How much control do we have in our lives?

retinoid said:

yes but how do you know when YOU should do and plan?

Click to expand...

Did you mean - instead of letting God do all the planning for you? fwiw IMO that's a key question well worth mulling over

retinoid said:

Well say you are at a job that doesn't pay you enough money to live well and the job itself is lackluster. The job market is also bad. So what do you do? Accept it and still look around or put all your energy and motivation into finding something else?

Click to expand...

Notice the scrambling hordes of unemployed already lining up to leap at the chance of having your job if it were offered?

Somehow being grateful for having work – that's a form of acceptance of your situation...

NEVERTHELESS nothing would prevent you from being aware of alternatives and applying for other work

ALSO there's no harm in finding a course that would provide extra qualifications if that's possible - that's a form of placing some energy into making realistic changes

AND continue asking that key question you already asked "yes but how do you know when YOU should do and plan?"

JUPITERASC said:

Did you mean - instead of letting God do all the planning for you? fwiw IMO that's a key question well worth mulling over

Click to expand...

Yes I read a book on zen buddhism and the author basically stated something that was terribly simple yet I never realized. That we are in constant turmoil because we are always looking for 'more' always having some future goal in mind and always planning with ambition. When really, why do we have all these things that we are searching for in the first place? Because the mind compares and contrasts between you and others in an unfavorable light always making you feel like you need to do something or keep yourself better than others causing a big cycle of unhappiness. And so when I accepted that I really didn't need to do anything, there is no 'goal' I need to search after as these things I want are just figments there was peace. Except until the question arose, do we need to do something?...or is this just my immersion into the disease of the mind and culture and world that I live in that screams YES YES YES and you are a loser if you are not out searching for 'happiness' and bettering yourself? Which if you understood what I wrote above, ambition does not better yourself as you are the same person always.

retinoid, there is a kind of "busy mind syndrome." I've had it all my life. People with Virgo strong in their charts seem to be especially prone to it. Or maybe an afflicted Mercury.

The best way I can suggest to deal with it is to engage in uplifting activities that take your mind off the niggling worries. Maybe it's long walks, immersing yourself in classical music, good books, or working out at your local gym. Even without these aids, it is possible just to tell your mind not to worry about things, even if just for a half-hour. The circumstances remain, but you move through time and space without obsessing over them.

And this requires a conscious choice plus will power.

A good book on this is Eckhart Tolle, The Power of Now. Very consistent with Buddhism.

retinoid said:

....Except until the question arose, do we need to do something?...or is this just my immersion into the disease of the mind and culture and world that I live in that screams YES YES YES and you are a loser if you are not out searching for 'happiness' and bettering yourself? Which if you understood what I wrote above, ambition does not better yourself as you are the same person always.

Click to expand...

We could also then ask: 'IF we feel an inner prompting hinting at a possible need to 'do something' in order to 'better ourselves' THEN what form of action would be the most beneficial?' What does 'bettering ourself' mean?

As we ponder that materialistic benefits such as 'bettering oneself' are frequently gained at a price of lack/loss of inner calm/contentment, perhaps we would think twice before diving into the 'rat-race'!

If we are so busy, as you say, rushing around 'bettering ourselves' that we are not noticing the benefits we already have - benefits such as not needing to pile pressure on ourselves for a material gain that is at best fleeting as we are generally almost immediately 'overtaken' by others increasing their material 'status' beyond our level - then instead of increasing the 'hamster running on the treadmill' scenario, maybe it is time to slow the pace.

To work at our job to the best of our ability, to appreciate that we are employed and have a job in the midst of the worst recession since the 1930's, to appreciate and make the most of any leisure time, to meditate and gain a firm foundation of stability beyond material considerations – what else do we need? Sometimes the supposed 'loser' is in fact the 'winner' in this case

I had mars at mc and my boss was abrupt borderline sarcastic
I now have venus at mc boss has big smile for me before I even said hello
This bothers me
He is reacting to my planets or me?
Astrology should have practical uses this I believe. Im not much spiritual
if its not in the real world then phooey
I mean I want to see the little we can see, for myself, to understand something.
This astrology hints at a big overall plan reincarnation that the person in Cairo will see justice and it all comes out okay, see?
That is our fate in the stars with some wiggle room we have choices. Me, a Pluto square Moon must feel intimacy as drama and somewhat yucky porno, this is the dreadful shadoe of Pluto on my love life. This I deal with bt dismissing it though loving unapprobiately is what I will do anyways. Let the guy be crazy I will like him!
I think u understand that you csn desl with it in different ways but yes only so far.

retinoid said:

Yes I read a book on zen buddhism and the author basically stated something that was terribly simple yet I never realized. That we are in constant turmoil because we are always looking for 'more' always having some future goal in mind and always planning with ambition. When really, why do we have all these things that we are searching for in the first place? Because the mind compares and contrasts between you and others in an unfavorable light always making you feel like you need to do something or keep yourself better than others causing a big cycle of unhappiness. And so when I accepted that I really didn't need to do anything, there is no 'goal' I need to search after as these things I want are just figments there was peace. Except until the question arose, do we need to do something?...or is this just my immersion into the disease of the mind and culture and world that I live in that screams YES YES YES and you are a loser if you are not out searching for 'happiness' and bettering yourself? Which if you understood what I wrote above, ambition does not better yourself as you are the same person always.

Click to expand...

This is my current thinking, having wrangled with the concept of free will for a while now.

Who defines the 'I' that is you? Who controls what you give to the world? Aside from those two things, what is yours to 'control'? What is yours to find happiness in? The only 'loser' I see is the person looking outside of him/herself _for_ him/herself. Do you better yourself within or without? Personally, I think 'I' am within. When you conform to group thinking, allowing the group mentality to define who you are, you give up the only power you have: your individuality. Subsequently, your capacity to give of yourself at your own discretion is corrupted; you lose the ability to genuinely share with the world the only thing you have of value in your possession that _can_ be shared. Which raises the question: why are you trying to better yourself? When you narrow the field to what is yours to actually control, the possible answers are few, at least in my mind.

How much 'control' you have hinges on whether you are your own person. Whether you can 'get what you want' hinges on whether what you want is yours to possess. Whether you control your concept of 'destiny' hinges on the extent other individualities are involved. What we want isn't always what we need, and what we think we need isn't always what we actually need. For myself, I think destinies are the same across the board: give what you can of yourself. Each person is responsible for themselves, and only they have the ability to develop what they can offer to this world. We often look to external means for what we contribute, closely associating those external means with a false notion of power. The external is only a medium, a tool to be used. We utilize the laws of nature and our surrounding environment/era in history as tools to help us in our developments, in our creations, in what we express from within ourselves; the external world is a canvas we share with a multitude of other individualities. Everyone is free to share in these laws of nature and the current awareness of human thinking, as no one possesses these things. This physical body's needs seem to be the only thing we're enslaved to regardless of choice.

You led this thread with what appeared to be the idea of a mutually exclusive duality, or so that was the impression I got from it. I think both exist simultaneously, with the deciding factor being scope. Refer to the above for my reasoning.

stainedBlue said:

When you conform to group thinking, allowing the group mentality to define who you are, you give up the only power you have: your individuality.

Click to expand...

You have to have groups/categories though to compare yourself with otherwise you have no individuality that means anything to anyone including yourself because you wouldn't know what you are. There would be no background to see yourself on. You have to be within the group to be without it.

Prominent said:

You have to have groups/categories though to compare yourself with otherwise you have no individuality that means anything to anyone including yourself because you wouldn't know what you are. There would be no background to see yourself on. You have to be within the group to be without it.

Click to expand...

In my opinion, I am an individual making up a part of humanity, an energetic manifestation of consciousness united _with_ the collective. In my mind individual unity doesn't equate to mass conformity. I am myself, sharing with others. I see this as different from conformity, where people are formed in a one-size-fits-all mold wrought with the rigid boundaries of a framework. Religious dogma comes to mind. Military is a suitable example too.

With this I'm attempting to describe my use of 'group mentality' as I was intending it. In short, I've meant 'group thinking/mentality' as, more or less, boxed-in thinking that everyone is restricted to, lest they be deemed a heretic and summarily exiled or worse. I see this sort of group thinking as different from a unified movement filled with individuals and respect for that individuality.

Life is predestined but most of us have the opportunities to take the good or the bad decision the right time. The decisions forms our life, even those decisions are or not ours. The decisions are the only way to control life.

My goddaughter is heavily mentally infirmity by the day she was born. Does she has any control in her life? No, she can't speak at all, she can't eat unless someone feed her, she can't go to the toilet.

A friend took her family into the failure. Enforced her husband to economical failure by her very expensive life style and then she divorced him because he could not provide her with fancy life anymore. Her daughters drop out university because they could not pay any more. My friend and her now ex husband made bad decisions.

Prominent said:

Think of a giant piece of paper that has many fibers that construct it. Say that this paper is our destiny. Put it way in the distance and travel towards it. Overall the paper isn't moving or changing, but the pieces that construct it are all different shapes and angles. Destiny may be the act of reaching the paper, but where you land upon it can produce different results/feelings based upon the fibers you've become lodged between.

The Earth may look static and unchanging from a great distance, but up close on it's surface you see many things occurring, many parts that all layer and interact.
Everything looks static from a distance when the parts that construct it are blurred together.. So.. What does destiny look like from a distance.. It looks like a generalized static thing that has all the details blurred together.. but destiny up close looks much different, it looks like our present moment, with all the nuances and variability involved.



.

Click to expand...

Prominent, please excuse me for my opinion. To me, it seems, that you're given a materialistical answer to a spiritual question.
This example of the giant paper doesn't really fit. It has been given in very ancient times but as the wax tablet to designe destiny or the fatum. In this perspective you don't have to believe in this, it is only a picture which you shows how to do with this "fatum" - you accept what you cannot change, and you can change which is in your hands to change.

So, the fatum, or destiny, is something which can give you a direction to your life, will say your life-style, too, because you are learning how to deal with things you cannot change and with things where you are engaged by your own. This implicates that, before learning, you are taught to be attentive and to keep awareness. So, to speak in this way, "destiny" or "fatum" is only a perspective of wisdom - not more.

Sunny

Also, the idea that you have no control over your life can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Some people believe that "The Lord helps those who help themselves" and make changes in their lives. Other people think nothing they do will matter, so they sit back, helpless in a "predestined" world of their own making.

And lets look at the power relations here. I hope I don't offend any Hindus, but the wealthy and powerful castes in India had a vested interest in espousing a social outlook that preserved their wealth and power, while forcing poor people to believe that their hardships were punishments for misspent past lives. Hegemony is the concept that powerful classes not only preserve their power, but do so in part by convincing the lower social classes that this is merely the natural order of life.

The British class system operated in a similar fashion in the 19th century, though with a slightly different set of excuses for it.

Ghandi, fortunately, worked towards an India in which the most blatant injustices could be mitigated.

Of course, your horoscope has a lot to say about your basic approach to life. Also, as DreamingtheSeas noted, some people are born with severe disabilities, or have to cope with other people's wrongdoing.

The only sensible answer, it seems to me, is that most of us live with a blend of moral choices, opportunities, unchangeable circumstances, and cultural values.

The binary free will vs. determinism debate is so simplistic that I don't understand why it continues to rear its ugly head.

Sunny said:

Prominent, please excuse me for my opinion. To me, it seems, that you're given a materialistical answer to a spiritual question.
This example of the giant paper doesn't really fit. It has been given in very ancient times but as the wax tablet to designe destiny or the fatum. In this perspective you don't have to believe in this, it is only a picture which you shows how to do with this "fatum" - you accept what you cannot change, and you can change which is in your hands to change.

So, the fatum, or destiny, is something which can give you a direction to your life, will say your life-style, too, because you are learning how to deal with things you cannot change and with things where you are engaged by your own. This implicates that, before learning, you are taught to be attentive and to keep awareness. So, to speak in this way, "destiny" or "fatum" is only a perspective of wisdom - not more.

Sunny

Click to expand...

I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying.
In order to attempt to communicate a spiritual understanding, you have to use materialistic measures, so saying that my answer is materialistic shows that you haven't understood what I was trying to convey. You're looking at the words I use and not reading the message.

stainedBlue said:

In my opinion, I am an individual making up a part of humanity, an energetic manifestation of consciousness united _with_ the collective. In my mind individual unity doesn't equate to mass conformity. I am myself, sharing with others. I see this as different from conformity, where people are formed in a one-size-fits-all mold wrought with the rigid boundaries of a framework. Religious dogma comes to mind. Military is a suitable example too.

With this I'm attempting to describe my use of 'group mentality' as I was intending it. In short, I've meant 'group thinking/mentality' as, more or less, boxed-in thinking that everyone is restricted to, lest they be deemed a heretic and summarily exiled or worse. I see this sort of group thinking as different from a unified movement filled with individuals and respect for that individuality.

Click to expand...

I think you're essentially identifying two scales of the same thing. Do you really have individual-unity when you outcast a part of yourself that you see in others? Why is it that you can see it there, and why do you not like it? What is wrong or right is irrelevant when it comes to being something. I get what you're saying though, but I think there is conflicting points in what you're saying because it is biased towards one side of the scale.

Prominent said:

I think you're essentially identifying two scales of the same thing. Do you really have individual-unity when you outcast a part of yourself that you see in others? Why is it that you can see it there, and why do you not like it? What is wrong or right is irrelevant when it comes to being something. I get what you're saying though, but I think there is conflicting points in what you're saying because it is biased towards one side of the scale.

Click to expand...

Individual units make a group, not the other way around. A group cannot exist in any meaningful capacity without the individual. This is how they are different. Granted, the contrast is subtle; but it's quite significant. History shows us one form of group, the form that undermines what could be its inherent strength by eradicating individuality. The ocean is nothing without the drop. We've yet to see unification of individuals.

stainedBlue said:

Individual units make a group, not the other way around. A group cannot exist in any meaningful capacity without the individual.

History shows us one form of group, the form that undermines what could be its inherent strength by eradicating individuality.

Click to expand...

So these sentences conflict each other? How can it eradicate individuality if to have a group requires individuals?

Prominent said:

So these sentences conflict each other? How can it eradicate individuality if to have a group requires individuals?

Click to expand...

Mind the qualifiers in what I wrote.

well.. Groups do make up individuality because as a human, we are constructed of many individual pieces that work together harmoniously. People that form groups makeup another level of individuality and can clash with other groups that have a different structure, similar to how humans can clash with their neighboring humans. It's this grouping that forms any identifiable quantity, and without any group/collection of whatever, then there wouldn't be anything to identify..
You wouldn't be you without being a part of a group.
So to say that individual units make a group is false because you can't have individualism without having a formulation. If you have no formulation then you are nothing.

waybread said:

Also, the idea that you have no control over your life can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Some people believe that "The Lord helps those who help themselves" and make changes in their lives. Other people think nothing they do will matter, so they sit back, helpless in a "predestined" world of their own making.

And lets look at the power relations here. I hope I don't offend any Hindus, but the wealthy and powerful castes in India had a vested interest in espousing a social outlook that preserved their wealth and power, while forcing poor people to believe that their hardships were punishments for misspent past lives. Hegemony is the concept that powerful classes not only preserve their power, but do so in part by convincing the lower social classes that this is merely the natural order of life.

The British class system operated in a similar fashion in the 19th century, though with a slightly different set of excuses for it.

Ghandi, fortunately, worked towards an India in which the most blatant injustices could be mitigated.

Of course, your horoscope has a lot to say about your basic approach to life. Also, as DreamingtheSeas noted, some people are born with severe disabilities, or have to cope with other people's wrongdoing.

The only sensible answer, it seems to me, is that most of us live with a blend of moral choices, opportunities, unchangeable circumstances, and cultural values.

The binary free will vs. determinism debate is so simplistic that I don't understand why it continues to rear its ugly head.

Click to expand...

I feel we are actors in a play. The setting is what we perceive to be our reality and the overall script is uncertain but there is one.

retoinoid, the play metaphor is very nice. Shakespeare liked it. ("All the world's a stage....") But it is only a metaphor.

Maybe its not so much like a scripted play, but improvisation-type of theatre.

Or maybe it's a comedy club.

Ad lib a little.