--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <wayback71@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I rather doubt there's a formless creative intelligence out > > > > there either. > > > > Whether there is god or not I have no idea, but I am not > > counting on it. Some automatic, mechanical energy or tendency > > or physical process that tends to organize and alter and > > destroy physical things sounds likely. > > > > > > For there to be a god the universe would have to not be > > > > how it appears to be, which would be stranger than strange. > > > > I think science is saying that the universe is not how it > > appears to be, at least on the quantum level. Objects really > > are mostly space, not solid, small particles behave very very > > differently than the visible-to-the-eye world suggests. And > > making a Huge leap (this for Barry, especially:-)) science > > is also beginning to suggest that the feeling of having a > > self that decides and manages our thoughts, decisions and > > feelings may also not be as it appears to be. None of this > > means we behave differently, but if it is accurate, it seems > > worth knowing and thinking about. > > I disagree *vehemently* about all of this speculation > meaning that we don't behave differently. Several on > this forum have claimed this, but I don't believe a > word of it. If a person believes fervently in there > being no such thing as free will, how likely are they > to actually act as if they have it? Based on what I > have seen in spiritual circles, it seems more likely > that they'd tend to live their lives more on the level > of the "Nature is organizing for us in the best possible > way" bullshit that the Mother Divine "ladies" threw out > recently to hide the fact that they'd made a horrendous > error of judgment.
I know you disagree vehemently about behavior not changing. It is really hard to discuss this, because it requires assuming 2 points of view (the self does it, or it all happens without a self), and trying to mix them when they cannot be mixed. Worrying about the implications of people understanding that there is no self is valid, but that does not mean it is not true. Here is what I think: there are people who will grab on to the "no free will" concept and abuse it, but I predict not many. Why? Most of us will still be left with the same second to second and minute to minute sense that we personally are doing it all. Most of us are not going to override that ongoing, persistent, seamless "thought." We can't (unless we shift into some Awakened state). And what would be the advantage, really, of just chucking all sense of responsibility? The legal system is there to punish you for big mistakes, and your friends and workmates will nail you if you misbehave. People won't like you. Further, I think there is a sense of a "conscience" built it to our brains, somehow. Most of us have that handily active, unless you are a sociopath. That alone will keep us going, even if intellectually we understand that the self is not the Decider. Finally if the self is not the Decider, but it is all Decided before the self gets involved to take credit, then that Deciding will go on in the exact same way as before, because that is the whole point of this model: being moral is not something the self makes happen; being moral, or not, or somewhere in between, happens without the self. If this is the case, it will continue as before. If we do shift into an Awakened state permanently (which for some people does seem to happen), then apparently things still go on as before, ie new thoughts about how you can do anything without taking responsibility don't suddenly arise. Life just goes on as before because the only thing that has change is the point of view, not the details, not the actions, not the thoughts one entertains (altho apparently thoughts begin to appear less and less often). About Mother Divine - that is a very small group of women who have chosen to live this way (even if their self did not choose it). It is an odd situation, altho one that allows your worst fears to be played out. I get how annoying it is to read about support of Nature when it is used to pass the buck of responsibility. Maybe it would be less offensive if that idea were just left unsaid and they got on with the usual acceptance of life responsibilities, difficulties, disappointments. But that is a more Buddhist approach, and they are Hindu. > > > > Isn't it fascinating, however, how many spiritual seekers > > > (including many on this forum) *assume* that the world is > > > not how it appears to be, and that their view of what it > > > "really is" is more accurate than the way the universe > > > presents itself to them? > > > > > > Just count the number of people who believe that Unity is > > > the "highest reality," and that it trumps and supercedes > > > their own everyday perception of duality. In almost all > > > cases, the people believing this have never *experienced* > > > Unity, not even once, much less as an all-time subjective > > > reality. Yet they are convinced that Unity is the ultimate > > > reality and that their everyday experience is not. Go figure. > > > > > >
