Can spirituality exist without God?

Edward Flores4 said:Once the thoughts drop away, the "self" drops away too... but here's the thing—thoughts don't just disappear; they are the primary layer, while we are essentially secondary.

Choice isn't born from a "self"; it's a byproduct of perception. And perception? It's really just a mirror reflecting the environment back at us.

I don't identify anyone "inside myself" with the absolute. Honestly, nothing exists outside of the absolute. The "self" only exists in a relative sense—relative to "you" or "them." Think of it like this: individual leaves on a single branch, individual branches on a tree, individual trees in a vast forest, and individual forests spread across the entire planet...

And it just goes on and on... everything depends on the level of "magnification" you're using. It’s like looking at a rug. Up close, a dense, tightly woven rug looks solid and uniform, but if you look through a magnifying glass, you see a web of individual fibers that seem to vanish into one another, only to resurface as part of the whole surface again. If you focus on just one fiber, it feels solid and distinct—until you pop it under a microscope and discover the dance of molecules and complex structures. At one level, you're an individual; at another, you're just a tiny part of a much larger pattern. Instead of some "individual" at the "top" making all the calls, every single "level" makes its own local decisions for its own specific scale. This is what I call spiral dynamics, and it creates this persistent illusion of the "ego"—this little biological sack full of bones and tissue that blindly believes it's somehow separate from the rest of existence.

Edward Flores4 said:No problem.

Well, if you define using common sense, logic, and intuition as a "spiritual technique"—then sure, I guess so... but personally, I just call it being rational and following my gut. 😁

"Understanding is not a point of view"
Marshall McLuhan

When you read my post, you grasped the process—the analogy, specifically. But there’s a massive difference between understanding a concept, executing a method, and truly having an insight. Techniques require action, they take time, and all that extra effort... but seeing reality for what it actually is requires you to stop "doing." It’s about simply ceasing to project your own biases and fears onto the world; once you stop doing that, reality becomes visible instantly. Honestly, maintaining an illusion takes a ton of effort, energy, and mental bandwidth. That constant striving is exactly the "technique" you're already practicing. There's really no point in swapping one method for another—whether it's something Eastern, Islamic, or Jungian... the goal is to move past techniques altogether. The whole idea is just to *be* and to reflect, rather than to constantly practice and interpret everything.

I'm honestly not sure how else to put this... if that doesn't make enough sense, then at least one of us isn't thinking straight. 😁

hiddenpuma75 said:"Quote:"

I’m with you on this one. I’d go so far as to say we’re actually standing on very similar ground, even if we’re using different metaphors to describe it.

I have a few questions:

How do you personally process—or even react to—those people who insist there’s always "something more"? You know the type: they claim that our understanding, whether it's mine, yours, or anyone else's, can never truly be the final destination. Even when things finally seem to settle, they argue we haven't reached the end. What's your take on that?
That’s exactly what I’ve been trying to drive home in my recent posts.

I’m just drifting through this world—or maybe I'm more like a leaf, tossed about by whatever breeze decides to pick up. 😁 I recently stumbled upon some profound insights from Buddha, along with some teachings from a cigarette vendor in Mumbai named Nisargadatta. Then there’s this woman, Bernadette, who claims she can see what lies beyond—insisting that they all exist in "that place" somewhere else.
They aren't exactly saying there’s anything wrong with you just because you decided to take a break while someone else keeps pushing through their practice.
But they can testify to it—to that actual realization, that direct experience of "THAT."
It’s pretty telling how they both use the exact same language and descriptions. It’s the exact same situation. Even though they’ve never actually met.
Some people would argue that this whole reality we’re living in—you, me, and everyone else who isn't "over there"—is nothing more than one big, beautiful illusion.
It’s something everyone eventually has to face, simply because the game is rigged from the start.

2) There are certain people, particularly here in the States, who literally... For sale. So, here’s my take on your "understanding"—that whole idea of "stopping." It feels a bit like you're selling this concept that everything is already fine and you can just... stop and exist. Like, you don't even need to bother with any specific techniques because you've essentially already arrived.

It all started with Alan Watts, but these days, it’s turned into a full-blown industry. You've got guys like Andrew Cohen, Gangaji, and Satyam Nadeen leading the charge—along with a whole host of others popping up like mushrooms after a heavy rain on the American spiritual marketplace.

Just to be clear, they aren't claiming to be one and the same. Special. They actually achieved more than just putting things on hold and trying to make sense of it all.

My three main witnesses—Buddha, Nisargadatta, and Aunt Bernadette—wouldn't hesitate to back me up on this one.
What if there’s actually something more to discover once we move past the stage of understanding and finally learn how to just stop?

So, you're suggesting we just ditch the techniques altogether? Alright, I hear you. I think I'm starting to see where you're coming from.
But how exactly are you going to respond to that latest riddle from the Sphinx?

Isn't choosing to stay out of politics actually a political stance in itself?
In other words...

Isn't non-doing actually its own kind of technique? I mean, just like any other method, choosing to step back and let things be is a deliberate form of action in itself. 🙂

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? I'd love to hear your take.

Edward Flores4 said:Once the thoughts drop away, the "self" drops away too... but here's the thing—thoughts don't just disappear; they are the primary layer, while we are essentially secondary.

Choice isn't born from a "self"; it's a byproduct of perception. And perception? It's really just a mirror reflecting the environment back at us.

I don't identify anyone "inside myself" with the absolute. Honestly, nothing exists outside of the absolute. The "self" only exists in a relative sense—relative to "you" or "them." Think of it like this: individual leaves on a single branch, individual branches on a tree, individual trees in a vast forest, and individual forests spread across the entire planet...

And it just goes on and on... everything depends on the level of "magnification" you're using. It’s like looking at a rug. Up close, a dense, tightly woven rug looks solid and uniform, but if you look through a magnifying glass, you see a web of individual fibers that seem to vanish into one another, only to resurface as part of the whole surface again. If you focus on just one fiber, it feels solid and distinct—until you pop it under a microscope and discover the dance of molecules and complex structures. At one level, you're an individual; at another, you're just a tiny part of a much larger pattern. Instead of some "individual" at the "top" making all the calls, every single "level" makes its own local decisions for its own specific scale. This is what I call spiral dynamics, and it creates this persistent illusion of the "ego"—this little biological sack full of bones and tissue that blindly believes it's somehow separate from the rest of existence.

rustymaker5 said:But does that mean there are actually situations out there where we have absolutely zero choice?

I honestly think we need to take a moment to really unpack this. It’s one of those things that seems simple on the surface, but once you start peeling back the layers—kind of like peeling an onion, if you will—you realize there’s a whole lot more going on under the hood than most people give it credit for. It’s easy to just skim over the details, but if we want to actually get somewhere meaningful here, we have to be willing to sit with the complexity for a bit. I’ve always felt that the best way to approach these kinds of discussions isn't by rushing to a conclusion, but by being deliberate—taking that slow, steady walk through the logic rather than sprinting toward a finish line that might not even be where we intended to go. Anyway, just my two cents on why I think we should dig a little deeper. kaže:
I see exactly where you're coming from, but I’m struggling to wrap my head around this idea of things happening "against my will." If we follow that logic, the "I" isn't even really mine to begin with—it’s just a collection of thoughts. And honestly, I can't even tell if those thoughts are actually mine or if they're just passing through, which leaves me in a bit of a loop: I can't even determine if I possess free will in the first place, let alone how to exert it.

I honestly can't wrap my head around how some people approach this—it’s like watching someone try to assemble an IKEA bookshelf without the instructions and then getting frustrated when they have three leftover screws. There's a specific kind of mental friction that happens when you're trying to reconcile deep, philosophical truths with the messy, loud reality of everyday life in America. It’s not just about understanding a concept intellectually; it’s about how that concept actually sits in your gut when you're stuck in traffic on the I-95 or dealing with a stressful Monday morning at work. It reminds me of what we were discussing earlier—that tension between the ego's need for control and the actual flow of things. You can read all the books you want, spend hours meditating, or dive deep into the teachings of someone like Nisargadatta, but if you haven't integrated that stillness into your "real" world, it’s almost like practicing yoga in a vacuum. It’s one thing to be calm in a quiet room, but it’s an entirely different beast to maintain that center when everything around you is pulling you in ten different directions. I think we often overcomplicate the process by looking for some grand, sweeping epiphany, when really, it's more about these tiny, incremental shifts in perspective—sort of like how a pilot makes constant, minute adjustments to keep a plane steady through turbulence rather than making one giant turn. We have to learn to navigate those micro-adjustments in our own consciousness. It’s a slow burn, not a lightning strike. kaže:
And besides, you still haven't actually given me an answer regarding that whole "self-awareness" question.

Kenneth Peterson5 said:Look, I get what you're trying to say—really, I do—but I don't see how anything can even be "against my will" when this whole concept of "me" isn't even mine to begin with? It's just a collection of thoughts, and honestly, I don't even know if those thoughts are actually *mine* or just some random brain noise, so how am I supposed to know if I have free will or not?
Plus, you totally dodged my question about "self-awareness."

Look, the reason I keep hitting you with these questions is because what you're claiming is actually pretty interesting—really, it is—but it's equally "interesting" how you won't give me a straight answer and instead just dance around the point. So, hey, if I'm getting under your skin—which, by the way, maybe that nerve isn't even yours, but mine—just say so and we can drop the whole "me" vs "you" thing. This topic is one of those things where you can talk forever and never really get anywhere, and honestly, I don't even know how to finish this sentence without making it a total slog to read, which might lead to a misunderstanding, but whatever, since misunderstanding usually comes before understanding anyway... and since the whole goal is to eventually understand, I guess I'm just overcomplicating everything just to see if I can provoke you into being simple for once. 😁

Don't go throwing imperatives at me, come on, you know how this works. 😁

briskraven28 said:On what basis do you conclude that thoughts do not vanish? Have you ever actually "been" "in" a "state" "without" "thoughts"—that is, "in" "nonexistence"?

What distinction (i.e., how do you separate them) exists between "choice, perception, self, mirrors, and surroundings"?

Can "you" make decisions based on "the decisions of everyone else" if "nothing exists except the absolute"?

What is the "level of magnification" relative to the "absolute"?

What is "free will" relative to the "absolute"?

What are your thoughts on "meaning"?

briskraven28 said:On what basis do you conclude that thoughts do not vanish? Have you ever actually "been" "in" a "state" "without" "thoughts"—that is, "in" "nonexistence"?

What distinction (i.e., how do you separate them) exists between "choice, perception, self, mirrors, and surroundings"?

Can "you" make decisions based on "the decisions of everyone else" if "nothing exists except the absolute"?

What is the "level of magnification" relative to the "absolute"?

What is "free will" relative to the "absolute"?

What are your thoughts on "meaning"?

briskraven28 said:On what basis do you conclude that thoughts do not vanish? Have you ever actually "been" "in" a "state" "without" "thoughts"—that is, "in" "nonexistence"?

What distinction (i.e., how do you separate them) exists between "choice, perception, self, mirrors, and surroundings"?

Can "you" make decisions based on "the decisions of everyone else" if "nothing exists except the absolute"?

What is the "level of magnification" relative to the "absolute"?

What is "free will" relative to the "absolute"?

What are your thoughts on "meaning"?

briskraven28 said:On what basis do you conclude that thoughts do not vanish? Have you ever actually "been" "in" a "state" "without" "thoughts"—that is, "in" "nonexistence"?

What distinction (i.e., how do you separate them) exists between "choice, perception, self, mirrors, and surroundings"?

Can "you" make decisions based on "the decisions of everyone else" if "nothing exists except the absolute"?

What is the "level of magnification" relative to the "absolute"?

What is "free will" relative to the "absolute"?

What are your thoughts on "meaning"?

briskraven28 said:On what basis do you conclude that thoughts do not vanish? Have you ever actually "been" "in" a "state" "without" "thoughts"—that is, "in" "nonexistence"?

What distinction (i.e., how do you separate them) exists between "choice, perception, self, mirrors, and surroundings"?

Can "you" make decisions based on "the decisions of everyone else" if "nothing exists except the absolute"?

What is the "level of magnification" relative to the "absolute"?

What is "free will" relative to the "absolute"?

What are your thoughts on "meaning"?

briskraven28 said:On what basis do you conclude that thoughts do not vanish? Have you ever actually "been" "in" a "state" "without" "thoughts"—that is, "in" "nonexistence"?

What distinction (i.e., how do you separate them) exists between "choice, perception, self, mirrors, and surroundings"?

Can "you" make decisions based on "the decisions of everyone else" if "nothing exists except the absolute"?

What is the "level of magnification" relative to the "absolute"?

What is "free will" relative to the "absolute"?

What are your thoughts on "meaning"?

hiddenpuma75 said:"Quote:"

I’m with you on this one. I’d go so far as to say we’re actually standing on very similar ground, even if we’re using different metaphors to describe it.

I have a few questions:

How do you personally process—or even react to—those people who insist there’s always "something more"? You know the type: they claim that our understanding, whether it's mine, yours, or anyone else's, can never truly be the final destination. Even when things finally seem to settle, they argue we haven't reached the end. What's your take on that?
That’s exactly what I’ve been trying to drive home in my recent posts.

I’m just drifting through this world—or maybe I'm more like a leaf, tossed about by whatever breeze decides to pick up. 😁 I recently stumbled upon some profound insights from Buddha, along with some teachings from a cigarette vendor in Mumbai named Nisargadatta. Then there’s this woman, Bernadette, who claims she can see what lies beyond—insisting that they all exist in "that place" somewhere else.
They aren't exactly saying there’s anything wrong with you just because you decided to take a break while someone else keeps pushing through their practice.
But they can testify to it—to that actual realization, that direct experience of "THAT."
It’s pretty telling how they both use the exact same language and descriptions. It’s the exact same situation. Even though they’ve never actually met.
Some people would argue that this whole reality we’re living in—you, me, and everyone else who isn't "over there"—is nothing more than one big, beautiful illusion.
It’s something everyone eventually has to face, simply because the game is rigged from the start.

2) There are certain people, particularly here in the States, who literally... For sale. So, here’s my take on your "understanding"—that whole idea of "stopping." It feels a bit like you're selling this concept that everything is already fine and you can just... stop and exist. Like, you don't even need to bother with any specific techniques because you've essentially already arrived.

It all started with Alan Watts, but these days, it’s turned into a full-blown industry. You've got guys like Andrew Cohen, Gangaji, and Satyam Nadeen leading the charge—along with a whole host of others popping up like mushrooms after a heavy rain on the American spiritual marketplace.

Just to be clear, they aren't claiming to be one and the same. Special. They actually achieved more than just putting things on hold and trying to make sense of it all.

My three main witnesses—Buddha, Nisargadatta, and Aunt Bernadette—wouldn't hesitate to back me up on this one.
What if there’s actually something more to discover once we move past the stage of understanding and finally learn how to just stop?

So, you're suggesting we just ditch the techniques altogether? Alright, I hear you. I think I'm starting to see where you're coming from.
But how exactly are you going to respond to that latest riddle from the Sphinx?

Isn't choosing to stay out of politics actually a political stance in itself?
In other words...

Isn't non-doing actually its own kind of technique? I mean, just like any other method, choosing to step back and let things be is a deliberate form of action in itself. 🙂

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? I'd love to hear your take.

The experience of "That" really does exist—but unfortunately, there isn't a single thing you can do to go out and grab it. Well, actually, there is one way... you can "die." If you don't realize it right then and there, you'll eventually see that this whole existence was just one incredibly complex, perfectly choreographed game. So, I’m with you regarding your three witnesses, but I honestly feel like experiencing "That" isn't something you can just achieve through various "techniques"—except for one specific scenario, but I'll save that little secret for later...

hiddenpuma75 said:"Quote:"

I’m with you on this one. I’d go so far as to say we’re actually standing on very similar ground, even if we’re using different metaphors to describe it.

I have a few questions:

How do you personally process—or even react to—those people who insist there’s always "something more"? You know the type: they claim that our understanding, whether it's mine, yours, or anyone else's, can never truly be the final destination. Even when things finally seem to settle, they argue we haven't reached the end. What's your take on that?
That’s exactly what I’ve been trying to drive home in my recent posts.

I’m just drifting through this world—or maybe I'm more like a leaf, tossed about by whatever breeze decides to pick up. 😁 I recently stumbled upon some profound insights from Buddha, along with some teachings from a cigarette vendor in Mumbai named Nisargadatta. Then there’s this woman, Bernadette, who claims she can see what lies beyond—insisting that they all exist in "that place" somewhere else.
They aren't exactly saying there’s anything wrong with you just because you decided to take a break while someone else keeps pushing through their practice.
But they can testify to it—to that actual realization, that direct experience of "THAT."
It’s pretty telling how they both use the exact same language and descriptions. It’s the exact same situation. Even though they’ve never actually met.
Some people would argue that this whole reality we’re living in—you, me, and everyone else who isn't "over there"—is nothing more than one big, beautiful illusion.
It’s something everyone eventually has to face, simply because the game is rigged from the start.

2) There are certain people, particularly here in the States, who literally... For sale. So, here’s my take on your "understanding"—that whole idea of "stopping." It feels a bit like you're selling this concept that everything is already fine and you can just... stop and exist. Like, you don't even need to bother with any specific techniques because you've essentially already arrived.

It all started with Alan Watts, but these days, it’s turned into a full-blown industry. You've got guys like Andrew Cohen, Gangaji, and Satyam Nadeen leading the charge—along with a whole host of others popping up like mushrooms after a heavy rain on the American spiritual marketplace.

Just to be clear, they aren't claiming to be one and the same. Special. They actually achieved more than just putting things on hold and trying to make sense of it all.

My three main witnesses—Buddha, Nisargadatta, and Aunt Bernadette—wouldn't hesitate to back me up on this one.
What if there’s actually something more to discover once we move past the stage of understanding and finally learn how to just stop?

So, you're suggesting we just ditch the techniques altogether? Alright, I hear you. I think I'm starting to see where you're coming from.
But how exactly are you going to respond to that latest riddle from the Sphinx?

Isn't choosing to stay out of politics actually a political stance in itself?
In other words...

Isn't non-doing actually its own kind of technique? I mean, just like any other method, choosing to step back and let things be is a deliberate form of action in itself. 🙂

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? I'd love to hear your take.

I can't speak for everyone else, but if you look at what Alan Watts was actually getting at, he didn't claim that realization was some impossible myth. Quite the opposite. He argued time and again that the only real way to actually experience it is to stop chasing it—to basically give up the desire to reach it in the first place. Of course, being who he was, he’d always explain that paradox in such a vivid, colorful, and genuinely entertaining way—usually peppered with those clever little metaphors he was so good at. It makes you wonder, though... if the only "technique" is to have no technique at all, does that mean the lack of a method is actually the method itself?

hiddenpuma75 said:"Quote:"

I’m with you on this one. I’d go so far as to say we’re actually standing on very similar ground, even if we’re using different metaphors to describe it.

I have a few questions:

How do you personally process—or even react to—those people who insist there’s always "something more"? You know the type: they claim that our understanding, whether it's mine, yours, or anyone else's, can never truly be the final destination. Even when things finally seem to settle, they argue we haven't reached the end. What's your take on that?
That’s exactly what I’ve been trying to drive home in my recent posts.

I’m just drifting through this world—or maybe I'm more like a leaf, tossed about by whatever breeze decides to pick up. 😁 I recently stumbled upon some profound insights from Buddha, along with some teachings from a cigarette vendor in Mumbai named Nisargadatta. Then there’s this woman, Bernadette, who claims she can see what lies beyond—insisting that they all exist in "that place" somewhere else.
They aren't exactly saying there’s anything wrong with you just because you decided to take a break while someone else keeps pushing through their practice.
But they can testify to it—to that actual realization, that direct experience of "THAT."
It’s pretty telling how they both use the exact same language and descriptions. It’s the exact same situation. Even though they’ve never actually met.
Some people would argue that this whole reality we’re living in—you, me, and everyone else who isn't "over there"—is nothing more than one big, beautiful illusion.
It’s something everyone eventually has to face, simply because the game is rigged from the start.

2) There are certain people, particularly here in the States, who literally... For sale. So, here’s my take on your "understanding"—that whole idea of "stopping." It feels a bit like you're selling this concept that everything is already fine and you can just... stop and exist. Like, you don't even need to bother with any specific techniques because you've essentially already arrived.

It all started with Alan Watts, but these days, it’s turned into a full-blown industry. You've got guys like Andrew Cohen, Gangaji, and Satyam Nadeen leading the charge—along with a whole host of others popping up like mushrooms after a heavy rain on the American spiritual marketplace.

Just to be clear, they aren't claiming to be one and the same. Special. They actually achieved more than just putting things on hold and trying to make sense of it all.

My three main witnesses—Buddha, Nisargadatta, and Aunt Bernadette—wouldn't hesitate to back me up on this one.
What if there’s actually something more to discover once we move past the stage of understanding and finally learn how to just stop?

So, you're suggesting we just ditch the techniques altogether? Alright, I hear you. I think I'm starting to see where you're coming from.
But how exactly are you going to respond to that latest riddle from the Sphinx?

Isn't choosing to stay out of politics actually a political stance in itself?
In other words...

Isn't non-doing actually its own kind of technique? I mean, just like any other method, choosing to step back and let things be is a deliberate form of action in itself. 🙂

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? I'd love to hear your take.

Actually, it’s more like... well, it becomes a technique only when you consciously choose to do nothing despite having every reason to act. In that sense, it’s clearly a "strategic" move—just another layer of technique, if you will. But I should probably warn you that by looking at it this way, we’re essentially just playing word games and diluting the whole point. The real kicker is this: the number of hours you spend sitting in some specific posture, desperately trying to "stop" your thoughts, isn't going to help you experience "that." Sure, it might have plenty of other beneficial side effects—maybe it helps with focus or just calms the nerves—but it won't lead you directly to realization. Realization is ALWAYS spontaneous, totally unexpected, and more often than not, completely paradoxical. It's because truth—whatever that may be—is almost always found by stripping away its opposite.

Kenneth Peterson5 said:Look, I don't really have some massive, definitive stance on this whole "problematic mess"; right now, I'm just asking questions—you know, following that old school rule where curiosity doesn't kill the cat.😲😁

I’d love for you to clear a few things up for me:
If the thoughts passing through my head aren't actually *mine*—if they belong to some other "me"—then the whole concept of "self-awareness" starts looking pretty shaky, doesn't it?
Plus, it feels totally backwards to claim we have free will within a "self" that isn't even truly ours to begin with.

Edward Flores4 said:The experience of "That" really does exist—but unfortunately, there isn't a single thing you can do to go out and grab it. Well, actually, there is one way... you can "die." If you don't realize it right then and there, you'll eventually see that this whole existence was just one incredibly complex, perfectly choreographed game. So, I’m with you regarding your three witnesses, but I honestly feel like experiencing "That" isn't something you can just achieve through various "techniques"—except for one specific scenario, but I'll save that little secret for later...

I can't speak for everyone else, but if you look at what Alan Watts was actually getting at, he didn't claim that realization was some impossible myth. Quite the opposite. He argued time and again that the only real way to actually experience it is to stop chasing it—to basically give up the desire to reach it in the first place. Of course, being who he was, he’d always explain that paradox in such a vivid, colorful, and genuinely entertaining way—usually peppered with those clever little metaphors he was so good at. It makes you wonder, though... if the only "technique" is to have no technique at all, does that mean the lack of a method is actually the method itself?

Actually, it’s more like... well, it becomes a technique only when you consciously choose to do nothing despite having every reason to act. In that sense, it’s clearly a "strategic" move—just another layer of technique, if you will. But I should probably warn you that by looking at it this way, we’re essentially just playing word games and diluting the whole point. The real kicker is this: the number of hours you spend sitting in some specific posture, desperately trying to "stop" your thoughts, isn't going to help you experience "that." Sure, it might have plenty of other beneficial side effects—maybe it helps with focus or just calms the nerves—but it won't lead you directly to realization. Realization is ALWAYS spontaneous, totally unexpected, and more often than not, completely paradoxical. It's because truth—whatever that may be—is almost always found by stripping away its opposite.

Edward Flores4 said:If we’re operating under the idea that "failing to see an option" and "having no options" are essentially two sides of the same coin—technically speaking—then yeah, those situations definitely exist. Personally, I haven't found myself backed into a corner like that (at least none that I can recall right now), but the world is a massive place... I'd imagine that every once in a while, somewhere out there, choices just vanish entirely.

jademarlin26 said:You’ll know you are truly free when you stop encountering choices altogether; true freedom cannot coexist with even a single option. It always amuses me when people use phrases like "...well, you still have the freedom to choose...". It sounds incredibly shortsighted because, in my view, the two concepts are mutually exclusive. 🙂

Any action taken from the perspective of such a lack of freedom is mere self-delusion, providing nothing more than a false sense of satisfaction and success.

hiddenpuma75 said:I’d like to share a dialogue from what I consider to be one of the most important books in existence, if not the most important. 😲

I AM THAT - by NISARGADATTA MAHARAJ

Conversations with a cigarette vendor from New York City—a man who reached "the other shore."

*****

Fisherman: How can I plan my life using my free will?

Nisargadatta: Why bother planning? Questions like that just reveal inner tension.
Realize that you aren't the master of everything that unfolds.
You can't control the future, except perhaps in purely technical matters.
----------------------------------------------------------------
P: I agree, I'm certainly not the master of all that happens. More like a slave.

NM: Don't be the master, and don't be the slave. Just remain detached.
------------------------------------------------------

P: Does that mean avoiding action altogether?

NM: YOU CANNOT AVOID ACTION. It happens, just like everything else.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

P: But surely I can control my own decisions and choices!
NM: Try it. YOU WILL SOON DISCOVER THAT YOU ARE DOING WHAT YOU MUST.

----------------------------------------------------------

P: But I am able to act according to my free will.

NM. YOU ONLY KNOW YOUR WILL AFTER YOU HAVE ALREADY ACTED.

----------------------------------------------------------------

P: What if I simply remember my desires and decisions, and then act accordingly?

NM: In that case, it is your memory deciding, NOT YOU.
-----------------------------------------------------

P: But doesn't free will actually exist? Am I not free to want things? 😢

NM: Oh, no. You are compelled to want. Did you know that in Hinduism, the very idea of free will doesn't even exist—to the point that the language doesn't even have a word for it!
Will is just attachment; it is fixation. It is a bond.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

P: Then I am free to choose my own boundaries.

NM: First, you have to be free. To be free within the world, you must be free FROM the world. Otherwise, your past is making the decisions for you. You find yourself trapped between what happened and what must happen. You might call that fate or KARMA, but it is never what you call it—freedom.
First, you must return to your true self (experience who you really are—self-realization), and only then can you act from the heart of pure love.

The mind can only help you identify what isn't true. But if you want real, positive knowledge, you have to move beyond the mind. The Absolute is that which transcends the mind.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P:
Is there anything in the entire universe that is truly worth anything?

NM: Yes. The power of love. 🙂