Lessons - 2

[Gregory Goode]

At 11:33 AM 3/23/98 +0200, Charles Wikner wrote:

>WRONG !!  Like you, I agree with Swami Vishvarupananda, but I do not view
>it as some sort of elitist superior separate belief that negates free will.
>Rather, with increasing vairaagya, a finer level of understanding becomes
>available, and free will assumes a less important role: the larger circle
>of vairaagya includes the smaller circle of free will, as it were; it does
>not exclude it, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

I don't think the finer understanding exlcudes the smaller circle of free
will.  There is a reference point according to which there are strong
experiences of freedom of will.  There is also a reference point according
to which these experiences are understood in a way that doesn't necessitate
or imply free will.

To say that this is not a teaching for everyone is not to say that it is an
elitist view.  No teaching will resonate with everyone, no teaching is
equally useful for everyone.  Hence the variety of teachings.  With respect
to this one teaching on free will, I have seen this teaching be received by
people who then experienced profound, liberating shifts away from
identification with the ego.  With other people, I have seen the teaching
recieved with profound confusion.  People who, as Swami has said, heard
this while they were on a path.  Hearing this teaching, they become
confused and start to try to work this teaching into their world view.
They FEEL like they are the do-ers, they FEEL the activity of a will, but
this conflicts with the teaching from a teacher they respect.  So there's
cognitive dissonance.  So in this, I agree most respectfully with the
Swami, who said,

> > But it is dangerous (for most) to say, I have no choice. Unless
> > one is already a great devotee and set firmly on the path, one
> > will use this as an excuse to follow the dictates of the mind.

>The search then continues until one realises that absolute reference
>point that never moves: only from there can you know the true measure
>of anything with certainty.

> To stop short of that, simply means that
>any judgement will be made according to the limited measure of the ego.
>To judge beliefs as right or wrong is ignorance: view them rather as
>useful or not, appropriate or not.

Any judgment has some measure of ego.  (Even if this is a judgment, it does
too!)


>My point (if there is such a thing) is that there APPEARS to be free
>will, and that any statement that there IS (NOT) free will is simply
>not universally true.

That's right, nothing except Truth Itself is universally true!

--Greg