Past decisions and letting go

dabka's picture

Average: 4.9 (7 votes)

Be willing to consider the option to change a past decision if it is still possible to change it.

Be willing to respect, accept and leave behind a past decision if it is not possible to change it anymore.

Be willing to resist the temptation to change a past decision if it was about letting go.

Yes, be willing to resist the temptation to desire again the object you have let go. Do it by honoring your past decision of letting go of it.

enlight's picture

easy to let go, so hard to keep your letting go

Indeed, easy to let go, so hard to keep your letting go. To succeed in letting go, one of the hardest spiritual endevours I know, you must be consistent even if there is another "I" waking up the morning after protesting about the previous night's "I" decision of letting go.

enlight | Thu, 09/11/2008 - 11:32
abra's picture

"only this time" or "for the last time"

indeed, different "I"s arise at different times and the mind has a tendency to break the let go agreement "only this time" or "for the last time, promise".

(and please, fellow commenters, please not again the usual standard no-"I" absence slogans replies that recently appear everywhere here in comments and turn the discussions into a 1-dimensional religious-like debates that do not serve much. yes we all are well aware that maybe the "I" does not exist but unfortunately we must go the hard way of Ramana's self enquiry. Hearing that it so serves us like if someone will swear that the moon is made of cheese and therefore it is white...)

abra | Thu, 09/11/2008 - 15:13
Phroggy's picture

More blah, blah, blah

Okay, some more irritating, one-dimesional bullshit. Start where you are. Look at the statement "Mind has a tendency to break the let go agreement". Don't just spin in circles with it or figure out how to dismiss me because you're pissed off and tired of hearing the same thing over and over. Look at it.

Do you see two things? Do you see a mind and then something else that has made an agreement with the mind? Has part of the mind made an agreement with another part of the mind or are you other than your mind? Did the body make an agreement with the mind? Did some separate thinking entity make an agreement with the mind? Are there two thinkers in your head?

There is only the mind. In order to make an agreement mind has to imagine that it is two minds, and this split creates conflict but it never results in letting go. Letting go might be happening, in which case the imagined mind controller will take credit for it. If letting go isn't happening, the imagined mind controller will figure it just needs to try harder or find the right method of control.

Why are we hearing that coming to this letting go agreement is pretty easy, but enforcing it is really hard? Because you're making up the whole damn thing. There is no agreement, no separate mind controller. The mind controller is ego, a totally fictitious entity that consists of thoughts only; a false notion that the functioning of the mind can be controlled by something.

Letting go is surrender, and surrender is not something you can do; it is an undoing. Look at this, please. Ask yourself what is required for surrender to happen. It's the ending of an effort, not the overlay of another effort to control the effort of struggle. Surrender is an ending of effort, an undoing, a release of control, not more control.

What really needs to be let go of now is the notion that letting go can be done; that an agreement can be made to let go, but you can't cause that letting go either. The only way that letting go can happen is through a deep understanding of the one-dimensional bullshit that I'm talking about here, and that can only happen if you're willing to look at it for yourself instead of trying the latest technique for letting go. When the mind comes to an understanding that it cannot cause the letting go, it lets go of that idea. How simple is that?

Phroggy | Thu, 09/11/2008 - 16:37
abra's picture

Have you done meditation?

Have you done meditation? Are you currently practicing meditation daily? i mean formally sitting still every day for an hour or more and just watching your breath or other mental object? or sitting in some posture for half an hour and watching the thoughts in your head, just watching?

abra | Thu, 09/11/2008 - 19:42
Phroggy's picture

Have you done meditation?

I went scuba diving once. Does that count? :)~

Phroggy | Fri, 09/12/2008 - 02:10
mika's picture

Phroggy - don't get offended

Phroggy - don't get offended - people who have gone or who are going beyond the mind (which is the meaning of meditation) immediately recognize in your text that you do not derive your conclusions from this valuable source. It has a completely different quality, it is a well of fortune petty intellect can not even come close.

This matter is too crucial to be supressed with humor. Why are you so afraid from meditation? Have you ever tried any?

Don't you understand that this very fear is your gateway? haven't you already realized the uselessness of words and intellect? haven't you noticed by now that it is the same tool philosophers and secular researches use and so that it leads nowhere in your path? haven't you read a bit about this classical block? haven't you talked to fellow seekers or to a goood teacher or guru and learned the basic importance of going beyond mind in order to really understand something? aren't you concerned with the holes in your intellectual trials to depict reality with words? don't you see the ignorant conculsions derived from just adopting a theroty without experiencing it and then applying logic on approximations of this theory as until you experience it you could not realize it accurately? don't you see your addiction to mind's activity? We have all been there, your mind is terrified from meditation, from non-doing, from being separated from his bebeloved words and logic.

mika | Sat, 11/29/2008 - 07:57
Omkaradatta's picture


Perhaps Phroggy is living in an unbroken meditation, ever consider that? You folks are all spiritual beginners, making assumptions about others, asserting the need for formal meditation, fearing the mind, etc. Maybe some day you realize the presence of those far more advanced than yourselves, those who have been where you are many years ago.

I know Phroggy has been spiritually searching for at least thirty years, so perhaps you revise your assumptions (if not let them go). Not everybody brags about the fact that they meditate (or not) on spiritual forums, or is searching for methodology to overcome the bad, bad, evil mind. It's like a child telling his mother, "now mommy, you need to pray every night to get rid of the bad dreams and monsters in the closet and under the bed".

Omkaradatta | Sat, 11/29/2008 - 08:28
Phroggy's picture

Hi Mika

Perception is a tricky thing, of course. It's my way to put into conceptual form that which is seen beyond mind, which sometimes appeals to those with a dominant mind focus, and can look mental or intellectual to those with less of a mind focus.

Omkar's term "unbroken meditation" is accurate and appreciated. Deep meditations were once done for healing and insight, but now there is a continuous 'looking' beyond mind. There is no theory or logic applied here, nor any sort of memory recall, and the only mentation involves translating what is seen Now into concepts that you are free to challenge or dismiss. The concepts are not the insight, but they are a necessary part of communication and can potentially serve as a focus for your own necessary 'seeing'.

Phroggy | Sat, 11/29/2008 - 08:24
Omkaradatta's picture


There's a category not only of those who haven't begun to meditate yet, but who have gone beyond it. I guess folks assume everyone here falls into the former category, and nobody into the latter.

It may even be a reasonable assumption, as: Why would someone who has gone beyond the need for meditation be here? But there's yet another possibility: Why not? ;-). Nisargadatta, Ramana Maharshi, J. Krishnamurti, Osho et al. talked their tongues off.

Of course, THEY were famous. When talking about this stuff, it's probably better to be dead :-D.

Omkaradatta | Sat, 11/29/2008 - 09:51
Phroggy's picture

Dead..... the only way to go. Hehe.
I don't put myself in the category of the folks mentioned, but I love truth and I love talking about it and I can look at it wherever I go cuz there doesn't seem to be anywhere it's not.

Phroggy | Sat, 11/29/2008 - 20:05
Psiplex's picture

Very Clear

"Letting go is surrender, and surrender is not something you can do; it is an undoing. Look at this, please. Ask yourself what is required for surrender to happen. It's the ending of an effort, not the overlay of another effort to control the effort of struggle. Surrender is an ending of effort, an undoing, a release of control, not more control."

Very clear

One Love

Psiplex | Tue, 10/14/2008 - 07:00
mayasurfer's picture

so simple

well said !!!

mayasurfer | Sat, 11/29/2008 - 06:30
Omkaradatta's picture


Sincerity, earnestness, devotion, interest, awareness, attention, love. Nothing is difficult if you have these. Everything is difficult if you don't.

Omkaradatta | Thu, 09/11/2008 - 16:12
nancy pro's picture

Sincerity is so important

Sincerity is so important and so natural, yet so slippery! I see all the other qualities mentioned as derivatives of sincerity, by-products that automatically follow if you have sincerity.

I would at least ease a bit the sentence to be "Sincerity, earnestness, devotion, interest, awareness, attention, love. Nothing is difficult if you ARE AFTER these. Everything is difficult if you aren't."

i would add also responsibility (including all its various meanings).

nancy pro | Thu, 09/11/2008 - 20:59
Omkaradatta's picture

One cannot seek sincerity...

Isn't the idea of seeking sincerity rather silly? How the heck are you gonna do that? Clearly you cannot do it sincerely, eh? ;-).

P.S. Responsibility no, response-ability yes. The ability to respond to life here in the moment. There is no other time.

Omkaradatta | Thu, 09/11/2008 - 21:13
nancy pro's picture

On the contrary, sincerity

On the contrary, sincerity can only be sought since the default nature of the mind-person is insincerity.

When you realize responsibility you will see how vital it is. Peel off the social connotations and the pedagogic meanings overloaded on this abused word and then look at it again. Inwardly, it is the only constructive link able to form some temporal coalition between your current different "I"s (and thus enable "you", for example, to really make decisions). Outwardly, it is the only way you can assure you are acting out of love and not out of ego (e.g. when allegedly we try to help, when we respond here, etc.).

Response, react are all automated outcomes of the unconscious conditioning machine. You do not need to respond nor you can respond when you are fully in the here and now.

nancy pro | Thu, 09/11/2008 - 21:48
Omkaradatta's picture

Who are you speaking to?

"It is the only constructive link possible between your current different "I"s."

Who are you speaking to, Nancy? Don't you mean 'your' current I's? You are the one pretending to be asleep, seeking what you already are ;-). All your 'you's' really ought to be 'me's'.

You have not contacted anybody via this medium but yourself, have never known anything but your own feelings and reactions, viewpoints and attitudes. All these words are appearing on 'your' computer screen, nobody else's. You yourself are the lord God, only you don't know it.

Omkaradatta | Thu, 09/11/2008 - 21:56
angel76's picture

I must say you are not

I must say you are not addressing the clever things this lady wrote you, instead you choose to address her subjective function which is irrelevant from your point of view as a subject (for the same reasons you give her), I wonder why, Mind oh mind :-)

Don't you see that maybe it is a trick of your own mind to avoid facing her words? If I were you I would check thoroughly with a needle what was it in what she said that made your mind so annoyed. You may find there a fortune, lucky bustard :)

Adding to her words : it is only you who can be responsible for yourself, if you will inwardly then it will automatically shine outwardly.

angel76 | Thu, 09/11/2008 - 22:14
Omkaradatta's picture

I am interested...

... neither in responsibility, nor in irresponsibility, nor do I have an obligation to address the points folks seem to want me to. I am beholden to the truth only, which is known directly here in my heart. In my view, you too ought to take this attitude, if you want to make any spiritual progress. Otherwise, you're merely engaged in a vain argumentation with others.

Omkaradatta | Thu, 09/11/2008 - 22:20
angel76's picture

check what made you to

check what made you to react right now. Please, without ego otherwise I don't see any point in continuing this.

angel76 | Thu, 09/11/2008 - 22:26
Omkaradatta's picture

Right after you...

... check what made you to assume I'm 'reacting' ;-).

P.S. Responsibility/irresponsibility is yet another duality. Responsibility means to "take it upon yourself" (to do xxx). Examine what 'take it upon yourself' really means, and you'll see clearly the falsehood of this duality.

The ego has to bear the burdens of the world to 'feel right', doesn't it? Or to get anything done at all, really. This is why I say Advaita is really another realm altogether.

If this word has some personal meaning to Nancy (and you), I respect it... but I don't buy into any words. Next time maybe I'll just be silent instead of continuing the conversation, as there's no point to it (except attracting chivalrous males to protect the ladies, perhaps ;-).

Omkaradatta | Thu, 09/11/2008 - 23:15
Omkaradatta's picture

I can't resist...

... the chance to point out how words are deceiving, even though it's off topic ;-).

Let's take the question "What makes you to assume I'm reacting?" and dissect it:

What makes you (creates you, causes you) to assume (assume form) I'm reacting (re-acting, acting again).

Something 'made you' or created you... we are discontinuous images in the mind. It was a reaction (acting again), which you assumed (assumed my form, projected onto 'me'), "I'm reacting".

I am an image in the mind, and you are an image in the mind (self-image). These are not realities, but falsities. You are imagining yourself to be there (in between 'losing yourself' in a novel or film, perhaps). Just stop believing in the silliness ;-).

Omkaradatta | Fri, 09/12/2008 - 00:48
divine intervention's picture


This is so so smart and so meticulously worded

divine intervention | Thu, 01/08/2009 - 00:14