Thoughts on destiny
By skydog, January 17, 2014 in General Discussion
skydog
Speaking the truth will get you banned here, always stick up for
has been messing with my mind a little bit recently
personally it makes me feel quite defeatist to think that everythin is already planned and determined
That there is already a set best way
That I have planned certain things to happen in advance
Some things do make sense however, I feel that many obstacles and challenges have been planned in advance, and sort of like some kind of inititians by spirits or the light or something
But Im also thinking im a human being, with human needs and trying to live as a soul, while being a human is very annoying, I dont want to move towards difficult situations, I dont want to wait for a so called pre destined possibility which I dont even know if it exists or not, according to a sometimes sketchy intuition.
Is there more than one life path?
Sadghuru says how can life be pre determined if we have to question the ethics of our actions...
Thanks for your post, blessings to you too
The Wondering Taoist
My destiny is to live until I die. That is all. Nothing more, nothing less.
If I go to the zoo today and jump in the lion's den with the lions I will very likely die today. But if I stay home I may live until tomorrow. But then, I may die just as well.
Dying is not one of my worries. Staying out of the lion's den is important to me.
*classified*
There are an infinite number of them.
Destiny and fate is a tricky idea. You need to take into account the time period such concerns were originally brought forth, namely when people were very interested in studying the movements of the stars, and the sun and moon, and other aspects of heaven.
Its more accurate to look at destiny as an outcome of trajectory or path of motion, rather than an appointment that will happen regardless. Yes it is the destiny of living things to die, because they have been born. Only that which is unborn does not die.
It is a bit like the course of a ship on the ocean - you cant stop on a dime and reverse direction, you have to steer correctly and flow with the movement of the water to effectively change where you are going. Destiny is like the results of karma, but karma is continually in flux and malleable.
Wyrd is a concept in Anglo-Saxon culture roughly corresponding to fate or personal destiny. The word is ancestral to Modern English weird, which retains its original meaning only dialectically.
The cognate term in Old Norse is urðr, with a similar meaning, but also personalized as one of the Norns, Urðr (anglicized as Urd) and appearing in the name of the holy well Urðarbrunnr in Norse mythology.
The Old English term wyrd derives from a Common Germanic term *wurđíz. Wyrd has cognates in Old Saxon wurd, Old High German wurt, Old Norse urðr, Dutchworden (to become) and German werden. The Proto-Indo-European root is *wert- "to turn, rotate", in Common Germanic *wirþ- with a meaning "to come to pass, to become, to be due" (also in weorþ, the notion of "origin" or "worth" both in the sense of "connotation, price, value" and "affiliation, identity, esteem, honour and dignity.)
Old English wyrd is a verbal noun formed from the verb weorþan, meaning "to come to pass, to become". The term developed into the modern English adjective weird.
Adjectival use develops in the 15th century, in the sense "having the power to control fate", originally in the name of the Weird Sisters, i.e. the classical Fates, in the Elizabethan period detached from their classical background as fays, and most notably appearing as the Three Witches in Shakespeare's Macbeth. From the 14th century, to weird was also used as a verb in Scots, in the sense of "to preordain by decree of fate".
The now most common meaning of weird, "odd, strange", is first attested in 1815, originally with a connotation of the supernatural or portentuous (especially in the collocation weird and wonderful), but by the early 20th century increasingly applied to everyday situations.[2]
Wyrd is a feminine noun, and its Norse cognate urðr, besides meaning "fate", is the name of one of the Norns; urðr is literally "that which has come to pass", verðandi is "what is in the process of happening" (the present participle of the verb cognate to weorþan) and skuld "debt, guilt" (from a Germanic root *skul- "to owe", also found in English shall).
Between themselves, the Norns weave fate or ørlǫg (from ór "out, from, beyond" and lǫg "law", and may be interpreted literally as "beyond law"). According to Voluspa 20, the three Norns "set up the laws", "decided on the lives of the children of time" and "promulgate their ørlǫg". Frigg, on the other hand, while she "knows all ørlǫg", "says it not herself" (Lokasenna 30). ørlǫglausa "ørlǫg-less" occurs in Voluspa 17 in reference to driftwood, that is given breath, warmth and spirit by three gods, to create the first humans, Ask ("Ash") and Embla (possibly "Elm").
Mentions of wyrd in Old English literature include The Wanderer, "Wyrd bið ful aræd" ("Fate remains wholly inexorable") and Beowulf, "Gæð a wyrd swa hio scel!" ("Fate goes ever as she shall!").
dmattwads
I read Bill Brodi's book "White Fat Cow" and he does a very good job of explaining that "destiny" or "fate" is simply a term for the way that your karma plays out. But it is not fixed. You can change your karma so thus you can change your fate.
"Everything that lives must serve the "all-universal purposes." Man is not exempt from this necessity, and must, either by his life or by this death, contribute his quota to the transformation of energy upon which the reciprocal maintenance of all existence depends" "Man has thus a two-fold destiny, either to live only as the unconscious slave of the all-universal purpose, or to pay the debt of his own existence and thus attain independent individuality, with all that this brings of further possibilities of self-perfecting." Unfortunately, "the average man is indeed incapable of the single, smallest, independent or spontaneous action or word."
- George Gurdjieff
:wub:
Edited January 17, 2014 by chegg
Captain Mar-Vell
Man of Dao.
Good old George.
And I've been meditating on lion's dens...
Although I like the quote I think he might be selling the average man short. (Maybe they (the average man) don't meet "his" expectations?)
Edit to add:
Hey Captain Mar-vell, the correct answer is "a.". Lions are Atheists so for them there was no angel, and no, lions aren't nice when they are hungry.
Edited January 18, 2014 by Marblehead
You wouldn't like me if I was hungry.
And I am afraid your ignorance is appalling.
Lions are atheists?
I had to go check that.
I searched for Lion Gods.
Here's the first link;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maahes
But I prefer the scond;
http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/liongod.htm
Occupation: God of... lions?
The Lion God can possess the form of a human, transforming it into a replica of his own form. He has a number of other powers, some of which he has demonstrated. He can grow in size, move at rapid speeds, teleport himself and others, and alter his own density. He possesses superhuman strength (at least Class 75-90) and durability, and presumably is immune to the effects of aging and disease. He can manipulate others, whipping them into a mob-like frenzy, or causing his foes to obey him.
His most powerful weapon was his totem-stick, which proved powerful enough to drop Iron Man or Thor with a touch, or a
blast. The totem-stick can also summon lions, which he can control.
I know all about lions.
I watched Born Free at least four times.
Awww those cute lion cubs!
It was my destiny to make this post.
Edited January 18, 2014 by Captain Mar-Vell
You have no destiny, Captain, but you do have a life.
And no fair considering the deification, by man, of lions.
And my appearance of ignorance is due only to your misunderstanding of reality. You really should read the TTC.
Here is the extended version quote.......
"..the average man is indeed incapable of the single smallest independent or spontaneous action or word. All of him is only the result of external effect. Man is a transforming machine, a kind of transmitting station of forces."
"..a man is a very complex organism developed by evolution from the simplest organisms, and who has now become capable of reacting in a very complex manner to external impressions. This capability of reacting in a man is so complex, and the responsive movements can appear to be so far removed from the causes evoking them and conditioning them, that the actions of man, or at least part of them, seem to naïve observation quite spontaneous."
"..man differs from the animals only by the greater complexity of his reactions to external impressions, and by having a more complex construction for perceiving and reacting to them."
All he is saying is that the majority of humanity is simply reacting to stimuli ? i.e.,
man gets hungry -> he is compelled to eat,
man likes what neighbor has -> compelled to buy the same
man needs money -> compelled to get a job
man reads article in newspaper -> takes interest and follows advice
man reads taobums thread -> feels the need to post something
man sees attractive woman -> follows woman (for a minute or two)
Are there many cases where someone is not reacting to some sort of stimulus ?
Blessings of Independent Action
:wub: :wub: :wub: :wub:
...destiny has two stages Opening and closing. If you choose non, you have no destiny (by the time) wu wei.
View from above: Humans just do human things. Nothing interesting.
If you sit - you can rise or fall
On one occasion, at one of these meetings, someone asked about the possibility of reincarnation, and whether it was possible to believe in cases of communication with the dead.
"Many things are possible," said G. "But it is necessary to understand that man's being, both in life and after death, if it does exist after death, may be very different in quality. The 'man-machine' with whom everything depends upon external influences, with whom everything happens, who is now one, the next moment another, and the next moment a third, has no future of any kind; he is buried and that is all. Dust returns to dust. This applies to him. In order to be able to speak of any kind of future life there must be a certain crystallization, a certain fusion of man's inner qualities, a certain independence of external influences. If there is anything in a man able to resist external influences, then this very thing itself may also be able to resist the death of the physical body.
"But think for yourselves what there is to withstand physical death in a man who faints or forgets everything when he cuts his finger? If there is anything in a man, it may survive; if there is nothing, then there is nothing to survive. But even if something survives, its future can be very varied. In certain cases of fuller crystallization what people call 'reincarnation' may be possible after death, and, in other cases, what people call 'existence on the other side.' In both cases it is the continuation of life in the 'astral body,' or with the help of the 'astral body.' You know what the expression 'astral body' means. But the systems with which you are acquainted and which use this expression state that all men have an 'astral body.' This is quite wrong. What may be called the 'astral body' is obtained by means of fusion, that is, by means of terribly hard inner work and struggle. Man is not born with it. And only very few men acquire an 'astral body.' If it is formed it may continue to live after the death of the physical body, and it may be born again in another physical body. This is 'reincarnation.' If it is not re-born, then, in the course of time, it also dies; it is not immortal but it can live long after the death of the physical body.
"Fusion, inner unity, is obtained by means of 'friction,' by the struggle between 'yes' and 'no' in man. If a man lives without inner struggle, if everything happens in him without opposition, if he goes wherever he is drawn or wherever the wind blows, he will remain such as he is. But if a struggle begins in him, and particularly if there is a definite line in this struggle, then, gradually, permanent traits begin to form themselves, he begins to 'crystallize.' But crystallization is possible on a right foundation and it is possible on a wrong foundation. 'Friction,' the struggle between 'yes' and 'no,' can easily take place on a wrong foundation. For instance, a fanatical belief in some or other idea, or the 'fear of sin,' can evoke a terribly intense struggle between 'yes' and 'no,' and a man may crystallize on these foundations. But this would be a wrong, incomplete crystallization. Such a man will not possess the possibility of further development. In order to make further development possible he must be melted down again, and this can be accomplished only through terrible suffering.
"The 'astral body' is not an indispensable implement for man. It is a great luxury which only a few can afford. A man can live quite well without an 'astral body.' His physical body possesses all the functions necessary for life. A man without 'astral body' may even produce the impression of being a very intellectual or even spiritual man, and may deceive not only others but also himself.
"This applies still more, of course, to the 'mental body' and the fourth body. Ordinary man does not possess these bodies or their corresponding functions. But he often thinks, and makes others think, that he does. The reasons for this are, first, the fact that the physical body works with the same substances of which the higher bodies are composed, only these substances are not crystallized in him, do not belong to him; and secondly, it has all the functions analogous to those of the higher bodies, though of course they differ from them considerably.
In theosophical terminology the first is the 'physical' body, the second is the 'astral,' the third is the 'mental,' and the fourth the 'causal' (that is, the body which bears the causes of its actions within itself, is independent of external causes, and is the body of will.)
Okay, the second and third paragraphs are acceptable. Good, in fact.
Yes, many, I don't know if it would be fair to say the majority, do live based on external stimuli. Follow the leader. Keep within the herd lest you get lost or encounter unnecessary problems.
Taobum1: "Hey, wanna see me lift my leg up as an independent, spontaneous action?"
Taobum2: "Ok, go ahead dude, that would be really something to see"
Taobum1: "Grrrr, grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr..........I seem to be having a bit of trouble.......gimme another minute"
(meanwhile, hot chick walks by......)
Taobum1: "There ya go dude, one leg in the air"
Taobum2: "That's not quite the leg I thought we were talking about"
Well, based on my personal experiences, that was an independent spontanious (re)action.
Hehehe. We really have not gone off topic as it seems that the above reaction was an element of my destiny.
"The transmission of the meaning of symbols to a man who has not reached an understanding of them in himself is impossible. This sounds like a paradox, but the meaning of a symbol and the disclosure of its essence can only be given to, and can only be understood by, one who, so to speak, already knows what is comprised in this symbol. And then a symbol becomes for him a synthesis of his knowledge and serves him for the expression and transmission of his knowledge just as it served the man who constructed it.
"Man, in the normal state natural to him, is taken as a duality. He consists entirely of dualities or 'pairs of opposites.' All man's sensations, impressions, feelings, thoughts, are divided into positive and negative, useful and harmful, necessary and unnecessary, good and bad, pleasant and unpleasant. The work of centers proceeds under the sign of this division. Thoughts oppose feelings. Moving impulses oppose instinctive craving for quiet. This is the duality in which proceed all the perceptions, all the reactions, the whole life of man. Any man who observes himself, however little, can see this duality in himself.
"But this duality would seem to alternate; what is victor today is the vanquished tomorrow; what guides us today becomes secondary and subordinate tomorrow. And everything is equally mechanical, equally independent of will, and leads equally to no aim of any kind. The understanding of duality in oneself begins with the realization of mechanicalness and the realization of the difference between what is mechanical and what is conscious. This understanding must be preceded by the destruction of the self-deceit in which a man lives who considers even his most mechanical actions to be volitional and conscious and himself to be single and whole.
"When self-deceit is destroyed and a man begins to see the difference between the mechanical and the conscious in himself, there begins a struggle for the realization of consciousness in life and for the subordination of the mechanical to the conscious. For this purpose a man begins with endeavors to set a definite decision, coming from conscious motives, against mechanical processes proceeding according to the laws of duality. The creation of a permanent third principle is for man the transformation of the duality into the trinity.
"Strengthening this decision and bringing it constantly and infallibly into all those events where formerly accidental neutralizing 'shocks' used to act and give accidental results, gives a permanent line of results in time and is the transformation of trinity into quaternity. The next stage, the transformation of quaternity into quinternity and the construction of the pentagram has not one but many different meanings even in relation to man. And of these is learned, first of all, one, which is the most beyond doubt, relating to the work of centers.
"The development of the human machine and the enrichment of being begins with a new and unaccustomed functioning of this machine. We know that a man has five centers: the thinking, the emotional, the moving, the instinctive, and the sex. The predominant development of any one center at the expense of the others produces an extremely one-sided type of man, incapable of further development. But if a man brings the work of the five centers within him into harmonious accord, he then 'locks the pentagram within him' and becomes a finished type of the physically perfect man. The full and proper functioning of five centers brings them into union with the higher centers which introduce the missing principle and put man into direct and permanent connection with objective consciousness and objective knowledge.
"And then man becomes the six-pointed star, that is, by becoming locked within a circle of life independent and complete in itself, he becomes isolated from foreign influences or accidental shocks; he embodies in himself the Seal of Solomon.
"This same process of the harmonious development of man can be examined from the point of view of the law of octaves. The law of octaves gives another system of symbols. In the sense of the law of octaves every completed process is a transition of the note do through a series of successive tones to the do of the next octave. The seven fundamental tones of the octave express the law of seven. The addition to it of the do of the next octave, that is to say, the crowning of the process, gives the eighth step. The seven fundamental tones together with the two 'intervals' and 'additional shocks' give nine steps. By incorporating in it the do of the next octave we have ten steps. The last, the tenth, step is the end of the preceding and the beginning of the next cycle. In this way the law of octaves and the process of development it expresses, include the numbers 1 to 10. At this point we come to what may be termed the symbolism of numbers. The symbolism of numbers cannot be understood without the law of octaves or without a clear conception of how octaves are expressed in the decimal system and vice versa.
How do you live life differently if you believe in predestination?
Do you give up the concept of control more? If no matter what you do, something is predestined to happen, do you plan less and care about the future less? Since its going to happen no matter what you do.
If thats the case is it good or bad?
Personally I don't believe in predestination. I think our actions lead us/tilt us towards an unwritten destiny.
I'll mention this (supposedly true) story again...
There was a guy that was told before hand of everything that was going to happen to him in the following weeks. So he knew who he was going to meet, what he was going to do, who would ring on the phone, who would visit and knock on the front door, etc..
After a few months of this he started to become suicidal. Why ? (I hear you ask)
Because the mystery of life had been taken away from him.
Blessings of Keeping the Mystery !
Hey 9th,
I enjoyed the reading until you got to the trinity. Everything after that was beyond me.
ThisLife
WTF ?
This is my long-time favourite, illustrative story tale about destiny.
"The Appointment in Samarra"
(as retold by W. Somerset Maugham [1933])
There was a rich and powerful merchant in Bagdad who one day sent his trusted servant to market to buy provisions. A very short while later the servant came running back, white and trembling, and said, "Master, just now when I was in the marketplace I was jostled by a very strange man in the crowd and when I turned,... I saw to my horror that it was Death that had jostled me. He looked at me and made a beckoning gesture. Please, lend me your horse, and I will ride away from this city and avoid this terrible fate. I am young and not at all ready to die. I can be in Samarra by this evening, and there Death will not be able to find me for there is no horse in all the land as swift as yours."
The merchant was very fond of his faithful servant and so, lent him his horse. The servant mounted it, dug his spurs in its flanks, and as fast as the horse could gallop, down the road to Samarra he rode.
Then the merchant strode to the marketplace where he saw Death standing in the crowd. Fearlessly he went up to him and said, "Why did you make a threatening gesture to my faithful servant when you saw him this morning?"
Death was somewhat taken aback by the merchant's question, but replied, "That was not a threatening gesture, it was only a start of surprise. I was astonished to see him in Bagdad, you see. For I have an appointment with him tonight in Samarra and I didn't think it humanly possible for anyone to get there that quickly."
Edited January 19, 2014 by ThisLife
Urpflanze
So, basically, one finds a way to run into his fate? Well, if we replace Death with Happiness here. In that context, will the action of the servant seem unreasonable or unworthy? Will the moral of the story crumble?
How can an amnesiac know of his condition on his own?
Nice story. Many little lessons in it.
Will the moral of the story crumble?
Well, if one has not yet controlled their fears then the story would still be valid.
Funny. The only thing they would know is that they don't know and that would be an indicator that something was wrong.