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.

The Cloud of Unknowing

I fount "The Cloud of Unknowing" to be both confusing and interesting. I think that one of the things it was saying that our goal in prayer should be to have our whole focus on God in that moment. We should strive to pray without any other distractions or desires at that time. As I think about it, it seems to be really difficult to focus our minds/emotions/desires on any one thing at any one time. I will try to focus on one thing and before I know it I am thinking about how I am tired or I get distracted by my surroundings. It is not easy to be that dedicated to anything! If it is easily possible there are at least times where it is really difficult (for example is you are really hungry or tired). "This is the work of the soul that most pleases God. All saints and angels rejoice in this work and hasten to help it with all their might." If this is not referring to have our focus in every possible way on God, it is in the very least referring to having our whole heart turned towards God (having no desire for anything but be praying to God at that time). It is difficult to maintain this full focus and it says that we should keep "laboring" towards this and that we will be helped in ways we do not even realize (by angels for example). The fact that it uses the word "laboring" indicates that this type of prayer is difficult to reach and is always a continual process. I do no think it means that one day you will know how to pray like this. It makes more sense for it to be saying that everyday is a challenge to pray like this and some days will be better than others. When reading "The Cloud of Unknowing," the parts in the very beginning about this kind of prayer are what stood out to me more than anything else.

Jesus of Nazareth

I have grown up my whole life hearing these words of Jesus. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard these parts of the Bible. It is interesting how no matter who you are and what you believe, you have probably heard, "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you." Even if you have not actually heard or read this verse, you are probably at least familiar with these concepts and teachings of Jesus. I think with any religion/wisdom at first, their is something beautiful to experience. That first time taking something in and believing it to be true is a really joyful time for most (well at least if it is a happy truth). When I was younger, I would hear something about religion and would believe it with all my heart. The thought of losing that "joy" I felt at the moment or to stop believing whatever it was seemed nearly impossible. I guess what I am trying to say is that when someone first gets excited about a religion they usually (or at least in my experience) feel that for the rest of their life they will be so excited about it and forever changed. For all people who experience this "joy" with some new beliefs/truths, it is inevitable that they will experience "dry spells" in their spirituality. To bring this all back to what I was saying in the beginning, I have heard these words of Jesus ALL MY LIFE. When I first began to take it seriously, I felt very excited by it. Over the years though, I can read these words and now get bored with them. It is weird how the same concept can bring out different thoughts and emotions at different times. I wonder how much this happens for other people (especially in comparison of all religions to each other). My guess is that everyone at one time or another experiences this "dullness" at least occasionally in whatever they believe... including the most highly regarded spiritual leaders throughout history.

Hui-Hai

The speech to the assembly really caught my attention because it seemed a little different from what most religious writings say. Usually I hear that we should strive to reach enlightenment, know the truth, or understand God. Sometimes religions make it seem like it is possible to understand God if we only study, sacrifice, and pray enough. It was different to read that someone refers to all of that as “blabbering about our understanding and that it was all a waste of energy.” The writer made it seem like trying to understand spiritual things and God was also a waste (even if it was just “trying” and not claiming to actually understand). The writer said, “Do not search for the truth with your intellect. Do not search at all. The nature of the mind is intrinsically pure.” I think his point is that we should not dedicate our time and energy to reading about truth and life but rather we should just go out and live our lives. In simply experiencing life we will gain understanding. Also I think he is questioning how important knowledge is. How we live our lives seems much more important and better to give our energy to than just simply knowing. I think that religious people have different ways of expressing and growing in their beliefs. Some people find themselves being closest to God when they are alone in a room studying for endless hours and gaining knowledge. I guess a good way to put it is that they feel like the best way to worship God or follow their beliefs is with their intellect. Other methods people may use is prayer, helping others, or giving up all their possessions. I think that this reading makes a good point about how intellect is not everything. I also think that people are very different in their personalities and how they like to do things (which it then would only make sense that for some people they feel most enlightened by seeking truth through their intellect while others may think that they are on the best path when doing good deeds).

Tzu-Ssu

I really enjoyed this reading because I could see that there was a lot of truth in it. This reading gave a lot of wise thoughts that I never really thought about. For example, I have always heard that we should treat others the way we would like to be treated. I have never thought about reversing that concept and saying, “Don’t do to others what you wouldn’t want done to you.” In a way it seems a little bit easier to follow because instead of focusing on trying to do things (for example give someone a compliment) you focus on not doing certain things (for example try not to gossip about someone). I thought that the part about being a mature person had a lot of truth in it. According to the reading, I am not that mature (haha). As I kept reading I realized how much America’s society is reflected in this reading. The part where it said, “The mature person accepts his situation and does not desire anything outside it,” is such a different outlook on life than the American culture possesses. Materialism and the idea that we always need more in our lives is the opposite from accepting one’s situation and not desiring anything outside of this. There is a strong contrast between American culture and this reading. Another part about the mature person read, “Therefore the mature person lives in perfect serenity, awaiting the decrees of heaven, while the unworthy person walks on the edge of danger, always trying to keep one step ahead of his fate.” The mature person seems to live in peace because they are not caught up in what they have. In life there will always be things getting stolen, broken, or worn out. Trying to run from this truth and lie to yourself to believe that “one day” everything will be perfect will not give you a peaceful life. The way the mature person is described seems to be a very wise and a better way to live your life.

The Bible, Shmelke of Nikolsburg

One of the most famous teachings from the Bible is, "Love your neighbor as yourself." It sounds simple and in a way easy to do. Many people think that this teaching is saying, "Treat others how you would like to be treated." The Schmelke of Nikolsburg reading brought up a lot of good questions like, "How can we love our neighbor as ourself if our neighbor has wronged us?" Are we supposed to just let people treat us as horrible as they want while remaining kind and loving to them? Easier said than done! I guess that I (and probably a lot of other people) have a tendency to think "loving" someone is being nice and making that other person happy. When I was younger I thought that if someone wanted to eat Chinese food for dinner (while I was craving Italian and did not want Chinese at all) I would go along with it. To me this was "loving" someone. I often times would not mention what I wanted to do in order to let others be happy and have their needs and desires met. I am not saying that I was this great person that always put others first or anything. I just tried really hard to love others and saw this as the best way how. I think now that it is definently okay to sometimes do what you want to do and ask people to sometimes give up their desires for you. So back to the dinner thing... I know think it is okay to try to convince people to go to Italian for my sake even though they may really want Chinese. I know it is not the best example but I think you get my point. I like how the rabbi answers, "Love your neighbor like you yourself are. For all souls are one. Each spark is from the original soul, and this soul is wholly inherent in all souls, just as your soul is in all members or your body." I think before I was missing the point when I focused on all the little things like where I will eat dinner. Yes, it is good to sometimes happily do something because someone else wants to. That can go along with love. It seems like the bigger point about, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is having a deep respect and care for those around us because we all originated from the same place and in many ways are much alike.

The Upanishads pg 3

I found this reading to be kind of confusing. Some parts made a lot of sense and were beautiful while I found other parts to be weird. Look at the first sentence for example. “That is perfect. This is perfect. Perfect comes from perfect. Take perfect from perfect, the remainder is perfect.” What does this mean?! I try to come up with things that this may be actually saying but ultimately cannot really think of anything. Also (whatever the true meaning of this writing) it does not seem like it could benefit anyone’s life. Maybe for someone in a different culture at a different time could much better benefit from it and gain more wisdom than I can from reading it.
I found some parts of this writing to be very beautiful and true in my own understanding of them. There are many universal principles here that for the most part people except. For example, “Claim nothing; enjoy, do not covet his [God] property,” is a common belief that most religions seem to have. I personally find this to be something that people should live by even though none of us could ever do it perfectly. Many religions teach that we should not be selfish and seek after worldly things for they could never satisfy us fully. The less someone seems to care about earthly possessions the more fulfilled someone seems to be. Whenever I think about whether or not something like money can make us happy I just look at the lives of many celebrities. Sometimes it seems like the richer and more successful someone is, the more likely they are to be depressed and maybe even suicidal. It is probably true that for most people the more they want of something, the less satisfied they are with it. Take money for example. If someone becomes consumed with getting more and more money, the less satisfied they are with the money they have. Someone who makes let say $30,000 a year could be more content and happy than a millionaire who becomes obsessed with money and how much they are making. Now I am not saying that I would rather have $30,000 than a million dollars. Obviously I would take the million in a second! I just think that seeking after worldly things could never fully satisfy any of us (or at least not long term).

Padmasambhava

The Tibetan Book of the Dead talks about death as if there is nothing to fear. They make it sound like an opportunity to become more enlightened and be at peace. The book seems as though it would be a great comfort to someone who is dying. To me death does not seem so glorious or a positive experience to improve oneself or understanding. Honestly death makes me afraid. Maybe I am more scared of how I will die. It would be one thing if I knew I would be old and feel no pain in my death. It is a scary thought to think that any one of us could die tomorrow. It is especially scary to think of all the painful ways it could happen. Most of us try to not think about it. I know that I try not to most of the time! I guess that it makes sense to try and make the most of every situation, no matter how bad it my be. The Tibetan Book of the Dead said that when death comes we should adopt this attitude: 'I will adopt only the attitude of an enlightened state of mind, friendliness and compassion, and attain perfect enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings as limitless as space.' The book carries a different attitude about death than I do. Maybe there is more positive things in death than I see. I believe that there is heaven and hell after death, but that does not erase my fears. I think that The Tibetan Book of the Dead is for both those that are close to death and those that will continue living. I can see how death can provide people with a last opportunity to create peace among their relationships and themselves. I like how this reading starts out with, "Even a deathbed can be a place of rebirth." I generally do not associate death with peace like that book does.

Sa-Go-Ye-Wat-Ha (1752-1830) pg 158

"You say that you are right and that we are lost. How do you know that this is true?" Sa-G0-Ye-Wat-Ha said this in his speech to a Christian missionary that came to his people. When dealing with religion and people trying to convert other people, this is a common question people ask. Most are turned off to certain religions or religion all together when someone confidently tells that they are wrong and need to believe "this" or "that." Many times a person's religion is more than just what they believe. It can also be a deeply rich part of their culture and everyday lives that makes them who they are. For them to change religion would in a sense be them losing their whole identity.

A great example comes to mind from the book 'Brukcho.' It is a true story that talks about Christian missionaries that were working in a tribal community in South America. Some tribes had been (according to the missionaries) "fully converted." These tribes also displayed many American customs. They dressed like the missionaries, went to church in square buildings, and sang the usual songs you would hear in many of the Christian churches in America. They acted just like the missionaries. The other natives saw this and wanted nothing to do with the religion the missionaries were bringing to them because they would lose their own customs and identity. They did not want to dress like the missionaries. In the story there was one missionary that was separate from the others. He did not try to change the natives culture and identities. Rather he just spoke what he believed to be absolute truth and did his best to apply it in a way that would fit into their culture and already spiritual beliefs. Some of the natives had said that they had become closer to God through his teachings and were glad that they did not have to change their customs. Their "worship services" were entirely different than that of any American church.

Now there is always the question as to whether there is absolute truth or not. If there is absolute truth (for example say one God), then this truth is for every person on earth and they can therefore receive this truth in a way that fits their own culture. Sa-Go-Ye-Wat-Ha said, "Since he [the Great Spirit] has made so great a difference between us in other things, why shouldn't we conclude that he has given us a different religion, according to our understanding? The Great Spirit does right. He knows what is best for his children." Both the missionary and Sa-Go-Ye-Wat-Ha could of actually believed the same truth when you look past the cultural customs that people have associated with their religion. The missionary felt that if they did not worship God like he did, then they were not saved. It is one thing to try to convert someone to Christianity. It is great when people share what they believe when they feel they have discovered the truth that is for everyone. The missionary went about it in a wrong way by trying to convert them to "American Christianity."

Chief Seattle (1786-1866) pg 173

Chief Seattle's speech was both convicting and beautiful. I found the references to the land where Chief Seattle and his people were located to be really interesting. I realize that I do not view the earth in the same way he does. I probably have a more similar view to that of Governor Stevens. Chief Seattle sees the world as sacred, beautiful, and very close to his heart. In the soil he sees the blood of his brothers and his people's history. The earth is a holy thing to be cherished and respected. It gives his people life and sustains them. To me the earth is a beautiful thing but I do not see myself relating closely to it. I do not have any deep meaningful attachments linked to the earth like Chief Seattle.

Governor Stevens saw the land with a much different perspective than Chief Seattle. It is in some ways strange how two people can look at the same thing and view it completely differently and feel different things about it. Chief Seattle saw that being removed from the land would result in the end of his people. He was aware that the end of his people was on its way and that it was a dark time. He also knew that the land would not be taken care of with the same respect and sustainability that his people provided it. Governor Stevens seemingly saw the land as a gain and a place to build and conquer.

History proves that the more powerful prevails and conquers. Those that are weaker unfortunately do not have much hope. Chief Seattle and his people (from what it sounds like) were greatly outnumbered and ultimately overpowered. In his speech it seemed like he had a choice and could accept or reject Governor Stevens offer. At the same time it is likely that if Chief Seattle did not choose to accept the offer, he would then be forced to.