On 25 Oct, 10:32, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks Vam....I too found his apprehension matching things as they are
> from my viewpoint too…almost exactly. And, this is the case even
> though I haven’t practiced Tibetan Buddhism for many years now. Of
> course, the school I’m involved with matches level by level most of
> the Buddhist structure and understanding of mind, with a few small
> exceptions.
>
> I’ve quoted or posted links to Alan’s writings in the past. Having
> been the first westerner to have completed the Geshi degree, 7 years
> or so of education at HHDL’s feet, and mixing this with his studies in
> Western psych and physics, he is able to present a powerful vision
> when it comes to such erudite issues.
>
> On occasion, he does say things that are easily criticized for one
> reason or another. However, having seen how he ‘works’ when he is
> directing specific words to specific questions or issues of people he
> is talking with, my guess is that he consciously uses some license in
> order to present a ‘big picture’. One that, in his words, is
> practical.
>
> If you liked that one, check some of his other papers out Vam. He has
> many there at his Santa Barbara Institute site as well at his personal
> website. Either there are links to the latter from the former or just
> type his name in Google. His personal site is his name.
>
Whilst I share his enthusiasm, it doesn't reak one out of the
space-time continuum, so it only(!) offers a perspective ABOUT free
will, rather than 'solving the problem OF it', which he states hasn't
been resolved. But it has. So he neglects the truth and, if he can
find happiness (or 'bliss') in his ignorance, then that's fine. But,
to me, it's a bit of an ostrich's approach. His "Rather than raising
the ontological question, the metaphysical question – do we have free
will? – there is a much more pragmatic question: can we achieve free
will and how might we do so?". What we have to do is accept the fact
that what we have is illusory and, whilst not true 'free will' a
'practical free will' And, from then, life goes on... The
ontological question has been solved, yet we still 'choose' to hide
our heads in the sand and ignore it. Better to understand from a
position of knowledge than to please oneself with guesswork. I expect
the spit of the bliss of his ignorance will, some day, land in his
face when he discovers the truth. I hope, then, that when that
happens, he can re-achieve his bliss in knowledge.
> On Oct 25, 1:37 am, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > " What do I mean by genuine happiness? Genuine happiness is a quality
> > of well-being that comes not because we’ve encountered some pleasant
> > stimulus from the world – some really good food, a pleasant fragrance,
> > or even a pleasant thought – but rather a quality of well-being that
> > comes from what we bring to the world, rather than what we get from
> > it."
>
> > This must be the second link I must have opened. And how rewarded I
> > am. Thank you, OM !
>
> > I 'll quote Alan Wallace, since he voices my view exactly :
>
> > " What do I mean by genuine happiness ? Genuine happiness is ... a
> > quality of well-being that comes from what we bring to the world,
> > rather than what we get from it."
>
> > " We have perfect freedom when the choices we make from moment to
> > moment, whatever arises, are motivated by compassion, guided by
> > wisdom, and they’re just the right choices based upon sound
> > understanding of what is truly conducive to our own and others’
> > flourishing and well-being, for the alleviation of suffering, for the
> > freedom of everyone."
>
> > " And isn’t it marvelous that whether it is sex, or food, or
> > possessions, or fame, or reputation, or the love and appreciation of
> > others, whatever it is, isn’t it wonderful that we are just not
> > satisfied ? Because if we were satisfied, then we’d cut ourselves so
> > short. It’s that dissatisfaction that moves us, and moves us, and
> > moves us. It does not let us rest until we find what is of greatest
> > meaning, until we discover for ourselves our deepest dimension and our
> > capacity for freedom, for awakening, for genuine happiness."
>
> > On Oct 25, 12:58 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I guess I was also looking for criticism, analysis, opinions, etc.
> > > about this too...In other words:
>
> > > What do you think?
>
> > > On Oct 24, 4:53 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > "B. Alan Wallace addresses the topic of free will: how Buddhism
> > > > focuses on how we may achieve greater freedom in the choices we make,
> > > > rather than struggling with the metaphysical issue of whether we
> > > > already have free will.
> > > > Central to the question of free will is the nature of human identity,
> > > > and it is in this regard that the Buddhist view of emptiness and
> > > > interdependence is truly revolutionary..."
>
> > > > A new article by Alan, the entirety of which can be read at:
>
> > > >http://www.sbinstitute.com/readinglibrary.html
>
> > > > (the first link on the page)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
