Sign in to follow this  
skydog

Destiny and relationships

Recommended Posts

How much are relationships written in destiny and planned before life, and how much do people control...?

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, do you believe in karma? :P

 

There are a few relationships (personal and professional) that felt strongly "karmic" in nature.

 

I got a lot of advice from a lot of people on what to do.

 

But instead I just felt it out, and let it work itself out.

 

A long time ago I read on some site (it was pretty new agey now that I think about it) that before incarnating each soul figures out what it wants to experience in life, and that's how your life is "decided" (or at least, that's your personality, circumstance, etc).

 

So really... it's your own darn fault :P

 

That was always somewhat comforting, that it was my decision to be in whatever situation I'm in (I just don't recall). So I learned to trust myself and just make the best of it.

Edited by Sloppy Zhang
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I've heard the same thing (from a not so newage source) Sloppy Zhang.

 

There are definitely very strong relationships of all sorts that have this feel about them to me, some for good, and some for bad...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had one relationship that I knew had to be pursued for our spiritual well being. We occasionally talk still, it is a lasting connection but there is doubtful to be anything between us in the future other than friendship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"A long time ago I read on some site (it was pretty new agey now that I think about it) that before incarnating each soul figures out what it wants to experience in life, and that's how your life is "decided" (or at least, that's your personality, circumstance, etc)."

 

*
*

 

That idea you came across certainly has all the characteristics I've come to associate with New Age 'philosophies'. i.e. they're warm and fuzzy and leave you thinking your destiny is entirely in your own hands if you can just persevere and find the key.

 

"AND,..... as it happens,... I just happen to know the key. If you : buy this book, repeat this mantra, do this visualization, attend this course, etc., etc, etc."

 

But also as with most New Age thinking, it doesn't stand up very well to even the most elementary questioning. Then again, who wants to question a soft warm duvet on a cold winter's night, after all ?

 

As an example illustrating the first questions that pop into my own mind,... Can you imagine anyone choosing to be reborn as a tapeworm, or a piglet in a Chicago bacon factory farm, or a child with cerebral palsy born in some place like Biafra, Angola, or Communist China ??

 

At least when Buddhists get hold of this idea of rebirth there's no 'choice' involved in it. According to their theories, it's the karma one accumulates through one's actions in this life that impel us into our next rebirth.

 

To my way of thinking, that comes a lot closer to answering the "Why ?" of so many of the horrific lives and situations we all see all around us if we care to open our eyes.

 

But, of course,... those ideas aren't very comforting on a cold winter's night. Viva le New Age !!

 

*

Edited by ThisLife
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an example illustrating the first questions that pop into my own mind,... Can you imagine anyone choosing to be reborn as a tapeworm, or a piglet in a Chicago bacon factory farm, or a child with cerebral palsy born in some place like Biafra, Angola, or Communist China ??

 

But doesn't that assume that our 'soul' has the same d preferences, the same outlook and goals, as a living person? Seems like a bit of a stretch to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But doesn't that assume that our 'soul' has the same d preferences, the same outlook and goals, as a living person? Seems like a bit of a stretch to me.

 

 

Buddhists don't believe there is any such thing as a 'soul'. That idea belongs to theistic religions like Christianity, (and possibly Islam. Don't know much about Islam, however)

 

Unfortunately, as tempting as it is to mix and match with religions,... I think all their usefulness and integrity rapidly falls to pieces if we try to take what we like, drop the stuff we don't like, and add a dash of ingredient X to jazz them up a bit where we feel that they're lacking,

Edited by ThisLife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buddhists don't believe there is any such thing as a 'soul'. That idea belongs to theistic religions like Christianity, (and possibly Islam. Don't know much about Islam, however)

 

They must believe in some part of the consciousness which survives death, it's a prerequisite for reincarnation after all. The rest is just semantics.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They must believe in some part of the consciousness which survives death, it's a prerequisite for reincarnation after all. The rest is just semantics.

 

My feeling is that it's not just semantics at all. Tibetans are extremely precise about their philosophical analyses. I think you may not have considered quite as carefully the differences between 'consciousness' and a 'soul',... since you seem to be suggesting that they are on some level, the same 'kind of thing'.

 

My understanding, (based on the very limited depth to which I pursued my Buddhist studies), is that people who believe in a soul, consider it to be some indestructible essence of a person's being which after death carries on forever, either in heaven, hell, or throughout future lives. The key idea is that it is an indestructible, unchanging, "thing."

 

With regards to the other, 'consciousness' is NOT a thing at all. It does not even remotely overlap any 'thing' whatsoever. They each are two distinctly different phenomena. Consciousness does not remain constant for so much as a moment, but flickers constantly like a fire from subject to subject. Even for meditators,... the movement is just slower, but nevertheless, movement it is.

 

Moreover, there is nothing of consciousness that remains. Just like your thoughts of a year ago last Tuesday. Where are they now ?

 

So, in looking at questions like these, I think one has to be extremely careful to define one's terms first of all, otherwise it's like setting off into a dense fog and relying on the first likeable person who says they're willing and able to guide you through this swamp of our existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My feeling is that it's not just semantics at all. Tibetans are extremely precise about their philosophical analyses. I think you may not have considered quite as carefully the differences between 'consciousness' and a 'soul',... since you seem to be suggesting that they are on some level, the same 'kind of thing'.

 

My understanding, (based on the very limited depth to which I pursued my Buddhist studies), is that people who believe in a soul, consider it to be some indestructible essence of a person's being which after death carries on forever, either in heaven, hell, or throughout future lives. The key idea is that it is an indestructible, unchanging, "thing."

 

With regards to the other, 'consciousness' is NOT a thing at all. It does not even remotely overlap any 'thing' whatsoever. They each are two distinctly different phenomena. Consciousness does not remain constant for so much as a moment, but flickers constantly like a fire from subject to subject. Even for meditators,... the movement is just slower, but nevertheless, movement it is.

 

Moreover, there is nothing of consciousness that remains. Just like your thoughts of a year ago last Tuesday. Where are they now ?

 

So, in looking at questions like these, I think one has to be extremely careful to define one's terms first of all, otherwise it's like setting off into a dense fog and relying on the first likeable person who says they're willing and able to guide you through this swamp of our existence.

 

It's still semantics. My point is (which your argument seems to support) that whatever part of a person exists between incarnations would not have the same view of things as someone currently incarnated into a physical body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Unfortunately, as tempting as it is to mix and match with religions,... I think all their usefulness and integrity rapidly falls to pieces if we try to take what we like, drop the stuff we don't like, and add a dash of ingredient X to jazz them up a bit where we feel that they're lacking.

 

I couldn't disagree more.

 

But you mustn't forget ingredient X!

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While you were in those relationships, did you enjoy yourself at the time? When they were over, did you learn lessons that were helpful?

 

Actually the two I made the joke about were strong enough that there was definitely something destiny/karma/whatever wise there for both of them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's still semantics. My point is (which your argument seems to support) that whatever part of a person exists between incarnations would not have the same view of things as someone currently incarnated into a physical body.

 

Hiya Aeran,

 

I find this a very interesting and enjoyable discussion. Unfortunately, right in the middle of it yesterday evening, the day-to-day realities of dinner and my wife and I's regular habits of activites afterwards, stopped things for me in mid-flow. Nevertheless, I think there's still hope for any chatroom addicts such as ourselves as long as we keep deciding to let 'reality' over-ride the mental gymnastics we enjoy cavorting about in on sites like this.

 

Anyway, back to the fray.

 

Part of the fascination of discussions like this is that, for me, it's like sitting down to play a game of chess or backgammon, with a player I've never met before. It adds the element of complete mystery as regards what style of game one's opponent plays, and where he'll move next.

 

In your case, you're almost a complete enigma to me. You never add more than two lines that give away almost nothing about where you're coming from. That's perfectly acceptable tactics up to a certain point in philosophic discussions like this, but at the place we now stand, I feel a bit of clarification now would be most helpful. Because it seems to me that you could be coming from one of three places, and whichever one of them it is, would alter the direction of my reply :

 

(1) You might be playing the devil's advocate,.... just taking a contrary stance to any point I might try to make, for the sheer enjoyment of bedevilment. I wouldn't hold it against you as my feeling is that that love of conflict and the deliberate provoking of minor forms of it, is a harmless activity present in almost every male I know to some degree or other.

 

(2) You may be supporting some Religion, (Buddhism ?), or belief, (reincarnation ?) that you strongly identify with and feel to be true. In this case I would stop pointing out what appears to me to be 'flaws' in your argument,... because my feeling is that all religions/faiths/philosophies are nothing but human mental constructs created to appeal to a certain typle of person. They are all equally valid for their believers, and I have no interest in disparaging anyone's path, or their genuine beliefs. No religion is susceptible to proof or disproof for its followers. The only result would be bad feelings. And who needs any more of that in the world, or on this site ?

 

(3) You might be trying to find different ways of looking at this existence we all find ourselves trapped inside, by challenging different people on this forum, (and perhaps outside as well), who sound like they are trying to suggest that they might "know" something about the nature of this conundrum of life.

 

This, for me, would be the most 'fun' scenario. Because we both might learn something, and have a bit of fun in this group display of mental gymnastics along the way.

 

Assuming then that you're coming from that place,... I regret to inform you that by the perfectly mundane rules of logic and debate, I'm afraid your last statement doesn't have a leg to stand on. I'll show you where it falls on its backside by reprinting it's key points below :

 

" My point is that whatever part of a person exists between incarnations would not have the same view of things as someone currently incarnated into a physical body."

 

You see, it is completely inadmissible to start off a proposition in a debate with a group of words that already assume something which is unproven, to be true beyond question. Look in closer detail at what you wrote...."whatever part of a person exists between incarnations".

 

Leaving aside the hidden assumptions that you've unconsciously made about 'a person',.... you've also tried to slip in the automatic and unquestioned assumption that reincarnation is a fact. Sorry, but the Marquis of Queensbury Rules say you can't do that.

 

It's like the mini-revelation that happened to me once when I read somewhere that even that most succinct, (and what I believed at the time to be 'unarguable) of philosophic statements, Descarte's "I think, therfore I am",.... was completely unacceptable from the point of view of logical discussion,... because as soon as he said the word "I", he had made the unproven assumption about the real existence of this thing called an "I"

 

So, you're in good company, Don't take it too hard. Going down in flames with Rene Descarte as a comrade in arms, is a great honour !

 

Of course there will always be this problem with words, but nevertheless, they're the only tools we have to communicate our ideas with. All I'm saying is if you enjoy this type of discussion as much as I do and want to carry it on, then you can't palm off these loaded, sleight of hand tricks without a red flag going up.

 

*

 

Anyway, I inevitable come to a point where my windbag nature has inflated my writing in discussions like this to such an extent that in my own eyes I begin to resemble an obscenely, (and dangerously) fat dirigible. When that moment of personal insight comes I always carry along a four inch hatpin with which I can almost instantly bring about a quick and dramatic solution.

 

Pssssttt...! BANG !

 

I'm gone.

 

TTFN

 

 

 

Edited by ThisLife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya Aeran,

 

I find this a very interesting and enjoyable discussion. Unfortunately, right in the middle of it yesterday evening, the day-to-day realities of dinner and my wife and I's regular habits of activites afterwards, stopped things for me in mid-flow. Nevertheless, I think there's still hope for any chatroom addicts such as ourselves as long as we keep deciding to let 'reality' over-ride the mental gymnastics we enjoy cavorting about in on sites like this.

 

Anyway, back to the fray.

 

Part of the fascination of discussions like this is that, for me, it's like sitting down to play a game of chess or backgammon, with a player I've never met before. It adds the element of complete mystery as regards what style of game one's opponent plays, and where he'll move next.

 

In your case, you're almost a complete enigma to me. You never add more than two lines that give away almost nothing about where you're coming from. That's perfectly acceptable tactics up to a certain point in philosophic discussions like this, but at the place we now stand, I feel a bit of clarification now would be most helpful. Because it seems to me that you could be coming from one of three places, and whichever one of them it is, would alter the direction of my reply :

 

(1) You might be playing the devil's advocate,.... just taking a contrary stance to any point I might try to make, for the sheer enjoyment of bedevilment. I wouldn't hold it against you as my feeling is that that love of conflict and the deliberate provoking of minor forms of it, is a harmless activity present in almost every male I know to some degree or other.

 

(2) You may be supporting some Religion, (Buddhism ?), or belief, (reincarnation ?) that you strongly identify with and feel to be true. In this case I would stop pointing out what appears to me to be 'flaws' in your argument,... because all religions/faiths/philosophies are nothing but human mental constructs created to appeal to a certain typle of person. They are all equally valid for their believers, and I have no interest in disparaging anyone's path, or their genuine beliefs. No religion is susceptible to proof or disproof for its followers. The only result would be bad feelings. And who needs any more of that in the world, or on this site ?

 

(3) You might be trying to find different ways of looking at this existence we all find ourselves trapped inside, by challenging different people on this forum, (and perhaps outside as well), who sound like they are trying to suggest that they might "know" something about the nature of this conundrum of life.

 

This, for me, would be the most 'fun' scenario. Because we both might learn something, and have a bit of fun with our display of mental gymnastics along the way.

 

Assuming then that you're coming from that place,... I regret to inform you that by the perfectly mundane rules of logic and debatre, your last statement doesn't have a leg to stand on. I'll show you where it falls on its backside by reprinting it's key points below :

 

" My point is that whatever part of a person exists between incarnations would not have the same view of things as someone currently incarnated into a physical body."

 

You see, it is completely inadmissible to start off a proposition in a debate with a group of words that already assume something which is unproven, to be true beyond question. Look in closer detail at what you wrote...."whatever part of a person exists between incarnations".

 

Leaving aside the hidden assumptions that you've unconsciously made about 'a person',.... you've also tried to slip in the automatic and unquestioned assumption that reincarnation is a fact. Sorry, but the Marquis of Queensbury Rules say you can't do that.

 

It's like the mini-revelation that happened to me once when I read somewhere that even that most succinct, (and what I believed at the time to be 'unarguable) of philosophic statements, Descarte's "I think, therfore I am",.... was completely unacceptable from the point of view of logical discussion,... because as soon as he said the word "I", he had made the unproven assumption of the real existence of this thing called an "I"

 

So, you're in good company, Don't take it too hard. Going down in flames with Rene Descarte as a comrade in arms, is a great honour !

 

Of course there will always be this problem with words, but nevertheless, they're the only tools we have to communicate our ideas with. All I'm saying is if you enjoy this type of discussion as much as I do and want to carry it on, then you can't palm off these loaded, sleight of hand tricks without a red flag going up.

 

*

 

Anyway, I inevitable come to a point where my windbag nature has inflated my writing in discussions like this, to such an extent that I begins to look obscenely fat dirigible. When that moment of personal insight comes I always carry along a four inch hatpin with which I can almost instantly bring about a quick and dramatic solution.

 

Pssssttt...! BANG !

 

I'm gone.

 

TTFN

 

For the sake of this discussion, yes, I'm assuming reincarnation is a fact, because this is a discussion about reincarnation. Without assuming reincarnation to be true, at least as a hypothetical for the sake of the debate, then any discussion about the specifics of reincarnation are meaningless.

 

In the wider scheme of things, I figure reincarnation is the most likely option, but honestly for the most part I don't think there's a whole lot of point in speculating about the afterlife, there's just no way to be sure, and whatever will happen will happen regardless of how much speculation is done.

 

So yeah, If it makes you feel better, insert 'If reincarnation is true...' before everything I said. But all this is just a distraction from my main point, which is that, if reincarnation is true, there's absolutely no reason to assume that whatever surviving portion of an individuals essence, being, consciousness, intelligent, identity, spirit, soul, higher self or whatever other term you want to use for it, will have the same view of reality as the individual has while being incarnated, it seems self evident that at that phase of existence a vastly different perspective on the universe would exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

Hume it was!

 

Not Super Human!

 

Ahem.

 

What I mean to say, is that it was the Scots philospher David Hume who first chose to undermine the foundation stone of Descartes' method.

 

He said simply there was a thought ie that awareness itself existed, and that an "I", upon reflection, was nowhere to be found.

 

I enjoyed Hume, quite the proto buddhist I always thought.

 

For his part, Descartes conceived his argument thusly.

 

I must have a system of certainty, where each statement can be proven to follow from the one before.

 

The prerequisite of this system is a secure foundation.

 

A foundation that is secure is one that is certain, one that cannot be doubted.

 

Descartes finds that he can doubt everything, except the existence of that which is doing the doubting.

 

He finds therefore that he cannot doubt himself.

 

This is the origin of the famous cogito ergo sum ie I think, therefore I am.

 

The subject/object distinction is not one that Descartes appeared to trouble himself with.

 

Yet it can be troublesome.

 

If we have the felt experience on the one hand, and the experiencer on the other, what is it that experiences?

 

In meditative states this distinction has a tendency to dissolve, with all that's left being the stream of existence, of vital living.

 

But it always returns.

 

Or at least it does for me.

 

I will say a simple doctrine of no-self no longer appeals to me.

 

I'd rather discuss archangels.

 

Or relationships.

 

Hang on!

 

I'm off topic!

 

Sorry!

 

I guess its my destiny to have relationships with folk who want to discuss philosophy.

 

Ha ha ha!

...

Edited by Captain Mar-Vell
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But all this is just a distraction from my main point, which is that, if reincarnation is true, there's absolutely no reason to assume that whatever surviving portion of an individuals essence, being, consciousness, intelligent, identity, spirit, soul, higher self or whatever other term you want to use for it, will have the same view of reality as the individual has while being incarnated, it seems self evident that at that phase of existence a vastly different perspective on the universe would exist.

 

Hi again Aeran,

 

 

I must say, it looks like, after a lot of verbal jousting, we've actually worked our way around to a point where we are in complete agreement . Amazing, eh ?

 

I've extracted in the quote above, your re-jigged and clarified rendition of what I had missed understanding the first few times around. There's not a word of it I could disagree with.

 

However, for me it all hinges on that one, tiny word. "if", in your opening statement, "if reincarnation is true". After that 'if', everything else hangs together perfectly.

 

Nevertheless, perhaps it's a perversity in my nature but that word "if" holds all the juice for me. Probably since, for well over twenty years I used to believe so whole-heartedly in reincarnation during the period when I saw myself as a Buddhist. The first time I came across a set of ideas suggesting that this explanation was just another attempt by man to bring the reassurance of supposed comprehension to something which is beyond comprehension,... it felt like I was reading words of sheer blasphemy.

 

But, I was bitten. I couldn't stop going back to the book, lifting the covers,... and thrilling myself by looking again at this outrageous example of blasphemy.

 

Now, I've grown so used to the ideas inherent in Non-Duality teachings that I'm afraid, for me, there's now just no way of going back to those comfortable old days of belief in the system of Buddha's doctrine. Such a pity, in a way. It had such a vast and lovely collection of logical answers to seemingly every question I could imagine at the time.

 

But, if you're happy with reincarnation, more power to you, as they say. The current set of beliefs I now carry around certainly hasn't made me one whit a more happy and contented person, so I wouldn't dream of trying to off load them in your direction. My feeling is that for each one of us, our karma takes us where it will. I don't believe that any of us have any choice in the things that we find ourself attracted to and which we may well end up believing in with faith and dedication.

Edited by ThisLife
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

I will say a simple doctrine of no-self no longer appeals to me.

 

I'd rather discuss archangels.

 

Or relationships.

 

Hang on!

 

I'm off topic!

 

Sorry!

 

I guess its my destiny to have relationships with folk who want to discuss philosophy.

 

 

...

 

Howdy Captain,

 

Forgive me if I appear woefully ignorant of how to properly address a person of your rank. I've never associated with military men before. As an ex-hippy, brush cuts, clean-shaven and disciplined men in uniforms were the bogey-men to me back in the Sixties.

 

However, reassuringly, I find you're also a man of fascinating insights. (At least for me). I really appreciated your information about both Hume and Descartes. I had had no idea it was Hume who blew Descartes cover, as I've never read anything by him. Only recognised his name as one of the philosophic 'biggees'

 

I also found your explanation of Descartes' line of reasoning behind his famous one-liner , to be equally fascinating. When you explained with such patient clarity the logic connecting each step of his reasoning it helped me to see that there was no inadvertent oversight on his part,... that his ground breaking idea still retains its pre-eminent place in our Western attempts to understand the incomprehensible. Thanks very much for supplying and fitting together all those pieces in the puzzle.

 

You particularly hit a resounding chord of resonance for me when you ended with, " I guess its my destiny to have relationships with folk who want to discuss philosophy." I've long wondered what it is that impels me to hang around sites like this, when most 'normal people' in the world seem to be out and about engaging in this extraordinary experience of life that we're all imprisoned in,... rather than sitting around on our own in some room somewhere, trying to dream up explanations for what it's all about. This kind of activity strikes me as similar to a young lad standing off at the edge of a wondrous Barnum and Bailey circus that's just hit town, trying to figure out how the big tent is suspended, what type of fuel the roller coaster engine runs on, etc, etc. Kind of misses the point, doesn't it ? Pity the poor kid who's so afflicted.

 

Anyway, since we seem to have a considerable overlap in either life experiences, or at least a proximity in where we find ourselves standing now,... perhaps you might be interested in this account by an author whose ideas I still find really intriguing ?

 

Ever since I first came across Nisargadhatta's book "I Am That" and was introduced to those revolutionary-sounding ideas in Non-Duality teachings, I was on the search for Westerners who had had similar experiences. My hope was that they might be able to bring what they had experienced away from those far-off realms of the Mysterious East, and make them accessible to me, sitting here all quiet on the Western front.

 

In the end I found two chaps who did this service for me. On the off chance that you might also find this kind of second-hand experience interesting, below I've added a short extract by the second writer, Richard Sylvester. What I've taken from one of his talks below seems to me to be his way of answering the question you raised in your post above when you asked "If we have the felt experience on the one hand, and the experiencer on the other, what is it that experiences?"

 

*

 

Richard Sylvester wrote :

 

*

 

 

The word ‘I’ in the sentence “I am happy” has exactly the same force as the word ‘It’ in the sentence “It is raining.” There is no ‘it’. There is no ‘I’. Rain simply falls. Happiness simply arises.

 

Most writing that purports to be about non-duality is absolutely dualistic. As soon as a writer suggests that there is someone who can do something to bring about liberation, you are reading nonsense. (Though often this message will come dressed up as highly articulate, eloquent, complex and persuasive nonsense.)

 

There is no such thing as a teacher of non-duality. No one can teach the mystery of being. Therefore, if someone presents themselves as a teacher, it is not non-duality that they are

offering.

 

There are many interesting and useful things that can be taught. During the last forty years, for example, I have taught meditation, self-awareness, personal development, humanistic psychology, counselling and many other things. None of this has anything to do with non-duality.

 

All that can be offered about non-duality is an opportunity to share some thoughts and ideas and feelings, and an inadequate attempt to describe liberation where it has been seen. Nevertheless, for some of us there is a powerful magnetic pull to spend time occasionally with people who want to share in this way. Why this should be is a mystery.

 

As for meetings on 'non-duality and therapy', or 'non-duality and improving relationships', or 'non-duality and self-development', or 'non-duality and tantra', I wouldn't pay any more attention to them than to meetings on 'non-duality and cookery', or 'non-duality and upholstery'. You cannot use non-duality in any way. It has no point or purpose and you cannot bargain with it or profit from it. It is what it is, and it simply reveals itself or it does not.

 

*

Edited by ThisLife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this