Free Will and Choiceless Awareness 

What's the name of the book?

@@nature1080 The Way of Grace: The Transforming Power of Ego Relaxation - Miranda Macpherson

@@Eazy_Danny Thank you!

Siegmar Spruch i would like to know too

Darius, wanted to copy your pose. So well put together. Unfortunately YT doesn't give that option

What Paul Hedderman calls 'selfing'. This terms coins it perfectly.

Ruby Badilla You wrote “Unfortunately, very few crimes are punished in so-called first world societies” and you seem to argue that punishment is an effective tool, even in light of the free-will-discussion. I would like to offer a different perspective: An appreciation of the absence of free will would not lead to more punishment, it would lead to more focus on improving the conditions under which harmful acts arise (e.g. poverty, inequality, lack of education, lack of conflict resolution skills, etc.) If the threat of punishment would have any significant effect, prisons wouldn’t be as full as they are. But there’s a crystal-clear correlation between, say, poverty and crime rate. I would even argue that a full understanding of the absence of free will would lead to the abandonment of the concept of punishment. Sure, we would still lock people up, but not as an act of revenge (which is basically what the idea of punishment is), but as an act of protecting others. The above line of thought also applies to what a society defines as “moral behavior”. Since you mentioned adultery, there are also causes that lead to this behavior, e.g. an inability to communicate desires in a relationship, or an inability to control one’s instincts (the sex drive is one of the strongest after all). These too are things people can learn or at least work on improving. Looking at the condition of the world, the approach of “Thou shalt not...!” has clearly failed. Maybe it’s time to try something else... An interesting point remains: You correctly stated that people can tend to take the idea of no-free-will to give up self-control and engage in destructive, instinctual behavior. As explained, I believe the threat of punishment to be ineffective. So when the evidence against free will becomes so overwhelming that a society as a whole cannot ignore it any longer, how can one help the general population ease into the new paradigm?

We see the world as we are.

Struggle is a man made concept that exists only in the mind. Nothing struggles in the real reality, the quantum realm. You’re whole body is made out of billions of elementary particles that do not struggle to BE at all. Struggle is just a word, a sensation, an idea of the mind.

@@Holywalk1 agreed. Was not meant to be take literal, simply figure of speech.

While I think that's a good point of view, I really believe its just choices happening. Choices being sensed, that the body makes. Why you prefer coffee on the morning? Is that whole universe converging to the decision to take the coffee? In a sense, yes, as the body is part of the universe, but not the whole of course. Free will is a man made concept, such as words, so it's really important to keep that in mind.

@@guillemgarcia3630 I agree that free will and words are man made concepts. Nonetheless, in the world of forms this is how we operate and how we communicate. Remember its all a show, we might as well play along. Back to the coffee example. I believe asking why we chose coffee over tea its the wrong question. Our nature is spontaneous. I (the totality of everything that is) simply chose coffee. Why? Because I did. That fact that I can't point to the reason why, doesn't mean I didn't do it. In the same way I don't know how I beat my heart or how I grow my hair or how I shine the sun, I'm still doing it. Omnipotence is not knowing how or why I do things, Omnipotence is simply doing it. So yes, the whole universe converges so that this mind/body picks coffee over tea. Why? It just does. Doesn't mean I didn't do it. And our true nature of each one of us is the totality of everything that is. So yes choices arises... we are the choices, the body that perceives the choices, and the choice maker all at once. All in an act of spontaneity. That is our true nature. But if its random and spontaneous, how can it be free will? How else could it be free?

You might find more clarity on the subject if, rather than working within the materialist framework, you step outside and ask yourself if you can actually find these things you’re referring to. You seem to be implying that everything is consciousness, as if consciousness is made of things (or as if it contains “all things”). It’s very subtle, but several times, your statements suggest that there is reality in objects. It’s like you’ve got the groundwork of non-duality and you’re trying to superimpose it on duality. (Which I think is a stage “the mind” goes through as thought gives way to Awareness.) Have you looked to see if you can actually find an ego outside of thought? How about genes? Or culture? Or decisions? Or time? Or even an inside and outside of Awareness? It’s easy to say these things are only consciousness (or that they’re made of consciousness), but if you truly only found consciousness, there would be no questions left. There would be no things to act on other things. So then, why construct a materialist explanation full of materialist concepts? To try to make sense of “a world” you can’t actually find? Outside of thought (which also can’t technically be found), no things can be found. How can one thing that can’t be found affect another thing that can’t be found? How can imaginary genes affect an imaginary me? Do those two concepts somehow touch? Can concepts interact? (Even if you believe in concepts, how could “things” with no real form interact?) And in that no-things-found-ness is the freedom that Awareness can’t help but express. That’s its being. Awareness can’t help but experience the fact that it’s unconstrained and unchanged; but when that reality is filtered through the mistaken belief in separation (mind), it gets interpreted by thought as freewill. Freewill is a concept whose sole realty is undivided, unformed, boundless Awareness. The only reality is Awareness. To say freewill is “a part” of Awareness would be inaccurate. Awareness can’t be divided into parts. The same is true of genes and egos and cultures and situations. They are not “parts of the whole.” There’s only wholeness/undivided Awareness/Love. Awareness is not an object (like a pie) that can be divided into bits and pieces and then labeled. There is no subject and object with Awareness. Yes, you can say “these appearances are all just a game/play/dream,” but as long as you believe there’s some reality to that play, there’s not going to be any peace. Until it’s your direct experience that reality is experiencing only itself (as opposed to reality being “the world”) then confusion will continue, and all kinds of theories will continue to appear. If you keep going to direct experience and investigating the veracity of all thoughts, one day the theories will fall away, and only peace will remain. (And then you’ll notice that that’s all there ever was. And THEN you’ll notice that’s all that is. 🙂) BTW, your English is excellent. No apologies necessary ❤️

Nature Boi : You’re right. Avatar Meher Baba explained it this way: “Mind wants to know that which is beyond mind. To know that which is beyond mind, mind must go-vanish, leaving no vestige of itself behind. The humour of it is, the mind, which is finite, wants to retain itself and yet know Truth, which is infinite. This is the position of those who seek Truth through intellect. Few grasp this fact, and so most grope and grapple in vain. “ -Meher Baba

Hahaha

only complicated when u try to get it with the mind because the mind cannot get it alone. It needs the experience. So focus on the "i am" in you consistant to find it .... or not^^

It might just look like so, rn I’m happy to see that all that is is sameness 🎉❤️

We are all John Smith. ;)

It depends on what level you are asking. From the level most of his followers are trying to get to, they arise from the complexity of this life, not from the separate self as there is a separate self. They arise from bodily impulse, psychological conditioning, higher reasoning, and influence of the egoic self.

Is the ego mind aslo then expressing that it is the awareness?

Decisions clearly come from more than just evolution. In the nature versus nurture debate, we clearly see how experience and environment play a huge role in decision making. We can't even make a decision unless it arises out of unique circumstances. But even genetically identical individuals will make different decisions in the same situation based on their conditioned psychology.

wrong chat...

Yes I get what you're saying it's all relevant it's just like we were playing a game of cards and a car drop on the floor and no I noticed then 2 weeks later you're playing cards and someone notices a card missing and was on the floor of the whole time but now the card is scratched and dirty and it's got a bit of dirt looking gravy food maybe some beer it's role in the pack of cards exactly just like Donald Trump they say you really got it nailed it brilliant

@@glynemartin Actually that was a pretty good analogy for the separate self. Not only that but since the separate self is the ego we have a living example of how egoic behavior plays out in real life. A really good analogy actually.

Discovery 184 actually it’s appropriate. It’s an ego/awareness analogy. Awareness is choice-less of course but filtered through egoic thinking and focal point.

It was dead on. I would definitely concede if it weren't. Perhaps more importantly is that the questioner was satisfied with the answer even more so than most questioners.

Yes, these levels can be clearly seen. It goes right along with understanding that everything is a matter of perspective. We are always striving for the ultimate perspective, the highest truth, but that doesn't negate the reality of each level of perspective. Take a drawn circle, for example. Imagine you were a 2 dimensional being on that paper of the 2 dimensional circle. If you remained outside that circle, that circle would always appear as a line segment of a set length no matter which angle you looked at it. Then, if you crossed into the circle, the line segment would appear completely around you, 360 degrees, until you exited the circle. These are the qualities of a circle from a 2 dimensional perspective. Take that exact same circle and view is from 3 dimensions. It would then appear as a perfectly curved, unbroken line. It's shape doesn't morph in relation to itself no matter how close or far you view it or from which direction it is viewed from. How radically different this is from a 2 dimensional perspective. So who's right? The 2 dimensional perspective or the 3 dimensional perspective? I would say they are both correct from their own level of perspective. Try explain that 3 dimensional circle to that 2 dimensional being. It couldn't begin to be possible. From the perspective of the separate self, there is free choice. The separate self IS thought so the thought "I did this" is in a sense its free will. From a higher perspective we know that mechanics that went into any action are much more than the workings of the separate self, if at all. The separate self is a factor in actions, but not in the way it imagines itself to be. And even the impetus for that influence originated outside itself. In this higher perspective we see that free will on the level of the separate self is an illusion. And so on and so on.

If you have found the clown, you don't have to do anything.....welcome home.

@Ruby Badilla I don't know If I believe half of that. I can remember other lives prior to this one, I can see other realities aka through the Mandela effect. Alot of the science stuff is total bs. I recommend you view Nigun John, he has a clearer view of life : ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-UJjAUNFqXcg.html

@Ruby Badilla You need to get beyond concepts to discover what is real. Life is stranger than any conceptual understanding. Try some psychedlics, ayahausca or iboga and you'll have a closer understanding of the underlying reality.

@@mikesimmonds3101 Exactly! Just smile at him and don´t take him seriously, it's a clown!

you look at him

why not? Who do you understand?

@@glynemartin His word are like listening to symphony. Feel good to listen can't go beyond that.

@@raghuram5288 Do you agree with the overall philosophy? Even if you don't fully grasp what has been said here?

@@glynemartin Yes. But is there a method or way to experience Rupert way or just a philosophy of non duality which is understood like science and lived? Can it be practiced? How? Is it a permanent state or temporary? Or Should we fit everything into this philosophy and enquire? Or is it a realization you experience after attaining a state which happens naturally?

@@raghuram5288 _" is there a method or way to experience Rupert way or just a philosophy of non duality which is understood like science and lived?"_ The only one who has Rupert's way is himself, so no one can tell you how to achieve that except Rupert. I think it is a combination of both. How you daily and automatically think about things determines where you really are. _"Can it be practiced? How?"_ It seems to be a combination of having a proper meditation technique (critical) and simply following (and trusting) direct experience. Introspection is also required but i think that happens naturally. It's difficult to unlearn knowledge...so if "it" is acquired i imagine it would be permanent.

The god head is not an object of its own understanding

Clearly he does know more than his audience. There wouldn't be all of these people coming to hear him if he didn't.

tru 100