Samadhi Chronicles -
Maya Gaia - Evolution Involution
MAYA-GAIA INTRODUCTION & SITEMAP Page Update 08 24 07
Note: My Anthropic Trilogy web-book, evolving since 1997, is a chronicle of my passing all considered opinion through the lens of my Nirvikalpa Samadhi with both an open-mind and healthy skepticism.
Events in the Nirvikalpa Samadhi Journey-
showing that our conscious reality has free will when alive in duality
and is deterministic after transformation to nonduality
(after our bodily death or temporarily in samadhi)
The Phenomenological Evidence
I also dispute the claims that an experiencer is deterministically imbued with specific noble qualities as an aftereffect of samadhi that are typically ascribed in the dharma of the non dual traditions. My conclusion from both my own and the character flaws in other high-profile gurus of the past century is that integration is a process that combines both revelatory insight deterministiclly imbued and free will- resulting in unpredictable enlightenment paradigms.
My particular theosophy does not serve as a dharma or moral model for achieving an ideal, stable, just and self sustainable society. In fact it suggests there is no moral prerequisite to qualify for the grace of Nirvikalpa Samadhi and although it is a direct knowing of Godhead, removes the fear of death and in my case raised compassion for Gaia to an imperative, it does not necessarily bestow any particular virtuous qualities to the experiencer. Although h(she) may be fully realized by virtue of acute memory of the event- I hold that whatever philosophy and transformation of living character results depends on how the episode is integrated according to how deterministically imbued revelations are overlain by free-will decisions by the experiencer. This can range over a broad spectrum of metaphysical philosophy- embracing a traditional dharma, innovating an ishvara for devotion and worship or adopting some crazy wisdom. Even more unpredictable are what life styles and character memetics- worldly engagement or detachment, having compassion for humanity and/or nature or becoming narcissistic or exploitive (or in my case remaing hedonistic)- and so on. (Ramana refered to these attributes as vasanas and maintained that unless the original were burned away- either in samadhi or his jnana yoga of "Self Inquiry" there was "no good" in samadhi. He later refined his comment to specify that only "bad" vasanas need be explicated and that if one attained such a state of purity from "trance" h(she) had experienced a "Sahaja Samadhi" rather than a mere temporary Nirvikalpa Samadhi. (See a further examination of Ramana's concept of Sahaja Samadhi and Jivanmukta.)
My Dual Nondual 200 Percent Model of Reality explains how many of these issues appear to me in a broader context.
The reality I consider here, incorporates all the separate catagories by which the dialectic of free-will vs. determinism are argued: philosophical, religious, metaphysical, psychological and scientific. In each of these is the potential for an infinite entropy of the issue so my revelation should come as a welcome relief to one of the most vexing enigmas concerning our human condition.
In order to appreciate my deism logic the reader should have read my Nirvikalpa anecdote, as I am picking up the samadhi scenario at the point where I am orchestrated in an ascension in dual consciousness and feel the energy stream slowing down and my transport arrived in a state of limbo. I am suddenly aware of a clear message (not a voice but directly impinging my consciousness) - To Continue You Must Agree To Die There is absolute clarity that I am being offered a choice, by some omniscient consciousness, between accepting irreversable death to continue my journey or rejecting the offer to continue that would send me back to my phenomenal life. My answering "Yes" carried not the slightest hope that there was any hedge against my finality.
This confrontation with a gatekeeper aspect of God consciousness- presenting my choosing between "Yes" and "No" is unambiguous proof that in our living dual state of consciousness we have "free will" concurrently within the orchestrated holistic immanent/transcendent body of dual-nondual reality of a greater God or Brahman. Subsequently in my journey when my body was systematically annihilated by a blazing light and my consciousness transformed from dual to non dual light, bliss and love- a state of absolute determinism was entered (probably from between 10 to 30 physical minutes). There came a time when my self consciousness slowly reconstituted and I found myself back in a state of quasi/ignorant duality speeding in a now reversed stream of energy. Somewhere in the beginning of my descent another clear message by the omniscient consciousness impinged directly into my brain (like a calling after) "You Are Returning, The Death Was Temporary" after which I kept consciously 'praying' over and over- "Let Me Remember". I describe the remarkable astral features I experienced at the end of my journey- and ultimate return into my body, in my anecdotal account.
Update 12 25 09: See my subsequent page on Credibility of Prayer End Update
In regards to aftereffects from Nirvikalpa Samadhi, I reject any of the notions contained in the non dual literature that claim there are siddhis, special powers, spiritual purity and compassion for all mankind automatically induced by the experience. Beyond the immediate loss of fear of death and the later awakening through integration to the reality of Brahman I was imbued with an imperative compassion for Gaia - as the totality of all biocosmic nature, rather than humankind.
Since I conclude that my evidence is veridical and absolute I don't personally feel any need to research the endless free will/determinism/fatalism/predestination debates other than to select some references for readers who want to peruse some fundamentals regarding the convoluted body that has evolved over the past two millennia- presented below.
Obey - Disobey Many Choices Good or Evil Moral or Immoral Uncertainty
W.T. Stace's Mysticism and Philosophy
Compatibilism arguing for the principle that determinism and free will exists simultaneously by Max McClure (2011) Compatibilism – the belief that free will is compatible with a world where every action is determined by the events preceding it – has never been an easy sell. "I started noticing that I teach students about compatibilism every year," said John Perry, professor emeritus of philosophy at Stanford. "But every year more of them become incompatibilists instead."
Perry [sic: is] host of the nationally syndicated radio show Philosophy Talk See also: Can't We All Just Be Compatibilists?: A critical study of John Martin Fischer's My Way by John Perry, Stanford University
Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy Do we have free will? It depends what you mean by the word 'free'. More than two hundred senses of the word have been distinguished; the history of the discussion of free will is rich and remarkable. David Hume called the problem of free will 'the most contentious question of metaphysics, the most contentious science' (1748: 95 ).
Compatibilism Wikipedia: The basic philosophical positions on the problem of free will can be divided in accordance with the answers they provide to two questions: 1.Is determinism true? 2.Does free will exist? (mg commentary: Why formal philosophy gets a bad name. Beyond Stace's common-sense argument, the academic compounding seems as futile as arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The subject has the same problem in understanding as the paradoxes of mystical experience- in that the rules of logic do not apply.
Free Will Free will raises the question whether, and in what sense, rational agents exercise control over their actions, decisions, choices. Addressing this question requires understanding the relationship between freedom and cause, and determining whether the laws of nature are causally deterministic. The various philosophical positions taken differ on whether all events are determined or not - determinism versus indeterminism - and also on whether freedom can coexist with determinism or not - compatibilism versus incompatibilism. So, for instance, 'hard determinists' are incompatibilists who argue that the universe is deterministic, and that this makes free will impossible.
Free Will in Thealogy arguments. Theological arguments that attempt to resolve our fundamental relationship to God and the cosmos.
Neurevolution Blog by Michael W. Cole and Patryk A. Laurent. The Will to be Free Freedom to choose is the first axiom of our being. We assume freedom with each action that we take, and we are annoyed when we are forced to act "against our will". Determinism is a direct implication of the brain being the seat of the mind in conjunction with Newtonian physics. Why, then, do we assume at each moment that we have free will?
Determinism is the view that every event, including human cognition, behavior, decision, and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. Determinists believe the universe is fully governed by causal laws resulting in only one possible state at any point in time. With numerous historical debates, many varieties and philosophical positions on the subject of determinism exist.
Predestination Free Will versus Determinism in metaphysics and religion: example of the infinite dialectical potential. Predestination is a religious concept, which involves the relationship between God and his creation. The religious character of predestination distinguishes it from other ideas about determinism and free will. Those who believe in predestination, such as John Calvin, believe that before the creation God determined the fate of the universe throughout all of time and space.
Causality versus Acausality Causality is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is a consequence of the first. The philosophical treatment of causality extends over millennia. Theories of causality in Indian philosophy focus mainly on the relationship between cause and effect. The various philosophical schools (darsanas) provide different theories.
The doctrine of satkaryavada affirms that the effect inheres in the cause in some way. The effect is thus either a real or apparent modification of the cause.
The doctrine of asatkaryavada affirms that the effect does not inhere in the cause, but is a new arising.
The Buddha, and subsequent Buddhist thinkers such as Nagarjuna, rejected both, instead proposing a middle way.
Free Will Versus Determinism - is one of the oldest and most vexed of philosophical problems, and bringing it up is not a good way to guarantee that your date will go to bed with you, although it has worked on occasion. Determinism is a position that is sometimes also called 'predestination' or 'fatalism'. This is the belief that events are somehow determined before they happen; everything is inevitable. The position of free will is largely a response and a reaction to the various positions of determinism and is often not as clearly defined. Belief in free will is often based on a more or less vague feeling of being 'in control' of one's actions. Quantum physics introduced fundamental uncertainties into the measurement and perception of the physical world. Particles cannot be pinned down in their behaviour or nature in the way that physicists classically liked to do. The wave-particle duality of photons or electrons is a good illustration of the way classical physics can't cope with the results of certain experiments. There is, happily, a way out, a way back to common sense.
Why We Have Free Will Scientific American Jan 2015 by Eddy Nahmias I am currently working on a book project, Rediscovering Free Will, which argues that the free will debate should not be focused on the traditional question of whether free will is compatible with determinism. Rather, more attention should be paid to distinct threats posed by the sciences of the mind (e.g., neuroscience and psychology) and conversely, what these sciences can tell us about how free will works in humans. I examine these threats and argue that they do not show that free will is an illusion. Instead, these sciences can help to explain free will, rather than explaining it away. To set up these conclusions about what the modern mind sciences tell us about free will, I offer a naturalistic theory of free will focusing on the importance of imagination and self-knowledge especially our ability to consider various future decisions and their outcomes, to know what we really want and to know how to act on it. This account of free will, which analyzes it as set of psychological capacities that agents possess and exercise to varying degrees, is amenable to scientific inquiry. I am currently working on a book project, Rediscovering Free Will, which argues that the free will debate should not be focused on the traditional question of whether free will is compatible with determinism. Rather, more attention should be paid to distinct threats posed by the sciences of the mind (e.g., neuroscience and psychology) and conversely, what these sciences can tell us about how free will works in humans. I examine these threats and argue that they do not show that free will is an illusion. Instead, these sciences can help to explain free will, rather than explaining it away. To set up these conclusions about what the modern mind sciences tell us about free will, I offer a naturalistic theory of free will focusing on the importance of imagination and self-knowledge especially our ability to consider various future decisions and their outcomes, to know what we really want and to know how to act on it. This account of free will, which analyzes it as set of psychological capacities that agents possess and exercise to varying degrees, is amenable to scientific inquiry.
The Wave Structure of Matter Scientific comparison
of Free Will vs. Determinism. (WSM) explains Limited Free Will (not Determinism) in a Necessarily Connected Finite Spherical Universe within an Infinite Space. "What we need for understanding rational human behaviour - and indeed, animal behaviour - is something intermediate in character between perfect chance and perfect determinism - something intermediate between perfect clouds and perfects clocks." (Karl Popper, 1975) If we examine these words free-will and determinism carefully we find they do not exist in physical reality, they are simply concepts made up by humans, just as we are able to imagine 'dragons' and 'particles' in our mind / imagination. i.e. This also explains the uncertainty of Quantum Theory and that we can never exactly know where each successive In-Wave will meet at its wave-center 'particle', thus we can never exactly know both the future motion (momentum) and position of the "Particle" (i.e. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle). This is very important as it explains why we can have limited free will, and thus live as moral creatures creating better futures for ourselves and our society
And here's an interesting paragraph from Authur Young which I think accurately summarizes what I've been saying...Young sees the photon as the entry point for consciousness into the universe. The reason for this is that the photon's apparent uncertainty cannot be distinguished from the photon having freedom, choice, and/or freewill- Christian de Quincey. Young's conclusion that the photon possesses choice is achieved through rational thought, "If velocity is the derivative of position with respect to time, and acceleration is the derivative of velocity what is the derivative of acceleration?", the third derivative is control (de Quincey). Science clearly accepts the first two derivatives. Yet, when it comes to acknowledging the logical third derivative, control, inquiry ceases. Why? Because this would undeniably mean that the photon (a unique subatomic "particle") is conscious! Thus, Arthur Young postulates a credible cosmology in which the quantum is consciousness. And, it is solidly established upon rational deduction.'
A Case for Free Will and Determinism by Ben Best. The Free-Will Versus Determinism Pseudo-Dichotomy; Karl Popper's Attempted Refutation of "Scientific" Determinism; Free Will in Leonard Peikoff''s Objectivism - Some people consider it impossible to advocate both determinism and free will. Yet this position has been taken by many philosophers -- from the time David Hume wrote the classical "reconciliation" in his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.
Determinism is the view that all events have causes. Although many people delight in the belief that quantum theory disproves physical determinism, they refer only to The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Schroedinger, Einstein, Bohm, Penrose and many other physicists have never accepted the claim that quantum theory disproves determinism. Moreover, even if quantum uncertainty is a reality, it can do no more than establish "random will", not free will.
Determinism is often erroneously equated with fatalism, which is the true opposite of freewill. Under fatalism the will is ineffectual, no matter how much it struggles.
What about anti-determinist materialists who believe in "free will"? Those, like Roger Penrose, who claim that the mind is ultimately rooted in quantum uncertainty might not accept the possibility of biostasis, but Penrose has made no explicit statement about this subject. Penrose writes of the non-computability of mind, but acknowledges that non-predictability does not equate with "free will".
Determinism and Free Will in Science and Philosophy nature versus nurture, theistic dialectic.
Why Evolution is True and free will isn't by Jerry A. Coyne, Ph.D Professor of Ecology and Evolution at U. of Chicago. Coyne opines why science has done away with the traditional notion of free will and triggers a cascade of (mostly secular) commentary that provides a classic example of the scale and scope of debate the dialectic inspires.
Golden Opportunities Shielding Money Clashes With Elders' Free Will By Charles Duhigg, December 24, 2007. Robert J. Pyle, 81, lost his home and his savings trying to help a single mother. He sued, claiming he wasn't liable for his errors in judgment because of his age. In the eyes of the law, should the elderly be treated like adolescents, who are not entirely responsible for their poor decisions, but are also barred from making certain choices on their own? Or should they have autonomy, and therefore be accountable for their blunders?
BACK to MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE
MAYA-GAIA INTRODUCTION & SITEMAP