1. "The end, or object, both of the rational will and of its liberty is that good only which is in conformity with reason".
I do feel that - especially in the so-called spiritual and energetic healing community, there is a vast downplaying of the faculty of reason. I have heard many practitioners encouraging their clients not to think but instead to "drop into the heart". Obviously listening to one's conscience is important but so is critical thinking. Have you noticed this as a trend in the "healing" community?
2. "Liberty belongs only to those who have the gift of reason or intelligence. Animals do not possess liberty. Considered as to its nature, it is the faculty of choosing means fitted for the end proposed, for he is master of his actions who can choose one thing out of many."
I agree with the above but would not go so far as to say that animals do not possess liberty. Close observations of some animals has demonstrated that they are capable of choosing one out of many things. I think this is important to point out because if this is not recognized, then the logical conclusion is that animals do not deserve liberty - by reason of the assumption that that they do not possess it. Also worth considering: animals learn from humans, and are in some ways a reflection of humans. They can potentially evolve then, if this is the case. They are not necessarily static beings.
3. "For the proper object of the will is the good. The will cannot proceed to act until it is enlightened by the intellect. Nothing can be desired by the will unless it is judged by the intellect to be a good. Thus in all voluntary acts, choice is subsequent to an intellectual judgment that something is good or desirable."
I 100% agree with this. I find it troubling that this idea of non-judgment is constantly being propagated. (Though Rudolf Steiner talks about abstaining from judgment and criticism in his book, "The Way of the Initiate", so I wonder how you think about this in light of the quote above.")
The act of living itself involves judgment on a daily basis. The advice in many places is not to think of things, people or event in terms of being "good" or "bad". But obviously, humans are designed to have an opinion on whether or not any given experience, thing, person, idea etc. is "good" or "bad", as an assessment either way directs further actions. This negation of desire, and the idea that one mustn't think of things in terms of being "good" or "bad" is reflective of eastern philosophy, and seemingly at odds with (classical) western culture.
To an extent, I understand the need to look back on certain events or circumstances - from a learning perspective - as not necessarily having been "good" or "bad". Bad experiences can prompt incredible turning points in one's life for the better. Would one then look at that experience and argue that it was only "bad"? Perhaps in and of itself, it was a bad experience. But if it was ultimately used in the service of later enlightenment, then it could also be argued that in a sense, it was "good". However, to negate the idea of "good" and "bad" entirely, is also to negate any notion of moral hierarchy. This seems to be what some people are arguing for - but they have no superior philosophy to offer in its place, from what I have been able to tell.
Likewise, the negation of desire is completely illogical to me, as it is the necessary precursor to any sort of action. Unless one is to remain in a completely static state, desire is a prerequisite for all action.
4. RELATED TO THE POINT ABOVE: "The will is referred to as the appetitive power of the soul or the rational appetite. Like the intellect, the will is a spiritual faculty. It is that power through which an individual seeks to execute an act or attain to an object proposed to it by the intellect. The object of the will is always the good, and even in the election of evil, it must be proposed to the will under the appearance of good. Anything chosen as a means is therefore viewed under some aspect of goodness."
Correct. The object of the will is always the good - or the perceived good, at any rate. I like the notion that the intellect is indeed a spiritual faculty. I think so-called spiritual teachers need to be acknowledging this - but often they don't want their followers to think too hard, and therefore downplay or even demonize the intellect. In some ways, the intellect seems to be their enemy.
5. "Therefore because in all voluntary acts choice is subsequent to a judgment upon the truth of the good presented, declaring to which good preference should be given, it is an immutably true principle that human liberty depends entirely on intellectual judgments that conform to reason and the natural law. If a judgment which does not conform to the natural law or to reason, and which is, therefore, objectively false and immoral, is acted upon by the will, then it is a source of grave disorder in society. Exponentially multiply the number of individual immoral acts, and you have a Republic that collapses from moral decay in a short period of time."
This is so key, because it acknowledges the idea of moral hierarchy - again, something which not a lot of spiritually inclined people are wanting to hear these days. The argument against morality is often tied to atrocities committed in the name of religious beliefs. But this argument is itself indicative of a belief in the notion of moral hierarchy, since - if religious atrocities can be argued by implication to be a "bad thing" - then this by necessity suggests that there must something "better" or "higher". But what is that thing, or idea? This is something that seems never to be defined or well articulated by the people who make such arguments - because, I suspect, a support of such an argument would have to incorporate the acknowledgment of "good" and "not good" - which in my experience has been something these types are often reluctant to do, as they've often (and in a contradictory manner) decided that there is no such thing as "good" or "bad".
6. "We mistakenly believed that the lie they told us, namely that true liberty is the “right” to do whatever we want, whenever we want, as long as it is not illegal or discoverable. True liberty is an essential property of objective truth and morality. Therefore there can be no true liberty in a civilization that enshrines moral relativity.”
Nothing more to add. The above is something with which I agree.
7. "True knowledge from the outside will come to one who learns to restrain the mind, thus restraining the senses, which is done by tuning the mind inwards, in silence. The current state of the world opposes this, and will keep your attention outside of yourself where all chaos is unfolding. The chaos outside will become the chaos inside if you do not learn to restrain the mind."
This seems to be the crux of mastering oneself. It seems it is an ongoing process that can be done to greater and greater degrees. I would imagine that the highest degrees of accomplishment would involve the ability to be entirely unaffected by any outside stimulus - no matter how physically or mentally painful. Would you agree on this point? I am thinking of the monks who have self-immolated, for example. The question I have is, do you think it's easier to overcome one's own suffering at the hands of outside forces than it is to overcome seeing other creatures (who do not have this ability) suffering? Meaning, how would one's ability to overcome their own suffering and internal chaos affect their ability to be weakened via observation of others' legitimate suffering? Would such a person feel obligated to help others? Would it be considered immoral *not* to endeavor helping others who are legitimately suffering?
Thank you for the comment CJ; I'm pleased that you found the article thought provoking and worthy of your analysis.
I agree with many of your perspectives. Here are a few of mine, sort of in the order of yours:
I have personally experienced healing in my life, at a spiritual level. I've witnessed this subtle energy merge with my nervous system and cause physical and biological changes in my body - and all of it was brought on by detaching from the mind, rather than "using the mind." Intuition is what lead me to the techniques on how to certain heal areas of my mind/body that I found problems with when I was in meditation.
I see the animal kingdom and mostly a single entity (or spirit). It is lower in nature than the human so it is subject to more universal laws than a human. So in a sense, animals are only free outside of the laws that govern them, just like humans - we just have less laws, they have more. Some birds are governed to fly south for the winter, however, IMO, only an outside cause can effect a bird to NOT fly south; so in a sense it is not making a choice, rather its just floating on the river that governs it. We actually fell deeper into density in the last few hundred years, which is why we have more laws that govern us now, than in the past. Many of the laws now are "artificial" because we have been ruled by a lower force that has not obeyed Universal law, thus is why its all unraveling now.
I think Steiner was referring to judgement that way so one would refrain from holding or attaching to strong opinions or beliefs while one is developing spiritually. I've found with myself, many old judgements to be false or misplaced as my consciousness expanded. If I didn't let them go, they may have had a detrimental effect on me.
The intellect is ruled by the ego until one finally wakes up the inner self and overrides it. The intellect is great at cutting and dissecting things, but others, especially emotional and the supersensible, it is not the correct tool to use. Once one is awake, it can become much more developed using the higher centers (5-7).
Religions are much too compromised by politics and hidden hands, so many times their "right and wrong" is based on the influence of their constituents.
Restraining the mind: yes, this is "mastering thyself," or "the greatest victory is victory over self." Those quotes are referring to the mind (ego mind). Its an ascending spiral of development. My latest article specifically goes into some of the techniques that were effective for me. Yes, the least detached one is to the world, the more free and the more mastered they are. I don't mean detached like sitting in a cave and being isolated from the world, I mean the emotional attachment to things (which are wired through the 5 senses by the ego program).
For your last question, a great question it is. I believe the greatest thing you can do for humanity and the world is to free yourself from the human condition (5 sense emotional attachment, like we just discussed). This will give one the higher intelligence to effect others in the most healthy and naturally divine way. It doesn't mean that one is not emotional, in fact its the opposite - one becomes more emotional, just in a more healthy and evolutionary way. The emotional center holds immense energy, when one can tap into this at will, and use this energy as he wishes, mountains can be moved. Just think how powerful you are at something when you're emotionally charged while doing it? Apply this to everything else that you decide to "do" or to help others. Through the process of awakening, one also understands suffering and how it is the cocoon that one needs in order to develop. When one is bathed in grace, they are discerning which suffering is useful and which is detrimental - without this level of intuition, helping someone because they're triggering you emotionally might not be the best thing for their evolution. Some seeds need to freeze through a winter season before they will germinate under the sun's warmth.... You may like this article https://seeker333.substack.com/p/hacking-the-mind-matrix?r=23hlzm
Never mind. It can’t be from Thomas Aquinas, as the NWO reference would not have existed during his time….
There is a lot here on which to comment:
1. "The end, or object, both of the rational will and of its liberty is that good only which is in conformity with reason".
I do feel that - especially in the so-called spiritual and energetic healing community, there is a vast downplaying of the faculty of reason. I have heard many practitioners encouraging their clients not to think but instead to "drop into the heart". Obviously listening to one's conscience is important but so is critical thinking. Have you noticed this as a trend in the "healing" community?
2. "Liberty belongs only to those who have the gift of reason or intelligence. Animals do not possess liberty. Considered as to its nature, it is the faculty of choosing means fitted for the end proposed, for he is master of his actions who can choose one thing out of many."
I agree with the above but would not go so far as to say that animals do not possess liberty. Close observations of some animals has demonstrated that they are capable of choosing one out of many things. I think this is important to point out because if this is not recognized, then the logical conclusion is that animals do not deserve liberty - by reason of the assumption that that they do not possess it. Also worth considering: animals learn from humans, and are in some ways a reflection of humans. They can potentially evolve then, if this is the case. They are not necessarily static beings.
3. "For the proper object of the will is the good. The will cannot proceed to act until it is enlightened by the intellect. Nothing can be desired by the will unless it is judged by the intellect to be a good. Thus in all voluntary acts, choice is subsequent to an intellectual judgment that something is good or desirable."
I 100% agree with this. I find it troubling that this idea of non-judgment is constantly being propagated. (Though Rudolf Steiner talks about abstaining from judgment and criticism in his book, "The Way of the Initiate", so I wonder how you think about this in light of the quote above.")
The act of living itself involves judgment on a daily basis. The advice in many places is not to think of things, people or event in terms of being "good" or "bad". But obviously, humans are designed to have an opinion on whether or not any given experience, thing, person, idea etc. is "good" or "bad", as an assessment either way directs further actions. This negation of desire, and the idea that one mustn't think of things in terms of being "good" or "bad" is reflective of eastern philosophy, and seemingly at odds with (classical) western culture.
To an extent, I understand the need to look back on certain events or circumstances - from a learning perspective - as not necessarily having been "good" or "bad". Bad experiences can prompt incredible turning points in one's life for the better. Would one then look at that experience and argue that it was only "bad"? Perhaps in and of itself, it was a bad experience. But if it was ultimately used in the service of later enlightenment, then it could also be argued that in a sense, it was "good". However, to negate the idea of "good" and "bad" entirely, is also to negate any notion of moral hierarchy. This seems to be what some people are arguing for - but they have no superior philosophy to offer in its place, from what I have been able to tell.
Likewise, the negation of desire is completely illogical to me, as it is the necessary precursor to any sort of action. Unless one is to remain in a completely static state, desire is a prerequisite for all action.
4. RELATED TO THE POINT ABOVE: "The will is referred to as the appetitive power of the soul or the rational appetite. Like the intellect, the will is a spiritual faculty. It is that power through which an individual seeks to execute an act or attain to an object proposed to it by the intellect. The object of the will is always the good, and even in the election of evil, it must be proposed to the will under the appearance of good. Anything chosen as a means is therefore viewed under some aspect of goodness."
Correct. The object of the will is always the good - or the perceived good, at any rate. I like the notion that the intellect is indeed a spiritual faculty. I think so-called spiritual teachers need to be acknowledging this - but often they don't want their followers to think too hard, and therefore downplay or even demonize the intellect. In some ways, the intellect seems to be their enemy.
5. "Therefore because in all voluntary acts choice is subsequent to a judgment upon the truth of the good presented, declaring to which good preference should be given, it is an immutably true principle that human liberty depends entirely on intellectual judgments that conform to reason and the natural law. If a judgment which does not conform to the natural law or to reason, and which is, therefore, objectively false and immoral, is acted upon by the will, then it is a source of grave disorder in society. Exponentially multiply the number of individual immoral acts, and you have a Republic that collapses from moral decay in a short period of time."
This is so key, because it acknowledges the idea of moral hierarchy - again, something which not a lot of spiritually inclined people are wanting to hear these days. The argument against morality is often tied to atrocities committed in the name of religious beliefs. But this argument is itself indicative of a belief in the notion of moral hierarchy, since - if religious atrocities can be argued by implication to be a "bad thing" - then this by necessity suggests that there must something "better" or "higher". But what is that thing, or idea? This is something that seems never to be defined or well articulated by the people who make such arguments - because, I suspect, a support of such an argument would have to incorporate the acknowledgment of "good" and "not good" - which in my experience has been something these types are often reluctant to do, as they've often (and in a contradictory manner) decided that there is no such thing as "good" or "bad".
6. "We mistakenly believed that the lie they told us, namely that true liberty is the “right” to do whatever we want, whenever we want, as long as it is not illegal or discoverable. True liberty is an essential property of objective truth and morality. Therefore there can be no true liberty in a civilization that enshrines moral relativity.”
Nothing more to add. The above is something with which I agree.
7. "True knowledge from the outside will come to one who learns to restrain the mind, thus restraining the senses, which is done by tuning the mind inwards, in silence. The current state of the world opposes this, and will keep your attention outside of yourself where all chaos is unfolding. The chaos outside will become the chaos inside if you do not learn to restrain the mind."
This seems to be the crux of mastering oneself. It seems it is an ongoing process that can be done to greater and greater degrees. I would imagine that the highest degrees of accomplishment would involve the ability to be entirely unaffected by any outside stimulus - no matter how physically or mentally painful. Would you agree on this point? I am thinking of the monks who have self-immolated, for example. The question I have is, do you think it's easier to overcome one's own suffering at the hands of outside forces than it is to overcome seeing other creatures (who do not have this ability) suffering? Meaning, how would one's ability to overcome their own suffering and internal chaos affect their ability to be weakened via observation of others' legitimate suffering? Would such a person feel obligated to help others? Would it be considered immoral *not* to endeavor helping others who are legitimately suffering?
Thank you for the comment CJ; I'm pleased that you found the article thought provoking and worthy of your analysis.
I agree with many of your perspectives. Here are a few of mine, sort of in the order of yours:
I have personally experienced healing in my life, at a spiritual level. I've witnessed this subtle energy merge with my nervous system and cause physical and biological changes in my body - and all of it was brought on by detaching from the mind, rather than "using the mind." Intuition is what lead me to the techniques on how to certain heal areas of my mind/body that I found problems with when I was in meditation.
I see the animal kingdom and mostly a single entity (or spirit). It is lower in nature than the human so it is subject to more universal laws than a human. So in a sense, animals are only free outside of the laws that govern them, just like humans - we just have less laws, they have more. Some birds are governed to fly south for the winter, however, IMO, only an outside cause can effect a bird to NOT fly south; so in a sense it is not making a choice, rather its just floating on the river that governs it. We actually fell deeper into density in the last few hundred years, which is why we have more laws that govern us now, than in the past. Many of the laws now are "artificial" because we have been ruled by a lower force that has not obeyed Universal law, thus is why its all unraveling now.
I think Steiner was referring to judgement that way so one would refrain from holding or attaching to strong opinions or beliefs while one is developing spiritually. I've found with myself, many old judgements to be false or misplaced as my consciousness expanded. If I didn't let them go, they may have had a detrimental effect on me.
The intellect is ruled by the ego until one finally wakes up the inner self and overrides it. The intellect is great at cutting and dissecting things, but others, especially emotional and the supersensible, it is not the correct tool to use. Once one is awake, it can become much more developed using the higher centers (5-7).
Religions are much too compromised by politics and hidden hands, so many times their "right and wrong" is based on the influence of their constituents.
Restraining the mind: yes, this is "mastering thyself," or "the greatest victory is victory over self." Those quotes are referring to the mind (ego mind). Its an ascending spiral of development. My latest article specifically goes into some of the techniques that were effective for me. Yes, the least detached one is to the world, the more free and the more mastered they are. I don't mean detached like sitting in a cave and being isolated from the world, I mean the emotional attachment to things (which are wired through the 5 senses by the ego program).
For your last question, a great question it is. I believe the greatest thing you can do for humanity and the world is to free yourself from the human condition (5 sense emotional attachment, like we just discussed). This will give one the higher intelligence to effect others in the most healthy and naturally divine way. It doesn't mean that one is not emotional, in fact its the opposite - one becomes more emotional, just in a more healthy and evolutionary way. The emotional center holds immense energy, when one can tap into this at will, and use this energy as he wishes, mountains can be moved. Just think how powerful you are at something when you're emotionally charged while doing it? Apply this to everything else that you decide to "do" or to help others. Through the process of awakening, one also understands suffering and how it is the cocoon that one needs in order to develop. When one is bathed in grace, they are discerning which suffering is useful and which is detrimental - without this level of intuition, helping someone because they're triggering you emotionally might not be the best thing for their evolution. Some seeds need to freeze through a winter season before they will germinate under the sun's warmth.... You may like this article https://seeker333.substack.com/p/hacking-the-mind-matrix?r=23hlzm
Namaste friend
I’m sure this excerpt must be from the saint Thomas Aquinas but would have to look it up.