SOUL

@sgn So even though you were prompted to think of a dog by my request and then supplied with dogs through your mind's imagination by unconscious means you then directed the mind to imagine you petting them. Thus you have illustrated and example of how it is both conscious and unconscious that blends to create our thought process. It's not just either one of that we can control or we can't control thoughts, just like it's not just either we have free will or we don't. It's a unified experience of will.

@Gopackgo This is why I acknowledge that it is inevitably a blend of conscious and unconscious, of intentional and incidental, it's rarely ever just conscious or just unconscious. It's both that presents itself as one united process but if we are awake, the distinction can be examined in our consciousness.

@sgn Did you pet the dog in your mind? Does your mind dog bite?

I want you to think of a dog.... any dog you like, just think of a dog, picture this dog and see yourself petting that dog on the head in your mind. Ok.... were you able to do it? If you did do it you just controlled your thoughts, you produced that thought at will. I know, I know.... what does that prove? The same exact thing that is proven when somebody tells you to stop thinking anything, think of absolutely nothing, then if you can't stop the thoughts they use it as an example of how you cannot control your thoughts and thoughts simply arise without you willing them to. It's not as clear cut as we can't or can control our thoughts, it's both and they simultaneously can be happening. At the same exact moment we can be willfully directing our thoughts and have thoughts arising without us intending for them to so have both streams of thought crisscrossing and blending in our mind. With "free will" it's similar in that it isn't as clear cut as we do or don't in exclusivity, it's both and they can be simultaneously happening. In fact, in the same way with thoughts it's inevitable that we are experiencing the effect of both in our mind.

Being exposed to ideas, concepts and opinions that are different, even opposite of our own and how we react in being exposed to them will indicate how open minded we are. The mind by it's nature doesn't want to accept different even though it is very interested in different, meaning it won't accept different by brute force of imposing on it but through it curiously examining the different it will adopt some of the different, the part that fits in with it's already existing paradigm. So even though we may attempt to cultivate a disposition of being open to the different and in our awareness we are intentionally being open to it our mind may still continue to react to the different in the way that it has evolved to be predisposed to behave. It will take repeated and consistent intention in being open through our awareness for the mind to eventually reflect that pattern... to become open to and act impulsively in that "different" openness we are intentionally exercising in our awareness.

The mind is addicted to identification like the body is addicted to food.

B-b-but we are told we can't control our thoughts and we have no free will to change it!

I had never heard this term before but that isn't surprising since I am a spiritual autodidact. Although, just from the description of it I read on Wikipedia I can see why it isn't a favored way that is taught and even anathema for a majority of the teachers. If the way can be described in just a few minutes and doesn't require any of the knowledge, understanding, methods and techniques we may realize why do we need any 'teachers' for? When it is understood how simple exercising awareness to enlighten consciousness is there is little opportunity to sell books upon books or book lists or courses or lecture series or retreats or continuing education or build an empire of material substance on teaching something that any idiot can "be" without any special knowledge and training..... and trust me any idiot can just "be here now", I would understand this intimately since there are few more idiotic than me. Plus the mind just can't believe that this can be so simple... you mean for us to exercise awareness to enlighten consciousness doesn't need me?!? Not my knowledge, not my understanding, not any of my methods or techniques, none of my ideas or concepts... well sure, the mind will concede that it doesn't require my self or my ego in theory but cotdammit that's an idea and concept that the mind needs to believe it is needed! The mind cannot believe we can just be without it's machinations. There are infinite words spoken and written on something that doesn't require a single one of them to be.

There is a limit..... it's infinite. Heh

What's happening is a reasoning from the ideological position of nonduality based on the concept that duality is a construct of the mind in which good/evil and right/wrong are just imaginary and symbolic but not 'real'. Although, to believe that someone who is "enlightened" would rape is to disregard many of the attributes expressed in enlightenment.

The op is my role model for not spelling it roll.......

If you don't know you have free will, you probably don't have it.

I didn't say it is.

Figure out what it is that will fulfill you and seek that. Just taking advice from people without the context of your own life is useless. It's not just about finding someone who has what you seek in fulfillment and following their advice because different people have different ways accomplishing the same thing. Discovering the methods and techniques that work for us just as important discovering what fulfills us. If we don't understand the ways wes effectively work it won't help to understand what fulfills us. So it comes down to understanding ourselves not just in who or what to listen to.

@Shin I was merely applying the reasoning commonly espoused in spiritual circles for ironic effect. Don't take it personally, heh.

Saying that enlightenment is realizing that we aren't the physical and not the self then defend the deplorable violation of someone else by a supposed 'enlightened' person indulging in a vile selfish impulse through harming others, especially women or an innocent child....hm how convenient. People that will go to such lengths to justify an ideological belief even if it means speak in defense of a despicable act of wilful disregard for well being are not the people who I would take life guidance from....that's just in my humble perspective but everyone is welcome to do as they see fit.

It's only effective to be an asshole when one is dealing with a piece of shit.

According to the commonly accepted spiritual paradigm the reason is there's no "you" to make any progress....

There is no real difference between unconscious and subconscious but if I were to draw a distinction between the two I would call unconscious things that we would never be conscious of and subconscious are the shadowy impulses that are on the edge of conscious. By our conscious work we hope to leave impressions on our unconscious habituation so that eventually they become reflexive impulses that rise from our subconscious and could be considered our new habits. There are undoubtedly plenty of spiritualists who present contradictory ideas that often get explained as a paradox of the illusion. As well as the inconsistent logic gets explained away that rationality cannot fully understand spirituality. I can agree that the abstract is difficult to describe but it seems those reasonings get abused in avoiding the doublespeak.

If he didn't identify with the self... or the "selfing" as he calls it that his mind is doing why does he remember his past at all? Where are the details of the events that happened to the particular body that houses his awareness so he later can expound on them as he teachers his self professed 'no-selfery'? If the self doesn't really exist then when he stopped identifying with this supposed nonexistent self it would leave his awareness as fully as particles of air leave our lungs never to be recalled again once we breathe them out. Oh wait... I know the answers to those questions, never mind. I like that guy, though, he's got a great attitude.

I'm so nobody that nobody actually wants to be like me.

Emotions aren't inherently negative or positive but how we react to the emotions stirred up inside us can help or hinder what we seek to accomplish.

My impression of him is that he had some paradigm shattering experiences in consciousness but since his career is rooted in science and the academics he tries to fit his personal understanding into the context that appeases the expectations of him by others as a result of this career path.

@Alii We are always in the present moment, we cannot ever be out of the present moment, the distinction comes in either attentive to being present or distracted from being present. We potentially can have presence, as it is also called, in every moment or never and anywhere in between. The mind, at the behest of the ego, prefers to view enlightenment as some esoteric knowledge, difficult to attain understanding and rigorous process that completely depends on the mind and the ego to achieve it. Almost as if it's an ironic cosmic joke spiritual enlightenment doesn't require any of what the mind and ego think it does but in fact only consists of a simple and natural expression of awareness. The mind and the ego does not want to believe it and by it's very nature cannot believe it is unneeded to be so it will do whatever it can to distract us from just being here now. I don't know this friend and I don't know what or if he is anything. If something prevents us from being aware of presence yet our mind clings to it as if it's valuable to us that is dogmatic, whatever that something is.

I haven't listen to much from him, I have for a few mins on a couple of topics but not at all on the topic you mention. Although, I have personal experience that differs greatly from what you presented as his ideas. Things change and we change, our patterns, habits and behaviors along with our identity and associations to these change all by themselves even if we don't try to change any of it. In fact, we cannot prevent change or stop change from happening. So we can be an active participant in the change that happens so exert some influence in how it unfolds or we can allow the change to happen spontaneously without any intentional participation in the process but still will be affected with the random results. There is the idea that at our core our genuine nature is unchanging and the change we experience is just a temporal part of our expression. Even within that concept though we can attempt to influence the evolution of our experience by aligning our temporal expression more and more to reflect our unchanging nature. The mind may try to label the experience as "development" or "improvement", maybe "realize" or "actualize", even "empowerment" or "enlightenment". A paradigm in the mind could be built around the ideas and concepts with everything in it labeled and identified so it can be referenced to measure and guide the process. If you say he suggests it's impossible to change, I suggest it's impossible to not change. Maybe he only means that we cannot be an intentional part of the evolutionary experience of life but I myself have my own life as evidence of being an intentional part of my own experiential evolution.