneness that people use to feel better about themselves and to feel like they have more power than they seem to. E.G., "If I'm God, then I can ...." But it's only an intellectual oneness, and consists of many parts.

What you are failling to recognise, is that the most authentic perspective BY FAR, indeed the infinitely more valid is the OBJECTIVE, for right there in full is the only verifiable REALITY. The 'virtual' to which you refer, is the separation which results from the subjective perception.

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

Oneness doesn't have parts. One doesn't have two within it, only one. One doesn't know anything got two. So your soccer team might be virtually one, but they are still 11 in actuality.

It is an illustration of the effect of a more objective view of who we are, however all the players are still primarily subjective, with merely a little more objectivity under their belts. The illustration is to show that the more objective our perspective can become, the more we will relate to existence as ONE, the reality it is.

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

In Oneness, it is always one, not 7 billion acting as one. It is a real oneness without separately-acting parts.

Sweet sounding feel-good words my friend, will never support anything but one's illusion. No matter how ONE you can convince yourself as being, no matter how many times you proclain it from the mountaintops, you will always remain a separately-acting part in this world - until and unless you underpin your words, your hope and expectation with reality.

What I'm exploring here is the ONLY reality I can see, which can possibly underpin your expectation, as correct as it is. That is, unless you can suggest another???

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Moriarty

My thoughts are still, drop the enlightenment idea.

Yes, I agree. Anything you imagine about enlightenment is not it. The personal drive towards enlightenment is usually about what it can do for 'me'. I bet I can be really free and happy then. This whole process is misconceived but also not ultimately out of place if one has this striving towards enlightenment.

Originally Posted by Moriarty

What is the point of contemplating the 'you'? Anything you gain from that has no value other then to its beholder. Sure you can be that person in the cave isolated and detached from the world and that will get you where? Do you honestly think we experience this human state to spend it sitting in a cave contemplating 24/7 on not being here? Escapism! Nirvana is right here now. Where you are and what you are.

Coming to clarity about 'you' has absolutely nothing to do with sitting in a cave or being detached from the world. These are just fears spun up by the mind to protect you from looking at the question at all costs. All people have the drive towards truth. Some are much closer to that vortex so to speak where they need to know insatiably and others it may not even register consciously. If it's of no interest for you to go there, you won't. Nirvana is indeed right here, right now and that is the point.

Originally Posted by Moriarty

It's not about 'control'. Its not about 'who is the you'. Its not about a particular practice. Its about letting go of all of these and more to come back to a place that shows its perfectly right to have all of those and know they hold no value.

Letting go is quite useful and inevitably where all paths lead. However, letting go hits a wall when it is still solidly believed that you are separate and must use your will to navigate 'out there'. You can pretend it all has no value and it may even seem peaceful for a while but this process of letting go concludes with surrendering of the surrenderer itself. Any practice you find yourself wrapped up in, (which also includes letting go and recognizing there's no inherent value in anything) is precisely what you need to explore. There's no wrong path. It IS being said though that this path is illusory and you can wake up at any moment if the courage is there.

I would say the appearance of control continues to be present until it is no longer necessary and even the question of control itself dissolves.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

I tend to see it this way too. The question: Do we have control? is a question the Buddha never answered. Some questions are just not "positioned" in a way that answering them helps clear up things.

Right. Come to clearly know without any shadow of a doubt who you are and the question of control will be seen to be nothing more than a distraction. If control still appears completely obvious to you, it is not a mistake. Go with it and see where it goes. Can you will yourself to let go of everything? Can you will yourself towards and not away from the fear? Can you will your suffering away? I'd say the appearance of free will itself is still occurring because in some way you still feel like you need to make an important step and you need to think you made that step. I have no hangups about believing I'm going to convince anyone that their control is illusory.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

I tend to see it this way too. The question: Do we have control? is a question the Buddha never answered. Some questions are just not "positioned" in a way that answering them helps clear up things.

Yeah, the question is seriously misconceived, and so answering the question may be more of an obstruction than leaving it unanswered. To say there is no free will/control is to imply there is a person who does not have control, and this person is the illusion.

It's a bit like asking, as ruler of the universe, do I have the moral right to squish certain planets and start over again? The question can't be answered until the whole 'ruler of the universe' delusion is dealt with, and then the original question disappears. However, the one asking the question is clearly not interested in dissolving this delusion, and so the question may be best left unanswered.

(One might wonder why, if there is a simple answer to the control question, Buddha would not have simply given it.)

[lifetimelearner]

Originally Posted by Beingist

This is the very reason why I don't participate all that much in 'Free Will' discussions.

Amen !

[lifetimelearner]

Originally Posted by Beingist

"Mine" is part of the "me" thought.

ahhhhh.......bow to the wise man ,I do