Free Will

[Marblehead]

Your not butting in, ...

 

Ah! A post back to the subject of the thread!

 

I do agree, there are conditions and limits to our free will. Afterall, there are consequences for our choices and actions.

 

Just recently saw a comment to this from William James. I paraphrase: Even the option of not making a choice when choices are available is in itself a choice.

 

We can choose to post in any of these threads or we can remain silent and just read the posts.

 

I agree, we had no choice as to where and when we were born. But there is nothing written in stone that says we have to accept all of the rules of where we were born if we feel the rules are wrong. We have the choice of violating the rules or leaving the confines of the limitations.

 

Free will is such a wonderful concept even if there are countless limitations to our freedom. But then we do have the free will to remove some of the limitations if we choose to do so.

 

Peace & Love!

[ralis]

Vajraji,

 

Why do you insist on framing your arguments in elitist absolute terms? I have concluded that you don't understand what defines an absolute. Why? For the simple fact of your use of the is-ness of your beliefs i.e, using the term (is) which you attempt to define a quality of a phenomenon or in general all phenomena. For example, you define the Buddhist cosmos as empty of inherent existence, while at the same time you define an inherent quality of is-ness i.e, luminescence, emptiness,dependent origination and your latest masterpiece "the world only works one way." These terms you use are qualities of existence and yet you insist the universe has no inherent quality of existence.

 

Read this for a more extensive explanation.

 

http://www.transpersonal.com.au/about/is-ness.htm

 

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

Vajraji,

 

Why do you insist on framing your arguments in elitist absolute terms? I have concluded that you don't understand what defines an absolute. Why? For the simple fact of your use of the is-ness of your beliefs i.e, using the term (is) which you attempt to define a quality of a phenomenon or in general all phenomena. For example, you define the Buddhist cosmos as empty of inherent existence, while at the same time you define an inherent quality of is-ness i.e, luminescence, emptiness,dependent origination and your latest masterpiece "the world only works one way." These terms you use are qualities of existence and yet you insist the universe has no inherent quality of existence.

 

Read this for a more extensive explanation.

 

http://www.transpersonal.com.au/about/is-ness.htm

 

 

ralis

 

"Luminous emptiness" only in as much as when your awareness realizes the empty quality of things, your mind shines luminously free from it's conditions. The luminosity is also empty of static self existence. So no, I do not qualify with inherent is-ness. The experience of luminosity still arises dependent upon realization of the empty nature of dependently arisen phenomena.

 

I've already explained this to you ralis, but you don't remember or get the meaning.

 

You are having trouble understanding the meaning of dependent origination. You are having a hard time making the leap in understanding from reading absolutes into the written terminology and not seeing the meaning relative to the statements. Look at what the words are pointing to.

 

The universe only exists relatively based upon what is left over from the previous universe, so on and so forth add infinitum. You need some training in Madhyamaka. Dependent Origination

 

Madhyamaka and Pratityasamutpada

 

See also: Mūlamadhyamakakārikā

 

Though the formulations above appear might seem to imply that pratityasamutpada is a straightforward causal model, in the hands of the Madhyamaka school, pratityasamutpada is used to demonstrate the very lack of inherent causality, in a manner that appears somewhat similar to the ideas of David Hume. Many scholars have agreed that the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā is one of the earliest interpretations of Buddha's teaching on paramartha originated from Pratītyasamutpāda [18][clarification needed] , [19][clarification needed].

The conclusion of the Madhyamikas is that causation, like being, must be regarded as a merely conventional truth (saṃvṛti), and that to take it as really (or essentially) existing would be both a logical error and a perceptual one, arising from ignorance and a lack of spiritual insight.

According to the analysis of Nāgārjuna, the most prominent Madhyamika, true causality depends upon the intrinsic existence of the elements of the causal process (causes and effects), which would violate the principle of anatman, but pratītyasamutpāda does not imply that the apparent participants in arising are essentially real.

Because of the interdependence of causes and effects (because a cause depends on its effect to be a cause, as effect depends on cause to be an effect), it is quite meaningless to talk about them as existing separately. However, the strict identity of cause and effect is also refuted, since if the effect were the cause, the process of origination could not have occurred. Thus both monistic and dualistic accounts of causation are rejected.

Therefore Nāgārjuna explains that the śūnyatā (or emptiness) of causality is demonstrated by the interdependence of cause and effect, and likewise that the interdependence (pratītyasamutpāda) of causality itself is demonstrated by its anatta.

In his Entry to the middle way, Candrakirti asserts, "If a cause produces its requisite effect, then, on that very account, it is a cause. If no effect is produced, then, in the absence of that, the cause does not exist."

Edited June 20, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Stumbling Taoist]

Hmmm ... without free will does that mean everything is cause and effect? If you follow that back about 13.5 billion years ago, then at the start of the Big Bang it was inevitable that we would be having this conversation right now

[ralis]

"Luminous emptiness" only in as much as when your awareness realizes the empty quality of things, your mind shines luminously free from it's conditions. The luminosity is also empty of static self existence. So no, I do not qualify with inherent is-ness. The experience of luminosity still arises dependent upon realization of the empty nature of dependently arisen phenomena.

 

I've already explained this to you ralis, but you don't remember or get the meaning.

 

You are having trouble understanding the meaning of dependent origination. You are having a hard time making the leap in understanding from reading absolutes into the written terminology and not seeing the meaning relative to the statements. Look at what the words are pointing to.

 

The universe only exists relatively based upon what is left over from the previous universe, so on and so forth add infinitum. You need some training in Madhyamaka. Dependent Origination

 

Madhyamaka and Pratityasamutpada

 

See also: Mūlamadhyamakakārikā

 

Though the formulations above appear might seem to imply that pratityasamutpada is a straightforward causal model, in the hands of the Madhyamaka school, pratityasamutpada is used to demonstrate the very lack of inherent causality, in a manner that appears somewhat similar to the ideas of David Hume. Many scholars have agreed that the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā is one of the earliest interpretations of Buddha's teaching on paramartha originated from Pratītyasamutpāda [18][clarification needed] , [19][clarification needed].

The conclusion of the Madhyamikas is that causation, like being, must be regarded as a merely conventional truth (saṃvṛti), and that to take it as really (or essentially) existing would be both a logical error and a perceptual one, arising from ignorance and a lack of spiritual insight.

According to the analysis of Nāgārjuna, the most prominent Madhyamika, true causality depends upon the intrinsic existence of the elements of the causal process (causes and effects), which would violate the principle of anatman, but pratītyasamutpāda does not imply that the apparent participants in arising are essentially real.

Because of the interdependence of causes and effects (because a cause depends on its effect to be a cause, as effect depends on cause to be an effect), it is quite meaningless to talk about them as existing separately. However, the strict identity of cause and effect is also refuted, since if the effect were the cause, the process of origination could not have occurred. Thus both monistic and dualistic accounts of causation are rejected.

Therefore Nāgārjuna explains that the śūnyatā (or emptiness) of causality is demonstrated by the interdependence of cause and effect, and likewise that the interdependence (pratītyasamutpāda) of causality itself is demonstrated by its anatta.

In his Entry to the middle way, Candrakirti asserts, "If a cause produces its requisite effect, then, on that very account, it is a cause. If no effect is produced, then, in the absence of that, the cause does not exist."

 

 

If you care to read this, luminosity has qualities!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminosity

[Vajrahridaya]

Hmmm ... without free will does that mean everything is cause and effect? If you follow that back about 13.5 billion years ago, then at the start of the Big Bang it was inevitable that we would be having this conversation right now

 

Because causes and effects are empty of inherent substance, there is malleability and the more your awareness realizes the empty quality of phenomena, the more free your choices will be from the constructions of history.

 

But yes, in a way you are right as well. But how your awareness is in the inevitable influences the way the inevitable manifests, because your awareness influences your response system. So there is malleability. There is freedom... it's just realizing it is all.

[Vajrahridaya]

If you care to read this, luminosity has qualities!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminosity

 

Of course it has qualities, just as you do and I do but it still all arises dependent upon causes and conditions add infinitum and is without inherent substance, only relative substance.

[Marblehead]

Hmmm ... without free will does that mean everything is cause and effect? If you follow that back about 13.5 billion years ago, then at the start of the Big Bang it was inevitable that we would be having this conversation right now

 

Hehehe. Actually, I see free will and cause and effect to be very similar concepts. Perhaps cause and effect in the middle between free will and destiny.

 

Yes, if we look backward into past time we can easily suggest that what is at theis very moment was destined to happen. However, if we try to look into the future we see nothing because free will is going to possibly change everything that we think is destined to happen.

 

That is the most beautiful aspect of free will - we can change our future.

 

Peace & Love!

[Stumbling Taoist]

Hehehe. Actually, I see free will and cause and effect to be very similar concepts. Perhaps cause and effect in the middle between free will and destiny.

 

Yes, if we look backward into past time we can easily suggest that what is at theis very moment was destined to happen. However, if we try to look into the future we see nothing because free will is going to possibly change everything that we think is destined to happen.

 

That is the most beautiful aspect of free will - we can change our future.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Yes, I prefer to think that we can change the future, that there is not one inevitable future. This may be a delusion on my part, but as Robert Heinlein, one of my favorite authors, wrote, delusions can be useful. For example, parents thinking their children are wonderful keeps the parents from killing their progeny

[C T]

Hehehe. Actually, I see free will and cause and effect to be very similar concepts. Perhaps cause and effect in the middle between free will and destiny.

 

Yes, if we look backward into past time we can easily suggest that what is at theis very moment was destined to happen. However, if we try to look into the future we see nothing because free will is going to possibly change everything that we think is destined to happen.

 

That is the most beautiful aspect of free will - we can change our future.

 

Peace & Love!

Hello MH!

 

When i read this, suddenly a thought popped into my mind: Maybe we see nothing because 'we' as a collective whole do not exist, or exist in the past, and if we can weave in and out of dimensions, we can indeed change our future! (have to quit watching them sci-fi movies!)

 

Have you ever heard astronomers saying that some of the stars that are 'out there', clearly perceptible to our eyes, are in fact, already non-existent, having already burnt out? We still see them due of the time/space factor coming into play. Now just imagine for a minute (hypothetically speaking) we were standing on that star prior to its disintegration, and looking towards earth, do you think the same thing is perceived - a star (earth) that has already become extinct?!! Maybe the view from that star to earth would enable the turning back of time, whereby dinosaurs are still roaming the planet? hehe...

 

To borrow a recently recalled expression.. - Freaky!

 

Vaj is right - there is malleability indeed!!

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

Your not butting in, you can comment on what you like, although I was talking with Marblehead it was in general view of free will for anyone to comment upon, so I don't mind at all.

 

My point was not that there are not obvious consequences, as in if I break a law for example. My point in that post or another, was I disagree that anyone has the fundamental right to make such laws that can govern my life.

 

It's majority rule. if the majority is willing to let people police their sovereignty (inherently giving up such) then there will be police who believe they have authority to police even sovereigns. For the majority is on their side, an egoistic confidence bolster. like i said, you can choose to submit, or you can choose to resist. Resistance is not futile if you maintain your bodily capabilities and preserve that sovereignty with your very life.

 

No rules are currently adhered to by any majorities that say that we must respect the free will of others yet. and until then, sovereigns will never be respected.

 

The 'rules of engagement' are not rules I had a choice in creating. Now I will warrant that some laws are in fact for my benefit, but many others are certainly not. To make a law you have to first come up with concepts of right and wrong, yet I do not believe in absolute right or wrong, so therefore, any punishment I may receive for any possible wrong doing would, in my view, be unjust, no matter I had previous knowledge of the consequences, I do not agree that, in view of the law, there should be any consequences(although I do know there might be).

Absolutely. No one has the right to enforce rule or law over anyone but themselves without breakingthe law of free will, which no majority currently adheres to yet.

I will continueto promote and educate in the ways of free will.

If it was a sport, and I choose to play the sport, then yes, I accept the rules. But, as far as my memory goes, I did not choose to be born in my country of birth, so therefore I did not accept its rules. So in my view, this is an obstruction to me being able to freely exercise my will, as I don't want to be punished so I will then restrict my own actions. I disagree with my self imposed restriction, although I did have the 'free' will to make that choice. It's still, in my view, not freedom.

 

Just because we HAVE free will does not entitle us to being RESPECTED. EVERYONE has free will, but not everyone is going to respect that inherent common ground. We are, as you said, conditioned by our childhoods. it is only those of us who are taught to respect free will who learn to respect free will.

 

 

However, we are children until we die, it is only when we allow our minds to beleive we are not that we lose the ability to learn.

 

Remember that you are a child before god and look for guidance in learning to teach the law of free will so that one day, our descendants can look back on history and thank their ancestors for building a utopia for them.

Who has the right the set up the game rules before I started to play? You present two choices as if these choices, in the first place, are right and proper. Yet I disagree that they are. My sovereignty should not be conditional on what another says is right/wrong and what and how I should be punished for those actions. The tail is wagging the dog.

 

I'S NOT. Your sovereignty is entirely yours to command with no authority above you but the way of the universe. physics are THE law.

 

So it still comes down to two choices. fight or flight. fight for what's right, or flee from your morals.

 

Fight back, stand your ground, PHYSICALLY STATE that you ARE SOVEREIGN.

Or

Dont fight, jsut let them do what they want, sicne we're all going to inevitably die anyways, it doesnt matter, right?

 

 

It's up to you how you conduct yourself. as such is the nature of free will.

 

Just dont expect anyone to repect that till you teach them and give a good and proper example.

 

 

Free will is a conditioned response, to a greater or lesser extent, by the good boy/bad boy, approval/disapproval pat on the head or smack on the bum variety we received in childhood.

 

What people perceive to be their own decisions based on free will, is many times, simply there past conditioning in operation.

 

 

 

 

No need to apologize at all S.S.S, we are all here trying to communicate our ideas and opinions to each other.

 

 

But knowing that y/our free will is conditioned by your childhood, you can then reflect on your childhood and gain new insights that you could not have had as a child, thus altering your free will.

 

 

Reflection is a beautiful element. intangible and nonexistent except in the mind.

[Marblehead]

Yes, I prefer to think that we can change the future, that there is not one inevitable future. This may be a delusion on my part, but as Robert Heinlein, one of my favorite authors, wrote, delusions can be useful. For example, parents thinking their children are wonderful keeps the parents from killing their progeny

 

Hehehe. Well, maybe the parents should drop their delusions. Gotta get a handle on this run-away population growth somehow.

 

But yes, I do hold firmly to the concept that we can change the future through the things we do each and every moment of our life. On the whole the changes would be hardly noticable, if at all, but they likely could be very significant in our own life.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

Hello MH!

 

When i read this, suddenly a thought popped into my mind: Maybe we see nothing because 'we' as a collective whole do not exist, or exist in the past, and if we can weave in and out of dimensions, we can indeed change our future! (have to quit watching them sci-fi movies!)

 

Have you ever heard astronomers saying that some of the stars that are 'out there', clearly perceptible to our eyes, are in fact, already non-existent, having already burnt out? We still see them due of the time/space factor coming into play. Now just imagine for a minute (hypothetically speaking) we were standing on that star prior to its disintegration, and looking towards earth, do you think the same thing is perceived - a star (earth) that has already become extinct?!! Maybe the view from that star to earth would enable the turning back of time, whereby dinosaurs are still roaming the planet? hehe...

 

To borrow a recently recalled expression.. - Freaky!

 

Vaj is right - there is malleability indeed!!

 

Yep. You are right. Too many sci-fi movies. Hehehe.

 

But I do agree regarding the viewing of the stars. As their light takes many years to get here for us to observe I think it is fair to say that some of them have already gone out of existence, burned out, exploded, whatever.

 

But to the opposite view, no, that's not true, they would be seeing earth as it was X number of light years ago. Earth would still exist because you and I are still here.

 

No, you and I are not a figment of someone else's imagination. We do exist.

 

Yes, life is malleable because all is change. But, I don't think this extends into the realm of time/space. I and anyone holding to this concept in any form will likely always disagree. Of course, you already know that I do not hold to the concept of reincarnation so that thought is totally out the window for me.

 

But, since we do have free will it is Vaj's right to believe in it if he wishes to do so. But belief in something doesn't necessarily make it true for anyone else.)

 

Peace & Love!

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

Hehehe. Well, maybe the parents should drop their delusions. Gotta get a handle on this run-away population growth somehow.

 

But yes, I do hold firmly to the concept that we can change the future through the things we do each and every moment of our life. On the whole the changes would be hardly noticable, if at all, but they likely could be very significant in our own life.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

LOL i dont even have enough bones in my body to count all the unruly children that parents should have cooked up for dinner! XD

 

Christian morals have poisoned the environment through human arrogance, ignorance, and interactions thereof by treating the quantity of life as more sacred than the quality thereof.

 

 

No one considers childbirth, raising, or education a responsibility anymore, but the end game goal of their life is to get laid every day.

Everyone just wants to get laid, to hell with the consequences.

 

That automatically deprives responsible individuals of respect and dignity, as well as limits or deprives their ability to establish a working family.

 

...a and what reason do i have NOT to murder, kill, and destroy these wretched creatures?

Just angst, but be that as it may, SOMEONE must take responsibility sooner or later!

 

That someone will have to be the "bad guy" if this gets any further out of hand.

[Marblehead]

LOL i dont even have enough bones in my body to count all the unruly children that parents should have cooked up for dinner! XD

 

Christian morals have poisoned the environment through human arrogance, ignorance, and interactions thereof by treating the quantity of life as more sacred than the quality thereof.

 

No one considers childbirth, raising, or education a responsibility anymore, but the end game goal of their life is to get laid every day.

Everyone just wants to get laid, to hell with the consequences.

 

That automatically deprives responsible individuals of respect and dignity, as well as limits or deprives their ability to establish a working family.

 

...a and what reason do i have NOT to murder, kill, and destroy these wretched creatures?

Just angst, but be that as it may, SOMEONE must take responsibility sooner or later!

 

That someone will have to be the "bad guy" if this gets any further out of hand.

 

Yeah, I hear what you are saying.

 

True, can't be killing them all, afterall, it is against the law.

 

And I do agree that not only the Christian religion holds some blame here but many other religions and cultural beliefs as well.

 

And I do also agree that the irresponsible nature of many people today is part of the problem.

 

But, on the other hand, I would find it sad if a government would take action to deprive its people of its freedom to have say, more than two children.

 

I think it would be far better if the people could somehow be educated to understand that over-populating the planet with people is going to have very negative effects in the near future. Just think, wars being fought over the rights to access to fresh water.

 

And even worse, IMO, a planet with no animals except for rats and people. (These are sometimes one and the same.)

 

But, regretfully, having free will does not necessarily mean that we have a logically thinking brain. We humans can be very illogical sometimes.

 

Peace & Love!

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

Yeah, I hear what you are saying.

 

True, can't be killing them all, afterall, it is against the law.

 

And I do agree that not only the Christian religion holds some blame here but many other religions and cultural beliefs as well.

 

And I do also agree that the irresponsible nature of many people today is part of the problem.

 

But, on the other hand, I would find it sad if a government would take action to deprive its people of its freedom to have say, more than two children.

 

I think it would be far better if the people could somehow be educated to understand that over-populating the planet with people is going to have very negative effects in the near future. Just think, wars being fought over the rights to access to fresh water.

 

And even worse, IMO, a planet with no animals except for rats and people. (These are sometimes one and the same.)

 

But, regretfully, having free will does not necessarily mean that we have a logically thinking brain. We humans can be very illogical sometimes.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

 

Absolutely!

 

 

While i was on the streets last summer, i was preachin' "the homeless revolution", that we all take personal responsibility for our production and progress, rather than placing faith that someone else's responsibility will provide for us.

 

I promote a "goldless" society that values reputation over bank account. Values what you can DO for the community over what you can BUY for the community. Values and respects your personal self over your incorporated self. Values HUMANITY over MACHINERY. Values the lessons of imperfection over the "perfection" of technology.

 

It will take a massive group effort, but if we dont put that effort up, it will never happen.

 

Go out in the streets, talk to the misfortune and deprived. encourage them to take a stand and retake their sovereignty by working together to help each other learn how to respect the law of free will, which protects all willing participants who put an effort to provide that protection, without depriving the willing consent of any others whom have not deprived anyone of consenting free will.

 

If we all dont put forth the effort, we all will suffer for our laziness, as others with all the resources will continue to dominate the wills of the PEOPLE.

 

 

WE the PEOPLE of this planet EARTH are all recognized in the eyes of the ultimate authority over all law(s) as individual sovereign human beings, each one of us responsible only for our own selves and actions with no authorities above us but our victims and the ultimate authority.

 

To create a victim, one must simply disregard another's free will of choice and consent, whereupon trespassing against their consent creates a victim of them and a criminal of you.

 

Upon trespassing against the free will of another, you physically speak into effect that your will need not be respected, and anyone can kill you without committing a crime, for you have given up your rights to free will upon depriving any other of that very same right, without which, our will to live or to prosper becomes Null and void, completely invalid.

 

While only a vast minority adhere to and uphold this law, it is not a law which is recognized in any nationality or court of [human] law, therefore proving that such are all treasonous to life itself and can be legally removed if only the PEOPLE come together and DO it.

[Marblehead]

Absolutely!

 

While i was on the streets last summer, i was preachin' "the homeless revolution", that we all take personal responsibility for our production and progress, rather than placing faith that someone else's responsibility will provide for us.

 

I'm not a street preacher so I would newver get involved in anything like that. But I do, whenever approriate, try to remind people that we all must take responsibility for our own actions and inactions. If we don't someone else will take that responsibility for us and we thereby loose our freedom and free will.

 

I do agree with you to what you said about free will. If I am to demand my freedom of will than I must also afford that freedom to everyone else. But this is not to give anyone the right to do me harm in any way. That is a different issue.

 

Free will requires the accompaniment of responsibility and accountability. If our free will infringes on another's free will then both become null and void. And, if only destiny applied to life there would be no responsibility or accountability.

 

But then, free will does not allow for one person to imprison another in any way. To exercise our free will on others negates the entire concept of free will.

 

We have the responsibility to "do the right thing". No, I don't know what the right thing is. I think this will vary depending on the conditions of what is being considered.

 

Peace & Love!

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

We have the responsibility to "do the right thing". No, I don't know what the right thing is. I think this will vary depending on the conditions of what is being considered.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

SURE you know! in fact you plainly stated it! The right thing is to respect everyone's free will!

 

THERE CAN BE NO WRONG DONE so long as no consent is neglected, no free will is trespassed upon.

For "right" and "wrong" and individual opinions!

 

 

WE ALL Know the truth between right and wrong in our hearts. it is how we are able to take or forsake responsibility for our actions.

 

 

Mind you, i wasnt street preaching, but frequently bringing it up amongst companions, who generally agreed.

 

A few times i spoke of the law of free will in more public places, but i am no soap box preacher, i dont go looking to create drama or to sensationalize the reality of our lives.

 

The only time i "preached" was at homeless feeds, and even that was on an individual basis and more private conversation than actual preaching.

 

 

 

My methods are to conform to the ideals which i am preaching, therefore outright preaching would be contrary to the very ideals i am preaching!

[ralis]

SURE you know! in fact you plainly stated it! The right thing is to respect everyone's free will!

 

THERE CAN BE NO WRONG DONE so long as no consent is neglected, no free will is trespassed upon.

For "right" and "wrong" and individual opinions!

 

 

WE ALL Know the truth between right and wrong in our hearts. it is how we are able to take or forsake responsibility for our actions.

 

 

Mind you, i wasnt street preaching, but frequently bringing it up amongst companions, who generally agreed.

 

A few times i spoke of the law of free will in more public places, but i am no soap box preacher, i dont go looking to create drama or to sensationalize the reality of our lives.

 

The only time i "preached" was at homeless feeds, and even that was on an individual basis and more private conversation than actual preaching.

 

 

 

My methods are to conform to the ideals which i am preaching, therefore outright preaching would be contrary to the very ideals i am preaching!

 

 

It is refreshing to see a free thinker posting here!

 

Thanks

 

ralis

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

It is refreshing to see a free thinker posting here!

 

Thanks

 

ralis

 

NO offense, none what so ever, but that is kind of offensive!

 

 

As if free thinkers were rare or unherd of! well it's not you whom is offending, but the fact of the matter, and that people seem to actually EXPECT conformity over free thought... people encourage it, and then a few, like yourself, are like "wow, that's refreshing".... it's redundantly depriving of the soul to think that way!!! if free thinking refreshes you, why not think freely?

[ralis]

NO offense, none what so ever, but that is kind of offensive!

 

 

As if free thinkers were rare or unherd of! well it's not you whom is offending, but the fact of the matter, and that people seem to actually EXPECT conformity over free thought... people encourage it, and then a few, like yourself, are like "wow, that's refreshing".... it's redundantly depriving of the soul to think that way!!! if free thinking refreshes you, why not think freely?

 

Part of free will is to think freely i.e, out of the box. It also encompasses deep creative imagination.

 

I have grown weary of the small herd of Buddhists posting on here that show no imagination or a willingness to explore outside of their own world view!

 

 

ralis

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

NO offense, none what so ever, but that is kind of offensive!

 

 

As if free thinkers were rare or unherd of! well it's not you whom is offending, but the fact of the matter, and that people seem to actually EXPECT conformity over free thought... people encourage it, and then a few, like yourself, are like "wow, that's refreshing".... it's redundantly depriving of the soul to think that way!!! if free thinking refreshes you, why not think freely?

 

 

huh ?

 

But I do agree with ralis. The elitist sutra pumpers are pretty tiresome...

 

But let's get back to the topic, please... Free Willy

 

Edited June 21, 2010 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

huh ?

 

But I do agree with ralis. The elitist sutra pumpers are pretty tiresome...

 

But let's get back to the topic, please... Free Willy

 

 

 

I CONCUR!

 

Let Will go free! LOL

[Marblehead]

SURE you know! in fact you plainly stated it! The right thing is to respect everyone's free will!

 

THERE CAN BE NO WRONG DONE so long as no consent is neglected, no free will is trespassed upon.

For "right" and "wrong" and individual opinions!

 

WE ALL Know the truth between right and wrong in our hearts. it is how we are able to take or forsake responsibility for our actions.

 

Mind you, i wasnt street preaching, but frequently bringing it up amongst companions, who generally agreed.

 

A few times i spoke of the law of free will in more public places, but i am no soap box preacher, i dont go looking to create drama or to sensationalize the reality of our lives.

 

The only time i "preached" was at homeless feeds, and even that was on an individual basis and more private conversation than actual preaching.

 

My methods are to conform to the ideals which i am preaching, therefore outright preaching would be contrary to the very ideals i am preaching!

 

Yes, a good example is always the best teacher. That is called teaching without the use of words.

 

I have nothing against street preachers as long as they do it respectfully.

 

Yes, free will while doing the right thing is the ideal. But if anyone forces their free will on others then the entire concept is negated. No one has the right (free will) to do me harm. I would have to limit their free will and doing this would make me just as wrong as they were.

 

Like you said, the keyword is "respect".

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

NO offense, none what so ever, but that is kind of offensive!

 

As if free thinkers were rare or unherd of! well it's not you whom is offending, but the fact of the matter, and that people seem to actually EXPECT conformity over free thought... people encourage it, and then a few, like yourself, are like "wow, that's refreshing".... it's redundantly depriving of the soul to think that way!!! if free thinking refreshes you, why not think freely?

 

Funny guy!!!!! Hehehe.

 

Yes, it is refreshing to hear a free thinker who is not trying to force their free thinking on others.

 

Peace & Love!