Forums IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ Beyond Human Enlightenment ?

****Free will is an illusion and anyone who claims enlightenment and also indicates that it can some how be attained through some effort of will has completely missed the boat. Enlightenment is the complete absense of an individual who would have such a will and the illusion of that individual is the root of the problem****

Free, I agree with much of what you said but I'm interested in the above quote. By denying free will are you asserting determinism? (I think the issue is far more complex and would like to understand your stance) And do you really believe that enlightenment is the "complete" absence of individuality? By finally transcending a limited identity does it disappear, do we deny it. . . or does it get integrated into the newly recognized self, or was it ever seperate to begin with? In essence, does duality cease or just not look so dual anymore? Double vision comming into focus, finally.

Pratibha,
I think the key here is to have the profound understanding that there is no entity which could possibly have free will or be affected by determinism.

As I understand it, there never has been and never will be an individual. The ego only appears to exist because we don't look for it and just asume that it is there.

When attention is directed back towards the source to try to find this ego/individual/I, realization is that it never existed! I suppose this could be seen, from the point of view of the illusory individual as integration or re-cognition, but in truth nothing happens!

I know that discussion of this can become quite complex and I probably don't do it justice. I think, however, it should be simple and direct. The more it is discussed and analyzed the farther from the truth we get.

I do enjoy discussing it though

I guess where I see the biggest limitation of words is when we really try to describe the final state, to define reality in its totality. But I do enjoy the game of attempting to understand the process of manifestion and the human condition (among other things). Playing in maya is playing in "illusion" to the extent that we are only experiencing a scintilla of the absolute, but I would never declare this experience of individuality unreal or nonexistent. It is a true and valid form of experience, part and parcel of Reality itself.

It seems to me that all of the big paradoxes of western philosophy that I have encountered stem from Aristotlian logic, especially the law of excluded middle: A OR not-A. Free-will OR determinism. Could it not be in special cases A and not-A? A glass is half full and half empty. A statement and its opposite are both true. Instead of choosing one or the other, or denying both for that matter, we embrace both. From a non-temporal/spacial reference (universal consciousness) the cosmos (including all physical, mental, subtle planes) is witnessed in totality, beyond time succession or simultaneity and spacial seperation.

Now what I think is really interesting (essentially because the above is impossible to accurately percieve or understand in our present condition) is when you consider this "illusory"(in the sense of being partial) experience of individuality hemmed in by space and time and other limitations. First consider how responsible you are for generating your own thoughts. Upon closely examining the thinking process I have found it impossible to declare myself the creator of my own thoughts. It seems more like they simply appear and I identify them as mine. Since it is thought that leads to action (deciding to act on a thought is another thought) then my ego, this little me, is not responsible for its thoughts or actions, hence we have determinism.

Now here comes the twist. If thought is considered to be a contracton of consciousness "bubbling up" from the well-spring of universal consciousness within us, and we are, in Reality, that well-spring, then we do create our thoughts and act on them. A AND not-A.

This may all be a bunch of s h i t but let me know what you think. Its an interesting point of view, that minus the concept of an individual, free-will and determinism cease to even be issues. Maybe that is essentially what I just put into so many (too many?) words.

Very well said, I do agree with you and feel that my words fall short of describing that final state and show only a partial view.

Absolutely, I agree that thoughts arise and action follows without an actor and yes the paradox of the actor being a real part of the totality "A and not A"

"I am Not, but the Universe is my Self"
Shih T'ou

or as Wei Wu Wei says;

"I am neither present nor absent.
I can never be known as an object in mind, For I am what is knowing, and even 'mind' is my object."

Sorry, but I just had to throw a few words in other than my own which are sorely lacking

I don't know if you have ever read Wei Wu Wei but I think you would really like him. His books are difficult to track down though as many are out of print.

Do what thou wilt.

Free will and determinism? The "final state", thoughts "bubbling up from the universal consciousnes"? These things all have rather easily grasped answers, though my words might not do them justice.
First,free will is the creator of determinism. That is,one defines ones own 'destiny' aeons before 'this life time' (whichever life that term might imply). Each person, nay, each entity, has the same posibility of experience as each other entity in the entire universe. That is the omnipresence of existence. Therefore each 'entity' (i only use the term for convenience) must designate their Will, and plot their course of learning (love?) throughout eternity. Thusly what one experiences is infact predetermined by a higher consiousness, but that consciousness is in fact ones own. This then brings us to the topic of the "final state" and such. This "universal consiouseness" is altogether pre-verbal and pre-rational, therfore devoid of any type of "intelligible" explanation. It is the "supernal triad" in the Quabalistic traditions. It is the highest part of man's psyche. It is the divine spark within the microprosopus. It is that aspect of man that is refered to when the bible says that Adam was created in God's image. We fail to grasp these concepts at our present state for only experience can reveal their true natures.
I'm sure I probably left out many important points, or made less than cogent arguments, but I hope that I (?) made a bit of sense on an otherwise non-sense topic.

btw, i'm really enjoying these posts, finally a note worthy conversation.

Love is the law, love under will.

***First,free will is the creator of determinism. That is,one defines ones own 'destiny' aeons before 'this life time' (whichever life that term might imply).***

I think this is very similar to what I posted but instead of imagining some far, far distant time in the past when this destiny was "defined", I look at it as a constantly unfolding process ushering out of a super-implicate order. This order is non-temporal/spacial, a sort of eternal present feeding the experience of duality and individuality.

***Thusly what one experiences is infact predetermined by a higher consiousness, but that consciousness is in fact ones own.***

A and not-A. Our experience of free will as individual experients is an illusion (based on self-appropriation of mental activity). But since each individual is in essence universal consciousness, at that "level" we do exhibit pure free will.

***This "universal consiouseness" is altogether pre-verbal and pre-rational, therfore devoid of any type of "intelligible" explanation.***

You may want to reconsider this. Universal Consciousness is not PRE-verbal or PRE-rational. It is better refered to as TRANS-verbal and TRANS-rational. I don't consider realization to be some regress back into an undeveloped or embryonic state of some sort. "Pre" strongly implies that. Realitation takes you beyond words and thought, it TRANScends them.

Bye the way, if you like these posts, check out the "no subjecto" stream on the topics page.

Free, I am not altogether familiar with Wei Wu Wei but I think I'll do a search. Lately my main interest has been Kashmir Saivism and I have come to regard the sage Abhinavagupta as one of the most outstanding beings to ever manifest on this plane:

"'I make the universe manifest within myself, in the Sky of Consciousness. I, who am the universe, am its creator!' -- this awareness is the way in which one becomes Bhairava. 'All of manifest creation is reflected within me, I cause it to persist' --this awarness is the way in which one becomes the universe. 'The universe dissolves within me. I who am the flame of the one great and eternal fire of consciousness' --seeing thus one achieves peace."

[This message has been edited by Pratibha (edited April 15, 2001).]

Ok guys, how about this theory:

I propose that the Universe is not unfolding at all. The past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. The reason that it appears to be unfolding in a temporal, linear fashion is that the mind is only a minute part of the totality and can only percieve tiny bits of the whole in a linear way thereby creating the illusion of time.

I have always been fascinated with Quantum Physics and Relativity. Einstein along with others point out that space and time are not constants but are influenced by other factors such as the speed at which the observer is traveling.

I further submit to you that the perception of time is dependant on the speed of the metabolism of the observer. This explains why we experience time passing slowly when we are young and as the metabolism slows with age time seems to speed up.

The lifespan of animals seems to corelate with the speed of their metabolism/ heart rate, but I believe that their perception of the passage of time is the same as ours. For example a cat who lives only 15 years or so and has a higher heart rate than a human percieves that time is passing, maybe, six times faster than we do. This would explain their very short attention span. On the other hand, a turtle who has a very slow metabolism and moves very slowly percieves time moving quickly as their lifespan of as much as 200 years unfolds.

Anyway, the point of my rambling is that Time is not what it seems to be and the Universe as a whole is beyond time and cause and effect and everything has already happened There can be no free will from the point of view of the totality.

Just as I feared, I've failed to explain myself once again. Slow down you curd, you missed something!

When I said "aeons ago" I was merely refering to our phyisical conception of time.
In the plane of physics and senses our Will was determined aeons ago eventhough it does infact exist in a distinct sphere of 'reality' in which time and spaciality have no grasp. Thanks for the slap on the knuckles.
I did mean pre-verbal and pre-rational.
Transcendance implies a separation of continuums. Trans-verbal and trans-rational would imply that they are not on the same developmental plane. I was infact refering to an embryonic state of physicality. The eternal embryo, growing, limiting itself into physical manifestation. Gradually adding new limts to itself. First force, then form, then across the abyss of knowledge to emotions, then life, then rationality, then 'dreams', then finally to the limitations of sense. It is, in a way, a succesion of events. Hardly linear in the rational conception of it, but having none the less a beggining and an end. This is all rather basic quabalistic thought but I contiually find myself unable to explain it to my satisfaction. If you find fault again don't hesitate to repremand, My ignorance is still vast being of a tender age.

Thanks for the feedback.

Try trepanation. Vastly increases blood supply to your head. Massive improvements in meditation and other cognitive exercises