> > There was nothing -- repeat, *nothing* -- in what > > I wrote that suggested or even hinted at determinism. > > Point is, Barry, back then you were arguing > *against* the idea that there was nothing one > could do to become enlightened, and mocking it. > Now you're arguing *for* it, and mocking the > opposite idea. > > I don't care what you want to call it. I'm > just pointing out that your perspective has > changed rather drastically.
No, actually, it hasn't. There is a *great* deal one can do to facilitate the realization of enlightenment. And to block its realization. It's just that neither is the final determining factor, just a factor. Get it now? > > In fact, it was specifically about the randomness > > of the universe. > > You mean, the course of action is unfathomable, > just as Krishna tells Arjuna in the Gita? > > I wouldn't call it "randomness," though, given > what you say above about a "consensus result of > the entire "set" of causes/actions." That sure > ain't randomness. Yes it is. The composition of the "set" is random, at every moment. > > But I can see how it might comfort you to see deter- > > minism all around you, even if it's not really there. > > And I can see how it might comfort you to think > you're in total control. I *am* in total control of the things I do to facilitate my realization of enlightenment. But I am not silly enough to believe that's all there is to it -- "Do X and Y will appear." There are other factors that are not in my control, and they coexist quite peacefully with those that are. There is no conflict in holding both approaches in the mind simultaneously.
