What are your thoughts on having children?

[Timótheos]

I am not sure that I agree that it was a "poor" choice of words, but rather I think it could have been explained in a more comprehensible way by using the word incarnate instead. Who knows... Darek may not be fluent in English, and may also not be very well acquainted with some of the terminology.

IMO you were quick to make the assumption that it was "paedophillic", without actually asking Darek what was meant by the question.

Yes, there's some miscommunication going on here. Darek's question was kind of oddly phrased and I think using the word 'incarnate' would have been more accurate. Tomek made the wrong assumption and probably should have asked for clarification, but Tomek's native language is not English either, so I can understand how it may have been misinterpreted. This is a good example why clarity of language is important, especially when communicating with people from different countries.

 

[Deleted member 4320]

I am not sure that I agree that it was a "poor" choice of words, but rather I think it could have been explained in a more comprehensible way by using the word incarnate instead. Who knows... Darek may not be fluent in English, and may also not be very well acquainted with some of the terminology.

IMO you were quick to make the assumption that it was "paedophillic", without actually asking Darek what was meant by the question.

Yes, there's some miscommunication going on here. Darek's question was kind of oddly phrased and I think using the word 'incarnate' would have been more accurate. Tomek made the wrong assumption and probably should have asked for clarification, but Tomek's native language is not English either, so I can understand how it may have been misinterpreted. This is a good example why clarity of language is important, especially when communicating with people from different countries.

English is not Darek's first language too. Do not make a mountain out of a molehill. I think he is quite normal. But has a lesson that he need more practice in english on the forum :D

 

[3DStudent]

I have a unique perspective on this subject, I suppose. I have a natural aversion to relationships and sex. I've always been shy and never dated a woman. And I've always had an aversion to anything sexual, even discussing it. That being said, I did have a long streak of watching porn as a teen and young adult.

So I've always thought that I would not have kids, because I don't have a partner either. When people ask if I'll have children, I half jokingly say, "Not this lifetime." And I'm aware that it's not the greatest time to have a kid, so that further cements my decision.

But my reason for not wanting a child seems to be selfish. I don't want one because I think it would be a burden. Someone I'd have to care for and devote time to. I have the same attitude towards pets, I just wouldn't want to invest my time into one. I have enough on my plate already. So I think that there can in fact be selfish reasons for not wanting a child.

The funny thing is that, if I were to do what "it" doesn't want to do, then having a child would be the right choice. Because I don't want one and it would be consciously suffering. I still think the condition of our reality and not feeding the moon more counts for something at this point in time.

 

[Darek]

I am not sure that I agree that it was a "poor" choice of words, but rather I think it could have been explained in a more comprehensible way by using the word incarnate instead. Who knows... Darek may not be fluent in English, and may also not be very well acquainted with some of the terminology.

IMO you were quick to make the assumption that it was "paedophillic", without actually asking Darek what was meant by the question.

Yes, there's some miscommunication going on here. Darek's question was kind of oddly phrased and I think using the word 'incarnate' would have been more accurate. Tomek made the wrong assumption and probably should have asked for clarification, but Tomek's native language is not English either, so I can understand how it may have been misinterpreted. This is a good example why clarity of language is important, especially when communicating with people from different countries.

English is not Darek's first language too. Do not make a mountain out of a molehill. I think he is quite normal. But has a lesson that he need more practice in english on the forum :D

Maybe this will shed some light on my thoughts:

Session 4 April 2015

"Q: (L) Okay. Well, that's enough of that. I have another question here. The other question that people were a little curious about on the forum that I noticed was: they wanted to know at what age or stage of development does the soul of an individual enter into the body of a baby that's about to be born?

A: It cannot be set in stone; remember that about half of all babies never house individualized souls. In some cases it can be very early, and others, as late as early adulthood.

Q: (Pierre) Wow.

(Galatea) So I guess they're waiting around the body's frequency to change.

(L) So, is that true? A soul can be hanging around, and there's, say for example, a body that's close to the frequency they need, but not quite, and they have to wait until something happens or changes?

A: Yes

Q: (L) What can change frequency?

(Perceval) Experience.

(Pierre) Knowledge.

(L) Yeah, puberty, thought, experience.

A: Yes"

 

[mabar]

I have a unique perspective on this subject, I suppose. I have a natural aversion to relationships and sex. I've always been shy and never dated a woman. And I've always had an aversion to anything sexual, even discussing it.

That happens to me too

So I've always thought that I would not have kids, because I don't have a partner either. When people ask if I'll have children, I half jokingly say, "Not this lifetime." And I'm aware that it's not the greatest time to have a kid, so that further cements my decision.

That happens to me too, in past years (almost 20) I use to thought about this new bank of sperms way or adoption but I did not persued that ...need?, it was not that strong, I suppose. And, around that time, I used to have nightmares about being pregnant in the most funny ways.

But my reason for not wanting a child seems to be selfish. I don't want one because I think it would be a burden. Someone I'd have to care for and devote time to. I have the same attitude towards pets, I just wouldn't want to invest my time into one. I have enough on my plate already. So I think that there can in fact be selfish reasons for not wanting a child.

Yeap, that too, I do not have enough quality time to offer, and yes like pets, I would like to have a dog, but, I am pretty much at work from 8:30 am through 7:30 pm, monday to saturday, it will be lonely too much time, I grew up at parents home with dogs, they were able to go to the garden and coming inside whenever they pleased, cannot provide that neither. For me is imperative for pets/dogs to have a garden/grass7nature close to home.

I suppose is the sum of many things, I am asked almost everyday about kids, perhpas is because I am female and my generation around are full of offsprings.

I'm asking myself two questions here:
1. Who will keep this lighthouse burning?

I think that, all we are going to keep this lighthouse burning, by example, more like a legacy than an heredity.

2. Would you incarnate as a child at this moment of time?"

For that to happend I need to be death, but, why would I like to do that? for what purpose? if I am already here.

edit quote

 

[Ruth]

So I've always thought that I would not have kids, because I don't have a partner either. When people ask if I'll have children, I half jokingly say, "Not this lifetime." And I'm aware that it's not the greatest time to have a kid, so that further cements my decision.

So, when would be the greatest time to have a kid - apart from when an individual is ready? And if they can manage it when the time comes.

All these different 'times' they all look pretty challenging to me from the perspective of bringing new life into the world. I'm not sure one would really have an advantage over another. I'm just sitting here trying to figure out what advantages being a child in Dickensian times has over being born in pre-war Germany or a child on the American frontier, or.... well, maybe a child in Roman times. Any advantages seem to be more about luck than anything else. And, perhaps the family or circumstances one was born into.

 

[BHelmet]

I think you may be confusing two separate concepts BHelmet.

Is there not some odd duty to life - to the ray of creation - to create beings who can transduce those finer energies for the good of the moon? Or are we done with that?

Considering the Ray of Creation, I think that the aim is to work on oneself through developing the lower centres and alligning them with the higher centres, so that one can recieve and transduce finer energys/vibrations, which is also along the lines of what the C's have said to us. I don't recall Gurdjieff ever saying that the aim was "create beings" through procreation for this purpose, or any other purpose for that matter, although my memory may be eluding me.

Ok I am going to start here. Keyhole, you bring up an important distinction. First aim is to work on the self. Yes. And here is the distinction as I see it: personal/social-group-community/cosmic or some word to connote higher realms or will of god, if you will. So it is important to distinguish from which level a comment or point of view is coming from and to which level the particular comment pertains or is directed. Certainly on a personal level, it is really up to the individual to make their choices based on whatever emotions or rationale or impulse they respond to. My guess is that most people operate from that personal level most of the time. If you move up a level - to community or group, there are different influences, 'arguments' and concerns that enter into the question. And finally if a person is able to go up the scale and see things from the tree tops, from some sort of cosmic scale, there are still different aspects to the question. (and I don't recall Gurdjieff saying anything about producing children, one way or the other, either.)

Any discussion of the ray of creation would seem to me to be a higher level of knowledge; a higher level conversation and a higher level set of considerations. My main point in my post was not to say anybody should or shouldn't have kids now, but, that there are different considerations that can supersede the considerations of the personal level, if one is aware that they exist and acknowledges that they actually pertain to our actions and choices. It is another choice of alignment that is available. So, on a personal level, it doesn't matter to me if somebody has kids or not. I am trying to suggest to those in the throes of intense discernment, not to exclude the higher level aspects of the question in their considerations.

Is there not a certain...danger? or supreme irony? shirking of personal responsibility? I don't know ...in coming to the conclusion that, well, life is not worth living? "Slings and arrows: no gracias, amigo". If you are saying to yourself 'life is not worth living', isn't that a kind of left handed slap at the universe? Or a very negative message to your sub-conscious? Talk about cognitive dissonance. Didn't we choose this, this life in some way on some conscious level knowing what it would be like and yet we chose it anyway because we had something to learn...and something to pay...and a part to play?
[..]
So, how can you say, with absolute certainty, that you are here and yet, in your judgement, it is not worth being here?

You seem to have misinterpreted what has been said on this thread BHelmet. First of all, could you point out where anyone has advocated the idea that it is "not worth being here"? I don't see any evidence of this when looking through the posts so far so this seems to be one of your assumptions, and IMO no one is speaking with absolute certainty.

I read 3 very distinct, "I would not have a child now" and a lot of fretting about the state of the world. Here is how my fuzzy logic worked: if you would not have a child now, aren't you saying, by inference, "in my estimation it is not worth experiencing life here now" and/or "the opportunity to learn hear is overshadowed by the negative experiences and perils" (so I am not going to be responsible for bringing anybody here)

One of the main principles of this Work is to live life to its fullest at every possible moment consciously OSIT, which is the opposite of the "life is not worth living" attitude. The fact that we were brought into this world and are here NOW does not justify us bringing another child into this world. As has already been mentioned, many children are being born each day, so there is no shortage of children in that respect. Bringing more children into this world only results in increased amounts of "food for the moon" does it not?

OK good - I think it is not about justification or reasons of which there is no lack. Bringing a child into the world is not based on justifications. And here again comes the distinction: bringing children (in general) into the world lives in the realm of community-group-world...but this is distinct from the individual plane of considerations. The world may not need more children in general, but what if it somehow needs a particular specific child? Remember, nobody is a nobody.

Why would somone want to contribute to this cycle? And what are the chances of giving birth to a child who actually was interested in the Work? (Rhetorical question, the answer is probably very little chance). Why not channel your own energy into breaking the cycle by attempting to become a functional human being?

Someone did want to contribute to this cycle and so you were born. And you are interested in "the work". No, I don't know what the odds of that were. And you are committed to becoming a functional human, so it sounds. That all sounds fine to me. As for the cycle: isn't the only way to break it to make it to 4D (not by not having children)?

I think you would benefit from carefully reading all of the posts again.

I have and I am indeed benefitting - I have also done some soul searching, and had a lot of insights into this. (eg, the idea that we are playing 3 dimensional chess and therein lies some of the difficulty in communicating and being understood; both ways) I have to be genuine here. It would be too easy to say 'oops, my bad' and drop it. My first assumption was to think that I had certainly erred. I re-checked my work and came up with the same answer. I am quite willing to be shown that I am wrong. On the individual level, I have not much attachment to any particular (my) point of view. On those other levels, though, I feel more duty bound to try to speak from them and for them as I understand them. As Chu mentioned, I am doing what "It doesn't want". This takes energy and time and effort. I have not eaten for 11 days now, so I am having to dig deep here, but I am committed to this process and committed to whatever I can offer to this group by being who I am even if it means finding out I am a complete fool.

 

[T.C.]

I am not sure that I agree that it was a "poor" choice of words, but rather I think it could have been explained in a more comprehensible way by using the word incarnate instead. Who knows... Darek may not be fluent in English, and may also not be very well acquainted with some of the terminology.

IMO you were quick to make the assumption that it was "paedophillic", without actually asking Darek what was meant by the question.

Sorry, I wasn't accusing Darek of anything, and I should have made it clear. My own choice of words was rather accusing, when I was just trying to point out that "jump into the body of a child" could be interpreted in... weird ways.

Tomek

From the way you've worded your posts in response to what Darek wrote, I believe you understood exactly what Darek was saying. I think your first response was inconsiderate, insincere, attention seeking and immature, and I think your interpretation of Darek's post says a lot more about you than it does about Darek.

No one else read into it what you did, and I think those who responded with justifications based on language barriers should read your posts more carefully and look into whether they have some kinds of "smooth things over" programs that get in the way of them seeing things more clearly.

 

[Tomek]

Tomek

From the way you've worded your posts in response to what Darek wrote, I believe you understood exactly what Darek was saying

No, as I wrote in my response to Darek, I really wasn't sure of what he meant when he asked if we would "jump into the body of a child who has a chance to support this project in this sector of space-time". Since then, he posted an extract from a C's session, which clarifies a bit what he meant by his question.

I think your first response was inconsiderate, insincere, attention seeking and immature, and I think your interpretation of Darek's post says a lot more about you than it does about Darek.

On this point I do agree with you and I apologize. I should have asked Darek to clarify his question instead of pointing out an english awkwardness in a gross way. I don't think that paedophilia is a joking matter, but I find amusing english errors that can lead to several interpretations of a sentence. And I never accused Darek of anything : I pointed out that "the way" he wrote his question was problematic. I should have done it in a more respectful way.

Now that is said, I'm not sure why you're assuming that I exactly understood the question. I did not and that's what I wrote. AND I also pointed out an english mistake in an improper manner, that's true. But now you're persuaded that my answer to Darek was only meant to shoot a line, which is incorrect.

 

[T.C.]

Now that is said, I'm not sure why you're assuming that I exactly understood the question.

The subject of the thread is bringing children into the world, and part of the discussion involves incarnation. You already insinuated that all you were doing was pointing out an innuendo...

I was just trying to point out that "jump into the body of a child" could be interpreted in... weird ways.

You confirmed that with what you wrote here:

But I find amusing english errors that can lead to several interpretations of a sentence.

That is why I believe you understood what Darek had said.

 

[Tomek]

The subject of the thread is bringing children into the world, and part of the discussion involves incarnation. You already insinuated that all you were doing was pointing out an innuendo...

What do you mean by "you already insinuated that..." ? I didn't insinuated anything, and I even less insinuated that "all" I was doing was pointing out an innuendo. I clearly stated in my previous post that I thought that Darek's question deserved more clarity and that the way he formulated that question could lead to a misunderstanding. Your sentence that I highlighted is simply wrong.

You confirmed that with what you wrote here:

But I find amusing english errors that can lead to several interpretations of a sentence.

That is why I believe you understood what Darek had said.

Again, no. I understood sentence, the words in english, but I didn't understood what he exactly meant by his question. Of course I understood it was about incarnation, but how, exactly ? Did he asked if one already incarnated here would reincarnate NOW as a child if he/she could then better support the network, as in : walk-ins, or a "soul choice" that leads to death and then reincarnation into a better context relative to the project ? Or in a more "classic" way, as a soul in 5D, contemplating its previous lives and making a choice related to the lessons it has to learn ? Or maybe even something else ? I still think the question is badly formulated, both in english and in meaning, and that's what I meant. My only regret here is to have pointed out the innuendo in a very rude way. Is that more clear ?

 

[Mal7]

I personally have never seen having children as something I was planning to do. But I don't think I would go as far as to say that "Anyone who really understands the world as it is and its likely future, would choose to not have children."

Similar to the hypothetical question of "Would you incarnate now?", you could look at it from the point of view of forty years in the future, asking someone born today "OK so now it is 2055, and you are 40 years old. Are you happy that your parents decided to have you, or you decided to be born? Or do you think it was a bad idea and wish you had never been born?"

I think most 40 year olds in the future would answer that yes they are happy that they were born, however bad the circumstances of their world may be. So I think having children could be a sign that one has some hope for a future with humanity in it. It might not be a perfect world, but still a world that one can "accept".

 

[lilyalic]

FWIW, if anyone is interested in seeing how much you have to consider in having children, reading "Fear of Intimacy" by Robert W. Firestone & Joyce Catlett - will certainly open your eyes to how multi-dimensional the issues are in bringing up children in "the right way".

You basically have to be top notch and have worked on yourself to the point of NO defense mechanisms from yourself, nothing to project onto the child and it's better to be around many adults who have the same ideas. It is much more in-depth than that, but jeez there's so much to consider.

 

[placematt]

FWIW, if anyone is interested in seeing how much you have to consider in having children, reading "Fear of Intimacy" by Robert W. Firestone & Joyce Catlett - will certainly open your eyes to how multi-dimensional the issues are in bringing up children in "the right way".

You basically have to be top notch and have worked on yourself to the point of NO defense mechanisms from yourself, nothing to project onto the child and it's better to be around many adults who have the same ideas. It is much more in-depth than that, but jeez there's so much to consider.

There is really so much to consider and i completely agree about being topnotch. I personally probably wont have kids even though there is a part of my that does want kids. But i also think the relationship of father to son in my case is possibly already being played out in my dynamic as it is. It just shifts when you have a child. So apart from the added intimate, personal creation. i think its possible that we all bridge that relationship anyway. I know my folks still have that relationship with me, and when I'm not there, that relationship moves to someone else that fills that dynamic.

So bringing a baby into the world, its something i don't think i want to do. but I do want to help nurture and see others grow into themselves which to some degree is what i assume parenting is, even if that means letting them have their free will. but i could be way of the mark. Just wanted to pipe in my thoughts!

 

[lilies]

FWIW, if anyone is interested in seeing how much you have to consider in having children, reading "Fear of Intimacy" by Robert W. Firestone & Joyce Catlett - will certainly open your eyes to how multi-dimensional the issues are in bringing up children in "the right way".

You basically have to be top notch and have worked on yourself to the point of NO defense mechanisms from yourself, nothing [damaging] to project onto the child and it's better to be around many adults who have the same ideas. It is much more in-depth than that, but jeez there's so much to consider.

Quote from the book's intro:

relationships fail not for the commonly cited reasons, but because psychological defences formed in childhood act as a barrier to closeness in adulthood.

Damage suffered in childhood is debilitating and very likely ruins relationships for sure. On the other hand, babies could heal damaged parents [accepting advices from top notch parents]: bringing children up. But the time for babies is not now, it seems.

This may be a transitional period, where we might better concentrate on fixing the future and flapping our butterfly wings. People have limited energy a day to stay alert, aware, on top on important events in life - the number of our hours we can operate on top-notch level a day is limited - and a baby requires much of that energy. Little would remain to pay attention what is going on in the world and remain active in the current projects, I think.

Caesars comment on the chances of successfully bringing up a boy in his time and how uncertain was the result, then looking at our current psychopathic society, the Wi-fi tsunami assaulting the body tissues of children - a microwave radiation little ones are especially are sensitive to, toxic inoculations, toxic adults raping-damaging the minds and soul of children day by day, poisons in the food and air supply, radioactivity, increased chance of viruses descending with rain and wind from our atmosphere filling up with comet dust.

As others here in this forum I too wanted children from time to time. I wanted to teach the child essential knowledge for life that my parents were unable to teach me, because they didn't know.

The possibility of the child inheriting genetic defects, chance of any problems at birth, 50% chance of being an organic portal.. and I frankly would prefer a souled child, which seems to be only possible in case of having three or four babies.

Then, in the best case of somehow the child becomes souled, I thought about the power of the soul: the child may not have a strong enough soul for the Work and willingness for active participation in fixing the future. The child could turn out to be a young soul, happy to live a fun life of his own and just wanting to live in peace, not much interested in the state of our world.