Fate

[Toe Cutter]

Is it odd not to see yourself in the physical sense...but in the sense of the energy that lies inside you?

I certainly don't think so.
I was just reading about the Cathar, interesting ideology. I have instinctively been living some of those tenets. Obviously by coincident, but still peaks my curiosity in broader terms. I've never know a true practicing wiccan. Just those who dabble. Which were you?

[skintwisterman]

I certainly don't think so.
I was just reading about the Cathar, interesting ideology. I have instinctively been living some of those tenets. Obviously by coincident, but still peaks my curiosity in broader terms. I've never know a true practicing wiccan. Just those who dabble. Which were you?

Hopefully not Wiccan.

I like pagans. They follow and old religion.

Wicca was made up fifty years ago based on a few pagan ideas and one or two nice peaces taken from eastern religions.

I can't stand Wicca... on the other hand, I DO like witches, and followers of druidism and other old religions. I just can't respect a 50 year old religion, no matter what its claims otherwise might be.

[Toe Cutter]

I DO like witches, and followers of druidism and other old religions.

I do too.
I just don't want to shit on wiccans. It does appear as a blend of many things, but I can appreciate most of it.

[sunkarma]

Well...I wouldn't call myself 'wiccan'..but rather, "pagan"..in that I believe in a nontraditional stance on religion itself (see my email toe cutter). Growing up Catholic kinda screwed with my mind a little bit. I loved the nuns (and wanted to BE one), but some of the hypocracy of what they were allowed to do and not to (like hold offices, ...mind you, this was BACK IN THE 70'S) kinda made me mad. But it's changed now..but I'm still on the fence about it.
I love the iconography...some of it is beautiful. I went down to Mexico to see the Virgin De Guadelupe...beautiful. Seeing that fabric close up (as close as I could get) was amazing.
I don't knock it, it's just not my thing anymore.
Occasionally, I still wear a cross, though...iconography. And iconography does not always mean belief in that symbol. Some symbols are just neat..like the nazi swastika was borrowed from hindu symbolism..it is just turned a different way. It only gets meaning when you attach meaning to it.

[inox]

you can believe that if you want unfortunatly the actual meaning of the word "fate" differs

fate
n noun
1 the development of events outside a person's control, regarded as predetermined by a supernatural power.
2 the outcome of a situation for someone or something.
3 the unescapable death of a person.
4 (the Fates) Greek & Roman Mythology the three goddesses (Clotho, Lachesis, and Atropos) who preside over the birth and life of humans.
n verb (be fated) be destined to happen or turn out in a particular way.

this may appear as if im being an ass but thats not my intention, i just have a habit with words and their meanings. in reference to the quote, of course you can believe what you like in life, you can believe that we have direct control over the outcome of life, but you do not believe in fate

Actually, you are coming off as an ass, and if that's not honestly your intention, I think you should make your intentions more clear. You should also make sure that your grammar and punctuation are up to speed if you're going to make petty and irrelevant semantic distinctions rather than focus on the intent of the actual question.

My statement indicated that I question the commonly accepted notion that Fate is an inevitability rather than a tendency. Perhaps the fact that I capitalized it might have given you an indicator that I wasn't going with the Oxford definition.

My view is more in line with theories of cellular automata and chaos magick than definitions derived from Latin. Although, in Latin, the concept generally related to prophecy and meeting an unfavorable end, a negativity not automatically associated with modern definitions and usages. In fact, these days, it's often used to describe romantic inevitability.

In German, the concept (Shicksal) retains darker connotations. See this site for examples.

Have you added anything useful to this thread, by the way?

[Flip]

i assumed by stating it wasnt my intention that i had, well... clearly stated it wasnt my intention, i then went on to say that i just have a thing with words and their meanings, roughly covering my reasons if not intentions for posting.

yes my grammar is poor. cant add much more to that.

im not questioning your beliefs, but, the word/idea of/definition of fate is not open to interpretation, it is what it is, what is the point of having defined words if everyone believes they mean different things?

no matter what context it is used in, it carries the same meaning so i dont really see why you have compared the two uses of the word :\

as for your question i guess it depends on your idea of useful, i have stated my beliefs on the thread topic.

as i said, i didnt want to come across as an ass, i have no problem with your beliefs, im just anal-retentive about words and their meanings. if this has pissed you off as much as it appears to have i apologise.

[sunkarma]

Oooh. This ill-fated thread has begun claiming its victims already!

(pun)

Punctuation or not, whether you thought it 'clear' or not, Inox you seem very intelligent in your comments...
But not all people have time to spellcheck their responses, nor will they come off as intelligent as they may be. Unfornately, voices can't come through on a message board. I think Flip got across the point Flip was trying to make just fine...I think you took offence where there was not and judged Flip as an 'ass' erroneously. Opinions here are not given characterizations such as that.
Everyone has contributed something useful, they have contributed their time, their comments, and their opinions.
Which to me, is a heck of alot....

Now, I am going back to drinking my coffee so I can be a more cognizant person today...

[sunkarma]

In the meantime, I give you the Hindu concept of 'fate'
(this is long)



Devotee (D): One doubt repeatedly comes up during my Vedanta studies, and that is the problem of the eternal conflict between fate and free will.

His Holiness (HH): A conflict arises only if there are two things. As a follower of our Sanatana Dharma, you must know that fate is nothing extraneous to yourself, but only the sum total of the results of your past actions. As God is but the dispenser of the fruits of actions, fate, those fruits are not his creation, only yours. Free will is what you exercise when you act now. Fate is past karma; free will is present karma. Both are really one, that is, karma, though they may differ in the matter of time. There can be no conflict when they are really one.

D: But the difference in time is a vital difference which we cannot overlook.

HH: I do not want you to overlook it, but only to study it more deeply. The present is before you and, by the exercise of free will, you can attempt to shape it. The past is past and is therefore beyond your vision and is rightly called adrishta, the unseen. How do you expect to find a solution to the problem of fate and free will when the former by its very nature is unseen! It is profitless to embark on the enquiry as to the relative strength of fate and free will.

D: Does your Holiness then mean to say that we must resign ourselves to fate?

HH: Certainly not. On the other hand, you must devote yourself to free will. By exercising your free will in the past, you brought on the resultant fate. By exercising your free will in the present, I want you to wipe out your past record if it hurts you, or to add to it if you find it enjoyable. In any case, whether to acquire more happiness or to reduce misery, you have to exercise your free will in the present.

D: But the exercise of free will, however well directed, very often fails to secure the desired result, as fate steps in and nullifies the action of free will.

HH: You are again ignoring our definition of fate. It is not an extraneous new thing which steps in to nullify your free will. On the other hand, it is already in yourself.

D: It may be so, but its existence is felt only when it comes into conflict with free will. How can we possibly wipe out the past record when we do not know or have the means of knowing what it is?

HH: Except to a few highly advanced souls, the past remains unknown. But our ignorance of it is advantageous. If we knew all the accumulated results of this and our past lives, we would be so shocked as to give up in despair any attempt to overcome or mitigate them. Forgetfulness is a boon bestowed by the merciful God. Similarly, the divine spark in us is ever bright with hope and makes it possible for us to confidently exercise our free will.

D: All the same, it cannot be denied that fate very often does present a formidable obstacle in the way of such exercise.

HH: It is not quite correct to say that fate places obstacles in the way of free will. By seeming to oppose our efforts, it tells us the extent that free will is necessary now to bear fruit. Ordinarily, to secure a single benefit, a particular activity is prescribed; but we do not know how intensively or how repeatedly to pursue or persist in that activity. If we do not at first succeed, we can deduce that in the past we exercised our free will in the opposite direction, that the result of that past activity must first be eliminated and that our present effort must be proportionate to that past activity. The obstacle which fate seems to offer is just our gauge to guide our present activities.

At the start, do not be obsessed at all with the idea that there will be any obstacles. Start with boundless hope and with the presumption that there is nothing in the way of your exercising the free will. If you do not succeed, tell yourself that there has been in the past a counterinfluence brought on by yourself by exercising your free will in the other direction. Therefore, you must now exercise your free will with redoubled vigor and persistence to achieve your object. Tell yourself that, inasmuch as the seeming obstacle is of your own making, it is certainly within your competence to overcome it. If you do not succeed even after this renewed effort, there can be absolutely no justification for despair, for fate being but a creature of your free will can never be stronger than your free will. Your failure only means that your present exercise of free will is not sufficient to counteract the result of the past exercise of it. There is no question of a relative proportion between fate and free will as distinct factors in life. The relative proportion is only between the intensity of our past action and the intensity of our present action.

D: But even so, the relative intensity can be realized only at the end of our present effort in a particular direction.

HH: It is always so in the case of anything which is adrishta or unseen. For example, the length of a nail embedded in a varnished pillar and the composition of the wood are unseen, or adrishta, so far as you are concerned. The number and intensity of the pulls needed to take out the nail depend upon the number and intensity of the strokes which drove it in. Do we stop from pulling out the nail simply because we are ignorant of its length or of the number and intensity of the strokes which drove it in? Or, do we persist in pulling it out by increasing our effort?

D: Certainly, as practical men we adopt the latter course.

HH: Adopt the same course in every effort of yours. Exert yourself as much as you can. Your will must succeed in the end.

D: But there certainly are many things which are impossible to attain even after the utmost exertion.

HH: There you are mistaken. There is nothing which is really unattainable. A thing, however, may be unattainable to us at the particular stage at which we are, or with the qualifications that we possess. Its attainability is not absolute but is relative and proportionate to our capacity.

D: The success or failure of an effort can be known definitely only at the end. How are we then to know beforehand whether with our present capacity we may or may not exert ourselves to attain a particular object, and whether it is the right kind of exertion for the attainment of that object?

HH: Your question is certainly a pertinent one. The whole aim of our Dharma Shastras is to give a detailed answer to your question. Religion leaves man quite free to act, but tells him at the same time what is good for him and what is not. He cannot escape responsibility by blaming fate, for fate is of his own making, nor by blaming God, for He is but the dispenser of fruits in accordance with the merits of actions. You are the master of your own destiny. It is for you to make it, to better it or to mar it. This is your privilege. This is your responsibility.

D: But often it so happens that I am not really master of myself. I know, for instance, quite well that a particular act is wrong; at the same time, I feel impelled to do it. Similarly, I know that another act is right; at the same time, however, I feel powerless to do it. It seems that there is some power which is able to control or defy my free will. So long as that power is potent, how can I be called the master of my own destiny? What is that power but fate?

HH: Fate is a thing quite different from the other one which you call a power. At first a man steals with great effort and fear; the next time both his effort and fear are less. As opportunities increase, stealing becomes habitual, requiring no effort at all, done even when there is no necessity. This tendency goes by the name vasana. The power which makes you act as if against your will is only the vasana of your own making. This is not fate. The punishment or reward, in the shape of pain or pleasure, which is the inevitable consequence of an act, good or bad, is alone the province of fate or destiny.

The vasana which the doing of an act leaves behind in the mind in the shape of a taste, a greater facility or a greater tendency for doing the same act once again, is quite a different thing. The punishment or the reward of a past act is, in ordinary circumstances, unavoidable, if there is no counter-effort; but the vasana can be easily handled if only we exercise our free will correctly.

D: But the number of vasanas or tendencies that rule our hearts is endless. How can we possibly control them?

HH: A vasana seeks expression in outward acts. This essential characteristic is common to all vasanas, good and bad. The stream of vasanas, the vasana sarit, as it is called, has two currents, the good and the bad. If you try to dam up the entire stream, there may be danger. The shastras, therefore, do not ask you to attempt that. They ask you to be led by the good vasana current and to resist being led away by the bad vasana current. When you know that a particular vasana is rising up in your mind, you cannot possibly say that you are at its mercy. The responsibility to encourage it or not is entirely yours.

The Shastras enunciate what vasanas are good and have to be encouraged and what vasanas have to be overcome. When, by dint of practice, you have made all your vasanas good and practically eliminated the charge of any bad vasanas leading you astray, the shastras teach you how to free your free will even from the need of being led by good vasanas. You will gradually be led on to a stage when your free will be entirely free from any sort of coloring due to any vasanas. At that stage, your mind will be pure as crystal and all motive for particular action will cease to be. Freedom from the results of particular actions is an inevitable consequence. Both fate and vasana disappear. There is freedom for ever more and that freedom is called moksha

[Flip]

that was a pretty interesting read, sounds similar to determinism, or atleast what i understand of determinism

just wiki'ed it and its not determinism im thnking of :\ determinism is what the devotee seemed to be arguing.

[inox]

i assumed by stating it wasnt my intention that i had, well... clearly stated it wasnt my intention, i then went on to say that i just have a thing with words and their meanings, roughly covering my reasons if not intentions for posting.

Let me make this more clear. I can have a pet peeve involving someone misusing "they" as a singular pronoun. There are times when it might be acceptable to mention someone's such misuse, and times when it would come off more as a digression.

This seemed more the latter, as you didn't address the substance of what I said at all.

yes my grammar is poor. cant add much more to that.

im not questioning your beliefs, but, the word/idea of/definition of fate is not open to interpretation, it is what it is, what is the point of having defined words if everyone believes they mean different things?

Actually, that's how words evolve. The English language is rich with words whose meanings have expanded (if not changed outright) from the original meanings.

It's especially appropriate to be somewhat flexible with meaning in the context of a philosophical conversation where there exists no precise term for the idea being expressed.

no matter what context it is used in, it carries the same meaning so i dont really see why you have compared the two uses of the word :\

No, the meanings are a bit different. The modern usage lacks the automatic sense of doom.

as for your question i guess it depends on your idea of useful, i have stated my beliefs on the thread topic.

as i said, i didnt want to come across as an ass, i have no problem with your beliefs, im just anal-retentive about words and their meanings. if this has pissed you off as much as it appears to have i apologise.

I don't work up actual anger over message board posts.

[Flip]

if that is the case why not just write off my post as my own personal opinion. it is true that words evolve, "gay" being a prime example of a words meaning changing entirely, i have to concede that, i should have been clearer in my meaning. what i meant is that it has a globally excepted meaning, and to break from this standard would be confusing.
see my argument before that even if i believed calling someone a bastard was a compliment, its garunteed they would not :\

wether you like it or not i was addressing what you had said, otherwise we wouldnt be having this argument :\ the key line being "you do not believe in fate".

"It's especially appropriate to be somewhat flexible with meaning in the context of a philosophical conversation where there exists no precise term for the idea being expressed."
i myself have never witnessed an argument where fate has been described as anything other than an event outside of human control.

[inox]

wether you like it or not i was addressing what you had said, otherwise we wouldnt be having this argument :\ the key line being "you do not believe in fate".

Criticizing word usage is not addressing the substance of my post; it's called "nitpicking."

i myself have never witnessed an argument where fate has been described as anything other than an event outside of human control.

Welcome to this thread.

[Flip]

so arguing against your belief in the meaning of the word fate is not in tune with the topic of this thread? i believe fate was a key aspect of this thread, therefore correctly identifying its meaning being essential. ill admit i was nitpicking due to a pet peeve of mine, however i see what i said as being relevant to the topic.

and your second comment, i dont see how that helps your argument... oh right! your just "nitpicking"

[inox]

so arguing against your belief in the meaning of the word fate is not in tune with the topic of this thread? i believe fate was a key aspect of this thread, therefore correctly identifying its meaning being essential. ill admit i was nitpicking due to a pet peeve of mine, however i see what i said as being relevant to the topic.

and your second comment, i dont see how that helps your argument... oh right! your just "nitpicking"

You seem like you're having some difficulty understanding that being a stickler for proper word usage doesn't amount to having an opinion on the question of whether or not one believes in fate.

Somewhat ironically, you also seem confused about the meaning of "nitpicking."

Perhaps we should just agree to disagree, or settle this with a cricket bat fight or something.

[Toe Cutter]

Perhaps we should just agree to disagree, or settle this with a cricket bat fight or something.

Personally I'd like to see you two go back and forth for another couple pages.

Squabble
Main Entry: 1squabáble
Pronunciation: 'skwŠ-b&l
Function: noun
: a noisy altercation or quarrel usually over trifles



kidding

[inox]

Personally I'd like to see you two go back and forth for another couple pages.

Squabble
Main Entry: 1squabáble
Pronunciation: 'skwŠ-b&l
Function: noun
: a noisy altercation or quarrel usually over trifles



kidding

Hahah...yeah, this is pretty inane, isn't it?

[skintwisterman]

I always thought that fate was simply unstoppable-- you know. All the characters in a novel are fated to do the same things; they have no free will.
Destiny, though, I believe is something like goals or prophecies-- things that WILL happen, though how they happen may vary. Like we're all destined to die, though how varies.
In fact, I'd say that we could even be doomed to die-- doom being a one-way trip on a road to nowhere, kinda like a baaad destony or fate.

I don't believe in fate, though I do believe in destiny; not like a person being destined to be a millionaire or save a life or find their soul-mate, but more that we're all certain to die. The exceptions are, of course, the result of prophecies.

[Flip]

im happy to agree to disagree, whatever im to drunk to care