How is life an “ultimate sandbox game” when there is an absence of free will?

[UpperMaster]

3 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

@UpperMaster there is both free will and no free will as the ego.  

It's tricky 

There is the appearance of free will that the ego has - and note that appearance IS reality.  Thus there is free will.   Because all you need is appearance- you dont need a layer below that.

Yet on the larger scale it is actually Your Will as God that is in play. 

You are willing everything to happen precisely as it is meant to on a level that you do not allow the ego to see.

Yea, I understand your point here..damn that's nuanced!

I was contemplating the difference between illusion and reality.

Free will might be an illusion in the same way your perceived reality is supposedly also an illusion (although I'm not yet aware of this, so I have to be careful here). Just because the world around you is merely an illusion for most people including me it is nothing but THE REALITY.

Please let me know if it appears that I didn't grasp what you said.

Thank you for your time man, I appreciate it 

 

 

[UpperMaster]

@Nilsi  ahahaha yeaa thats true bruv. However, my question wasn't denying the experience of free will.

[Inliytened1]

24 minutes ago, UpperMaster said:

Yea, I understand your point here..damn that's nuanced!

I was contemplating the difference between illusion and reality.

Free will might be an illusion in the same way your perceived reality is supposedly also an illusion (although I'm not yet aware of this, so I have to be careful here). Just because the world around you is merely an illusion for most people including me it is nothing but THE REALITY.

Please let me know if it appears that I didn't grasp what you said.

Thank you for your time man, I appreciate it 

 

 

You got it bud   

But it's not that's its how it seems for mosr people...   I'm telling you there is Absolutely no difference between appearance and reality.   Absolutely so.

Also you will find that ultimately all differences collapse - not just the difference between reality and imaginary  

 

[UpperMaster]

10 hours ago, Yarco said:

The character in the game doesn't have free will, the player does.

Think Minecraft or GTA. The character on the screen has 0 free will, they're just an illusion created from code. They take input from the person with free will sitting outside of the TV / simulation.

Note that the total potential of the person sitting outside the game is artificially limited by its rules and boundaries when they "go inside" the game via their avatar (they incarnate into the game without ever actually leaving where they are)

So the player in this case is "god"... and we are supposedly "god".

 

This puzzle gets infinitely more interesting..

[VeganAwake]

15 hours ago, UpperMaster said:

I won't pretend that I comprehended everything you said, but based on what I can make out, it appears to me that you are highlighting the duality between being free and being bound.

Yes & no...

Highlighting that there just isn't duality period, because there isn't a real you or me for separation to even be applicable!!

There are apparent separate bodies but that which claims "I am the doer/thinker as this physical body" isn't actually real.

No real I am this body = No real freewill and choice.

No one free & no one not free!

❤ 

Edited August 7, 2022 by VeganAwake

[undeather]

4 hours ago, VeganAwake said:

Yes & no...

Highlighting that there just isn't duality period, because there isn't a real you or me for separation to even be applicable!!

There are apparent separate bodies but that which claims "I am the doer/thinker as this physical body" isn't actually real.

No real I am this body = No real freewill and choice.

No one free & no one not free!

❤ 

If your non-dual paradigm doesn't contain duality, then it's a dual teaching all along.
Infinity, by definition, must express all multiplicites to be infinite.

If you label something as  "more" or "less" real, you are creating a subtle duality.
Nothing can ever be an illusion - for what is there otuside of "one thing" to judge this illusion?

All this self - no-self paradigm is an echo chamber to begin with.
It's both and neither.

There is a divine will, eternal and infinite, omniscient and omnipotent, that expresses itself in the universality and in each particular of all these apparently temporal and finite, inconscient or half-conscient things. The human being partakes of this free will because it is in fact not separate from the eternal. You are "it". You are "god".  

It's always both and neither.

[Arthogaan]

Good message on free will:

[VeganAwake]

2 hours ago, undeather said:

If your non-dual paradigm doesn't contain duality, then it's a dual teaching all along.

I'm not talking about the physical aspects of apparent reality....there is obviously apparent separation or differences between let's say: a car in japan & a tree in california or a person in alabama & a person in amsterdam. 

The duality that's being referred to as an illusion, is the experience of being a real separate individual localized within or as the body....the very entity that claims "I am this body and the thinker of my thoughts" is completely unreal.

Infinity, by definition, must express all multiplicites to be infinite.

Infinity or everything doesn't care what you believe it must or mustn't be like because it's already the case. What you see is what you get!

No purple polka-dot dragons = No purple polka-dot dragons.

If you label something as  "more" or "less" real, you are creating a subtle duality.

A misunderstanding about the validity of duality doesn't mean that duality is actually real.

The same way that believing I am the best tennis player in the universe doesn't actually make it real.....but sure it can seem to!

Nothing can ever be an illusion - for what is there otuside of "one thing" to judge this illusion?

Nothing is an illusion because the very word illusion is pointing to something that seems real but actually isn't. 

If you like we can use the word misunderstanding.

All this self - no-self paradigm is an echo chamber to begin with.
It's both and neither.

Whats being said is there just isn't a you or a me or anything else in which could be both and neither.

There is a divine will, eternal and infinite, omniscient and omnipotent, that expresses itself in the universality and in each particular of all these apparently temporal and finite, inconscient or half-conscient things. The human being partakes of this free will because it is in fact not separate from the eternal. You are "it". You are "god".  

Notice how this belief system actually doesn't effect reality in any real way at all......beliefs about how something is or isn't doesn't make them real or valid.

You could also believe you are a time traveling extraterrestrial entity from the far off planet Yonex19......that belief doesn't make it real or true at all!

Those are just delusions of a very creative imagination!

❤ 

 

 

[undeather]

1 hour ago, VeganAwake said:

 

So much of neo-advaita, as revealed by many of your quotes, can be seen as a stunted form of spiritual development in only emphasizing the deconstructive via negativa or "negating way." It's sophistry and suffers from a chronic compulsion to always absolutize everything onto an “ultimate” or “final” truth-level of discourse, 

From the standpoint of traditional vedanta, the goal is to realise the "self" in it's true essence, not to repulsively deny it. 
"I am that I am" is not a "believe system" - it's a direct experience.  Precisely because the ego, the soul and the self can all be present simultaneously, we can better understand the real meaning of no-slf, a notion that has caused an inordinate amount of confusion. It does not mean the absence of a functional self (that’s a psychotic, not a sage); it means that one is no longer exclusively identified with that self (which is a function of mind).

Believe systems dont affect but can definitely REFLECT reality. 
Every thought you ever experienced can be categorized as more or less true. You can think that you are the world best tennis player or an extraterrestrial entity from the far off planet Yonex19 and that would be wrong of course. However, the thought of "I am not my thought" or that "all seperations are fundamentally not really real" - is correct. 

True unity includes oneness and seperateness.
You want to be nobody, everybody & somebody - nowhere, everywhere & somewhere.
Everything else is just a finite lense you are looking through.

Edited August 7, 2022 by undeather

[VeganAwake]

5 hours ago, undeather said:

So much of neo-advaita, as revealed by many of your quotes, can be seen as a stunted form of spiritual development in only emphasizing the deconstructive via negativa or "negating way." It's sophistry and suffers from a chronic compulsion to always absolutize everything onto an “ultimate” or “final” truth-level of discourse, 

From the standpoint of traditional vedanta, the goal is to realise the "self" in it's true essence, not to repulsively deny it. 
"I am that I am" is not a "believe system" - it's a direct experience.  Precisely because the ego, the soul and the self can all be present simultaneously, we can better understand the real meaning of no-slf, a notion that has caused an inordinate amount of confusion. It does not mean the absence of a functional self (that’s a psychotic, not a sage); it means that one is no longer exclusively identified with that self (which is a function of mind).

Believe systems dont affect but can definitely REFLECT reality. 
Every thought you ever experienced can be categorized as more or less true. You can think that you are the world best tennis player or an extraterrestrial entity from the far off planet Yonex19 and that would be wrong of course. However, the thought of "I am not my thought" or that "all seperations are fundamentally not really real" - is correct. 

True unity includes oneness and seperateness.
You want to be nobody, everybody & somebody - nowhere, everywhere & somewhere.
Everything else is just a finite lense you are looking through.

Well then that's what's being experienced there, it's whole, complete and perfect.  ? 

I don't know anything about neo advaita or traditional vadanta but they sound like interesting belief systems. 

I'm not trying to replace one belief system with another.....I'm talking about the end of the believer.

Its unconditional love & freedom for no one!!

❤ 

 

 

[Jake Chambers]

Free will is real.

[UpperMaster]

On 8/6/2022 at 8:08 PM, undeather said:

As you study the teachings of enlightened masters from different traditions, you will gradually realise that there is not one final answer to this question. They disagree with each other a lot when it comes to free will, so I think it's smart to remain agnostic and just live as if. 
 

@undeather Out of curiosity, can you point me to these enlightened masters that disagree with each-other when it comes to free will.  Just curious to see how much they conflict with one another.

I would really appreciate it.

Edited August 8, 2022 by UpperMaster
Forgot to @ a person here

[undeather]

3 hours ago, UpperMaster said:

@undeather Out of curiosity, can you point me to these enlightened masters that disagree with each-other when it comes to free will.  Just curious to see how much they conflict with one another.

I would really appreciate it.

Ramana Maharshi
Adi Da
Sri Aurobindo
Rumi
Paramahansa Yogananda
Meister Eckhart
Nāgārjuna
Pythagoras
Mordechai Lainer of Izbica
Jesus 
Laozi

Just to mention a few different masters from different traditions - and they all can not help but to disagree with each other  
This is why we should all show some epistemic humility when it comes to those questions.

Edited August 8, 2022 by undeather

[Inliytened1]

5 minutes ago, undeather said:

Ramana Maharshi
Adi Da
Sri Aurobindo
Rumi
Paramahansa Yogananda
Meister Eckhart
Nāgārjuna
Pythagoras
Mordechai Lainer of Izbica
Jesus 
Laozi

Different masters from different traditions - and they all can not help but to disagree with each other  
This is why we should all show some epistemic humility when it comes to those questions.

There are many masters that remain unnamed.  

[undeather]

4 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

There are many masters that remain unnamed.  

Sure, bot those are some pretty famous ones whose teachings are quite easy to reserach..
..which is an inherent premise of his question  

Edited August 8, 2022 by undeather

[Inliytened1]

15 minutes ago, undeather said:

Sure, bot those are some pretty famous ones whose teachings are quite easy to reserach..
..which is an inherent premise of his question  

The unnamed are the highest masters because they do not seek anything.  So you can't even call them Masters.

[Nilsi]

On 8/7/2022 at 3:35 PM, undeather said:

So much of neo-advaita, as revealed by many of your quotes, can be seen as a stunted form of spiritual development in only emphasizing the deconstructive via negativa or "negating way." It's sophistry and suffers from a chronic compulsion to always absolutize everything onto an “ultimate” or “final” truth-level of discourse, 

From the standpoint of traditional vedanta, the goal is to realise the "self" in it's true essence, not to repulsively deny it. 
"I am that I am" is not a "believe system" - it's a direct experience.  Precisely because the ego, the soul and the self can all be present simultaneously, we can better understand the real meaning of no-slf, a notion that has caused an inordinate amount of confusion. It does not mean the absence of a functional self (that’s a psychotic, not a sage); it means that one is no longer exclusively identified with that self (which is a function of mind).

Believe systems dont affect but can definitely REFLECT reality. 
Every thought you ever experienced can be categorized as more or less true. You can think that you are the world best tennis player or an extraterrestrial entity from the far off planet Yonex19 and that would be wrong of course. However, the thought of "I am not my thought" or that "all seperations are fundamentally not really real" - is correct. 

True unity includes oneness and seperateness.
You want to be nobody, everybody & somebody - nowhere, everywhere & somewhere.
Everything else is just a finite lense you are looking through.

Thank you. This guy is completely lost in his pseudo nondual reality tunnel. This is worse than trying to have a reasonable conversation about spirituality with Richard Dawkins.

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, Nilsi said:

Thank you. This guy is completely lost in his pseudo nondual reality tunnel. This is worse than trying to have a reasonable conversation about spirituality with Richard Dawkins.

He is completely lost.

[LfcCharlie4]

On 07/08/2022 at 10:01 AM, undeather said:

If your non-dual paradigm doesn't contain duality, then it's a dual teaching all along.
Infinity, by definition, must express all multiplicites to be infinite.

If you label something as  "more" or "less" real, you are creating a subtle duality.
Nothing can ever be an illusion - for what is there otuside of "one thing" to judge this illusion?

All this self - no-self paradigm is an echo chamber to begin with.
It's both and neither.

There is a divine will, eternal and infinite, omniscient and omnipotent, that expresses itself in the universality and in each particular of all these apparently temporal and finite, inconscient or half-conscient things. The human being partakes of this free will because it is in fact not separate from the eternal. You are "it". You are "god".  

It's always both and neither.

On 06/08/2022 at 3:38 PM, undeather said:

The truth is that you experience free will/choice every day and all the time.
It feels like you can actually choose between pizza and salad - gym or couch - or which career path is the best for you. 
It feels like there are degrees of conciousness in your decisions, meaning that you can understand your motivations and psychological patterns behind them.
It feels like a choice to overcome your fears and do the things you actually long for in life.
It feels like a sandbox game.

It doesn't matter if free will truly exists or not. You live as if.

And no, you haven't figured this one out. 
I used to think that as well, but that's nonsense.
Boiling everything down to these neo-advaitan no-self platitudes is just so boring - but people will repeat them like they are caught in some epistemic echo chamber. Nobody in this forum really knows the full answer to those questions. The funny thing is that the free will vs determinism debate is highly dualistic in nature - which why a simple yes or no answer simply cant be the case. 

As you study the teachings of enlightened masters from different traditions, you will gradually realise that there is not one final answer to this question. They disagree with each other a lot when it comes to free will, so I think it's smart to remain agnostic and just live as if. 
 

 

I think this is a pretty perfect way to look at it. 

If you wanna go beyond, a good comparison I like is that The Self is inherently free & therefore as you awaken and live from this place instead of 'little me' your ability to manifest, live with love, live in alignment etc only continues to grow and expand not diminish. 

When you obsess over having / not having free will, it just becomes mental masturbation on a smaller level and can even lead to what I call 'No-self Nihilism' where you see 'enlightened gurus' abusing their power under the guise of 'nothing matters, there's nobody there' etc, which is even more dangerous than your average nice person with a healthy 'ego.' 

In terms of the 'pre-destined' view point, I wouldn't buy into it too much, sure there's likely an astrological outline or whatever for your life, but if you go shoot heroin or jump in front of a bus that would fuck it up a little bit, follow intuition & good feelings, I personally spent a lot of time trying to mentally understand a fuck ton of concepts and in the end it drives you crazy haha. 

If you can, find a teacher you resonate with to work with 1-1, that's what helped me more than anything, Satsangs etc are great, but most the time yoiur listening to other people's specific issues / hang ups, and maybe get 5 minutes to discuss your own

 

[undeather]

3 hours ago, Nilsi said:

Thank you. This guy is completely lost in his pseudo nondual reality tunnel. This is worse than trying to have a reasonable conversation about spirituality with Richard Dawkins.

4 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

He is completely lost.

The rhetoricical approach kinda reminds me of Nahm's downfall ..if you guys are familiar with him (at least Inliytened1 is)