We make our own meaning in an indifferent universe

Here's a great question that Lesley Hazleton asks at the start of the Making Meaning chapter in her book, Agnostic: A Spirited Manifesto.

What do you do when someone tells you about a treasured experience that you know is in all probability untrue? True to that person that is, but not objectively true.

Since people share all kinds of religious and mystical experiences in comments on my blog posts, I'm confronted with this question often. Usually I have the same answer Hazleton chose when a woman told her about orca whales lining up and singing to her as she stood on a low cliff overlooking the ocean.

I chose discretion over honesty because I had no desire to hurt this person by questioning what was clearly so meaningful to her. There can be great beauty in the enterprise of making meaning, that very human desire to find significance in the world. But it seems to me essential that we be aware that this is what we are doing, and that we retain a certain sense of bemusement, even amusement, at our proclivity to translate the world into human terms. Aware, that is, of our own subjectivity.

Life is difficult.

Whatever helps us get through the day, the week, the month, the year, the lifetime -- that's to be embraced, even if it is based on a fantasy. I have no problems with fantasy, nor does Hazleton. But I heartily agree with her that it's important to recognize that the meanings we ascribe to the world are our meanings, not an objective meaning inherent in the universe.

Here's some additional passages from the Making Meaning chapter about how the absence of objective meaning creates a wonderful space for us to fashion our own subjective meaning.

The absence of an "ultimate" meaning of life -- a grand, over-arching explanation of everything -- does not render life empty of relevance. On the contrary, it makes it all the more relevant. 

It means we can no longer use divine intent as an excuse, in the same way fatalists talk of fate. It places responsibility directly on us -- responsibility for how we act, for what we do, for our relations with others, with our society, with our planet. 

It is we who determine meaning by what we do. And part of that meaning is the awareness that we are not and cannot always be in control, that we are indeed subject to chance, to serendipity, to the unforeseen, the unanticipated, the fortuitous. 

I see no reason why meaning and significance should be any less for knowing how vast the universe is, and how small I am in it. Far from being appalled by this, I am excited by it. It allows for life as an adventure, and for the unexpected and under-appreciated value of misadventure -- for wrong turns and dead ends, chance discoveries and unintended turns.

It makes life a matter of open-ended exploration instead of a predetermined slog along a straight line from birth to death.

Instead of what's the meaning of life, then, I'd rather ask what makes my life meaningful. Instead of mission, I'm happy to wake up in anticipation of a new day, with work I want to return to, people I want to walk and talk with. Happy, that is, to wake up with desire, with appetite, and with the bemused acceptance of being human, fallible, and imperfectly rational.

I rejoice in there being no single meaning -- in there being instead a multitude of meanings, an infinite number of ways in which we exercise our subjectivity and imagination, rendering meaningful what is objectively meaningless. Meaning is ours to make, and to choose.

The search for meaning, then, is itself a choice. It offers the hope of a consoling narrative that will stave off the awareness of an indifferent universe. 

It's the go-to defense against the fear of insignificance, against the realization that there's nothing personal in nature -- that it's not about me, or you, or us -- and that whatever narrative we detect in it is entirely of our own making. We make ourselves significant. We persuade ourselves that whales sing to us. Even, as happened to me, that a snow-covered mountain speaks to us.

...I may like to think that I have no illusions about the terms of my existence on this planet, but that itself is merely an illusion: my own pathetic fallacy. Romanticism lingers, a sop to my vanity, to my sense of the centrality of my own existence.

However clearly I think I accept the case with which I could, at any moment, cease to exist, some part of me stubbornly refuses to accept my own insignificance, and sees personal meaning in impersonal forces. I shamelessly insist, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, on my own significance.

Comments

[Spence Tepper]

The author is guilty of what she accuses others....
"There can be great beauty in the enterprise of making meaning, that very human desire to find significance in the world. But it seems to me essential that we be aware that this is what we are doing, and that we retain a certain sense of bemusement, even amusement, at our proclivity to translate the world into human terms. Aware, that is, of our own subjectivity."

That subjectivity can just as readily lead to doubt. Doubt, in the absence of experience, is just as subjective a projection as a report we cannot comprehend.

" But it seems to me essential that we be aware that this is what we are doing,"

We may not be doing it. We may be experiencing what is in us.

She presumes, in her own new religion of 'rational thinking' but still presuming what she herself cannot know. And therefore is not rational.

" The search for meaning, then, is itself a choice. It offers the hope of a consoling narrative that will stave off the awareness of an indifferent universe."

Who says the universe is indifferent, when everything is far more connected and responsive than we can consciously perceive?

On behalf of this connected universe, I am insulted by her presumption that the universe is indifferent. Every thought, every feeling, every particle of dust that moves has a cause and moves deliberately in response to it. Every electron is 100% responsive to the environment it finds itself. There is zero indifference in this creation, except in the ignorance and blasé of people who in their fantasy think they know all about the creation.

"We make ourselves significant. We persuade ourselves that whales sing to us. Even, as happened to me, that a snow-covered mountain speaks to us."

No. We are only what we are.and yes, that is significant. But if you hear whales singing, then find out why you are hearing that. Since we are all conected, rather than presume" nothing " or invent a narrative, why not just investigate one's own inner proclivities?

Yes we can invent something. Or we can discover what is in us. But even what we invent, we didn't invent. It comes from within us. It comes from something real and important.

We are not projecting. The projector that is projecting is within us, but much deeper than our conscious thoughts, which are nothing but a broadcast from that deeper projector.

It is a presumption that we exist in a vacuum. How false and irrational a notion! And how dangerous and self - serving!

"I rejoice in there being no single meaning -- in there being instead a multitude of meanings, an infinite number of ways in which we exercise our subjectivity and imagination, rendering meaningful what is objectively meaningless. Meaning is ours to make, and to choose."

That is her fantasy.

No there isn't a multitude of meanings within each of us. Not for each of us. There is only what is inside us. The one set of program instructions imprinted upon our brain that is fixed. And that is our one specific, particular bag of goodies and baddies. Gifts and curses, Easter eggs and Christmas presents. We get one bag. What's in it is one set of things. What's in your bag and what's in mine have a few similar items, but not all. And we are powerless to change that, though we can pretend otherwise.

We cannot change one cell from what we are, and we move, under the illusion of choice. If religion and singing whales are an illusion, choice is too. But we choose invariably what is in us, and the reaction of this physical body and brain to this environment. This body and brain, a photocopy of a relic, made of hundreds of thousands of years of experience, but each a little different. And this mind, the exact same mix of thoughts, hundreds of thousands of years old. The brain transmits with clone repetition the same series of thoughts and emotions it has been broadcasting for millenia. It's all reruns and nothing but reruns.

We have no choice. But if we are meant for it, we stop and reflect, and take an inner path of discovery, to find the truths underneath the inventions. And then we see each invention is our own brain communicating in its own language over and over the same messages.

[Sonia Taylor]

The very word “choice” implies that we have the ability to make a decision. Without choice we would all be condemned to fate making us all victims of fatalism. However, every moment of every day we are making choices (consciously or not).

"I rejoice in there being no single meaning -- in there being instead a multitude of meanings, an infinite number of ways in which we exercise our subjectivity and imagination, rendering meaningful what is objectively meaningless. Meaning is ours to make, and to choose."

I appreciate that there are “a multitude of meanings, an infinite number of ways in which we exercise our subjectivity and imagination...”

Some speak in the language of the personhood of God while others see “God” as an energy that connects all of life. Each of us have a story to tell. We learn from our own and others’ experiences. And our stories are as varied as the colors of the visible spectrum... and beyond.

I think Hazelton’s message is that all viewpoints are valid and relevant to the believer.

[Sonia Taylor]

Blind faith. What is it good for? People are afraid of uncertainty as they are of the unknown. But uncertainty is the journey and certainty is the destination. Until you have finally reached the destination you are still in the unknown wandering that is called life. Life is the journey. Be brave, not blind.

[Um]

There is meaning that is attributed and there is meaning that is transferred in inner experiences.

From the descriptions of these inner experiences and the persons dealing with them we get the impression that those having these experiences consider them more real that what we call the real world….. reason why these experiences ended up to be witten down in holy books, religions and in the hearts of millions that follow an spiritual guide of sorts.

The occurence of these inner experience might one day become explained but not the source of the content. We may also be able to find in the biological make up of man, an explanation for believing these inner experiences.

Moses had that experience in which land was promised to his people. I guess there must have been a realistic reason in those days that his tribe was in need of such an land. The effect can be seen even today and also that all believe in it. Not only those of simple mind but also by those highly educated and intelligent people who spend their lives studying and explaining that story.

As I wrote before IF there was an real divine messenger that gave that land to Moses and his tribe, he certainly forgot to inform the other indigenous tribes ALL OVER THE WORLD, about this gift and to respect HIS wishes in the matter.

If He , the divine giver of land, had done so we would not face the problems in the middle east over that land and possibily even an third world war.

So it is not just an matter of person A attributing meaning but also the amount of people that have realistic vested interests in such an meaning.

As long as people believe and want to believe in home lands, father lands etc they can be lured to give their lives for it. It has been the source of many an was.

It is all about territory, be it in this world or the here after.

Whenever you stand in respect when the flag of the USA is rissen and the national hymn is played… just ask yourself what you are doing and why

[Trevor Smith]

Take away life from the universe and it is indeed cold and indifferent.....

And universe, it's scope, meaning, understanding etc etc, is indeed unique to every life form that exists.

Wonder who gives the right to humans to decide for other life forms what meaning they make of their universe.

[Trevor Smith]

The very word “choice” implies that we have the ability to make a decision. Without choice we would all be condemned to fate making us all victims of fatalism. However, every moment of every day we are making choices (consciously or not).

Posted by: Sonia Taylor | March 04, 2020 at 01:44 AM

According to Spence (surprisingly) choice is an illusion. It's therefore a misplaced belief that you are deciding...... Though ofcourse as per both your and his spiritual master (GSD) free will exists.

So what is it? And if choice is indeed real, how come I can't choose (a) not to die or (b) be young again.

[Turan]

It is quite heartening to read of someone like Hazelton who attempts to question subjects like meaning, choice, chance and identity, particularly as we all have our own particular opinions – and sometimes quite rigid ones and find it threatening to have them questioned.

She suggests:- “Instead of what's the meaning of life, then, I'd rather ask what makes my life meaningful”. Pretty much how I see meaning, although I don't feel the need to ask, just to live and experience feels more than enough meaning. But then, perhaps if we're ruled by the stuff in our heads (conditioning) then that doesn't help bolster the mind/ego much which is always searching for that 'extra something' in life, never content with what is, just this (life).

She sees the universe as being indifferent, indifference is the sense of lacking interest or enthusiasm in things? When you feel indifference for something, you neither like it nor dislike it. As far as we know, life and the universe has none of the human attributes of like and dislike and it has no human like desire to be caring or compassionate.

Life and the universe is just what it is, or rather, just what we experience it as – providing of course we don't invest it with all our crazy notions and thought created concepts.

[um]

@ Trevor

There is no free will, only free choice and that choice too, is limited as it is governed by the laws of nature that are not in your hand.

Yes … you HAVE to CHOOSE …. from moment to moment and the consequences for those choices are yours. Your choice makes your fate.

And .. maybe there is somebody around in your family etc that can explain you the working of "freedom" in the play of chess and how your last move is related to the first and how that feedom gets lost by every choice you make.

[John Stevens]

Yes … you HAVE to CHOOSE …. from moment to moment and the consequences for those choices are yours. Your choice makes your fate.

There is no free will, only free choice and that choice too, is limited as it is governed by the laws of nature that are not in your hand.

Posted by: um | March 04, 2020 at 09:39 AM

Free choice presumes the existence of choices. Free will - ability to make some kind of choice and to be able to formalise those choices.

The two may not be the same but have an inseparable relationship. But oops free will doesn't exist. Right.

[spence tepper]

If projecting human qualities on the the universe is a fantasy, so is projecting intent onto human feelings.

We desire, we feel, we choose, or so we think. But, strange thing, we are doing what all our conditioning, biology and genetics drives. And often it isn't parallel with those feelings and thoughts at all.

The universe is incredibly intentional in that everything moves toward a very predictable next step. The notion that there is no intention, that the creation is indiffferent is also projecting a human quality. Indiference means no interest either way. But in the creation there is only one, the now, what is, and the movement that proceeds inerringly forward. For a human being to be so focused and disciplined, we would label that the height of interest, intention, discisipline. We give it all sorts of human qualifiers that, in truth, are inventions.

But when this is happening all around us, everthing moving with legal precision and absolute discipline, because it isn't the human brain chemistry form of movement, we claim it to be indifferent. It isn't feeling. We say. It is unthinking, we claim. Yet it is more responsive, more sensitive, than anything any human being can do. And what we call feeling is just a biochemical shorthand, a sensory experience.

There is much more intelligence, love, concern and interest in this creation than any human organism could duplicate. If we are going to label constant responsiveness, constant sensitivity, constant communication, constant careful testing and development, with such anthropomorphic labels.

But even these are human labels, they are human projections of qualities humans give themselves, but which, in fact, are a short-hand for the same things that run the universe, and at worst, self-delusion.

When someone tells you a story you find hard to believe, just think about all the other myths you believe, but call "Truth". We reserve that status for ourselves but deny it to others. We even deny it to the creation, which is, actually, Truth.

I saw this bumper sticker today "Science is great because it's true whether you believe it or not."

But science doesn't always get it right. The correct statement would be "Reality is great because it's true whether you believe it or not."

[John Stevens]

As I wrote before IF there was an real divine messenger that gave that land to Moses and his tribe, he certainly forgot to inform the other indigenous tribes ALL OVER THE WORLD, about this gift and to respect HIS wishes in the matter.

If He , the divine giver of land, had done so we would not face the problems in the middle east over that land and possibily even an third world war.

Posted by: Um | March 04, 2020 at 05:28 AM

@Um,

The divine messenger had both free will and free choice and he too exercised his free choice to not let others know about the promised land. The divine messenger did not forget to inform.

[um]

@ Turan

When a lion sees a lizard pass by, for a moment he might open his eyes and then goes on dozing away in the sun. The lizard has no meaning in his life....indifferent to him

But when he sees a prey animal, he will wake up, if hungry, and makes his mind up for what and how to do.

Things get meaning depending on the observer … culture reflects nature … nobody is free as observer, nor as part of nature nor as part of culture. … it is all condintioned

[Sonia]

@um
'The occurence of these inner experience might one day become explained but not the source of the content. We may also be able to find in the biological make up of man, an explanation for believing these inner experiences.'
.....................

Here's what you find yourself reading when you've reached the end of the internet in search of proof of God and paranormal:
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090021-0.pdf

Read it to the end. I dare you. You will be like, OMG I don't even care anymooooooore.

Kind of funny actually. I didn't realize quantum physics was such a hot topic in the early 70s.

[Um]

@ John Stevens

I cannot speak for a or the divine, having or not having this or that attribute, intention etc.
What I and with me have is the H E A R S A Y … we have heard what moses said, if he did say it at all.

That messages Moses SAID to have heard, was not heard by sprituial leaders of other tribes, Maori, Inuit Aboriginals the many Indian tribes ion the America's etc etc etc. There is nothing to be found in their spiritual traditions a divine messenger told them about the plans of God to give land to the people of Moses.

What remains are the WORDS of Moses and those who believe in them … all having vested interests in this messages starting from the first who received it, Moses.

You can tell us where, when and whom are informed about that message that was given to moses.

There are different satsangis that opened their own shop selling sant mat to the public based on what their so called inner master told them. They all refused to verify it with the physical master in Beas, based on the teaching that the inner master is the very truth … there has never been an verification on the claims of Moses.

That lack of verification of inner experiences is the central point I want to make.

The consequences are BLIND belief and endless human suffering … see the 2000 year old consequences of that belief in the words of Moses.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Um
You write
"There are different satsangis that opened their own shop selling sant mat to the public based on what their so called inner master told them. They all refused to verify it with the physical master in Beas, based on the teaching that the inner master is the very truth … there has never been an verification on the claims of Moses."

If someone set up shop as Sant Mat then of course they should be in line with that organization and appropriately sanctioned if they with to use their label.

But if someone speaks to their own experience that is theirs. It is not for you to accept their experience, unless you have had similar. If it doesn't resonate, you won't go there.

The True Saints don't call themselves Satsangis. They may call themselves your friend or brother or sister. That is a very high privilege.

As to what Moses was taught, both Jesus and Paul verified it from their own inner experiences. For them, it was true.

So if you believe one lined of Gurus but not another, that is your choice. But it isn't a reflection on them. It's a reflection on you, on your own inner experiences that resonates or doesn't resonate with the writings if others.

Many people have verified what Moses, Jesus and Paul taught for themselves.

And others who never read their teachings have found similar ones just looking within their own heart.

The holy book within yourself is the only standard. Not a play actor on a stage, nor any book, though these may resonate with your sentiments.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Trevor
You wrote
"Though ofcourse as per both your and his spiritual master (GSD) free will exists."

1.My Master is Charan Singh.
2. Neither Baba Ji nor Charan believed we have any real free will at all, or extremely limited at best.

[A Wise 🦉]

That lack of verification of inner experiences is the central point I want to make.

The consequences are BLIND belief and endless human suffering … see the 2000 year old consequences of that belief in the words of Moses.

Posted by: Um | March 04, 2020 at 02:53 PM

Actual verification of inner experiences of mystics is far fetched when even the real meaning of teachings is lost / not understood right across. This even by the subsequent keepers of the teachings / religion.

This lack of understanding (of real meaning of teachings) is what leads to blind faith and the wide spread strife in the name of religion.

[Sonia]

https://youtu.be/YgUkHAKQD3s

How will you be remembered?

[Spence Tepper]

Hi A Wise
You write
"Actual verification of inner experiences of mystics is far fetched when even the real meaning of teachings is lost / not understood right across. This even by the subsequent keepers of the teachings / religion."

You are assuming one must understand the teachings to have the experience, as if it were something we build. Like a blueprint we followed to construct a house.

But the truth is the opposite. For some, the experiences are already there. The path already exists, part of their construction, part of the physical body. The house was built into the human body eons ago. And they, for whatever reason of genetics and biology, experience those things even before anyone says anything about teachings. They are aware of them. Then teachings and teachers are just a way for them to help understand, to guide their development of that inner experience, inner capacity, inner talent.

There is no risk of losing teachings because, as part of the gene pool, these variations continue to occur. Just not visible to everyone.

The teachings are humanity's effort, and specifically, those whose perceptual experience includes these inner places, inner powers, inner events, to codify, in human terms, that inner experience, inner reality. But so long as it exists, human beings will have the source from which to interpret and communicate with others.

There is no risk of losing teachings because their perceptual reality continues to be experienced by some just by nature.

But as to one person verifying another's experience by following a formula of mental practice, that has proven spotty at best for some. And for many, at least based on reports here, ineffective.

However, those same meditation practices do lead to more common experiences of peace, insight and companionship, and have many health benefits. Even including our cognitive functioning, healing our DNA and slowing down the aging of the brain!

These are reliable and scientifically supported, commonplace results of regular practice. And they justify engaging with lifelong dedication in one's chosen meditation practice.

[um]

@ Spence

First of all I should have used the name of abraham instead of moses but that doesn't realy matter for the point to make.

The messages that so called mystics receive, are not received by others so that we have only their word.

In the case of abraham/moses land was promised to their tribe during a so called inner experience by a divine messenger as said by abraham/moses.

That messages was not given to the spiritual and worldly leaders of the day of other tribes all over the world so that they too would know of the divine decree. … so nothing is to be found in their religious and holy books with regard to that so called gift.

So we have only the word of abraham/moses.

Failing to inform the rest of the world, one can pick up an book of history to find the consequences thereof … endless bloodshed.

Even the divine cannot give what is not his to give.!!!

[Turan]

Hazelton brings up the question of choice. Its easy to confuse choice with free will. Those who study in the brain sciences – and interestingly some schools of Zen and Chan – see this matter clearly.

They say choice is limited, it is dependent on the information we have accrued in our brains. We apparently then, can only choose according to our conditioning, it is a reality but very limited. Free will posits an agent. Some religions will say this is the soul or spirit and others elicit a self. Both Zen and neuroscience say there is no self, no non-physical entity within us that can exercise something called free will – it is a persistent illusion.

Through experience both the illusion of a free will and how we make choices can be seen – or, we can ignore it or justify our concepts, stick with our pre-conceived notions and merrily carry on.

[s*]

A Bhuddist monk once said;''We have Free
will,but it is not Our's..

;0)

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Um
You write
"First of all I should have used the name of abraham instead of moses but that doesn't realy matter for the point to make."

"The messages that so called mystics receive, are not received by others so that we have only their word."

There is so much metaphor and editing in these written accounts there is doubt as to their veracity regarding events of the time.

They only have personal utility, interpreted in terms of metaphor for our own struggles, to regain that land within ourselves that is our birthright.

The rest is political use by kings and cardinals.

But who is to say this personal interpretation was our wasn't their original intent?

My parents taught me as a small child that the holy mountain of zion was within.

[Jen]

I think we all can be mystics. Even those people who are immersed in their daily life style and fill their lives with anything and everything to stop themselves from thinking too much about the future and fearing death.

Life is just an adventure and simply watching our feelings and thoughts without grasping and trying to make sense of everything then we simply go through all the many pleasures and difficulties that arise. It takes courage to face and not conquer but to be at peace with one's self and all our problems that arise within and without but especially important imo believing in the mystical and magical life that this is.

[um]

@ spence
>>They only have personal utility, interpreted in terms of metaphor for our own struggles, to regain that land within ourselves that is our birthright.<<

"They only have personal utility"
Read it again an again Spence. … and they should for that reason not be used to influence others, used for ulterior material, mental and spiritual goals.

Think for a moment … the divine could easily have informed the whole sangat about his orders with regard to the succession of this or that guru. He didn't so we are left with the claim of this or that HUMAN being having had an inner experience.

Many more had these experiences and started their own shops.

[Trevor Smith]

2. Neither Baba Ji nor Charan believed we have any real free will at all, or extremely limited at best.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | March 04, 2020 at 07:55 PM

Have you even heard GSD's utterances on destiny?

Time to get more receptive to them.

[Sonia]

Hazelton brings up the question of choice. Its easy to confuse choice with free will. Those who study in the brain sciences – and interestingly some schools of Zen and Chan – see this matter clearly.

They say choice is limited, it is dependent on the information we have accrued in our brains. We apparently then, can only choose according to our conditioning, it is a reality but very limited. Free will posits an agent. Some religions will say this is the soul or spirit and others elicit a self. Both Zen and neuroscience say there is no self, no non-physical entity within us that can exercise something called free will – it is a persistent illusion.

Through experience both the illusion of a free will and how we make choices can be seen – or, we can ignore it or justify our concepts, stick with our pre-conceived notions and merrily carry on.

Posted by: Turan | March 05, 2020 at 04:05 AM

Yeah, obviously free will is limited simply because we live in a world with 8 billion people exercising their free will as well. So, we’re not exactly able to “will” things to go our way. But still, every step we take involves making a choice.

[Sonia]

It takes courage to face and not conquer but to be at peace with one's self and all our problems that arise within and without but especially important imo believing in the mystical and magical life that this is.
Posted by: Jen | March 05, 2020 at 03:29 PM

It does take courage. Really living is not for sissies. 🙃 But anything worthwhile takes courage. 🙂

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Um
You write
"Think for a moment … the divine could easily have informed the whole sangat about his orders with regard to the succession of this or that guru. He didn't so we are left with the claim of this or that HUMAN being having had an inner experience."

" Many more had these experiences and started their own shops."

This last sentance is a bit different than before. Anyone who has inner experience can start their own shop if that is there interest. Saints arise in all lands. Even Charan taught that.

The divine does speak to each of us if we listen. And we may hear and see many things. But as I pointed out, we can ask ourselves where that is coming from. That projector comes from deep within, and even dreams come from there. So we can try to understand what our own deepest unconscious is trying to say. And by being mindful help raise what is hidden into conscious awareness.

Yes the divine does speak. Divine being they pure truth of reality here and within us.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Trevor
You write
"Have you even heard GSD's utterances on destiny?

" Time to get more receptive to them."

What I heard him say is quite similar to what Charan wrote, that we have limited free will, if any. That these things are out of our hands and we make our lives easier accepting them, without excuses, without attempting to turn away from them.

Please share what you heard.

[Trevor Smith]

Hi Trevor
You write
"Have you even heard GSD's utterances on destiny?

" Time to get more receptive to them."

What I heard him say is quite similar to what Charan wrote, that we have limited free will, if any. That these things are out of our hands and we make our lives easier accepting them, without excuses, without attempting to turn away from them.

Please share what you heard.

Posted by: Spence Tepper | March 06, 2020 at 04:59 AM

Destiny/fate brings you only upto a point at which YOU decide.

English translation of his oft repeated in Hindi and Punjabi.

Don't let my name mislead you. I am an Indian Christian who understands Hindi and over time a little bit of Punjabi.

[Trevor Smith]

I think we all can be mystics. Even those people who are immersed in their daily life style and fill their lives with anything and everything to stop themselves from thinking too much about the future and fearing death.

Life is just an adventure and simply watching our feelings and thoughts without grasping and trying to make sense of everything then we simply go through all the many pleasures and difficulties that arise. It takes courage to face and not conquer but to be at peace with one's self and all our problems that arise within and without but especially important imo believing in the mystical and magical life that this is.
Posted by: Jen | March 05, 2020 at 03:29 PM

Believing life to be some mystical and magical journey or not thinking too much about the future or not fearing death or treating life as an adventure certainly doesn't make you a mystic.

[Jen]

"Believing life to be some mystical and magical journey or not thinking too much about the future or not fearing death or treating life as an adventure certainly doesn't make you a mystic."

Mystic: a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual understanding of truths that are beyond the intellect.

[Spence Tepper]

Mystic: a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual understanding of truths that are beyond the intellect.
ZenJen

Every true Saint I've known meets these criteria.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Trevor
You wrote
"Destiny/fate brings you only upto a point at which YOU decide.

" English translation of his oft repeated in Hindi and Punjabi."

You are aware of a decision to be made, you make a choice.
But that isn't actually in your hands. The alternatives you are aware of, your judgment of them, you level of will power or lack thereof, all determine your decision.

There is no free will, and no True Saint has ever said otherwise.

But you should always do the best you can. Always work to your best.

That message will be part of the conditioning for those destined for progress.

It's your fate to read this, your destiny. And your choice to recognize and use it.

But in all instances you will do invariably what is in you, which this environment will allow.

[Sonia Taylor]

This is a video sent to me today of standup comedian talking about new agey ideas vs science.

https://youtu.be/YKZN-hBTBUE

😂😂😂