Destiny or free will? They are just "thoughts"
The question arises, where does it arise from? Let's give an answer where did it come from? Now, for example, I am here asking myself about the reality of the manifestation of our life. Is it accomplished by a set of joint forces and elements that combine according to their laws, or dictates of the case, or is it the result of a voluntary action that tries in every way to forge its form and content? This investigation is the basis of every conceptualization and physical or metaphysical action… In an attempt to understand the nature of our thinking and acting, the men who have preceded us have already questioned themselves and it will be so for those to come…. And the answer?
This text, for example, that I am writing and that you read (assuming that someone reads it ..) where does it come from? How could the ideas contained in it emerge in the mind, how are they shared and understood by the hypothetical reader? The reader understands the issue therefore it means that the dilemma has also arisen ... In any case, this writing is the result of a free choice, an elaborate with a precise intent, deriving from a voluntary process, from a decision to implement the action of thinking and writing? Or is it rather the consequence of a series of self-generated impulses that come together to formulate this article?
Following a hypothetical rational process, at first glance, I would be led to answer that yes, this writing is the result of my decision, it is the result of my personal compositional talent that takes this descriptive form, using the figures of a philosophical reasoning ...
No, I'm not sure ... I'm not sure because I "understand" or intuit that my reasoning is definable only after it spontaneously and without any intention on my part has appeared in my mind. Did it "appear" and from where? The mechanism of the appearance of thoughts is an unknown and unknowable aspect, they arise from an unknown where…. Only after they present themselves before our conscience can we affirm "I have thought about this ...".
In short, we make our thoughts our own after they have come to meet us out of nowhere, we possess them like any other object we call our own (even though they are actually of the earth) ... and then the sense of possession is only a continuous indication of use, a limited use in any case in time and in the quality of its enjoyment...
Everything that we define as “ours” or in which we identify, such as “my body” -for example- or “my mind” is in truth ours only for a habit of use and presence. When we dream we are used to identifying with one of the characters of the dream and we perceive this character as a "me" who relates to other characters operating in a world, the whole dream actually presents itself in front of our conscience and we have no operational control, even if, as in the waking state, we believe we are acting with a purpose, obtaining results or failing to obtain them.
I say “as in the waking state” to insert a quick comparative analogy with the reality of our waking work…. We call our action in the world the result of a free will and we make it, in front of ourselves and others (exactly as in the dream), responsible, we accept the effort of trying to reach a goal, we feel frustrated if we fail in achievement, we consider that our actions are linked to a cause and effect process, we struggle in trying to prefigure an end, and then eventually repent and look for its opposite.
Religions have used this process of becoming and the instability of the mind and the desire for a result (imagined as stable and definitive but vain) to order everyone's life in terms of "direct responsibility" with subsequent final prize as a hell or heaven.
In religious, social, or ideological dualism, in separation from the Whole, the only thing that can be done is to try to obtain good results by using one's own will, which we define as free choice, thus deceiving ourselves of arriving at some outcome that we naively define the "Answer" to our material and spiritual research. Reward and punishment are in our hands ... and with this weight on our back we "trade" and "speculate" with and about God - if we believe him - or with Nature and the laws of the jungle - if we are materialistic atheists - or we do as the superstitious people who say "it's not true ... but I believe it!" ending a little here and a little beyond the imaginary barricade, or perhaps, as often happens to most of us, trying tout court to forget the problem by immersing ourselves in the satisfaction of daily needs and requirements.
But the enigma returns .... It is something unknown and unknowable that comes back to haunt us ... In the end we blame the Gods and the force of destiny! In fact, we observe from direct experience that some things we intend to achieve escape us, while others that we abhor happen.
"We can define this force that makes everything happen God or" swabava ", which means the inherent nature of each one - said Anasuya Devi when I was in Jillellamudi - adding that" this force manifests itself not only in natural and cyclical events but also in the unexpected and even in man's attempt to control the unexpected, and even in the sense of having decided to carry out a certain action or course of action ”.
As if to say that this "force" takes the form of inner compulsion and that we, making the formulation our own, define "free choice" ... In short, free choice is nothing other than the mental development consequential to the inner stimulus received, the banal way through the "force" or "swabava" makes us perform the action "voluntarily".
This does not mean that in our ego, at least that mental reflection of consciousness that we define "I", we are perfectly convinced that the action performed is the result of our decision, that the thought observed is our own, that this writing is arbitrarily made by me drafted, which you are reading at your own option.
"But the fruits of our action are not permanent - said Ramana Maharshi - and chasing the results makes us prisoners of the ocean of" karma "(becoming through action), preventing the understanding of the true nature of Being"
This means that the actions we perform with a purpose, and with identity appropriation of the fulfillment, lead us to experience pleasures and pains. They are actually limited in time but leave seeds in the mind, causing a subsequent effort in avoiding or pursuing certain actions. These seeds (called “vasana” in Sanskrit) push us into an apparently infinite series of entanglements and acts, binding our attention to the external world and preventing the discovery of our true inner nature. Therefore, in the understanding given to action there can be no liberation from the I (ego), which is limited to the body and mind.
It could be objected that if there is no understanding even evolution is not possible, nor the improvement of one's condition ... Yet by accepting the spontaneous growth to which life spontaneously tends (as it is in fact to understand it) we will be "free" to complete all those actions that naturally go in the direction of growth, to fulfill the inner inspiration, without assuming the burden….
Calling it "surrender" to one's inherent nature or performance of one's karmic duty (dharma) at this point doesn't matter, it just happens!
Paolo D’Arpini
This text, for example, that I am writing and that you read (assuming that someone reads it ..) where does it come from? How could the ideas contained in it emerge in the mind, how are they shared and understood by the hypothetical reader? The reader understands the issue therefore it means that the dilemma has also arisen ... In any case, this writing is the result of a free choice, an elaborate with a precise intent, deriving from a voluntary process, from a decision to implement the action of thinking and writing? Or is it rather the consequence of a series of self-generated impulses that come together to formulate this article?
Following a hypothetical rational process, at first glance, I would be led to answer that yes, this writing is the result of my decision, it is the result of my personal compositional talent that takes this descriptive form, using the figures of a philosophical reasoning ...
No, I'm not sure ... I'm not sure because I "understand" or intuit that my reasoning is definable only after it spontaneously and without any intention on my part has appeared in my mind. Did it "appear" and from where? The mechanism of the appearance of thoughts is an unknown and unknowable aspect, they arise from an unknown where…. Only after they present themselves before our conscience can we affirm "I have thought about this ...".
In short, we make our thoughts our own after they have come to meet us out of nowhere, we possess them like any other object we call our own (even though they are actually of the earth) ... and then the sense of possession is only a continuous indication of use, a limited use in any case in time and in the quality of its enjoyment...
Everything that we define as “ours” or in which we identify, such as “my body” -for example- or “my mind” is in truth ours only for a habit of use and presence. When we dream we are used to identifying with one of the characters of the dream and we perceive this character as a "me" who relates to other characters operating in a world, the whole dream actually presents itself in front of our conscience and we have no operational control, even if, as in the waking state, we believe we are acting with a purpose, obtaining results or failing to obtain them.
I say “as in the waking state” to insert a quick comparative analogy with the reality of our waking work…. We call our action in the world the result of a free will and we make it, in front of ourselves and others (exactly as in the dream), responsible, we accept the effort of trying to reach a goal, we feel frustrated if we fail in achievement, we consider that our actions are linked to a cause and effect process, we struggle in trying to prefigure an end, and then eventually repent and look for its opposite.
Religions have used this process of becoming and the instability of the mind and the desire for a result (imagined as stable and definitive but vain) to order everyone's life in terms of "direct responsibility" with subsequent final prize as a hell or heaven.
In religious, social, or ideological dualism, in separation from the Whole, the only thing that can be done is to try to obtain good results by using one's own will, which we define as free choice, thus deceiving ourselves of arriving at some outcome that we naively define the "Answer" to our material and spiritual research. Reward and punishment are in our hands ... and with this weight on our back we "trade" and "speculate" with and about God - if we believe him - or with Nature and the laws of the jungle - if we are materialistic atheists - or we do as the superstitious people who say "it's not true ... but I believe it!" ending a little here and a little beyond the imaginary barricade, or perhaps, as often happens to most of us, trying tout court to forget the problem by immersing ourselves in the satisfaction of daily needs and requirements.
But the enigma returns .... It is something unknown and unknowable that comes back to haunt us ... In the end we blame the Gods and the force of destiny! In fact, we observe from direct experience that some things we intend to achieve escape us, while others that we abhor happen.
"We can define this force that makes everything happen God or" swabava ", which means the inherent nature of each one - said Anasuya Devi when I was in Jillellamudi - adding that" this force manifests itself not only in natural and cyclical events but also in the unexpected and even in man's attempt to control the unexpected, and even in the sense of having decided to carry out a certain action or course of action ”.
As if to say that this "force" takes the form of inner compulsion and that we, making the formulation our own, define "free choice" ... In short, free choice is nothing other than the mental development consequential to the inner stimulus received, the banal way through the "force" or "swabava" makes us perform the action "voluntarily".
This does not mean that in our ego, at least that mental reflection of consciousness that we define "I", we are perfectly convinced that the action performed is the result of our decision, that the thought observed is our own, that this writing is arbitrarily made by me drafted, which you are reading at your own option.
"But the fruits of our action are not permanent - said Ramana Maharshi - and chasing the results makes us prisoners of the ocean of" karma "(becoming through action), preventing the understanding of the true nature of Being"
This means that the actions we perform with a purpose, and with identity appropriation of the fulfillment, lead us to experience pleasures and pains. They are actually limited in time but leave seeds in the mind, causing a subsequent effort in avoiding or pursuing certain actions. These seeds (called “vasana” in Sanskrit) push us into an apparently infinite series of entanglements and acts, binding our attention to the external world and preventing the discovery of our true inner nature. Therefore, in the understanding given to action there can be no liberation from the I (ego), which is limited to the body and mind.
It could be objected that if there is no understanding even evolution is not possible, nor the improvement of one's condition ... Yet by accepting the spontaneous growth to which life spontaneously tends (as it is in fact to understand it) we will be "free" to complete all those actions that naturally go in the direction of growth, to fulfill the inner inspiration, without assuming the burden….
Calling it "surrender" to one's inherent nature or performance of one's karmic duty (dharma) at this point doesn't matter, it just happens!
Paolo D’Arpini