A Question of Nobility

[Starvingpercussionist]

Is one any less noble if one chooses the right path only after discovering where all the wrong paths lead?

[astral traveler]

can you provide a specific example for the sake of context?

[CFTraveler]

Does nobility matter ultimately?

[Starvingpercussionist]

can you provide a specific example for the sake of context?

The parable of the prodigal son. One can also think of this in terms of the "service to self" and "service to others" orientations to life and how a soul must choose between them in every moment.

Does nobility matter ultimately?

Not in the present moment - not in oneness. I believe that, paradoxically, the noblest quest in the mind is for the mind to transcend itself.

[astral traveler]

The parable of the prodigal son. One can also think of this in terms of the "service to self" and "service to others" orientations to life and how a soul must choose between them in every moment.

why might one regard either of these ('service to self' or 'service to others') to be more noble than the other?

for example, is it more noble for me to pay the mortgage of my next door neighbor versus my own, when i can only pay one mortgage at a time?

also, i'm not quite sure how the parable of the prodigal son ties into 'service to others'.  both sons in the parable seem quite selfish throughout the entire story, even if they believe themselves to be serving others.

Is one any less noble if one chooses the right path only after discovering where all the wrong paths lead?

not if one refrains from morality judgments on the matter.  nobility would be moot.

[Starvingpercussionist]

why might one regard either of these ('service to self' or 'service to others') to be more noble than the other?

The manifestations of those two orientations are what give us the concept of nobility - for instance a selfless person like Mother Teresa is usually considered more noble than a greedy corporate executive. Ultimately though, nobility is exactly that, a concept.

When I think of "service to others", the heart and intentions of a person are what really matter. It's the choice to "love for the sake of love". This would be seen as more noble than any other path that is apparent in this world because it goes against the tide of the times. In Truth, however, it's the only reasonable choice. Is it more noble to keep your sanity while living with the insane than to fall into depravity yourself when you know you could be helping to bring them to sanity?

for example, is it more noble for me to pay the mortgage of my next door neighbor versus my own, when i can only pay one mortgage at a time?

If you were to pay off your neighbor's mortgage with the intention of being seen as good, is that really "service to others"?

also, i'm not quite sure how the parable of the prodigal son ties into 'service to others'.  both sons in the parable seem quite selfish throughout the entire story, even if they believe themselves to be serving others.

If you'll recall near the end of the parable the prodigal son wanted to actually go to work for his father. Also, I think that the other son by asking "what about me" wasn't necessarily being selfish, but was rather asking a very necessary question for the sake of the parable itself, because if the question wasn't asked then the father couldn't have given an answer, and no lesson could be drawn from the story.

[astral traveler]

The manifestations of those two orientations are what give us the concept of nobility - for instance a selfless person like Mother Teresa is usually considered more noble than a greedy corporate executive.

you present one perspective concerning the definition of 'nobility', but i suggest that there are many others.  not to be disrespectful, but i personally consider the 'service to others' definition of nobility to be a bit fallacious, insofar as i don't necessarily believe that 'charity' is altogether altruistic.

in this context, i might interpret the 'charity' of mother teresa to be ultimately self-serving.  in other words, many people are 'charitable' simply to make themselves feel good by appeasing their own sense of guilt.  a person who is altruistically 'charitable' is one who helps others, even though it doesn't make them feel good or noble.  the selfishness of a person is evidenced when they fail at an act of 'charity' and yet still feel good about having 'good intentions' afterwards.

Ultimately though, nobility is exactly that, a concept.

and there are different interpretations of what constitutes 'nobility'.  i suggest that 'feeling noble' and 'being noble' are two different things entirely.  'noble intent' doesn't necessarily constitute altruistic nobility.

When I think of "service to others", the heart and intentions of a person are what really matter.

i generally view the intentions of the heart as being irrelevant, unless one is ultimately concerned about 'self-service' to one's own soulish character.  i interpret this perspective as being selfish.  'service to self' at it's core.  i believe that it's more practical for the recipient of 'charity' to be effectively helped by a selfish person who hates giving, as opposed to encountering a person who doesn't have the power to help but has 'good intentions'.

for example, if a patient requires brain surgery, it's better to receive the operation from a selfish money-hungry surgeon who is highly skilled, versus a poorly-skilled selfless surgeon who has 'good intentions'.  in this case, intentions become irrelevant.  the effectual exercise of power is what counts.

It's the choice to "love for the sake of love".

this can often disguise 'loving for the sake of being loved'.

This would be seen as more noble than any other path that is apparent in this world because it goes against the tide of the times. In Truth, however, it's the only reasonable choice.

i suggest that a tide of the times is socialist welfare.

Is it more noble to keep your sanity while living with the insane than to fall into depravity yourself when you know you could be helping to bring them to sanity?

this likely depends.  if a person goes insane for the sake of 'charity', what help can they practically be to others?  it may seem altruistic to 'go insane' in the name of 'love', but what practical 'charity' is performed for others?  how are others practically helped by such psychological martyrdom?

for example, a friend of mine went insane (becoming clinically mentally ill) in the name of altruistic love for a woman, but neither of them were effectually benefited by his psychological lapse.  yet he would commonly boast what a good person he was for loving her so sacrificially that he would even give up his sanity for her.  it had no benificial effect on her in the end, and probably just served to inflate her own ego with the evidence that she just treated him all the worse for it.  his psychological martyrdom was simply an expression of a typical abuse victim mentality.  she merely used him financially and psychologically, with her own abuse tendencies simply becoming reinforced.  no good for either of them.

If you were to pay off your neighbor's mortgage with the intention of being seen as good, is that really "service to others"?

lolol, actually, i think that i'd simply appear rather foolish if i payed off somebody else's mortgage and saw my own home go into a state of foreclosure as a result.

If you'll recall near the end of the parable the prodigal son wanted to actually go to work for his father.

because his stomach became hungry and he needed food.  the desire to eat food is inherently self-serving.  a completely selfless person will refrain from eating food altogether, because eating food helps oneself.  therefore, people who eat food throughout the weeks and years are not that noble, because eating food is 'service to self'.  and we need to get past 'service to self' by not eating food anymore.  (i'm making a rediculously extreme argument, but do you see my point?  starving oneself to the point of death doesn't necessarily reflect nobility.)

Also, I think that the other son by asking "what about me" wasn't necessarily being selfish, but was rather asking a very necessary question for the sake of the parable itself, because if the question wasn't asked then the father couldn't have given an answer, and no lesson could be drawn from the story.

did the other son know that he was merely a character in a parable?  did the father tell him that he was merely an actor in a parable?

[Starvingpercussionist]

I think to get a bit of clarity on this issue, we need to define "service to self". I would define "self" in that sense as the ego, which isn't real, except to itself. The ego is a self concept, and in the serving of it one only thinks one is serving oneself. I guess the real question boils down to, if one isn't really the ego, then outside of the ego, what is one really? If you no longer see the ego as yourself, then what do you identify with? I'd say that if you no longer identify with yourself then you identify with everything else - and at that point you would see the other as yourself and thus the terms "service to self" or "service to others" would become meaningless. Service to others is meaningful only if you believe that there is an other separate from yourself. Serving Who You Really Are is to serve others, and that's the paradox here. 

What I'm trying to say is that nobility is relative, and only exists as a concept. Really, it doesn't matter whether you choose to follow your ego or follow the truth, because the ego creates its own suffering and the truth is always self-evident outside of the ego.

The parable goes back to my original question when you look at it this way: was the prodigal son ever loved any less by the father for giving into his selfish ("service to self" or "ignoble") desires? In other words, was he ever any less "noble" than his brother?

did the other son know that he was merely a character in a parable?  did the father tell him that he was merely an actor in a parable?

Lol. There are many ways to interpret a parable. You could assume that the characters have their own motivations and personalities, or you could assume that the characters are metaphorical and merely placeholders (being used only to get a concept across). I tend to go with the latter.

[astral traveler]

I would define "self" in that sense as the ego, which isn't real, except to itself.

i've encountered this argument before and i respect your position, although i disagree with certain vital aspects of it.

i suggest that the ego identity is indeed an illusion, but illusions are nonetheless real and exist with concise purpose as evolutionary extensions of reality.  illusions are inherently holy, serving as evolutionary catalysts, without which evolution cannot exist.  the illusory ego-identity is inherently holy as an evolutionary catalyst.

we all need a strong, healthy ego to become the best that we can be.  to remove the psyche's projection of the ego-identity is to invite mental illness.

[Starvingpercussionist]

i've encountered this argument before and i respect your position, although i disagree with certain vital aspects of it.

i suggest that the ego identity is indeed an illusion, but illusions are nonetheless real and exist with concise purpose as evolutionary extensions of reality.  illusions are inherently holy, serving as evolutionary catalysts, without which evolution cannot exist.  the illusory ego-identity is inherently holy as an evolutionary catalyst.

we all need a strong, healthy ego to become the best that we can be.  to remove the psyche's projection of the ego-identity is to invite mental illness.

So you're saying that to still the mind is to invite mental illness?

Also, could you explain your position about the ego being an evolutionary extension of reality? I've never heard that idea before.

[astral traveler]

So you're saying that to still the mind is to invite mental illness?

stilling the mind is by no means mental illness.  i'm instead referring to the removal of the ego-identity.  stilling the mind and removing the ego-identity are two different things.

Also, could you explain your position about the ego being an evolutionary extension of reality? I've never heard that idea before.

yes, certainly, although it is a hard concept to grasp.

i suggest that the psyche naturally forms the ego-identity into various shapes and forms.  a healthy psyche will manufacture a healthy ego-identity, whereas an unhealthy psyche will manufacture an unhealthy ego-identity.

the shape and form of the astral body reflects the shape and form of the ego-identity, whether for good or for bad.  the shape and form of the astral body (as firstly representing the shape and form of the ego-identity) may be either regenerate or degenerate in appearance (or commonly somewhere inbetween regeneration or degeneration).  a regenerate astral form will commonly resemble the appearance of angels with an aura of white light, whereas a degenerate astral form will commonly resemble the appearance of demons with a darkened aura.  (an intermixed form will appear somewhere inbetween.)  the shape and form of the astral body is modeled after the shape and form of the ego-identity.

regarding evolution/devolution, the shape and form of the astral body reflects the next evolutionary stage of the individual in question, although there may be fluctuation in the appearance of the astral body for a time.  eventually, sometime in the afterlife, this astral form will permanently solidify, thereby becoming resistant to changes of shape and form.  at the occurence of the solidification of the astral form (wherein fluctuations in appearance cease to occur), it (the astral form) will become locked into the individual's next evolutionary/devolutionary stage as originally reflective of the ego-identity at that point.  the astral body will permanently be locked into a regenerate angelic appearance or a degenerate demonic appearance, insofar as bipedal angels, humans and demons constitute a single interrelated macro-species.

[Starvingpercussionist]

I would suggest that completely stilling the mind loses the ego identity - albeit temporarily.

That's an interesting theory, no doubt. Do you have any experience or someone else's experience backing it?

[astral traveler]

I would suggest that completely stilling the mind loses the ego identity - albeit temporarily.

okay.

That's an interesting theory, no doubt.  Do you have any experience or someone else's experience backing it?

it's contained in HP Blavatsky's writings.  and i've directly witnessed various shifts of appearance in my own astral body, as well as with other entities.

[Starvingpercussionist]

What kind of fluctuations? What exactly did you change into, or what changes did you see?

[astral traveler]

What kind of fluctuations? What exactly did you change into, or what changes did you see?

i saw myself along lower and higher frequencies to some degree.  more sickly looking (as if unnaturally aged with a skeletal-type image super-imposed) if my psyche was cluttered with lower frequency thoughts, but more vibrant (youthful with a shiny white aura) if my psyche was more purified at the time.  these fluctuations are also thought to manifest in varying degrees of bodily health.

typically (90% of the time), i just looked like my physical body does though, although my age appearance and bodyweight would occasionally seem to fluctuate for some reason.  does that make sense?  it's a little hard to describe.

howerver, the beings which i encountered seemed to fluctuate more wildly in appearance types, as briefly mentioned in the OP.

[Starvingpercussionist]

I dunno. The astral is weird. Just the other day I projected to some place wearing some kind of shawl for no reason (I projected to several places that night, and later on I wasn't wearing it), so I'm guessing that the astral body has very little correlation to the physical. 

[astral traveler]

I dunno. The astral is weird. Just the other day I projected to some place wearing some kind of shawl for no reason (I projected to several places that night, and later on I wasn't wearing it), so I'm guessing that the astral body has very little correlation to the physical. 

yeah, stuff like that is pretty common.  i don't fully understand it all.

[Starvingpercussionist]

I'm sure at some point it will all make sense. 

[astral traveler]

I'm sure at some point it will all make sense. 

lol, that's my hope.