Hugh Of St. Victor

This reading was very beautifully written. I liked the ways he described how what is “highest” is inside of us and how we often get caught up in the visible of what is outside of us (the “lowest). I think it is true that when we get really focused on material things such as money, what we own, who we date/marry, we often cheat our selves of something greater. Even if people do not believe in God and therefore would not seek God inside themselves, there still is a great benefit of “looking with our mind’s eye to what is invisible.” Giving thought and energy to the inner parts of ourselves can be much more fulfilling. Part of this is because chasing after the “visible” things of this world has no guarantees and often will let us down. Life seems to be the greatest when we have more to live for than the visible things. Coming to a place within yourself where you could still be “happy” and fulfilled if you lost everything (such as material possessions and even friends and family) is a great feeling. It is hard to be in that place and obviously if someone really did lose everything it would be difficult to deal with no matter who you are. To have something greater than all material things makes living an even greater experience. There have been times in my life where I could say that I was close to this point of having something higher with myself to live for than all of the visible things. It is not easy and most days I do get too caught up in material things. But from experience I do think that having that “higher” place within ourselves is one of the greatest things someone could know.

Albert Einstein

I really enjoyed this reading because it gave some religious/spiritual thoughts of a scientist. Usually a scientist is associated (at least in my mind) with atheism and evolution. I have heard so many people say that they do not believe in God but rather they believe in science (or vise versa). Often I feel like people say if you believe in science that it means that you believe in a Godless random universe. I have been given the impression that you cannot believe in both science and something spiritual. But I know that is not true and that there are people that embrace science and spiritual things as well. I just generally do not hear about it too much. I really liked the part in the reading that said,

“The scientist’s religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, in comparison with it, that the highest intelligence of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life’s work.”

I liked how it compared the complexity of the universe to the most intelligent human being. If you look at the world, for example, as being designed by an intelligent being, even the most intelligent human being is an “utterly insignificant reflection.” People so often think more highly of themselves than they probably should. When I study science, it is often humbling because it shows how in comparison to everything else in this world, I am just one very small part of it. The more I study science too, the more I think there must be a creator of it all. I personally do not see how someone could study science and see more evidence for it to of randomly fallen together.

Franz Kafka

This reading did not make sense at all to me. His statements were so vague that there could be many different interpretations behind each of them. There were some that were more confusing than others. One that stood out to me said,

“Not a drop overflows, and there is no room for a single drop more.”

I guess this statement is saying that add one more drop to whatever he is talking about and it will overflow with whatever it is filled with. I am just confused as to the point of saying this. What is someone supposed to gain or learn from hearing this? If anyone has any ideas I would like to hear them! There were some statements that I liked that really made me think. For example, I really like the one that said,

“Beyond a certain point there is no return. This point has to be reached.”

When I first read this I thought that it meant that this “point” is something that could never actually be reached but that he was saying that we should always be pressing forward and reaching for things rather than simply settling for how things are. As I read it again, I started to think that maybe this “point” could be reached. Maybe it represents a change in our lives. I think what I am trying to say is that maybe the “point” is where we reach a certain level of “change” to where we will never be the same again (“the point of no return”). Maybe I am just thinking to hard about it. Either way, most of what he is saying in these statements are not very clear but are interesting to read and really had a way of getting me thinking.

The Hermetic Writings (3rd Century)

I find this writing to be very interesting while at some parts it is kind of confusing. For example, it said,

“Becoming everything is just another method of becoming nothing… If you do not make yourself equal to God, you cannot perceive God… Leap free of everything that is physical… realize that nothing is impossible for you…”

It begins by saying that if you try to become everything, then you are really becoming nothing. It then goes on to say all these things you need to be (such as EVERYTHING that is non-physical). It at first gave me the impression that we should not try to be too many things. I thought it would say that focus more on a few key things. As I kept reading, I realized that this writing was giving many different things we should try to be a do. At one point it says,

“Leap free of everything that is physical and grow as vast as the immeasurable vastness… recognize that you too are immortal and that you can embrace ALL THINGS in your mind.”

Maybe it is saying that embracing all things in our minds is good, will help us better perceive God, and it will make us as nothing. It seems kind of contradictory to me but I am sure that I do not have a good understanding as to what this writing is really saying (which is why I found it kind of confusing, haha). I really did like the statement that read,

“Wanting to know God is the road that leads to God, and it is an easy road to travel.”

If you are not in a sense “looking for God” or trying to know him, it makes sense that you will not find him. I found it interesting how it said that it is an easy road to travel. Many religious ideas do not say that finding God is an easy road to travel. In Christianity, it says that right way is along the narrow and difficult path to follow. Also finding “God” is sometimes related to giving up all things which also does not sound that easy. To me, you will not find God if you do not want to know him and it does not seem like an “easy” road to travel.

Plato

I really LOVED this reading! It was very poetic and had a very truthful and beautiful message. I love reading about people’s thoughts on “the beauty of love.” My favorite part was when it said,

“And if, my dear Socrates, man’s life is ever worth the living, it is when he has attained this vision of the very soul of beauty. Once you have seen it, you will never be seduced again by the charm of gold, dress, or comely boys… You will care nothing for the beauties that used to take your breath away and kindle such a longing in you.”

This is saying that life is only really worth living when you move beyond the materialistic things such as money, status, and physical beauty and realize that who you are on the inside is what really matters. Materialistic things fade away and are unpredictable. You will never fully be satisfied with your life if you are continuously seeking more of this and more of that. It makes sense that life is richest when you are happy with what you have and treat others with love. Often helping someone else before yourself can bring you much more happiness. I love how this reading ended with a prayer by Socrates. My favorite part of it said,

“Grant that I may become beautiful within, and that whatever outward things I have may be in harmony with the spirit inside me. May I understand that it is only the wise are rich, and may I have only have as much money as a temperate person needs.”

This prayer makes a point that it is not bad to have good outward things. I do not really see it necessary to give up everything in order to be truly “beautiful inside” or however you want to put it. For some people, being a monk may be fulfilling for them and that’s fine. I have met people that seem to almost look down on people for wanting a nice car or salary because “you should not focus on worldly things.” I think that it is okay to have nice possessions as long as they do not control you or be what you are seeking after.

Sharafuddin Maneri

This reading really caught my attention from the beginning. From my own experience with religion and faith, I think most religious people do experience these first three steps of faith. The first is verbal (which I think is about telling others and God you have faith), second is sincere (which I think is truly believing it in your heart rather than just having faith on the “outside” to others), and the third is “reached when a person’s soul is illuminated in such a way that he is able to perceive every action flowing from a single source and deriving from a single agent.” The reading goes on to explain step four. It is a long description with a lot of interesting points that really made me think. For example, I liked how it said, “Before Your Unique Being, there is neither old nor new: everything is nothing, nothing at all. Yet He is what He is. How then can we remain separate from you?” When I read this, I think it is saying that to God nothing is new or old because God is eternal and outside of time. This is at least is how I have heard other people try to describe the eternal aspect of God in relation to the constant movement of time we experience and cannot control. I also think it is saying that nothing has value to God like things have value to us. We have value in so many things that are temporary and it would make sense for God to be unconcerned with those things. Of course, I also think that there is much more meaning behind this reading than I could notice or understand. I think the point of step four is to say that God is always going to remain and that everything is rooted in God. After we die God is still the same. Ultimately losing yourself completely in God gives you a divine union with Him. “The absolutely unhampered realization of the Unique Being only occurs in this stage. “

Muhammad

[Islam means, “surrender to God.” When we surrender ourselves fully, there is nothing but God: not even a “there”; not even an “is”; not even a “God.”]
I like how it said that Islam is “surrender to God.” I think it is natural for everyone to dislike the idea of completely giving themselves up for something like religion. We want to do whatever we feel like and whenever we want. I wonder if anyone could COMPLETELY surrender themselves to God. It definitely would be an ongoing daily challenge. Some days a person would be more “surrendered” than others. That concept reminds me of the reading, “The Cloud of the Unknowing,” which talked about giving your full focus to God in prayer. It said that having our whole focus on God would be pleasing to God. When we surrender ourselves fully to something, it becomes our life. Whatever we surrender ourselves to, we see it in everything. So I guess it makes sense to say that we should be surrendered to God. He would then be on our minds everyday and we would view everything with God in mind. I think when the reading says that “When we surrender ourselves fully, there is nothing but God,” it means that God receives a form of worship at all times. This reading (Muhammad) surprisingly sounds very similar to Christianity partially because the same concept of surrendering yourself to God is a major part of Christianity. I have always heard Islam, Judaism, and Christianity grouped together in one category. I understand the similarities and links between Judaism and Christianity. As far as Islam goes, it sounded like the only similarity between Christianity was the belief in one God. Growing up I have always been taught that (either directly or at least hinted at) that Christianity has a God of love that people happily followed while Islam has a God of violence that people followed in fear. As I get older and learn more, I know that the differences between the two are not simply that black and white. I know that I do have a lot more to learn about Islam.