TurquoiseB: I would believe in Free Will regardless of any belief in God. It's the pivotal teaching at the basis of karma. If Free Will did not exist, no one would have any choice as to how, or whether, to react to one's samskaras as they arise. One does.
Akasha: Perhaps it seems that way. But perhaps it is not so true. A discrete individual driver / doer / decider is not necessary for karma to exist, paradoxical as it seems. The CPU (64 bit :) ) in my PC makes lots of decisions, and it accumulates karma -- in the sense there is much reaction by other parts of the PC that come back to the CPU. All of these returning karma bits are based on decisions made by the CPU. But there is no individual doer /decider behind the CPU. It has simply learned many different styles of functioning -- via software and bios -- and reacts to things that it is fed (from RAM/Chitta) -- all according to its learned styles of functioning. Buddhi -- based in some pre-frontal cortex mechanisms, makes many decisions based on choices presented to it. Did you create your buddhi and your pre-frontal cortex? Do you know how they work -- in detail? Are you often not even aware when they are working? If you answer no to most of the above, then why posit, associate or assign a "doer" that is behind Buddhi? Samskara-driven thoughts arise (by their nature), buddhi reacts in ways that it has learned, and not outside ways it has not learned. One appears to have "freewill" when one posits that "I am buddhi" or "buddhi -- the decider -- is me". Is this simply a mistaken association? Only buddhi can tell -- and it can't discern outside of the realm, mechanics, heuristics and algorithms that it has learned. IMO/IME (in my experience), a buddhi that has not yet learned to function in certain ways, will not be able to go outsied its boundaries -- its own world -- and will "decide" that it / "I" am making this decision -- and "I" am exercising free will. Like Archemedies said, "give me a place to stand, and I shall move the world". Analogously, when awareness is seen to be seperate from buddhi -- experientially -- Buddhi emerges because of that -- or perhaps leading to that -- is able to function in a new way (translucence?) where it sees and finally concludes that it is only reactive -- it reacts to, chews and eats up what is in front of it. It does so by its nature, and by the style of funcionings / heuristics, etc. it has learned. It figures out that the smoke and mirrors delusions it has lived was just that -- a foggy confusion of the experience of "light" and "reflection" -- indeed like a house of mirrors with a massive fog machine. When the fog clears a bit, Buddhi sees it only reflects light, but is not THE light. Buddhi sees that it just does its thing, its nature, via a structure created by nature and feed by nature. That there is no driver behind the wheel of Buddhi -- that is, the reflection of light in Buddhi is not the driver. Buddhi sees it is both totally free -- that is "no driver" and is totally conditioned -- by what it has learned, following the course of its own nature. TB: So while on *one* level of creation it makes sense to say that there is no individual self, on other levels of creation that is patently untrue. It's not a question of either/or; it's an issue of both/and. Akasha: This is where poor choice of language, IMO, obsfucates things. Several posters equate "individuality" with "doer" -- or my choice of words "driver". Obviously there is an outward projecting entity that is Akasha, or Barry or Peter or Irmeli. It is silly to deny such. The distinction (or confusion) is that there is no (or may not be any) subjective "sense of individuality" along with the experience of no-doer. The question of merit is, "Is there a driver named Akasha, or Barry or Peter or Irmeli behind these outward projecting entities? Or are the components of that entity, created by nature, not "you"? Are intellct (Buddhi), mind (manas), "memory" - including way long term memory -- (chitta -- home of samskaras), senses, etc able to act on their own, and interact together, via what they have learned in growing up, -- as well as from experiences in lives past-- all by themsleves, via their own natures? Are you positive that they need either individual drivers or a central charioteer? And if they do, do "you" have anything to do with the driving process? When "trapped" in the mirage of smoke and mirrors reflections the buddhi says "Of course I am the driver, you fool!!" When Buddhi learns to functions in new ways it says "Of course, I, Buddhi, am NOT the driver, you fool!!" > I have here a quote attributed to Buddha: > "Events happen, deeds are done. There is no individual doer of any > deed." (Translation by Balsekar) TB: True at one -- and *only* one -- level of creation Akasha: No, its True at every level of creation. TB: and state of consciousness. Akasha: when buddhi is confused, it holds the view that it is the driver. TB: Useless to ponder of live one's life by if one is *not* functioning 24/7 from that state of consciousnes. Actually *counterproductive* to try to live by if one is not in that state of consciousness. Akasha: And you "KNOW" its useless because you have been "here" and "there"? Useless becasue you have experienced "Buddhi" and "buddhi". Useless because you have gotten the "Buddhi-call"? :) Its as if you are stating emphatically and definatively that the chicken came before the egg. Are you sure thats the case? What comes first: i) the realization that intellect, mind, senses CAN/Could operate without a driver; ii) that there is something that is aware of itself iii) the realization that intellect, mind, senses DO operate without a driver; iv) the realization that that Awareness is It/ME, of itself, that It/ME is not intellect, mind or senses ? IME, its kind of a gestalt, not as linear a sequence as you posit. Did you really experience it so sequentially? TB: "I am not the doer" is Just One More State Of Attention. Akasha: Well, we have so many states of attention, what is the harm in one more, once in a while? Taking the thought, ""I am not the doer" and looking at it from all angles, particularly from Ramana Maharishi and Byron Katie type exercises, is not harmful, and may actually be useful. Doing such helps one to understand PigPen's (Grateful Dead organist) line in "Good Morning Little School Girl" When he sings, "I want to be your chauffeur, I want to drive your little machine". He is clearly saying that he wants the unbounded pure nature of his awareness (Krishna) to be the charioteer of his young friend's "desires, thoughts and actions" -- that is -- the "driver" is not the warrior, the driver is magically silent, "something" way different than intellect, mind, senses etc and their actions. (From, "Commentaries on Dualistic and Advaitistic Insights Sung by the Ghandarvadic Grateful Dead", pg 443.) Irmeli: I think this is a too general simplification. The term individual has many aspects to it. I would say that when the identification of consciousness with mind ceases, there is not anymore an ego as a contraction of awareness, who wants to be somebody and wants to be seen as somebody. When that entity ceases to exist, you have no need to be seen as enlightened, something special, superior to others. Rather you see the same life force in others as in you. Still there is a clear sense of individuality left. Akasha: yes, an outward projecting entity that interacts with other entities. Irmeli: An I, who observes, makes interpretations, creates plans, acts, and reacts, and often quite differently than the others. Akasha: Why do you necessarily subjectively equate that which observes, makes interpretations, creates plans, acts, and reacts, and is different than other entities with "you"? Irmeli: And intents there are still on the gross level. But one realizes that you cannot have intents or control the impulses on the subtlest level. Akasha: Yes, this is where we are saying the same thing, I believe. The impulses happen, with no "you" as the driver. Irmeli: This has always been the case, you just become aware of it. Akasha: yes. Irmeli: And possibly you learn to constructively co-operate with those impulses. If you resist those impulses or you cannot consciously contain them ( this is quite often the case), they can get acted out in odd or disastrous ways. Akasha: But what and who learns? The mind and intellect learn to do this by themselves, by their nature, IMO/IME. > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Individuality is a very curious delusion. When identification of consciousness with mind ceases, there is no longer an individual. Everything goes on as before, but there is no longer a "doer" or "decider" who has intent. There's just nobody home. Akasha: I don't disagree with your point, but I think your language could make the point clearer and less confusing to some. If i were to try to make the same point, I would say: "The subjective sense of Individuality is a very curious delusion. When identification of consciousness with mind, and particularly with intellect -- "the decider", when this identification ceases or sense of "I am driving this train" ceases, there is no longer a subjective sense of individual. Everything goes on as before, there is still an outward entity that projects what your mind, intellect, senses, body have learned -- by themselves, by their natures, but there is no longer a "doer" or "decider" or a "driver" who has intent. In fact, there never was such a driver. The intellect finally understands the distinction between the reflection of "light" of consciousness upon itself -- causing it to think its the driver -- and consciousness, pure and non-owning. There's just nobody, no driver home." Peter: An I, who observes, makes interpretations, creates plans, acts, and reacts, and often quite differently than the others. Observation occurs, interpretation occurs, creating plans occurs, action occurs and reaction occurs, but there simply is no "one" doing it. Irmeli: > And intents > there are still > on the gross level. But one realizes that you cannot > have intents or > control the impulses on the subtlest level. Peter; There is no individuality on any level, gross or subtle. Individuality is a delusion. Akasha: While I know this is only a semantic disagreement, It appears to me that Irmeli is simple acknowledging the obvious: there is an outward projecting entity named Peter with whom "we" interact. And yet on a "subtle" level" inside, "one realizes that you cannot have intents or control the impulses on the subtlest level" (Irmeli). She seems to, clearly IMO, mean there is a realization that there is no doer or driver behind the impulses that manifest as words and actions that "appear" as an outward projection of an entity. t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: the notion of being the doer. I have here a quote attributed to Buddha: "Events happen, deeds are done. There is no individual doer of any deed." (Translation by Balsekar) Peter: Yes, quite true, but only from the perspective of Self-Realization. Otherwise it's an adharmic, moodmaking mess of personal irresponsibility. Akasha: IMO/IME you are making the same mistake that Barry does, positing a strict linear sequence to it all. See comments above. Pondering the phrase, "Events happen, deeds are done. There is no individual doer of any deed." without AWareness of AWareness is indeed only "Just One More State Of Attention." But so is self-inquiry. In fact, pondering "Events happen, deeds are done. There is no individual doer of any deed." is a form of self-inquiry. What is wrong with that? It actually might trigger the gestalt of IT (which is experientialy not a strict linear sequence as your words imply (to me)). Why is it necessarily "adharmic, moodmaking mess of personal irresponsibility." Is that a compensating story you need to feel comfortable? What if its not true? :) t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: brain research indicates, that decisions are already taken in the brain, *before* we become aware of them, Akasha: Yes, a point of confirmation that intellect (and mind) operate without a driver -- whether there is awareness of such or not. t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: and own them my our 'individuality' As I see it, modern man is addicted to a cult of individuality. Again, I think use of the term "individuality" causes great confusion, when it is meant "the subjective sense of individuality as a 'doer /driver' " As I see it, modern man is addicted to a cult thievery, stealing ownership of what nature does inside its many minds and intellects. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
