Is it just me who is going through a lot of existential angst about idealism?

[mikekatz]

Hi Cleric
If "...the Earthly state is indeed an octave within a higher world...", then there are multiple states and multiple worlds. And a separate experiencer of these. If you wish to call the whole shebang One World, that's okay by me, but once again it's dualism.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that if you have non-dual experiences you are referring to above, that this is the end of the road as far as development is concerned. It may be, it may not be. But first, you have to actually get there, and have the experiences, and then see what else, if anything, happens. Furthermore, such experiences always bring positive changes when you are back in dualism. Your whole attitude to life, love, suffering, and others, changes. You see more, because you become more. And if this is what you and Ashvin are referring to in terms of coming to more understanding in our lives, then once again we are talking about the same thing in different language.

Mike, maybe it will help if you explain what exactly non-dual implies for you. In the way you use it, I get the feeling that it is really only a label for experiences which in previous discussions we called 'stepping out of the movie' (when we commented Gurdjieff's self-remembrance). This should be cleared out because for many people the non dual state represents a state where there's no longer distinction between self and world. But the question that I ask every time (and never really get adequate answer) is, if there's really no longer distinction between self and world, why do we still experience the world from a very specific perspective? For example, if I step out of the movie and call that being one with the world, how do I explain the fact that I still see the movie from the eyes of my Earthly human body? Why not see the movie from the eyes for all beings simultaneously? If I'm still seeing the world from particular set of eyes, then what is my relation to all other eyes?

These are random question, I'm not asking to answer them all. I just wanted to show that there's much ambiguity in the usage of non-dual in our age. For many, simply feeling blissful and carefree is equivalent to non-dual. So it would be useful to tell what exactly non-dual means to you.

Hi Cleric
Thanks for your continuing efforts, and Ashvin's.

But the question that I ask every time (and never really get adequate answer) is, if there's really no longer distinction between self and world, why do we still experience the world from a very specific perspective? For example, if I step out of the movie and call that being one with the world, how do I explain the fact that I still see the movie from the eyes of my Earthly human body? Why not see the movie from the eyes for all beings simultaneously? If I'm still seeing the world from particular set of eyes, then what is my relation to all other eyes?

I have no inkling whatsoever how it is to permanently step out of the movie, or even whether it's possible. I have read how some sages have decided to return or not remain in that state in order to help us. But I have no knowledge of this.

What I do experience, as many others do, is that one can step out of the movie. I don't want to waste your time, but I'm trying to answer your question you say you never get an answer to.

The first way for me, is Gurdjieff's Self-Remembering. In this state, the movie continues to play, but you are aware of the fact that it's a movie. You are aware of being aware. You are still in a dual state, but you're aware of that fact. You experience duality. This is opposed to what we normally call our waking state, where we do not experience duality. In the normal state, we experience the world without experiencing ourselves. We just experience what happens in front of us, without us being there. Gurdjieff calls it waking-sleep, because we forget to include ourselves.
Clearly in this first state there's no possibility of experiencing the world through others' eyes.

The second way. Once one experiences duality via self-remembering / mindfulness or whatever name you give it, you can then, by shifting attention back, by asking who is experiencing, etc., (these are just metaphors), and by grace, find that sometimes the duality just drops away and what's there is an indescribable and wholly-positive everythingness. In that state, there's no longer an experience through even Mike's eyes, never mind anyone else's.
And because there's no Mike, "you" "realise" that this is the background to everything and everyone in the normal dual state of existence. And for want of a better way to say it, I use the word non-dual.

So I'm actually mystified why you think it should be possible to see the movie from any or all others' eyes. If there's duality, there is one's own eyes, and if there is no duality, there are no eyes. Your very framing of this question and anticipation of any kind of answer is itself steeped in duality.

Cleric and Ashvin, please forgive me for not pursuing your other answers in the rest of this conversation. We are clearly seeing things through very different eyes , and I don't wish to waste either of your time.

[Cleric K]

So i am still unclear of what you are suggesting, if one wanted to do what is right and good, you are saying there exists in the World forms and ideas that can guide us - appreciating and utilizing these forms and ideas - isn’t this what you meaning by ‘thinking’?

Phrased like this it is much more correct. In your previous post you spoke about 'calculating' the right and good, which is altogether different thing (and much what current science tries to achieve).

It's important, though, to realize that these 'forms and ideas' are not simply simply inert concepts used to organize labor, distribution of goods, legislation and politics. It is the living understanding of what our human state really is, how to navigate it, how to unfold it. Just as we have more or less some knowledge of how to feed our body, so we need new knowledge about nourishing our soul and spirit. We need to learn how to move our thoughts, how to move our feelings, how to move our will. All of these are whole worlds with their laws, rhythms, principles.

[lorenzop]

Re stepping out the ‘movie’ it’s not difficult or counter intuitive. Essentially, begin with your life right now as it is and add unbounded knowing presence of being.
There is no stepping out or banishment of thought, etc., it is simply adding unbounded knowing presence of being.
We’ve all had glimpses of this when doing something we love, or with someone we love and time passes in a gentle selfless manner-not spaced out-some may call it being in flow or flourishing.
We simply need more familiarity with Being, it proceeds naturally with more glimpses of clarity,

[lorenzop]

So i am still unclear of what you are suggesting, if one wanted to do what is right and good, you are saying there exists in the World forms and ideas that can guide us - appreciating and utilizing these forms and ideas - isn’t this what you meaning by ‘thinking’?

Phrased like this it is much more correct. In your previous post you spoke about 'calculating' the right and good, which is altogether different thing (and much what current science tries to achieve).

It's important, though, to realize that these 'forms and ideas' are not simply simply inert concepts used to organize labor, distribution of goods, legislation and politics. It is the living understanding of what our human state really is, how to navigate it, how to unfold it. Just as we have more or less some knowledge of how to feed our body, so we need new knowledge about nourishing our soul and spirit. We need to learn how to move our thoughts, how to move our feelings, how to move our will. All of these are whole worlds with their laws, rhythms, principles.

You may not like the word ‘calculate’ or ‘compute’ but you are implying conscious activity and participation with existing subtle ideas and forms. Aren’t you describing a world as information?

[Hedge90]

Hi Cleric
If "...the Earthly state is indeed an octave within a higher world...", then there are multiple states and multiple worlds. And a separate experiencer of these. If you wish to call the whole shebang One World, that's okay by me, but once again it's dualism.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that if you have non-dual experiences you are referring to above, that this is the end of the road as far as development is concerned. It may be, it may not be. But first, you have to actually get there, and have the experiences, and then see what else, if anything, happens. Furthermore, such experiences always bring positive changes when you are back in dualism. Your whole attitude to life, love, suffering, and others, changes. You see more, because you become more. And if this is what you and Ashvin are referring to in terms of coming to more understanding in our lives, then once again we are talking about the same thing in different language.

Mike, maybe it will help if you explain what exactly non-dual implies for you. In the way you use it, I get the feeling that it is really only a label for experiences which in previous discussions we called 'stepping out of the movie' (when we commented Gurdjieff's self-remembrance). This should be cleared out because for many people the non dual state represents a state where there's no longer distinction between self and world. But the question that I ask every time (and never really get adequate answer) is, if there's really no longer distinction between self and world, why do we still experience the world from a very specific perspective? For example, if I step out of the movie and call that being one with the world, how do I explain the fact that I still see the movie from the eyes of my Earthly human body? Why not see the movie from the eyes for all beings simultaneously? If I'm still seeing the world from particular set of eyes, then what is my relation to all other eyes?

These are random question, I'm not asking to answer them all. I just wanted to show that there's much ambiguity in the usage of non-dual in our age. For many, simply feeling blissful and carefree is equivalent to non-dual. So it would be useful to tell what exactly non-dual means to you.

Hi Cleric
Thanks for your continuing efforts, and Ashvin's.

But the question that I ask every time (and never really get adequate answer) is, if there's really no longer distinction between self and world, why do we still experience the world from a very specific perspective? For example, if I step out of the movie and call that being one with the world, how do I explain the fact that I still see the movie from the eyes of my Earthly human body? Why not see the movie from the eyes for all beings simultaneously? If I'm still seeing the world from particular set of eyes, then what is my relation to all other eyes?

I have no inkling whatsoever how it is to permanently step out of the movie, or even whether it's possible. I have read how some sages have decided to return or not remain in that state in order to help us. But I have no knowledge of this.

What I do experience, as many others do, is that one can step out of the movie. I don't want to waste your time, but I'm trying to answer your question you say you never get an answer to.

The first way for me, is Gurdjieff's Self-Remembering. In this state, the movie continues to play, but you are aware of the fact that it's a movie. You are aware of being aware. You are still in a dual state, but you're aware of that fact. You experience duality. This is opposed to what we normally call our waking state, where we do not experience duality. In the normal state, we experience the world without experiencing ourselves. We just experience what happens in front of us, without us being there. Gurdjieff calls it waking-sleep, because we forget to include ourselves.
Clearly in this first state there's no possibility of experiencing the world through others' eyes.

The second way. Once one experiences duality via self-remembering / mindfulness or whatever name you give it, you can then, by shifting attention back, by asking who is experiencing, etc., (these are just metaphors), and by grace, find that sometimes the duality just drops away and what's there is an indescribable and wholly-positive everythingness. In that state, there's no longer an experience through even Mike's eyes, never mind anyone else's.
And because there's no Mike, "you" "realise" that this is the background to everything and everyone in the normal dual state of existence. And for want of a better way to say it, I use the word non-dual.

So I'm actually mystified why you think it should be possible to see the movie from any or all others' eyes. If there's duality, there is one's own eyes, and if there is no duality, there are no eyes. Your very framing of this question and anticipation of any kind of answer is itself steeped in duality.

Cleric and Ashvin, please forgive me for not pursuing your other answers in the rest of this conversation. We are clearly seeing things through very different eyes , and I don't wish to waste either of your time.

I'm honestly confused by what you're saying Mike. You say you reach this state where you realise that there's no eyes, only the seeing, so there's no "you" who has the eyes, and no "others" who see through different eyes. But the feeling of unity aside, you realise that the experience you are having at that moment is an experience from a specific perspective, right? Even if there's no "you" and no "others", there's still a multitude of experience, as this unity is experienced from different perspectives, which, for the sake of simplicity and given the limitations of language, we can call "through your eyes" and "through others' eyes".
(I'm going of the assumption that you don't actually mean that there's no experience at all other than THE experience you are having, because then you wouldn't bother writing on the forum.)

[Cleric K]

Thanks Mike. I can fully relate to the examples that you have given.

So I'm actually mystified why you think it should be possible to see the movie from any or all others' eyes. If there's duality, there is one's own eyes, and if there is no duality, there are no eyes. Your very framing of this question and anticipation of any kind of answer is itself steeped in duality.

Why should that be mystifying? Think about it. Entering the state of case 2) you lose all sense of Mike or anyone else. It's the background of everything and everyone. On entering and leaving that state you enter and leave Mike's eyes. Let's picture that very vividly. At one instance you're in the ethereal boundless realm, without any identity, only eternal awareness, then you 'zoom into' Mike's eyes and see the world through the prism of his consciousness. You can do this as many times as need - zoom out, zoom in.

Now the fact is that you always zoom back in the same pair of eyes - Mike's. You don't zoom into someone else's consciousness. You wonder why would I ask about such a thing. Well you said it yourself. The zoomed out state is the background of everything and everyone. So it is only natural that from this background you should be able to peek through the eyes of everyone. If you can't do that, it means that in the zoomed out state you're experiencing only a small area of the background, which still couples closely with Mike's eyes. Do you see what I mean? The point is that this zoomed out state is still only a certain perspective of the background consciousness (even though no longer felt to have anything to do with Mike). This impersonal perspective is still closely tied with Mike's eyes (even though not apparent in the zoomed out state) and that's why you keep zooming into the same pair of eyes every time - Mike's. In other words, the zoomed out state is indeed of Cosmic nature, but it is still only an island within the Cosmic background - even though we feel that this island is continuous with the ocean. And even though this island no longer has any hint of Mike-ness, it is still in certain relations to other similar islands, whose perspective will zoom in and out of other pairs of eyes.

Do you see the contradiction here? It makes no sense to claim that the zoomed out state is the background of everything and everyone if you can't zoom in into another pair of eyes. Now if you say that your zoomed out state is part (or more correctly - a certain perspective) of the background fabric of everything and everyone - that's a completely different story and it is what I described above. So let's get that cleared out.

[lorenzop]

In adding unbounded knowing presence of being, there is no loss, there in no giving up this or bandaging of anything

[Cleric K]

Re stepping out the ‘movie’ it’s not difficult or counter intuitive. Essentially, begin with your life right now as it is and add unbounded knowing presence of being.
There is no stepping out or banishment of thought, etc., it is simply adding unbounded knowing presence of being.
We’ve all had glimpses of this when doing something we love, or with someone we love and time passes in a gentle selfless manner-not spaced out-some may call it being in flow or flourishing.
We simply need more familiarity with Being, it proceeds naturally with more glimpses of clarity,

No one disputes this. No one says anything against the unbounded being. That's what the talks about the shared spiritual world are all about.
The whole point is that we can grow consciously into this boundless world, where World Thoughts weave, which shape reality on larger scale.

In other words, it's not simply to know as a general feeling that our existence is part of a boundless sea but to gain understanding of the laws, rhythms, dynamics of that sea, how our spirit exists in that sea, and how our intellectual thinking is only a crystalized form of that higher freer activity within the sea.

That's the whole message - that our intellectual thinking is only a crystalized form of our first-person spiritual activity, whose homeland is the boundless sea that you talk about. But it is not enough that the crystalized ego simply acknowledges the feeling of that boundless see. The goal is 'melt' the rigid crystal intellectual forms, such that our spirit can move in a much more fluidic way (which is a form of higher thinking, higher cognition) within the boundless sea.

[lorenzop]

In the yogic tradition there is Patanjali and his sutras, both re the practice of yoga and also development of Siddhis. His Siddhis are approximately the same capabilities and enhanced cognition as you are describing. I will attempt to layout the differences between the practices when I have time-assuming I can understand your approach.

[AshvinP]

So i am still unclear of what you are suggesting, if one wanted to do what is right and good, you are saying there exists in the World forms and ideas that can guide us - appreciating and utilizing these forms and ideas - isn’t this what you meaning by ‘thinking’?

Phrased like this it is much more correct. In your previous post you spoke about 'calculating' the right and good, which is altogether different thing (and much what current science tries to achieve).

It's important, though, to realize that these 'forms and ideas' are not simply simply inert concepts used to organize labor, distribution of goods, legislation and politics. It is the living understanding of what our human state really is, how to navigate it, how to unfold it. Just as we have more or less some knowledge of how to feed our body, so we need new knowledge about nourishing our soul and spirit. We need to learn how to move our thoughts, how to move our feelings, how to move our will. All of these are whole worlds with their laws, rhythms, principles.

You may not like the word ‘calculate’ or ‘compute’ but you are implying conscious activity and participation with existing subtle ideas and forms. Aren’t you describing a world as information?

Lorenzo (and others),

What if what we call "information" is the mineralized form of living activity that gives rise to what we dimly know as "ideals" and "morals"? Not our cultural assessment of what is "good" for any particular person at any particular time (usually only ourselves), but what universally has inspired and comforted the human soul throughout ages of physical hardship? Even if we cannot name it and describe it with intellectual propositions and mathematical formulas, we know these qualities of moral meaning intuitively. These qualities also precipitate as what is beautiful and true. The latter then precipitates much further down the spectrum as what we call "information" in the modern calculating sense.

I think it's helpful to remember that what we are speaking of is radically different than anything we are used to in the modern age. It's radically different understanding of the Cosmos than materialism, scientism, analytic idealism, modern mysticism, religious fundamentalism, post modernism, and many similar things. There is curious thing where people are first bewildered by the arguments and then, once Cleric has illustrated them with much metaphorical precision and clarity, the sentiment is that he's not really saying anything too novel or unfamiliar.

Who says the Cosmos is woven through moral ideas within its highest strata which have logical continuity with the relations between dust molecules on our carpet? And, that humans, with their own logical reasoning faculty, which permeates all modes of cognition, can trace back that continuity in precise resolution? So I think it needs to be admitted this is something we haven't heard, that logical arguments are being presented to illustrate its immanent verifiability through each individual's intimate spiritual activity, and that oscillating between declaring it incomprehensible and ancient wisdom we have heard a million times is not really sensible approach to it.