Author: Yverc
Forum: Dharma Overground Discussion Forum

All mystics i've met and all i've read about seems to agree that there is no such thing as a free will. Also my own experience tells me there that all is determined. Everything is already taken care of and our life and personality is something that happens to our consciousness, not something we do. There is no "I", nobody in control. The spiritual experience that time is an illusion also points to determinism.

All mystics in all traditions, in all cultures, through all times seem to agree there is no free will.

The notion of free will seems to be very linked to christian cultural dogma. It does resonate well with mysticism, karma, etc etc.
What are your takes on this? Do you agree?

Yverc, can you explain in a bit more detail how the non-existence of a central "controller" (an ego or an "I") is in conflict with the notion that there is free will?

Author: Yverc

The illusion of an "I" only exist at a surface level of consciousness. When we go deeper and become more aware of deeper levels of our subconsciousness we see there is no "I" and that our personal will is not in control. Our personal will (the baseline consciousness that we live in most of the time) is completly controlled by deeper levels of subconcsiouness (and we all share the same root of our subconsciousness, that is why we feel oneness/non-duality at lower brainwaves).

When we talk about free will we usually refer to our personal will, and that is what i talk about. I hope this answered your question at least to some extent. If you define free will in some other way you are free to let me challenge that too.

If you count the Buddha as a mystic, well, he opposed determinism, the teaching that everything is pre-ordained. His teaching of karma was non-deterministic.

The idea of "free will" in Christian thought is part of theodicee, the "problem of pain", the reconciliation of the phenomenon of pain with the idea of a perfectly good, all-powerful god. The ideas of an immortal soul, endowed with free will, able to rebel against the divine order: these are an explanation for the existence of pain and evil in a world created by a perfectly good, omnipotent being.

The Buddha approached the problem of pain from the opposite direction, investigating dukkha in and of itself, not in relation to other concepts. If we were to draw parallels, or rather, point out opposites, we could point to anatta vs. immortal soul, and kamma vs. free will.

But these comparisons can be very misleading. Anatta does not mean there's no intentions being formed, just that the experience of "I" is not what forms them. And kamma is defined as intentional action.

So if "determinism" means to you that everything is pre-ordained, then no, the Buddha was not in favor of this view. But if it means than actions have specific results, and that our present experience is determined by the results of both our past and present actions (a feedback loop in other words), then I was misled by your use of the word "determinism".

Cheers,
Florian

"The illusion of an "I" only exist at a surface level of consciousness. When we go deeper and become more aware of deeper levels of our subconsciousness we see there is no "I" and that our personal will is not in control. Our personal will (the baseline consciousness that we live in most of the time) is completly controlled by deeper levels of subconcsiouness (and we all share the same root of our subconsciousness, that is why we feel oneness/non-duality at lower brainwaves)."


But how does this rule out free will? Whatever the source of our actions, they are either chioces made (freely) by individual beings, or they are determined by outside forces beyond the control of our being. What you seem to be doing is moving the mechanism around (from the "I" to the subconscious). That doesn't address the fundamental issue, at least in my view.

Author: Yverc

I mean there are no choices made freely by individual beings. Everything is determined by the root of our subconsciousness (that we all share). I mean that there is no free will in the sense that we as persons have no control or choice whatsoever. That sense of control is just an illusion. I define free will as the ability to act in another way then we actually do.

Author: Yverc

Is this something you have experienced yourself also? Would be interesting to know if the belief that everything is not pre-ordained stands up to anyones reality testing.

I say that without free will there can be no liberation. Do you believe that your subconscious impulses are utterly impossible to know and that you can never act in contradiction to them, ever? And, please, can name a few of the mystics you've read who led you to this belief in complete determinism. Without a little more by way of explanation and example we're not going to get very far with this discussion.

Author: Yverc

Is your sense of freedom attached to your idea that there is a free will?

Your answer seem to imply that you see it as two different consciousness. I see it as one consciousness. Our waking consciousness is the tip of an iceberg. All your conscious impuses have their roots in your subconsciousness. Your waking consciousness does not function on its own. Most of our thinking and emotions are even below the threshold of awareness.

A few mystics who belive in determinism:
Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj (hindu mystic) Fritz Olofsson (christian mystic), Adyashanti (buddhist mystic).

"Your answer seem to imply that you see it as two different consciousness."

Actually, I see many, many different consciousnesses. When I see an apple, I have that consciousness. When I hear a note of music, I have that consciousness. When I create an "I", I have that consciousness. I'm all process, or at least that's how it appears.

Do you have personal experience with determinism that leads you to state the case?

Well, how could I test it? If everything was pre-ordained, any test I conduct would be pre-ordained as well, and likewise its results, whether they support the hypothesis or not.

In fact, if I thought everything was pre-ordained, the very idea of "reality testing" would not apply. Causes would not have effects - because what I would think of as effects would simply be the pre-ordained course of events. Taken to the extreme, everything (including my memories) could have come into existence a moment ago, completely arbitrarily, fully pre-ordained.

Let's take a different perspective on the matter - centering on *perspective* itself (your question: "is this something you have experienced yourself also"): My experience is what comes in at the eyes, ears, etc, and what my mind makes of these impressions. The way I respond (or abstain from responding) in thoughts, words, and actions to these stimuli has a fairly predictable influence on the next wave of impressions coming in. Response patterns occur. Things repeat. Preconditions are discernible. Predictions are possible.

The Buddha expressed it like this (at least, I interpret him in this way):

"When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. When this isn't, that isn't. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that."

But maybe you're not referring to our conditioned experience, but to the ultimate: the unborn, uncreated, unconditioned... it just occurred to me that this could be interpreted as "determinism", no conditions... However, I don't think "determinism" describes the absolute adequately either.

Cheers,
Florian

Florian, maybe the real question here is, "Is dependent origination the same as predestination?"

I'm a little confused by Yverc's questions but then I think that's because we are approaching the topic of determinism from two very different places. I think Yverc is saying that there is, simply put, no free will at all. That every motion and decision, every action, every thought that I have or make, is predetermined. I happen not to agree, but that's a philosophical question that I don't think can be proven or disproven empirically. What can be tested, however, is what Florian been posted here already -- the dependent arising of phenomena. That I can observe and prove to myself that it's the way objects manifest themselves to me moment by moment. But that's not predestination. The way I see it, all the causes and conditions in the universe are interdependent (aka Indra's Net) and objects arise in a conditioned way because the causes and conditions of their arising happen to occur -- but the process is infinitely complex and chaotic. Unpredictable. Sometimes governed by chance or by rules so compicated that human beings have no chance of understanding them. But the fact that these things are beyond our understanding or control does not mean that we have no freedom of choice in our actions.

We're getting ever more concepts here - free will, determinism, predestination -

(I think the idea of "empirically proving or disproving predestination" is a contradiction in terms, btw)

I think it is safe to say that both predestination and individual free will were not taught by the Buddha. Predestination relies on a divine plan laid out by a personified deity (who presumably is free to do so), while free will implies a well-defined self with the freedom to act.

Dependent arising is impersonal - phenomena arise in dependence on other phenomena. I think the usual interpretation of "sankhara" in the context of dependent origination is - kamma. So there's the element of intention, arising from ignorance. Not exactly individual free will, but not mechanical determinism either. Further up the chain, there is upadana - grasping - which is observable in the five khandhas, the aggregation of body, feelings, memories, ideas, and consciousness, a cloudy thing we often identify with, and which may be analogous to "free will", the sense of freedom resulting from being able to hold desires.

Dependent origination is a fascinating subject.

Cheers,
Florian

P.S. I really enjoy discussions such as this one, but let's keep in mind that, fun as they are, they are no substitute for real insight from practice.

Hi Yverc,

It draws on philosophy rather than on mysticism, but you might be interested in this talk, which reviews the current state of the incompatibilist/compatibilist debate about freedom and determinism in analytical philosophy, with buddhist and indian tools. It includes a discussion about an excerpt of Shantideva's Boddhicaryavatara, and what Buddhaghosa had to say. It's an mp3, and there's a hand out.
http://www.cbs.columbia.edu/weblog/2007/04/buddhism-free-w.html

Author: Abe_Dunkelheit

Motto: “Nothing is worse than having an itch you can never scratch.” – Leon in: Blade Runner (1982)

*

The debate of determinism vs. free will (like many other philosophical debates) is based on lack of understanding of the two levels of truth – relative (commonsense) and absolute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Truths_Doctrine

Even if there was no controller in the absolute sense, there is very well one in the commonsense meaning of the word!

So better act and feel as if you are in control, rather than self-hypnotize with limiting and disempowering beliefs!

I do not see any rational reason to adopt the doctrine of predetermination; but I can see why it would suit most people’s emotional preferences - no personal freedom, no responsibility, no guilt - and some people's political agenda. It plays perfectly into the hand of the worst psychopaths and dictators. Everybody is perfectly excused, regardless of the gravity of the crime.

Thus Buddha says: “The stupidity of sentient beings is truly pitiful.”

"P.S. I really enjoy discussions such as this one, but let's keep in mind that, fun as they are, they are no substitute for real insight from practice."

As I said earlier, one can actually observe dependent origination in action. It would be hard to get any more relevant to insight practice than that!

Author: Yverc

Actually what you just wrote is what proves that spiritual growth always sooner or later lands in the belief of determinism.

The fact that all mystics seems to agree on determinism is because they do no longer judge others (or themselves) and do not label people "good" or "evil". They do not consider anyone to be "better" or "worse" then anyone else. Because they see everyone in themselves and themselves in everyone. Also there is, as you say, no guilt. Guilt is basicly self-judgement, empathy resistance towards oneself, not accepting yourself as you are. Once you accept yourself, the universe and every momemt exactly as it is, then you have no guilt. So as you can see, the no-guilt becomes obvious as one grow in compassion/life acceptance.

You can of course also have no-guilt because you lack empathy and compassion. From what i can see the progress goes like this:

1. The psychopath: no guilt due to lack of compassion
2. Normal person: guilt (because of the conscience created by growth in compassion)
3. Mystic: no guilt because non-judgement due to perfect compassion

As the mystic see there is no "good", "evil", "better", "worse", and no "responsibility", "guilt" he from empathy drop the notion of free will, as free will entails responsibility, guilt, good, evil, and judgement.

I personally am no fan of the limited emotional range models of awakening, and that includes not liking the notion of complete freedom from all guilt and related feelings. In that same vein, I also oppose the notion that enlightened beings do not engage in the discriminating that classifies things as better or worse, as they clearly do, as did the Buddha and many others.

As to free will vs. determinism, there is Middle Way between these extremes. From this vantage point, the sense of will arises, clearly, but it arises in some way that is clearly natural and mysteriously causal. Pragmatically, when practicing training in morality and concentration, assume will, as it helps, regardless of whether or not it is completely true. When practicing training in insight, some mix of effort and surrender is needed, a blending of the two points of view, until gradually no-self is understood, including the no-self of the still arising sense of will, guilt, discrimination, and the rest.

As to predestination, this is also referred to in these sorts of debates as superderminism, i.e. taking causality to its lawful, logical extreme, meaning that if the momentum and position of all particles were known, then from that point on all future positions and momenta could be worked out if one could just do the math, which is clearly impossible, but regardless, from a Newtonian point of view would seem a tempting conclusion. I think that the modern physicists do this as well as anyone, and they come up with all sorts of problems that arise when one tries to come to the firm conclusion that things are superlawful to that degree.

Pragmatically, practice, practice, practice!

In my opinion discussions like this are no real subject for progress. Furthermore, both extremes make sense in their own way so there´sno point in distinguishing which one is correct and which one isn´t.
The best comment was "Pragmatically, practice, practice, practice!"- so true!

The urge strikes me - I saw it arise -- to put a small stake in the ground on one issue that has arisen a few times in this discussion an din the last reply:

In my humble opinion discussions like this are interesting and they do actually bear on the general subject of Buddhism and related philosophies - what we all here purportedly care about. If someone joins and posts a query or a comment that is interesting from a philosophical POV I think it's okay to reply, to comment, to clarify, even to disagree if done civilly. This helps, I think, achieve at least one of the objectives of this place: honest, frank conversation.

So, hey... I do practice. A lot. Twice a day, in fact. And I agree with those of you who have said they'd rather practice that debate free will versus determism most days and times. But I don't think forsaking interesting discussions, even here, is going to advance my practice much, either. So lighten up, even just a little, please. Okay?

Sorry if my post upset anybody. I really didn´t mean to offend. I too find this discussion very interesting from a philosophical point of view but maybe I can´t enter the right state of mind for this at the moment because I feel like riding a " spiritual rollercoaster" which is entirely practice-oriented. All that came up to me was the thought that in the end it reall is impossible to say because the two perspectives are ultimately linked together. So in my opinion the term "discussion" does not fit. I would rather call it Summary of related points or something which doesn´t imply the idea of two perspectives fighting against each other.
Again, I honestly did not want to offend anybody and I understand your point, cmarti. One could easily misinterprete my post because of the way I formulated it. Sorry for this, I´ll try to watch my words more carefully.
Martin

Chris,

Sorry if I came across in a "my practice is deeper than your practice" fashion. I love discussing Dhamma. I know a lot of groups, however, where they only ever discuss how dukkha is so gloomy a world-view, how rebirth and anatta don't really mesh, and similar confusion. So my reaction was maybe a little panicky.

But you wrote about "seeing" paticcasamuppada in meditation. Have you had this happen? Is it related to stream-entry? (Nanavira seems to be saying exactly that)

Cheers,
Florian

Folks, I wasn't offended. There are just some times when it's appropriate to say something and this morning seemed like that time to me. No big deal. I really like it here and expect to have all kinds of different interactions with all of you.

Monkeymind, all I can say in response to your question is that I observe what I could very well call "the act of creation" while I meditate and at times when I'm not meditating (I don't go looking for it, it's just what I "see") . This happens in the following way: a vibration enters my hearing mechanism, is detected by that sense organ, is interpreted by it as sound, that sound is then is intrepreted by mind as, for example, "bird." This is mind creating the object "bird.". That object, having been perceived as bird, has already passed away by the time it is perceived and interpreted, but the "bird" - the object - arose, was created, and passed away only to be immediately replaced by another object that mind creates. This happens in very rapid progression all the time and is accompanied by a mental image of everything being interpreted, whatever it is. Mind makes all kinds of guesses and mistakes in this process. It even makes stuff up. But on the whole it allows for the construction of a model, an entire vicinity in which it finds itself. I call that model "the world." And then at the same time it creates a "me" that appears, oh so conveniently, right in the center of that model of the world, and thus "I" find "myself" there. It's all a construction. It's all empty, all a product of mind, every durned tootin' bit of it.

To me, this is why I said I can observe dependent origination. Your mileage may vary, however.

Author: Yverc

We seem to see it from different perspective then. I would call what you say to be conscious about the apple and note of music. From my perspective the apple appear and dissapear in consciousness. The same for the note of music.

Yes, my direct experience is that determinism is true. I experienced very strongly that the process to my own enlightement is automatic and that all i can do is to wait. When i meditate on that it greatly reduce stress, increase trust and life joy.

Author: Yverc

If you oppose the limited emotional range model in the way i describe it, you need to argue against it from within my own argument if you want me to grasp it. Otherwise i cannot relate/understand from my own experience why it would not be true.

An extremly common spiritual experience (very common in christianity) is the experience of complete freedom of guilt and related feelings. Also in meditation it is common to experience a part of you that is completly free from fear, neurosises and guilt. It is loving and accepting everything. It also does not judge anyone or anything as better or worse. I can often feel that quality being more integrated in my everyday life.

Why don't you belive that this no-fear quality of consciousness can burn away all fear at personality/baseline consciousness level?

"Yes, my direct experience is that determinism is true. I experienced very strongly that the process to my own enlightement is automatic and that all i can do is to wait."

Can you describe HOW do you experience determinism? What strong experience leads you to your conclusion? Please describe the process, Yverc.

Author: Yverc

It is very intuitive experience which is very difficult to describe. Any description will be but a shadow of the experience. The words and labels i use might mean different things to you then it does to me.

The experience is where surrendering is meeting trust. It makes me surrender from trust and trust from surrendering. That there is nothing i can do to effect my process of enlightenment, it will do its own thing. Like i can't effect my waking up when i am asleep. It is an automatic process. When i deeply intuitively feel that there is nothing i can do to effect my enlightement my meditation also change. Then i meditate from from compassion from heart and not from any motivation to become enlightenened or to reach any stages. When i then i sit in meditation i know there is nothing i can do effect my process of enlightement in any way, the process takes care of itself. This really makes me relaxed, unselfcentered and silence my mind. There is then no striving. It gives me great motivation to meditate as i then from compassion experience my meditation as an expression of compassion. It also effect my every day life then as i can practise and express this compassion when i am in touch with other people. So my meditation practise then becomes constant and natural.

So this experience of determinism is deeply intuitive and very difficult to make into a rational, understandable argument.

Thank you for all that detail, Yverc. It really helps me understand what you are saying.

Does the determinism of which you speak affect all of the processes that are "you?" Do you have absolutely no freedom of choice in any area of your life, or does the determinism apply only to your enlightenment? Secondly, is there no way for you to pursue difference strategies or tactics in meditation to further your progress?

You see, I simply don't observe the predestined nature of realization that you do, but then maybe that's because I don't think I'm enlightened. What I see is that there are very clearly things I can do in meditation that affect me in various ways, and that I can chose those things at will. If I choose to concentrate on one object I tend to fall into absorptions. If I keep focused on the flux of objects as they appear I tend to see more of the three characteristics -- impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, not-self. Is this also true for you?

Author: Abe_Dunkelheit

Nanavira Thera explains in Notes on Dhamma that kamma is cetana [intention]; it stands to reason that, because cetana is beyond thought [= non-verbal], that what appears as a an impersonal deterministic process [kamma usually seen as kind of natural law of cause and effect], is actually only so from a thinkers point of view [by means of logical inference = 'it happens to me, therfore it is deterministic']; but what is really involved is the non-verbal WILL-attitude (cetana, intentional intention) of the perceiving consciousness; because the thinker does not operate at the same (non-dual) level as the will, it does not know that what is acting itself out is 'intention' (cetana), which APPEARS as originating from beyond, as a deterministic process, (which can also be found within theistic world views as predestination, see Calvinism) or as a Divine Will (being choosen by God, or by Grace in Catholicism).

What we have here is an inversion - the subject (thinker) experiences itself as object of some kind of higher force (or law), but it is cetana, which sets the force in motion, hence it is all based on FREE (pre-determined) WILL, but it the subject (thinker) suffers from it, that is, is determined by it, hence the faulty appearance of determinism! The decision, so to speak, takes place outside of time and space, before dualistic split, and the effects are suffered from within time and space [= 'experiencing'], after the dualistic split. If you remove the dualistic split, all you are left with is undeterminate, totally free potental action = all-possibility. - I have explained this really badly, but perhaps someone here will understand what I mean.

Abe, I personally find it much easier to talk about these things if I speak from personal experience in simple terms. I really don't understand what you just explained but then I'm definitely slow on the uptake when it comes to complex philosophicxal "stuff." You may be right, of course, about what Yverc is saying. I don't really know. I'll be interested in Yverc's reply.

Author: Abe_Dunkelheit

Chris,

I try to put it in another way:

All the insights we gain in insight meditation we gain because there was a decision being made beforehand to want to gain them, only that this decision is non-verbal / pre-aware, that is, we don't say I want to gain this or that insight, but rather ACT in ways that are conducive to gaining them.

Who is the decision maker? The decision maker is not the conscious 'I'!!! Therefore, if you think about what is going on, it appears, as if things [in this case: insights / enlightenment] are happening to you without any doing on your part. That's how it seems to be for Yverc. What it means is that when we REFLECT verbally upon how we gained the insights, it appears as if they had happened to us (thinker) , as if one (thinker ) didn't to anything to gain them, because one (thinker) was not aware (on a verbal level) that one was acting in ways that were conducive to gaining them, and didn't say I want to gain them; there was only action that lead to the insight / enlightenment.

I would call this the semi-enlightened position; the deluded mind sees itself as 'I' make it happen; the semi-deluded mind see everything as happening to 'me'; and the enlightened mind - I guess now - sees things as happening, but not 'to me', because it is beyond the usual 'I' perspective, which is caused by the dualistic split between perceiving subject ('I') and perceived object.

Meaning the deluded mind believes itself to be a subject (disembodied 'I') that exists independently of objects (including body); later when the delusion wanes off a bit, it feels itself still to be an 'I', but now totally determined and confined by the objects, hence, everything happens to 'me'; only after enlightenment - I guess - the perspective of a 'me' to which everything happens disappears and there is only happening.

Uh, okay, Abe.

Author: Yverc

My experience is that everything i do leads me closer to enlightenment. Even negative emotions i can sometime percieve as "holy", beautiful and totally allowed to be there. I often experience that my "spirituality" (emptiness states, harmony etc etc ) intentionaly turns itself off so i can confront myself in everyday ordinary life with all its up and downs. I can sometimes when i am in harmony from compassion feel that i want the harmony to turn itself temporary off so i can experience negative emotions. My heart/compassionate motivation want this so when those emotions are integrated i can recognise and understand those emotions in others and grow in compassion.

The experience that my entire life is determined can manifest itself in many ways. Sometimes i can suddenly feel that i am _exactly_ as i am supposed to be and in the exact right place in the universe. Like i am a part of a jigsaw puzzle in it's correct place. This cannot be expressed in words but it moves and touches me to the core. I am a part of the whole (oneness) where i should be, and so is everyone else and everything that happens. When i feel this about others (that they are exactly as they are meant to be and holy as such) it's an experience that they are part of the same whole, that we're all one.

The answer is to your question is hence that my entire life is determined. On some occasions my mind has turned completly calm in everyday life and i've experienced a kind of "doing without doing" or "effortless effort". I do things like studying, working (or whatever i do) but there is no effort "inside" of me, just the same unmoving emptiness-calmness-silence.

Yberc, do you think you will become enlightened without having to do anything in particular to get there?

Author: Yverc

I just need to be me (which i cannot fail at). Nothing more is needed. Of course being me entails a lot of effort (my entire life). So i have to do something in particular: my entire life.

From being myself i find a strong urge from to sit in meditation (which for me is very effective). Growing in wisdom and compassion is my dominating passion in life.

This is bunkum. "Unreality seen as reality" is just another way of saying "confusion", and then making the whole issue a pretext for some selfing. "I just need to be me" etc. etc.? C'mon, guys, give yourself a break.

Author: Yverc

I can neither prove or disprove my intentions. Even if my intention was selfing, it would not make the argument in itself more valid or unvalid. If you find any flaws with the actual argument, please feel free to share! In order to do this, you need to show that i somehow misinterpreted those experiences.

Yverc, you can't be serious, and it's not funny. You're the only one who can substantiate your own intentions, and be accountable for them, bringing both integrity and authenticity to the discussion (the minimum required). As both spiritual teachings and psychological discoveries have shown, we can fail royally at being ourselves, and most of us do that - fail - most of the time.

Basically, there is no argument to start with, such as the pompous sentence, "All mystics in all traditions, in all cultures, through all times seem to agree there is no free will." Let me correct that one: what all mystics in all traditions, in all cultures, through all times have found is that there is no absolute free will, and along with that - being awakened and liberated - that there is no absolute determinism. All the numerous possibilities and necessities remain in the middle, free from both extremes.

If you indeed hold such positions as stated in the opening post to this thread, you have simultaneously excused yourself from any discussion, being without agency, without control, without responsibility - not a person, but a whim of nature. Refusing to substantiate your intentions, you have made yourself obsolete, and hinted openly at how you must regard the others. But since I find this caricature of everyone involved improbable, I refuse to accept it and believe you have indeed made a mistake at interpreting your experiences, and the basis for this thread was one of them. Just my two cents.

Author: Yverc

Substantiate: to establish by proof or competent evidence
-http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/substantiate

It is impossible for anyone to prove or disprove any kind of intentions. Especially on an internet forum. I wanted to show that your statement "you are selfing" was Ad hominen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Ad hominem should be avoided in discussions/debates as they change the subject from the topic to unprovable characteristics of the person (intentions, personality etc etc).

Of course i am not a person or anything else i might belive myself to be.

The responsibility i don't belive in is when the term responsibility is used in the following context:
Lisa has free will. Therefore she is responsible for her actions and i can put moral judgement on her. Lisa has tortured another person. Therefore Lisa is a bad person (moral judgement).

My view on would be that if Lisa does something that hurts someone else, it is because she simply has not yet grown enough in empathy and don't understand from an empathic perspective (even if she understands it rationally) that she hurt the other person.

I view responsibility as a feeling. It is a feeling of compassionate caring that makes one take care of oneself and other people. Lisa in this example did not have this compassionate caring towards the person she tortured. If she had, she would not have been able to torture the other person. To say that she is reponsible when she has no inner recognition of responsibility towards the other person is absurd. And if she had responsibility she would act from it.

Author: Yverc

I belive that failing to be ourselves is a contradiction. Let us for the sake of the argument assume there is a being that is absolute love.If this being chose an action that was not an expression of absolute love, he would fail at fullfilling the definition of himself and hence fail to exist!

You, or anyone else on this forum (or the entire universe) cannot fail at being expressions of who you are either. You cannot suddenly fail to be you and fail to exist.

So have i understood you correct that you belive me to have misinterpreted my experiences, but not from from finding any flaws whatsoever in the interpretation of them, but how from you think i would view on others if i had the belief of determinism?

Well, i don't feel that i view others in a bad way. I like the people here from what i have seen.

You do realize, I hope, Yverc, that you have re-discovered circular logic? "I am what I am because I am what I am. And since I cannot help but be that, I am completely at the whim of nature and have no control or what I am or what I do."

Yverc, my post offered a way out of this, but you declined that one. Others have also offered the middle way between extremes at various points in this thread, and yet you insist on reintroducing the non-issue of your - and our - being without any vestiges of free will. Not much of a conversation, IMO.

Again, it's funny to have a reference to "ad hominem" introduced by someone who claims not to be there in the first place, not to be in control, not to have free will, not to be a person etc. etc. Your restated point about the impossibility to substantiate intentions is meaningless, and inevitably leads to stealth-intentions. The same goes to the restated point on the imputed contradiction of failing to be oneself, which leads to concealing and cementing the shadow. Where you see impossiblity and contradiction, some see an opportunity to discover and learn.

Here's another ad hominem :-P You seem to be intent on maintaining an irrational framework in which faulty speculation can be perpetuated endlessly, presented as philosophical reasoning and well-intended interpretation of actual experiences, but then evasive techniques are used whenever consistency and clarity is reached. This I call "selfing". Hence, I'm out.

I agree with Hokai.

This is the worst of existential philosophy taken to its maniacal extreme. It lacks balanced pragmatism, meta-logic, and a host of other things.

I almost hate to recommend something like this to someone who is so philosophical, but sometimes one must go to this extreme to reach someone who is so caught in the stupidity of what appears to be flawless logic: read Ken Wilber's book The Spectrum of Consciousness. Yes, it is his idealistic, early stuff, but its basic critique of category errors, the existential band, and the recipe for beginning to use the crude tool of the linear, rational mind to begin to see ways beyond its narrow grasp, and the rest somehow reached me when I was young, naive and caught in a similar place. It got me to something much broader by giving my seemingly brilliant but actually very foolish intellect a hint of what might be broader than it was, that helped me get to practice.

The other option it to learn to do insight practices well, but sometimes one must go through the other to get there, as I unfortunately did.

Again: when doing insight practices, one assumes will and control until one can get the mind clear enough to see sensations arise on their own with great acceptance. When doing everything else, the assumption of will helps, however problematic to the mechanistic mind. That will arises naturally should be easily comprehended to even someone stuck in the moronic muck of the philosophers mind, thus there is no problem with will's skillful use, which is the view of the empowered pragmatist, which is what I wish to cultivate there.

Enough philosophy here, and I mean that. Moderation will begin now.

Daniel

"... stuck in the moronic muck of the philosophers mind..."

I like that turn of phrase, Daniel. I plan to use that... assuming permission is granted, of course.

Anyway, one of the critical lessons of my own practice has been that there is clearly an end to the utility of philosophy. In fact, philosophy doesn't even seem to apply in certain places. It is replaced by experience that is a knowing of a much deeper nature.

Author: Yverc

That is very interesting. I try to create philosphy from the "knowing of a much deeper nature". With that i mean try to put those knowing-experience-insight experience down in words and from that derive philosophical dogmas. I also try to do it as simple as possible and use occams razor. This way i can put the beyond-words experiences into words.

When i do meditate on those words/philosphical dogmas they correlate to actual spiritual insights and hence produce practical results. This is very practical and down to earth. For me any philsophy is worthless if it has no practical application for my own spiritual practise.

Daniel: I might check out the book. I already know Wilber got some interesting ideas that correlates with my own experience. However meditating on determinism, that there is no control etc etc is very pragmatic to me, as when meditating on it, it makes me more in touch with the spiritual experience i derived the beliefs from in the first place.
I don't know if it is effective to do it the other way around. To meditate on "no-control" when one has not experienced it might perhaps be disempowering. I suspect it depends on the person.

"This way i can put the beyond-words experiences into words."

Did you mean this to be self-contradictory?

Author: Yverc

That is why i often try to use apophatic descriptions. Words that describe spiritual experiences in terms of what they are not. Like no-control, no-fear, and no-duality. From those words i can derive other things. For example that no-fear is an expression of compassion and that no-control can be reached by surrendering the personal will and see through it as illusion.

What I meant was that there are experiences beyond words that cannot, by definition, be adequately described in words. The summer rain hitting my front porch. A dog barking in the still of the evening. The feeling of a cold drink on my throat. These are all experiences that are simply beyond worded description. They are impossible to convey in their entirety and complexity from one of us to the other using concepts and terminology. They just ARE. I can't describe them in words and you can't describe them in words. They are ***just this.***

Author: Yverc

I absolutely agree.

However if two people have had the same beyond-word experience they can sometimes communicate this to each other by using language. Sometimes it is not possible at all due to too different ways of describing experiences. They can even start to argue and debate about the descriptions and not understand they experienced the same. They can also be silent due to the fact that it cannot be adequatly described in words.

I try to use descriptions that someone who had the same experience would be the most likely to recognise and that people who has not experienced it can undertand (not understand the actual experience, but at least relate to what i try to say). Everyone have a sense of freedom, sense of life security and also experiences of empathy, compassion etc etc to some degrees. To use such wording that all people can relate to is what i try to do.

Author: SANTTHOSH

Whatever is seen,known,believed and experienced of the world as a person is happening within the Waking experince. The Waking experince is as real as dream. thus whatever you believed as a person of free will is mere illusion. The reality is the invisible witness which is the spirit or Atman which is the true self. Thus it is the will of the true self that is the spirit. to realize the spirit one has adopt formless spirituality. For more discussion on this subject e-mail santthoshkumaar@yahoo.com

Author: xsurf

Hi Santthosh, and sorry everyone for posting something not so relevant to the topic.

Btu there is no observer apart from the observed, no Eternal Witness.

Perhaps this article based on my friend's six stages of experience (from I AM/Witness to Nothingness to No-Self/Non-duality to Emptiness/Dependent-Origination) will be of interest to you. -- http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html

And another one article, Buddha Nature is NOT "I Am" -- http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/mistaken-reality-of-amness.html