Phenomenological idealism: definitions of common terms

[Anthony66]

I hope this puts things in the proper perspective. Things are really complicated. We can't simply place them on a linear scale. As we see, we can reach the highest Intuition yet experience it only in its mineral aspect. So if I have understood your comment properly, this should give the answer why you feel that there's something truly fundamental in your Buddhist practice. It is really there. But must be animated, such that we can begin to explore the implicit order which can't be captured through the mineral element. Our spiritual activity must become at least fluidic in order to perceive in Imaginations, the beings and processes in the etheric and astral worlds. If we don't develop these forms of activity, the higher worlds pass through us (as they do at any point of time) without having an organ that can resonate with their nature.

I agree with you, Cleric. It's like in life when someone can be super-focused on some specific activity and develop super-skills in it, but in other areas of life may remain very underdeveloped. Buddhist are like people who came to a movie and realized that all that happens in the movie is only pictures on the screen, and so they become so absorbed with only seeing "one screen everywhere" that they lose interest and involvement with the movie. On the other hand, when people watching the movie forget or don't realize that really the whole movie is simply images on the screen, they get too absorbed with the movie, they become perceiving the movie as some kind or reality "out there" with real people/subjects, objects, interpret it in a naive-realistic way and get too much passionately involved in it (which ironically becomes very counter-productive). So what is really needed is a good balance of both - you know that it's all happening on one screen, you see and experience the oneness all the time, yet you also see, experience and stay involved in the movie, there is still a lot of value in what is going on there. And you can be involved in it in a more efficient way if you don't misinterpret it in a naive-realistic way and don't overlook the presence of the screen. I don't know if it's a good analogy, don't take it literally.

So, my take is that non-dual practices and realization are indeed important and useful, but they are just insufficient on their own for a wholistic spiritual development.

Eugene,

There appears to be a certain meeting of the minds here between you and the SS folk. Am I correct?

While I've been following the conversation with great interest, I have to admit that my comprehension of the SS posts is nowhere near 100%. I struggle to understand the many Kantian divides that appear to be hiding behind every rock. What I would appreciate is if you could provide the key insights or clarifications which have brought this level of apparent alignment between the mystic and the "phenomenologicalists".

[Eugene I]

Eugene,

There appears to be a certain meeting of the minds here between you and the SS folk. Am I correct?

While I've been following the conversation with great interest, I have to admit that my comprehension of the SS posts is nowhere near 100%. I struggle to understand the many Kantian divides that appear to be hiding behind every rock. What I would appreciate is if you could provide the key insights or clarifications which have brought this level of apparent alignment between the mystic and the "phenomenologicalists".

Yeah, I would say Ashvin is in a sort of witch-hunting mood seeing "Kantian divides" everywhere As usual, there needs to be a good balance. The world is a unity of multiplicity, there are seeming divisions that fundamentally never break the unity. Such divisions are only "apparent" - it is how we interpret the world in the attempt to make sense of it, they are necessary for cognition to work. Notice how RS himself described it:

The process takes place as follows: Thinking first
lifts out certain entities from the totality of the world-whole. In the given there is actually
no singularity, for all is continuously blended. Then thinking relates these separate entities
to each other in accordance with the thought-forms it produces, and lastly determines the
outcome of this relationship.

So the key is to figure out how and at which circumstances such act of "lifting out" actually helps and when it becomes practically problematic. It usually becomes problematic when we forget or don't consciously realize that such "lifting out" is only a conditional act of thinking and start to believe that such lifted-out "entities" exist as real and separate entities (subjects and objects) in some "external world" apart from the "me-perceiver". We "lift out" the content of the "world-whole" apart form the experiencing of it, and it becomes a "3-rd person perspective" abstracted from the actual 1-st person experiencing of it, which is necessary for the scientific method to work, but then we mistakenly take such "3-rd person perspective" as something existing for real. So, all those "dualistic delusions" (as they are called in the Eastern traditions) or "Kantian divides" originate in this cognitive mistake of naive realism. Essentially, this dualistic perception is just an interpretative-filtering layer in our cognitive processing of the reality as we perceive it. It is an illusion. It veils from us the underlying inseparable unity of the world. There are two approaches to "undo" the dualistic perception and restore the experience of the unity - we can call it "mystical" and SS.

Essentially at any given moment in our 1-st person conscious experience of "now" there is in fact just a One Indivisible Phenomenon. It is self-experiencing, we can never find any "experiencer" standing apart from it, because the moment we think we identify such an experiencer ("me", "self") it immediately becomes the inseparable part of the same Phenomenon. So essentially, the Phenomenon is self-experiencing. In such Phenomenon as it is present there is no subject or object, inside or outside. However, to make sense of the Phenomenon we need to exercise cognition/thinking, and cognition works by "conditionally" tearing apart the Phenomenon into pieces (individual forms and phenomena) in order to cognate their relations and meanings. But remarkable is that every act and meaning of the cognition automatically becomes an inseparable part of the Phenomenon the moment it arises. Moreover, thinking itself is an inseparable part of the Phenomenon. The Phenomenon is ever-present in the now (=suchness, presence, Being), and ever-self-experiencing (Awareness), we can call these as two "existential dimensions" of the Phenomenon (again emphasizing that calling them "dimensions" does not introduce any division/separation but just conditionally "lifts out" certain qualities/aspects of the Phenomenon).

Essentially, this is how "mystics" see the world - as a singular inseparable ever-present self-experiencing Phenomenon, without paying much attention to what's going on in the dimension of meanings and ideas brought forth by intentional thinking. The thoughts with their meanings are just perceived as part of the Phenomenon, present and experienced, there is nothing special about them. So essentially, the "mystical" approach is in fact phenomenological. It is just mostly ignorant to a rich ever-evolving ideal content in the dimension or meanings. As Buddhists say, "there is nothing happening". "Mystics" do not know and do not care how and why the forms in the Phenomenon are related to each other and how and where they originate from. By doing so their spiritual state becomes stagnant and devoid of a developmental momentum in the dimension of meanings. This is not only how mystics intellectually understand the world, but how they experientiality perceive it after many years of spiritual practice and re-programming their habitual cognitive patterns. There is still a lot of value and insight into the essential unity and nature of the world in the existential dimensions in such mystical way of direct experiencing of the world. Yet, it misses/ignores a whole and rich developmental dynamics and momentum towards perfection in the dimension of ideas and meanings. As the Dzogchen Buddhists say - the Reality (Phenomenon) is already perfect in its natural state of the primordial unity (if we dismantle the dualistic perception of it), there is no point of improving it any further. Here is a famous "The Cuckoo's Song of Total Presence" in the Dzogchen tradition:

The nature of multiplicity is nondual
and things are pure and simple;
being here and now is thought-free
and it shines out in all forms, always all good;
it is already perfect, so the striving sickness is avoided
and spontaneity is constantly present.

The SS approaches it form a different angle. It realizes that all the perceived phenomena are essentially a product of volitional Thinking activity at Large. There is no essential difference between sense perceptions and ideas, they are all of the same essence of the Idea. So essentially, all the content of the Phenomenon is the Idea that unfolds in time as a rich interconnected ever-evolving universe of shared meanings. Realizing this essential unity of the universe of perceptions and meanings dispels the dualistic illusion. On the other hand SS mostly ignores the "existential" dimensions/aspects (of suchness and awareness) and the indivisible unity of the Phenomenon in these existential dimensions. They don't see it as particularly useful, because they already restored the unity of the Phenomenon as One Idea and dispelled the Kantian divide. The world of meanings, if taken by itself at the current moment, seems to be imperfect, but metamorphously evolves toward a state of perfection, the completeness of Knowledge and Love. In such approach the meanings and ideas and their role in the Phenomenon are overemphasized and taken "too much for real", as opposed to them being underemphasized in the mystic approach.

IMO I do not see any contradiction between these two approaches, but still see each of them as limited view and insufficient extreme if taken alone emphasizing (lifting-out) certain selected dimensions of the Phenomenon and ignoring the left-out aspects of it. I think what is needed is a balanced and wholistic approach that includes both and restores the unity of the Phenomenon in all its dimensions but still allows for the dynamics and developmental momentum in the dimension of meanings. The Phenomenon is in fact primordially already perfect as it is, yet paradoxically is ever-evolving towards the ideal perfection in the dimension of meanings, and there is no contradiction here. If the primordial ever-present perfection and unity is ignored, we suffer, feel insufficient, frustrated and lost in our current state of imperfection, and we feel too much anguish to find a relief from it. If we realize the primordial perfection and unity but ignore the the dynamics in the dimension of meanings, we pass into a mystic "bliss-out" stagnant nirvanic state. But if we integrate both approaches, we can still evolve towards perfection in the dimension of meanings without much suffering and anguish but in a healthy and wholistic way, never losing sight of the primordial perfection and unity in the existential dimensions.

[Cleric K]

The SS approaches it form a different angle. It realizes that all the perceived phenomena are essentially a product of volitional Thinking activity at Large. There is no essential difference between sense perceptions and ideas, they are all of the same essence of the Idea. So essentially, all the content of the Phenomenon is the Idea that unfolds in time as a rich interconnected ever-evolving universe of shared meanings. Realizing this essential unity of the universe of perceptions and meanings dispels the dualistic illusion. On the other hand SS mostly ignores the "existential" dimensions/aspects (of suchness and awareness) and the indivisible unity of the Phenomenon in these existential dimensions. They don't see it as particularly useful, because they already restored the unity of the Phenomenon as One Idea and dispelled the Kantian divide. The world of meanings, if taken by itself at the current moment, seems to be imperfect, but metamorphously evolves toward a state of perfection, the completeness of Knowledge and Love. In such approach the meanings and ideas and their role in the Phenomenon are overemphasized and taken "too much for real", as opposed to them being underemphasized in the mystic approach.

IMO I do not see any contradiction between these two approaches, but still see each of them as limited and insufficient extreme if taken alone. I think what is needed is a balanced and wholistic approach that includes both and restores the unity of the Phenomenon in all its dimensions but still allows for the dynamics and developmental momentum in the dimension of meanings. The Phenomenon is in fact primordially already perfect as it is, yet paradoxically is ever-evolving toward ideal perfection in the dimension of meanings, and there is no contradiction here. If the primordial ever-present perfection and unity is ignored, we suffer, feel insufficient, frustrated and lost in our current state of imperfection, and we feel too much anguish to find a relief from it. If we realize the primordial perfection and unity but ignore the the dynamics in the dimension of meanings, we pass into a mystic "bliss-out" stagnant nirvanic state. But if we integrate both approaches, we can still evolve towards perfection in the dimension of meanings without much suffering and anguish but in a healthy and wholistic way, never losing sight of the primordial perfection and unity in the existential dimensions.

Alas, I would have to comment on this

First, we must realize that lifting a thought from the continuous totality doesn't mean that we're disturbing the perfect wholeness of reality. Imagine that we have really bad sight, to the extent that we see completely blurry picture, completely continuous and whole. We say "the world is perfect and whole". Yet we keep experiencing pain - we bump into objects that we don't see. Then someone gives us glasses and suddenly the world becomes differentiated for us. We can now begin to lift from the visual field perceptions and concepts. We begin to recognize the objects in which we have been bumping and which were causing us pain.

There's huge difference between recognizing the Cosmos as a Whole, and assuming that the perspective as we see it, is perfect as it is. No doubt about it - it's a question of freedom, I may prefer the blurry vision.

The approach of SS is not to ignore the holistic aspect of reality. It's precisely to unveil that aspect. I've given this example before:



The standpoint of the given is like extremely complicated geocentric picture of reality. So complicated that it is practically blurry picture or noise. And we can be perfectly content with it. Even if painful and miserable, we can say "This is the beauty of existence. It's perfect as it is".

The quest of the Spirit is not to simply make a mental model that is overlaid on top of the blurry picture in order to make it meaningful to the local intellect. It is about the realization that the Cosmos is in its very nature the expression of Idea. It's the realization that there exists a standpoint, where the Spirit stands in the Center of Creation and sees everything as completely meaningful, as reverberation of the One Idea (the formless meaningful dimension of Awareness). The blurry picture manifests only because as the Idea reverberates towards the periphery, it is possible to assume relative perspectives within the totality which present the Spirit with unique experiences of the Whole.

Evolution in Time is the process in which the Spirit experiences its creative journey of unveiling the Idea from the first-person perspective, of how the Cosmos is created, how it comes to be. It is not to understand in our limited mind what the Cosmos is but to become the Cosmos.

So it should be clear that in this journey nothing is ignored. This seems so only if we believe that the blurry geocentric perspective is perfect as it is and the Spirit should simply sit and enjoy it until death presents us with another blurry perspective to enjoy.

The journey of the Spirit begins with the realization that we're all operating from blurry geocentric perspectives and in this blindness, with each of our thought, feeling and action we can either make everything even more blurry and painful or metamorphose towards the state from which everything makes sense, the perspective from which we understand from our first-person perspective how the Cosmos is created and how it functions. From these evolved states the conditions are created where other unique perspectives of awakening and becoming will be experienced by the Spirit. And thus in never ending rhythmic waves of Creation.

People are usually put off by the fact that we have to lift up the elements of reality. This seems as we're breaking down the wholeness. And it certainly is a matter of balance. Scientists break matter more and more in the LHC. Whether this is necessary we can speak separately. But if we are already within a differentiated perspective of the whole (as we are on Earth), then the lifting up is simply opening our eyes about the furniture in which we bump. Once we're aware of our environment, we'll be able to seek also the perspective which makes everything comprehensible as a whole. Note: comprehensible as a whole, not simply indistinguishable and thus blurrily seen as a whole. In other words, evolution is not reverting to blurriness but seeking the Divine perspectives from which the Whole radiates as reverberation of Idea, of meaning.

[AshvinP]

I hope this puts things in the proper perspective. Things are really complicated. We can't simply place them on a linear scale. As we see, we can reach the highest Intuition yet experience it only in its mineral aspect. So if I have understood your comment properly, this should give the answer why you feel that there's something truly fundamental in your Buddhist practice. It is really there. But must be animated, such that we can begin to explore the implicit order which can't be captured through the mineral element. Our spiritual activity must become at least fluidic in order to perceive in Imaginations, the beings and processes in the etheric and astral worlds. If we don't develop these forms of activity, the higher worlds pass through us (as they do at any point of time) without having an organ that can resonate with their nature.

I agree with you, Cleric. It's like in life when someone can be super-focused on some specific activity and develop super-skills in it, but in other areas of life may remain very underdeveloped. Buddhist are like people who came to a movie and realized that all that happens in the movie is only pictures on the screen, and so they become so absorbed with only seeing "one screen everywhere" that they lose interest and involvement with the movie. On the other hand, when people watching the movie forget or don't realize that really the whole movie is simply images on the screen, they get too absorbed with the movie, they become perceiving the movie as some kind or reality "out there" with real people/subjects, objects, interpret it in a naive-realistic way and get too much passionately involved in it (which ironically becomes very counter-productive). So what is really needed is a good balance of both - you know that it's all happening on one screen, you see and experience the oneness all the time, yet you also see, experience and stay involved in the movie, there is still a lot of value in what is going on there. And you can be involved in it in a more efficient way if you don't misinterpret it in a naive-realistic way and don't overlook the presence of the screen. I don't know if it's a good analogy, don't take it literally.

So, my take is that non-dual practices and realization are indeed important and useful, but they are just insufficient on their own for a wholistic spiritual development.

Eugene,

There appears to be a certain meeting of the minds here between you and the SS folk. Am I correct?

While I've been following the conversation with great interest, I have to admit that my comprehension of the SS posts is nowhere near 100%. I struggle to understand the many Kantian divides that appear to be hiding behind every rock. What I would appreciate is if you could provide the key insights or clarifications which have brought this level of apparent alignment between the mystic and the "phenomenologicalists".

Anthony (and Eugene),

If you look back through our many exchanges with Eugene over the last 9+ months, you will that Eugene has "met with our minds" at least 50-100x times, according to himself Consider one of his latest responses to Cleric:

And you are right about formless and forms - we've been just using different terminology pointing to the same reality all along. I was not sure what you were referring to with the word "Idea", thanks for clarifying. I think the challenge of what we are doing here is to connect the words other people are using with the actual experiential realities that they can experience from 1-st person perspective, and this is what most of the confusion is coming from.

I wasn't going to mention this, but since he is accusing me of "witch-hunting" with the Kantian divide, I think it needs to be said. This comment shows Eugene did not understand what Cleric was writing at all, especially the bold. If he had understood, the response would have read more like, "thank you Cleric, I now see how I have been employing an implicit dualism all along and abstracting 'idea' out into mineralized concepts, and now I know why there is no sense in speaking of 'Awareness' in contrast to 'Thinking'". Instead, he says, "yeah I have been saying the same thing as you guys all along, just using different words", but that is patently false. That is reflected again in his last comment to you. I would disregard all of that if I were you, because it remains a completey abstract intellectual understanding of Kantian dualism instead of a lived experience we all must contend with at all moments of our knowing lives. There are, in fact, Kantian divides "hiding behind every rock" and the person who underestimates that is only going deeper into the divide, because they are no longer on guard against how it is operating in their own experience.

It was also revealed on my Kantian essay thread, where he commented to complement the essay and then proceeded to reassert the Kantian dualism in each of his comments. I once again tried to explain this to him, but I can only assume he still does not understand what in the world we are going on about, given the "witch-hunt" comment. It brings me no pleasure to points these things out, because I genuinely want Eugene to understand. But that won't happen until some humility is developed and he recognizes that his understanding of Western idealism and spirituality is severely flawed and incomplete. He needs to become less concerned with 'saving face' on this forum and more open to the possibility that he simply does not yet understand everything about spirituality, despite his meditative experience.

[Eugene I]

PS: Another thing to note here. We can see that the Mystic approach does not particularly care whether or not there is any transcorporeal dimension of the Phenomenon that is "veiled" in the limited individual human 1-st person perception, and does not see any particular importance in "breaking" into the transcorporeal. It is perfectly fine with either. However, in the SS approach the individuated human 1-st person experience is insufficient for restoring the unity of the Idea and integration with the transcorporeal realms is necessary. This is why Cleric emphasizes the importance of such integration.

[Ben Iscatus]

Eugene, when I read Cleric once, I half understand him. When I read him twice, I don't understand him at all. I dare not read him three times, because the spell will then be complete and I will be in the wizard's thrall. So if you can translate, I'd be happy to read what you have to say.

[Eugene I]

Yeah, what I foresee happening is the opposition and the resistance in both Mystic non-dualist camp and SS camp towards each other and blaming the other camp approach as dualistic, because each camp considers its own approach sufficient to restore the unity and perfection.

[Eugene I]

Eugene, when I read Cleric once, I half understand him. When I read him twice, I don't understand him at all. I dare not read him three times, because the spell will then be complete and I will be in the wizard's thrall. So if you can translate, I'd be happy to read what you have to say.

However I translate it, it will be blamed as Kantian divide anyway, so not much point

[Cleric K]

Eugene, when I read Cleric once, I half understand him. When I read him twice, I don't understand him at all. I dare not read him three times, because the spell will then be complete and I will be in the wizard's thrall. So if you can translate, I'd be happy to read what you have to say.

That's funny
What I wrote above is probably one of the most overall and general picture of things that can be given - no convoluted thinking required.

If the metaphor about seeing a blurry picture of the world and enjoying it as it is, in comparison to grasping the inherent meaning which stands behind every phenomena, is not understood, then probably the person simply doesn't seek any meaning at all! Then any meaning will be seen as head-aching complication of the sweet blurry vision.

[Eugene I]

Alas, I would have to comment on this

First, we must realize that lifting a thought from the continuous totality doesn't mean that we're disturbing the perfect wholeness of reality. Imagine that we have really bad sight, to the extent that we see completely blurry picture, completely continuous and whole. We say "the world is perfect and whole". Yet we keep experiencing pain - we bump into objects that we don't see. Then someone gives us glasses and suddenly the world becomes differentiated for us. We can now begin to lift from the visual field perceptions and concepts. We begin to recognize the objects in which we have been bumping and which were causing us pain.

There's huge difference between recognizing the Cosmos as a Whole, and assuming that the perspective as we see it, is perfect as it is. No doubt about it - it's a question of freedom, I may prefer the blurry vision.

The approach of SS is not to ignore the holistic aspect of reality. It's precisely to unveil that aspect. I've given this example before:



The standpoint of the given is like extremely complicated geocentric picture of reality. So complicated that it is practically blurry picture or noise. And we can be perfectly content with it. Even if painful and miserable, we can say "This is the beauty of existence. It's perfect as it is".

The quest of the Spirit is not to simply make a mental model that is overlaid on top of the blurry picture in order to make it meaningful to the local intellect. It is about the realization that the Cosmos is in its very nature the expression of Idea. It's the realization that there exists a standpoint, where the Spirit stands in the Center of Creation and sees everything as completely meaningful, as reverberation of the One Idea (the formless meaningful dimension of Awareness). The blurry picture manifests only because as the Idea reverberates towards the periphery, it is possible to assume relative perspectives within the totality which present the Spirit with unique experiences of the Whole.

Cleric, I agree with that. But the point is: such wholistic perspective form the standpoint of the Spirit necessarily integrates both Mystic and SS perspectives, the existential dimensions/aspects and the dimension of Idea/meanings. It can not be otherwise. But along our individual paths we can approach it from the angle of Mystic, or from the SS angle, but at some point (if we never stop and stagnate), we will come to the point/gate of integrating them. In the metamorphic path of humanity these paths (Easter-vs-Western, Mystic vs SS) have been running in parallel without much interception so far, but at some point there will inevitably be a metamorphic event of their integration. But may be we are just too far away from it at this time, and I'm jumping ahead of time too much.