Man has only to know himself

[idiot_stimpy]

Man has only to know himself - Rudolf Steiner

 

 

I would like to open a discussion of what it means to you to know yourself?

[idiot_stimpy]

Random musings.

 

In Homer's Odyssey, when Ulysses blinds the Cyclops, the Cyclops asks him: "Who are you?", to which Ulysses replies "Nemo. (Nobody/No-one)"

 

When the Cyclops was later asked by his father Neptune: "Who did this to you?", he answers "Nobody did it."

[idiot_stimpy]

[silent thunder]

Just shared this story with my son the other night, so it's very fresh in my mind.

 

After blinding Polyphemus, Odysseus bragged who he was, but only from the safety of his ship as he and his men sailed away.

 

Had he kept quiet, there would have likely been no revenge, but when Poseiden asked who had done this to his son Polyphemus replied, 'Odysseus'. Poseiden asked what he could do for the Cyclops in revenge and the request was something of this order.

"I ask that he be killed, but should the Gods decide not to, then I ask you that never reach home, unless it be after many years of hardship in a ship not of his making, with none of his loyal men by his side."

 

Then the ten years of wandering the Aegean Sea began...

[manitou]

The only experience I have with knowing yourself is the inner work I needed to do to stay sober. At the time I was still drinking, my attitudes were all negative and cynical. I was judgmental toward every person, place, and thing. It became soon apparent to me that if I wanted to effect change in my outer world (the drinking world) I had to effect change in the inner world.

 

I did use a 'template' of sorts, a tried and true formula for getting and staying sober through inner work and improving one's attitude toward life. I had to search out all my resentments that I was capable of seeing at the time (this is 33 years ago). Since then, I have to stay on top of this - I cannot let things to come to the point of resentment, lest I lose the comfort zone I require to stay in a nice state of sobriety. The same was true of all the character 'defects' I could come up with at that time - selfishness, arrogance, and the lack of self esteem I had always felt. Somehow they were all mixed up with one another. I had to go back through my life, try to remember anybody I had wronged in the past, and make amends to them.

 

This type of inner work has been described as the direct route to self realization. It is the task of eliminating all the blockages inside us. At least, that was the extent of it at the time I used this for the purpose of staying sober.

 

Well, 33 years later, I see that the true Tao is a 'return to one's self', without all the outer-imposed traits, seemingly good or seemingly bad. It is a return to the generic Human Being that has been there all along, the enlightened being that dwells within. Only my blockages prohibit my view of this Human Being at any given time.

 

When Buddha said 'Know Thyself', my guess is that this is what he was talking about. To peel the onion to the point where only the Tao remains. Getting to this actual point would seem to be impossible, but certainly a worthy thing to desire and strive for, IMO.

[Marblehead]

That is a nice inspirational song.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

The notion that all one needs to know is oneself is founded on the Microcosm/Macrocosm analogy, well represented by this quote attributed to Paracelsus:

 

If I have manna in my constitution, I can attract manna from heaven. Melissa is not only in the garden, but also in the air and in heaven. Saturn is not only in the sky, but also deep in the ocean and Earth. What is Venus but the artemisia that grows in your garden, and what is iron but the planet Mars? That is to say, Venus and Artemisia are both products of the same essence, while Mars and iron are manifestations of the same cause. What is the human body but a constellation of the same powers that formed the stars in the sky? He who knows Mars knows the qualities of iron, and he who knows what iron is knows the attributes of Mars. What would become of your heart if there were no Sun in the Universe? What would be the use of your 'Vasa Spermatica* if there were no Venus? To grasp the invisible elements, to attract them by their material correspondences, to control, purify, and transmute, them by the ever-moving powers of the living spirit—this is true Alchemy." (Burgoyne, Thomas H., The Light of Egypt, H. O. Wagner, Denver, Colorado, USA, 1965, Vol. II, p. 63, I have not been able to otherwise source this quote attributed to Paracelsus)

 

In the West it became fundamental to Metaphysics and Ontology, but originated as an Epistimological theory:

Like is only known by like in Empedocles

 

because it solves a lot of problems created both by Parmenides on the one hand and the early Greek Atomists on the other.

This doctrine was worked out by Plato in a very profound way and continued to influence Western Philosophy up to Hegel.

 

It existed in China as can be seen in this quote from the Confucian, Mencius:

7A:4
萬物皆備於我矣。反身而誠、樂莫大焉。彊恕而行、求仁莫近焉。
(Mencius at The Chinese Text Project)

I prefer this translation to the one on The Chinese Text Project:

"All the ten thousand things are there in me. There is no greater joy for me than to find, on self-examination, that I am true to myself. Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence."
(D. C. Lau, Mencius, Penguin Books, 1970, p. 182, Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

and was also used in Daoism.

In Plato, as becomes very clear in Plotinus, all things, including our own divine being as already there within us, it allows this type of knowledge of God:

Then, in this way know God; as having all things in Himself as thoughts, the whole Cosmos itself. If, then, thou dost not make thyself like unto God, thou canst not know Him. For like is knowable to like [alone]. Make, [then,] thyself to grow to the same stature as the Greatness which transcends all measure; leap forth from every body; transcend all Time; become Eternity; and [thus] shalt thou know God. Conceiving nothing is impossible unto thyself, think thyself deathless and able to know all,—all arts, all sciences, the way of every life. Become more lofty than all height, and lower than all depth. Collect into thyself all senses of [all] creatures,—of fire, [and] water, dry and moist. Think that thou art at the same time in every place,—in earth, in sea, in sky; not yet begotten, in the womb, young, old, [and] dead, in after-death conditions. And if thou knowest all these things at once,—times, places, doings, qualities, and quantities; thou canst know God. But if thou lockest up thy soul within thy body, and dost debase it, saying: I nothing know; I nothing can; I fear the sea; I cannot scale the sky; I know not who I was, who I shall be;—what is there [then] between [thy] God and thee? For thou canst know naught of things beautiful and good so long as thou dost love thy body and art bad. The greatest bad there is, is not to know God’s Good; but to be able to know [Good], and will, and hope, is a Straight Way, the Good’s own [Path], both leading there and easy. (Corpus Hermeticum XI, "Mind unto Hermes", p. 187-8) (Emphasis mine, ZYD)

as is found in the Corpus Hermeticum. The text which I emphasized above, "If, then, thou dost not make thyself like unto God, thou canst not know Him. For like is knowable to like", emphasizes the epistemological origin of this practice and it is only the Microcosm/Macrocosm analogy that makes it possible. This is a very Western approach approach to God as the fullness of Creation and the unifying One at its root, though the approach to the One as the one itself is also part of Western Philosophy especially in Plotinus.

 

 

 

Edit: Changed had to hand in "Parmenides on the one hand" above.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Zhongyongdaoist

[Michael Sternbach]

Excellent summary of the Microcosm/Macrocosm analogy, Zhongyongdaoist. Thanks.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Excellent summary of the Microcosm/Macrocosm analogy, Zhongyongdaoist. Thanks.

 

I might add to the Epistemological nature of the Microcosm/Macrocosm analogy, that it would make the type of long pointless discussion appearing in the thread:

 

Objective Vs Subjective

 

completely unnecessary. The terminology involved in "objective" and "Subjective" was created in the Seventeenth Century as a psychology of the senses related to the revival of Epicureanism, a branch of Greek Atomism, that began around 1600. Its primary systematizer was John Locke, whose model of the mind at birth as a "blank slate", also sometimes called the Latin "tabula rasa", meant there was no inborn knowledge and all that one could know in "knowing" oneself was what one had observed or deduced from those deductions. This served his fundamentally Puritan agenda perfectly, because unlike the previous positions of the Catholic Church, based on the Classical Tradition, there could be no inborn virtues, nothing that a man may know, or virtue he might develop on his own, thus he was wholly at the mercy of God for salvation in Jesus.

 

Subsequent materialism kept these ideas going by taking for granted many things that seem simple because they are "natural", but these days it is clear from the efforts of AI and computing, that things we think are simple are very complex and may even not be computable and if they are not computable, they cannot be mechanical and if they cannot be mechanical then the whole edifice of materialism is revealed as a mere facade and for the shame it is.

 

This discussion has of course been greatly simplified for brevity's sake. For example "tabula rasa" has Classical and Medieval precedents and Quantum Computing may solve many problems, but with Quantum anything, we are just not in Kansas anymore.

[manitou]

Marbles, if you put me on Ignore it wouldn't bother me at all--

[Bud Jetsun]

There is nothing else one could "know", and even to "know" oneself would require enlightenment, and then "know" wouldn't be a recognized concept anyways.

 

The sooner one ceases the delusions of "knowing" one sooner may progress towards liberation.

 

No religious "practice" in the world can offer any more than the experience of practicing it.

 

The realizations made are the often forgotten purpose of "practice", yet no realization makes itself.

 

Ending the mistaken belief there could be "knowing" is as good of realization as any towards liberation.

[thelerner]

I would like to open a discussion of what it means to you to know yourself?

hmnn Shakespeare comes to mind--

 

This above all: to thine own self be true,

And it must follow, as the night the day,

Thou canst not then be false to any man.

 

To thine own self be true. To me it means spending the time to figure out what you believe in. Working out definitions of right and wrong and what it means to be a complete human being. Also developing a gut instinct that points you in the right direction.

 

[manitou]

I think it means stripping ourselves down to the generic human being underneath, the enlightened one.I'm not sure what beliefs are any more. Beliefs seem to be a mindset, as a result of our own particular conditioning, that brings us to a conclusion. Are conclusions enlightenment? I don't know. I think 'no conclusion' is the more enlightening mindset. The mindset of a Beginner, a Learner.

 

What are my dislikes? What are my resentments? Does my mind work judgmentally as I'm walking around town during the day? Am I clinging to an anger or what I considered to be a personal affront? Am I capable of seeing that the very thing that irritates me about someone else is because it's rubbing up against the very same thing in myself? I think that knowing ourself (gnowing ourself) is stepping aside from ourselves, looking objectively, and not trying to cover anything up or hold anything back. To see ourselves as we really are, warts and all.

 

Once we come into touch with the parts of ourselves that tend to get in the way of seeing Truth, then it seems that Life will predictably bring things to us that necessitate that particular characteristic being put into play until such time as we finally recognize our wrong habit pattern. At least, that's my observation of how the whole thing works. The offending dynamics within us don't seem to be magically 'removed' once we realize they're there....instead, the situation will then pop up to help us work our way through our old way of doing things. We manifest our own reality, and the Spirit within (Dao, Void, Light, etc) will do the attracting and all we have to do is be aware of our actions while we are walking through the situation. We then have the ability to make the necessary corrections so that this undesirable reaction will not be a factor in the future.

[FraterUFA]

For me:

 

1) To know where one comes from

2) To know what one is not

3) To know where one is going

[eye_of_the_storm]

Edited November 12, 2014 by eye_of_the_storm

[Bud Jetsun]

To me it means spending the time to figure out what you believe in.

 

One may choose to acquire and/or manufacture any/all beliefs one likes.

 

Belief and wisdom still remain opposites.

 

I think it means stripping ourselves down to the generic human being underneath, the enlightened one.I'm not sure what beliefs are any more. Beliefs seem to be a mindset, as a result of our own particular conditioning, that brings us to a conclusion. Are conclusions enlightenment? I don't know. I think 'no conclusion' is the more enlightening mindset. The mindset of a Beginner, a Learner.

 

What are my dislikes? What are my resentments? Does my mind work judgmentally as I'm walking around town during the day? Am I clinging to an anger or what I considered to be a personal affront? Am I capable of seeing that the very thing that irritates me about someone else is because it's rubbing up against the very same thing in myself? I think that knowing ourself (gnowing ourself) is stepping aside from ourselves, looking objectively, and not trying to cover anything up or hold anything back. To see ourselves as we really are, warts and all.

 

Once we come into touch with the parts of ourselves that tend to get in the way of seeing Truth, then it seems that Life will predictably bring things to us that necessitate that particular characteristic being put into play until such time as we finally recognize our wrong habit pattern. At least, that's my observation of how the whole thing works. The offending dynamics within us don't seem to be magically 'removed' once we realize they're there....instead, the situation will then pop up to help us work our way through our old way of doing things. We manifest our own reality, and the Spirit within (Dao, Void, Light, etc) will do the attracting and all we have to do is be aware of our actions while we are walking through the situation. We then have the ability to make the necessary corrections so that this undesirable reaction will not be a factor in the future.

 

Some wisdom! Thank you for sharing. Have you considered the conclusion of preference?

 

 

hmnn Shakespeare comes to mind--

 

This above all: to thine own self be true,

And it must follow, as the night the day,

Thou canst not then be false to any man.

 

To thine own self be true. To me it means spending the time to figure out what you believe in. Working out definitions of right and wrong and what it means to be a complete human being. Also developing a gut instinct that points you in the right direction.

 

 

It's impossible not to be true to yourself, this doesn't mean one can't choose whatever delusion to replace that truth with "belief(s)".

 

 

For me:

 

1) To know where one comes from

2) To know what one is not

3) To know where one is going

 

If these 3 are important to "know" for you, can you tell me the "answer" to any of them?

[FraterUFA]

.

Edited June 1, 2015 by FraterUFA

[Nungali]

Where you have come from, why you are here and where you are going are the 3 basic questions , in one form or another, through human history and place.

 

They are not the sort of questions that should be answered for you by another.

 

Although others can help lead you to find your own answers.

 

And for the observant, there is the test of one's answers by observing the results they lead to in one's life - others can help with their perceptions here too.

 

Here are 3 good conditions (that relate to the above) :

 

right time, right place and right company.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Nungali

[manitou]

 

 

Some wisdom! Thank you for sharing. Have you considered the conclusion of preference?

 

 

It's impossible not to be true to yourself, this doesn't mean one can't choose whatever delusion to replace that truth with "belief(s)".

 

 

 

 

 

Not sure what you mean by the conclusion of preference as it relates to my prior post. Can you expand?

 

I think it's possible to be untrue to one's self and true at the same time. Take the case of a battered woman. In one sense, that which keeps her in the relationship is the co-dependent part of her which interacts with the co-dependent part of him. In that sense, she is being 'true to herself', because in fact that's where she is right now. She is co-dependent, to the detriment of her own wellbeing.

 

But 'really' being true to herself would be to search out her dynamics within; for her to find out why she needs the co-dependency, and the courage it will take to change the dynamic and get to a healthier place. That would be to be true to her Real Self, her higher self.

Edited November 14, 2014 by manitou

[Bud Jetsun]

Of course. If not, what would be the point? Was that supposed to be a deep question or something?

 

No arrangements of words can offer realization. Words will not exceed the depth of the mind viewing them.

 

 

 

 

 

Not sure what you mean by the conclusion of preference as it relates to my prior post. Can you expand?

 

 

Conclusion of preference is a type of liberation from the always self-imposed suffering of preference and desire. It means gaining the awareness that "likes" and "dislikes" are both equally forms of self-imposing cruelty. The things we like are already fated to crumble to dust, whatever attachments we have become suffering as they are inevitably broken. Choosing to dislike shifts the self-imposed suffering to be realized more immediately.

 

Whilst maintaining preferences, one is preventing gratefulness and appreciation of the 'Now'.

 

It is through the act of appreciation and being grateful that one shows kindness to self.

[IntuitiveWanderer]

To know yourself means to understand existence.

[IntuitiveWanderer]

Middle aged people go through existential crisses because they do not know who they are.

 

The line "I don't even know who I am anymore" occurs pretty often in drama movies. What does it mean?

 

Does it mean that the person forgot his/her personal information, memories and such? Or does it mean that, after a shock, the person had a moment in which she/he stopped projecting a veil of images about self and not self, thus becoming aware of ignorance or, in other words, authentically self-aware.

Edited November 22, 2014 by IntuitiveWanderer

[Boy]

...

Edited December 1, 2014 by Boy

[IntuitiveWanderer]

No, it means they are still in shock.

 

lol . I didn't mean that kind of shock.....people don't say "I don't even know who i am anymore" after witnessing something that puts them in a state of shock.

 

I meant, when they experience a intensely difficult period, like...when they're depressed or something...anyway...that's beside the point.

 

 

The main question I was trying to evoke is: "What determines people to ask themselves the question 'Who am I?' ?"

 

 

Edit:

 

...if it is taken literally, then it is quite absurd. What does it in fact mean?

 

Or, it seems to me to be absurd...yeah you could know your personality profile and your favorite colour and your temperament and your opinions....but is this what it's about?

 

If that's what it's about then the oracle of delphi gave self-help advice. For example, that oracle chick must have noticed that Socrates had self-esteem issues, and that's why she had spread the rumour that he is the wisest man in the world. Or maybe she had a thing for him, although I heard that he was fairly ugly.

Edited November 22, 2014 by IntuitiveWanderer

[Boy]

...

Edited December 1, 2014 by Boy