The Meaning of Life?

[highwire]

Why are we here?

[Roy Collins]

Someone asked this same question to me when I was living with the Aihara's at the Vega Institute. Before I could answer it Herman called out from the other side of the dining table and said: "Because it is too boring in heaven; No girls, no sex, no beer, no fun." I agree. If we are endowed with these wnderful physical senses why not put them to the best of use and feel, smell, taste, listen, and see/xperience the beauty of life. It really is hardly a second of time when compared to the life of the planet. I miss Herman, he had a big heart and true wisdom.

In peace, Roy (recovering from jet-lag)

PS: What is the meaning of death?

[soultraveler01]

Originally posted by highwire
Why are we here?

Earth is a school. A place where we can learn to make ourselves more godlike and in doing so, serve God and all life more effectively.

[Bruce Paine]

soultraveler01,

While I agree that Earth (like all of life and existence) is a school and and we are here to learn about, receive, give, teach, and share all that this existence has to offer, what is this "godlike" and "God" that you are talking about?

And exactly what do you mean by serve? What is this service?

Assuming that the reader has no experience or reference to this "God", how would you explain it in your own terms?

Thank you, very much.

With warm regards, love, and peace,

Bruce Paine

[soultraveler01]

Originally posted by Bruce Paine
soultraveler01,

While I agree that Earth (like all of life and existence) is a school and and we are here to learn about, receive, give, teach, and share all that this existence has to offer, what is this "godlike" and "God" that you are talking about?

Our physical bodies are only temporary. A necessary device, if you will, so we can exist here on earth. However, our Godlike quality, who we really are, is Soul, a part or spark of God. Soul is eternal, cannot be destroyed and like Herman Aihara used to often speak and write about, is part of the infinite worlds of God, or Infinity.

God and our realization and understanding of IT, would depend upon our state of consciousness. George Ohsawa's spirilic diagram is a good way to understand what I am saying here as would what Herman would say in terms of speaking about Supreme Judgment and all the other levels or degrees of consciousness. This is why there are so many different religions. Each represents a different level of consciousness. When people's awareness of God and Infinity expand, that is their consciousness increases, sometimes people have the strength to leave their birth religions and move on to others. Mostly, people's beliefs stay safely within the labels of their birth religions, but they tailor their beliefs in league with their level of consciousness or in essence their realization and understanding of God.

And exactly what do you mean by serve? What is this service?

Herman Aihara said it well when he described living things as capable of being receivers of infinity. Likewise, we can tune into BayWatch etc the choice is ours as to where we put our attention. Service is merely being open to Spirit and doing our best to listen to the inner direction given us. Often that can mean keeping our own counsel and not interfering with the spiritual lessons of others. The middle way, as Buddha, spoke of, provides a more balanced way of moving through life. Perhaps a little Baywatch and some Infinity and little of this and that etc.

Assuming that the reader has no experience or reference to this "God", how would you explain it in your own terms?

See my paragraph on consciousness.

Thank you, very much.

With warm regards, love, and peace,

Bruce Paine

Dave :-)

[Bruce Paine]

soultraveler01 (Dave?),

The statement:

"Soul is eternal, (it) cannot be destroyed".

is one based on belief.

Can you prove it to be true, even to a non-believer?

Thank you, very much.

With warm regards, peace, and love.

Bruce Paine

[soultraveler01]

Originally posted by Bruce Paine
soultraveler01 (Dave?),

The statement:

"Soul is eternal, (it) cannot be destroyed".

is one based on belief.

Can you prove it to be true, even to a non-believer?

Thank you, very much.

With warm regards, peace, and love.

Bruce Paine

Yes. But each person would have to prove it for themselves. Most would be unwilling because it would require work and also because to do so may change their view on life and their beliefs which for most is a very scary thing to do. Most of our beliefs are like a house of cards, so to speak, in essence very unstable and vulnerable when a different "truth" is revealed.

What I'm saying is not based on faith, it is based on direct experience. It's like the macro diet, to use an example: to understand it's effectiveness one is better served to try it for themselves rather than just reading about it in a book or accepting its merits based on the views of others or on faith alone.

But in terms of supplying the means that one could use to prove the statement "Soul is eternal, IT cannot be destroyed" I hesitate because I do not wish to push my specific religious beliefs on others. But if someone wants to get a spiritual exercise or two that can help prove what is truth for themselves, please write privately. I'll be away till next Tuesday so I can reply if needed by then.

soultraveler01@yahoo.com

Dave

[Bill]

I agree, experience (more consciousness and freedom).

In response to the previous post: A non-believer in what? The soul or that the soul is eternal?

Bill

[Bruce Paine]

Bill,

To the second:

"That the soul is eternal."

Of the many definitions of soul, I'm thinking of "the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life" taken from a prominent dictionary

Can anyone offer proof ("That the soul is eternal.") to a non-believer and not require the person have faith, beforehand?

Thank you, very much.

With warm regards, peace, and love,

Bruce Paine

[Bill]

Definitions are limiting and cannot completely express in words what these mysteries hold.

The beauty of this is that only you can come to your own conclusions on this. I can only say that, from my experience, I understand and feel the eternity of the soul. I can also say that it's an experience worthy of the time and space it takes to realize.

This is all I can speak of. It's up to the individual to form their own opinions and feelings based on whatever motivates them.

Solely, my opinion

Bill

[Bruce Paine]

No pun intended, I'm sure, Bill!

Thank you for your opinion.

Did you come to your belief in the eternal soul as a child or adult?

Thanks again.

With warm regards, peace, and love,

Bruce Paine

[Roy Collins]

In my previous post I neglected to put in the word NOT after the the word "do" in the sentence following the four words I asked to be defined. The actual post should read as follows:

Please define the following:

1. God
2. Infinity
3. Soul
4. Consciousness

If you do NOT see a diference between any of these
then you are on the right track....

We are all one.

In addition, the terms spirit and matter are also one and cannot,
like yin/yang be separated. Same with life and death. To attempt to do this is a sign of dualistic thinking -- level 4 judgment. We must go beyond this technocratic way of thinking and learn to see the big picture and embrace all apparent opposites into one unified whole.

Sorry about the previous misleading post. I will go back and
delete it, replacing it with this instead. Hope this not cause confusion...

In peace, Roy

[Roy Collins]

Bill wote:

>Definitions are limiting and cannot completely express in words what these mysteries hold. <


RC: Yes, I agree on this as well. We, along with all things (animate and inanimate) are all differentations of one infinity.
But in order to communicate our thoughts effectively it is important to have basic definitions of the things, ideas, and concepts we wish to discuss or interact with. Otherwise we will be sauteeing carpet tacks instead of onions!

If it is helpful to you to have a belief in eternal soul and that works for you that is great, but the same thing that works for you may not work for someone else and this must be respected -- just as you want your belief respected.

Most pagans, pantheists, atheists, communists and Taoists do not believe in the transmigration of soul -- or even have a vague handle of what it is. Webster tells us that both soul and spirit are the same and that it is an animating entity which originated (and returns) to the sea. It is also defined as having no physical or material reality and is credited with the functions of thinking and willing. Since thinking and willing are functions of nearly all of the animal kingdom, then this would mean that all animals have souls. Since the kingdom of plants and minerals do not think and will, this would mean that they do NOT have souls. Does your experince validate this meaning of soul/spirit, or are there different takes on this depending upon one's level of judgment/consiousness? I know in the old message post you wrote that you couldn't be a macrobiotic unless you believed in God. Does this still hold true fro you?

In peace, Roy

[Bill]

Roy,

Conventional definitions are limiting in that they can be understood intellectually but cannot be experienced. An explanation of the "living characterization" versus the "dead definition" follows based on Steiner's expression of the two.

"A dead thought can be understood but not experienced. As soon as it is conceived, it is fully matured. As soon as it is born, it cannot grow. A living thought, on the other hand, can be experienced. It can be grasped, but only to a certain extent, for the experience of its reality is dependent upon our own maturity. As we grow and mature, so does the living thought within us grow and mature." [Katz]

I think you are saying somewhat the same thing, but I want to clarify this distinction because it's a point overlooked, or not considered, at least consciously, by many.

I agree with you about plants and minerals. Neither of them have souls. Animals have a group soul and differ from humans in that humans have an ego, an individuality. Judgment and consciousness are relative to comphrehension, as can been seen in macrobiotics, so they are important as well in spiritual understanding.

Transmigration of the soul, also known as karma and reincarnation, is another choice one can make in one's understanding of the whole picture. I wonder what this "sea" is where souls go back to that Webster describes. Can you clarify that?

My personal opinion about 'transmigration', without getting into all the details, is that, given the choice, and purely for no other reason, I would think that something was eternal was far more exciting/interesting than limiting it to one lifetime. This gives me so much more room to work and look forward to. How vast is infinity, for example. How much is there that can't be attended to in one lifetime? I feel freer looking past death and into a continuous flow.

Macrobiotics is limited, in my opinion, without God. That doesn't mean people can't be macrobiotic. My experience has been that macrobiotics led me into spirituality and God, something which, all my life, had been really confusing for me. I feel macrobiotics is spiritual and to see an example of that, I look at how the body works as a whole and it's relationship with the order of the universe.

Thanks.

Soul and inspiration.

Bill

[Roy Collins]

Hi Bill. Thanks for your reply and further input into this topic. A definition does not have life. It is simply a grouping of words that attempt to explain either things, concepts, ideas, and other phenomena that we come into contact with during our life on this planet. There is no such thing as a live thought or dead thought.
Just to think requires the working brain of an animate being.

Definition and experience are two separate ideas. Steiner does not make much sense in the quote you offer and the quip about dogs having a group soul is a rather "dogmatic" idea which does not conform to the accepted definition of soul being a function of thinking and willing -- something that dogs do, but rocks and plants do not. Yet, in the Ohsawan context of infinite oneness, we are told that all things are differentations of the one (soul), which includes rocks and plants. In addition the idea of dogs having a group soul (whatever that means) is something I'm sure neither you nor Steiner has EXPERIENCED. I really don't think your idea of soul fits with that of the masses.

I equate soul with energy and like energy it cannot be seen but can be harnessed and felt and has polar tendencies of negative and positive fields. Plants and rocks have energy within them as well as dogs and people. All have carbon centers with ossccilating atoms, protons, and electrons. These can be experienced and defined. Animals do have egos. Ego is defined as "self" -- and in psycoanalysis it refers to that part of the psyche that experiences the external world through the senses and has the ability to think rationally and to take appropriate actions when required. Dogs can and do rationalize their thoughts and can organize into groups, especially when wild, to more effectively hunt prey. We are not in the same ballpark here at all Bill.

Webster's reference to "sea" comes from the Middle English "soule" akin to the German "seele" -- belonging to the sea, from an early belief that souls originate from the sea. Beats me, unless they had the knowledge of evolution! Of course soul (energy) came before sea. Sorry to hear that macrobiotics is limiting without God for you. Macrobiotics was first formulated by the philosophical Taoists who did not believe in God...

Macrobiotics for me is balance with the natural environment using physical yin/yang and has nothing whatsoever to do with one's personal God. Being aware of life's oneness and its mysteries and beauty, and having the gratitude and respect for all life, however, is something I find to be an essential component of being a macrobiotic.

Anyway good to hear your side. Maybe others would be so kind in doing the same as you and giving their views as well. Nice that we are all so different.

In peace, Roy