Sadhguru says we have free will...

[Faceless]

16 minutes ago, Misagh said:

Does Shiva feel responsibility when he dances the dance of death?

?Indeed...

an example of “the i” clinging to its own movement/content. 

[egoless]

@Faceless @Joseph Maynor Hello my old friends, as I see, you guys are still locked in nonduality paradigm. I challange you to forget that conditioning. I challange you to stop all of your practices for a month. Try to integrate back to normal life (or as we would call it duality). Observe the changes and then let’s talk after a month. I want to show you that what appears the Truth to you now is no more than conditioning of your subconscious over the long period of time. Be more open minded.  Challange your worldview, challange your Truth. I did and I broke it down. I went through 4 completely different worldviews over the past 3 years and I finally found the true one.

the Truth is you always have a worldview whether you are aware of it or not. Whether you are “enlightened” or not. You perceive reality always as you are... but reality is one.

Edited September 23, 2018 by egoless

[Faceless]

@egoless what’s non-duality?

what practices? 

[Faceless]

18 minutes ago, egoless said:

subconscious

What subconscious? 

19 minutes ago, egoless said:

I went through 4 completely different worldviews over the past 3 years and I finally found the true one.

Confirming to a view is an example of the supposed freedom in will-choice. 

21 minutes ago, egoless said:

Challange your worldview, challange your Truth

Truth is not fixed, therefore it’s doesn't belong to “me”-“you”. 

[egoless]

@Faceless You will continue to ask these trivial questions if you are locked in your paradigm. I offered you to challange it. The rest is up to you to decide  

[Faceless]

It’s quite interesting the numerous traps constructed by the chooser that chooses. 

Methods, systems, techniques, routines, the cultivation of experiences...

perhaps one can completely bypass-sidestep all the limitation that time(psychological becoming) presents. 

Truth is a trackless wilderness

 

 

[Faceless]

@egoless I am afraid you pre-assume in regards to how I live and what I share. 

If you have read through any of my posts you will see that I do not concern myself with non-dual theory, methods, systems, techniques, routines, the cultivation of experiences. 

Infact, have you ever actually read anything I write about, or has the veil in which you perhaps observed through done all the reading/understanding? 

[LastThursday]

I'd like to turn into a goat... Nope. That didn't work. Ok, let's try something easier. I'm going to make a coffee instead.  Oh, I wonder what made me think of coffee? Was it that advert I just saw? Was it my addiction? I DO HAVE FREE WILL. I'm chosing not to have coffee, I'm not a robot zombie.

[The Don]

Sadhguru is wrong.

Humans don't have free will.

And yes, mystics can be wrong.

[metwinn]

Its not hard to see for yourself the answer to this question, of course there is no free will unless your operating from a specific context that is.

[abrakamowse]

I say there's and there's no free will

 

Both things are true, depending from what perspective are you talking about it.

[Forestluv]

On 9/23/2018 at 5:17 PM, LastThursday said:

I'd like to turn into a goat... Nope. That didn't work. Ok, let's try something easier. I'm going to make a coffee instead.  Oh, I wonder what made me think of coffee? Was it that advert I just saw? Was it my addiction? I DO HAVE FREE WILL. I'm chosing not to have coffee, I'm not a robot zombie.

To me, this sounds like a perspective of the self. I would say this usage of free will is an illusion. It's very simple to recognize this, yet difficult since the ego will resist at any cost. There is nothing more dear to the ego than free will.

If a person has reached the "observer-object" stage of meditation, it's fairly obvious that ego-based free will is an illusion. After reaching the "observer + object" space during meditation, observe thoughts. Focus on where they arise from. It's totally obvious that the self is not the author of one's thoughts. This awakening is devastating to the self, since it is obsessed with maintaining the illusion that it is in control of the narrative and is making choices. The next stage is to look for the "chooser". Exactly who/what is the "chooser"? If my self is not the author of my thoughts, how can it be a chooser? I spent about 3 months of meditation searching for a "chooser" and couldn't find one. The only thing I found was a subjective experience that there was a self making choices.

For me, this was one of the most important awakenings I've had. It opened the door to a whole new world of spirituality. Living under the delusion of ego-based free will is a *major* block. It is a brick door preventing spiritual advancement. As well, so much suffering is caused by this ego-based delusion that it is a "chooser". Individuals and societies put so much emphasis and pressure about making the "right choices" - it causes so much stress, anxiety, regret and remorse. A person under the delusion that they are a self making choices will believe that they need to make choices which will lead to happiness in the future. As well, they will believe that they could have made different (better) choices in the past. Furthermore, this delusion will not be limited to the personal self - it is extended to others. The personality will believe that other people have a self that is making choices.

IME, the biggest trap to self-actualization is the attachment and identification with self-based free will / choice. The VAST majority of people never escape this trap. For me, it was extremely painful for me to release myself from this trap. It was the only time in my life I considered suicide. Yet, it was also the most liberating process of my life.

[LastThursday]

3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

It was the only time in my life I considered suicide.

I feel you. My sympathies. I'm glad you made the better choice.

I'm loath to give any sort of reply as it's only my ego speaking and your reply is marvellous.

 

Anyway, to unpack my answer a bit, as I'm prone to being terse:

1. I'd like to turn into a goat... : Of course I can't. Free will, if it exists, is very (very) circumscribed, even if my ego wants outlandish things badly.

2. I'm going to make a coffee instead : At least I (the ego) have the illusion of choice.

3. I wonder what made me think of coffee? : Where did the thought originate? Isn't wholly dependent on a zillion bits of context, such as my upbringing, culture, emotions, addiction, in fact probably the whole of reality up until that point. The ego is ignorant and greedy and will take ownership for anything.

4. I'm chosing not to have coffee : Despite the ego reasserting itself, the outcome is that nothing happened, I neither turned into a goat or made a coffee. The free will was an illusion in this instance, because nothing came of it. Just thoughts, whirring round.

5. I'm not a robot zombie : The ego tries to console itself. The fact is we are all robot zombies, albeit very amazing ones.

My view on it, is that it's ok throw the ego a bone and to pretend to have free will. But I realise it requires a certain level of conciousness to play that game and not get sucked back in.

Edited September 25, 2018 by LastThursday
Can't spell.

[Forestluv]

12 minutes ago, LastThursday said:

I feel you. My sympathies. I'm glad you made the better choice.

Thank you, I appreciate the sentiment. Yet no sympathies are needed. "I" did not make a choice. 

13 minutes ago, LastThursday said:

1. I'd like to turn into a goat... : Of course I can't. Free will, if it exists, is very (very) circumscribed, even if my ego wants outlandish things badly.

I don't think this is idea is helpful to awakening. I've never met anyone that believes in unlimited ego-based free will. 

19 minutes ago, LastThursday said:

2. I'm going to make a coffee instead : At least I (the ego) have the illusion of choice.

Yep. There is a very strong subjective experience that there is a self making a choice.

21 minutes ago, LastThursday said:

3. I wonder what made me think of coffee? : Where did the thought originate? Isn't wholly dependent on a zillion bits of context, such as my upbringing, culture, emotions, addiction, in fact probably the whole of reality up until that point. The ego is ignorant and greedy and will take ownership for anything.

Those are *great* questions. From where did the thought originate? We don't know. It's mysterious. From one perspective, it simply arises. From another perspective, there could be an infinitely complex network of input underlying that thought. 

I agree with you that the ego would take ownership for thoughts / choices it had nothing to do with.

25 minutes ago, LastThursday said:

4. I'm choosing not to have coffee : Despite the ego reasserting itself, the outcome is that nothing happened, I neither turned into a goat or made a coffee. The free will was an illusion in this instance, because nothing came of it. Just thoughts, whirring round.

I wouldn't use these examples to help someone awaken. The outcomes are irrelevant.

37 minutes ago, LastThursday said:

5. I'm not a robot zombie : The ego tries to console itself. The fact is we are all robot zombies, albeit very amazing ones.

I agree that the ego wants to stay relevant. I wouldn't a robot zombie example. To me, that suggests a separate finite existence. I'd prefer saying we are all within a higher order shared consciousness. Another analogy: someone could refer to one of my liver cells as a robot zombie. In a sense, that is true. Yet, I prefer thinking of each cell within the body as being within a larger whole.

44 minutes ago, LastThursday said:

My view on it, is that it's ok throw the ego a bone and to pretend to have free will. But I realise it requires a certain level of conciousness to play that game and not get sucked back in.

I agree with you. Your approach is just different than mine. I originally thought you were defending ego-based free will. My original post was directed to someone under the delusion of free will. I can now see that doesn't apply to you.

[LastThursday]

23 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I wouldn't use these examples to help someone awaken. The outcomes are irrelevant.

Of course. I was just illustrating that free will = thought + manifestation. Thought without outcome, cannot be free will, it is just thought. The outcomes are only relevant to 'free will'. 

You rightly point out that awakening has nothing to do with outcomes and by extension free will has nothing to do with awakening; it's simply a distraction on the path.

[Forestluv]

5 minutes ago, LastThursday said:

Of course. I was just illustrating that free will = thought + manifestation. Thought without outcome, cannot be free will, it is just thought. The outcomes are only relevant to 'free will'. 

I see what you are saying. Yet, I think you are using the term "free will" in a broader context than your average Joe. I don't think most people use a "free will = thought + manifestation" definition. I think it's more like "free will = thought + tangible result". I.e. Someone can choose whether or not to apply for a job, ask for a raise, mow the lawn, get married etc. 

In your examples, I think the key is "from where did the thought to make coffee originate?". If I press that question and don't let them wiggle out, it can penetrate into the delusion. I think adding in the part about whether or not the coffee actually gets made will give them an escape hatch into a more comfortable zone.

Another method: ask a person to think of a city. Tell them to think of various cities and decide on a city. After about 30 seconds, allow them to tell you the city. Then ask them if the cities just appeared as thoughts or if they went into a database within their mind, looked at all the options of every city they know of and chose one. The vast majority of people will concede that the cities just kinda appeared. This puts a MAJOR blow into the ego's control. Then, the ego will fight back to regain control and say "Yes, but after a few cities appeared in my head, THEN I chose one of them". I can get about 70% of people to realize thoughts just appeared, yet I've never been able to get someone to further realize that there is no chooser. Yet, I'm cool with that. The realization that thoughts just appear is often very profound for people and they can get shaken up by it.

For those that insist they control their thoughts. . . I tell them that I actually have more control over what thoughts appear in their mind than they do. Of course they will laugh at me as ridiculous. Then I say "Chicago, Paris, Montreal. . . What cities are you thinking of now? . . . Moscow, Tokyo, Miami . . . what cities are you thinking of now?". . . This tends to make them very uncomfortable and they will change the topic.

[RichardY]

Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'

[LastThursday]

@Serotoninluv it is certainly powerful to question from where do thoughts originate (and where do they disappear to?). And then to question 'a choice'. After all it is just another thought and where did that arise from? And, the ego 'having control', is just another thought and on and on. Extending this, you realise that the ego itself is just a bunch of thoughts, that come from somewhere mysterious. 

I am inclined to think that thoughts are associated with memory, because there is a 'recognition' that happens when you have a thought. A thought is never without context of some sort, even if it's about a pink elephant say. I think generally the 'recognition' is confused by the ego as coming from itself. The 'recognition' is then conflated with the thought itself.

You're right that the everyday definition of free will is that of being free to make a choice (by thinking about something) and that's probably the most useful one.  But for me, it somehow feels/appears wrong to me to call a chain of thoughts without manifestation 'out there', free will. For example, if I have a thought about asking for a pay rise tomorrow, and then tomorrow I change my mind without uttering a word to anyone: have I really exercised free will? Or is it just that something has 'made me' change my mind over night?

If you take my definition, then when I think of making a coffee, and I actually make one, there's no confusing that free will was exercised.

 

 

[Forestluv]

4 minutes ago, LastThursday said:

@SerotoninluvYou're right that the everyday definition of free will is that of being free to make a choice (by thinking about something) and that's probably the most useful one.  But for me, it somehow feels/appears wrong to me to call a chain of thoughts without manifestation 'out there', free will. For example, if I have a thought about asking for a pay rise tomorrow, and then tomorrow I change my mind without uttering a word to anyone: have I really exercised free will? Or is it just that something has 'made me' change my mind over night?

I think that is a "short putt" for most egos. They would comfortably say "I thought about asking for a raise, but then changed my mind" - thinking they were in complete control the whole time.

Do you think that the appearance of some thoughts can be linked between people over distance. For example, imagine waking up one morning and a thought arises about an old high school buddy you haven't thought about for years. You send him a text and he responds "OMG, I just thought about you this morning!! I can't believe I just got a text from you!".

Most people would consider that type of thing a "coincidence". It's a rare event, yet rare event happen occasionally. Yet, sometimes that type of thing seems to happen more often than coincidence would explain. 

[Shanmugam]

The 'free will vs no free will' debate or confusion can be resolved by applying something called 7-valued logic. If you have the patience and time to read a long article, then read this: https://nellaishanmugam.wordpress.com/2018/06/13/logic-and-spiritual-enlightenment-an-overview-of-anekantavada-saptabhangivada-seven-valued-logic-and-syadvada-of-jainism/.