On 27 Oct, 07:17, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote:
> And, Pat, how do you know that Alan does not know ' the truth ?'
> Unless you are claiming copyright infringement !
>
(snicker) Relative truths can't be copyrighted, as they vary at
every turn. Absolute truths can't be infringed; especially given only
One.
> On Oct 27, 1:08 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > No Pat, published papers seldom if ever ‘reak’ (sic ?) one out of the
> > space-time continuum. One shouldn’t expect such a result, should they?
>
> > And, if I read it correctly, Alan’s words “…I don’t see any
> > resolution in sight…” were directly connected to and a commentary on
> > his previous “The topic of free will is something Western
> > philosophers, scientists and theologians have been debating in the
> > West for more than 200 years.”
>
> > Pat, how can you say that this debate has been resolved? Perhaps in
> > your mind you have no question about it for whatever reason, but the
> > debate to me appears to continue. For you to then conclude from
> > something clearly not the case that he ‘neglects the truth’ smacks of
> > the fanatic rather than a scientist.
>
> > And I can only assume from your later words:
>
> > “..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...”,
>
> > that you didn’t read the article because that is imputed and more.
>
> > Normally I appreciate your contributions, however unless you are
> > purposefully being argumentative, obtuse and provocative here, your
> > derision is not only misguided and uncalled for but totally
> > unsupported.
>
> > On Oct 26, 10:44 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > 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 -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
