Yes, I'm perfectly aware of this position. It's the simplistic two-tier Flat MAL. The atomic egos bubble up in the MAL soup leading to a dual existence - self-enclosed bubble intellect vs. the MAL soup of inexplicable potential. And it would be perfectly fine if people simply admit that this view gives them comfort and peace of mind. I wouldn't be wasting mine and everyone else's time writing here. The simple fact of experience is that there's whole Cosmic gradient of cognizing Spirit between the above two poles of existence. To this people respond "No way, I drank a whole case of beer and passed out into absolute nothingness - there's absolutely nothing on the way between my ego and the void/plenum." There's no need to go to such excesses for one to know if the gradient exists or not. Like stated numerous times - it is at a thought's distance. Just like in geometry, it takes only an infinitesimal step in a direction perpendicular to the flat surface, in order to know that a depth axis exists. Every response here simply confirms that there's no interest whatsoever to investigate the hidden depth forces that shape what and how we think, what we like and dislike, to which tradition we're drawn and so on, not to mention forces that are responsible for the outer world. As I've said before, I'm also learning a lot here, although probably not in quite the same way as others. My own topic of investigation is to learn more about to what extent the overall situation on Earth is because of lack of love and knowledge and to what extent this lack is actually fully desired.Eugene I wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 10:22 pmNo we should not, it's a wrong argument. Our individual conscious activity always has direct access to the transcendent formless No-thing-ness aspect of Consciousness, but that access does not open to us the access to the wholeness of the creation, they have nothing to do with each other. Each of us is a piece of Divine immanent conscious activity, as well a slice of the Divine transcendent nature of No-thing-ness. But a piece and a slice is never the whole, whether transcendent or immanent. Now you may argue: and why would not we integrate back to the wholeness and undifferentiated unity? We may, but there was a purpose why the Divine divided itself into the multitude of pieces of individual minds, it was not a mistake or a "fall", it was intentional, because the Divine chose Life, and the division was the only way for the Life to unfold. The Divine allows for freedom and would probably not mind for you to integrate and dissolve back into itself if you choose to do so, but you would be doing it against the Divine original intention.Cleric K wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:44 pm OK Adur. As I wrote in this post, as long as we desire to keep the self-enclosed intellect and the inexplicable nothingness irreconcilably separate, we can build whatever fantastic private group interests we want. I often ask - if you were really in the bosom of the eternal, the source of all, how come you saw nothing of the creation of the Cosmos? Why didn't you see the fallen gods of the Zodiac, immersed in fear of losing their consciousness? You should have - after all they exist between the Absolute Nothingness and your ordinary consciousness so you most certainly must have passed through them if you were in the Source itself.
But interestingly enough, I asked you a similar question many times: if you have an access to the higher-cognition levels and can see the structures responsible for the perceptions in our human form, how come you can not explain why these perceptions always precisely follow Schrodinger equation? Which Seraphim in the higher realms is responsible for making sure all quadrillions of our human perceptions always obey the Schrodinger equation, and how exactly he does that?
As a matter of fact, for few weeks now I'm working on a Schrodinger essay. Because of lack of time on one hand and too little motivation on the other, it's going somewhat slowly. The lack of motivation is not because I'm not excited by the topic but because I already know what the comments will be. As said, if one can't make the thinking activity an object of investigation, in the way the scientists investigate the natural world, everything will go through one ear and exit the other. No one internalizes the simple hand analogy, what's left for the much more complicated topics. The simple analogies are simply dismissed because they are so simple that even arguing against them will force one to think about them and this comes with the inherent danger that they might be accidently understood, which in itself would lead to uncomfortable situation. The intellectual ego is much more carefree when it believes that certain door is just a matter of opinion, personal preference. It exists only for those who believe it to exists - in other words, there are "completely different spiritual universes", as Adur suggests. On the other hand, if one accidently understands some of these analogies, then the door will become much more real and it will require much stronger devotion of the ego to support the current choice. For example, today people merrily have a stake, a burger, a sausage. There's something that is out of consciousness. What if for every steak we eat we need to personally slit the throat of the animal? I know that there are plenty of people who wouldn't hesitate but there are also (for humanity's sake, I hope they are the majority) who would much rather eat something else (and it's not like there's shortage of alternatives). So 'out of sight, out of mind' is a great counselor of conscience. In a similar sense, it we are constantly aware that there's a threshold which we simply avoid, it becomes much more inconvenient because it is now our responsibility to decide whether we approach it or not. We can't wash our hands and say "But I didn't know that such a threshold exists".
So that's why the simple truths are simply circumvented. They are so simple that if one accidently thinks about them they might get dangerously real. On the other hand, with something like a Schrodinger essay, which by necessity will have to cover very diverse realms, there will be so many hooks at which the intellect can attach its tentacles, that the conversation will inevitably go far in the periphery. Nevertheless, I promise that I'll finish the essay for the sake of the few awake souls here who have genuine interest in the depths of reality, and not simply in endless dribbling with intellectual candies in a flat cosmic consciousness.