Anthroposophy as Fascio

[Stranger]

The problem with this tripartition is that the boundary between the realm of 'immanent spiritual phenomena' and the transcendental aspect, is arbitrarily placed such that certain conscious expressions can be conveniently classified as transcendental and thus deemed unquestionable. This is such a basic thing. It's like learning to jump to a certain height and then saying "That's the boundary, anything more than that belongs to the transcendental and any attempt to jump higher would result in illusions." But how do we know that? How do we know that we haven't simply placed our own ceiling and feel comfortable that there's no point to go further in that direction?

No one here has ever denied that transcendental aspect. In fact, over and over again it is repeated that at any state, no matter how enlightened and divine, half of reality is always transcendental in relation to our perspective. Yet the nature of evolution is such that the transcendental continually turns inside out. What has formerly pulled our string subconsciously from the transcendental depths has to become clear consciousness.

For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known.
Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.

Thiis is exactly the approach of both secular and spiritual sciences: they believe that all of the reality is cognizable in principle by using their scientific method (be it secular or spiritual scientific method), it is just that not all of the reality is yet cognized. The boundary between what has been already cognized (inverted) and what is there yet to be cognized is constantly being expanded and anything existing in reality will be cognized at some point in time because it is all in principle cognizable. That is the claim and at the same time the limitation of both secular and spiritual sciences. The issue with such approach is that people who adhere to such views limit their horizon of consciousness only to the realm of phenomena within the applicability of their scientific method and deny the existence of any aspects of reality beyond it: secular scientists deny the existence of any phenomena beyond the natural phenomena of the physical world, and spiritual scientists deny the existence of any reality beyond the forms, structures, laws and curvatures of the spiritual phenomenal world. However, anyone that ever had even a glimpse of mystical experience of the transcendental aspect knows for a fact that such experience is never fully explicable by cognition and it is in principle beyond the applicability of secular or spiritual science. And it is a pity that people who adhere to such limited scientific views close to themselves the doors to the experience of transcendental, and they become the only victims of such self-limiting approach.

The problem is that with this philosophy anything can pass for transcendental. The criminal can also say that his acts are the pristine expressions of the One because before incarnation this is what the One wanted to experience. Thus everyone draws the line at their personal point of comfort and rests blissfully that they won't have to consider in depth the 'transcendental' part of their behavior because it is 'irreducible' anyway.

The nondual spiritual traditions have been aware of these potential problems and developed practices and approaches to avoid these pitfalls.
And as I said many times, the all-encompassing approach is to pursue towards both approaches: strive to expand the boundary within the realm of structures/curvatures by using spiritual scientific approach, and at the same time strive to reach to the transcendental by using the mystical approach. They never contradict to each other but go in harmony when used properly.

[Stranger]

I also very much agree with Eugene's signature quote from Rumi: "You are not a drop in the ocean, you are the ocean in a drop" I believe we see in others what we see in ourselves. Rumi saw a lot, as evidenced on the practical level that, nowadays 700 years later, this Persian mystic is America' best-selling poet. Back in his day when the rubber was meeting the road he left more than 65,000 verses of poetry. Whew, how might one contemplate that and fail to feel humble -- humble and grateful for such a gift.

If you are me and I am you,
What is this separation between you and me?
We are the light of God, we are God‛s mirror.
So why do we struggle with ourselves and with one another?

Love said to me,
there is nothing that is not me.
be silent.

Everything is painted with the brush of the invisible one.
Let us follow the signs, and find the painter.

A Lover asked her beloved, "Do you Love me more than yourself?
"More than Myself?
For sure I have no self any more
I am you already.
The "I" has gone, the "You" has come about.
Even my identity is gone.
The answer is taken for granted.
"You and I" has no meaning.
The "I" has vanished like a drop into an ocean of Honey.

Unity is what I sing.
Unity is what I speak.
Unity is what I know.
Unity is what I see.

[Cleric K]

Thiis is exactly the approach of both secular and spiritual sciences: they believe that all of the reality is cognizable in principle by using their scientific method (be it secular or spiritual scientific method), it is just that not all of the reality is yet cognized. The boundary between what has been already cognized (inverted) and what is there yet to be cognized is constantly being expanded and anything existing in reality will be cognized at some point in time because it is all in principle cognizable. That is the claim and at the same time the limitation of both secular and spiritual sciences. The issue with such approach is that people who adhere to such views limit their horizon of consciousness only to the realm of phenomena within the applicability of their scientific method and deny the existence of any aspects of reality beyond it: secular scientists deny the existence of any phenomena beyond the natural phenomena of the physical world, and spiritual scientists deny the existence of any reality beyond the forms, structures, laws and curvatures of the spiritual phenomenal world. However, anyone that ever had even a glimpse of mystical experience of the transcendental aspect knows for a fact that such experience is never fully explicable by cognition and it is in principle beyond the applicability of secular or spiritual science. And it is a pity that people who adhere to such limited scientific views close to themselves the doors to the experience of transcendental, and they become the only victims of such self-limiting approach.

The only way I can comprehend why you keep making such remarks, which run diametrically opposite to what was said just in the previous post, is that what you call 'spiritual phenomenal world' for you is simply the perceptions on the inner screen of consciousness (possibly expanded beyond the personal sphere). What you call 'forms, structures, laws and curvatures' are only sensations on that screen. And what you call cognition is really the same as the intellect (maybe only more fuzzy) which perceives these phenomena on the screen and intuits their relations (laws). In the face of such a visionary conception of the spiritual world it is completely natural that we should feel something is missing. So the logic is:
1. A visionary experience of the structures of the spiritual world is insufficient.
2. There's something more than this.
3. Yet this something is unknowable (only tangentially graspable in the inexplicable nondual state, as you wrote to Lorenzo)
4. Thus anyone who speaks more concretely of this something is by definition lost in the visionary state where he cognizes the perceptions of curvatures and forms and thus continually misses the nondual reality of the something (because it is not to be found on the screen).

[Stranger]

The only way I can comprehend why you keep making such remarks, which run diametrically opposite to what was said just in the previous post, is that what you call 'spiritual phenomenal world' for you is simply the perceptions on the inner screen of consciousness (possibly expanded beyond the personal sphere). What you call 'forms, structures, laws and curvatures' are only sensations on that screen. And what you call cognition is really the same as the intellect (maybe only more fuzzy) which perceives these phenomena on the screen and intuits their relations (laws). In the face of such a visionary conception of the spiritual world it is completely natural that we should feel something is missing. So the logic is:
1. A visionary experience of the structures of the spiritual world is insufficient.
2. There's something more than this.
3. Yet this something is unknowable (only tangentially graspable in the inexplicable nondual state, as you wrote to Lorenzo)
4. Thus anyone who speaks more concretely of this something is by definition lost in the visionary state where he cognizes the perceptions of curvatures and forms and thus continually misses the nondual reality of the something (because it is not to be found on the screen).

No, the WC not only includes "simply the perceptions on the inner screen of consciousness" but also the whole realm of ideas, meanings and beings available to higher order levels of cognition. Do not assume that those levels of cognition are only accessible to the practitioners of anthroposophy, that would be a very arrogant assumption.

The transcendental aspect is not "something more than this but I don't know what". It can be directly experienced as reality, but still ineffable to any faculties of cognition. "Unutterable, ineffable; beyond Mind, beyond Life, beyond Being" (Dionysius the Areopagite). Unfortunately, those who deny its existence can never experience it because by their very denial and lack of faith they close the door that leads to this experience. This is why the importance of having faith is so much emphasized in all spiritual traditions, because it is faith that opens the door for the soul to the experience of transcendental.

Ironically, this dialog almost exactly resembles a dialog with materialists who deny the reality of anything beyond the natural world of material phenomena that they believe is entirely cognizable by natural sciences. They have logically strong and almost impenetrable line of argumentation and defenses around their core materialistic beliefs, so arguing with them is usually a waste of time. The same goes with spiritual scientists who are essentially "spiritual materialists".

[Lou Gold]

The only way I can comprehend why you keep making such remarks, which run diametrically opposite to what was said just in the previous post, is that what you call 'spiritual phenomenal world' for you is simply the perceptions on the inner screen of consciousness (possibly expanded beyond the personal sphere). What you call 'forms, structures, laws and curvatures' are only sensations on that screen. And what you call cognition is really the same as the intellect (maybe only more fuzzy) which perceives these phenomena on the screen and intuits their relations (laws). In the face of such a visionary conception of the spiritual world it is completely natural that we should feel something is missing. So the logic is:
1. A visionary experience of the structures of the spiritual world is insufficient.
2. There's something more than this.
3. Yet this something is unknowable (only tangentially graspable in the inexplicable nondual state, as you wrote to Lorenzo)
4. Thus anyone who speaks more concretely of this something is by definition lost in the visionary state where he cognizes the perceptions of curvatures and forms and thus continually misses the nondual reality of the something (because it is not to be found on the screen).

No, the WC not only includes "simply the perceptions on the inner screen of consciousness" but also the whole realm of ideas and meanings available to higher order levels of cognition. Do not assume that those levels of cognition are only accessible to the practitioners of anthroposophy, that would be a very arrogant assumption.

The transcendental aspect is not "something more than this but I don't know what". It can be directly experienced as reality, but still ineffable to any faculties of cognition. "Unutterable, ineffable; beyond Mind, beyond Life, beyond Being" (Dionysius the Areopagite). Unfortunately, those who deny its existence can never experience it because by their very denial and lack of faith they close the door that leads to this experience. This is why the importance of having faith is so much emphasized in all spiritual traditions, because it is faith opens the door for the soul to the experience of transcendental.

Ironically, this dialog almost exactly resembles a dialog with materialists who deny the reality of anything beyond the natural world of material phenomena that they believe is entirely cognizable by natural sciences. They have logically strong and almost impenetrable line of argumentation and defenses around their core materialistic beliefs, so arguing with them is usually a waste of time. The same goes with spiritual scientists who are essentially "spiritual materialists".

Trungpa wrote a good book about "spiritual materialism."

I also suspect that there's an additional problem somehow rooted in ontology as fundamental finding. It's really difficult for an idealist of any flavor to accept the possibility of things being an ineffable, paradoxical, mysterious mix of either/or and both/and, which can be celebrated joyously and creatively.

A standard trope often offered in response to "oneness" is "if the perennial wisdom is true for all, why have so few attained it?" This thinking seems as an artifact of investment in a hierarchical view focused on competing individuals. Only one gold star per event is what allows the perfect to be used to defeat the good. Sure, Christ is the Lord of Love and Light but this does not mean we can't offer a gold star every time anyone on any path is loving or wise. Aurobindo rightfully pointed out that the so-called 'inversion' can also go from transcendence to immanence. VIVA! The extraordinary ordinary. VIVA! Diversity.

[AshvinP]

The only way I can comprehend why you keep making such remarks, which run diametrically opposite to what was said just in the previous post, is that what you call 'spiritual phenomenal world' for you is simply the perceptions on the inner screen of consciousness (possibly expanded beyond the personal sphere). What you call 'forms, structures, laws and curvatures' are only sensations on that screen. And what you call cognition is really the same as the intellect (maybe only more fuzzy) which perceives these phenomena on the screen and intuits their relations (laws). In the face of such a visionary conception of the spiritual world it is completely natural that we should feel something is missing. So the logic is:
1. A visionary experience of the structures of the spiritual world is insufficient.
2. There's something more than this.
3. Yet this something is unknowable (only tangentially graspable in the inexplicable nondual state, as you wrote to Lorenzo)
4. Thus anyone who speaks more concretely of this something is by definition lost in the visionary state where he cognizes the perceptions of curvatures and forms and thus continually misses the nondual reality of the something (because it is not to be found on the screen).

No, the WC not only includes "simply the perceptions on the inner screen of consciousness" but also the whole realm of ideas, meanings and beings available to higher order levels of cognition. Do not assume that those levels of cognition are only accessible to the practitioners of anthroposophy, that would be a very arrogant assumption.

You often mention that higher cognitive path is also necessary for wholesome development. But there is no indication that you yourself take any interest in it or pursue it, for one thing because many of your comments conclude the exact opposite of higher cognitive research. When questioned on this, you start to say practically everything practiced by other paths, or particularly the path you are on, is also higher cognition. If this is so, then you should be able to provide some examples from these other higher cognitive paths of what precisely happens across the threshold of death. What happens to the subtle bodies as they depart the physical body? I'm not asking for some general abstract description, but a first-person account of how it is experienced from the POV of the departed soul. I'm also not asking for an NDE account, since that is obviously experienced without intention and proper training. You can quote another source if you prefer. But not Steiner, since we are trying to establish the other non-Anthroposophical methods you speak of also lead to genuine higher cognitive experience.

[Cleric K]

No, the WC not only includes "simply the perceptions on the inner screen of consciousness" but also the whole realm of ideas and meanings available to higher order levels of cognition. Do not assume that those levels of cognition are only accessible to the practitioners of anthroposophy, that would be a very arrogant assumption.

The transcendental aspect is not "something more than this but I don't know what". It can be directly experienced as reality, but still unknowable to any faculties of cognition. Unfortunately, those who deny its existence can never experience it because by their very denial and lack of faith they close the door that leads to this experience. This is why the importance of having faith is so much emphasized in all spiritual traditions.

Ironically, this dialog almost exactly resembles a dialog with materialists who deny the reality of anything beyond the natural world of material phenomena that they believe is entirely cognizable by natural sciences. They have logically strong and almost impenetrable line of argumentation and defenses around their core materialistic beliefs, so arguing with them is usually a waste of time.

The issue is not that the transcendent is denied but that you twist its nature in whatever way you see fit. Currently you say "It can be directly experienced as reality, but still unknowable to any faculties of cognition." And we're back in first grade where we were trying to show that it makes no sense to separate experiencing/awareness from knowing/intuition. Without knowing (cognition) you wouldn't be aware that you have experienced the transcendental state. We've been through this million times.

Then you turn around and say "Oh, of course that the transcendent can be known/cognized, it's only that this knowing is completely incompatible with the intellect and higher cognition. Yet after death, when we're on the other side of the orthogonality, it will be as clear as speech to us. The only thing that the Earthly intellect can capture from these experiences is that some inexplicable state exists, pervaded with the feeling/intuition of Oneness."

Which leads us to the recurring point: it is admitted that knowing exists at all levels but a boundary is placed which separates anything that can be known on Earth from the knowing of the transcendental (which you claim is also nondually structured, meaningful, full of beings and so on). When this is taken as a hard fact, then the modes of higher cognition of which modern Initiation speaks, are automatically assumed to reach only up to the boundary of the transcendent because you have defined that it is impossible to know anything of that domain in a way that can be conceptualized and communicated even in the most crude outlines (not in order to reduce it and demean it but only as a way for the intellect to have meaningful relation with its reality, instead of simply collapsing at the boundary).

OK, there's no need to continue with this. Let's just accept that we hold conflicting views and only time will tell which is right.
1. You accept that there's cognition/knowing all along the full gradient of existence but in the Earthly state our intellect is orthogonally incompatible with any intuition that can be known in the transcendental (except for the most general intuition that the transcendent exists and we're all one). For this reason, it automatically follows that whatever one may discover in the Earthly state, is by definition assumed to be only some patterns of meaning/ideas (even if 'higher') which are on our side of the orthogonality.
2. Initiatic science shows - not in a theoretical but in practical way - that the inexplicable knowing that you see as transcendent, is bridgeable to the intellect and in this way we can understand how the transcendental realms play out in our Earthly existence, how the manifested proceeds from the transcendental. In other words, we can live in the mystical state and grasp from there something more than the asymptotic intuition that sums it up as 'it's all one'.

It is very simple disagreement and we can simply accept it.

[Stranger]

OK, there's no need to continue with this. Let's just accept that we hold conflicting views and only time will tell which is right.
1. You accept that there's cognition/knowing all along the full gradient of existence but in the Earthly state our intellect is orthogonally incompatible with any intuition that can be known in the transcendental (except for the most general intuition that the transcendent exists and we're all one). For this reason, it automatically follows that whatever one may discover in the Earthly state, is by definition assumed to be only some patterns of meaning/ideas (even if 'higher') which are on our side of the orthogonality.
2. Initiatic science shows - not in a theoretical but in practical way - that the inexplicable knowing that you see as transcendent, is bridgeable to the intellect and in this way we can understand how the transcendental realms play out in our Earthly existence, how the manifested proceeds from the transcendental. In other words, we can live in the mystical state and grasp from there something more than the asymptotic intuition that sums it up as 'it's all one'.

It is very simple disagreement and we can simply accept it.

The transcendent experience can indeed be reflected by cognition, which is simply a recognition of its presence and of its certain attributes, and in that sense it is bridgeable. Cognition then acquires intuitive meanings that reflect the reality of transcendent and attaches some linguistic terms to it. In a way, these meanings become a "shell" that embraces the "pearl" of the transcendent, but the "shell" is never the same as the "pearl". This is how we can speak of the transcendent, describe it with words and build some kind of bridge between the transcendent and cognition. But anyone who actually had such experience knows for a fact that all those meanings and their structures and all those descriptions are only pointers to the reality of the transcendent and can never fully comprehend and exhaustively describe its reality. This is because the transcendent by its nature is not a meaning, not an ideation, not a structure, but it is THAT which creates meanings, structures and ideations and experiences them, but something that is prior to and beyond any meanings, structures and ideations. In simple words, God is not the same as the meaning or the idea of God. Still, there is nothing wrong to have meanings/ideas of God to serve as "bridges" that deliver us to God, as long as we do not confuse the meanings of God with God himself, just like we should not confuse the map with the territory, or the finger pointing to the Moon with the Moon. And your #1 is irrelevant because all of this has nothing to do with the Earthly state, the ineffability of transcendent is not due to the limitations of the Earthly state.

But yes, let's just agree to disagree at this point.

[Lou Gold]

Cleric,

As I reflected on "Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism" I wondered why you prompted a very deus ex machina imageto represent "rotating soul organs"? Am I visually misunderstanding?

[Cleric K]

The transcendent experience can indeed be reflected by cognition, which is simply a recognition of its presence and of its certain attributes, and in that sense it is bridgeable. Cognition then acquires intuitive meanings that reflect the reality of transcendent and attaches some linguistic terms to it. In a way, these meanings become a "shell" that embraces the "pearl" of the transcendent, but the "shell" is never the same as the "pearl". This is how we can speak of the transcendent, describe it with words and build some kind of bridge between the transcendent and cognition. But anyone who actually had such experience knows for a fact that all those meanings and their structures and all those descriptions are only pointers to the reality of the transcendent and can never fully comprehend and exhaustively describe its reality. This is because the transcendent by its nature is not a meaning, not an ideation, not a structure, but it is THAT which creates meanings, structures and ideations and experiences them, but something that is prior to and beyond any meanings, structures and ideations. In simple words, God is not the same as the meaning or the idea of God. Still, there is nothing wrong to have meanings/ideas of God to serve as "bridges" that deliver us to God, as long as we do not confuse the meanings of God with God himself, just like we should not confuse the map with the territory, or the finger pointing to the Moon with the Moon.

If that's the case then where does the orthogonality manifests? At what point our transcendental intuitions become impossible to point at with concepts and words (thus they remain inexplicable even for our own human self)?