Buttsplicer, this is fuccing brilliant--in my opinion, a phrase they add tirelessly to any statement of such in China and with mantra-like efficiency--speaking of techniques that work.
Now, to my mind, there is freedom of choice, if you're willing to grant the mathematical and logical certainty of re-incarnation, while also rejecting the silly notion of past lives or future lives. All life is now. And in that now-moment (using Eckhart's term) there is freedom of choice. Even when reaping lousy karma there is escape. When Christ said, "Turn the other cheek," he didn't mean "Ask the son-of-a-bitch to lay you flat again." He meant something like "Turn THAT cheek towards life that invites what you want instead, now that it's abundantly clear what you don't want." Think of it this way: any life casts a net (moment by moment) into infinity and draws in a catch. If you don't like it, cast your net again. It is possible even now. Hell, in Dante's sense (a very great master, that Dante) is an eternal state, but that doesn't mean you have to take out eternal squatter's rights. The state is there as a form of Divine mercy (Absolute Compassion), as Blake recognized, to give a "limit of opacity" and a "limit of contraction" to the individual soul so it doesn't wander forever in that direction. You bang your head against a wall until you realize, this is a wall, this is not a path. In other words, until you turn the other cheek. To a being truly in Brahman that means that alternate universes are yours to realize moment by moment. a --- Stu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela > Mailander > > mailander111@ wrote: > > > > > > Whether or not there is free will depends not on > > > belief but on state of consciousness, > > > > I'd say what depends on state of consciousness > > is not whether there is or is not free will, but > > whether the existence or nonexistence of free > > will is even a valid question. > > > > the question of whether there is or > > is not free will is a *valid* one depends not on > > belief but on state of conscioiusness. > > > > and any > > > understanding of what free will might be that is > > > formulated in waking state is necessarily a > fiction. > > > > Total agreement on that point. > > > > The concept of free will is not so much a state of > consciousness but a > political/social question. The concept of free will > in a metaphysical > sense is unprovable. The question of determinism > versus free will turns > on circular logic. Of course if every action of > ours was determined by > the clockwork of the universe there is no way to > know if thats true or > not. Einstein was a great proponent of determinism. > Although he was a > strong believer in determinism, he also believed in > the political > importance of freedom of individual expression. > > Einstein's notion of free will may be the best > starting point. We know > our thought and actions are determined by a variety > of forces outside > our control (and often our consciousness). Our will > is restricted by, > genetics, the structure of language, bodily > limitations, perceptions, > political situations, social conventions, duties and > so on. On the > other hand we appear to make choices as best we can > within these > restrictions. We have limited means of expanding > freedom of our own > biology. The extent to which we can broaden the > freedom of exercised > will is determined by society. Hence, Sartres > words, "Hell is other > people". > > As for the polemic on atheism - I reject the notion > of atheism > altogether. This twisted expression is the fantasy > of religious > thinkers and dreamers. There is no such thing as > atheism. However by > making such a label delusional religious people can > attach their own > projections on certain philosophers and thinkers. > We can not generalize > about an individual's mental life based on what they > don't believe. The > universe of not believing is infinite. > > However, philosophy has a history and a duty to > question beliefs. The > ongoing dialectic concerning what we believe to be > true is not only a > valid path of inquiry but a necessary one. > > s. > > > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
