Thoughts About Destiny and Free Will

[jmaf6556]

Hi everyone, I'd like to share a short write-up I've just created about destiny and free will and how the reality of both corresponds to the appropriateness of both surrender and service to God, it's the section "Destiny and Free Will" https://sites.google.com/site/jmaf6556/purpose-of-life

[Hogswitch]

Hmm, free will and destiny, tricky one. I can only speak from my own understanding. I have no doubt that this exposition will be loaded with assumptions that I have no way of backing up. Then again such expositions inevitably are. However, I'll do my best to be as transparent as possible.

OK let's start with some nomenclature. For the most part I'm going to call that thing which some people call "God"; "ATI" (All That Is), and yes there's the first assumption. I'm assuming that whatever "is" just is basically the same ..., you can't even call it a thing or unity or oneness because even those terms imply otherness, twoness, separation, but hopefully you get the idea. So that's my concept of ATI.

When we talk about free will and destiny we must ask the question, "For whom?". Now it seems obvious to me that ATI necessarily encompasses all possibilities and is, therefore, in any plausible definition of the word, absolutely free. The concept of destiny cannot apply to ATI because there is no "path followed", ALL possibilities are realised. Now this is the bottom line, absolute and total freedom, built in.

The "problem" of free will and destiny only really arises in minds that imagine that they are separate from ATI (which of course is most of us if we're honest about it). But don't beat yourself up at about this. ATI is expressing itself, in you, as a unique, apparently individual and separate perspective, so it's understandable that this is exactly what you think you are. This brings us to assumption number two, which is based on the idea that in reality nothing is separate or excluded from ATI, combined with our own experience of separateness. In reality we cannot be separate but our experience tells us that we are. I'm resolving this inconsistency by assuming that we have made an (understandable) mistake in our assumption that we are separate.

So where does this leave us on the question of free will and destiny for the apparent individual that we take to be ourself? Well depending on what you want to believe about yourself, either, up **** creek without a paddle, or totally and absolutely free. The mind that thinks it's separate has no control, it makes no choices, it's fee will is entirely illusory. The mind that thinks it's separate is absolutely and totally a slave to the way things are. That "you" will always act as a perfect expression of what is, regardless of what it thinks. It does not act independently or in isolation it's fully integrated into a dynamic web of variables way beyond its understanding, (AKA All That Is). That "you" absolutely is not a free agent and in reality is not responsible for its actions. In religious terms, surrender to the will of God is not even a choice available to us, because being separate from God is impossible. Every apparent individual no matter how "evil" (apparently) separate minds judge it to be is in fact an agent of God because no individual exists, nothing, but nothing, is "not God".

Please understand clearly, I'm not saying that you are a part of God, because my fundamental assumption is that God doesn't have parts. Herein lies your freedom. If I'm right and God is All That Is, there is in fact only one being "period" and that being is absolutely and totally free, which means that you are "that", you are God and you are totally and absolutely free! Of course I could be entirely mistaken :-)

Hog.

[Skyhaven]

Hi everyone, I'd like to share a short write-up I've just created about destiny and free will and how the reality of both corresponds to the appropriateness of both surrender and service to God, it's the last section: https://sites.google.com/site/jmaf6556/purpose-of-life

Hi jmaf6556, thanks! I like your site.

[Finefeather]

OK let's start with some nomenclature. For the most part I'm going to call that thing which some people call "God"; "ATI" (All That Is), and yes there's the first assumption. I'm assuming that whatever "is" just is basically the same ..., you can't even call it a thing or unity or oneness because even those terms imply otherness, twoness, separation, but hopefully you get the idea. So that's my concept of ATI.

Hi Hog
Welcome. Thanks for your post you have an interesting mind...I would just like to comment on this little bit...with respect and love.

By saying that, what some people call 'god', you call 'All That Is'...you are also assuming that you know for sure exactly what 'all' is...which is impossible...you are overestimating your, and our, ability to be conscious of something which is beyond our current awareness.

So IMO 'god' is only a concept which is conceived by a relative mind...so my god could be entirely different to your god or anyone else's god...you only have to look at religion to prove this.
In esoterics god is that which we call on or look up to for guidance and knowledge and is relative to our state of consciousness...so you could be your dog's god...some higher Being/s is/are our god/s...the higher Being/s also have god/s which are above even their state of consciousness...because we are all evolving our consciousness...and to evolve consciousness we need higher knowledge which is only attainable by higher minds.

It is however interesting how you equate 'unity' and 'oneness'...with...'otherness', 'twoness' and 'separation'...because each of these 2 terms implies a collective whole...which makes a lot of sense to me...we are all individuals and our striving for unity is a state where we realise the truth of brotherhood and love...just like a tightly knit family who love each other and care and fend for one another.

Take care
Ray

[Robin]

surrender and service to God

I haven't read your write-up yet, but I feel the need to commend in this bit.

I respect how anybody wants to interpret "God," but why must we label this creative force above ourselves? Why can we not all be fractals of "God," tied to the oneness of the universe with everything else? Superiority does not exist, and by labeling "God" as something outside of ourselves, we are accepting that we are inferior, and therefore, must be obedient in never-ending servitude. Let's take credit for the things that we do every once in a while instead of saying that "God" does everything and the lowly human must ask forgiveness and permission from Daddy-God. God is not outside of ourselves. We all are fractals of All-that-there-is experiencing itself by manifesting in different forms.

[Hogswitch]

Hi Ray,

I totally hold my hands up and admit that trying to squeeze God into a concept is pretty hopeless, whatever I'd said about God was bound to miss the mark by a million miles. Hence my qualifying remarks about making assumptions I can't back up. I freely accept that other people may have radically different ways of conceptualising God or may refuse to do so at all.
Regarding ideas about oneness and unity, the concept of one thing or of unity only has meaning when the one has something against which to contrast itself. When you have one thing you already have two because you have that which is the one thing and that which is not. My assertion was that there is nothing that is "not god, so God transcends even the concept of unity. God even transcends the duality of existence and non existence so even to say that God "is" is incorrect. It isn't important though, I was just trying to give a flavour of what I meant when I was referring to God. I was trying to convey the lack of any separation whatsoever.
Believing that you are an individual who is striving for unity is, for me, like hiding the keys to one's own house. That individual, that separate self is never going to get its hearts desire because that individual doesn't exist. The thing that's trying to escape the prison doesn't realise that it IS the prison, you're free now, couldn't be any other way. The loving family we crave so badly is everything and everyone, it's God, it's All That Is :-)

Kind Regards,
Hog.

[jmaf6556]

Thanks everyone for the comments.

Hogswitch, I've spent a lot of time learning Advaita philosophy and what you say reminds me of it. I agree that ATI is beyond limiting qualifications, what I'm discussing is the individual soul which though it has ATI as its source and is part of it, it isn't identical with it. I think it's a mistake to deny the distinct reality of the finite phenomenal universe and all it contains, and to deny all facts other than "ATI is". So for the individual soul, questions such as about destiny and free will are relevant. I'd also argue that even for ATI destiny is as relevant as free will, it is what is and couldn't be otherwise, though I don't think this is that important at this point.

Samwise, I agree the term God can be controversial, your understanding of God is similar to mine. And I agree we don't want to fall into the trap of helplessly depending on an external power. I also think we don't want to fall into the trap of thinking we alone are God as if we're supreme and there's nothing greater than us individuals. My understanding is that God is the source of our life energy and power, similar to what you've said.

[ghostrider]

The first step is in your thinking ... The ET's so want us to learn to be responsible for our thoughts , actions , and feelings ... we are responsible for our world ... when good men do nothing , evil rules the day ... I know it may ruffle some feathers but , you are responsible for you ... your destiny is completely tied to your freewill ... Thoughts lead to actions , actions lead to consequences , good or bad will depend on your choices ... you reap what you sow ... the law of cause and effect ... so many ancient sayings , all boil down to you are responsible for you ... it is your destiny to learn to be responsible for you ...