The Meaning of Life?

[Roy Collins]

Animal Worship & Reincarnation:

Some of the foregoing discussion prompted me to do a bit more research into the idea of souls reincarnating and into human vs. animal souls. Here are the results from a variety of cross references:

1. The term “animism” comes from the Lat. “anima” (breath or soul)and it signifies the belief in spiritual beings. This term was coined by the German physician Georg Ernst Stahl (1660-1634) to describe his theory that the soul is the VITAL PRINCIPAL responsible for ORGANIC development. This term later became associated with anthropology and a primitive form of religion. According to Sir Edward B. Tylor in his book “Primitive Culture”, primitive peoples (defined as those without written traditions) believed that spirits or souls are the cause of life in human beings; “they picture souls as phantoms, resembling vapors or shadows, which can transmigrate from person to person, from the dead to the living, and from PLANTS, ANIMALS, AND LIFELESS OBJECTS.” Tylor’s chief opponent was anthropologist Robert R. Marett who claimed preimitive peoples who were not INTELLECTUAL enough to have these ideas – Marett rejected the idea that primitive peoples regarded ALL objects as animate. Primitive man, according Marett, “treated” the objects they considered animate as if they had life, feeling, and a will of their own, but did not make a distinction between the body of an object and a soul that could enter or leave it.
2. Animal Worship is a belief in the superhuman qualities of animals. Primitive beings attributed to the animal power of courage beyond his own, as well as a SOUL like his own. The animal’s soul was believed to exist after death, and could distinguich good from evil. Homage to animals was a common practice in ancient Egypt. Every common animal was scared in some part of the country – the falcon and ibis were most venerated, and the bull Apis at Memphis was worshipped as the actual INCARNATION of the god.
3. Funk & Wagnals defines soul in much the same way as Webster, maintaining that it is the cause, principle, or immaterial substance conceived as or credited with actuating, animating, or forming the essence of life, both individually and in GENERAL. The ancient Egyptians and Greeks and more primitive people, soul has been conceived as anagolous to some especially refined of ethereal substance such as breath, or a species of fire, or ether. Later RELIIOUS conceptions such as found in Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, caused the soul to be regarded as “partaking of a divine nature and to ascribed to the gods or to God as a divine gift. Once the body is deceased this “gift” of God (soul) separates from the body and continues a separate existence. Among the ancient Hebrews, however, soul was equivelant to the VITAL LIFE PRINCIPLE, as embodied in ALL LIVING CREATURES, and this meaning is continued throughout the Old Testament. In more recent Biblical writings, spirit and soul are differentiated.
4. Transmigration is a term that defines the passing of the soul at death into a NEW BODY or NEW FORM OF BEING. Transmigration and Reincarnation of the rebirth of a soul in a body are roughly synonymous. Metamorhosis and Resurrection however are not synonymous with transmigration. Metamorphosis is transformation of a living being into another form or substance of life – suggested as “a man into a tree”. Resurrection is the rising again to life of the same body after death. The transmigration of soul was a common belief of the ancient Egyptians -- hence the practice of embalmment, so that the body might accompany the “Ka” (soul or animating force)into the next world. The teachings of the Greek philosopher, Pythagoras (c. 600 BCE)helped to promote the idea of soul transmigration and gave us the notion of Karma or a series of rebirths (after a purification period in the Underworld). Plato believed this as well, but differed somewhat by stating the soul becomes impure through associations with bodily passions! “If the soul has a good character it is allowed to return to the state of pure being… If its character has continually deteriorated in its transmigrations,it ends in Tartarus (place of eternal damnation).” The idea of transmigration of soul was never adopted into ortodox Christianiy or Judaism, but among the earlu Christian GNOSTICS and Jewish Cabalists the notion of transmigration was upheld until they were declared heretics. Many of the ideas of the Gnostics were imported into the modern beliefs of the Theosophists of which Steinerism is an offshoot.
5. In the Eastern religions belief in transmigration of soul did not begin until a later date – after the Aryan invasions of India. It then appears in the Upandishads under the Sanskrit name of “samsara”. Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism also follow this belief system. According to modern popular Hinduism, the state in which the soul is reborn is predetermined by the good or bad deeds (karma) one perfoms in former lives – the souls of the evil-doers (to use a Bushism) are believed to be reborn in lower states such as animals, and insects. The release from transmigration and Karma is attained when atonement for the bad deeds is made and regcognition that the INDIVIDUAL SOUL (Atman) and the UNIVERSAL SOUL (Brahman) are one and the same.

Hopefully this information will enlighten us a bit and make discussion on this topic a little easier.

In peace, Roy

[Ulrike]

I want to add some thoughts:

- the idea of being one-
My latin teacher in school (Herr Mueller) taught me that the oldest words in any language have a characteristic in common: they both mean something and the opposite of it. Like -hole- and -whole- or, for instance, in latin you have -altus- which means both -high- and -deep-.

I was taking care of a small child who was at the age when they are only able to speak some words. If she wanted me to lift her up on the chair she would say: -up- and if she wanted to go down she also said -up-. I figured that she refered to the action itself -which was the same in both cases only reversed. The direction didn't need to be specified because it was obvious. One only needs to separate if one starts to talk about something that is not happening now, something abstract. Which is in a way symbolic in itself: talking abstract is inventing a language that separates.

More word associations
- In German: -die Seele- (soul) and -die See- (the seaside) english: to see

- In Latin: -anima- (the soul, the breath, the air) animation derives from that

-In Latin: animus- (the spirit, wind)

-In Latin: animal- (the animal, the being - including human being)

A macrobiotic diet for me is getting on my feet. Without a body I wouldn't exist. The first step in taking care of myself is to take care of my body. When it feels well its illness doesn't occupy my whole attention. Instead, my health gives me a positive energy. We begin to experience that the principle of yin and yang really exists by eating macrobioticly and observing the effects on our own body and the sense of order that is in it. Our body shares the same principle as the world surrounding us. Our soul is effected by it - our thoughts too.

Whatever happens after life we don't know. I read an interesting study on afterlife experiences in a German newspaper. It compared the experiences of former East-Germans with former West-Germans:

- the West-Germans had reported familiar observations: A bright light, a passage- everything seeming to be very meaningful and symbolic.

- many of the East-Germans, who were mostly brought up to be atheists, arrived at a novel perception. As I recall, they felt they where thrown into a grey room, with not much happening. An experience of a rather dull quality.

My immediate thoughts were: perhaps it's better to furnish our afterlives while we still can. Maybe we get what we expect.

In one piece, Ulrike

[soultraveler01]

Originally posted by Ulrike
I want to add some thoughts:

A macrobiotic diet for me is getting on my feet. Without a body I wouldn't exist. The first step in taking care of myself is to take care of my body. When it feels well its illness doesn't occupy my whole attention. Instead, my health gives me a positive energy. We begin to experience that the principle of yin and yang really exists by eating macrobioticly and observing the effects on our own body and the sense of order that is in it. Our body shares the same principle as the world surrounding us. Our soul is effected by it - our thoughts too.

Whatever happens after life we don't know. I read an interesting study on afterlife experiences in a German newspaper. It compared the experiences of former East-Germans with former West-Germans:

- the West-Germans had reported familiar observations: A bright light, a passage- everything seeming to be very meaningful and symbolic.

- many of the East-Germans, who were mostly brought up to be atheists, arrived at a novel perception. As I recall, they felt they where thrown into a grey room, with not much happening. An experience of a rather dull quality.

My immediate thoughts were: perhaps it's better to furnish our afterlives while we still can. Maybe we get what we expect.

In one piece, Ulrike

Hi Ulrike,

I think your post takes us back to question "What is the meaning of life" after some loing, but interesting posts.

We have a body here otherwise we could not exist on earth. But why are we here? What is the meaning of our lives?

My original answer is in the archives.

I think what you are saying here about expectations is a very good point. Interesting to think that, at least here in the US, many of our associates believe that heaven is a place where everyone plays the harp and has angel wings....

Kurt Vonnegut, the famous author, calls heaven the turkey farm...he describes it as a place that is full of lots of noise...all these people who never played a musical instrument while on earth now are trying to play the harp!

But in terms of macro philosophy, The spiral diagram that Ohsawa discusses and outlines as does Herman Aihara, is something that more of us may want to explore.

Dave

[Roy Collins]

Hi Soultraveler (Dave). I have to remember not to drink tea when I read your posts in the future because when your words it make me laugh I end up with a wet front.... Good job with the "Turkey Farm".

In peace, Roy

[Ulrike]

Roy,

Reading through the threats I especially liked the:

"Oops, My Error..."-message from you, Roy, because it is an attempt to fix the "problem", to pin it down, and by doing that you act in a way that contradicts your own proposal. It reminded me of a discussion I once had on art where somebody was standing up for the freedom of art to be anything it wanted to be and at the same time getting very angry at me for expressing a different opinion.

Now I will send a request to you personally for the 2 exercises you were willling to supply. Let's experience!

I would also be interested hearing from you or anyone else, how their belief in god or in something eternal effects their everyday life. For instance: Does it effect how you handle conflicts in a relationship?

Does it effect your level of engagement in political processes?

Are there personal disadvantages in being more conscious?

Are you making personal sacrifices because of your belief?

Does it make you less critcal of the choices that the society you live in makes?

Ulrike

[Roy Collins]

Thanks for your input on this Ulrike, although I must admit I do not follow your line of thinking. I corrected my own post because I left out one word (NOT) that changed the entire meaning of the post. I therefore corrected it so that it would read as I had intended it to. I tend to type quite fast and not proof read because of too many correspondences in one day. If I use the word HATE instead of LOVE it changes the meaning of the intended thought. If I say DO instead of DO NOT it changes the meaning as well. If I had left the post the way I originally wrote it it would NOT have the meaning I wanted. Its OK to make mistakes and also OK to correct them. There is no contradiction here at all. There would be contradiction IF I left the post with the error in it and then continued to discusss the idea of all things as originating from one source. That would confuse everyone. I did not get mad like your art teacher.

Please let me know what 2 exercises you are referring to in your post to me. I do NOT have a clue to what you are taliking about.

I DO understand somewhat about your questions regarding personal belief systems and how they affect one's daily decisions. As a Taoist my main goal is to live a life in harmony (internal/external). Throughout my day I conduct myself in such a way that I avoid extremes in thought and action. I do NOT believe in a single God or deity. I believe man created idea of God. Taoists are not political by nature. We believe in nature making balance and take the path of least resistance. We try to make change by showing personal example. Do NOT confuse the philosophical school of Taoism with the Religious school of Taoism which DOES believe in a pantheon of spirts communicating from "heaven".

In peace, Roy

[soultraveler01]

[quote]Originally posted by Ulrike
[b]Roy,

I would also be interested hearing from you or anyone else, how their belief in god or in something eternal effects their everyday life. For instance: Does it effect how you handle conflicts in a relationship?

*Yes. for me, The idea of karma comes into play here. By accepting everything that happens to me, whether "good" or "bad" being my responsibility in terms of my past actions and thoughts whether this lifetime or other lifetimes makes these experiences easier to accept. Likewise, one could say that we are either taking on karma or burning off karma. In a conflict, we can burn off karma and finish our karma with others...that is if we do not create more karma via our actions in how we resolve the conflict in the first place.

Does it effect your level of engagement in political processes?

*Yes. As a gift of love to others but also recognizing my own limitations in terms of intellect and other things, I try to choose the best candidates to the best of my ability. Thereafter, I detach as best as I can from the outcome. So when I vote, for instance, as I make the selections, I say, "Thy will Lord, not my will" and then thereafter, I say, "I did the best I could Lord, I give it over to you now." And this is so much of what I feel our lives are about. God will work through us not for us (In my opinion) so after we have tried our best to do the right thing, we then give the situation etc over to Spirit and then we can move on physically, emotionally and spiritually.


Are there personal disadvantages in being more conscious?

*Yes. The old saying is, "Use what you are" which has a twofold meaning:

1) OFten, We need to first recognize the smaller gifts of god in order to earn the larger gifts of god.

2) The answers to our "problems" and our "concerns" and our means to achieve "happiness" is often available to us right in the present moment and or within our present lives.

So becoming more conscious can be a very helpful tool in our lives. Not the least of which is helping us to understand and find meaning in our lives and all the joys, sorrows, challenges and tradegies that make up our lives.

Are you making personal sacrifices because of your belief?

*No. Whatever I've had to "give up" has been replaced by things much better. No sacrifices at all. But the process of learning how my actions, words and thoughts can cause me untold difficulties is and was a very difficult, long and unfortunately on-going learning process. (smile)

Does it make you less critcal of the choices that the society you live in makes?

*No. Just more detached about things. As an example, I may watch the news and say, "what a stupid idea" etc etc but I will tend to do so with less attachment than before. So I will be critical, but will do so without anger etc. Also, I have a better capacity to let people, governments, etc just be. That is, I allow people, organizations and nations a greater lattitude in learning the lessons that they need to learn without interfering. Because what is the best teacher for people and nations to raise their consciousness? The best teacher is the experiences we have. And the sooner we learn the lessons we need to learn, the sooner we can raise our concsiousness' more and move on to other lessons. Yet, some people, some organizatons, some governments feel the need to relive unpleasant experiences over and over again until hopefully one day they get the lesson. Or maybe they don't!!

p :p

Sincerely,

Dave

[soultraveler01]

[quote]Originally posted by soultraveler01
[b][quote]Originally posted by Ulrike
[b]Roy,


Are there personal disadvantages in being more conscious?


*oops I answered Ulrike's question from the standpoint of advantages.

Disadvantages:

Yes there are some disadvantages:

1) The more your heart opens to divine love, the more painful some of the actions and words of others in life will be felt.

2) You will not be able to tell people too much of what you know via your direct experiences with god. Either you will be put in a mental institution or be in violation of spiritual law (the law of silence) or both. So often, it can be a lonely path in terms of the comaraderie one may crave from the company of other human beings. The old saying is: You are in this world but are not of it.


Advantages:


*Yes. The old saying is, "Use what you are" which has a twofold meaning:

1) OFten, We need to first recognize the smaller gifts of god in order to earn the larger gifts of god.

2) The answers to our "problems" and our "concerns" and our means to achieve "happiness" is often available to us right in the present moment and or within our present lives.

So becoming more conscious can be a very helpful tool in our lives. Not the least of which is helping us to understand and find meaning in our lives and all the joys, sorrows, challenges and tradegies that make up our lives.

:p

Dave

[Ulrike]

First to Roy:

Again: if you write about the excepting of opposites and make the mistake of writing the opposite of what you intend to write - you are not acceting the very principle you are proposing when your only reaction is to delete the mistake but not to accept the fact of what you did there by saying so for instance. That's kind of cute and deserves some recognition which I tried to give to it.

The two-exercises-offer came from Dave not from you. I made a mistake.

The "make change by showing personal example" statement I agree on.

As a Taoist my main goal is to live a life in harmony I must confess I'm not really good in knowing what different religions stand for. I was brought up as a Christian. But actually I don't feel comfortable saying I am this or that. I am outside of any religion. Harmony is what I'm strivig for too. I find a lot of truth in many religions.
Throughout the day I try to interact in a way that doesn't create karmic mess ups. Nowadays I create the most karmic mess because I'm too tame.
I do NOT believe in a single God or deity. I believe man created the idea of God. I'm not so sure about that for me. I guess the belief in God or Godess has to do with the belief in oneself. To say men created the idea of god is for me as valid as to say god created the idea of men.

Taoists are not political by nature. I don't belive I belong to a certain group, as stated above. It gives me a shiver to imagine to be part of a man made religious-system that is outside of myself.

We believe in nature making balance and take the path of least resistance. This sounds much too opportunistic for me. I guess it is not intended so. I think everyone has to make a stand for their beliefs, even if that includes personal disadvantages.

To Dave:

Are you a monk? You don't have to answer that, if it is too personal. I'm only curious. Thanks for the detailed answers. I tried to answer my questions myself but whatever I came up with was so very wage and general that it bored me to death. I'm still awaiting the exercises you promised to send!


Ulrike

[Ulrike]

sorry Dave the ending of my post, when I read it after posting sounds very abrupt and could be interpreted as sarcasm ageinst you- which is not intended. I enjoyed reading your detailed answers.

Ulrike

[Roy Collins]

Hi Ulrick. Sorry that continue to misunderstand my intent and meaning. Maybe there is a language problem here but not sure. Anyway let me attempt to make it clear to you once more:

I am not part of a religious system so no need to "shiver" over the thought as you said. If people want religion that is fine with me, although not for me. No need to make negative response over a system of belief that half the world enjoys. This is very arrogant. As I said, I am a PHILOSOPHICAL TAOIST. Philosophy has very different meaning from religion.

Second, the point I try to make in the post that I corrected had to do with SAMENESS of idea between God, Soul, Consciousness, etc. All things originate from the ONE and then differentiate and take on unique appearances. Yin and Yang are different in energy qualities but are one unit. Same with love/hate, dark/light, life/death, no/yes, negative/positive, etc. DIFFERENT but from SAME ONE. That is the point. I was not trying to be "cute" in making this point. You are in error to attempt to give a differnt meaning to my intent. PLEASE understand this and do NOT try to change the meaning of my intent.

Also, believing in and living for balance in the world while following the path of least resistance has nothing to do with being "opportunistic", not does it infer "personal disadvantages"
as you stated. Again good/bad, advantage/disadvantage are two sides of the one which cannot exist separately. You should read more about philosphical Taoism before making judment, criticism. I find it overly ethno-centric when people juge others beliefs based on their own limited experience. No need to over-analyize personal beliefs. You made your points and told of your beliefs and no one has made any shivering remarks.

I hope I have made myself clear this time Ulrich. I am quite content with my belief system. I continue to urge others to post their personal views without others taking pot shots at them.

In peace, Roy

[Ulrike]

Hi Roy,

If you meet Ulrick or Ulrich you should give them a book on Taoism ism.

Sorry if my style makes you angry. Just because I say it makes me shiver doesn't mean that I think that is supposed to be like that for everybody. I'm speaking for myself. It's only my own perception. It's not my cup of tea to voluntarily put myself into a box. It has that negative connotation for me. Why not say it?

I liked that does- and don'ts-story in the story- but I guess you didn't get it.

Get moderate!

Ulrike

[Roy Collins]

Ulriche. If you want a book on Taoism you can get one free at the library or cheap at used book store. I was in German this past summer so probably won't go back for some time.

You wrote (in part):

>Sorry if my style makes you angry. Just because I say it makes me shiver doesn't mean that I think that is supposed to be like that for everybody. I'm speaking for myself. It's only my own perception. It's not my cup of tea to voluntarily put myself into a box. It has that negative connotation for me. Why not say it?

I liked that does- and don'ts-story in the story- but I guess you didn't get it.

Get moderate! <

RC: I am not angry but quite CONCERNED with your attitude and subliminal put down of religion. I don't belive that most people following a religious persuasion consider themselves as being in a box. Do you NOT see that this is a negative immuendo which insults the intelligence and feelings of others? No, maybe not. You need to use a little more tact when communicating about very personal issues. So, yes, I get it that you do not like being labeled as a believer in one set way. That is quite cool with me, and No, I really do not get it about the other stuff because what is in your mind and what my intent was are two different things.
I am quite happy with the way I am so no need for you to suggest that I change to more moderate view. I take the middle way already, to go further would mean redundancy.

Now try to imagine everyone in the world with the same beliefs and opinions as Ulrike -- you know, making comments, little insults, etc. QUite boring after a while, huh? Please be thankful that we are all different, but also please respect us as well. No need to go any further with this discussion.

In peace, Roy

[soultraveler01]

[quote]Originally posted by Ulrike
[To Dave:

Are you a monk? You don't have to answer that, if it is too personal. I'm only curious.

*Hi,

No I'm not a monk. Just a regular guy doing a regular job, living a normal life. I have a wife, two cats and dog and a mortgage and car payments!


I'm no better and hopefully no worse than anyone else. In my external life I go about my business just like everyone else.

Dave

[soultraveler01]

[quote]Originally posted by Roy
RC: I don't belive that most people following a religious persuasion consider themselves as being in a box.

*Interesting point Roy. If I spell the name wrong, I apologize ahead of time. A man named Abehshera (he wrote a cookbook back in the early 1970's on macrobiotics) said way back then that it was getting harder and harder to find a free man in our society. (he lived in Upstate NY at the time)

It really is harder and harder to think and act "outside the box" nowadays. Consider Malls and franchises and fast food etc (the song Little Boxes comes to mind for those who remember that old folk tune) and all the labels we place on one another, willingly and unwillingly like what our race is, our gender, our religious groups name, what we do for a living etc etc And these labels define how others view us and at times how we view ourselves.

And there is no "bad" or "good" here, but it is something to consider, perhaps, as to the choices we make within the context of our lives.

Dave :-)