If man knew himself and his actual possibilities, what then? What if he became aware of the things which he does not know, or cannot know from the state he is in? These are valuable questions, first and foremost because this is the condition that most of us find ourselves in. So, perhaps this is best left to the psychologists, right?
The problem with psychology, as it is practiced today, is that it looks at man solely based on how he is, and not on what he may become. This is the claim that Ouspensky lays out, and it is a claim that I cannot, at present, find fault with - though I believe both are important.
Perhaps a better question than those shared before is as follows: What if men and women saw each other as the people they could become, instead of the people that they currently are?
For we are incomplete beings. Nature has built us up from the seas and into the trees to finally settle in-between on solid ground. She has done her duty and the rest of the way, in the most psychological sense, is up to us, or at least up to those who truly want it: those who have tasted a drop of their potential and have now wetted their appetite for something more out of this lifetime. A true desire, that is in fact what such an evolution requires. Though such people are rare, they do exist. For there is a threshold that each individual must cross where they decide that this slippery consciousness of their’s is too sparse. In doing so, he or she realizes that there is nothing more worthwhile than the development of being, provided that the goal is unconditional contentment.
You then ask if such a thing is possible… I ask again, what if man knew himself, and his actual possibilities, what then?
What if man knew himself, and his actual possibilities, what then?
Who would you be, and what would you do if you saw yourself as who you could become instead of who you are?