Meditation

[AshvinP]

Brief note: maybe worth specifying that by bodily sensations it's meant sensory perceptions taking place through sense organs? It may be obvious for all, but I remember it was confusing for me in the beginning.

Federica,

Since our normal habit is to limit sensory perception to the 5 'outer' senses, I think the term 'bodily sensations' helps us also encompass the sense of warmth, balance, and life that inform the intuitive context experienced by ordinary consciousness. Of course, the more 'inner' senses are generally dulled out by the outer senses in our ordinary state, but they can quite easily be traced when we stop to pay attention. We could also call these 'sensory perceptions', as long as understand they are inner senses not taking place through the familiar sense organs.

Ashvin,

I am not sure a novel reader would have a chance to grasp a reference to the 12 senses as presented by RS, just because the expression "bodily sensation" is used. My guess is that, instead, one could wonder why it's referred to things such as the sensation of our heartbeat, or the sensation of the air inflow in the lungs, things like that. But I may be wrong of course, that's why I put a question mark. (For anyone new to these things, there are still clearly separated inner and outer worlds)

In the context of this brief post by Cleric, you may be right that it is sufficient to highlight the patterns we are sucked into by ordinary sensory perceptions. For a more complete picture of our ordinary consciousness, however, I think all those bodily sensations should be understood as comprising the contents of our 'soul space'. One doesn't need to be familiar with any esoteric science to trace the sensation of warmth and balance, for ex. It is a phenomenological reality. Even the sensations of airflow and pulse are important. When our breathing changes or pulse increases, these reflect unfolding patterns of our soul-spiritual activity. All of these sensations play into our experience of our soul space and therefore our understanding of "me" and "reality" at the stage of ordinary consciousness.

[Federica]

Federica,

Since our normal habit is to limit sensory perception to the 5 'outer' senses, I think the term 'bodily sensations' helps us also encompass the sense of warmth, balance, and life that inform the intuitive context experienced by ordinary consciousness. Of course, the more 'inner' senses are generally dulled out by the outer senses in our ordinary state, but they can quite easily be traced when we stop to pay attention. We could also call these 'sensory perceptions', as long as understand they are inner senses not taking place through the familiar sense organs.

Ashvin,

I am not sure a novel reader would have a chance to grasp a reference to the 12 senses as presented by RS, just because the expression "bodily sensation" is used. My guess is that, instead, one could wonder why it's referred to things such as the sensation of our heartbeat, or the sensation of the air inflow in the lungs, things like that. But I may be wrong of course, that's why I put a question mark. (For anyone new to these things, there are still clearly separated inner and outer worlds)

In the context of this brief post by Cleric, you may be right that it is sufficient to highlight the patterns we are sucked into by ordinary sensory perceptions. For a more complete picture of our ordinary consciousness, however, I think all those bodily sensations should be understood as comprising the contents of our 'soul space'. One doesn't need to be familiar with any esoteric science to trace the sensation of warmth and balance, for ex. It is a phenomenological reality. Even the sensations of airflow and pulse are important. When our breathing changes or pulse increases, these reflect unfolding patterns of our soul-spiritual activity. All of these sensations play into our experience of our soul space and therefore our understanding of "me" and "reality" at the stage of ordinary consciousness.

Ashvin, I may have been not good enough at clarifying my point. There is misunderstanding here. I don't mean that "it is sufficient to highlight the patterns we are sucked into by ordinary sensory perceptions." I rather suspect that, by the expression "bodily sensations" the average modern person understands exclusive reference to physical sensations coming from inside the physical body, like a headache, for example. Bodily sensations. I suspect that people may not even think that bodily sensations include perceptions through the eyes, and ears, etc.
(I also keep thinking there is little chance that "bodily sensations" help realize the 12 senses are all included, because one might be unaware they exist. They are not mentioned in PoF. Their knowledge is not widespread.)

[Federica]

...
Inspiration – resonating with the intents of the beings

While in Imagination we’re lifted from suction of the pond patterns and begin to cognize the impressions of the activities of the Cosmic Intelligences (symbolized by the stars, mountains, etc. reflected in the pond) we still don’t have particularly clear idea of what and why they act in such ways. This is what we approach in Inspirative consciousness. Probably the best analogy for this is reading or the difference between hearing sounds and understanding them as words.

Of course, these are only sensory analogies. To understand this, in our ordinary cognition we have first to make very clear the distinction between the perceptual element of thoughts (for example the sounds of our thinking voice) and the inner activity that we perform in order to impress these sounds. In other places we have called these ‘thinking gestures’. Just like we can distinguish between the perceptions of our hand and the willing efforts to move it, so we should try to do the same for our thinking. This is of course much more challenging because we need special effort to observe our thinking process. In any case, it can be said that in the Imaginative state we live not only in the thinking gestures that we consider our own but we allow our thinking gestures to move together with the gestures in the environment. These of course, just like our ordinary thoughts, have their perceptual counterpart – encompassing images, weaved of color, sound and so on. Yet, these perceptual elements are not the essential thing. It is only because our transformed thinking gestures merge with those which fill the whole of Cosmic soul space, that we understand the perceptual counterpart as images of higher order reality.

I am likely misunderstanding the pink, since I read: "It's only because one attains inspirative cognition that one attains imaginative cognition". But then I wonder what I am missing. Maybe, Ashvin, you can help? Thank you!

[AshvinP]

Ashvin,

I am not sure a novel reader would have a chance to grasp a reference to the 12 senses as presented by RS, just because the expression "bodily sensation" is used. My guess is that, instead, one could wonder why it's referred to things such as the sensation of our heartbeat, or the sensation of the air inflow in the lungs, things like that. But I may be wrong of course, that's why I put a question mark. (For anyone new to these things, there are still clearly separated inner and outer worlds)

In the context of this brief post by Cleric, you may be right that it is sufficient to highlight the patterns we are sucked into by ordinary sensory perceptions. For a more complete picture of our ordinary consciousness, however, I think all those bodily sensations should be understood as comprising the contents of our 'soul space'. One doesn't need to be familiar with any esoteric science to trace the sensation of warmth and balance, for ex. It is a phenomenological reality. Even the sensations of airflow and pulse are important. When our breathing changes or pulse increases, these reflect unfolding patterns of our soul-spiritual activity. All of these sensations play into our experience of our soul space and therefore our understanding of "me" and "reality" at the stage of ordinary consciousness.

Ashvin, I may have been not good enough at clarifying my point. There is misunderstanding here. I don't mean that "it is sufficient to highlight the patterns we are sucked into by ordinary sensory perceptions." I rather suspect that, by the expression "bodily sensations" the average modern person understands exclusive reference to physical sensations coming from inside the physical body, like a headache, for example. Bodily sensations. I suspect that people may not even think that bodily sensations include perceptions through the eyes, and ears, etc.
(I also keep thinking there is little chance that "bodily sensations" help realize the 12 senses are all included, because one might be unaware they exist. They are not mentioned in PoF. Their knowledge is not widespread.)

Ok, I see what you mean. Perhaps it is a linguistic difference. For me, 'bodily sensations' quite clearly convey that we are also speaking of visual, auditory, smell, taste, and tactile sensations.

I don't think the term 'bodily sensations' conveys anything about the inner senses by itself without further ado, but I mean in the context of a post that is exploring the states of consciousness, where attention is drawn to various aspects of our normal sensory experience, I think the term 'bodily sensations' could be more helpful as a term that encompasses those aspects than 'sensory perceptions'. But I guess it's mostly a matter of preference what term will be used.

[Cleric K]

I am likely misunderstanding the pink, since I read: "It's only because one attains inspirative cognition that one attains imaginative cognition". But then I wonder what I am missing. Maybe, Ashvin, you can help? Thank you!

Moving with the thinking gestures of the Cosmos is not yet Inspirative cognition. It would be like experiencing the will forces that move the lips and tongue, and produce words which however, are still only sounds to us (like the words of a foreign language would sound to us). Inspiration adds the meaning and the sounds become words.

[Federica]

I am likely misunderstanding the pink, since I read: "It's only because one attains inspirative cognition that one attains imaginative cognition". But then I wonder what I am missing. Maybe, Ashvin, you can help? Thank you!

Moving with the thinking gestures of the Cosmos is not yet Inspirative cognition. It would be like experiencing the will forces that move the lips and tongue, and produce words which however, are still only sounds to us (like the words of a foreign language would sound to us). Inspiration adds the meaning and the sounds become words.

Allright, but then the reading analogy is confusing, or at least it is confusing to me.

In the analogy, the difference between imaginative and inspirative is like the difference between hearing sounds and understanding them as words, between perceiving and understanding the intents/meaning behind the perception.

To grasp that, you say, we have to distinguish between thought image and thinking gesture, but the confusing part is, then both are put under imagination.

In the hand analogy, the thought image/movement of the hand is the perception, and the thinking gesture/will impulse is the intent. In the reading analogy, the thought image/hearing of the sounds is perception, and the merging with the meaning/with the thinking gesture of the speaker is the intent. Then why/how, in inspirative cognition, merging with the being’s thinking gesture is not a way of resonating with their intents?

To say it bluntly (I am only trying to make my thoughts intelligible, not to be challenging) I somehow feel ‘misled’ by both analogies, while nothing is said to hint at how the resonance with the intents of the beings, inspirative cognition, comes about. Indeed, the whole paragraph is mostly about imagination again. Is it maybe that one can only really grasp the difference when one gets there?

[Cleric K]

Allright, but then the reading analogy is confusing, or at least it is confusing to me.

In the analogy, the difference between imaginative and inspirative is like the difference between hearing sounds and understanding them as words, between perceiving and understanding the intents/meaning behind the perception.

To grasp that, you say, we have to distinguish between thought image and thinking gesture, but the confusing part is, then both are put under imagination.

In the hand analogy, the thought image/movement of the hand is the perception, and the thinking gesture/will impulse is the intent. In the reading analogy, the thought image/hearing of the sounds is perception, and the merging with the meaning/with the thinking gesture of the speaker is the intent. Then why/how, in inspirative cognition, merging with the being’s thinking gesture is not a way of resonating with their intents?

To say it bluntly (I am only trying to make my thoughts intelligible, not to be challenging) I somehow feel ‘misled’ by both analogies, while nothing is said to hint at how the resonance with the intents of the beings, inspirative cognition, comes about. Indeed, the whole paragraph is mostly about imagination again. Is it maybe that one can only really grasp the difference when one gets there?

I agree, it seems that in trying to keep it short, I've glossed over this.

Maybe it would make more sense if we delaminate our thinking into three strata. First the perception. Then the gesture, which however is not yet fully meaningful. Maybe we can compare this with thinking baby-talk sounds. Or some abnormal situation when we 'think in tongues' without understanding the words. And the third would be when thoughts express concepts and ideas. Do you think this is a better analogy?

[AshvinP]

Allright, but then the reading analogy is confusing, or at least it is confusing to me.

In the analogy, the difference between imaginative and inspirative is like the difference between hearing sounds and understanding them as words, between perceiving and understanding the intents/meaning behind the perception.

To grasp that, you say, we have to distinguish between thought image and thinking gesture, but the confusing part is, then both are put under imagination.

In the hand analogy, the thought image/movement of the hand is the perception, and the thinking gesture/will impulse is the intent. In the reading analogy, the thought image/hearing of the sounds is perception, and the merging with the meaning/with the thinking gesture of the speaker is the intent. Then why/how, in inspirative cognition, merging with the being’s thinking gesture is not a way of resonating with their intents?

To say it bluntly (I am only trying to make my thoughts intelligible, not to be challenging) I somehow feel ‘misled’ by both analogies, while nothing is said to hint at how the resonance with the intents of the beings, inspirative cognition, comes about. Indeed, the whole paragraph is mostly about imagination again. Is it maybe that one can only really grasp the difference when one gets there?

I agree, it seems that in trying to keep it short, I've glossed over this.

Maybe it would make more sense if we delaminate our thinking into three strata. First the perception. Then the gesture, which however is not yet fully meaningful. Maybe we can compare this with thinking baby-talk sounds. Or some abnormal situation when we 'think in tongues' without understanding the words. And the third would be when thoughts express concepts and ideas. Do you think this is a better analogy?

Federica and Cleric,

What if we imagine a hand that is protruding from a hole in a wall? In our ordinary consciousness, the hand is completely blurry to the point where we can't even tell if it's a living hand or just some pixels moving around powered by a mechanical device. With imaginative consciousness, the hand is easily recognized as attached to a living being with definite intents, however, the gestures made by the hand remain inexplicable to us. Then with inspired consciousness, the wall is removed and we perceive a whole organic being directing the hand and this gives us clarity as to the meaning of the gestures as well. So then we can apply this analogy to the sound of a babbling brook or the growth of a plant and say imaginative experience clearly reveals to us there is intentional ideation animating the sound or growth (not just by abstract concepts), but the meaning remains obscure. Inspired experience also reveals the meaning of the underlying speech at work.

Of course, all such analogies will miss the subtle nuances of transitions within higher experience, but could this be a useful way to think about it with low/broad resolution?

[Federica]

Maybe it would make more sense if we delaminate our thinking into three strata. First the perception. Then the gesture, which however is not yet fully meaningful. Maybe we can compare this with thinking baby-talk sounds. Or some abnormal situation when we 'think in tongues' without understanding the words. And the third would be when thoughts express concepts and ideas. Do you think this is a better analogy?

Thank you for providing new analogies! I can't answer the question since I don't have experience of what is being analogized, I don't know. Mine was only a one-sided report that, from that side, something is unclear. The only thing I can say is, from my one-sided perspective, in the abnormal situation of 'thinking in tongues', I would then struggle to grasp the difference between the first two strata, since when I speak without understanding the words I am pronouncing, what do I get more than thought perception? Since it isn't acceptable to simply say that Imagination is analogized by perception and Inspiration by the meaningful gesture, maybe the explanation of why not could give some form of understanding in standard cognition?

[Federica]

Allright, but then the reading analogy is confusing, or at least it is confusing to me.

In the analogy, the difference between imaginative and inspirative is like the difference between hearing sounds and understanding them as words, between perceiving and understanding the intents/meaning behind the perception.

To grasp that, you say, we have to distinguish between thought image and thinking gesture, but the confusing part is, then both are put under imagination.

In the hand analogy, the thought image/movement of the hand is the perception, and the thinking gesture/will impulse is the intent. In the reading analogy, the thought image/hearing of the sounds is perception, and the merging with the meaning/with the thinking gesture of the speaker is the intent. Then why/how, in inspirative cognition, merging with the being’s thinking gesture is not a way of resonating with their intents?

To say it bluntly (I am only trying to make my thoughts intelligible, not to be challenging) I somehow feel ‘misled’ by both analogies, while nothing is said to hint at how the resonance with the intents of the beings, inspirative cognition, comes about. Indeed, the whole paragraph is mostly about imagination again. Is it maybe that one can only really grasp the difference when one gets there?

I agree, it seems that in trying to keep it short, I've glossed over this.

Maybe it would make more sense if we delaminate our thinking into three strata. First the perception. Then the gesture, which however is not yet fully meaningful. Maybe we can compare this with thinking baby-talk sounds. Or some abnormal situation when we 'think in tongues' without understanding the words. And the third would be when thoughts express concepts and ideas. Do you think this is a better analogy?

Federica and Cleric,

What if we imagine a hand that is protruding from a hole in a wall? In our ordinary consciousness, the hand is completely blurry to the point where we can't even tell if it's a living hand or just some pixels moving around powered by a mechanical device. With imaginative consciousness, the hand is easily recognized as attached to a living being with definite intents, however, the gestures made by the hand remain inexplicable to us. Then with inspired consciousness, the wall is removed and we perceive a whole organic being directing the hand and this gives us clarity as to the meaning of the gestures as well. So then we can apply this analogy to the sound of a babbling brook or the growth of a plant and say imaginative experience clearly reveals to us there is intentional ideation animating the sound or growth (not just by abstract concepts), but the meaning remains obscure. Inspired experience also reveals the meaning of the underlying speech at work.

Of course, all such analogies will miss the subtle nuances of transitions within higher experience, but could this be a useful way to think about it with low/broad resolution?

Thanks for your idea, Ashvin! I can't qualify your analogy. As said above, I could only tell if I had those experiences in the first place. The main difficulty I face is that as it seems, moving/merging with the being's thinking gesture doesn't allow understanding of intents. I thought it did.

Maybe it's a gradation of intensity/scope of intent that can hardly be mapped out to our standard understanding of intention, where we either grasp it or we don't?

In your example, the good point is that in imaginative cognition we see the "gesture", and we don't get its meaning. But at the same time what is the difference between perception and gesture within that level? (with the pink in mind?)
It is only because our transformed thinking gestures merge with those which fill the whole of Cosmic soul space, that we understand the perceptual counterpart as images of higher order reality.