Cleric's Responses to Mystical Metaphysics (or How to Make a Logical Argument)

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: 2613
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: Cleric's Responses to Mystical Metaphysics (or How to Make a Logical Argument)

Post by AshvinP »

Eugene I wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 2:04 pm
ScottRoberts wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 5:18 am Anyway, when Ashvin accuses your ego of getting in the way, he is merely referring to a problem we all have with our intellectual-soul-bound egos, that of attachment to intellectual abstractions. He is pointing out cases where your particular attachments hide a latent dualism, for example.
Most spiritual traditions and teachings hold similar position and there is definitely truth in it. Yet, there is a flaw in the argument of "you disagree with such and such because your ego is getting in the way" - this argument cannot be legitimately used in philosophical discussions. Suppose I propose a teaching that has some particular misconception of flaw, but I also claim that my view can only be understood from the beyond-egoic perspective and one needs to transcend its own ego and intellectual level of understanding to be able to comprehend it. Now, if anyone disagrees with my flawed view, I would point to them that it's their egoic and intellectual perspective that gets into the way and does not allow them to see the truth. Such argument is most often used by sectarians and all kinds of self-proclaimed gurus. This is why good quality teachings and teachers usually do not use this argument in discussions.

You aren't understanding what Scott wrote. The latent dualism is leading you to think the "ego" must be personal and identical with the intellect, when it is actually our shared, transpersonal, and most essential "I" who experiences-cognizes the World Content. I am in the process of writing an essay precisely about this essential "I" and its role in our knowing activity. I wouldn't do that if the intellect could not comprehend what we are speaking of, or if I thought "ego" can only remain a vague critique. The intellect can definitely comprehend what we are speaking of here, since that is exactly what Scott and I are using to comprehend it. But Scott can respond more specifically if he wants.
“I began to understand that the goal of psychic development is the Self. There is no linear evolution; there is only a circumambulation of the Self."
- Jung
Ben Iscatus
Posts: 244
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2021 6:15 pm

Re: Cleric's Responses to Mystical Metaphysics (or How to Make a Logical Argument)

Post by Ben Iscatus »

Lovely, meditative poem Dana - thank you.
User avatar
Eugene I
Posts: 1228
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:49 pm

Re: Cleric's Responses to Mystical Metaphysics (or How to Make a Logical Argument)

Post by Eugene I »

ScottRoberts wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 5:18 am We are all "egoic". The question is, is one's particular ego getting in the way of the truth? First, one needs to understand what Steiner means by 'ego'. (Note: "the ego" is how English translators have translated Steiner's "das 'Ich'", or "the 'I'". So when I way we are all egoic, it just means we can meaningfully use the word 'I'.) Steiner defines the 'I' as being the fourth principle of the human constitution, the other three being the physical body, the etheric, or "life force" body -- it's what you feel when a limb "goes to sleep", and in general keeps the life processes going -- you're dead when it leaves the physical body), and the astral, or sentient, body -- what feels pleasure and pain.

Now, in addition to three bodies, Steiner also distinguishes three souls: the sentient soul, the intellectual soul, and the consciousness (or spirit) soul. Human consciousness evolution within recorded history can be described as the ego moving from the sentient soul (as it was in pre-Axial age time) into the intellectual soul where, for you, me, and Ashvin, it currently resides. Anthroposophy's goal is to move the ego (remember: the 'I') into the consciousness soul (it appears that Cleric's has done so, or is in the process of doing so). Just as the sentient-soul-bound ego is not aware of the intellectual soul, so our intellectual-soul-bound egos are not aware of the consciousness soul -- to us it appears as nothingness
All non-dual teachings, from traditional Advaita and Buddhism to modern ones, do exactly that - ascend the level of consciousness to the comprehension of the universal "That which experiences and cognizes the ideal content". But in their language they never call it "ego", and by "ego they would define all kinds of lower-level soul structures, but never the universal level. So, the translation of the "das 'Ich'" as "ego" looks like a total misnomer to me, only causing confusion for people who are used to other definitions of "ego". But overall, both Eastern traditions and Anthroposophy are rather in alignment on this cognition level ascension process.
but of course I may be wrong
User avatar
Lou Gold
Posts: 1088
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:18 pm

Re: Cleric's Responses to Mystical Metaphysics (or How to Make a Logical Argument)

Post by Lou Gold »

Soul_of_Shu wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 1:29 pm
AshvinP wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 9:23 pm Don't take this the wrong way...
No worries with that. Call me a shiftless waste of space for all I care. Your analysis above is helpful, as well as Scott's, so thanks both for that. All I can offer as a gesture of gratitude, and a plea for patience with this mod's own foibles, is this deep gassho to Nature on this glorious autumnal morn ...

Often I have stood enamored by the light
of autumn's theater, its leafscape, its vast
mosaic of mysteries and parquetries of past,
all shimmering with such ardent colour
that if I were to live until the final hour
of time, and never again see crimson
or gold, I would not lose their winsome
memory. And I have paused to ponder
frostwork on a fated flower, and wonder
what ironic god could have begot
such poignant beauty from out of rot.
Yet no tears of regret are heaven-sent,
the high woodwinds do not lament
the leaves, loosed by the ruffled applause
of birds, now dancing through sunlit flaws,
as if they hear some seraphic symphony,
some music of spheres denied to me.
And now I know that this is the way
we long for, to abandon bleak dismay,
and live not in yesterday, or tomorrow,
but to go with the wind here and now,
to surrender to life's ephemeral flash,
and fall as willing as we fought in flesh.
Yes, this is what we seek so desperately,
to take that single step into eternity.
What holds us back, what fear of fears,
causes us to count the dwindling years,
and grasp, possessively, onto the circles
of our lives? For if not for miracles
of patient seed and candescent fire,
latent in seasons of dream and desire,
in what wasted world would we belong,
where silent would fall the wind-sent song,
and leaves forever fade from sight.


Thanks for this lovely heartshare Dana.
Be calm - Be clear - See the faults - See the suffering - Give your love
User avatar
Cleric K
Posts: 659
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:40 pm

Re: Cleric's Responses to Mystical Metaphysics (or How to Make a Logical Argument)

Post by Cleric K »

Eugene I wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 2:04 pm Most spiritual traditions and teachings hold similar position and there is definitely truth in it. Yet, there is a flaw in the argument of "you disagree with such and such because your ego is getting in the way" - this argument cannot be legitimately used in philosophical discussions. Suppose I propose a teaching that has some particular misconception of flaw, but I also claim that my view can only be understood from the beyond-egoic perspective and one needs to transcend its own ego and intellectual level of understanding to be able to comprehend it. Now, if anyone disagrees with my flawed view, I would point to them that it's their egoic and intellectual perspective that gets into the way and does not allow them to see the truth. But my opponent may have a different view on the subject, while holding the same position on the limitation of the egoic intellect, so they with use the same argument against me, and the discussion quickly comes to the dead end - we both accuse each other of viewing the opponents position from the ego-mind perspective. Such argument is most often used by sectarians and all kinds of self-proclaimed gurus. This is why good quality teachings and teachers usually do not use this argument in disputes; they may point to the fact that the egoic intellect needs to be transcended to fully comprehend their teachings, but do not use this as an argument in disputes.
Transcending the intellect may sound somewhat misleading for some. I guess people imagine this as selling one's house and possessions, giving all the money to the sect guru and then commit a suicide. We're talking about something quite different. Something gradual and proceeding in full consciousness and freedom. Yes, there certainly are moments when we need to step forward with courage, into something that even if we intellectually understand beforehand, we'll only fully experientially know after we take the step. But this is not at all something unique to esoteric development. All our life is weaved out of such moments. When we learn to swim, we freeze in terror at the thought that we won't feel the seafloor under our feet. No amount of practical and theoretical preparations can give us the actual experience of swimming. Yet they can give the full understanding that our fears are irrational. Knowledge is always the sure weapon for combating fear. Then we have the courage to lift our feet from the bottom. For a split-second we feel we've crossed the point of no return, we're entering something completely new. Yet immediately everything from practical and theoretical school becomes alive and we understand 'from the other side' what we have been preparing for. This is not a one-time event. It's true that some of theses events are more memorable than others but still, we're always in a stream of such steps.

I know what you mean with the bolded text but it's not appropriate for what we discuss here. I can only speak in analogies (parables) again. Imagine mathematically illiterate man who wants to be given proof of the Pythagorean theorem but in some simple, non-mathematical way. Only after this proof is given, the man is willing to learn something about actual mathematics. The mathematician says: "Sorry but this doesn't work like that. You need to raise above you current intellectual state. You need to enter the mathematical thoughts yourself. You need to explore new degrees of freedom of thinking spiritual activity which from your current perspective simply don't exist. It's like you've been using your arms only to reach for objects in front of you but never explored the full perimeter of motion, you don't know that you can reach also to the sides and even behind your back. Similarly, to experience the proof of the theorem you need to allow yourself move your spiritual activity in directions formerly unknown to you. This may feel strange at first because every form of spiritual activity allows us to know ourselves in different light. When your spirit begins to branch and grow into the mathematical landscape you'll also find aspect of your "I"-being which is the mathematician in you. You'll say to yourself 'Look! I'm doing math!' If you don't want to see yourself in such a self-image, you'll subconsciously resist the mathematical thoughts - because these thoughts are the mirror into which you'll see the reflection of your mathematician-I."

Things are practically of the same nature, although immeasurably more encompassing, when speaking of our spiritual activity growing and penetrating with its rays the living fabric of reality. Take for example the analogy with aliasing. I'm pretty certain that for many people this analogy simply passed as some random words before their eyes. Much like when we read some news: "Earthquake killed 20 on the opposite side of the Earth" and we think to ourselves "Thank God that I'm on my side and I'm unaffected". Well, these analogies can only be understood in the true sense if we allow them to affect us. They have to shake our side of consciousness. It really doesn't require that much. It doesn't require blindly believing in anything. All it requires is taking some quiet time to think: "OK, Let's see what we got here. What's this aliasing about? Let me imagine that the thoughts I'm now thinking are really such an aliasing effect of hidden activity. This hidden activity is not in another world. It's of the same essence as my thoughts, only that while I'm frequency-locked with the crystal thoughts I don't experience the fluid thoughts from which they precipitate. What does this mean to me if it is indeed the case? What would be different for me? How does this make me feel? If I find it intriguing - why? What are the beneficial consequences of this? If I find it disturbing - why? What is it in me that feels threatened?"

These are the kind of questions that we must really work with in meditation. Then if we allow the rays of our spirit grow into directions that we haven't allowed them to grow until now, we'll have new experiences. Experiences which we can never have if we just stand as an onlooker and hear words as we hear the news about hypothetical events beyond our light cone. True - when we timidly allow ourselves to extend our thinking rays into these unexplored regions of our own being, we're bound to feel little funny. We see ourselves in a different light, like when we hear our voice for the first time on recording and ask "Wow, do I really sound like that?" But at the same time we realize that this is the only way we can ever gain true knowledge about ourselves and the Whole.
User avatar
Eugene I
Posts: 1228
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:49 pm

Re: Cleric's Responses to Mystical Metaphysics (or How to Make a Logical Argument)

Post by Eugene I »

Cleric, you said it very well, thank you. But raising the cognition level above the intellectual one was part of most spiritual traditions of the West and the East. "The path from the mind to the heart" is how it was described in the mystical Christianity. "The state of no-mind" (=beyond intellectual mind) is how was is described in Zen. I'm sure has also been part of the indigenous traditions, but Lou can tell about it better. So, this is not something unique to Anthroposophy. But the fact that Anthroposophy shares the same path is good, no question about it.

Now, when the intellectual egoic level is transcendent, it does not mean that cognition suddenly reaches its ultimate level and sees the wholeness of the Universal Truth from there. The paths of the abovementioned traditions do transcend the intellect, but still do not arrive to the wholeness of the Ultimate Truth, and still have different perspectives on Reality from those levels that vary between traditions. So, often disputes between people representing different traditions become disputes about which perspective or cognition of the Universal Truth is more accurate or correct. And, when it goes in a bad way, it usually goes like this: "if you would see the Truth like I do from the cognition level above the intellect like I do, then you would definitely see it exactly the way I do, and so, if you do not see the Truth this way, this proves that you still has not transcendent your intellectual level of ego". And, of course, the opponent would turn exactly the same argument back. This is why, as I said earlier, such argument is not a good argument to use in the cross-tradition disputes. And if in such dispute you would want to use any intellectual arguments, you would be immediately accused for approaching it from the intellectual level, which makes such disputes based on philosophical or metaphysical grounds pointless.

So, there is no question that cognizing the Reality from the above-intellect level provides a deeper and higher level of comprehending the Truth as compared to the intellectual level. But the problem is that it still does not open the access to the Wholeness of the Truth, but only to its limited facets, and it is a common mistake to misapprehend the limited perspective on the Truth gained from the above-intellect cognition levels as the Wholeness of the Truth itself. One needs to completely merge/dissolve with the Divine to join the knowledge of the Wholeness of the Truth, and any perspective less than the Divine is necessarily limited and therefore different from any other less-then-Divine perspective.
but of course I may be wrong
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: Cleric's Responses to Mystical Metaphysics (or How to Make a Logical Argument)

Post by AshvinP »

Soul_of_Shu wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 1:29 pm
AshvinP wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 9:23 pm Don't take this the wrong way...
No worries with that. Call me a shiftless waste of space for all I care. Your analysis above is helpful, as well as Scott's, so thanks both for that. All I can offer as a gesture of gratitude, and a plea for patience with this mod's own foibles, is this deep gassho to Nature on this glorious autumnal morn ...

Often I have stood enamored by the light
of autumn's theater, its leafscape, its vast
mosaic of mysteries and parquetries of past,
all shimmering with such ardent colour
that if I were to live until the final hour
of time, and never again see crimson
or gold, I would not lose their winsome
memory. And I have paused to ponder
frostwork on a fated flower, and wonder
what ironic god could have begot
such poignant beauty from out of rot.
Yet no tears of regret are heaven-sent,
the high woodwinds do not lament
the leaves, loosed by the ruffled applause
of birds, now dancing through sunlit flaws,
as if they hear some seraphic symphony,
some music of spheres denied to me.
And now I know that this is the way
we long for, to abandon bleak dismay,
and live not in yesterday, or tomorrow,
but to go with the wind here and now,
to surrender to life's ephemeral flash,
and fall as willing as we fought in flesh.
Yes, this is what we seek so desperately,
to take that single step into eternity.
What holds us back, what fear of fears,
causes us to count the dwindling years,
and grasp, possessively, onto the circles
of our lives? For if not for miracles
of patient seed and candescent fire,
latent in seasons of dream and desire,
in what wasted world would we belong,
where silent would fall the wind-sent song,
and leaves forever fade from sight.

Dana,

This is an absolutely stunning work of poetry. Thank you! I feel like this needs to be submitted somehwere for an award... it's really that remarkable.
“I began to understand that the goal of psychic development is the Self. There is no linear evolution; there is only a circumambulation of the Self."
- Jung
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: Cleric's Responses to Mystical Metaphysics (or How to Make a Logical Argument)

Post by AshvinP »

AshvinP wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 8:51 pm
Soul_of_Shu wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 1:29 pm
AshvinP wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 9:23 pm Don't take this the wrong way...
No worries with that. Call me a shiftless waste of space for all I care. Your analysis above is helpful, as well as Scott's, so thanks both for that. All I can offer as a gesture of gratitude, and a plea for patience with this mod's own foibles, is this deep gassho to Nature on this glorious autumnal morn ...

Often I have stood enamored by the light
of autumn's theater, its leafscape, its vast
mosaic of mysteries and parquetries of past,
all shimmering with such ardent colour
that if I were to live until the final hour
of time, and never again see crimson
or gold, I would not lose their winsome
memory. And I have paused to ponder
frostwork on a fated flower, and wonder
what ironic god could have begot
such poignant beauty from out of rot.
Yet no tears of regret are heaven-sent,
the high woodwinds do not lament
the leaves, loosed by the ruffled applause
of birds, now dancing through sunlit flaws,
as if they hear some seraphic symphony,
some music of spheres denied to me.
And now I know that this is the way
we long for, to abandon bleak dismay,
and live not in yesterday, or tomorrow,
but to go with the wind here and now,
to surrender to life's ephemeral flash,
and fall as willing as we fought in flesh.
Yes, this is what we seek so desperately,
to take that single step into eternity.
What holds us back, what fear of fears,
causes us to count the dwindling years,
and grasp, possessively, onto the circles
of our lives? For if not for miracles
of patient seed and candescent fire,
latent in seasons of dream and desire,
in what wasted world would we belong,
where silent would fall the wind-sent song,
and leaves forever fade from sight.

Dana,

This is an absolutely stunning work of poetry. Thank you! I feel like this needs to be submitted somehwere for an award... it's really that remarkable.

And to also relate this to what we are discussing, anyone who read Dana's fantastic poem should try to hold onto the deep meaning it stirs within our souls. What Cleric keeps speaking of here is how that same deep meaning can be sensed in one's own Thinking activity. The very act of Thinking will please our souls with rich meaning like a beautiful poem or musical composition. We should reflect on that if we feel what is being presented is just another speculative philosophy or scientific theory. It's not that we are asking anyone to accept what I just wrote on faith, and in fact that naive acceptance would actually ensure the outcome of experiencing truly participatory and meaningful Thinking is never attained. But first one must understand what sort of philosopy-spirituality and claims they are actually dealing with, because only then can one fairly follow its logic and evaluate it.
“I began to understand that the goal of psychic development is the Self. There is no linear evolution; there is only a circumambulation of the Self."
- Jung
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: Cleric's Responses to Mystical Metaphysics (or How to Make a Logical Argument)

Post by AshvinP »

Eugene I wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 8:07 pm Cleric, you said it very well, thank you. But raising the cognition level above the intellectual one was part of most spiritual traditions of the West and the East. "The path from the mind to the heart" is how it was described in the mystical Christianity. "The state of no-mind" (=beyond intellectual mind) is how was is described in Zen. I'm sure has also been part of the indigenous traditions, but Lou can tell about it better. So, this is not something unique to Anthroposophy. But the fact that Anthroposophy shares the same path is good, no question about it.

Eugene,

Please, please, please just take note of one more thing from me, because apart from this comment, I really have nothing left to say on this topic. What you write above is the equivalent of saying, "Cleric, Scott, and Ashvin are complete ignoramuses". Why? Because all three of us keep saying you are misunderstanding and misrepresenting the claims of Anthroposophy, yet your position is that, after 6+ months of back and forth, we are falsely assuming you don't understand Anthroposophy and, in fact, you understand it perfectly fine. Either you are wrong, or we are complete ignoramuses who have no clue what Anthroposophy is and claims despite writing about it endlessly, and Cleric and Scott also have absolutely no clue about Eastern spiritual traditions despite studying them for many years. There is no other logical possibility besides those two. That's all I have left to say on this topic.
“I began to understand that the goal of psychic development is the Self. There is no linear evolution; there is only a circumambulation of the Self."
- Jung
User avatar
Cleric K
Posts: 659
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:40 pm

Re: Cleric's Responses to Mystical Metaphysics (or How to Make a Logical Argument)

Post by Cleric K »

Eugene I wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 8:07 pm Cleric, you said it very well, thank you. But raising the cognition level above the intellectual one was part of most spiritual traditions of the West and the East. "The path from the mind to the heart" is how it was described in the mystical Christianity. "The state of no-mind" (=beyond intellectual mind) is how was is described in Zen. I'm sure has also been part of the indigenous traditions, but Lou can tell about it better. So, this is not something unique to Anthroposophy. But the fact that Anthroposophy shares the same path is good, no question about it.

Now, when the intellectual egoic level is transcendent, it does not mean that cognition suddenly reaches its ultimate level and sees the wholeness of the Universal Truth from there. The paths of the abovementioned traditions do transcend the intellect, but still do not arrive to the wholeness of the Ultimate Truth, and still have different perspectives on Reality from those levels that vary between traditions. So, often disputes between people representing different traditions become disputes about which perspective or cognition of the Universal Truth is more accurate or correct. And, when it goes in a bad way, it usually goes like this: "if you would see the Truth like I do from the cognition level above the intellect like I do, then you would definitely see it exactly the way I do, and so, if you do not see the Truth this way, this proves that you still has not transcendent your intellectual level of ego". And, of course, the opponent would turn exactly the same argument back. This is why, as I said earlier, such argument is not a good argument to use in the cross-tradition disputes. And if in such dispute you would want to use any intellectual arguments, you would be immediately accused for approaching it from the intellectual level, which makes such disputes based on philosophical or metaphysical grounds pointless.

So, there is no question that cognizing the Reality from the above-intellect level provides a deeper and higher level of comprehending the Truth as compared to the intellectual level. But the problem is that it still does not open the access to the Wholeness of the Truth, but only to its limited facets, and it is a common mistake to misapprehend the limited perspective on the Truth gained from the above-intellect cognition levels as the Wholeness of the Truth itself.
I'm not asking you to discard your view but to think about the way they differ.

You keep saying that "all traditions explored higher cognition". But there's difference in what the shaman does, what the Zen master does, what even the Christian mystic (not Initiate) does, and what actual awakening in our deeper spiritual activity implies. And there's no need even to speak of different traditions here. All that's needed is to investigate the difference within yourself. You're a meditator so it shouldn't be a problem.

There's simple difference. Let's imagine our consciousness screen as the surface of a sphere which we experience from within. Our thoughts are experienced as if along that surface. The thoughts have longitude, latitude, they move hither and thither. This is the first position which I'm sure you're very experienced with. It is precisely this surface that we must observe and gently let go of, so that we can raise 'above' the egoic structures.

The second position is to turn attention to the fact (it is a fact) that we can experience to the thoughts not only longitude and latitude but also a radial component - to and fro the center from which we observe the spherical surface. The crucial thing is that this radial component is not simply some extra attribute but the actual thought ray of our "I"-activity. If we passively observe thoughts we'll never discover even a trace of this radial component. We observe the radial when we experience how it is our own activity that supports given thought into place. To make this observation we must allow ourselves to do it, just like a person must allow himself to think mathematically if he is to experience numbers.

(I hope it's clear that I'm speaking in symbols. Yet these symbols are quite literal expressions of inner realities)

I know that the second position is very antipathetic to you. It basically is the exact opposite of everything you've been training for - to let go of the thoughts and observe their movement longi- and latitudinally but suppress the radial component because it is seen as sign of weakness - it's our false identification with thinking. It's false feedback loop which we imagine as if the planar thoughts somehow delude themselves that there's such thing as radial direction.

It would be perfectly fine if you just admit that you are uncomfortable with the second position, that you're worried it completely inverts what you so far hold to be true. I understand that - it must really sound as blasphemy to suppose that there's such a thing as radial "I"-activity responsible for thoughts. Yet this shouldn't block our thinking. We shouldn't forbid ourselves to understand the difference, even if we see it as leading away from truth.

The shaman enters the visionary state and observes the enlivened sphere surface where that Natural spirits speak in symbols. The shaman listens, there's no radial component. The Zen master seeks the pure consciousness. He rises above the intellect, he detaches from the sphere surface and observes thoughts dancing longi- and latitudinally driven entirely by the principle of dependent arising. There's no radial activity, God forbid - "I"-activity.

Now before saying again that all traditions explored higher cognition, please think about the difference. Think which traditions explore the radial component of the "I"-activity.

Why is this aspect important? Because only through our fully conscious "I"-activity we can explore the inner geometry that we can touch and illuminate with our thought rays. If we simply detach from the sphere surface we're left to the will of the Whole. We observe the activity of the Whole but we have no business with it. As with the shaman, Nature could present us with important truths on that screen, warn us of bad weather, tell us where the game is, but all this remains externally given to us (even though on our intimate screen of consciousness). It's Nature's activity but presenting itself to us as finished product. Through the liberation of our own activity we can explore unimaginably vaster palette of possibilities. In this way we can resonate with Nature's Intelligence and experience the shamanic messages from their 'other side', from the side from which Nature Thinks these messages - that is, we find the radial component of Nature's Thoughts. We can only find it because we have found our own radial component and we have brought it in resonance with Nature's. We can't experience the Thoughts of Nature if our own thoughts don't become self-similar to them. If we don't do that, we can experience the effects of Nature's Thoughts projecting on us but not how Nature Thinks these Thoughts.

Now before replying, I beg you! - simply tell me if you completely and fully understand the difference between these two positions. Do you understand the difference between observing thoughts and thinking thoughts (the radial component)? If you do, do you understand the difference between the shamanic experience of Nature's symbolic language on the sphere surface and Zen's sphere of dependent arising phenomena on one hand, and living together with the actual Thinking activity of Nature (Nature's radial component) on the other?
Post Reply