• Hi guest! As you can see, the new Wizard Forums has been revived, and we are glad to have you visiting our site! However, it would be really helpful, both to you and us, if you registered on our website! Registering allows you to see all posts, and make posts yourself, which would be great if you could share your knowledge and opinions with us! You could also make posts to ask questions!

[Opinion] The Real Will of the Self.

Everyone's got one.

Dralex

Neophyte
Joined
Aug 7, 2023
Messages
9
Reaction score
26
The more I study and practice, the more I contemplate the same door, that maybe is the real door for many other possibilities that so far I've been stuck with: The real will of the self. The Real purpose of each one. To find this purpose seemed to me a major key to unlock so many occult doors of the self. It seems easy by saying, but at the same time is the most heavy and complex answer to find.
You guys have been there as well?
 

Roma

Apostle
Joined
Aug 31, 2021
Messages
2,428
Reaction score
2,788
Awards
12
In the Hindu tradition the atmic plane is the plane of will

Physical, astral/emotional, mental, buddhic/heart and then atma, followed by monadic (the real human spirit) and logoic

So by 3rd stage enlightenment that aspect of higher will delegated to the human system is under control

There are much higher aspects of will but it may be better to consider those as intent. Intent is restful decision. It does not involve stress in the personality.

The planes listed above, turn out to be subplanes of the Cosmic Physical Plane. The cosmic planes turn out to be subplanes of the Universal Physical Plane. Beyond that, Earth humans do not seem to have word labels

The term "self" has similar issues.

It is better perhaps to take a top-down view of the human: a thread of profound light anchoring into a particular species in a particular universe
 

stalkinghyena

Labore et Constantia
Benefactor
Vendor
Joined
Jul 10, 2022
Messages
689
Reaction score
1,347
Awards
11
It seems easy by saying, but at the same time is the most heavy and complex answer to find.
"The real will of the real self" - it's actually one the oldest and most basic philosophical/spiritual problems in human history where metaphysical speculation takes over from every day problems. The first hurdle is usually the language we choose to describe our subjective entity - namely, terms like "real" and "self" and "will".

The first term, "real", is such a simple word we take for granted but is trickier than we think. The reason for this being is that for "real" to be real, it must have an absolute an unchanging existence in a sense that binds both the metaphysical conception with direct everyday experience. This is a paradox because everything we experience through the senses that we deem to be real - including our introspection - is constantly changing. Take any object you see and, while it seems real, eventually it will decay into something else and become "unreal", as if it never existed. It may exist in memory, which actually makes it a separate object which in many ways is even more "real" than the original because it is more directly present to the "self". All reality is essentially in flux, in which case real would have be to be defined as ever-changing, in which case we are left with absolute indeterminacy. This all may seem silly to common sense, but there are many thinkers going back thousands of years who just simply could not be satisfied with the concept of "real".

Now, looking at the qualities of "self" - this is an experience of "you" as "you", but can only be defined as "you" in relation to "not you". That is, the cat brushing against your leg is "not you", and in a weird subtle way this reinforces that you are you, and not a cat. But the sense of self is so deeply ingrained and present in our awareness (which can be distinct from sense of self) that we cannot imagine losing it until it actually happens - and it does happen. In dreamless sleep, for instance, where is your self at? You have no sense of it, therefore it cannot be said to exist for the duration of sleep. Similarly, in moments of "being lost in a crowd" at, say, a concert, you may not be present to yourself but engaged in the primal mass mind of the experience. Sure, you can say you were there, but were you "present" to who you are in moments of entertainment ecstasy? Violent disassociation as well can lead to panic situations where a person is now all motor function in fight or flight with no memory experience of who or what they were until the danger passes. It's situations like these, to name a few, outside of the language games of logic which have made theorists wonder whether we even have a self at all.
Yet all the above can be deemed absurd because not one tittle of it can be grasped unless one has a self in which to refer it all to. And that is what we try to do, all the time.

"Will" is generally defined as volition, but sometimes it is synonymous with "desire". This is tricky because we are always confusing the two in mundane situations, but we are also capable of separating the two in, say, meditation and introspection. There are many occult doors to unlock in all the above, yes, but the deeper the rabbit hole goes, the more potential for a crisis of pessimism, the recipe of which I fear I may have laid out. But pessimism can be avoided if one treats such terms as a game - the indeterminate nature of "existentialism" tends to get taken too far, I think, which is probably why my post is regrettably longer than Roma's.

But here's a cookie: Nirvana and Samsara are the same thing. Flip it and you may find it's a pancake that only ever had one side; perhaps rephrased better as "The eye cannot see itself and the knife cannot cut itself."

But yeah, I've been there and am there. IMO in the end what matters is the experience and being present to what we do and marvel at the endless changes we undergo with a mind to cultivating the discipline of consistency in the paradox of quasi-being. You mentioned the purpose for each one - yes, the purpose...
 
Top