Freewill Revisited

[Trailblazer]

Absolutely. The question then becomes: In what sense could we have chosen otherwise in the past if our will was only aligned with what we chose ?

We cannot change anything we chose in the past, we can only try to make good choices in the present. I am faced with having to make some major decisions right now and I am not sure what I will do. I am still gathering the information I will need to make the choices.

 

[Curious George]

It is verifiable by assessing how we make choices.
If the way we make choices relies on what we want to do, then there is no way around since it is impossible to ultimaltely choose what you want because it would lead into an infinite regress. Suppose I told you to choose to hire a minion, you would need to want to do it in the first place. Assuming that is not really what you want to do, you would need to choose to want to hire a minion before choosing to hire a minion. Putting aside what reason there would be for doing so, you would still need to want to want to hire a minion now. And there goes the infinite regress.

Again without control, such sentiments are meaningless. If you have no control over what you assess or how you assess it, then you have no means to assert that such is the case. What you believe is the case is merely a feeling that ypu cannot but assert.

 

[Koldo]

We cannot change anything we chose in the past, we can only try to make good choices in the present.

Could we truly have done anything different in the past ?

I am faced with having to make some major decisions right now and I am not sure what I will do. I am still gathering the information I will need to make the choices.

Honestly that is the best one can do.

 

[Koldo]

Again without control, such sentiments are meaningless. If you have no control over what you assess or how you assess it, then you have no means to assert that such is the case. What you believe is the case is merely a feeling that ypu cannot but assert.

I don't need to have control over what I assess nor how I assess. I just need to be able to assess it to say so.
If you can explain on what basis you choose what you want without leading into an infinite regress I am all ears.

 

[Trailblazer]

Could we truly have done anything different in the past ?

I think we could have but since we didn't there is no point thinking about it now. The past is gone and the future is not here yet. All we have is the present. If I have to plan for something like an appointment or decisions have to be made within a time frame I do that but otherwise I never plan ahead.

Honestly that is the best one can do.

Thanks. You seem pretty wise for your age.

 

[Curious George]

I don't need to have control over what I assess nor how I assess. I just need to be able to assess it to say so.
If you can explain on what basis you choose what you want without leading into an infinite regress I am all ears.

Certainly you need control. Withput which ypu can make no claim abput what you assess.

That you can interact with your environment. You want to claim that each decision is a product of prior brain states, and thos prior states are a product of chemical reactions.

Our awareness and thought influence our chemical reactions, our brain states, and our decisions. In short, our consciousness influences and exerts control over every step in the process of doing.

Furthermore, we are aware of our decision-making. We are also aware of reflexive action. We can see and feel the difference. Yet, you would have us believe that all action is merely reflexive responses.

Our consciousness is the mechanism by which we can choose without leading to infinite regress. And those thoughts and decisions that occur are not merely a reflex but a product of both our awareness, our memory and stimuli interacting. This is not reducible. Trying to reduce these thoughts to prior causes in itself is an error.

I always find it interesting discussing freewill with determinists as they never fail to have a very limited and linear view of causation (the assumption on which they try to ground their argument). Causation is very similar to a function. You are given one and only one output per input. While both freewill and randomness allow for more than one output for the same input.

 

[Koldo]

Certainly you need control. Withput which ypu can make no claim abput what you assess.

Then prove it.

That you can interact with your environment. You want to claim that each decision is a product of prior brain states, and thos prior states are a product of chemical reactions.

I don't want to claim that. I am claiming that, although, of course, there are constant external influences.

Our awareness and thought influence our chemical reactions, our brain states, and our decisions. In short, our consciousness influences and exerts control over every step in the process of doing.

Or so you claim. But empty claims are empty.

Furthermore, we are aware of our decision-making. We are also aware of reflexive action. We can see and feel the difference. Yet, you would have us believe that all action is merely reflexive responses.

Making choices is not an ordinary reflexive process. It involves being aware of the alternatives you have and then assessing which one fits your will.

Our consciousness is the mechanism by which we can choose without leading to infinite regress. And those thoughts and decisions that occur are not merely a reflex but a product of both our awareness, our memory and stimuli interacting. This is not reducible. Trying to reduce these thoughts to prior causes in itself is an error.

Explain the mechanism through which consciousness allows you to choose without leading to infinite regress then.
How does someone make choices without them being strictly related to what they want to do ?
As it is, you are just throwing around the word 'consciousness' as if it solved the problem but it does not.

I always find it interesting discussing freewill with determinists as they never fail to have a very limited and linear view of causation (the assumption on which they try to ground their argument). Causation is very similar to a function. You are given one and only one output per input. While both freewill and randomness allow for more than one output for the same input.

And I always find it interesting to discuss with free will libertarians as they fail to grasp the logical blunder in their position.

 

[Curious George]

Then prove it.

I already have. Without control over what you assess or how you assess ones claims are simply flights of fancy. Let us assess the nth term of a series without control over what we are assessing or how we are assessing it. Please explain how this is possible?

I don't want to claim that. I am claiming that, although, of course, there are constant external influences.

hmm, aren't you contradicting yourself now? You were just claiming that we couldn't do anything without first wanting to do it.

Or so you claim. But empty claims are empty.

Determinist philosophy seems to overflow with cliches.

Making choices is not an ordinary reflexive process. It involves being aware of the alternatives you have and then assessing which one fits your will.

I agree. But if we are in fact making choices, then we have freewill.

Explain the mechanism through which consciousness allows you to choose without leading to infinite regress then.
How does someone make choices without them being strictly related to what they want to do?

Related to what they want to do is very different from the only possible result of what they want to do.

As it is, you are just throwing around the word 'consciousness' as if it solved the problem but it does not.

No, i am pointing out that our consciousness plays a role in our decisionmaking.

And I always find it interesting to discuss with free will libertarians as they fail to grasp the logical blunder in their position.

Perhaps it is because there is not one. Determinism, much like solipsism is the contradictory and counter intuitive claim. It is the determinists who need to provide extraordinary evidence. I have yet to see any evidence however that does not assume freewill in an attempt to provide such evidence.

 

[Koldo]

I already have. Without control over what you assess or how you assess ones claims are simply flights of fancy. Let us assess the nth term of a series without control over what we are assessing or how we are assessing it. Please explain how this is possible?

How is it not possible ?
I have no control over what I am hearing right now, why would I need to have it to assess what I am hearing ?

hmm, aren't you contradicting yourself now? You were just claiming that we couldn't do anything without first wanting to do it.

In what way am I contradicting myself ?
How did you interpret what I have said in that quote ?

Determinist philosophy seems to overflow with cliches.

Libertarian free will is as cliche as it can get.
Regardless, being cliche has no relevancy here.

I agree. But if we are in fact making choices, then we have freewill.

That, of course, depends on what you mean by 'choices'.
If by making a choice you mean assessing what you want to do then no free will is required.

Related to what they want to do is very different from the only possible result of what they want to do.

No, i am pointing out that our consciousness plays a role in our decisionmaking.

Of course it plays a role in our decisionmaking, I wouldn't call it a choice if it didn't.
But rather than being the one in charge, it is, in a sense, the middleman between our will and the external world.
I will repeat myself since you haven't addressed this part: Explain the mechanism through which consciousness allows you to choose without leading to infinite regress then.

Perhaps it is because there is not one. Determinism, much like solipsism is the contradictory and counter intuitive claim. It is the determinists who need to provide extraordinary evidence. I have yet to see any evidence however that does not assume freewill in an attempt to provide such evidence.

Quantum mechanics is counter intuitive, even contradictory. So what ?
That says nothing about its validity. The evidence for the non-existence of free will is in the way we make choices and the proper use of logic. Nothing else is required.

 

[Curious George]

How is it not possible ?
I have no control over what I am hearing right now, why would I need to have it to assess what I am hearing ?

But you do have a degree of control over what you hear.

In what way am I contradicting myself ?
How did you interpret what I have said in that quote?

When I say you should do something, I mean that I want you to want to do that thing, but if you can't, well... you can't.

Suppose I told you to choose to hire a minion, you would need to want to do it in the first place

You have made it clear that in order to do something one must want to do that something first. When I stated that you wanted to do something you tried to draw some distinction between wanting to do something and doing something. Such a distinction is contradictory to your point that they are one in the same.

Libertarian free will is as cliche as it can get.

If by cliche you mean self evident, i could agree.

Regardless, being cliche has no relevancy here.

as much relevance as your response had. Do you have any reason to doubt my claim that awareness affects chemical reactions, thoughts, and action?

That, of course, depends on what you mean by 'choices'.
If by making a choice you mean assessing what you want to do then no free will is required.

Sure. That too. Freewill is required.

Of course it plays a role in our decisionmaking, I wouldn't call it a choice if it didn't.
But rather than being the one in charge, it is, in a sense, the middleman between our will and the external world.
I will repeat myself since you haven't addressed this part: Explain the mechanism through which consciousness allows you to choose without leading to infinite regress then.

Consciousness is the mechanism by which we can choose without leading to infinite regression.

Quantum mechanics is counter intuitive, even contradictory. So what ?
That says nothing about its validity. The evidence for the non-existence of free will is in the way we make choices and the proper use of logic. Nothing else is required.

That is your extraordinary evidence? Lol. Physics is hard, but pragmatic-- so no freewill!

While you may have some deductive roadmap that got you from point A to point B in your head regarding this statement, such ideas did not make it into words.

 

[Koldo]

But you do have a degree of control over what you hear.

How so ?
What if I couldn't move my body nor plug my ears ?
In what sense is control required to assess what I am hearing ?

You have made it clear that in order to do something one must want to do that something first. When I stated that you wanted to do something you tried to draw some distinction between wanting to do something and doing something. Such a distinction is contradictory to your point that they are one in the same.

You need to want to do something before you choose to do something.
They are not one and the same because one comes before the other.
One entails the other though.

If by cliche you mean self evident, i could agree.

We are all indoctrinated into thinking that we have free will.
It takes effort to go beyond this indoctrination.

as much relevance as your response had. Do you have any reason to doubt my claim that awareness affects chemical reactions, thoughts, and action?

Irrelevant.
'Affects' doesn't mean 'control'.

Sure. That too. Freewill is required.

You have yet to prove it.

Consciousness is the mechanism by which we can choose without leading to infinite regression.

Explain the mechanism through which consciousness allows you to choose without leading to infinite regress then.
You are merely stating its name. You might as well have stated the mechanism is intestinal gases. If you can't explain in what way it solves the problem, you haven't addressed the matter.

That is your extraordinary evidence? Lol. Physics is hard, but pragmatic-- so no freewill!

While you may have some deductive roadmap that got you from point A to point B in your head regarding this statement, such ideas did not make it into words.

I have explained the thought process. If you disagree, point the flaw. If you can't, all you have is empty claims.

 

[Curious George]

How so ?
What if I couldn't move my body nor plug my ears ?
In what sense is control required to assess what I am hearing ?

People have this great ability to tune out background noise and focus on particular sounds. This process involves consciousness. So yes, even something like hearing involves freewill.

You need to want to do something before you choose to do something.
They are not one and the same because one comes before the other.
One entails the other though.

if one entails the other, then there should be no need to make the distinction that you did.

We are all indoctrinated into thinking that we have free will.
It takes effort to go beyond this indoctrination.

Seems like wasted effort on contradictory beliefs without evidence. I guess it takes effort to make strange leaps of faith, but truth is not contingent on the amount of effort one must use.

Irrelevant.
'Affects' doesn't mean 'control'.

Are you back peddling again. You suggested that my claim that awareness influences these things was empty. Now you are trying to play semantics? I didn't think your response had any substance.

You have yet to prove it.

You just have yet to understand it. Determinism leads to absurdity.

Explain the mechanism through which consciousness allows you to choose without leading to infinite regress then.
You are merely stating its name. You might as well have stated the mechanism is intestinal gases. If you can't explain in what way it solves the problem, you haven't addressed the matter.

You seem to be having issues with wording this.

I have explained the thought process. If you disagree, point the flaw. If you can't, all you have is empty claims.

No, you made a poor analogy and from that analogy you drew a poor conclusion.

 

[Vaderecta]

You generalize. I said that the author of this book was a great Saint. You are talking about someone whom you do not know (anything about)..unwise

Who is this great saint that wrote the Yoga Vasistha? BTW this looks like a very interesting book.

... deals with the origin and nature of the universe. According to Vasishta, this universe with its innumerable objects, its concepts of time and space, and its varied laws is only a creation of ones own mind. Just as the mind creates a world in the dream state, so it also creates an imaginary world in the waking state. The only difference between the dream and the waking states is that dreams are short and the waking state is relatively longer. Time and space are only ideas of the mind. Through the minds perception many thousands of years may pass as a moment, or a moment in time in the waking state may be experienced as years in the dream state. The same is true of the concept of space. All these facts are illustrated by a number of interesting and revealing stories.

Long book, but I'll give it a read.

 

[stvdv]

Who is this great saint that wrote the Yoga Vasistha? BTW this looks like a very interesting book.

In the spoiler are a few lines (colored) from the Yoga Vasistha (chapters: Introduction + Blessings) about the author.

In the below link you have a free .pdf from the whole Yoga Vasistha in case you want to read more.
http://estudantedavedanta.net/The-Supreme-Yoga-Swami-Venkatesananda.pdf

Spoiler: From the Introduction of the Yoga Vasistha:

INTRODUCTION
Scholars speculate about the author of this monumental scripture and such other academic matters: may God bless them with success.
The YogaVasistha * is the greatest help to the spiritual awakening and the direct experience of the Truth. This is certain. If this is what you want, you are welcome to
YogaVasistha*.
The text abounds in repetitions which are, however, not repetitious. If you do not like (or need) repetition, then read just this one verse:
This worldappearance is a confusion: even as the blueness of the sky is an optical illusion. I think it is better not to let the mind dwell on it, but to ignore it. (I.3.2)
This verse occurs several times in the scripture and it seems to be the very essence of the teaching.
If that is not quite clear to you now, read the scripture. The numerous ways in which this truth is revealed will help open your mind.
It is wise to read just one page a day. The teaching is revolutionary. The biased mind does not readily accept it. After the daily reading, meditate. Let the message
soak through.
<><><><><><><><><><><><>
An oftrecurring expression in this scripture is 'kakataliya*'—a crow alights on the cocoanut palm tree and that very moment a ripe cocoanut falls. The two unrelated
events thus seem to be related in time and space, though there is no causal relationship
Such is life. Such is 'creation'. But the mind caught up in its own trap of logic questions 'why', invents a 'why' and a 'wherefore' to satisfy itself, conveniently ignoring the
inconvenient questions that still haunt an intelligent mind.
Vasistha * demands direct observation of the mind, its motion, its notions, its reasoning, the assumed cause and the projected result, and even the observed and the
observation—and the realisation of their indivisible unity as the infinite consciousness.
That is the uniqueness of this scripture which hence declares itself to be supreme:
Except through this scripture, one cannot gain what is good, now or at any time. Therefore, for perfect realisation of the supreme truth, one should fervently investigate this
scripture alone. (VI.2.103)
It is, however the teaching that is supreme, not a book or a sage. Hence, Vasistha* is bold enough to say:
If, however, one thinks it is not authoritative because it is of human origin, one can resort to the study of any other scripture dealing with selfknowledge and final liberation.
(VI.2.175)
Whichever be the scripture taught by whomever and whichever be the path you choose, stop not till the psychological conditioning ceases entirely. Hence, Vasistha*
exhorts the seeker:
One should study at least a small part of this scripture daily. The beauty in this scripture is that its student is not abandoned to his despair; if something is not clear in the first
instance, a further study of the scripture makes it clear. (VI.2.175)

Spoiler: From chapter Blessings (page X) in Yoga Vasistha:

Blessing
The Yoga Vasistha * is a unique work of Indian philosophy. It is highly respected for its practical mysticism. The study of this great scripture alone can surely help one
to attain to Godconsciousness. For aspirants of the highest beatitude, the Yoga Vasistha* is like nectar. It is a storehouse of wisdom. Like the Amritanubhava of
Sri Jnaneshwar*, the path shown in this work is for those who are highly spiritually evolved, almost to the state of a Siddha. It expounds the highest doctrine with many
stories and illustrations. Not only philosophers, but even the modern psychologists and scientists will certainly find in it something related to their own discoveries.
Most of the scriptures were narrated by God to His devotees, but the Yoga Vasistha* was narrated to God Himself. It is the teaching of the sage Vasistha* imparted
to Lord Rama*. It contains true understanding about the creation of the world. The philosophy of the Yoga Vasistha* is very similar to that of Kashmir Shaivism. Its
main teaching is that everything is Consciousness, including the material world, and that the world is as you see it. This is absolutely true. The world is nothing but the
play of Consciousness.
Abhinavagupta, the great tenth century scholar of Kashmir Shaivism, once said, ''Shiva, the independent and pure Self that always vibrates in the mind, is the
Parashakti that rises as joy in various sense experiences. Then the experience of this outer world appears as its Self. I do not know where this word ‘samsara*’ has
come from.'' This is also the unparalleled philosophy of the Yoga Vasistha*
In translating this monumental work, Swami Venkatesananda has worked hard to make its philosophy comprehensible to ordinary people. In doing so, he has done a
great service to seekers of the Truth. Swamiji is a pure person, full of knowledge and therefore worthy of translating this work of supreme yoga.
Let this book bring true knowledge to its readers.
SWAMI MUKTANANDA

 

[Koldo]

People have this great ability to tune out background noise and focus on particular sounds. This process involves consciousness. So yes, even something like hearing involves freewill.


if one entails the other, then there should be no need to make the distinction that you did.


Seems like wasted effort on contradictory beliefs without evidence. I guess it takes effort to make strange leaps of faith, but truth is not contingent on the amount of effort one must use.


Are you back peddling again. You suggested that my claim that awareness influences these things was empty. Now you are trying to play semantics? I didn't think your response had any substance.


You just have yet to understand it. Determinism leads to absurdity.


You seem to be having issues with wording this.


No, you made a poor analogy and from that analogy you drew a poor conclusion.

Do you mean you need to be able to tune out background and focus on particular sounds to assess what you are hearing ? Prove it.

Let's cut to the chase: You can not explain how consciousness allows one to choose without leading into infinite regress and you can't point the flaw in my reasoning.

Therefore there is not much to debate. When you are able to address those points please do it so we can continue the debate.

 

[Curious George]

Do you mean you need to be able to tune out background and focus on particular sounds to assess what you are hearing ? Prove it.

No, i mean that we, even in seemingly passive tasks such as hearing, use freewill.

Let's cut to the chase: You can not explain how consciousness allows one to choose without leading into infinite regress and you can't point the flaw in my reasoning.

Not quite. I have explained how we can choose without leading to an infinite regress. Namely that our consciousness interacts with our environment and allows for more than one possible outcome from the same input. You want to reduce consciousness to yet another factor in the causal chain. That is where you are coming up with this infinite regress. You are inserting the assumption of one. There is no infinite regress.

Therefore there is not much to debate. When you are able to address those points please do it so we can continue the debate.

Please show how this infinite regress is inferred or deduced. You are insisting one exists.

Also, you never did show me how a person can assess the nth term without having control over what they were assessing or how they were assessing it.

Both of these would be helpful.

 

[Koldo]

No, i mean that we, even in seemingly passive tasks such as hearing, use freewill.

Not quite. I have explained how we can choose without leading to an infinite regress. Namely that our consciousness interacts with our environment and allows for more than one possible outcome from the same input. You want to reduce consciousness to yet another factor in the causal chain. That is where you are coming up with this infinite regress. You are inserting the assumption of one. There is no infinite regress.

Please show how this infinite regress is inferred or deduced. You are insisting one exists.

Also, you never did show me how a person can assess the nth term without having control over what they were assessing or how they were assessing it.

Both of these would be helpful.

First, you have not shown that free will is necessary to assess what you are hearing.

Second, you have not explained how consciousness allows for more than one outcome from the same input. You are just stating it and this is why I have said that you might as well have referred to intestinal gases as allowing one to do that rather than consciousness.

Third, the infinite regress happens because our choice is determined by what we want to do. To choose what we want requires us to want to want something else. In other words you still have to follow what you want to do. If you were to choose what you want to want to do, you need to keep making use of your wants to make that happen thus leading into an infinite regress.

Fourth, you haven't shown why someone needs to have control over what and how they are assessing something to assess something. This is also another thing you are merely stating without any basis.

 

[Curious George]

First, you have not shown that free will is necessary to assess what you are hearing.

I staid that we use freewill even in a passive action such as hearing.

Second, you have not explained how consciousness allows for more than one outcome from the same input. You are just stating it and this is why I have said that you might as well have referred to intestinal gases as allowing one to do that rather than consciousness.

it seems that your statements of what i havent shown are changing. You did not ask me to explain how our consciousness allows for more than one outcome from the same input before now?

Third, the infinite regress happens because our choice is determined by what we want to do. To choose what we want requires us to want to want something else. In other words you still have to follow what you want to do. If you were to choose what you want to want to do, you need to keep making use of your wants to make that happen thus leading into an infinite regress.

ahh, well then that is simple. Without consciousness you cannot want. This "wanting" that you are attributing as a necessary cause before an action is part of the freewill process. That is before you can want you must determine what you want. One needn't want to determine what one wants, that is redundant. Determining what one wants is part of the conscious experience.

Fourth, you haven't shown why someone needs to have control over what and how they are assessing something to assess something. This is also another thing you are merely stating without any basis.

You are the one who claimed it was possible to assess something without control over what you are assessing or how you are assessing it. I am showing that it is necessary by illustrating how absurd your notion is. I have already calculated the nth term from a formula. It is you who is claiming that you too can assess this term without knowing what you are assessing or how you are assessing it, while still preserving truth value. I am just here to check your math.

 

[Vaderecta]

In the spoiler are a few lines (colored) from the Yoga Vasistha (chapters: Introduction + Blessings) about the author.

In the below link you have a free .pdf from the whole Yoga Vasistha in case you want to read more.
http://estudantedavedanta.net/The-Supreme-Yoga-Swami-Venkatesananda.pdf

Spoiler: From the Introduction of the Yoga Vasistha:

INTRODUCTION
Scholars speculate about the author of this monumental scripture and such other academic matters: may God bless them with success.
The YogaVasistha * is the greatest help to the spiritual awakening and the direct experience of the Truth. This is certain. If this is what you want, you are welcome to
YogaVasistha*.
The text abounds in repetitions which are, however, not repetitious. If you do not like (or need) repetition, then read just this one verse:
This worldappearance is a confusion: even as the blueness of the sky is an optical illusion. I think it is better not to let the mind dwell on it, but to ignore it. (I.3.2)
This verse occurs several times in the scripture and it seems to be the very essence of the teaching.
If that is not quite clear to you now, read the scripture. The numerous ways in which this truth is revealed will help open your mind.
It is wise to read just one page a day. The teaching is revolutionary. The biased mind does not readily accept it. After the daily reading, meditate. Let the message
soak through.
<><><><><><><><><><><><>
An oftrecurring expression in this scripture is 'kakataliya*'—a crow alights on the cocoanut palm tree and that very moment a ripe cocoanut falls. The two unrelated
events thus seem to be related in time and space, though there is no causal relationship
Such is life. Such is 'creation'. But the mind caught up in its own trap of logic questions 'why', invents a 'why' and a 'wherefore' to satisfy itself, conveniently ignoring the
inconvenient questions that still haunt an intelligent mind.
Vasistha * demands direct observation of the mind, its motion, its notions, its reasoning, the assumed cause and the projected result, and even the observed and the
observation—and the realisation of their indivisible unity as the infinite consciousness.
That is the uniqueness of this scripture which hence declares itself to be supreme:
Except through this scripture, one cannot gain what is good, now or at any time. Therefore, for perfect realisation of the supreme truth, one should fervently investigate this
scripture alone. (VI.2.103)
It is, however the teaching that is supreme, not a book or a sage. Hence, Vasistha* is bold enough to say:
If, however, one thinks it is not authoritative because it is of human origin, one can resort to the study of any other scripture dealing with selfknowledge and final liberation.
(VI.2.175)
Whichever be the scripture taught by whomever and whichever be the path you choose, stop not till the psychological conditioning ceases entirely. Hence, Vasistha*
exhorts the seeker:
One should study at least a small part of this scripture daily. The beauty in this scripture is that its student is not abandoned to his despair; if something is not clear in the first
instance, a further study of the scripture makes it clear. (VI.2.175)

Spoiler: From chapter Blessings (page X) in Yoga Vasistha:

Blessing
The Yoga Vasistha * is a unique work of Indian philosophy. It is highly respected for its practical mysticism. The study of this great scripture alone can surely help one
to attain to Godconsciousness. For aspirants of the highest beatitude, the Yoga Vasistha* is like nectar. It is a storehouse of wisdom. Like the Amritanubhava of
Sri Jnaneshwar*, the path shown in this work is for those who are highly spiritually evolved, almost to the state of a Siddha. It expounds the highest doctrine with many
stories and illustrations. Not only philosophers, but even the modern psychologists and scientists will certainly find in it something related to their own discoveries.
Most of the scriptures were narrated by God to His devotees, but the Yoga Vasistha* was narrated to God Himself. It is the teaching of the sage Vasistha* imparted
to Lord Rama*. It contains true understanding about the creation of the world. The philosophy of the Yoga Vasistha* is very similar to that of Kashmir Shaivism. Its
main teaching is that everything is Consciousness, including the material world, and that the world is as you see it. This is absolutely true. The world is nothing but the
play of Consciousness.
Abhinavagupta, the great tenth century scholar of Kashmir Shaivism, once said, ''Shiva, the independent and pure Self that always vibrates in the mind, is the
Parashakti that rises as joy in various sense experiences. Then the experience of this outer world appears as its Self. I do not know where this word ‘samsara*’ has
come from.'' This is also the unparalleled philosophy of the Yoga Vasistha*
In translating this monumental work, Swami Venkatesananda has worked hard to make its philosophy comprehensible to ordinary people. In doing so, he has done a
great service to seekers of the Truth. Swamiji is a pure person, full of knowledge and therefore worthy of translating this work of supreme yoga.
Let this book bring true knowledge to its readers.
SWAMI MUKTANANDA

Thanks mate. Its odd so far but I'm trying to factor in when it was written. There are things I find as obviously true which current modern humans probably have no idea about. Still, finding it quite fascinating. I'm not getting this idea of infinite self. I think current theories are coalescing on the idea that self is a thing but cognitively an illusion therefore we couldn't eternally maintain this idea of self. I am no where near through this though. It will take at my current rate a few months to muddle through. However I find it odd I've never come across this before.

The reason I inquired about the author is based on just researching this odd text. Wikipedia states: Yoga Vasistha is a philosophical text attributed to Valmiki, but the real author is unknown.

 

[stvdv]

Thanks mate. Its odd so far but I'm trying to factor in when it was written. There are things I find as obviously true which current modern humans probably have no idea about. Still, finding it quite fascinating. I'm not getting this idea of infinite self. I think current theories are coalescing on the idea that self is a thing but cognitively an illusion therefore we couldn't eternally maintain this idea of self. I am no where near through this though. It will take at my current rate a few months to muddle through. However I find it odd I've never come across this before.

The reason I inquired about the author is based on just researching this odd text. Wikipedia states: Yoga Vasistha is a philosophical text attributed to Valmiki, but the real author is unknown.

When you have finished the first part/chapter (30 pages) you understand why this scripture is not the most of fun for the average person to read (I think). So I can imagine that is the reason people don't talk so much about it and that "you never came across this before"

Normally I also like to find out about the author. The person who recommended this book to me I trust very much, so I could let it go. I read it, and found it very valuable to me. So now I am okay not knowing the author. It's an amazing book to me. And it taught me so much, a much deeper understanding of life and what spirituality really means to me and what possibilities there are.

One of my favorite verses in this context is "Even if God Himself tells you something and it does not feel good you should discard it. And even if a beggar tells you something and it feels good you should treasure it". This is just common sense, but many forget this and of course it takes guts to trust yourself. Finally I trust myself to judge what is good for me. Probably that is why the reason to know about the author is gone. It just feels good.

If something does not feel good THEN I want to know all about the author before continuing OR just throw it out of course.

I never heard of the word "muddle through". Perfect description for reading this, exactly how I felt. Wish you all the best to "muddle through". They advise to read 1 page a day, but I am too impatient for that (would take 2 years with 700 pages; I tried the abridged version but did not like it at all, so continued with the version of Venkateshananda being 700 pages in my book form). But I do understand what they mean. It takes years to understand such a view. And humans are known to evolve very slow. It's not easy to let go personal ideas and accept new ones; I am no exception there.

All the best on your spiritual quest