How to regain Free Will and Change Destiny

[stan herman]

The first paragraph went down well.

 

I burped reading the second paragraph. There is much more to logic than that.

 

Logic is rational thinking rather than thinking based on emotions, sensations and instincts.

 

Logical thinking supports my belief in free will.

 

M, not sure you got my meaning in the 2nd. Let me try it another way: the POWER of logical thinking is lesser than the POWER of emotions, sensations and instincts. Except in the cases of truly disinterested scientist, logic can be used to make a case for damn near any position you want to take. Ask any lawyer. Your last comment is an example of logic in service to emotional belief. I'm not criticizing, just observing.

Edited August 21, 2011 by stan herman

[Marblehead]

M, not sure you got my meaning in the 2nd. Let me try it another way: the POWER of logical thinking is lesser than the POWER of emotions, sensations and instincts. Except in the cases of truly disinterested scientist, logic can be used to make a case for damn near any position you want to take. Ask any lawyer. Your last comment is an example of logic in service to emotional belief. I'm not criticizing, just observing.

 

Hehehe. Okay, you did a better job at expressing yourself that time (or I did a better job at understanding).

 

I do agree with you now. Even those of us who pride ourselves on logical thinking get messed up when our emotions, sensations, and instincts get involved.

 

This has been seen time and time again right here on this board.

 

However, if we can mediate our emotions, sensations and instincts there is no reason why they would interfere with our logical thinking and then it would be very powerful.

[stan herman]

Hehehe. Okay, you did a better job at expressing yourself that time (or I did a better job at understanding).

 

I do agree with you now. Even those of us who pride ourselves on logical thinking get messed up when our emotions, sensations, and instincts get involved.

 

This has been seen time and time again right here on this board.

 

However, if we can mediate our emotions, sensations and instincts there is no reason why they would interfere with our logical thinking and then it would be very powerful.

 

I wonder how many people here would choose to 'mediate' there emotions in favor of logical thinking??

[Zhongyongdaoist]

I wonder how many people here would choose to 'mediate' there emotions in favor of logical thinking??

 

I for one would and have done so since I was a teenager.

 

Regrettably the Romanticist coopting of Kant's distinction between Reason and Understanding circa 1800 led to the final schism between reason and spirituality in the West. Compare the situation as described in The Platonic Renaissance in England by Ernst Cassirer, the source of the "I oppose not rational to spiritual; for spiritual is most rational" quote in my signiture, to the developments in the 19th Century described by A. O. Lovejoy in The Reason, The Understanding and Time.

 

Romanticism nails the coffin of classical Rational Mysticism as it developed from Plato to Plotinus shut. We are all the poorer for that loss.

 

Edit, changed 'Compare the situation as described in as described' to its present reading.

Edited August 22, 2011 by Zhongyongdaoist

[Marblehead]

I wonder how many people here would choose to 'mediate' there emotions in favor of logical thinking??

 

Yeah, a question like that asked of me would likely be impossible to answer. I pride myself on my logical thaought of living. But then I love my emotions (I think I have mentioned that before).

 

And too, I love living spontaneously; living in the moment. That wu wei thing.

[Marblehead]

I for one would and have done so since I was a teenager.

 

Regrettably the Romanticist coopting of Kant's distinction between Reason and Understanding circa 1800 led to the final schism between reason and spirituality in the West. Compare the situation as described in The Platonic Renaissance in England by Ernst Cassirer, the source of the "I oppose not rational to spiritual; for spiritual is most rational" quote in my signiture, to the developments in the 19th Century described by A. O. Lovejoy in The Reason, The Understanding and Time.

 

Romanticism nails the coffin of classical Rational Mysticism as it developed from Plato to Plotinus shut. We are all the poorer for that loss.

 

Edit, changed 'Compare the situation as described in as described' to its present reading.

 

You have a good point there. I know I still think (rationalize) like a Westerner. Can't change that. But I know that we can change how we act and react to our thinking.

[stan herman]

You have a good point there. I know I still think (rationalize) like a Westerner. Can't change that. But I know that we can change how we act and react to our thinking.

 

Both this and its predecessor well said, M.

 

The operational description of rationality/logic almost always is different than the theoretical. I know a number of people who believe themselves to be thoroughly rational, and they reason that way until they come to a step in the process that leads them away from their cherished belief.

[Marblehead]

I know a number of people who believe themselves to be thoroughly rational, and they reason that way until they come to a step in the process that leads them away from their cherished belief.

 

Hehehe. That's always the final test, isn't it?

[tulku]

Nevertheless, if a man cultivates himself so as to be able to function in a realm of pure spiritual awareness, he can override the material realm in which karma operates. The influences of Heaven and Earth at any given time are fixed and predictable. Therefore they always exist, but an individual who cultivates so as to transcend the material realm -- so that he forgets both his body and mind -- can become free of all these influences and a master of their fate. He can learn how to control them to create whatever he wills.

 

You do not have to do whatever your emotions, volitions, thoughts and the environment impel you to do, for you can resist these forces if you cultivate mental emptiness free from discriminative thought, mental clinging and attachment. Meditation, in short, is the way to change your fortune.

 

That is how to avoid your fate, alter your fate, change your destiny, transform misfortune into fortune, or however else you might wish to phrase the goal.

 

To do so, you must cultivate detachment from the pull of impelling internal responses, and apply your will to act in the manner proper to the situation.

 

Sometimes you may not be able to escape suffering, but with cultivation you can still find peace in its midst. Sometimes you might not be able to avoid a significant issue, but you may be able to avoid an unfavorable response or unfavorable outcome to a sequence of affairs because you can cultivate emptiness and respond wisely to a situation at hand. That’s where free will comes in, which is a matter of exercising choices.

There is a lot of misunderstanding about this point, but this ability to be free of the influences of Heaven and Earth through cultivation is really linked to the definition of free will. The emptiness of detachment gives you the leeway you need to be able to apply your will in a favorable manner of your own choosing rather than through anything predetermined, but you still have to apply your will and exercise what we call the “great functioning.”

Edited August 25, 2011 by tulku

[Lucky7Strikes]

@ Tulku

 

You need to start citing sources.

[Jetsun]

@ Tulku

 

You need to start citing sources.

 

Or use his own words

[stan herman]

Tulku, I'm in sympathy with the thrust of your message and the energy you put to it, in the sense that it's a call to us to take responsibility for our lives and spiritual development. At the same time though I'm unconvinced by its specifics.

 

Splitting mundane from spiritual

 

One of the frequent patterns I see among us is the inclination to split the mundane world from the spiritual one. This is done in a couple of ways, 1) renouncing worldly concerns as illusory and irrelevant or 2) attempting to 'reform' the mundane world by criticizing its self-centered behaviors and converting everyone possible to selfless, loving feelings and ethics.

 

If one decides to live as a monk or hermit the first way may be appropriate. If one decides to be an activist preacher or politician, the second may be. However, as an ordinary citizen, if one subscribes to either course he or she is mistaken. It is an act that builds a segregated culture in which spiritual seekers either disconnect themselves from the rest of society and its doings or are shunted aside as irrelevant eccentrics by those busy making a living, asserting their ambitions and otherwise 'making their marks' on the world.

 



Perhaps for most seekers this is an unavoidable, necessary stage--at least for a time. (It was for me.) But the divorce need not be permanent. In fact, it may be possible to pursue one's spiritual development in ways that simultaneously improve one's performance effectiveness in the normal and regular functions of daily work and living. There are methods and processes that can not only move one in the direction of enlightenment, but increase one's skills and smarts in the everyday games of life at the same time. Best wishes

[tulku]

Tulku, I'm in sympathy with the thrust of your message and the energy you put to it, in the sense that it's a call to us to take responsibility for our lives and spiritual development. At the same time though I'm unconvinced by its specifics.

 

Splitting mundane from spiritual

 

One of the frequent patterns I see among us is the inclination to split the mundane world from the spiritual one. This is done in a couple of ways, 1) renouncing worldly concerns as illusory and irrelevant or 2) attempting to 'reform' the mundane world by criticizing its self-centered behaviors and converting everyone possible to selfless, loving feelings and ethics.

 

If one decides to live as a monk or hermit the first way may be appropriate. If one decides to be an activist preacher or politician, the second may be. However, as an ordinary citizen, if one subscribes to either course he or she is mistaken. It is an act that builds a segregated culture in which spiritual seekers either disconnect themselves from the rest of society and its doings or are shunted aside as irrelevant eccentrics by those busy making a living, asserting their ambitions and otherwise 'making their marks' on the world.

 



Perhaps for most seekers this is an unavoidable, necessary stage--at least for a time. (It was for me.) But the divorce need not be permanent. In fact, it may be possible to pursue one's spiritual development in ways that simultaneously improve one's performance effectiveness in the normal and regular functions of daily work and living. There are methods and processes that can not only move one in the direction of enlightenment, but increase one's skills and smarts in the everyday games of life at the same time. Best wishes

 

 

the problem with the human race is that their egos care about making their marks on the world.. they want money, women, houses, cars, chocolate cheesecakes and whatever else their perverted desires can conjure up.

 

enlightenment.. true enlightenment is the furthest thing from making a mark on the world.. it has nothing to do with wanting to remold the world..

 

seekers realize that they live in a world which hidden forces control .. and the only way to escape from the tyranny of the hidden forces is to renounce the world..

 

that way, the hidden forces will have no avenues to fcuk with your astral, emotional and mental states through your desires..

 

it is a personal journey to one's within.. it is an individual journey..

 

what does one's enlightenment has to do with one's parents, spouse, children, neighbours, colleagues and the rest of the world?

 

i am surprised that people still can't see the truth of my words or maybe they do not want to see the truth in the first place

Edited August 25, 2011 by tulku

[tulku]