What is the meaning of life?

[Renunciation]

Originally Posted by Altair

If people believe in ''spiritual evolution through incarnations of species'' I can only say they've been fooled with. There is no such a 'process' or cycle. Many species have gone extinct and many species deemed ''lesser'' by Hindu standards are still around, whereas many clever mammals are critically endangered ((unlike chickens which are in the many billions, so I suppose the Hindus may wish to answer that one.. why billions of souls incarnate as farm chickens.. lol)). If people actually observe the natural world they will come to the insight that the Hindu-Buddhist assumptions are just plain wrong.

We need the wisdom to differentiate the soul contained in an elephant and a microbe. as long as we define biology without understanding the soul which is the sole element that keeps things alive, it is wrong to analyze soul by counting the numbers of chicks and mosquitoes. Through a microscope, an unseen world of microbes can be explored which is completely invisible to our eyes. a soul which is far more tinier that microbes takes the shape of an elephant or a fly or a human or whatever the shape it is destined to take as per the experience it has gathered from the evaluation. Therefore, evolution is not actually happening in the biological form, it's happening to the soul which is contained in that form.

Scientifically speaking, when a soul takes a shape to the material world, millions of years experiences it has gathered is manifested in to genitical codes. Accordingly it gets it's physical and mental features. science has been trying to decode those codes.May be in future they will get to know them.But we have capacity to see, know and explore a soul and it's evolutionary history with our inner eyes, without these all tools and machinaries that scientists are trying to invent to decode these code. Science says there are billions of brain cells that are dormant and inactive. those cells are key to open this inner eye.

[Altair]

''Scientifically speaking, when a soul takes''

There is no scientific proof of the existence of souls. I happen to believe there is more to life after death, and I assume you do as well, but lets not misuse science. There's no actual scientific proof of most of the things talked about on this forum. We can choose to be comfortable or uncomfortable about that, but we have to be honest about it.

[lemex]

Originally Posted by Renunciation

Scientifically speaking, when a soul takes a shape to the material world, millions of years experiences it has gathered is manifested in to genitical codes. Accordingly it gets it's physical and mental features. science has been trying to decode those codes.May be in future they will get to know them.But we have capacity to see, know and explore a soul and it's evolutionary history with our inner eyes, without these all tools and machinaries that scientists are trying to invent to decode these code. Science says there are billions of brain cells that are dormant and inactive. those cells are key to open this inner eye.

Instead of a soul takes on a shape, isn't it consciousness that takes on a shape. Just as soul is a form body is a form and could exist at the same time. If there is no body there still is consciousness. Definitely the body is not made to go beyond this place. Actually imo this may hold answers to the question, the meaning!

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Altair

'There is no scientific proof of the existence of souls.

There is no 'scientific' proof that 'thoughts' are real/really 'efficacious' (and not such 'dream'-poofs ) either!

There is evidence worth seriously considering when deciding whether to choose to believe that souls exist or not.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...dence-says-yes

From https://theconversation.com/whatever...-science-61244 : "The soul, whatever it may be, cannot be proved or disproved by natural science."

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Altair

I happen to believe there is more to life after death, and I assume you do as well, but lets not misuse science. There's no actual scientific proof of most of the things talked about on this forum. We can choose to be comfortable or uncomfortable about that, but we have to be honest about it.

Who is miss-using 'science' here, Altair? You strike me as being the chief 'scientific'-world-view 'hat' wearer here.

More 'evidence' pertaining to 'souls' is presented in this article:

https://www.soulproof.com/after-death-contacts-2/

[Altair]

Originally Posted by davidsun

Who is miss-using 'science' here, Altair? You strike me as being the chief 'scientific'-world-view 'hat' wearer here.

I don't view myself as such, neither do think you should believe that.

There is no proof of 'souls', 'afterlife' etc. There is belief, and there are anecdotes. I take some anecdotes more seriously than others, but in the end none of it constitutes as scientific evidence. I fully get that it's not easy for many of our minds (many of us growing up religiously) to accept that but I believe it's a more mature perspective to take. There's nothing wrong with saying ''I believe in...''

[AnotherBob]

First off, we need to remember that, in regard to any proposition, doctrine, principle, or belief, it is all conceptual – all of it. Those who suggest otherwise are merely conceptualizing. It is what the human brain does. Any and all meaning is dependent on various applicable conditioning factors which the brain sorts out into concepts and then superimposes on experience after the fact.

Of course, we are not the brain, but that remarkable organ does come in handy as long as we are appearing in these skin suits. Without the conceptual faculty, we’d be pretty helpless in terms of navigating the objective world. The popular strategy propounded by the various esoteric wisdom schools of “going beyond concepts” is itself a concept, and really only relevant at a specific level of spiritual endeavor in which one has exhausted the intellectual component of the search.

In the meantime, why try to escape concepts? All we need do is see them for what they are and discard them when they have served their purpose. They are props in the play on a make-believe stage — that is all. It’s only when we start to take our thoughts seriously, creating belief structures that in turn imply an actual enduring and independent self, that we run into problems.

What the truly wise do is inspect the whole mechanism, eventually recognizing that there is a space between thoughts. In that space, there is no person, no self, no meaning or lack thereof, and no requirement that there even be such fantasies of the imagination. Indeed, from that aware spaciousness, things are revealed to be just what they are, without any conceptual designations whatsoever. It’s the natural state, but it seems just the opposite for those addicted to the search for some meaning to add to it, an endeavor comparable to painting legs on a snake.

As for myself, irrespective of whatever temporary states, views, emotions, experiences, imaginations, or subtle perceptions arise in the course of life, I have never been able to separate myself from that mystical condition of being essentially clueless in regard to any and all of them. This recognition took a while to sink in, but it is frankly undeniable.

Certainly, I could usually grab a handy concept in retrospect and superimpose it on the field of chaos that passes for this human experience, and it might have even made some eccentric sense. I might have even paused in awe at the pseudo-clarity that this ingenious mind can conjure up from its impressive storehouse of self-confirming interpretations on filtered perceptions, despite the fact that a frog in a well knows nothing about the birds in the sky.

If we’re fortunate, we realize sooner rather than later that all of our cherished spiritual notions and elegant philosophical insights are essentially a big pile of steaming mush, and then we either shut up, or else, if we’re devilishly compelled, we may start scribbling poetry.

Regardless, and to the point: that famously perpetual search for meaning, so earnestly celebrated and/or pursued by the philosophers, internet gurus, and mid-life crisis enthusiasts — who said we actually needed such a ponderous thing? Did it do any of them any enduring good – the meaning makers — to have some reassuring meaning? Were they able to re-direct the fluids swishing about in their neural viaducts in such a way that simply taking another breath amounted to something more significant than a reflexive impersonal automaticity?

And what’s the harvest from that great endeavor, that noble quest for meaning? An endless circus of competing personal, religious, and political belief systems, rife with war and conflict, all beginning when we think we know something, and then convince ourselves of its unassailable import and meaning. Those who think that they know something usually tend to be contentious, especially when their assumed knowledge is challenged by a contrary “knower” with their own competing arsenal of meanings.

The truly humble ones don’t habitually find themselves in conflict, because they’ve done the due diligence necessary to ultimately recognize that they don’t know, and so they have no complaint, nothing to defend or leave home to go to war for, and certainly no presumption of attainment in the meaning-making department. As Tulku Urgyen noted: “When we realize that all the achievements of the six realms of samsara are futile, insubstantial, and meaningless, we lose our appetite for them.”

It’s only when we think we know something — that we are in possession of some particular meaning that in turn demands assertion and protection — that things get testy. We can get pretty reactive when our carefully constructed meanings are challenged, is it not so? After all, our meanings are often essential to our self-images, and despite our grafted-on spiritual idealism to the contrary, those colorful stories of fascinating “me” won’t go down without a fight (or flight)!

Granting our personal story some sense of fanciful meaning often leads to a humorless sense of self-importance, which in turn requires a lot of care and feeding. Furthermore, defending our personal sense of meaning implies taking offense at anyone who might challenge said cherished meaning, and so we set ourselves up for a life of being offended by this, that, or the other.

If somebody or some collection of somebodies is moved to bicker and fuss about whether the so-called ego is an illusion or not, whether we are going to be annihilated or ascended or not, whether one religion or political party is superior to another or not, or whether enlightenment is a many splendored thing or not, let them have at it. Really, what concern is it of ours?

Nevertheless, most of us chronically go about the business of manufacturing and modifying meanings morning, noon, and night, like little cranial factories that never shut down for the week-end so that everyone can rest, and maybe have a little meaningless fun on Saturday Night.

Moreover, when one meaning is outgrown and discarded, we are quick to find another with which to carry on the facade of security and pretense. Heaven forbid we find ourselves with a spare moment unburdened by some arbitrary and self-confirming “meaningfulness” in our lives!

On the other hand, we need not go to an extreme and make “meaning” the bad guy. If one feels the need to tote around a little meaning in their lives, they could do a lot worse than follow this excellent pointer offered by our old friend Rumi: “Nothing is meaningful except surrendering to love. Do it.”

Those who claim that the only reason for living is to get out of life as fast as possible actually have it backwards. In their amnesia, they seem to forget that this world is a stage filled with magical props, we are the actors playing all the roles, and moreover – we chose this adventure ourselves.

In the shock of human embodiment, just about everyone forgets that the reason they incarnate here in the first place is precisely to have this human experience, in whatever form it might take, and that is its meaning, its purpose — simply to be here, as it is, as we are. Nothing need be added to that, and there is no need to run off chasing some ideal of “liberation” from life when we still haven’t come to terms with who and what we are, right here and now.

Moreover, the surest way to insure that we will be returned again and again to this classroom is to harbor and fuel some notion of escaping life. Such an attitude will merely indicate that we have not yet been able to properly appreciate the gift and invitation this circumstance represents — an opportunity to plumb our own depths and discover what kind of stuff we’re made of, when apparently left on our own in the midst of the Unknown.

For reasons as varied as there are humans, we wanted this, we came to enjoy this creative human experience, and that is enough. That is the gift — just to have this, be this, live this. Any meaning we might attribute to any of it is a product of our own choosing, fabricated from our own intention and attention. We are not victims of reality — it is we who grant reality to any and all of it.

Joseph Campbell, in “The Power of Myth”, made a good point when he wrote: “People say that what we’re all seeking is a meaning for life. I don’t think that’s what we’re really seeking. I think that what we’re seeking is an experience of being alive, so that our life experiences on the purely physical plane will have resonances with our own innermost being and reality, so that we actually feel the rapture of being alive.”

The truly free are those who recognize that their freedom is not elsewhere, dependent upon some hopeful, imaginary future circumstance where they can at last exhale and disappear. Meaning or meaninglessness, self or not-self, liberated or bound — all such notions are for the ones who still rely on the logic, reason, and propaganda of man-made religions and philosophies to account for their appearance, and so they build and fortify their own prisons, and wage a war within themselves, because none of that truly satisfies.

After years of ambivalent effort expended on trying to figure it out, I let go of that struggle and realized that I already am and have always been — just as I am – the meaning of myself, with no need or motive to look elsewhere, or to add or subtract anything from whatever that might be.

Instead, I find that I’d rather just stand in the resonant silence of this awesome mystery, let the sky breathe through me, the wind and sun and rain pour through me, the irresistible call of love draw me into its consuming embrace— all without any demand for some contrived meaning to momentarily pacify the monkey mind.

When it comes right down to it, both meaning and any lack thereof are both flimsy fantasies of interpretation that are arbitrarily superimposed on life — dreamy smoke rings drifting through space on another Saturday Night in timelessness, dissolving in the same emptiness from which they emerged, an emptiness more beautiful, more radiant and true, than any words could say.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by AnotherBob

I might have even paused in awe at the pseudo-clarity that this ingenious mind can conjure up from its impressive storehouse of self-confirming interpretations on filtered perceptions, despite the fact that a frog in a well knows nothing about the birds in the sky.

Same mistake as was historically made (and is still made!) by most experimental psychologists who thought that's what was 'true' for 'rats' could be generalized to apply to human beings!

From https://www.realclearscience.com/blo..._should. html :

"Back then, many psychologists considered the humble lab rat to be the gold standard for psychological research. Psychologist James B. Watson even suggested that you could learn everything you might want to know about human psychology by dropping a rat into a maze. Today, most experts agree that psychology experiments conducted on humans can't even tell us everything we might want to know about the human psyche!"

People are intelligent enough to rationalize anything they believe, but most aren't honest enough to see they ways in which they 'dupe' themselves in the process of doing so and why - really dispassionate (i.e. unslanted by emotion) thinking is a rarity indeed, AnotherBob, though IMO there are indeed degrees of honesty/dishonesty in this regard.

Short version: I 'see' beings that fly and beings that don't, as well as am aware of the ways in which I do so and the ways in which I don't. IOW, I ain't the same kind of a 'frog' as you.

[Busby]

Originally Posted by davidsun

WAHOO!


Elaborate if you will (for the pleasure of knowing you, if nothing else), Busby.

I wouldn't know where to begin at the moment davidsun. I'm quite inundated with mental pictures, it's like working on a great jig-saw puzzle without a box lid to lead the way.

Do you know the essay by Ralph Waldo Emerson 'Compensation'?

This, the most illuminating discourse I know, keeps peeping into the corners of my mind. I'm hoping for similar inspiration before old-age closes in.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by AnotherBob

When it comes right down to it, both meaning and any lack thereof are both flimsy fantasies of interpretation that are arbitrarily superimposed on life — dreamy smoke rings drifting through space on another Saturday Night in timelessness, dissolving in the same emptiness from which they emerged, an emptiness more beautiful, more radiant and true, than any words could say.

I 'frame' and appreciate my journey-views more as the full-fill-ing of Life's potential 'in'/via 'me'. Which is to say that, though I appreciate the vibratic eloquence of the 'song' you 'sing', Bob, I personally 'listen' and 'dance' and seek relationship with and to others who also 'listen' and 'dance' to a different, more really committed to and engaged with others 'tune'. Though it is 'beautiful' (as you say), I regard your 'trip' as being 'empty' of and a 'cop-out' in terms of the most meaning-full kind(s) of 'truth'.

Meaningful to me, that is; clearly, it the 'height' of meaningfullness to you! There are other here who I think also relish the kind of 'emptiness' (of meaning) you speak of, who you may relish being 'empty' with (albeit that idea of 'withness' strikes me oxymoronic) together.

Best wishes on that score.