Taking Control of Your Life February 20, 2007
Posted by The Probabilist in : [Articles], Consciousness, Personal Growth, Philosophy, Purpose, Relationships, Beliefs, Time , trackbackLife is undeniably a pretty complex term. When we look at all the different aspects of a human being’s life, what we are responsible for and what we can or can not control, the list can grow quite long and into many layers of details. Take for instance circumstances, emotions, skills, diseases, other people’s behaviour, luck, success and happiness. How many of these, and to what degree would you define to be within or beyond your control? An even greater question that I’ve been battling lately is the question of how much we as human beings are supposed to take control of in our reality in the first place.
Some books and teachings say that we should just let go of our desires, live simple lives and give up the thought of taking control of our destiny - that everything is going along just as it is meant to, which means that trying to alter things is futile and a waste of energy. In other words, life is meant to be a humbling experience where the solution is simply to enjoy our stay on this planet and live with care and love toward ourselves, others and the Oneness of all that exists.
Another way of thinking is that this whole reality is your own creation and you (read I) are fully responsible of all that goes on in it. Therefore, it’s obvious that there’s a lot of cleaning up to do with all the misery and catastrophes that occur every single hour and minute of every day. This revelation either breaks you if you don’t even have the strength to take care of yourself, or it has the power to create a great human being out of you that actively improves the world - through internal or external means (self-improvement or altruism).
Option 1 resembles more of a theistic approach and option 2 an atheistic approach, but it doesn’t have to be that cut and dried. The underlying question is if you have the full control of your reality or if it’s beyond your reach, found in something or someone else’s control. It’s all a paradox that seems to circle on endlessly when you think about the human levels of consciousness as explained by David Hawkins. In broad terms, people below the consciousness of 200 are denying the responsibility of their own life and need to grasp this revelation to reach neutrality. However, to get past the mid levels and reach unconditional love and enlightenment, you have to more or less again give up the control that your ego and corporeal body has access to. So what then is the answer, should a human being strive for control or not?
I wasn’t able to push this question forward until I started asking myself what the word control really means and comprises of. The traditional explanation would for instance consider having control of a car. It then means that you’re the master of the car’s movements and nobody else is able to influence it. This I would name ‘direct control’ and it follows in suit with the subjective reality perspective that everything is happening due to your own thoughts and actions - that circumstances, emotions, skills, diseases, other people’s behaviour, luck, success and happiness are all within your control.
However, I’m also convinced that ‘indirect control’ is an equally powerful concept and a very acceptable mind-set as well. This is the power of being a master at how you relate towards everything - even though you accept that everything is beyond your control. Your control is therefore strictly internal and in a way, you control the external occurrences because of your own relationships towards them. In this case for instance, cold weather does not have control over you because it does not bother you. You are in total acceptance of your surroundings and thus, you are the one in control. It’s still a kind of control after all even though the outcome is beyond your reach.
So what this all boils down to is a separation between internal and external control. Now if we look at the small list of concepts I presented earlier (circumstances, emotions, skills, diseases, other people’s behaviour, luck, success and happiness), we notice that all of them are within one of our ‘controls’ and that in the end, you don’t have to choose one form of control over the other. They can both co-exist and you just choose one according to the nature of the issue. I’m sure you’ll find out which concepts require direct control and which require indirect control.
Many people find themselves out of life balance when they only rely on one form of control. They get mad at the universe or themselves when there’s no single solution to all of their daily matters that they want to control. Fortunately, there is a solution for how to take control of life, but it takes time and effort to master both kinds of controls for improved life quality.
Or were you more inclined to find an answer to which of the two introduced teachings are more correct? Life isn’t a goal or a destination you strive to reach. It’s a path and an experience where there is no past and no future - only an endless amount of the present moment. Life wouldn’t be very exciting if all our questions were answered, but I hope that you start to recognize the two kinds of controls that you may use and slowly master from now on to make the best of your life and the present moment. This matters more to me than finding answers to all the questions I can think of.
(2 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
- It's Your Fault That You Feel Bad!
- The Law of Polarity
- As a Man Thinketh
- Carnival of Improvement 03
- Empathy or Equanimity?
Comments»
I like the way you have identified two types or attitudes towards control. In PD we come across both and often don’t know which one is best. Personally I like to create and mould my life as I go along instead of ‘letting it be’ but I don’t feel it’s atheistic in the sense that I am co-creating with God through universal law. There are also times when the first attitude is best for me too, especially if something seems potentially painful, I can accept it and surrender it to God. Nice article!
I hear you. When trying to combine God and the two concepts of control, any combination is in fact possible without appearing contradicting. It then boils down to what kind of an interpretation and idea we have over what God means, does, is, consists of and has power over. Are we totally separate of, a fraction of or virtually God ourselves (not in a haughty way)?
Accordingly, whenever someone asks another “Do you believe in God?”, the answer is pretty irrelevant until asked “What is God according to you?”.
“Accordingly, whenever someone asks another “Do you believe in God?”, the answer is pretty irrelevant until asked “What is God according to you?”.
Exactly! This is so important. I think if I sat down and talked to a traditional religious person to have a chat about God, we would be talking about two different things most of the time.
To feel as though you control very little of the events that unfold around you can seem astounding. Yet, so long as you choose to learn from everything that happens and how you respond, then life gains meaning.