Discovery of Self through queries of an "Idealistic World"

[Adolescent09]

The following is long-winded and all apart of my ambitions to find/discover my inner self. It may also be seen as a RANT. You've been warned.

Here goes..:

Ignorance is most often a device of the unenlightened who chose to purport their views as fact for the sake of abating if not ceasing controversy. Those who acknowledge their ignorance and in my case, a spiritual lack of insight are prone to pursue a well-intended but meaningless course to shed light on topics that have already been thoroughly discussed inside and out. What I feel inclined to say here has already been said in more sophisticated words, but for the sake of trying to discover my sense of belonging in this world, the ideas that spill from my finger tips grant me a much needed self-assurance that my voice still matters. I know I am still a teenager not only in age, but in spirit, in mental being... this number attached to myself represents a seed recently sewn.

It is with this belief that I would like to add my two cents to the discussion of "self-discovery" that is stressed at the core of Herman Hesse's Siddhartha (which I just recently completed). I have felt anguish, sadness a sort of Prince Myshkin loneliness with no sense of understanding the cause of my emotions or the tendencies of my caprice. The closest I have felt to being reassured that I am not alone in my recent (although misguided) quest for self-enlightenment is my coming across Siddhartha. His questions are similar to mine, his thoughts... everything is similar.

I am not a Buddhist nor do I have the slightest intention of becoming one, as odd as it may seem considering this book has had such a great impact on me, but this book has indeed opened my eyes. I am purely a Christian and intend to address my point in Christian terms. forgive me.. now to my point:

So let's say that the world was created by us humans instead of Providence or some kind of divine manifestation. The majority of us would naturally want the world to conform to a set of moral laws, not ones to be followed such as the Commandments, but ones to be set; irrefutable and unbreakable laws such as those of the universe and Newton's physics. All humans would be equal, both sexes would be equal "goodness" and "virtue" would be prevalent, evil wouldn't exist etc... But this idealistic utopian world would naturally succumb to chaos due to our own volatile nature because universal goodness and equality is a CONSTANT, a definite, an absolute. The fickle nature of humans would never allow a constant world of goodness to last for long, so God created this world with the intent of granting a choice for all of us: to either follow good or evil. But things of course aren't so black and white and it has been timelessly determined that the source of behavior never dwells in constant phases of pure good or pure evil and hence the gray area of a mixed aspect of these diametrically opposite parts. So God's commandments are now all virtually useless; "thou shalt not kill" when war suggests otherwise, "thou shalt not steal" when hunger suggests otherwise, "thou shalt not commit adultery" when desire suggests otherwise. The worldly temptations cancel out the divine stipulations and this of course makes the sublime creator not so sublime afterall. But then the question is, Why do we consider him perfect after all? He could exist, but could he not be manipulated by a power greater than Him? Is this the reason that people like Siddhartha, myself, questioners and skeptics try to find meaning in the self, the temples of intelligence, instead of something that seems too remote and intangible to recognize as even believable?

The ultimate consideration is, Did God have a choice Himself? Could there have been some other metaphysical enigma, a type of master of marionettes? Was he truly in control over the creation of the universe and if not Him, who else? Considering how frequently we change our opinions, are we stable enough to even know?

[jgweed]

I think you are asking two important ethical questions:
1. Are there absolute standards of good and evil?
2a. IF there are absolutes, can we know them?
Else,
2b. IF there are no absolutes or if we cannot know them, how do we comport ourselves and what criteria do we then use in making ethical choices?

Arriving at your own answers to these questions is never easy, especially if you consider them seriously.
Cheers,
John

[DooRag]

As soon as the word "metaphysical" enters your text. You lost me. Attempting to talk about things in a way that even that particular thing cannot possibly exist is just a waste of time.

Just remember, most people are selfish, but we enjoy companionship, so we create relationships, and families, and we work and start companies. But, in the end, the only person you can trust and ever really know is yourself.

p.s. we are just animals running around on a currently fertile planet. lets not give ourselves too much credit...

[TheSeeker]

What I feel inclined to say here has already been said in more sophisticated words, but for the sake of trying to discover my sense of belonging in this world, the ideas that spill from my finger tips grant me a much needed self-assurance that my voice still matters. I know I am still a teenager not only in age, but in spirit, in mental being... this number attached to myself represents a seed recently sewn.
Spiritual development is always a personal matter. It does not matter how much a particular truth has been discussed, described, analyzed, repeated, ..., if it is not realized within the depth of our consciousness, it is still not a truth to us. You should be praised for your courage in starting this arduous journey, as all of us sooner or later will in fact undertake the same journey.

It is with this belief that I would like to add my two cents to the discussion of "self-discovery" that is stressed at the core of Herman Hesse's Siddhartha (which I just recently completed). I have felt anguish, sadness a sort of Prince Myshkin loneliness with no sense of understanding the cause of my emotions or the tendencies of my caprice. The closest I have felt to being reassured that I am not alone in my recent (although misguided) quest for self-enlightenment is my coming across Siddhartha. His questions are similar to mine, his thoughts... everything is similar.
I first read that book from Hermann Hesse by chance 25 years ago and I had the same feeling as you had, mainly of profound sadness on the meaning of life. Until now I still consider that book as one of the most inspirational books I have ever read in my life.

All humans would be equal, both sexes would be equal "goodness" and "virtue" would be prevalent, evil wouldn't exist etc... But this idealistic utopian world would naturally succumb to chaos due to our own volatile nature because universal goodness and equality is a CONSTANT, a definite, an absolute. The fickle nature of humans would never allow a constant world of goodness to last for long, ....

I think you are asking two important ethical questions: 1. Are there absolute standards of good and evil? 2a. IF there are absolutes, can we know them? Else, 2b. IF there are no absolutes or if we cannot know them, how do we comport ourselves and what criteria do we then use in making ethical choices?
I think that jgweed summarizes well the issues. I think that good and evil are subjective concepts. We know that one thing good for a group of people may be evil for another group, and vice-versa. How can we then have absolute standards on something that cannot be clearly defined? The terms good and evil may be clearly understood, but the circumstances under which a good or evil act is committed often cannot be easily delineated. Even the qualification of good or evil is a judgement that comes at a later stage, sometimes well after the act. Given a true choice, I think that nobody will deliberately choose to commit an evil act. If we agree with the latter statement, then doesn't that also mean that 'given true freedom', every human being is pure good? And that is an absolute or universal standard. But now the issue becomes how to define, measure and communicate that absolute standard. One can easily see that the essence of that absolute standard can only be understood by people who are really 'free'. And that true freedom is what we call by another term: spiritual enlightenment!

[jgweed]

One can go to a restaurant with a group, and order "what everyone else is having" or look through the menu and try something else, something new. Afterwards, one is pleased or displeased with the dish chosen, and will either order it again, or try something else, at the next opportunity. In time, one will keep in memory a list of dishes one likes, and a list of those disliked, modifying it by experience.

[blazeofglory]

The ultimate consideration is, Did God have a choice Himself? Could there have been some other metaphysical enigma, a type of master of marionettes? Was he truly in control over the creation of the universe and if not Him, who else? Considering how frequently we change our opinions, are we stable enough to even know?

This is really a very deep question and all of us have no answer to it. We are seeking constantly.

[Adolescent09]

even that particular thing cannot possibly exist

In this world and in our perception, perhaps it can't. But this is the claim of a mortal being and whoever said our decision is final in time, space and the universe?


the only person you can trust and ever really know is yourself.

You lost me right when you made this very honest and yet wholly dismissive statement. It is so easy to claim that the only person you can trust is yourself when you've invested all if not most of your trust in your family, friends and community. A true test of self-endurance (very similar to Siddhartha's enterprise) is one that most people can't even hope to embark on because they live according to the spur of the moment and are willing to just face death when it comes (me included, apparently you included and the majority of people included, which is where the quest of the self comes in). Questioning and seeking truth in the metaphysical is harmless and should not be labeled a "waste of time" considering the fact that when we die we will come face to face with this potentially divine and mortally unfathomable force whether it be evil or good, felicitous or not. Let me try to put it more clearly in the context of everyday quotes.

Live good if you can= circumstance... left to (chance).
Live until you die=absolute and inevitable... only a matter of (time)
"Treat your fellow man with impartial respect"= you have the (choice)
"Sometimes the impossible happens"=(destiny)

Note that all these bourgeious "moral pointers" and abstract guides can be directly linked in someway to a metaphysical entity or force, each one of which cannot possibly be dictated by any one of us mere mortals..


most people are selfish, but we enjoy companionship

This is pretty much an oxymoron since in seeking companionship we subordinate the act of striving to help others for the sake of our own self-security. Have you ever heard of making friends in order to help other people or to facillitate some philanthropic effort? There are exceptions of course... but for the most part, our desire for friendship is based on our insatiable need for societal acceptance, which ironically in itself is supposed to serve as a justification for our very existence. In making friends and socializing we have a propensity to unknowingly imply the question of "why we are here" using our social attachments as an adequate reason instead of a mere obscurement of the truth. Suggesting that companionship is the purpose for our being here is at best biased considering the fact that millions of people in this world are not in a position to socialize for geographical or personal reasons.

[scull]

In my humble opinion, the only way to find the meaning of one's existence, is to simply stop looking. The journey of our lives leads us to the answer, which is only made clear at it's end. This is the greatest mystery. Enjoy the magic of the moments and companionship our fellow travelers along the way:)

[Adolescent09]

Hey,
It's more than great to talk about GOD and the other issues you talked about which basically have to do with religions...:yawnb:
Does what's happening in the world mean that GOD doesn't have control over us?...of course it doesn't...
GOD as you stated granted us the freedom of choice(that's part of how HE honored us as humans and that's also the reason why there is a day of judgement)

GOD gave us the freedom of choice after creating in us the beleif in the legitimacy of virtues and the love for them ,HE sent messengers to humans to tell them why they exist and to guide them to the right path...At the same time,humans have the tendency to do bad evil things(It's only a tendency...this doesn't mean that GOD approves the evil things we do,HE allowes us and that's part of the divine test for us)
It's a logical consequence for humans having the freedom of choice for some of them to do bad evil things in their life...that doesn't mean they'll get away with it...everyone of us will have to face the results of the choices he took in his lifetime in the hereafter...

Now the role of those who believe that they exist in this universe for a reason and they have a clear view of it and they take it seriously is to try to spread as much good as they can...

These issues are so much related so we can't understand them separately...

Anyways,that is how I see these issues in the light of my beliefs....

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough at some points,that might be because I'm not that good in English...:(

Salam.

It is difficult to confine the deeds of people into such categories as good and evil when neither are clearly defined by man, only loosely defined by God and are largely based on human mores. Our tendencies to "do bad things" branch from our choice to do bad things, a choice vouchsafed by God and one exploited universally for no other reason than the fact that it is a possibility. For some people, murder is good, for others altruism is bad. The paramaters of good and evil are set by opinion so using these debatable words in explaining God's intentions is not only confusing but purposeless. In my opinion, a choice is the suggestion of an approach towards the manifestation or fulfillment of a goal. A choice wills an objective that is in our best interest to fulfill, but whether helping society or harming society is an element of that objective is sadly irrelevent to many people. Hence, certain people in our society may choose to harm us not only because it is a God-granted option, but because they feel it is their right, and no amount of religious pontificating will change that.

[NikolaiI]

All human beings are born with a set of moral values(the basic minimum requirement)like knowng that lying is a vice,knowing that generousity is a virtue...then while growing up everyone of us is responsible of enhancing these values in oneslf...
Our ability to diffrencite between good and evil is indeed limited...here comes the role of religion,which is more concise when considering moral values and applies the moral values on different issues and gives more motivations to implement these morals...
For example Islam, we believe as muslims that Islam is from GOD and that GOD ordains justice and good in HIS commandments...there are things that have consice rules in the Qur'an or in the Prophet's sayings like inheritence rules...and there are as well major rules that the scholars deduced from the Qur'an and Prophet Muhammad's sayings because there are issues that come up in our life and the right choice is under these major rules...
Some humans choose not to have a religion at all but some of those as well still have a general view on what's good and what's evil,the rest of them who chose to decline their moral standards by their deeds, when they do something that harms no one else but themselves it's their personal choice and no one forces them to have this choice or that(this doesn't mean that we must neglect them because if we do so we will be contributing in the bad deeds negatively I mean by doing nothing about it...we still can advise them),but when it comes to the things that they do which harm others or the socity directly or indirectly they must be forbidden from doing these things and if they did these things they must be punished for them regardless what they believe in...(and this is applied to everyone because everyone of us is fallible)...

I chose a personal approach to some points and hope it won't bother you...
Salam:)
P.S I totally agree with you that a choice is the suggestion of an approach towards fullfilment of a goal(if I understood you correctly)...these goals can be defined correctly and also reached correctly after knowing the reason behind our existence...

Your words are very great, sir, you elaborately describe your subject, and you impart a lot of knowledge. I agree with you with all you've said, though I know nothing of Islam. In my opinion the requirement for a person who is a sage, is knowledge of God and faith in God. Knowledge of the self is bestowed by God, and there is no knowledge higher than knowledge of the self's role as a servant of God. People are seeking God, though they do not know it. Knowledge of God is the supreme, and so it is the source of all other philosophies; the source behind anything we could seek is this knowledge. Since the source of knowledge is God, God is important and we should try to understand Him.

[bulent2k2]

Spiritual development is always a personal matter. It does not matter how much a particular truth has been discussed, described, analyzed, repeated, ..., if it is not realized within the depth of our consciousness, it is still not a truth to us. ...

...

Given a true choice, I think that nobody will deliberately choose to commit an evil act. ... But now the issue becomes how to define, measure and communicate that absolute standard. One can easily see that the essence of that absolute standard can only be understood by people who are really 'free'. And that true freedom is what we call by another term: spiritual enlightenment!

I think TheSeeker is on the way to "awakening." I use that word to mostly refer to that of the "self". Self is usually hastily defined. There is a tradition, I will denote as "Enel Hak", many followers of which have been persecuted or at the very least misunderstood [To seek further just google: Al-Hallaj.] The knowledge may help as a guide, but let tradition not bind you, though. Imitation is not enough. Let one feel that self is not separate from the Creator, nor from all of its creation. There may be "interfaces", and even many such levels. But they are connected nonotheless.

I would also like to point out that our language is one big obstacle to "awakening": TheSeeker refers to "the will to evil", and the true choice or true freedom which suppress that will. How true in deep meaning, but could also be misleading due to the very word "evil".

What is evil? No clear and objective definition that we would agree, I feel. Do you feel the same? A friend said "we all know lying is vice." A minor evil maybe, but more importantly, in many a certain context "lying" would be the only good. Others already provided good examples to that...

The problem is that before self-awareness, one may fool oneself that "lying" in other contexts is the "best" tactic or strategy. We shall not confuse the two, I hope.

So, to be good, I need to be aware of my self, dynamic and ever changing, but also biologically conditioned by the past in time and in genes. Focus should not be on others that may be unaware and therefore err, in small or tragic ways. By focusing on self, I am guided towards "love" and therefore "evil" will be left behind in darkness, which is the absence of light, no creation in itself. That is the way that connects all of creation.

To inner light and love... :)