The problem with these quotes is that they generalize an incredibly complex subject like philosophy. Attempting to understand what the author means is like understanding E=mc2 with out knowing the 2+2. There is an entire system of thought , either mystical or not, that subsumes the quote. You can guess what it means, but ultimately it is just a guess. And without the discipline of following that philosophy’s thought system in order to arrive at the summation, you won’t know the true meaning or implications of the quote.
Perhaps we can find problems of some kind with any quote....or anything else for that matter. The value I see in these quotes is that they point to a solution so to speak for the perceived lack that humans feel. "Regardless of how much they already have...they are always searching for something more" Most spend their whole life looking for something to make them happy...most never find it...at least not anything that lasts. It may not be as complicated as you are making it out to be...at least it was not for the ones who wrote those quotes and other teachers of wisdom throughout our history.
Of course. Humans have expressed many characteristics of what they believe (or prefer) God to be. It has even been said that "man created God in his own image." God could well be everything you have said of him...and if you get one or more folks to agree with you you can start your own religion or belief system or whatever you wish to call it. But putting aside all of these ideas of yours (or someone else's ideas that you have latched onto) what is your own opinion? Here is what you said earlier.... Did you look inside yourself?
I’m not finding problems with the actual quote, but with the notion that the quote can be understood in the context of the author’s intention. Even if you did get it, there is no real insight whatsoever. Sure, you may see these quotes and say, “oh, well I must look within!” Look within for what? Introspection is not an old wise concept, but a necessity for life. We all do it every minute of the day. The quote itself is not complicated, it is simple, vague, and offers no real strategy or method to self discovery. It’s fine that you like them and nothing wrong with that, but there is no real help here.
I believe I can understand where you're coming from... I think everything you said above is what most folks might agree with.... and yet the quotes are pointing to something that has been realized by some. Besides St Francis and Lao Tzu, there was Jesus and the Buddha and others. All of them tried to share what they had discovered...maybe some at their own peril.
I have my own heterodox ideas about God that lead me to believe that either you or Josh could be right, and while I was being playful in Post #50 I am inclined to believe in the free will of both God and Man. In all seriousness, some of this belief is formed from my studies into the arguments concerning this matter between the Scholastics (Thomas Aquinas, et al) who to some extent embraced the Rationalism and cosmic determinism of the Ancient Greeks (Aristotle in particular) with Christianity, and the Nominalists and Conceptualists (William of Ockham, et al) who rejected those ideas because Jesus had rejected them and that God could be and do anything He wanted, because He was not bound and constrained by some fixed external logic, rationale or order of the cosmos as the Rationalists believed. Thus they believed that God possessed and exercised free will, and that He was the source of any logic, rationale or order in the cosmos. From this and my own experience I most definitely believe in God's free will, and because of this I am inclined to believe in our own, too, although I readily concede that I cannot and do not know. Absolutely, and I found the same thing Francis did. I think the main reason why people don't find it is because they externalize God and look outside themselves for God. I think this is also responsible for our tendency to anthropomorphize God which only compounds the degree of externalization and distance we put between ourselves and God (or the Divine, if you prefer). On the other hand, if you start by looking inside you're already making the connection between yourself and God and without that connection it is highly unlikely you are going to find what you are looking for, which is what? You and God. I also think once you make that connection you can move on to seeing that same connection in everything that lives and breathes around you.
I think we can get a better idea of the author's intent by looking at the author himself - St. Francis of Assisi. Same thing goes for Lao Tzu. God. A connection to the Divine. Enlightenment. Knowledge. etc. Again, look at the author, St. Francis of Assisi, an extremely devout man and preacher. What else would he be talking about? Same goes for Lao-Tzu. Personally, I think there is an enormous amount of help there and Francis is trying to give people the benefit of his own experience. Again, same with Lao-Tzu. I concede that their advice will only take people so far (obviously it will get the disinterested nowhere) and even if it does point people in the right direction of discovery it should be understood that this journey or process is something that takes time and effort. Francis could tell you that, as well - it took him years if not decades to accomplish, and when he found what he was looking for it wasn't the end but another beginning.
Do we really look within though? Are we listening to the ego? Or are we listening to that which is connected directly to the divine? That is two completely different things. The ego is concerned with the illusion that is this world and is always wanting more, more, more. It is a remnant of the evolutionary process that ensured we were constantly looking to fulfill our biophysical needs so that we survived to pass on our genes. I think Francis and others are saying to look deeper, at the essence of who you really are and why you are here. Lol, Yoda said it best: "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter." -Yoda
Great reply IMO!!! I agree with everything you wrote above. I believe the only way to grow is to see past the ego and find what is within. So far Talon and yourself are the only ones here who seem to recognize such ideas as valuable. Yes! Thank you for your insight. I hope there are many more folks with your degree of understanding. I think these ideas are essential for everyone to become aware of...if not things may get much worse for humanity. And just like you said above.... "even if it does point people in the right direction of discovery it should be understood that this journey or process is something that takes time and effort."
I think there will be more and more who begin looking for answers to all of this world's big questions. The world is in a stage of great transition. Change and growth can be painful, but I have faith in the end everything will work out just fine.
Here is a variation on your idea-- both in parallel w/ some of your quotes and in contradiction to others-- which I once imagined. Self-consciousness is uncomfortable for most people. But it takes on a new meaning, if we apply it to an All-Being. Instead of an awareness of others' potential scrutiny, it would be a 1) personal awareness of SELF, as being all that there is, to scrutinize. 2) All that we imagine, or conceive of, whether the ideas be represented as images or words, are in truth, understandings composed of electrical impulses, in our brains. Yet these impulses can evoke memories, & emotions, that seem very real, and which, in turn, inform other parts of our brains, leading to new electrical activity. 2B) Let us consider, for argument's sake, the possibility that physical reality is of the same double-nature as thoughts, images, & "experiences;" that is, that they could have an unseen source, or template, of which they are but the product, the creation-- with intrinsic, imperceptible impulses, both underlying & generating our universe(s). 3) If the heart of the universe is, then, purely conceptual, but manifesting itself as physical reality, then the BIG BANG could be thought of as a dispersal of CONSCIOUSNESS; both an expansion of, & simultaneously an end to, God's (if no one objects) solitary, SELF-AWARENESS. In this model, the self-consciousness we feel from others' eyes, as individual neurons (or axons), so to speak, in God's brain, is identical to the self-consciousness of God looking at Itself (in the mirror of Its own mind). But this diaspora of discomfort, spreading the load, makes it both more tolerable for the Time-Being, as well as brings the distillate WHOLE, more opportunity for the thrill of new discovery, through the connected multitude of perspectives. If that were, indeed, the design, it would leave we individual cells with our own sense of separateness, and self-consciousness, yearning to (re-)join the liberating anonymity, of existing within a subsuming MASS, a comforting, ideological fog, while giving the Over-Personality, or OverSoul, a purpose counter to its constituent parts, i.e., becoming MORE self-conscious (& so discomposed) as more of its tiny, itinerant vessels lose their individual self-consciousness through their merging in Its Divine embrace. But overcoming opposition in their sojourn back, to the vibrantly welcoming Haze of Conceptual Waves, means the stowing in, with themselves, the same mounting charge that had urged their original expulsion. Heaven would be, but a gathering storm. You said it, brother!
Obviously, you and several others find this valuable (or at least interesting), as well. I'm glad you started this thread and presented the quotes in the OP. This is a matter I've been contemplating for years. And as I pointed out in the case of Francis of Assisi - and this applies to everyone - the journey (or process) doesn't end when you find what you are looking for. The journey continues with the question "What do I do with this knowledge?". In the case of Francis of Assisi, he changed his life and him and his followers in the Franciscan Order went on to change the world around them in ways that Francis probably never imagined. It has been said, and I believe it is true, that the Medieval Franciscan Order was the cradle of Western Individualism and Liberalism (in the modern classical sense of the term). As we can see from the quote in your OP, many of Francis' teachings were inherently individualistic, and the Franciscan monk I consider his most brilliant follower - William of Ockham - took that individualism to new levels it had never gone before in his Nominalist philosophy (Ockham's Razor was a product of this philosophy), the development of the first Natural Rights doctrine and the formulation of the social contract theory that John Locke later adopted and expounded upon in his famous Two Treatises of Government. The development of these doctrines and others, such as the separation of church and secular government, occurred during and after the Franciscan poverty controversy that embroiled the Catholic Church, and I can't help believe that the apostolic poverty the Franciscans adopted influenced the thinking of John Wycliffe, Jan Hus and Martin Luther, who also argued that the Catholic Church should renounce its extensive properties and follow the example of Jesus and his Apostles. In this respect, it might be said that the Franciscan Order was also the cradle of the Protestant Reformation (the Catholic Encyclopedia New Advent has referred to William of Ockham as the first Protestant). Of course, not all of us have such lofty aspirations, and even fewer are going to get entangled in controversies that are going to alter the course of history. However, the question remains. What do we do with the knowledge we obtained? Use it exclusively for our own betterment? Share it with others? Use it as an inspiration to do good works? The question also poses another question if we're talking about the issue of spiritual enlightenment or revelation. Is that something that should be shared with others or is it better and/or more ethical to let others figure these things out for themselves? The quote of St. Francis you cited in your OP appears to fall somewhere in between, as in pointing people in the right direction and then letting them continue on their own.
I think I understand your point....I know I can't change anyone, they do that on their own if at all. But I don't think it is harmful to present/repeat ideas such as those of St. Francis, Lao Tsu, etc.... for folks to contemplate on their own. That is what I tried to do with this thread. As for myself...I simply continue the journey just as you have suggested. The more that I read/hear concerning these ideas... the easier it is to see that "all of the methods intend the goal." I think that is something the Dalai Lama said concerning religions. I believe this idea some people have that we have been separated from God for some reason is false. The separateness is an illusion. What they view as separateness is more like a veil blocking their view. Because they are unable to see their connection to God and everyone else, they deny it exists. That needs to change. The fact is we are all more alike than we are different.... and we are not really different at all, unless we listen to our egos.
I have to disagree with everything here. Your ego is what you need to survive. The ego is the essential component that drives your sense of life. It is your ego that drives you to pursue happiness, it is your ego that demands rationality and connects you to the world. It is your ego that recognises reality and defines your virtues. Dabbling in mysticism is NOT looking within. It is looking out to an unreality that doesn’t exist. The essence of who you are is a compilation of your life experiences, your cognitive processes, and values. Mysticism is for the non-thinker, the procrastinator or the thug. Sorry but these are truths that people always have to ultimately learn.
Of course you are entitled to that opinion. Of course ego has its place, for example letting you know when the body has to eat, or sleep... basically all the biological functions. It exists to keep this vehicle for our consciousness alive, so that our spirit is able to learn the lessons it is meant to learn in this lifetime. But life is about so much more than this vehicle. To me, saying that all we are is this vehicle would be like saying you are going to take a trip across the country, visiting all the national parks, but the only thing you think about or worry about for the entire trip is your car or truck, and ignore all of the wonderful places that you visit. Yeah, you'll get through that trip just fine, but you have missed out on the purpose of the trip! You will have ended your trip with nothing more than a car with a few thousand more miles on it. But, that is just my opinion. If you are living your life and you are happy the way it is going, then I guess it works for you, and that is fine. Maybe it has something to do with the lessons you are meant to learn in this incarnation. Who knows? For me, spirituality has just magnified the wonder, love, and beauty in this world a thousand fold, and every day brings nothing but happiness and learning. I wouldn't have it any other way.
And you are entitled to yours. But to deny the ego is to deny being human. There’s no escaping it and there is no escaping reality. You can try to escape it, but it keeps coming back. The mind and body are one unit, not two. The “mind body” dichotomy is as old as humanity. It is just as false today as it has always been. The conscious mind without a body is a ghost. The body without a mind is a corpse. The beauty of the world is best observed through the conscious mind well aware of the reality in which it lives. It can not be conscious of anything without eyes to see or ears or feeling and sense perception. The acknowledgement of the ego and its value is its own reward. I am at my most happiest in that place. That said- good luck.
Are you sure about that?? Do you really think that without eyes, ears or any sense perception.... that you "would not be conscious of anything"? During sleep you dream...your senses are all at rest...yet you are aware of the dreams.
Absolutely. If you had no sense perception there would be nothing to be conscious of? With no sense of the world what would you dream of if you’ve never touched, tasted, saw or heard?
It's not a unique isolated idea. I'm certainly not one of a small number who favor it. When more than one OBE investigator "travels" to the same alternate world/reality and finds the same conditions and meets other intelligences, the overall information revealed is useful and impressive. By itself the topic can be downplayed, but not when it dovetails with so many other considerations.
Some OBE scenarios involve encounters with higher beings who can put into a person's head a sequence that the person experiences as if actually participating in the script. IAW we are living in a virtual reality. There is also the suggestion that physical reality (the entire universe) is totally dissolved and recreated from one microsecond to the next. Quantum mechanics indicates that everything objectively manifests from a subjective basis. Science also recognizes the fact that a limited percentage range of quarks are popping in and out of physical existence.
Doesn't that seem backwards to you? There must first exist consciousness....how else could there be awareness of sense perceptions? Simply being without human bodily senses does not eliminate consciousness.
The bottom line is that everything that people seek comes down to serotonin and dopamine. Mostly dopamine which controls the reward system of the human brain. There is an inherent reason people are unsettled. A cognitive dissonance cause by the knowledge one will die created by intelligence and a fear of death caused by evolution. All of this spirituality stuff is an attempt to deal with this cognitive dissonance so as to function.
