Click here to go to the next issue.

Ramesh Balsekar:
>
> One must abandon the cleverness of reason for bewilderment,
>
_______________________________________________________

DUTCH (Jan K.)

Supertramp:
When I was young, it seemed that life was so wonderful,
a miracle, oh it was beautiful, magical.
And all the birds in the trees, well they'd be singing so happily,
oh, joyfully, oh, playfully, watching me.

But then they sent me away to teach me how to be
sensible, logical, oh, responsible, practical.
And they showed me a world where I could be so
dependable, oh, clinical, oh, intellectual, cynical.

There are times when all the world's asleep,
the questions run too deep
for such a simple man.
Won't you please, please tell me what we've learned?
I know it sounds absurd
please tell me who I am.
_________________________________________________

JERRY answers the Noumenon free will vs. determinism question:


I can't comment on the specific views of J. Krishanmurti or
Balsekar, because I don't know what they said or the context
in which their statements were made. Living in the moment,
what is said is said for the moment and then it is gone. It
is gone as soon as it is said. Any utterance is so fleeting,
it may be said that it was never said at all!

Seeing that fleetingness, the question that arises out of
the question of free will is, What was the question? Was
there a question uttered? I thought I heard a question
posed. For an instant I saw a whisp of vapor in the blue sky
and now all is blue again.

But wait: Is there free will in Life or is all
pre-determined? Assuming that there is Life and that there
are occurrences, I then ask whether there is an entity Jerry
Katz who is capable of acting freely. I then ask what it
means to act freely, to do one thing with free will. At this
point I look at the other side of the coin and ask what it
means for one event to be pre-determined.

And it is at this point that, frankly, I am stuck, because
whatever arises in thought or perception in not the case; it
is not going to be the answer. So why continue?

I am left re-reading Kriben's question and looking for
resonance. I find resonance in hearing that life is like
improvisation, meaning, to me, that life is being made up
moment to moment. It means that life arises moment to
moment.

If life arises moment to moment, nothing can be pre-destined
and there is nothing but free will. That free will is so
pure, so fleeting, that to capture it, to 'see' it, is to be
struck down. To remember it is to have the impression that
there is free will. But to see it from moment to moment is
to be struck down, which means that the freedom is so great
that there is only the freedom arising and shining. Because
that is what is, it is our destiny; it is as though
pre-determined, because what other choice is there? There
are no choices possible. Yet what IS, is unspeakable
freedom. Intuiting that, life feels improvisational. And it
is why the Guru -- and there is only one Guru -- can utter
through one side of the mouth that there is free will, and
through the other that all is pre-determined.
__________________________________________________________

DAN"s version:

D: The observer constructs the observed
as the observed constructs the observer.
The observer freely constructs the observed,
as the observer is determined by the observed.
Freedom and determinism mutually imply
and define each other.
As observer is the observed, neither observer nor
observed exist as entities.
Reality is, ultimately
nondeterministic, as it would require an
ultimate entity of some kind
to determine an outcome.
And whatever determined that entity would be another
entity, ad infinitum.
Thus: nondetermined universe.

The Present 'originates' and
*is* past, present, and future.
__________________________________________________

>Greg wrote: Upon analysis however, a free action and a free chooser
>cannot be found.
>-------------------------
>
Larry:
>Analysis has proven itself incapable of finding anything; so it has
>therefore disqualified itself as a viable means of determining truth or
>determining anything at all.

That's right Larry-ji!!! And with the end of viable means of determining
objective truth and other stuff, objective truth itself and all other
stuff comes to an end. Truth and stuff, in order to be determined, depends
on analysis. And analysis, in the need of raw material and true
statements, depends on truth and stuff.

--Greg
____________________________________________________________

MARCIA & PHIL

& And are we now saluting time honored and
& conventional methods? Last time I looked, time
& honored and conventional were not big on
& anybody's list around here.
&
& Marcia

This was just to point out the difference between,
on the one hand looking for evidence of free will,
and on the other hand believing it exists because
somebody says it does. Evidence is convincing, or
at least more convincing than belief. Wouldn't
you agree?

This moment is all that is. This moment is all
that it is. In this moment is neither will nor
the lack of will. There is nothing lacking and
nothing to be gained ... here and now. That is
freedom. Love it or analyze it.

Freely and willfully,
Phil
_______________________________________________

MELODY

It depends on which 'I'/eye I'm looking through.

Looking thru the eye of ego, freewill is a given.
If not for freewill, the ego would atrophy for
lack of use!

Looking thru the eye of Self, the idea
of freewill is rather amusing.

Free of what?
As Self, what IS there to be free of?

______________________________________________

TIM

Since the projection (everything perceivable and conceivable) is itself
something that can be both perceived and conceived, it appears as something
similar to an endless hall of mirrors.

The projection is perceived within the projection, which is perceived
within the projection, which is perceived within the projection...
seemingly endlessly, but with no beginning, no cause. The projection
itself appears within the projection!

Thus, in the end, there is a return to reality for those who see the
projection clearly and deeply, see through it. In clear seeing, there is a
transcendence, and thus no more projection. The seeing, however, must be
complete. There must be a real knowing of the projection as only
projection. Then, and only then, this knowing spontaneously goes, to be
replaced with nothing. "Realization," if it consists of anything, consists
of only LOSS - loss of concepts (whether dearly held onto or despised),
loss of endless, uncontrollable mind-monkey thought, loss of everything.
Nothing (and Everything) is the "replacement."

Within the projection, it's as if we're seeing reality in a set of carnival
mirrors. One gives the appearance of being short, another of being tall,
another of a giant torso but tiny head and legs, another of stretched head
but a miniaturized torso and legs.... None of these reflections are true.

Knowing the projection as projection, "remembering" it regularly in daily
life, is bound to result in the dissolution of the projection. Any clear
seeing of an *object* results in the dissolution of that object. The
Projection is an object - everything perceivable and conceivable taken
together as a single object. Remove that object, see through its apparent
reality, and there is only Eternal Subject.

The Buddhists have a saying: First, there are mountains and rivers. Then
there are no mountains and rivers. Later, there are mountains and rivers
again.

Thus ends this series of "teachings." There is nobody here 'qualified' to
be a teacher, but there is always the chance these posts may have stirred
the reality "within you," the "Inner Guru" or "Satguru."


[If anyone is interested in receiving the full "projection" series, all
four parts posted to NDS, please Email me at core@zipcon.net and I will
send all parts together. These will eventually be posted on 'The Core"
website].
____________________________________________________________


MARCIA sends:

At the risk of offending the non-Gurdjieff people, I would
like to quote something from Views from the Real World.

"Question: Has free will a place in your teaching?

Answer: Free will is the function of the rea I, of him whom
we call the Master. He who has a Master has will. He who has
not has no will. What is ordinarily called will is an adjust-
ment between willingness and unwillingness. For instance, the
mind wants something and the feeling does not want it; if the
mind proves to be stronger than the feeling, a man obeys his
mind. In the opposite case, he will obey his feelings. This is
what is called "free will" in an ordinary man. An ordinary man
is ruled now by the mind, now by the feeling, now by the
body. Very often he obeys orders coming from the automatic
apparatus; a thousand times more often he is ordered about by
the sex center.

Real free will can only be when one I always directs, when
man has a Master for his team. An ordinary man has no mas-
ter; the carriage constantly changes passengers and each pas-
senger calls himself I.

Nevertheless, free will is a reality, it does exist. But we, as
we are, cannot have it. A real man can have it.

Question: Are there no people who have free will?

Answer: I am speaking of the majority of men. Those who
have will-have will. Anyway, free will is not an ordinary phe-
nomenon. It cannot be had for the asking, cannot be bought in
a shop."
_____________________________________________________________________

TIM

"To whom does this question of free will and predestination arise,
and why does it concern the questioner?"
~~~~~~~
JODY

Isn't the whole question rendered moot when we ask ourselves,
"Who is the one who exercises free will?"
____________________________________________________

MANCHINE (Dave)


When the questions drop, it's because there's just one big
answer.

Be a tree today. Why not? It's possible, I've done it.
At least the questions are different.

Be a couple of other things, and then feel the common thread.
Then you'll see what illusion is. Then you'll see what you've
been. Then you'll see Reality. Glorious Reality.
________________________________________________________

LARRY

No need for trepidations. Ignorance is my greater glory, error a long
time friend. Ignorance is Brahman, Atman is knowledge. Knowledge is a
wave, but ignorance is ocean. What could be easier! Free and easy; isn't
that a poem or something?
~~~
GREG

Yeah! I love this list. All questions answered. All answers questioned.
There's some big waves of knowledge in your ocean Larry. Surf's up.
____________________________________________________________
>
> >--------------I don't see it as an either / or situation. Both
happen
> >for me at the same time. Acquiring beliefs is not a problem as
long
> >as we don't believe them.
-----------------------------------------------------
> Spoken like the great Yogi Berra himself!
>
> --Greg
---------------------------------------------------------
It is actually a quote from him. What he was trying to say is that
belief systems develop. It is something the mind does, along with
drawing conclusions about things. The point is not to stop beliefs or
conclusions but to recognize them for what they are. That is clear
seeing.......shri shri yogi berra ki jai!!!
................matthew
________________________________________________

MICHAEL

Enjoy - or not - as you will.
----------------------------------
CASE 30. BASO'S VERY MIND

Daibai asked Baso, What is the Buddha?"
Baso answered, "The mind is the Buddha."

Mumon's Comments:
If you fully understand Baso's meaning, you are wearing Buddha's
clothes, eating Buddha's food, speaking Buddha's words, doing
Buddha's
deeds, that is to say, you are Buddha himself. But Baso misled not a
few people into erroring the principles of Zen. He does not realize
that if we explain the word "Buddha" we must rinse our mouths for
three days afterwards. If he is a man of understanding, he would
cover
his ears and run away hearing Baso say, "The mind is the Buddha!"

Under blue sky, in bright sunlight,
One need not search around,
Asking around what Buddha is,
is liking the stolen goods in one's pocket and declaring oneself
innocent.

top of page