Re: Andy's Questions??

[Guest guest]

Dear Andy, , Hans, etc.

I find your philosophical musings interesting. You are discussing

things that I have been interested in for the past 30 years; however,

since finding The Work of BK 6 years ago, I no longer find them quite

as interesting. Philosopying is no longer as much fun as it used to

be for me. And, I am not sure what all this has to do with the 4

questions and a turn around, not that it has to.

The question of " do we have free will " is intersting but for me, it

is impossible to answer. I can never really know that I do or I

don't have free will. I can not even know for sure if I have

something I call " will " at all.

My concept of what God is is really quite irrelevant to anything at

all. I can not even know what I am or if there is such a thing as

I. I read what the Non-Dual teachers, including , have to say

and it sounds correct; however, it certainly is not always my

experience. I inquire on my thinking and I find that " my own

thinking is not even true for me. " So, if my own thinking is not

true then everything I think (or everything I think I think) is a lie.

The Course In Miracles tells me that the only true thoughts are the

Thoughts of God. Well, that sounds right, but I don't know which

ones they are? If I feel what I call love for myself or for someone

or something else, is that caused by a God Thought? Is there someone

or something else to love? Is there a me to love someone or

something else? Who the hell knows?

This must be why says that philosophy is such a " slippery

thing " and she does not know about philosophy, she only " knows what

hurts and what doesn't " and not even that.

What comes to me is that my typing this is a complete waste of time;

however, I can not really know that that is true. That is merely a

story I have laid on top of the belief that I have done something.

Oh well, whatever!

Steve D.

If I take your statements and do The Work on them, perhaps I will

learn something about myself?

> > *****If the control is " shared " (with God or anything

> else)....then

> > some of it is not yours. That is not " free. "

> >

> > If the will is " limited " by all the circumstances you listed

> > (spiritual, physical, mental, emotional), and I'm in agreement

> with

> > you here, then it is NOT free.

>

> But Andy, you believe that if free will has it's limitations it is

> not free?

> I can grasp that perception of course... but a strong remaining

> choice there would be that in order for us to have total free will,

> we have to be God.

> Well while I don't believe that the whole is the sum of the parts,

> but moreso the whole is even more than the sum of the parts (GOD).

>

> Still I believe we have free will, with limitations of course, so

> therefore, with the boundaries of the forementioned concepts, it is

> not total.

> Maybe a word like " free within reason of universal boundaries "

would

> be more convenient, to me this is free will you see, this is how I

> see the word... and define it

>

> > Free will means exactly what it says: that at any moment you

> > are " FREE " to choose between Option X and Option Y.

>

> In our mind, we are all magicians, what we can imagine, we make

> real, within, but to make it real in the matter of flesh, the

> physical, is not always possible, therefore limited and so I can

> understand your thought that it isn't free.

>

> But still, free will has it's boundaries. We have free will to

think

> about what we want, to imagine anything we want to imagine, to

> strive towards what is under the wings of our perception, therefore

> free will, it is an abstract power, abstract concept.

>

> The physical world is simply a temporary state of our abstract self.

> So simply because my will can't make the Mount Everst turn into a

> chicken, in the physical, it still can in my mind, free will is

> abstract, cleverly designed for our spiritual progression and yet

> bound by where we lead it as God is forever accessible, yet not

> steering us necessarily towards everything we do, act, say or think

> etc.

> More so the grandfather of energy, within everything, yet letting

> his grandchildren paint the picture by the best of their own

choices

> and abilities, still we only have the given frame to paint within,

> but free within this we are... young Jedi lol, sorry Andy I

> couldn't help myself

>

> > A psychotherapist I know, when confronted with these

> interpretations,

> > admitted that she saw no way to honestly assert that our choices

> > are " freely " made. But she also stated, paradoxically, that life

> > without the sense of our having free will would be " unbearable "

to

> > her, so the illusion persists in her thinking. You, too, seem

> > subject to this state of mind. That's cool. But don't attempt

to

> > twist the notion of " free " to fit what is patently not free.

>

> Then you are assuming you are right Andy, of course, that free will

> is an illusion. That when believing in free will one is subject to

> this state of mind.

> I wouldn't know Andy, I can't give you any answer. I don't find

your

> thoughts distressing when I share them, I think they are beautiful.

> Still it doesn't change anything for me, I feel I have free will,

> and in the universe free will I believe has certain boundaries, so

> the myth of " total " free will may not be but... within reason it

> just is, be.

>

> Your advice on me not attempting to twist the notion of " free " to

> fit what is patently not free is not something I can or desire to

> promise you... again I simply do not know Andy.

> I go by what I go by, and believe it or not, I am happy with it.

> Again what is patently not free, will always be under the light of

> the beholder, for dissection or what have you.

> Maybe to the good of the beholder, I wouldn't know, maybe you are

> absolutely head on in your analazys? Or maybe the very old

> saying " disfigurement through the course of analyze " comes to play

> as well?

> I wouldn't know, but still I believe

>

>

> > God is All Things.

> >

> > *****Then you, me, Tom, Steve, nne.......everyone (as well

as

> > every thing) is God. It is not that God is " in " us: it is, quite

> > literally, that every entity in phenomenality IS God. Either God

> IS,

> > literally, All Things, or It is not.

>

> Well God is All, yes I believe this, but still the word " is " is

> always dependant on the use of the user. So IS may be something

that

> is far bigger than our present ability to encompass all universal

> truth, God being there still.

> I do not believe every entity is God, but I believe God's heritage

> that may be equal to part of God, is within all, like a lightseed.

> I do not believe ALL of God is within every entity.

> But moreso as I said, parts, lightseeds, are the essence of

> everything. I do not see this truth in black or white, I don't

think

> I do

> Or maybe different parts of God, different aspects, some with their

> own mind and indivuduality?

> Like the animals in the ocean, the ocean aren't the animals, still

> the ocean is within every animal, water And the Ocean is God,

the

> essence, the rest are parts, but indivudual, you see?

> Perhaps you can understand what some of my views are, that all of

> God is not within every entity, but that within all is a part of

> God, do you see?

> The word " IS " , is it so that we are actually limiting that truth?

> That it is really more than anyone at this time, state etc can

grasp

> around totally?

>

>

> > The Great Spirit is an androgynous Power that contains both the

> > masculine and feminine aspects within It; and this is why we, who

> > have a spark of the Divine Spirit within us, are also

> > androgynous in essence.

> >

> > *****Then why refer to It as a " He " (as in your comment " God is

> > constantly re-cycling Himself. " )?

>

> Why not Andy? It's part right anyway, you seemed to understand

> what what (whom) I ment perfectly, otherwise you would probably not

> have questioned it?

>

>

> > You did say you believe, Andy, that all actions are from IT?

> >

> >

> > *****Even more than that. All actions ARE " IT. " All that is, is

> It,

> > with no exclusions. This universe, and all the others (should

> they

> > exist), are nothing more or less than It manifesting ItSelf. It

> > isn't that there are actions which " come from " IT (a

duality: " the

> > actions " and " IT " ): the actions themselves are IT, in manifest

> form.

>

> Yes, very interesting thoughts, no doubt I will have them with me

to

> look at every now and then for a longer time

>

> But still... I do not believe the one excludes the other.

> Contradictions can be seemed so simply because we aren't there yet,

> our hugs around it have to short arms to grasp it, so we clutch for

> straws, getting little by little Maybe, of course.

>

> > Then yes, whatever we can do, doing, have done, are from IT... and

> > isn't IT beautiful?

> >

> > *****Some things I do not find beautiful. That is simply not how

> the

> > conditioning here responds to certain events and behaviors.

>

> Glad you are sharing this with me Andy.

> So, am I getting you at least somewhat right that you believe that

> God (IT) isn't always beautiful, if God truly is equal in essence

to

> everything that he resides in?

>

> Sometimes I see things as not so beautiful also, down right

> sinister, sometimes.

>

> I'm not done with anything, I believe I am constantly evolving.

> Both in the flesh, obviously, and in spirit, in knowledge and the

> proper application of knowledge = see wisdom.

>

> It is very nice, and fun to write you Andy, to see your replies,

> again Monthy Python comes to mind, lol, so amusing

>

> Take care!

>

> - Hans