What causes bad trips?

Any topics primarily focused on metaphysics can be discussed here, in a generally casual way, where conversations may take unexpected turns.

Moderator: Soul_of_Shu

User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 2972
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: What causes bad trips?

Post by AshvinP »

Soul_of_Shu wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 4:26 pm
Ben Iscatus wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 3:31 pm But there is nothingness aspect and a fullness aspect, there is a cessation and a movement which you said "have nothing to do with each other". If the fullness aspect involves A************ or such as Wilber's Integral Theory, then I identify with the nothingness aspect :)
In this experience, I've found any exclusive identification with any seemingly segregated aspect to be problematic. It is such fixated identification/attachment as one or the other, formlessness or form, that perpetuates the apparency of their segregation. Paraphrasing a Bodhisattva: Before any such exclusive identification—e.g. Abraham— I am.

:) Very nice, Dana! Paraphrasing the same Bodhisattva:


"You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of [fullness] that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or the [nothingness] in the water under the earth;"
“It is your presumption that freedom is something which you already possess that ensures that you will remain in chains."
Ben Iscatus
Posts: 316
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2021 6:15 pm

Re: What causes bad trips?

Post by Ben Iscatus »

In this experience, I've found any exclusive identification with any seemingly segregated aspect to be problematic. It is such fixated identification/attachment as one or the other, formlessness or form, that perpetuates the apparency of their segregation. Paraphrasing a Bodhisattva: Before any such exclusive identification—e.g. Abraham— I am.
Normally I'd agree, but I'm working on the assumption (if they have nothing to do with one another) that the fullness and nothingness aspects underlie and open the door for normal manifestation with its interacting polarities.
User avatar
Adur Alkain
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed May 19, 2021 7:02 am

Re: What causes bad trips?

Post by Adur Alkain »

Eugene I wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 3:52 pm
Adur Alkain wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:27 pm This situation reminds me of William Blake's The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, where devils and angels discuss their respective lots, and what to the angels seems like Heaven looks like Hell to the devils, and vice versa. Of course, the question remains: who is here the angel, and who the devil? :)
Adur, I agree with you and I've been telling Cleric and Ashvin the same thing many times (but I was just trying to adopt to their language): that their paradigm is incomplete and lacking because it ignores the "formless" aspect of God (which you call "Nothingness", or I would rephrase as "No-thing-ness", the same as "Emptiness" in Buddhism) and which is the absolutely fundamental aspect of reality. If it is ignored, such ignorance does lead to "damnation", (or "samsara" in the Buddhist terms) - the mode of existence lost in reduced to only thinking activity, forms and the ideal content created by such activity. But the key is that the formless aspect, the Nothingness, needs to be recognized experientially and introspectively. If such recognition does not happen, intellectual and rational understanding of it will not help. Paradoxically the Nothingness can be experientially known, but can not be fully grasped and understood by thinking, Nothingness is where thinking encounters its limits. All non-dual practices and traditions (even though they may differ in their particulars) are aimed exactly at the experiential recognition of the Nothingness.
Thank you Eugene!

I totally agree with you here.

I haven't read all your exchanges with Cleric and Ashvin (I simply can't keep up with the volume of posts), but in general I think I agree with your view. I usually try to take a non-confrontational stance, but I must admit in that post I got a little carried away... I was telling Cleric that his view is based on a "fundamental error", etc.

That's why I added the William Blake reference at the end... I was trying to say that all views are ultimately relative, and none is the complete Truth. Cleric's Heaven looks like Hell to me, and viceversa. None of us has the ultimate answer. It's just a matter of different spiritual perspectives.

That said, I fear that quoting Blake doesn't completely work, because in his book (The Marriage of Heaven and Hell) he was unambiguously on the side of the devils, and opposing the angels... My idea is rather that we don't need to oppose each other. We can just recognize that we have different views and different paths, that lead to different spiritual universes. My last question was ironic, in the sense that there is no "good vs. evil" situation here.

But of course... it's quite difficult for the angels to recognize that the devils may also have a point! :)
Physicalists hold two fundamental beliefs:

1. The essence of Nature is Mathematics.
2. Consciousness is a product of the human brain.

But the two contraries are true:

1. The essence of Nature is Consciousness.
2. Mathematics is a product of the human brain.
User avatar
Eugene I
Posts: 1484
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:49 pm

Re: What causes bad trips?

Post by Eugene I »

Adur Alkain wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 7:03 pm Thank you Eugene!

I totally agree with you here.

I haven't read all your exchanges with Cleric and Ashvin (I simply can't keep up with the volume of posts), but in general I think I agree with your view. I usually try to take a non-confrontational stance, but I must admit in that post I got a little carried away... I was telling Cleric that his view is based on a "fundamental error", etc.

That's why I added the William Blake reference at the end... I was trying to say that all views are ultimately relative, and none is the complete Truth. Cleric's Heaven looks like Hell to me, and viceversa. None of us has the ultimate answer. It's just a matter of different spiritual perspectives.

That said, I fear that quoting Blake doesn't completely work, because in his book (The Marriage of Heaven and Hell) he was unambiguously on the side of the devils, and opposing the angels... My idea is rather that we don't need to oppose each other. We can just recognize that we have different views and different paths, that lead to different spiritual universes. My last question was ironic, in the sense that there is no "good vs. evil" situation here.

But of course... it's quite difficult for the angels to recognize that the devils may also have a point! :)
My view on this is that "hell" is not a place, but a state of consciousness. In the Earth realm there are people that live in internal hell, and people that live in internal heaven, there are good-willed and ill-willed people, there are awakened and non-awakened people, etc. The same applies to the astral realm. So, there is no point to be afraid of the astral domain per se, it is not a "place of damnation", it's just a realm where we continue on our spiritual path after exiting the physical bodies. But that being said, just like in the Earth domain people tend to communicate with like-minded people, and live in and go to places resonating with their internal spiritual states, likewise beings in the astral realm tend to reside in areas and communicate with other beings according to their spiritual states, so there are places in the astral domain that have "hellish" or "heavenly" environments according to the state of beings living there (because in the astral domain the environments are the manifestations of the beings internal spiritual states). But also, you are right, the spiritual world is vast and has many other realms beyond the above-physical astral layer, as many ancient traditions and NDE accounts suggest.
"Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kanzas anymore" Dorothy
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 2972
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: What causes bad trips?

Post by AshvinP »

Eugene I wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 7:34 pm
Adur Alkain wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 7:03 pm Thank you Eugene!

I totally agree with you here.

I haven't read all your exchanges with Cleric and Ashvin (I simply can't keep up with the volume of posts), but in general I think I agree with your view. I usually try to take a non-confrontational stance, but I must admit in that post I got a little carried away... I was telling Cleric that his view is based on a "fundamental error", etc.

That's why I added the William Blake reference at the end... I was trying to say that all views are ultimately relative, and none is the complete Truth. Cleric's Heaven looks like Hell to me, and viceversa. None of us has the ultimate answer. It's just a matter of different spiritual perspectives.

That said, I fear that quoting Blake doesn't completely work, because in his book (The Marriage of Heaven and Hell) he was unambiguously on the side of the devils, and opposing the angels... My idea is rather that we don't need to oppose each other. We can just recognize that we have different views and different paths, that lead to different spiritual universes. My last question was ironic, in the sense that there is no "good vs. evil" situation here.

But of course... it's quite difficult for the angels to recognize that the devils may also have a point! :)
My view on this is that "hell" is not a place, but a state of consciousness. In the Earth realm there are people that live in internal hell, and people that live in internal heaven, there are good-willed and ill-willed people, there are awakened and non-awakened people, etc. The same applies to the astral realm. So, there is no point to be afraid of the astral domain per se, it is not a "place of damnation", it's just a realm where we continue on our spiritual path after exiting the physical bodies. But that being said, just like in the Earth domain people tend to communicate with like-minded people, and live in and go to places resonating with their internal spiritual states, likewise beings in the astral realm tend to reside in areas and communicate with other beings according to their spiritual states, so there are places in the astral domain that have "hellish" or "heavenly" environments according to the state of beings living there (because in the astral domain the environments are the manifestations of the beings internal spiritual states). But also, you are right, the spiritual world is vast and has many other realms beyond the above-physical astral layer, as many ancient traditions and NDE accounts suggest.

Hell is a complicated topic, of course. But it's clear that the overarching idea of "hell" in all spiritual traditions which reference it is a state of hopelessly fragmented reality, where a soul is so lost in its own fragmented creations ("spiritual universes") that it cannot conceivably imagine a way back towards holistic understanding of spiritual reality. As an analogy to the physical plane, it would be as if every choice you make splits off into a new reality with new detailed qualities but your perspective continues to exist within the previous realities as well, rather than raising above to see how all such "realities" form a coherent whole, like a Picasso painting viewed forever by abstract intellect. Eventually you end up in what appears as tiny shards of many realities just glued together randomly. How would souls treat each other in such a fragmentary situation? Horrendously, because they wouldn't even re-cognize that these other souls exist along with them anymore.
“It is your presumption that freedom is something which you already possess that ensures that you will remain in chains."
User avatar
Adur Alkain
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed May 19, 2021 7:02 am

Re: What causes bad trips?

Post by Adur Alkain »

AshvinP wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:01 pm
Look, guys, none of what Cleric is writing will make sense if you don't choose to have a little bit of humility, self-awareness, open mind, and see how your egoic prejudices are influencing all of your thoughts on this topic. Adur, you are especially projecting your own egoism onto Cleric here - "But what you are actually doing is refusing to go through that door. You are refusing to do so because you are clinging to your consciousness." The projection is as plain as day to anyone who reads Cleric's posts on the one side, and your posts on the other, without prejudice. PZ said she also notices this happening on the other thread and I am sure a few others as well.

Cleric's posts carefully reason out from the givens of our experience (and certainly of his experience) that one can go beyond the third door with full clarity of consciousness. His posts also make sense of all your posts, because he shows exactly why, in precise detail, people in your mindset will reach the incomplete mode of conscious experience and why such people will deny any further knowledge beyond the threshold as you do above. You do nothing of the sort in your posts, Adur. Rather, you start with your conclusion of "Absolute Nothingness as the source and nature of everything".

At the beginning of your post, you even say "the spiritual world you descirbe seems like Hell to me". And then somehow you manage to convince yourself that you are reaching dispassionate and logical conclusions about what is possible and what is not. Frankly it's an embarrasing level of egoism and willful ignorance that is rare even for the materialistic modern age. And, Eugene, well... you just fail to comprehend anything that has ever been written to you about formlessness (which you got from Scott's mumorphism, but still ignore every time he has tried to explain to you what it actually means), thinking, polarity, and just about everything else.

Anyone can see that myself, and especially Cleric, are not the sort of people who just go around making arguments which ignore half of the spiritual traditions of the world and their arguments. In fact, it is clear that Cleric understands all Eastern mystical and nondual traditions better than both of you do. And the same goes for Steiner 100x over, which is also clear to anyone who has ever taken a serious look at his corpus of writings and lectures, which it is very clear that you have not done, Eugene, despite commenting on him every chance you get. That is another egoism of the modern age - instead of genuinely reading for understanding, asking questions, etc. like Anthony and PZ have been doing, you guys pretend to read, like Adur saying "This is all quite fascinating stuff", and then reveal you have not understood a single thing written in the immediately following comments.

Finally, you guys should really contemplate this quote from Milton - "the mind is its own place and in itself, can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven." Because it points to exactly what you are doing - it is your own unwillingness to sacrifice abstract egoic intellect when considering higher spiritual truths which makes those truths seem like "hell" to you, while the actual hell of "absolute nothingness" as final boundary of human knowing seems more like a "heaven" to you, because it allows you to remain within egoic desires and comforts indefinitely. As Dostoevsky said, "without God, everything is permitted", and that is exactly what you both deeply desire without knowing it. Milton was prophetically describing what would happen in the modern age when rationalism and materialism ran rampant, inevitably leading to the absolute nihilism which you guys are endorsing here.

(I know neither of you will actually read anything written seriously, so this is posted just for the benefit of any others who happen to be reading with an open mind)
Ashvin,

I'm sorry if I've given the impression that I'm ignoring you. I'm not. I think I've read all the post where you mentioned me. If I haven't replied to some of them, it's simply because I didn't have anything helpful to say.

The truth is, I don't really know what to say to you. It's difficult to have a meaningful conversation in this way. You talk of humility, self-awareness, open mind, egoic prejudices, projections... Yes, all these are very important notions that I try to apply to myself. But I don't think that throwing them around in order to (supposedly) win a point in a discussion is helpful at all.

It may very well be that I don't understand what Cleric is saying. I happen to think that I do understand what he's saying, and that you (and Cleric) don't understand what I'm saying. Well, it's actually quite obvious to me that you don't understand what I'm saying. I know quite well what I'm saying, so I think I'm a better judge than anybody else to decide that. So, I only see two possibilities:

a) I don't understand what Cleric is saying, and he doesn't understand what I'm saying.

b) I do understand what Cleric is saying, and he doesn't understand what I'm saying.

To get out of this conundrum, I guess we need to ask Cleric: does he think I understand what he's saying, or not? I'm interested in knowing his reply. If I'm not, I would love to get some clarifications, because I'm genuinely interested in understanding his perspective (Spiritual Science).

Of course, when we talk about "understanding" here, we can only mean an intellectual, theoretical understanding. To get the experiential understanding that is what really matters, one has to go through years of practice, etc. But we are just having an intellectual, theoretical discussion here.

The other question that remains open is: is Cleric (and are you, Ashvin) interested in understanding what I'm saying? Because maybe you aren't. That would be fine with me.

I must admit, it's probably not easy to understand what I'm saying, because sometimes I'm not very clear when I write. The simple reason for this is that my spiritual practice, contrary to Cleric's, is not based on Thinking. So my posts can't possible have the intellectual rigour and clarity that Cleric's posts have. Does that mean that Cleric's view is the right one, and mine is faulty? From the perspective of Spiritual Science, the obvious answer is yes. From my own perspective, which doesn't view intellectual knowledge as fundamental, the obvious answer is not at all.

In my last response to Cleric, I was trying to explain my perspective. And this led me to use expressions like "fundamental error", "ignorance", "clinging", "fear", etc. This way of talking gives a clear impression that I was disparaging Cleric's view, which wasn't my intention. I was only trying to explain why Spiritual Science doesn't seem attractive to me. And I also was trying to show that it's perfectly possible to explain everything in Cleric's experience from my own perspective, in the same way that it's possible to explain everything in my experience from Cleric's perspective. But I wasn't clear in my own stance: which is, that it doesn't make sense to explain somebody else's experience according to our own views.

What I'm trying to say here is that our different experiences can only be made sense of from our own perspectives. So for example, if Cleric says "I went through the third gate and was still conscious" I can only say "that third gate you are talking about is not the third gate I went through". And that's it. We are talking about different spiritual universes. There's no point in trying to decide who is right and who is wrong. We are both right, from our respective perspectives.

This is the view I'm trying to hold here. The "view of totality". It's not easy to hold, because it's not easy to be so open-minded as this view requires, and sometimes I get entangled in my own words. But I'm trying. :)

As a final clarification: I'm not saying that Cleric's spiritual world is Hell. I'm only saying that it looks like Hell to me. By this, what I mean is that I'm perfectly aware that my impression of Cleric's spiritual world is the result of my own limited perspective. It is a distortion. But it is an unavoidable distortion. Because from the perspective of my own spiritual path, things look a particular way. In the same way that from the perspective of Cleric's path, things look another way. Or rather, we could more accurately say that in my path the development of the soul unfolds in a particular way, and in Cleric's path it unfolds in a different way. We don't encounter the same experiences, and we don't go through the same doors.

The amazing thing to me is that we can still "compare notes", and contrast our very different experiences! I feel great admiration for Clerics' attainments, and it's comforting for me to think that if the spirtual reality he's living seems "hellish" to me, that's just the result of my limited, distorted perspective.
Physicalists hold two fundamental beliefs:

1. The essence of Nature is Mathematics.
2. Consciousness is a product of the human brain.

But the two contraries are true:

1. The essence of Nature is Consciousness.
2. Mathematics is a product of the human brain.
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 2972
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: What causes bad trips?

Post by AshvinP »

Adur Alkain wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 8:28 pm
AshvinP wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:01 pm
Look, guys, none of what Cleric is writing will make sense if you don't choose to have a little bit of humility, self-awareness, open mind, and see how your egoic prejudices are influencing all of your thoughts on this topic. Adur, you are especially projecting your own egoism onto Cleric here - "But what you are actually doing is refusing to go through that door. You are refusing to do so because you are clinging to your consciousness." The projection is as plain as day to anyone who reads Cleric's posts on the one side, and your posts on the other, without prejudice. PZ said she also notices this happening on the other thread and I am sure a few others as well.

Cleric's posts carefully reason out from the givens of our experience (and certainly of his experience) that one can go beyond the third door with full clarity of consciousness. His posts also make sense of all your posts, because he shows exactly why, in precise detail, people in your mindset will reach the incomplete mode of conscious experience and why such people will deny any further knowledge beyond the threshold as you do above. You do nothing of the sort in your posts, Adur. Rather, you start with your conclusion of "Absolute Nothingness as the source and nature of everything".

At the beginning of your post, you even say "the spiritual world you descirbe seems like Hell to me". And then somehow you manage to convince yourself that you are reaching dispassionate and logical conclusions about what is possible and what is not. Frankly it's an embarrasing level of egoism and willful ignorance that is rare even for the materialistic modern age. And, Eugene, well... you just fail to comprehend anything that has ever been written to you about formlessness (which you got from Scott's mumorphism, but still ignore every time he has tried to explain to you what it actually means), thinking, polarity, and just about everything else.

Anyone can see that myself, and especially Cleric, are not the sort of people who just go around making arguments which ignore half of the spiritual traditions of the world and their arguments. In fact, it is clear that Cleric understands all Eastern mystical and nondual traditions better than both of you do. And the same goes for Steiner 100x over, which is also clear to anyone who has ever taken a serious look at his corpus of writings and lectures, which it is very clear that you have not done, Eugene, despite commenting on him every chance you get. That is another egoism of the modern age - instead of genuinely reading for understanding, asking questions, etc. like Anthony and PZ have been doing, you guys pretend to read, like Adur saying "This is all quite fascinating stuff", and then reveal you have not understood a single thing written in the immediately following comments.

Finally, you guys should really contemplate this quote from Milton - "the mind is its own place and in itself, can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven." Because it points to exactly what you are doing - it is your own unwillingness to sacrifice abstract egoic intellect when considering higher spiritual truths which makes those truths seem like "hell" to you, while the actual hell of "absolute nothingness" as final boundary of human knowing seems more like a "heaven" to you, because it allows you to remain within egoic desires and comforts indefinitely. As Dostoevsky said, "without God, everything is permitted", and that is exactly what you both deeply desire without knowing it. Milton was prophetically describing what would happen in the modern age when rationalism and materialism ran rampant, inevitably leading to the absolute nihilism which you guys are endorsing here.

(I know neither of you will actually read anything written seriously, so this is posted just for the benefit of any others who happen to be reading with an open mind)
Ashvin,

I'm sorry if I've given the impression that I'm ignoring you. I'm not. I think I've read all the post where you mentioned me. If I haven't replied to some of them, it's simply because I didn't have anything helpful to say.

The truth is, I don't really know what to say to you. It's difficult to have a meaningful conversation in this way. You talk of humility, self-awareness, open mind, egoic prejudices, projections... Yes, all these are very important notions that I try to apply to myself. But I don't think that throwing them around in order to (supposedly) win a point in a discussion is helpful at all.

It may very well be that I don't understand what Cleric is saying. I happen to think that I do understand what he's saying, and that you (and Cleric) don't understand what I'm saying. Well, it's actually quite obvious to me that you don't understand what I'm saying. I know quite well what I'm saying, so I think I'm a better judge than anybody else to decide that. So, I only see two possibilities:

a) I don't understand what Cleric is saying, and he doesn't understand what I'm saying.

b) I do understand what Cleric is saying, and he doesn't understand what I'm saying.

To get out of this conundrum, I guess we need to ask Cleric: does he think I understand what he's saying, or not? I'm interested in knowing his reply. If I'm not, I would love to get some clarifications, because I'm genuinely interested in understanding his perspective (Spiritual Science).

Of course, when we talk about "understanding" here, we can only mean an intellectual, theoretical understanding. To get the experiential understanding that is what really matters, one has to go through years of practice, etc. But we are just having an intellectual, theoretical discussion here.

The other question that remains open is: is Cleric (and are you, Ashvin) interested in understanding what I'm saying? Because maybe you aren't. That would be fine with me.

I must admit, it's probably not easy to understand what I'm saying, because sometimes I'm not very clear when I write. The simple reason for this is that my spiritual practice, contrary to Cleric's, is not based on Thinking. So my posts can't possible have the intellectual rigour and clarity that Cleric's posts have. Does that mean that Cleric's view is the right one, and mine is faulty? From the perspective of Spiritual Science, the obvious answer is yes. From my own perspective, which doesn't view intellectual knowledge as fundamental, the obvious answer is not at all.

In my last response to Cleric, I was trying to explain my perspective. And this led me to use expressions like "fundamental error", "ignorance", "clinging", "fear", etc. This way of talking gives a clear impression that I was disparaging Cleric's view, which wasn't my intention. I was only trying to explain why Spiritual Science doesn't seem attractive to me. And I also was trying to show that it's perfectly possible to explain everything in Cleric's experience from my own perspective, in the same way that it's possible to explain everything in my experience from Cleric's perspective. But I wasn't clear in my own stance: which is, that it doesn't make sense to explain somebody else's experience according to our own views.

What I'm trying to say here is that our different experiences can only be made sense of from our own perspectives. So for example, if Cleric says "I went through the third gate and was still conscious" I can only say "that third gate you are talking about is not the third gate I went through". And that's it. We are talking about different spiritual universes. There's no point in trying to decide who is right and who is wrong. We are both right, from our respective perspectives.

This is the view I'm trying to hold here. The "view of totality". It's not easy to hold, because it's not easy to be so open-minded as this view requires, and sometimes I get entangled in my own words. But I'm trying. :)

As a final clarification: I'm not saying that Cleric's spiritual world is Hell. I'm only saying that it looks like Hell to me. By this, what I mean is that I'm perfectly aware that my impression of Cleric's spiritual world is the result of my own limited perspective. It is a distortion. But it is an unavoidable distortion. Because from the perspective of my own spiritual path, things look a particular way. In the same way that from the perspective of Cleric's path, things look another way. Or rather, we could more accurately say that in my path the development of the soul unfolds in a particular way, and in Cleric's path it unfolds in a different way. We don't encounter the same experiences, and we don't go through the same doors.

The amazing thing to me is that we can still "compare notes", and contrast our very different experiences! I feel great admiration for Clerics' attainments, and it's comforting for me to think that if the spirtual reality he's living seems "hellish" to me, that's just the result of my limited, distorted perspective.

Adur,

No worries, and I apologize my comment you quoted was so stern in its criticism. I think the points I was making are still valid but the tone was unnecessarily harsh. In general, I am fine if you and Eugene correspond with Cleric directly and just treat my comments as observations offered for others who may be reading. No need to respond directly to me if you don't feel like it will help. Personally I think both of your discussions with Cleric have the most chance of bearing fruit for all involved, including me.

That being said, since your post was pretty considered, I will try to return some helpful elaboration on my perspective later. The main point is that I view your approach as remaining content with understanding one like Cleric's from a more fragmented 'location', and you seem to intuitively see that as well, maybe even more consciously than I previously imagined. It is my informed opinion thag Cleric understands very well your position as he has been in a very similar place before. But I am sure he can expand on that whenever he responds. More on my own overall thoughts later.
“It is your presumption that freedom is something which you already possess that ensures that you will remain in chains."
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 2972
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: What causes bad trips?

Post by AshvinP »

Adur Alkain wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 8:28 pm So, I only see two possibilities:

a) I don't understand what Cleric is saying, and he doesn't understand what I'm saying.

b) I do understand what Cleric is saying, and he doesn't understand what I'm saying.

To get out of this conundrum, I guess we need to ask Cleric: does he think I understand what he's saying, or not? I'm interested in knowing his reply. If I'm not, I would love to get some clarifications, because I'm genuinely interested in understanding his perspective (Spiritual Science).

Of course, when we talk about "understanding" here, we can only mean an intellectual, theoretical understanding. To get the experiential understanding that is what really matters, one has to go through years of practice, etc. But we are just having an intellectual, theoretical discussion here.

I think we need to be really clear on one thing here - neither Cleric nor myself are claiming one has to go through higher cognition of spiritual science to generally understand our arguments. I have not developed higher cognition, yet I am still offering my perspective from reasoning intellect because I think it can really be helpful. Cleric would not be writing anything if he felt it could not be of immense value to the reasoning intellect of the readers. That being said, there is definitely a humility which needs to accompany intellect, because it simply cannot comprehend the essential spiritual relations which give rise to our phenomenal experience in any significant detail without higher cognition. There are certain questions which, by definition, implicate these detailed spiritual relations and therefore we are of the opinion that judgment should be withheld by mere intellect. Notice that this "withholding of judgment" is not the same as completely ignoring the questions or endlessly speculating on them without any desire to move beyond speculation. We can still move towards an understanding of the questions we are asking with intellect and offer some perspective on it (as I just attempted to do on "Hell"). If there was actually no ability to move into higher cognition, then endless ignoring and speculating would be a reasonable strategy, but obviously we hold that this ability exists and is available to all right this moment. Certainly the ability to begin on the path towards developing those capacities is available right this moment. The only way to ensure they will not be developed is to assume they are non-existent or they are unimportant for one's spiritual journey.

Adur wrote:The other question that remains open is: is Cleric (and are you, Ashvin) interested in understanding what I'm saying? Because maybe you aren't. That would be fine with me.

I must admit, it's probably not easy to understand what I'm saying, because sometimes I'm not very clear when I write. The simple reason for this is that my spiritual practice, contrary to Cleric's, is not based on Thinking. So my posts can't possible have the intellectual rigour and clarity that Cleric's posts have. Does that mean that Cleric's view is the right one, and mine is faulty? From the perspective of Spiritual Science, the obvious answer is yes. From my own perspective, which doesn't view intellectual knowledge as fundamental, the obvious answer is not at all.

See, our claim that you do not understand our perspective and we understand yours (or at least Cleric does) is based on comments like this one above. If you think "intellectual knowledge" is what is essentially valued by spiritual science, then you do not understand its perspective. In contrast, Cleric shows by many analogies and illustrations, sometimes using the logic of your own analogies and illustrations (or Eugene's or Steve's), that he understands how your perspective develops and falls short because it harbors unexamined assumptions which cause it to arbtrarily stop reasoning forward and therefore remains incomplete, and incomplete knowledge is often the most dangerous knowledge in the modern age, precisely because there is a false sense of 'security' in it and no sense that it needs to be developed further.

The intellectual rigour and clarity you mention serves only one essential purpose - to pentrate to the underlying holistic meaning of the abstract concepts. Some people, especially those who are naturally creative, can penetrate to holistic meaning without nearly as much intellectual rigour. All of these things are simply tools towards common goals of revealing the underlying unities of our experience which immanently transcend all personal, familial, national, cultural, etc. boundaries (which is not the same as eliminating those dimensions, rather it is seeking a higher perspective which makes sense of them while providing more degrees of freedom). Now if one says, "I do not share your 'common goal' and do not want to pursue such a goal", then we say that is born of egoism. In any 'Earthly' sphere of life where teamwork and shared understanding is required for the benefit of the whole, this sort of egoism on the part of any individual member would stand out like a sore thumb.

Adur wrote:In my last response to Cleric, I was trying to explain my perspective. And this led me to use expressions like "fundamental error", "ignorance", "clinging", "fear", etc. This way of talking gives a clear impression that I was disparaging Cleric's view, which wasn't my intention. I was only trying to explain why Spiritual Science doesn't seem attractive to me. And I also was trying to show that it's perfectly possible to explain everything in Cleric's experience from my own perspective, in the same way that it's possible to explain everything in my experience from Cleric's perspective. But I wasn't clear in my own stance: which is, that it doesn't make sense to explain somebody else's experience according to our own views.

What I'm trying to say here is that our different experiences can only be made sense of from our own perspectives. So for example, if Cleric says "I went through the third gate and was still conscious" I can only say "that third gate you are talking about is not the third gate I went through". And that's it. We are talking about different spiritual universes. There's no point in trying to decide who is right and who is wrong. We are both right, from our respective perspectives.

This is the view I'm trying to hold here. The "view of totality". It's not easy to hold, because it's not easy to be so open-minded as this view requires, and sometimes I get entangled in my own words. But I'm trying. :)

As a final clarification: I'm not saying that Cleric's spiritual world is Hell. I'm only saying that it looks like Hell to me. By this, what I mean is that I'm perfectly aware that my impression of Cleric's spiritual world is the result of my own limited perspective. It is a distortion. But it is an unavoidable distortion. Because from the perspective of my own spiritual path, things look a particular way. In the same way that from the perspective of Cleric's path, things look another way. Or rather, we could more accurately say that in my path the development of the soul unfolds in a particular way, and in Cleric's path it unfolds in a different way. We don't encounter the same experiences, and we don't go through the same doors.

The amazing thing to me is that we can still "compare notes", and contrast our very different experiences! I feel great admiration for Clerics' attainments, and it's comforting for me to think that if the spirtual reality he's living seems "hellish" to me, that's just the result of my limited, distorted perspective.

Here is what is the most bothersome to me about the above - it contradicts your own perspective expressed elsewhere. You are one person in a world of billions, so I am not going to lose too much sleep if you fail to see things from our perspective in this lifetime. What is more worrisome is the general trend in society, which I think is also reflected on this forum, for people to remain completely content with logically incoherent perspectives on the world (as in their internal logic is logically inconsistent). If our cognition has any role in co-creating the phenomenal world as we claim it does, then this incoherence is bound to be reflected in cultural dynamics at large, which I think we are already witnessing. In this case, like in so many others, the incoherence comes from unexamined dualism or pluralism. What you say above undermines everything else you have argued for in your essay on "Intuitive Idealism" which is critiquing BK's idealism.

Cleric gave to Eugene the analogy of a crab in its shell, which structures its inner experience in some way but is also porous to the water environment it's in. That is how it is for all physical creatures and their ecosystems, including us. The same applies to the spiritual realms (which are truly not other than the physical). Eugene and yourself are basically saying the 'astral realms' (to the extent you acknowledge they exist) defy this underlying principle of nature - for some reason, when we get 'up' there, the "hard shells" are the governing principle and therefore one can logically claim, "that third gate you are talking about is not the third gate I went through". Sure, one can assume that Cleric has no idea what you are talking about with the "third gate", but his numerous detailed posts approaching the topic from many different angles makes that a completely unwarranted assumption. Let me quote your Intuitive Idealism essay so we are clear it is being represented accurately:

Adur wrote:Consciousness has no boundaries

Bernardo Kastrup knows all this perfectly well, of course. When he uses the expression “extrinsic or outer appearance of inner experience”, he doesn’t mean “from outside the experience”, but “from outside the dissociative boundary”. This is actually the cornerstone on which the whole edifice of Analytic Idealism rests: the notion of dissociative boundaries separating our individual consciousness from universal consciousness and from other instances of individual consciousness (I use the expression “instances of individual consciousness” to avoid the misleading plural “consciousnesses”; there is only one consciousness).

We are on uncharted territory here. As far as I know, this is a completely novel and original idea, completely detached from any basic intuitions we may have about the nature of consciousness. Bernardo sometimes uses the metaphor of whirlpools on a stream to help us visualize these dissociative boundaries in consciousness. The dissociative boundary encircling an instance of individual consciousness is akin to the rim of a particular whirlpool.

However, the metaphor doesn’t really work, because whirlpools don’t have rims. There is no boundary, no dividing line separating a whirlpool from the rest of the stream. This is probably the reason why Bernardo seems to have abandoned the metaphor (he certainly doesn’t use it in his academic writings).

According to Analytic Idealism, our physical bodies are the extrinsic appearance of dissociative boundaries inside universal consciousness. Well, we can certainly visualize physical bodies. But in what meaningful way could these be the outer appearance of something we can hardly conceive?

Since there is only consciousness and nothing but consciousness (as idealists, we can all agree on this), these dissociative boundaries must also consist of consciousness (that was the whole point of the whirlpool metaphor: there is nothing to whirlpools but water). How can this be? How can something absolutely boundless and limitless like consciousness create any kind of limiting boundaries within itself? The intuitive answer to this question is straightforward: it can’t.

I think it is clear how Eugene and yourself are forgetting all about what you write above in critique of BK's approach and reinstating all of the 'hard boundaries' in your own approach to the spiritual realms. What's more is that Cleric's perspective, as illustrated through his posts, can explain exactly why the unexamined dualist double standard is enacted in the transition from phenomenal outer and inner experience, like daily feelings and thoughts (which, to your credit, you realize cannot be separated with hard "dissociations" and "alter" boundaries), and the noumenal spiritual experiences. I am sure he can write yet another post which illustrates the reasons why, or I could dig up an old one and quote it here. But it would help if first you acknowledged that you understand what I mean by this "double standard" and, if you disagree, present a logical argument for why it doesn't apply. It doesn't have to be the most lengthy, rigorous logical argument, just a couple sentences which give us some intimation of what the argument would even look like if it were to be made.
“It is your presumption that freedom is something which you already possess that ensures that you will remain in chains."
User avatar
Cleric K
Posts: 727
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:40 pm

Re: What causes bad trips?

Post by Cleric K »

Adur Alkain wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 8:28 pm So, I only see two possibilities:

a) I don't understand what Cleric is saying, and he doesn't understand what I'm saying.

b) I do understand what Cleric is saying, and he doesn't understand what I'm saying.
Hi Adur,

I won't address these questions directly. Ultimately it'll be one's word against the other's and nothing will be gained. I'll present things from yet another angle. If they are understood, also the answers to the questions will come by themselves.

Let's first acknowledge that in our age, logic has no power to convince. It's enough to examine ourselves closely, in order to realize that with our thinking we're sitting on the tip of the iceberg of our personality. The majority of our behavior is driven by processes below the surface of consciousness, which bubble up as feelings of sympathy and antipathy, as blind urges, prejudiced ideas and so on. In general, people today use logic only as far as they can justify their life situation. As soon as the logic contradicts how they feel about something or clashes with their habits, they gladly discard logic and declare that thinking is inherently unreliable, that it can not be trusted. Paradoxically, it's the same this unreliable thinking which gladly decides to follow the impulses bubbling from below. Who stops to ask: If my thinking is so unreliable, how can I trust it when it decides it is a good idea to let itself go and flow with whatever flows from the darkness of my subconsciousness? This is the blind spot of thinking at its glory. People imagine that when they decide to give up unreliable thinking in exchange of the more 'certain' mystical or religious feelings, they do not use that same unreliable thinking but the decision comes as some higher certainty from above. The only reasonable thing to do would be to continuously expand the horizon of thinking, revealing more and more of the harmony of the facts. (by thinking I don't imply building abstract models of reality but spiritual activity that works upon the total spectrum of consciousness). Of course, for most this process stops short very quickly because as soon as the harmony of the facts unveils something that conflicts with the way we feel and act, we're much more willing to declare thinking to be unreliable rather than elucidate and transform the thing in us that causes the conflict.

In general, we always experience some form of consciousness. Even if it is very dissonant, it's still some kind of "I"-experience with continuity in time. Most people accept the form of consciousness as unquestionable fact. The materialist says "That's how my brain is wired", the naively religious man says "That's how God created me", the flat idealist says "That's what MAL specifically wanted to experience". Fortunately, there are still spiritual schools that take seriously the fact that man is a work in progress, a unfinished picture. When we understand things in this way we immediately realize that there are elements within us which are not designed by God but are artifacts of misused freedom.

Anyone who has experienced at least some degree of personal development knows that at certain time we become conscious of certain habits, traits, desires, vices. We not only become conscious of them but we are able to transform our conduct such that we no longer express them. Where were all these elements before we got conscious of them? We were merged with them, they were behind our face, so to speak. They were intrinsic part of the form of consciousness that we experience. For example, one can say "I'm a jealous person." Fair enough but this only means that the spirit is merged and enslaved by jealousy. The first step is to differentiate the thinking spirit from it, the second is to transform it, such that we're no longer enslaved by it.

Most traditions pay attention to these things (unless you're Anna Brown and insist that everything happens for no reason at all). These detrimental parts of character are recognized by being thrust from the subconscious into the conscious and methods are used for their transformation (which is an art in itself). When sufficient number of these egoic structures has been differentiated out of our being and thrust to consciousness, where we educate them and put them to work, we more or less say "I'm a relatively good person". Yet we're still experiencing a specific form of consciousness.

It's common nowadays that just because people have thrusted some of the egoic structures into consciousness, they imagine that they're now living in a kind of pure formless consciousness, completely transcending the ego. If we are not so self-blindingly assuming, we'll have to admit that our current form of consciousness can be investigated further. We simply need to learn from our own experience. We just have to look back and recognize that most of the structures that we have thrust into consciousness simply didn't exist for us previously - they were completely merged with the subconscious background as a chameleon. Thus they were implicitly producing the form of consciousness that we've been experiencing on the surface - we've been unknowingly acting them out like a puppet on a string, in our every thought, feeling and deed. What gives us the confidence that our current and purified form of consciousness is free of other such, higher level structures, which are again merged in the background?

Here one can answer: I'm confident because I look around and see how everyone else is locked in these structures but I'm free, there's nothing around me to suggest that there's such thing as being even more free than this. And here lies the key to this - we're looking around for the egoic structures that we expect to see. We're not prepared to see the unexpected.

As said, in order to recognize some structure of consciousness we need to differentiate it. For example, if the temperature of the Universe was completely uniform everywhere, there wouldn't be any sense of warmth. We need to have experienced at least few different degrees of warmth in order to form a concept of temperature. Similarly, when we're merged with a form of consciousness we simply don't have anything else to compare it to. In order to become conscious of my jealousy I must somehow attain to the image of what I would be if I were not jealous. As long as jealousy is the only degree of 'warmth' that I know, it simply doesn't exist in my consciousness, I act it out as an immutable law of the Universe. When my thinking spirit extricates itself at least partially from the grips of this soul pattern, I attain to the consciousness of being less jealous - that is, I now have a kind of gradient of jealousy - I now have a 'sense' of jealousy. Not only that but this immediately lifts my spirit to a higher degree of freedom, such that I can now move along this gradient with my conscious effort.

Assuming that we're at least partially open to the possibility that we're not pure formless consciousness as soon as we overcome some of our egoic structures, we're faced with the question - what could these other structures be? The only way we can approach them is by asking the right questions, which implies thinking. For example, why do we have the senses that we have? Why do we have thoughts, feelings/desires, will? As long as we don't ask these questions we live in the singular 'warmth' degree of our form of consciousness. We need to push the boundaries of this form with our spirit, so that we can see what other forms of consciousness are possible. If we subscribe to the idea that once we identify with MAL, we're already the pristine Cosmic Consciousness, this implies that the forms of consciousness possessed by evolved aliens, Angels, Archangels, Seraphim, etc. are pretty much the same as ours. Here one can be their own judge how bold such a statement is. Instead, if we simply read correctly the Book of Living Nature, we'll have to conclude: "Just as my ordinary form of consciousness is unknowingly shaped by the desires, passions, prejudices that I'm acting out, so my purified form of consciousness is still shaped by deeper structures. I can only become conscious of them if they are thrust into awareness and this in itself means that I must find other, higher forms of consciousness where the structures within which I'm now unconsciously flowing are only some of the possibilities.

So after this long introduction, (for those who were able to follow) we understand that we must be active with our spirit if we are to understand what is it that makes our current form of consciousness what it is. As long as we simply merrily flow with it, we have no point of reference to ever be conscious of what we're flowing through. For example, in a culture where jealousy doesn't cause any mischief and disturbances, it won't even be recognized as a conscious structure - it will be completely merged with the background - and as such, the 'enlightened' people in that culture will assume that they're living in the pristine formless aspect of the One - that is, the unrecognized 'flavor' that jealousy adds to the total form of consciousness will be unknowingly assumed to be a natural and inseparable attribute of Cosmic Consciousness.

I'll put a box here because it's so important:
In ordinary life, the conflicts and suffering we meet, more or less hint us at the structures that we're unconsciously acting out. Our current culture doesn't externally give us any impetus to recognize the higher order structures which give the specific form of our human consciousness. We need to be active if we're to discover these. We need to experience ourselves from at least slightly super-human conscious perspective in order to recognize what we're flowing through and acting out in our ordinary state. We can only understand what it means to live in human form of consciousness when we have something to compare it to. This comparison can happen only if we raise towards a higher strata of reality, from whose vantage point the human form of consciousness is only our spirit operating within a flattened constellation of higher forces, currents and deeds of spiritual beings (just like the form of consciousness of the undeveloped man is only a superficial shadow of the passions, opinions, habits that he unconsciously acts out).



Let's now look at things in a little higher resolution. First a simple observation: when we look at, say, a table, we have a visual perception and the knowing that we see a table. If we turn our gaze away we can later summon the image of the table from memory and we can think about it. So we have the visual perception on one hand and on the other we have our ability to summon in our imagination images of things that we have previously perceived.

Let's imagine a hypothetical man who doesn't possess this latter ability. He can have consciousness only of whatever he perceives in the moment. While he looks at the table he knows that he sees a table. The moment he turns his gaze away, it's like there isn't and hasn't ever existed any such thing as table in the Universe. Let's further imagine what would happen if suddenly all the senses of this man were to shut down. Very simple - he would immediately lose consciousness. Since he's lacking the ability to experience images and thoughts about them on the screen of imagination, the moment the sensory screen is pulled beneath his feet, he remains into complete nothingness, there's nothing remaining to be conscious of.

Let's now look more closely at the screen of imagination. We can assume we're in sensory deprivation tank or we've passed the second gate so the senses are completely shut. Our imaginative screen is now our whole world, boundless sea of color, sound, smell, touch, etc. except that these now are not attached to specific sensory perceptions but are freely floating and filling the environment. What does it mean that we're conscious of all this? It means that we experience the implicit knowing that we're perceiving all these things. When these states are approached through proper training we live in something much more structured, we're active in this world and are able to recognize that everything we perceive are impressions of happenings of soul and spirit kind. When these states are attained to through abnormal means, such as hyperventilation, psychedelics, etc. we don't have any of the means to read the experience. We're only aware that we're witnessing an inexplicable experience.

When the Imaginative realm is approached through proper training we're not simply observing in exaltation but we can also find our activity there. In fact, it is only through our activity that we can differentiate ourselves in this amalgamation of experience (see the box). This activity gives us something else too.

In purely sensory life we can afford to expect meaning to enter in us together with perceptions. If the perceptions cease, any meaning also ceases. But there's also another possibility. It is possible that we start with the meaning (idea, concept) and project that into an image. It's the reverse process. In the former, the perception evokes the meaning into our knowing automatically. In the latter, we already know the meaning and project it into imaginal perception (word, symbol, etc.).

This is not a simple symmetric reversal. When the process is reversed we have the chance to differentiate something which otherwise is always fused together. Some months ago we had long conversations with our friend findingblanks who turns PoF into a grotesque caricature for the simple reason that he insists to experience thought-images only of the first kind - as perceptions that come in inseparable packets with their meaning. He resists with all his strength to experience thought-images as the result of ideating spiritual activity (something with which PoF beings right from the start. No wonder that from thence on everything becomes turned upside-down).

Only if we engage into active thinking we have the chance to differentiate between the concept, the meaning that we experience in our "I" on one hand and on the other - the thought-image which is really only a symbol, an imaginal testimony for the idea that we live within. It is very different when we enter the Imaginative realm after we have advanced into this active thinking. Without this training everything if flattened for us, we have inexplicable panorama which evokes in us the intense but vague meaning of 'amazing stuff out of this world'. On the contrary, we when have learned to understand the difference between living in idea and the projecting the image out of it, then it becomes possible for us to live within higher order meaning, which elucidates the Imaginative substance. It's useless to sit and wait passively higher meaning to come to us in the images (look at the box). We need to ask questions, to search for the higher meaning that shapes the Imaginative perceptions.

We can use another analogy. The passive observation of perceptions and thoughts that automatically come with them, is like feeling with our hand objects that bump into it. As soon as any bumping stops, all perceptions stop. Now imagine that we can only know our hand when it touches something. This corresponds to the state of passive thinking - we only know thoughts when they come to us by themselves. Conversely, if we learn to feel the movement of our hand even in empty space, we can know meaning even in the absence of things we touch.

This is how things stand regarding the problematic third gate. As long as we haven't developed the ability to be conscious in ideas, even without the support of images, the moment the Imaginative screen is pulled beneath our feet, we drop into unconsciousness. This is the same thing as the analogy with the man who can only be conscious while the senses are active, but on a higher level. We can only have consciousness in the realm of deep dreamless sleep if we have developed our spiritual organization such that we can be active in the realm of pure ideas.

This already belongs to the next higher stage of cognition - Inspirative. For Imaginative consciousness we train by learning to live entirely in images, without the support of the senses, we have to eradicate the sensory support (including the support of the brain, through which we can think in linear mineral trains of concepts). For Inspirative consciousness we need to eradicate even the images and remain in pure ideating activity. It's simply impossible to even conceive what this means, unless one has at least tried to experience thoughts for which he feels creatively responsible, thoughts which reflect the living active ideas in the "I". (It'll take us too far to speak also for the highest form of cognition - Intuition)

When we live in this way in the realm of pure meaning, we live in the Spiritual World, the World of Cosmic archetypal idea-beings. As said so many times, the higher worlds are not separate floors of existence that we travel to only after death. At any time, our form of consciousness is a slice of all Worlds. Recently I tried to give another metaphor. I said that the form of consciousness we experience in the sensory spectrum is like an aliased version of the higher states. While entangled with the nervous system, it acts like the lowest common denominator, like a functional basis onto which everything else is flatly projected. So we live in the Spiritual World at any instance when we're conscious, when we experience a concept or any meaning, it's only that we experience from this World only what is resonantly compatible with certain pattern of intellectual thinking. In the same way we undress jealousy and find ourselves with our spirit on a higher, freer ground, from whence jealousy is only one of the garments the spirit can flow through, so when we raise through Imagination and Inspiration, we come to live in the world of active idea-beings, which constitute the real structure of ourselves and the Cosmos.

In the Imaginative world we're still our personality because we experience the soul and spirit environment through the impressions they make in our personal Imaginative substance (in the etheric body). This is important - the Imaginations we experience are still our personally experienced symbols for even higher orders of reality.

In the Inspirative world we leave behind the Imaginative mirror of the etheric body. Those who expect their consciousness to be provided by the mirror, simply lose it. Only if we have learned to live in pure meaning we can sustain consciousness, yet this consciousness is not in the least the personal perspective we're used to. We're spirit among spirits, weaving Cosmic Thoughts. Every spirit is a fully individual perspective within that World, but they no longer have personal goals. Their greatest bliss (and ours when we're allowed to witness their World) is the grandiose work of Cosmic proportions. They are busy with creating and supporting Worlds and beings that can experience their awakening and evolution there, and ultimately one day also become Creator beings, sacrificing their ideal body so that it can become the matrix for new waves of evolution. Such is the situation of the human being, who experiences a flattened projection of these Divine processes, onto the screen of the nervous system, the senses and the other organs.

All of these things can be understood. We need Inspirative consciousness in order to live together with the Cosmic idea-beings which constitute, for example, the epochs of evolution. It's like these great epochs (Indian, Persian, Egyptian, Greek, etc.) are ideal inbreaths and outbreaths of these Divine beings who provide gradually the conditions within which the human being can evolve. To evolve means to expand consciousness from its flattened sensory projection and feel the depth of where everything comes from - how the form of human consciousness comes about. Just as the undeveloped man doesn't question jealousy but accepts it as intrinsic part of existence (even as attribute of the Divine to which he may believe he's identical), so current science doesn't question the true nature of perceptions, thinking, feeling, willing. As we evolve (or for those who move faster ahead through the methods of higher development) the form of consciousness becomes 'delaminated'. The man trying to put some order into his life delaminates from his "I"-experience the jealousy and tries to transform it - from the desire to possess and control for his own sake, he transforms it into the impulse of distributing riches, giving freely and abundantly. The more he gives, the more he is magically compensated from all sides. Similarly, we delaminate our Earthly consciousness and understand that this idea manifests as intersection with that region of the Spiritual World, or this desire manifests from our merging with that being in the astral and so on. With this understanding comes also the possibility for freedom, because we become Masters who can in full consciousness attune, channelize and harmonize the currents that flow from the higher worlds, while completely diverting the harmful ones.

So the answers to the questions are contained in the understanding of what is said here. And it can be understood. We need higher cognition to explore these things but once they are found they can be communicated in concepts. When these concepts are experienced in the right way by someone with nothing but healthy thinking, they are the same concepts which the seer condenses from the higher experience. For example, we need Inspirative cognition to live together with the beings who constitute the rhythms of evolutionary epochs, but when these things are thought about but someone with nothing but unprejudiced and living thinking, he touches and feels with the rays of his human thoughts, the Cosmic Thoughts of the same beings, with which the seer resonates in much more expanded consciousness.

I know that it may sound insulting to suggest that the absolute nothingness at the third gate (dreamless sleep) is not the actual Fountainhead of Creation but one must simply think about what is here presented. When it's admitted that thinking is never explored, it's no surprise that the distinction between living in ideas and projecting them into images is not seen. If we can't experience cognition apart from images that evoke meaning on their own, is there reason to be surprised that as soon as the screen of Imagination is taken away from us, we also lose the means to reflect the existence of our "I"-being? As long as the screen of Imagination is present, even if the experience is completely inexplicable, there's still some implicit conscious meaning - I'm experiencing this, this is happening. When this screen is taken away, we can't have consciousness that anything is happening, if we expect that the Universe is obliged to always present us with our conscious reflection.

The only way to have self-consciousness in this Spiritual World is by being fully conscious of weaving in pure ideas, without the need of Imaginative reflection. Obviously we can never attain to this stage of consciousness if we haven't trodden the path of Thinking. People refuse to feel creatively responsible for their ordinary thoughts - they want to see them popping up on their own - what's left for Imaginative and not to mention Inspirative cognition, which are ever higher forms of expression of our free Spirit. If we can't find the Spirit in ordinary thinking it's useless to look for it anywhere else. And without the Cosmic "I am", weaving in pure idea, we simply have no consciousness beyond the separation from the etheric body (giving us the support of the Imaginative screen).
User avatar
Eugene I
Posts: 1484
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:49 pm

Re: What causes bad trips?

Post by Eugene I »

A comment: I think we are getting confused with labels again. "No-thing-ness" and "I" are the words pointing to the same Reality. "I" is exactly "no-thing-ness" because it's not a "thing", it is "formless" because it has no form but it is what creates and knows/experiences all forms.
"Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kanzas anymore" Dorothy
Post Reply