Number of posts per day limits - a suggestion

[Ben Iscatus]

This thread is ostensibly about limiting the number of posts, but actually seems to demonstrate the very problem it is trying to solve.This thread is ostensibly about limiting the number of posts, but actually seems to demonstrate the very problem it is trying to solve.

True! Perhaps it's because the Great Spiritual Essence in the Sky is putting these naughty thoughts in our minds.

[Eugene I]

This question could sound semi-plausible from a completely secular person, who asks you for example "what makes you believe that you have gained access to level of consciousness that is higher than the everyday ego?" You know how you would answer: "It's not a belief, it's a direct experience. In the same way you need not to believe that you experience thinking. I know that I've found a higher ground because I perceive various desires, habits, mental patterns which have formerly worked within me completely unconsciously, I have been carried along them as a leaf on a stream. But now I see them. And not only that but with my Spirit I have the freedom to choose whether to allow any of them manifest or not."

That's what people in many other spiritual traditions do as well, specifically Buddhists emphasize the importance of such practice.
But notice that all of those I mentioned (mystics of traditions, modern clairvoyants, NDErs, regression therapy patiente) would say exactly the same thing: ""It's not a belief, it's a direct experience." Yet they are all different

The important thing is that just as you can say to the secular man "You don't have to take my word for it. It's a path of experience, you can verify everything for yourself", so I can say the same to you. The thing is that so far I don't see any willingness to consider even the foundations of this path. And that's OK - I keep saying it. Everyone is free. But you keep twisting everything we say for the sole purpose that you can feel secure in your position. The truth is that you feel glad that NDEs, visions, etc. give very conflicting reports. This reinforces the favorite phrase of modern humans "No one knows!". Is there more relieving, more liberating thing to hear than this? What a bliss! The bliss of ignorance! Only that if they were honest they would have to paraphrase it to "We don't want to know!" In other words, it's very convenient that there's chaos in ideas because this gives the perfect excuse to keep doing whatever one's heart desires.

No, I do want to know, and the point is: instead of claiming/believing that only one of those "direct experiences" ("my own" of course) is describing the actual true realities and other people experiences are a distortion of reality, may be we should ask why those experiences are all different? May be this fact that they are always different is pointing to some fundamental way the reality is functioning?

I ask again, anyone, please, provide examples for other paths of experience that lead reliably, safely, verifiably to the inner spiritual nature of man, and do not depend on accidental, abnormal, anecdotal events such as trances, substances, abductions, NDEs, mediumism (fancily called channeling) etc.

I gave you an example: Pentecostals, they all have verifiably, reliably, safely similar inner experiences of the Holy Spirit not dependent on personality and they are not anecdotal events. All Pentecostal believers behave in a similar way and have similar experiences. That's why I ask you: do you see any similarity with your experiences and Pentecostals?

People inquiry their thoughts, they try to analyze if they come from the ego, the brain, the super ego, yet no one asks where the thoughts that do the inquiry come from (you can see my post to Adur if you haven't). Then when people are pointed at exactly this process and are told "There, this is the only direction you haven't consider so far. You have to turn towards the actual spiritual activity, the Creative Dynamism of the Universe", they shudder in terror and think "Oooh nooo, not this! Anything but this!"

Right, so why haven't everyone became a Pentecostal yet, why not everyone have consider that direction so far? It reliably points to a process how to get access to the Holy Spirit that will reveal you all the truths you need to know. And it will lead you to the "experience that lead reliably, safely, verifiably to the inner spiritual nature of man".

[Soul_of_Shu]

What happens when too many people leads a thread off-topic.

This thread is ostensibly about limiting the number of posts, but actually seems to demonstrate the very problem it is trying to solve.

Yeah, mea cupla as much as anyone. At least I seem to have avoided it from also co-morphing into a one-take-on-Marxism vs another-take-on-Marxism discussion ... whew! Clearly I'm going to have think, or should I say Think, about the how-to-herd-cats problem

[Eugene I]

Cats are way easier to herd than philosophers.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Cats are way easier to herd than philosophers.

At times this seems to be an apt depiction of some flossofers having at it ...

[Cleric K]

That's what people in many other spiritual traditions do as well, specifically Buddhists emphasize the importance of such practice.
But notice that all of those I mentioned (mystics of traditions, modern clairvoyants, NDErs, regression therapy patiente) would say exactly the same thing: ""It's not a belief, it's a direct experience." Yet they are all different

OK, Eugene, this is little scary for me but it really seems that you don't grasp the difference, which is at the very beginning of PoF where Steiner says: "before anything else can be understood, thinking must be understood." Why? Because our normal human conduct consists of having all kinds of perceptions - doesn't matter if they are normal sensory perceptions, psychedelic visuals, Pentecostal trances, shamanic drumming trances, regressions - all of which are ultimately thought about. Yes, the regress subject also has direct experiences of memories but these experiences are confronted by the intellect, which must form its ideas and decide what the experiences/phenomena/perceptions mean, if they are real or fantasies, if they are personal or from the collective vault, etc.

The development of humanity has led to a point where we can investigate the forces that express themselves within thinking itself. And even though I know that the following very words will not be understood by you (not because you're not capable but because on some level you don't want to) I'll nevertheless say it again: when we raise into this higher level of consciousness, where we are the 'current' that in the ordinary state animates intellectual thinking, we no longer have psychedelic panorama, or regression memory images, or no-thoughts state, or any other altered state of consciousness that we have yet to confront with our intellectual thinking and decide what it means. Instead we live full consciously as a different spiritual being with higher degrees of freedom. When this higher order spiritual activity is forced to flow within certain restrictions, when it is phase-locked to linear patterns of sounds (verbal thinking) it becomes intellectual thinking and together with this the whole self-image changes. All of this is experienced from the continuous first-person perspective of the Spirit.

I don't know how I can make things more explicit:
1/ We have various practices that in some ways introduce different kinds of perceptions (phenomena) which however, even if during the time of the experience thinking is diminished (ego death, no-thought med., trance), then afterwards we still need to interpret, to divine and decide if they were real or hallucinations, if they mean something, etc. In other words, we confront all these states with our intellectual thinking. They don't have meaning in themselves except the meaning that we find in them through thinking.

2/ Realizing the common thread in all the above kinds of states - that they are ultimately sum of perceptions interpreted by the intellect - and instead turn towards the actual spiritual activity that manifests in it. Through the methods that I often describe it is possible to break the shell of the intellect and instead of succumbing into no-thought or diminished trance state, we break into immeasurably more lucid state where we find ourselves as a spiritual being that, so to speak, moments ago had its hands tied, its mouth gagged. And here's the extraordinarily difficult place that modern man simply can't even conceive the direction of. And the reason is that this direction requires us to conceive of something that is greater than us, something that our intellectual thoughts can not fit because these thoughts live as overtones on top of the spiritual activity of that being that is our true self. Once we experience ourselves from this higher perspective, it is a direct experience of a different kind. I can question if my perception of red comes from the optical nerve or as a dream image but I can't question the fact that I'm thinking. I'm thinking both in the dream and in the sensory world, the difference is what ideas I attach to the perceptions. Similarly, higher cognition transforms spiritual activity in such a way that the higher order fully self-conscious and meaningful flow of the Spirit contains within itself the overtones than when experienced without their living context we know as intellectual thoughts. You see, there are no perceptions here that we must interpret and wonder if they are true or illusions in the same way that our thinking is not a matter of interpretation - it simply is because it's the reflection of our own spiritual be-ing.

If the above 1/ and 2/ don't at least approximately hint at the fundamental difference between the two, I don't think there's point to continue any further.

[Eugene I]

ok, I think I exceeded my daily limit today

[Steve Petermann]

I ask again, anyone, please, provide examples for other paths of experience that lead reliably, safely, verifiably to the inner spiritual nature of man, and do not depend on accidental, abnormal, anecdotal events such as trances, substances, abductions, NDEs, mediumism (fancily called channeling) etc.

I don't think terms like "reliably" and "verifiably" are helpful terms for those seeking their spiritual bearings. They are fraught with the dangers of dogmatism like we see in so many religious and spiritual traditions. Here's some examples. In Hinduism with regard to the Vedas terms used are, Śruti (what is heard), apauruṣeya (not created by humans), and anubhava (direct experience). And in Christianity whoever wrote the gospel of John attributes this to Jesus:

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Both the Bible and Koran are thought by many to be the infallible word of God. The list is long for this type of assertion.

Do I think there can be a direct experience of the divine? Yes, because I believe there is a divine transcendent depth to all things. However, that depth is present in finite beings with our own limitations, predispositions, and histories. Accordingly, the experience of the divine is received within the ambiguities and limitations of finite beings. This should rule out any dogmatic assertion of reliability or verifiability. Does that mean it has no powerful influence on us? Absolutely not! Theologian Paul Tillich, in his terminology, used the phrase: "the state of being grasped by the power of being-itself." He also recounts a life changing experience he had of Beauty-Itself in his article "One Moment of Beauty"

So, with this powerfulness of the divine presence, the term I often use is "compelling". Something about an experience or metaphysical idea is compelling to us. Does that mean it isn't flawed? No, but something about it seems right. I talk about this in the music metaphor, "A Music Metaphor, Consonance and Dissonance". Another metaphor I use in that post is the House of Mirrors at a carnival. If we look in a curved mirror we see a distorted image. That's not really us. There is a dissonance with who we think we really are. Our divine depth can also give us a feeling of dissonance when we encounter either our own metaphysical thinking/intuiting/feeling or that of another metaphysical formulation. Or there could be a consonance. Something seems right about it. As finite creatures, it is always a mixture of the two that spurs us on to continue our spiritual growth.

As human beings, many people like certainty. This is especially true for things that impinge on our existential concerns. However, life has a way of challenging that certainty. Does that mean we can't make a commitment to some life orientation? No. We can have what I call a "faithing fallibilism" where we commit to something we think is important but do so with humility and knowledge that we may be wrong. Here's a post — No Matter that talks about this. It's about a tattoo that the great tennis star Stan Wawrinka had put on his arm.

[AshvinP]

This question could sound semi-plausible from a completely secular person, who asks you for example "what makes you believe that you have gained access to level of consciousness that is higher than the everyday ego?" You know how you would answer: "It's not a belief, it's a direct experience. In the same way you need not to believe that you experience thinking. I know that I've found a higher ground because I perceive various desires, habits, mental patterns which have formerly worked within me completely unconsciously, I have been carried along them as a leaf on a stream. But now I see them. And not only that but with my Spirit I have the freedom to choose whether to allow any of them manifest or not."

That's what people in many other spiritual traditions do as well, specifically Buddhists emphasize the importance of such practice.
But notice that all of those I mentioned (mystics of traditions, modern clairvoyants, NDErs, regression therapy patiente) would say exactly the same thing: ""It's not a belief, it's a direct experience." Yet they are all different

The important thing is that just as you can say to the secular man "You don't have to take my word for it. It's a path of experience, you can verify everything for yourself", so I can say the same to you. The thing is that so far I don't see any willingness to consider even the foundations of this path. And that's OK - I keep saying it. Everyone is free. But you keep twisting everything we say for the sole purpose that you can feel secure in your position. The truth is that you feel glad that NDEs, visions, etc. give very conflicting reports. This reinforces the favorite phrase of modern humans "No one knows!". Is there more relieving, more liberating thing to hear than this? What a bliss! The bliss of ignorance! Only that if they were honest they would have to paraphrase it to "We don't want to know!" In other words, it's very convenient that there's chaos in ideas because this gives the perfect excuse to keep doing whatever one's heart desires.

No, I do want to know, and the point is: instead of claiming/believing that only one of those "direct experiences" ("my own" of course) is describing the actual true realities and other people experiences are a distortion of reality, may be we should ask why those experiences are all different? May be this fact that they are always different is pointing to some fundamental way the reality is functioning?

I ask again, anyone, please, provide examples for other paths of experience that lead reliably, safely, verifiably to the inner spiritual nature of man, and do not depend on accidental, abnormal, anecdotal events such as trances, substances, abductions, NDEs, mediumism (fancily called channeling) etc.

I gave you an example: Pentecostals, they all have verifiably, reliably, safely similar inner experiences of the Holy Spirit not dependent on personality and they are not anecdotal events. All Pentecostal believers behave in a similar way and have similar experiences. That's why I ask you: do you see any similarity with your experiences and Pentecostals?

People inquiry their thoughts, they try to analyze if they come from the ego, the brain, the super ego, yet no one asks where the thoughts that do the inquiry come from (you can see my post to Adur if you haven't). Then when people are pointed at exactly this process and are told "There, this is the only direction you haven't consider so far. You have to turn towards the actual spiritual activity, the Creative Dynamism of the Universe", they shudder in terror and think "Oooh nooo, not this! Anything but this!"

Right, so why haven't everyone became a Pentecostal yet, why not everyone have consider that direction so far? It reliably points to a process how to get access to the Holy Spirit that will reveal you all the truths you need to know. And it will lead you to the "experience that lead reliably, safely, verifiably to the inner spiritual nature of man".

What you say above (a) is extremely hard to believe - that you have gone around surveying the inner spiritual experiences of all these groups and determined that they are mutually exclusive, and (b) is assuming that if multiple people explore the same territory and come away with different impressions of it, that means there is no actual territory and we can never really know about the territory.

(a) How exactly have you determined the inner spiritual experiences of all these different approaches are mutually exclusive? Be specific on your methods and the data you obtained. If you are simply referring to online descriptions and YouTube videos, I hope you don't need me to tell you why that is extremely silly.

- Did you ever stop to consider that many of these people are accessing the same spiritual realm but simply mistaking what they see precisely because they have no prior spiritual training, i.e. they refuse to work on developing higher cognition in a disciplined way? Or, for the Eastern mystics, as Cleric has explained a million times, they are stopping at a certain stage of expanded consciousness because they do not realize one can go beyond that stage, as you yourself do not seem to realize?

- As I have asked before, if you claim to have expanded to imaginative, inspired, or intuitive consciousness, then please give us what details you can of your own experience (not someone else's online testimonial) like Cleric does for his, so we can at least compare the two.

- You keep mentioning Franklin Merrell-Wolff. Scott also refers to his mystical experience, which went beyond the stage where Eastern mystics arbitrarily stop. So it seems to me his experience is perfectly compatible with Cleric's. If you disagree, then please explain why.


(b) We see this happen all the time in science - people explore the same exact objective phenomena and come to different results and conclusions about them. Does that mean the phenomena itself does not exist and/or we cannot ever refine our understanding of the phenomena in ever-more accurate ways? You cannot fall back on "but science is different from spirituality" argument, because Cleric has already explained that expanded consciousness allows one to directly observe the spiritual relations in questions. He also claims multiple people can observe this same Reality if they approach it properly. Obviously it's not exactly the same experience as observing objects in the physical world, but the underlying method of verification by way of our own preparation, studying, and reasoning remains the same. This even happens in eyewitness accounts of car accidents, for ex., where multiple witnesses have completely different versions of the same event. Does that mean the car and the accident don't exist or we can never figure out how exactly the accident happened?

I suspect I will not get direct, if any, answers to the above questions, but I will continue putting them to you as you continue making the same already-addressed objections to Cleric's explanations. Try to remember, "fear of the Lord" can be "the beginning of Wisdom", as long as you respond to the fear properly, i.e. do not use the fear as an excuse to declare neither the Lord nor Wisdom exists.

[Soul_of_Shu]

So, with this powerfulness of the divine presence, the term I often use is "compelling". Something about an experience or metaphysical idea is compelling to us. Does that mean it isn't flawed? No, but something about it seems right.

I can resonate with this, 'compelling' being a word I find myself feeling compelled to use a lot.

One of my favorite athletes is the Swiss tennis player Stan Wawrinka. He has, in my opinion, one of the best one-handed backhands of all time. It’s so powerful and beautifully done.

For another one-handed backhand, how about Shapovalov, kind of a lefty version of Stan, only without the tattoo and a lot more failures ... maybe he should get that tattoo too