Clairvoyance is too easy. Anybody can claim clairvoyance so everything they say is beyond argument. It's even easier if the realized "truths" can't be tested objectively and can only be understood by those who have already bought into the entire philosophy. If you are not understanding, it's because you haven't developed the spiritual organs sufficiently or you're blocked by karmic impurities from previous lives. It's never because the entire framework and belief system is invalid.
It's like the hilarious thread on this forum about why reincarnated people don't usually have memories of previous lives. It doesn't occur to anybody that maybe reincarnation doesn't actually exist and that's why there are no memories? The parsimonious explanation.
As I said, I can see the appeal for some people. People want to think themselves special so belonging to a cult for the spiritually evolved - the special visionaries of our age - will appeal to some people.
Steiner may have some good insights here and there but there is too much other stuff for me to give it much serious consideration.
Jim, the reincarnation topic was started by me, and my default stance is "there is no reincarnation". It's dishonest to paint it as if this possibility "didn't occur to anybody". I, and apparently, others too, are simply willing to entertain in other possibilities, if someone can present convincing rationale for them. Which, to be honest, seems to not be the case with you, based on your activity on this forum. You have your convictions and are not open to entertaining other points of view if that would mean you'd have to detach from certain axioms you hold as absolute truth.
I'm quite willing to entertain other possibilities too. I just need some evidence beyond that it is a "feel good" idea. What feels good to one might not feel good to another. Why would I want to experience a thousand lifetimes to become enlightened?
To tie it back to the Steiner comments:
Reincarnation in particular has a strong association with the Indian caste system as an explanation for worldly disparities in wealth and fortune. It is a segregation and classification of people that also lies at the foundation of Steiner's thought, which is why some find his views racist. I'm not a fan of the "ladder" view of life that classifies everyone by spiritual evolution (based on whose conception?) and thinks our job is to move up the ladder through toil and suffering which apparently we must be experiencing since we are below the top rung.
I want immediate enlightenment, not the kind that requires a thousand lifetimes or that requires learning Steiner or anybody else.
Jim,
I have to give you props for coming out and saying bluntly what is often going through people's minds when considering spiritual science You are at least pretty conscious of what remains subconscious for most.
Most will not admit it is born of this egoic craving of the modern age for everything "now, now, now!". As Cleric often points out, we want to be top-level knowers at the very apex of evolution, with no "rungs" above us. We want Godel's infinite candy shop all to ourselves and in the next few years, months, weeks, moments. Cosmic space is flattened into 2-D, Cosmic time is contracted to a single point.
Besides that, Steiner's view of reincarnation is quite different than most Eastern views. Of course, one would only know that if they took the time to look into it, prior to assuming it is the same and dismissing it on that faulty basis.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
Most will not admit it is born of this egoic craving of the modern age for everything "now, now, now!". As Cleric often points out, we want to be top-level knowers at the very apex of evolution, with no "rungs" above us.
Unfortunately, I can't shake the feeling that wanting to get to some sort of apex of evolution ever is an egoic wet dream. To what end? So that we can run our own universe as a God? I prefer to see myself as a humble dream avatar inside the mind God who will soon be at an end (thank God).
Most will not admit it is born of this egoic craving of the modern age for everything "now, now, now!". As Cleric often points out, we want to be top-level knowers at the very apex of evolution, with no "rungs" above us.
Unfortunately, I can't shake the feeling that wanting to get to some sort of apex of evolution ever is an egoic wet dream. To what end? So that we can run our own universe as a God? I prefer to see myself as a humble dream avatar inside the mind God who will soon be at an end (thank God).
Practically, I agree. I simply want to get to the next possible stage of evolution. My reasoning makes me quite confident there are beings at higher stages of development and there are no arbitrary limits inherent to Reality which prevent me from working on my own evolution right now. The end of that is pretty simple - to know more about the worlds which weave together my daily experience and therefore make better informed decisions going forward, so I am not going off of mere preferences and beliefs.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
Most will not admit it is born of this egoic craving of the modern age for everything "now, now, now!". As Cleric often points out, we want to be top-level knowers at the very apex of evolution, with no "rungs" above us.
Unfortunately, I can't shake the feeling that wanting to get to some sort of apex of evolution ever is an egoic wet dream. To what end? So that we can run our own universe as a God? I prefer to see myself as a humble dream avatar inside the mind God who will soon be at an end (thank God).
Exactly my feeling. For many there is a desire for closure, an urge to reach some final summit, where everything is known and all is well. That urge comes from ignorance.. It is exactly the ignorance that binds us to samsara. The goal of the Buddha isn't to be reincarnated. It is to stop being reincarnated.
BTW, "Zen" is in the title of this thread. The basis of Zen is the rejection of the ladder approach to spirituality.
Jim Cross wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 1:54 pm
Exactly my feeling. For many there is a desire for closure, an urge to reach some final summit, where everything is known and all is well. That urge comes from ignorance.. It is exactly the ignorance that binds us to samsara. The goal of the Buddha isn't to be reincarnated. It is to stop being reincarnated.
BTW, "Zen" is in the title of this thread. The basis of Zen is the rejection of the ladder approach to spirituality.
Carlo Rovelli wrote:"I believe that one of the greatest mistakes made by human beings is to want certainties when trying to understand something"
I find both approaches limited, they represent only certain limited views and positions. One (ladder spirituality) limits itself to evolution within the samsaric ignorance of self-identified dualistic forms of consciousness and clinging to the desire for closure (samsaric extreme). The view that the One fragments itself into ignorant pieces only in order to evolve and bring itself back to the oneness seems meaningless. The other is a rejection of any evolutionary and developmental approach and taking a "flat", rejectionist and indifferent position with respect to the world of forms (nirvanic extreme).
IMO there is a way beyond these extremes without falling into both the samsaric ignorance and the nirvanic rejection that entail in full participation in life of forms and their development without being locked into dualistic ignorance, self-identification and clinging to desires for closure, yet without rejection of the world of forms and its developmental processes. The motivation of this approach is creativity. Consciousness possesses an amazing creative ability to create and explore the unlimited universe of mental forms (artistic, musical, intellectual, emotional, imaginative, etc). It creates the realms and worlds of forms within itself and explores them, but it also learns and evolves as a byproduct of this process. It creates not to find the closure (because, as Godel showed, there is no closure to be reached in the world of forms), not to climb up the ladder of spiritual development (even though it happens anyway as a byproduct of the creative activity), but just for the sake of the curiosity and creativity and the beauty of it.
Jim Cross wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 1:54 pm
Exactly my feeling. For many there is a desire for closure, an urge to reach some final summit, where everything is known and all is well. That urge comes from ignorance.. It is exactly the ignorance that binds us to samsara. The goal of the Buddha isn't to be reincarnated. It is to stop being reincarnated.
BTW, "Zen" is in the title of this thread. The basis of Zen is the rejection of the ladder approach to spirituality.
Carlo Rovelli wrote:"I believe that one of the greatest mistakes made by human beings is to want certainties when trying to understand something"
I find both approaches limited, they represent only certain limited views and positions. One (ladder spirituality) limits itself to evolution within the samsaric ignorance of self-identified dualistic forms of consciousness and clinging to the desire for closure (samsaric extreme). The view that the One fragments itself into ignorant pieces only in order to evolve and bring itself back to the oneness seems meaningless. The other is a rejection of any evolutionary and developmental approach and taking a "flat", rejectionist and indifferent position with respect to the world of forms (nirvanic extreme).
IMO there is a way beyond these extremes without falling into both the samsaric ignorance and the nirvanic rejection that entail in full participation in life of forms and their development without being locked into dualistic ignorance, self-identification and clinging to desires for closure, yet without rejection of the world of forms and its developmental processes. The motivation of this approach is creativity. Consciousness possesses an amazing creative ability to create and explore the unlimited universe of mental forms (artistic, musical, intellectual, emotional, imaginative, etc). It creates the realms and worlds of forms within itself and explores them, but it also learns and evolves as a byproduct of this process. It creates not to find the closure (because, as Godel showed, there is no closure to be reached in the world of forms), not to climb up the ladder of spiritual development (even though it happens anyway as a byproduct of the creative activity), but just for the sake of the curiosity and creativity and the beauty of it.
Eugene,
We have all generally agreed to the above. The question remains, can we, as active participants in the evolutionay process, discover the lawful structure through which this endless creativity unfolds? If not, why not? Are we consigned to forever conceive of it in the most generalized and abstract concepts of the intellect? If not, then how do we go about uncovering more precisely the lawful creative structure of the Cosmic evolution? What are the concrete steps we can take to move in the right direction, i.e. to harmonize our own thinking, feeling, and willing with the Cosmic ideational process?
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
AshvinP wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 3:48 pm
We have all generally agreed to the above. The question remains, can we, as active participants in the evolutionay process, discover the lawful structure through which this endless creativity unfolds? If not, why not? Are we consigned to forever conceive of it in the most generalized and abstract concepts of the intellect? If not, then how do we go about uncovering more precisely the lawful creative structure of the Cosmic evolution? What are the concrete steps we can take to move in the right direction, i.e. to harmonize our own thinking, feeling, and willing with the Cosmic ideational process?
As a non-philosopher lurker I've found this thread fascinating and find Ashvin's formulation of the evolutionary challenge as right on. I believe the participatory path to uncovering more precisely the lawful creative structure of the Cosmic evolution is Love, which of course will reveal itself through the karma and conditions (set and setting) of the individual participant. I'm not certain but I think this is the bottom line point of agreement among the great spiritual traditions as well, from Jesus saying at the end of the Last Supper that his final message was, "Love one another" to the present Dalai Lama saying, "My religion is kindness." In brief, Love is the practice in process that reveals the laws of participatory creative co-arising and yields a great diversity of forms.
PPS: The venerable zen master and activist Thich Nhat Hanh has crossed to the other side at age 95. His message about gathering more and more information seems relevant:
[In 2013, on one of his many visits to centers of influence in the West, he spoke at Google’s headquarters in Silicon Valley, bringing his message of quiet contemplation to the forefront of the high-energy digital age.
“We have the feeling that we are overwhelmed by information,” he told the assembled workers. “We don’t need that much information.”
And he said: “Do not try to find the solution with your thinking mind. Nonthinking is the secret of success. And that is why the time when we are not working, that time can be very productive, if we know how to focus on the moment.”/i]
PPPS: Following the advice given by Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas and applying it to Consciousness, I see thinking as 'movement' and nonthinking as 'repose':
(50) Jesus said, "If they say to you, 'Where did you come from?', say to them, 'We came
from the light, the place where the light came into being on its own accord and
established itself and became manifest through their image.' If they say to you, 'Is it
you?', say, 'We are its children, we are the elect of the living father.' If they ask you,
'What is the sign of your father in you?', say to them, 'It is movement and repose.'"
Be calm - Be clear - See the faults - See the suffering - Give your love
You are at least pretty conscious of what remains subconscious for most. 