You are hereForums / Non-Duality / destiny or free will
destiny or free will
do we have a free will to choose what happens to us? Or is it a matter of destiny.
could it be that if we believe we have a right to choose That choice is just a matter of destiny, no matter what we choose.
(HI, John, I thought that this was such a provocative topic, I moved it to "Non-Duality". forgive me 'second-thinking' you.)
- 578 reads
-
[I am posting my reply under 'non-duality', because it obviously takes an integral understanding of 'duality' to have an integral understanding of 'non-duality']
Hmm...interesting class distinction, Richard. I hope there is smoking and non-smoking compartments in both classes? ;-) To stay with this class system of reality: If we learn to interpret the 2nd class from the 1st class it is a tremendous thing. WisdomPoint uses Hermeneutics and Heuristics in that way. If we interpret from the 2nd class we beget conflicting ideologies and competing narratives that run a limited gamut of possibilities, but wreak havoc in our 3rd class world of mass consciousness produced by CNN and other media outlets, because we don't count the fingers on our hands.
Forgive my "ranting" that follows, but what is being said in this Forum is so inspirational!
I prefer approaching the 2nd class from the 1st class any time over approaching the 1st class from the 2nd class. It takes ONE (1st class) to know many ones (2nd class). The 'Area of Principle', or Unity in Diversity.
The WisdomPoint knows the freedom (of "being the sugar or tasting the sugar") as the life practice of 'Inherent Therapy' and 'Creative Tension', or 'essencing' and 'presencing'. Obviously many of us become psychologically so overwhelmed with a "world out there" and our own "inner" restlessness that we are unable to find the unifying self or being in our experiences and daily activities, then we need to re-turn to our home-base to maintain the arch of self-world naturally rather than neurotically. It is supposed to work as the UNITY of sat(being)- chit(mind)- ananda(bliss), and not as sat against chit, chit against sat, and all the other "chit chat" of relativistic, rationalistic confusion, existentialism and nihilism.
It is all about BALANCE. Innately, the Art of Living not only intends to make the best of our experiences, but to address our given situation of self-world in a transformative way that is integral to the Highest Good. In this way we can live a most courageous, valiant life of activity and work that bears the fruit of integral soul development and freedom from the mass consciousness and its destructive pressures of socialization. All of life is very precious in that way.
A lot of time is being wasted with experiences and the world, if we don’t know how to extract the gold from it. And a lot of time is wasted by ignorantly asserting the ONE, IT, or IS as the ABSOLUTE somehow "apart" and "separate" from the RELATIVE. SHIVA-SHAKTI is the most beautiful conception of the Dance of Life. May the atoms dance the dance of life. May we learn from nature...The flowers of our experiences provide the honey of understanding to the busily buzzing soul of the individual.
First unconsciously in terms of existential needs of survival, then more intentionally in terms of objects of desire, goals and achievements, and finally in self-recognition and self-realization. It can not be done without a ‘world’. ‘Self-world’ is how it happens.
Maybe, just maybe the "ABSOLUTE" can become a rationalistic trap of trying to overcome the "mind" or ratiocination on its own terms? The 2nd class reality tries to enforce the 1st class reality? Integrality is the safeguard against the arrogant and dictatorial totalitarianism of the ABSOLUTE when it is manhandled by rationalizations.
Our eyes are not made to stare directly into the sun, but are very apt in dealing with reflected light and its color spectrum. Our eyes are not made to see the formless, but delight in forms and shapes. Our tongue is not equipped to taste the tasteless, but we can delight in a variety of tastes. Our true freedom is that we can either taste the ABSOLUTE or BE it. We can only taste it in relative ways, in our experiences, trials and delights, in our thinking, feeling, and emotions. And then there are the transcendent realities of the Third Eye of course, and the Shushumna, if anyone has experienced that?
Let us not forget the Mystery of COSMOS (order) and time in all of that, because it takes a fundamental and integral intelligence to come up with nature and any relative world in time in a coherent and cohesive way. The potency of NOW is time. The potency of SILENCE is sound, the potency of EMPTINESS is Form, the potency of the VOID is Space, the potency of DARKNESS is Light. There is nothing to be afraid of. It is a wonderful thing to behold, explore and know. And when we find out about the "horror of it all" (Marlon Brando talking to himself in 'Apocalypse Now'), we can always retreat to the Higher Ground of the 1st class reality to consider our actions wisely and with response-ability.
If I take a second look at what I wrote, maybe I jumped too fast. Finding an easy way to talk about the Past and Future, it seemed obvious that something is missing in those 2 distant places. P&F are not interactive. Other than second guessing their interpretation, nothing can be done. Past and Future's only supposed use are to justify and motivate present action (or inaction). Is this giving too much priority to action?
For this I felt to demote P&F in some way, and I chose 2nd grade or 2nd class reality as a descriptive phrase. I did say 2nd class Reality, since we all do live that type of life, and why not play the game better. Where I jumped too fast was, I assigned 2nd class to all thought forms. Someone will surely object, stating that "I think only about, and in the present"? True that thoughts are running as we also are in action. Are they needed, one could argue yes? Are they beneficial or detrimental, are they the prime mover or author of that action (doer-ship) or an obstruction to it? This needs broad investigation. Some thoughts are clearly an obstruction, some seem a facilitation. Let's admit that much action takes place without any thoughts. (Is it right over left or left over right to tie that bow in your shoelace.) I dare say that most anything you know how to do is done better without a mental peep.
It is said that beliefs (thought forms themselves) are a filter that change your perceptions. Now even science says that observation gets tangled up with "reality", meaning observer is mixed with object, and subjective/objective don't exist apart. So this investigation about thought and action isn't so easy, because everyone gets the 'proof' of their own way of thinking.
You mention approaching the 2nd class (the object reality) by being grounded in the 1st class (the space reality in which the object appears), also that it is your preference.
1. We all really do that, by general definition, since I think that we are saying 'you' already are the space.
2. We all mostly do not do that, by personal definition, since the vast majority of the world population is waiting for a personal proof, that final knowing, an undeniable experiencing, a seeing of surety. We're so used to our bag of conceptual tools, to ask what is life before opening the tool bag is perplexing.
- If someone asks" should I help with the Haiti Disaster, the answer is "Yes, definitely, go and help".
- Someone else asks about offering help and might be told, "Help only when you have become independent from all help." Otherwise you are further muddying the waters. He might be ready to contemplate and find right motivation from that answer.
- Another might get the response, "Do not help anyone if you still consider them as THE OTHER."
The 3rd is a non-Dualist, right? But really, the point is that different people are ready for different pointers. All three have their own kind of response. Some of them might even "further muddy the waters", but it is their heart felt response, and it's a growth for them.
Not all answers are logical. Does the horse go to the well or does the well go to the horse? Logic always wants the horse to move, but yet it is often said that when the love for Truth arises, the "well" of Truth comes to you, and efforts to comprehend it arise automatically as an effortless effort.
I think that non-duality is missing the vocabulary (and a great opportunity) to talk to people from all "levels of belief based perception". Why is this? Is non-dual thought so delicate that it can't entertain each human from where (he thinks) he stands? Maybe it is the speakers, that are not grounded enough in what they are saying to speak with the ordinary human perception? Or are there just so few people that really perceive this truth, that they are plenty busy with the small but enthusiastic crowd?
Hi everybody,
They call me Sandeep.
Just walked into the neighbourhood.......Greetings to all/no-one.
Espied this...
--
I think that non-duality is missing the vocabulary (and a great opportunity)
-----
Indeed, non-duality cannot be vocabularised.
Vocabulary is thought manifested as sound maybe with an associated meaning, which allows a conversation.
Non-duality is not the thought "duality is not".
And in that very saying , once again it is the play of thought.
Apperceiving non-duality is the consuming of duality and the consuiming of non-duality.
For, in the apperception of non-duality, who is the other to whom the insight of non-duality is to be asserted, averred, propounded?
Ergo what opportunity?
------
to talk to people from all "levels of belief based perception".
-----
The apperception of non-duality, or the state of apperception(to use some mere vocabulary)...
..may or may not end the functioning within this display of phenomenality, a display of what would it be like, if something could ever be.
If functioning countinues, conversation, communion, the presence of seekers with their question(s),the arising of
answers within vocabulary...
..are all nuances of the functioning of the display of what would it be like, if for excample, spiritual satsangh was ever possible to be.
-----
Why is this? Is non-dual thought so delicate that it can't entertain each human from where (he thinks) he stands?
---
Non-dual thought, is just another thought.
No different to another thought asserting some/any aspect of say duality.
Coming to the subject of free-will/destiny.
Both thoughts. "free-will", "destiny" are actually no different.
Both assume the existential reality of an individuated, separated, distinctive, volitional, entity ....and the debate is whether this separative entity has the volitional power of choice, aka free will, or is it's fate fixed to a pre-defined destiny.
The debate is akin whether the color of the eyes are blue or brown of the child of the barren woman.
Zip-A-Dee-Dah-Doo-Phat goes the vocabulary of non-duality.
well I'm not sure you know what you're talking about, if a person is traveling on a road and they come to a fork in the road what determines whether they go right or left?
if a person is traveling on a road and they come to a fork in the road what determines whether they go right or left?
-----
The entirety of phenomenality(a nuance of which is this Universe, among multiple motes)in that very moment...
.. in which the choosing of which turn to take..
..gets to be taken.
Seeing this is seeing that even the premise that something determining something else is a misnomer.
The choice that gets taken....whether to go this way or that...
..including the surrounding milieu aka the sense of all the available options, the sense of relative desirabilities of each option, the sense of a specific goal to be reached by the exercise of this choice, the sense of entity for which all of the above is of relevance....
..is the entirety of the moment of now.
In the isness of now....... now after now afer now....
..nothing is determining anything.
There is no linear cause-effect-time-space continuum in and as the display of what would it be like, if a choice was ever available to be chosen.
This topic seems to have been pigeonholed. Probably there isn`t more to say about it after Sandeep`s interesting reply but I would still like to add some words.
I think we can observe ourselves when we are going to decide to do something, e. g. go right or left, and scientifically prove that free will is an illusion.
Suppose we take the right. There was a thought that arised in our brain out of nowhere or there was an intention conditioned by some thoughts or stimuli from outside that decided to go right and that`s all there is.
Now, why is this illusion? My answer is: because our brain has got it from its own construction. Observing how our brain functions and as the neuroscience evolves I think it will be more and more clear to us that we are been lived together with the rest of the Cosmos and then the feeling of doership will transform into a more impersonal way of understending ourselves.
Free from the illusion of free will we become awaken and humble and more in tune, in harmony with the Whole, accepting every outcome of "our" choices.
And also some words about destiny how I understand it intuitively:
There is a destiny if we understand it as the functioning of the Whole Unified System in the Now, the Non-local Infinite Enegry which we are made of, which is sentient and includes the 96% of invisible dark energy and materia which we are also made of and which we are in communion with in the unfolding of the Now...
So I see "my" choices as an expression of the flow of all this Energy...
Most teachings (teachers) don't give a satisfying answer to the question of free-will. At least I have never heard many (or any). They pretty well dismiss it.
When you start to get comfortable with the notion of 'now', it becomes easy to accept that memories and history appear only as thought forms, which implies some kind of '2nd grade reality'. It is a '2nd grade reality' because nothing can be done, no action can take place, no mistakes can be corrected. Nothing can be certain either, apart from a collected and partially documented agreement of what might have really happened. And all of that agreement is subject to an overpowering cultural 'spin' which is certain to continue the ongoing illusion. All that can happen in 2nd class reality are refinements to the interpretation of what 'happened' and maybe a letting go (in the now) which we call forgiving.
Everything said above about the past is Same Same for the future, which is just a remodeled version of history (whether personal, cultural or karmic), it is just a mysterious collection of self-fulfilling tendencies.
Yet we all (I would say 100% student and teacher alike) live in the game of thought forms, and why shouldn't we become better players? Isn't that the reason to play a game?
Investigating this 'now', it's a 1st class reality that has ultimate potential. It is the ground of all happening, without limitation. It is that which makes everything possible; beyond illusion because there's no room for interpretation. Sure interpretation is made possible ONLY because we ARE 1st class real. But interpretation lives only in 2nd class reality (as a thought form).
1. So to answer the question, I, me, mine, choice, action, doing, freewill, are all dependent on thought forms and hence all 2nd class reality. In the conceptual playground (2nd class reality) they are all real and to be contended with. They all affect my apparent life and my apparent enjoyment (and/or suffering) of that life.
2. Looking closer, none of those limitations are inherent in the 'now', so none of them exist in 1st class reality. So there is NO DOING apart from interpretation. Non-Dualists hang their hat on that. It seems a kind of a denial the way they do it, which also makes a concept out of the 'absolute'.
But anyhow 1st class reality has no need for destiny either. So destiny doesn't fit as a second alternative to free-will. Destiny is just the playing out of the tendencies of the 2nd class reality, and is another thought form point of view, like when you said even the choice that we made was predestined. It was just the obvious outcome of a series of programing.
Richard Miller
Let all man rest in their true nature.