KASTRUP AND SHELDRAKE ON THE COSMIC MIND

[Lou Gold]

I believe in karma but not if I personally am an intended or unintended pawn in the karmic drama. All I can say is, "Thy will be done."

I don't understand your logic here, Lou. To me it reads like:
"I believe that the universe is not pure noise, there are some lawful connections, but I don't believe that human beings have any conscious or subconscious role in this. All I can say is, whatever happens, happens."

Can you explain more about "but not if I personally am an intended or unintended pawn in the karmic drama"?

Cleric,

Yep, I did I very poor job of communicating here. Your lack of understanding is quite understandable. I'll need a bit of time to contemplate a better explanation but will get back to you.

[Cleric K]

When we speak of karma, our speech and writing will sound like materialism . . . whether we speak of karma as a force, or as a principle governed by spiritual beings. This is because we have to allow errors to enter our speech in order to have a conversation.
My description of karma may sound like duality or materialism because a conversation of karma requires a dose of ignorance - pure non-duality or unity does not allow for karma.
Our only other alternative is to chant OM and sit in silence. The trick is being consistent with the concessions we allow in our speech.
Re specific phrases you use above, like 'intrinsic Cosmic phenomena', 'spiritual order' . . . I don't use such phrases and don't know what you are referring to.

Speaking of skillful evasive maneuvers...

BTW when you say that these terms make no sense to you, is this an invitation to explain them more or it's rather "Don't bother explaining them because this will only make them nonsense squared "

[lorenzop]

You could make a case for the advantage or necessity of archetypical beings in an explanation of karma, technically it's not my duty to argue in opposition since it's your claim.

Re the above 'nonsense phrases' - my experience is that your (and Ashwin) explanations require even more nonsense

[Lou Gold]

I believe in karma but not if I personally am an intended or unintended pawn in the karmic drama. All I can say is, "Thy will be done."

I don't understand your logic here, Lou. To me it reads like:
"I believe that the universe is not pure noise, there are some lawful connections, but I don't believe that human beings have any conscious or subconscious role in this. All I can say is, whatever happens, happens."

Can you explain more about "but not if I personally am an intended or unintended pawn in the karmic drama"?

Cleric,

Yep, I did I very poor job of communicating here. Your lack of understanding is quite understandable. I'll need a bit of time to contemplate a better explanation but will get back to you.

I'm challenged to find the 'right' language. I see an error. I did not mean to say "but not if I personally am an intended or unintended pawn in the karmic drama" but rather "but not that I personally am an intended or unintended pawn in the karmic drama". Does this help?

What I mean i that the universe is lawful (thy will be done) and that if I act lawfully or unlawfully will place me in a category (like murderers) that will have consequences for many and not just for me personally.

[Lou Gold]

I don't understand your logic here, Lou. To me it reads like:
"I believe that the universe is not pure noise, there are some lawful connections, but I don't believe that human beings have any conscious or subconscious role in this. All I can say is, whatever happens, happens."

Can you explain more about "but not if I personally am an intended or unintended pawn in the karmic drama"?

Cleric,

Yep, I did I very poor job of communicating here. Your lack of understanding is quite understandable. I'll need a bit of time to contemplate a better explanation but will get back to you.

I'm challenged to find the 'right' language. I see an error. I did not mean to say "but not if I personally am an intended or unintended pawn in the karmic drama" but rather "but not that I personally am an intended or unintended pawn in the karmic drama". Does this help?

What I mean i that the universe is lawful (thy will be done) and that if I act lawfully or unlawfully will place me in a category (like murderers) that will have consequences for many and not just for me personally.

Well, well, well. This doesn't eally work for me either. The problem is simply that I've had too many personal experiences to feel that this stuff is impersonal. Thanks for catching it in your way Cleric.

[Cleric K]

I'm challenged to find the 'right' language. I see an error. I did not mean to say "but not if I personally am an intended or unintended pawn in the karmic drama" but rather "but not that I personally am an intended or unintended pawn in the karmic drama". Does this help?

What I mean i that the universe is lawful (thy will be done) and that if I act lawfully or unlawfully will place me in a category (like murderers) that will have consequences for many and not just for me personally.

Yes, this does help. Indeed, karma is not some strictly personal thing. It's not like there's some universal file record where we read: "Soul #98753092374537, has so many sins and good deeds on both sides of its balance sheet". Karma is a living process, meaningful interaction between our ideal intents and actions, and the totality of Cosmic Intelligence. Planting the wrong kind of seed along other cultures can lead to suboptimal results (for example planting a walnut tree where we hope to grow tomatoes). In the same manner, everything that we think, feel and do radiates in the living spiritual environment, we continually plant seeds. Karma is simply the result of all this activity, and clearly it affects not only us but the whole.

But the key is that we introduce unnecessary dualism when we imagine that thoughts and ideas exist only in human heads while Nature is driven by mindless mechanical laws (even if we imagine them to be of psychic substance). In the spirit of Federica's post, we should conceive that just as iron filings align with magnetic lines of force, so the flow of existence is aligned with ideal streamlines.



That is, karma, destiny, evolution as a whole, are not simply blind processes of trial and error but something that is meaningful. The dream flows along meaningful ideal streamlines. For example, karma is not simply some mechanical outcome but in the period between death and new birth, it is possible to see how our qualities, moral or immoral forces, have worked out in the general flow. From that Cosmic perspective the aspects that need to be perfected and harmonized become apparent. This is not a mechanical process but meaningful (even though in a very different form compared to our intellect), just like in a creative process we live in meaning and we can see how our technique should be modified in certain ways if we are to make artistic forms that better express our inspirations.

Such Cosmic realizations become the general ideal lines within which the destiny of the next life will flow. This doesn't exclude our freedom. This is what the soul intends from a much higher perspective, but once in the body we can easily become distracted, get drunk and deviate. That's why while we're still very unconscious about this process, most karmic forces manifest through suffering. It is as if our conscientious soul thinks to itself in the spiritual world: "I know that when you go down in the physical spectrum, you'll quickly get drunk and forget everything that you now see as necessary for the Divine evolutionary process. For this reason, I'm taking more radical measures and I'll intend going through these painful experiences because only that will be able to wake me up."

It's worth noting that finding this conscience in the spiritual world is also a matter of evolutionary progress. There could be souls which are blind for the evolutionary process and thus can't intuit what their development needs. In such cases, higher Intelligences have the leading role. They may bend the ideal streamlines of destiny such that certain lessons can be learned. Without this, the soul will degrade more and more, just like a child which is given unlimited access to candies and video games will degrade more and more unless a wiser power intervenes.

[Cleric K]

You could make a case for the advantage or necessity of archetypical beings in an explanation of karma, technically it's not my duty to argue in opposition since it's your claim.

Then maybe you can make a case about the nature of mindless/mechanical processes (because this is not as self-evident as many believe).

We need to make a very subtle but very important distinction here. In reality, we have no direct evidence of anything of mechanical nature. What we have direct evidence of, is the metamorphosis of our conscious contents (perceptions, sensations, feelings) which we do not understand and for which we have no idea how and why they appear, transform, and disappear. As a matter of fact, as we have said a million times, the only thing for which we have some idea for its appearance, transformation, and disappearance, is our willful thinking.

Would you agree that the more certain thing, is to say that we simply don't know how and why most of our existence metamorphoses? Would you agree that by declaring that the processes are mindless and mechanical we're actually going beyond the direct experience? In fact, by saying such a thing we practically 'explain' the world by introducing a mechanical and mindless ghost into Nature. It's one thing to observe the facts but quite another to introduce an explanatory ghost. For example, we can see billiard balls ricocheting in waking life or while dreaming. These are the bare perceptual facts. It immediately becomes apparent, however, how in trying to explain the facts, we're going in quite speculative directions if we declare that our dream billiard balls are governed by mechanical laws.

See, the difference is subtle but tremendously important. Do you sense the difference between not yet knowing the true nature of what makes the world metamorphose, and assuming that these metamorphoses are driven by mindless/mechanical laws? Do you sense that in the latter case we add a layer of superstition on top of the direct experience?

I repeat that the key here is not to conflate the simple and repeatable perceptions of the hitting balls, with the idea that there's some mindless and mechanical Nature behind these appearances. The latter idea simply does not follow automatically from the perceptions.

[Lou Gold]

I'm challenged to find the 'right' language. I see an error. I did not mean to say "but not if I personally am an intended or unintended pawn in the karmic drama" but rather "but not that I personally am an intended or unintended pawn in the karmic drama". Does this help?

What I mean i that the universe is lawful (thy will be done) and that if I act lawfully or unlawfully will place me in a category (like murderers) that will have consequences for many and not just for me personally.

Yes, this does help. Indeed, karma is not some strictly personal thing. It's not like there's some universal file record where we read: "Soul #98753092374537, has so many sins and good deeds on both sides of its balance sheet". Karma is a living process, meaningful interaction between our ideal intents and actions, and the totality of Cosmic Intelligence. Planting the wrong kind of seed along other cultures can lead to suboptimal results (for example planting a walnut tree where we hope to grow tomatoes). In the same manner, everything that we think, feel and do radiates in the living spiritual environment, we continually plant seeds. Karma is simply the result of all this activity, and clearly it affects not only us but the whole.

But the key is that we introduce unnecessary dualism when we imagine that thoughts and ideas exist only in human heads while Nature is driven by mindless mechanical laws (even if we imagine them to be of psychic substance). In the spirit of Federica's post, we should conceive that just as iron filings align with magnetic lines of force, so the flow of existence is aligned with ideal streamlines.



That is, karma, destiny, evolution as a whole, are not simply blind processes of trial and error but something that is meaningful. The dream flows along meaningful ideal streamlines. For example, karma is not simply some mechanical outcome but in the period between death and new birth, it is possible to see how our qualities, moral or immoral forces, have worked out in the general flow. From that Cosmic perspective the aspects that need to be perfected and harmonized become apparent. This is not a mechanical process but meaningful (even though in a very different form compared to our intellect), just like in a creative process we live in meaning and we can see how our technique should be modified in certain ways if we are to make artistic forms that better express our inspirations.

Such Cosmic realizations become the general ideal lines within which the destiny of the next life will flow. This doesn't exclude our freedom. This is what the soul intends from a much higher perspective, but once in the body we can easily become distracted, get drunk and deviate. That's why while we're still very unconscious about this process, most karmic forces manifest through suffering. It is as if our conscientious soul thinks to itself in the spiritual world: "I know that when you go down in the physical spectrum, you'll quickly get drunk and forget everything that you now see as necessary for the Divine evolutionary process. For this reason, I'm taking more radical measures and I'll intend going through these painful experiences because only that will be able to wake me up."

It's worth noting that finding this conscience in the spiritual world is also a matter of evolutionary progress. There could be souls which are blind for the evolutionary process and thus can't intuit what their development needs. In such cases, higher Intelligences have the leading role. They may bend the ideal streamlines of destiny such that certain lessons can be learned. Without this, the soul will degrade more and more, just like a child which is given unlimited access to candies and video games will degrade more and more unless a wiser power intervenes.

I believe Sheldrake would basically agree wit what you've said. He see all nature as alive (for example, the sun is a living being). However, he considers himself as a cosmo-panpsychist. Can you describe specifically where you disagree with him?

[Cleric K]

I believe Sheldrake would basically agree wit what you've said. He see all nature as alive (for example, the sun is a living being). However, he considers himself as a cosmo-panpsychist. Can you describe specifically where you disagree with him?

I'm not familiar with Sheldrake's work in great depth, but from what I have encountered, I wouldn't say that I disagree with him. For example, his morphogenetic fields can very well be considered as synonymous with what in Western esoterism is called etheric forces.

The difference would only come when we consider the method of knowing. It's obvious that in our ordinary consciousness we have no sense organ for morphic fields. We know only the bodily senses. Thus when we speak of them, they become abstract theories, they remain only as thoughts in our intellect. So I wouldn't say that I disagree with him but only that if these things are not to remain abstractions, we need also the method Initiation. Man has to find lucid consciousness in the strata where these fields are found as ideal reality, just like we find our thoughts and ideas as reality.

If we speak with Sheldrake and he's honest and good-willed, he would have to say "I don't deny that human consciousness can grow into these spiritual depths of existence, but I don't consider it my mission to go in that direction and lead others. I confine myself in spreading intellectual awareness". And that's fine. Such intellectual works can and in a sense must appear in the historical process of humankind. It's only that they should be understood as a prelude to the actual expansion of consciousness into the full spectrum of reality. If they are not understood in this way, they become an obstacle to the development of the human being. Then it would be appropriate to say: “Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves [in the Kingdom of God], and those who were entering in you hindered.” (Luke 11:52)

[Lou Gold]

I believe Sheldrake would basically agree wit what you've said. He see all nature as alive (for example, the sun is a living being). However, he considers himself as a cosmo-panpsychist. Can you describe specifically where you disagree with him?

I'm not familiar with Sheldrake's work in great depth, but from what I have encountered, I wouldn't say that I disagree with him. For example, his morphogenetic fields can very well be considered as synonymous with what in Western esoterism is called etheric forces.

The difference would only come when we consider the method of knowing. It's obvious that in our ordinary consciousness we have no sense organ for morphic fields. We know only the bodily senses. Thus when we speak of them, they become abstract theories, they remain only as thoughts in our intellect. So I wouldn't say that I disagree with him but only that if these things are not to remain abstractions, we need also the method Initiation. Man has to find lucid consciousness in the strata where these fields are found as ideal reality, just like we find our thoughts and ideas as reality.

If we speak with Sheldrake and he's honest and good-willed, he would have to say "I don't deny that human consciousness can grow into these spiritual depths of existence, but I don't consider it my mission to go in that direction and lead others. I confine myself in spreading intellectual awareness". And that's fine. Such intellectual works can and in a sense must appear in the historical process of humankind. It's only that they should be understood as a prelude to the actual expansion of consciousness into the full spectrum of reality. If they are not understood in this way, they become an obstacle to the development of the human being. Then it would be appropriate to say: “Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves [in the Kingdom of God], and those who were entering in you hindered.” (Luke 11:52)

OK, this is a good progress in the dialogue, I believe. Would it be fair to say that there is a divine as well as a vulgar(dysfunctional) version of the diversity of ways and means?