KASTRUP AND SHELDRAKE ON THE COSMIC MIND

[Stranger]

No it's not a whole different discussion. This mindset reveals the core issue - and duality - from yet another angle. Preliminary philosophical speculation to "clear the (intellectual) way" is arbitrarily kept separate from the direct inner experience that should realize that same way. Then, the absolute impossibility to connect the dots and experience true experiential depth, in interconnection with the inner layers of reality, is 'remedied' by the smoke and mirrors of the many paths: just pick the one that works for you, mix and match the "tools", both/and, and so on and so forth.

That's a dead end, Eugene.
You are holding yourself stuck in an absolute impossibility of making progress. Please unstuck yourself.

You are right, the philosophical and experiential aspects should not be separate, but should be applied in integration with each other reinforcing each other. What I meant is that the discussion of the practical methods is a different topic (which we are discussing here now anyway).

[Lou Gold]

Ashvin says:

So which is it, Eugene, is the 'direct method' sufficient or not? Is it sufficient for developing the love and compassion to simply treat each other more kindly? Then what is the purpose of the intuitive and imaginative abilities of thinking? Let's remember, St. Francis of Assisi didn't simply go around using the medicines of his time to heal people, but drew on completely unsuspected spiritual forces for healing through the Christ impulse. These healing forces are nothing other than the higher cognitive forces. They are one and the same thing. If we don't arbitrarily segregate these forces into exploring the 'dual realm' or 'mundane realm', because we fundamentally misunderstand their nature, then we too can participate in channeling those healing forces into the karmic organism of humanity.

Lou asks:

Seems that the "bad guys" also draw upon archetypal forces such as Satan or malicious beings from the Underworld. "Beyond the self" does not necessarily imply healing or more loving. Thinking matters in all directions. How would you express your view without the duality of verbal language?

[Federica]

No it's not a whole different discussion. This mindset reveals the core issue - and duality - from yet another angle. Preliminary philosophical speculation to "clear the (intellectual) way" is arbitrarily kept separate from the direct inner experience that should realize that same way. Then, the absolute impossibility to connect the dots and experience true experiential depth, in interconnection with the inner layers of reality, is 'remedied' by the smoke and mirrors of the many paths: just pick the one that works for you, mix and match the "tools", both/and, and so on and so forth.

That's a dead end, Eugene.
You are holding yourself stuck in an absolute impossibility of making progress. Please unstuck yourself.

You are right, the philosophical and experiential aspects should not be separate, but should be applied in integration with each other reinforcing each other. What I meant is that the discussion of the practical methods is a different topic (which we are discussing here now anyway).

"should be applied in integration with each other reinforcing each other" is a suspicious expression, I really doubt you mean anything precise with these labels. There's nothing to be "applied" in integration with something else, there is only one experiencable path of progression that realizes true knowing. I guess and hope this is the reason why you're here.

[Lou Gold]

No it's not a whole different discussion. This mindset reveals the core issue - and duality - from yet another angle. Preliminary philosophical speculation to "clear the (intellectual) way" is arbitrarily kept separate from the direct inner experience that should realize that same way. Then, the absolute impossibility to connect the dots and experience true experiential depth, in interconnection with the inner layers of reality, is 'remedied' by the smoke and mirrors of the many paths: just pick the one that works for you, mix and match the "tools", both/and, and so on and so forth.

That's a dead end, Eugene.
You are holding yourself stuck in an absolute impossibility of making progress. Please unstuck yourself.

You are right, the philosophical and experiential aspects should not be separate, but should be applied in integration with each other reinforcing each other. What I meant is that the discussion of the practical methods is a different topic (which we are discussing here now anyway).

"should be applied in integration with each other reinforcing each other" is a suspicious expression, I really doubt you mean anything precise with these labels. There's nothing to be "applied" in integration with something else, there is only one experiencable path of progression that realizes true knowing. I guess and hope this is the reason why you're here.

Would it help to just say, "We should all seek balance and how much of one or the other practice is a function of the person in context." In other words, "No one size fits all or always." Sometimes it's "Don't worry, let it flow." Sometimes it's "Be aware and guide your flow." In a car, it's ok to fall asleep but not in the drivers seat.

[AshvinP]

Ashvin says:

So which is it, Eugene, is the 'direct method' sufficient or not? Is it sufficient for developing the love and compassion to simply treat each other more kindly? Then what is the purpose of the intuitive and imaginative abilities of thinking? Let's remember, St. Francis of Assisi didn't simply go around using the medicines of his time to heal people, but drew on completely unsuspected spiritual forces for healing through the Christ impulse. These healing forces are nothing other than the higher cognitive forces. They are one and the same thing. If we don't arbitrarily segregate these forces into exploring the 'dual realm' or 'mundane realm', because we fundamentally misunderstand their nature, then we too can participate in channeling those healing forces into the karmic organism of humanity.

Lou asks:

Seems that the "bad guys" also draw upon archetypal forces such as Satan or malicious beings from the Underworld. "Beyond the self" does not necessarily imply healing or more loving. Thinking matters in all directions. How would you express your view without the duality of verbal language?

Exactly, which is why cognitive growth into the higher worlds is critical. The bad guys, including Satan himself, are not cognitively aware of how the imaginative life is structured by higher ideal streamlines of destiny. They can't see how their decisions fit into the much more encompassing goals of the progressive hierarchies. And that is simply a Macrocosmic image of humanity today. We traverse the labyrinth of the inner life with little clue of how our intents, thoughts, feelings, and actions feedback to and feed-forward from the depths of spiritual reality, precipitating in the sensory domain as all manner of disharmonious relations, i.e. cruelty, illness, misfortune, and war. The more we cognitively attune to the ideal streamlines, the more we can channel the healing forces that work toward Cosmically redemptive goals into the Earthly domain. This is the deeper meaning of manifesting the 'new Heaven and new Earth'. This is no abstract utopian fantasy, but simply a more lucid consciousness of how reality has evolved from time immemorial.

Duality does not reside in verbal language, but rather in our soul-life that wishes to keep its fundamental Being compartmentalized from its Earthly experiences and tasks. This is what we have seen expressed in many comments here - there is a time for philosophy and thinking, to help clear the weeds so to speak, and then a time to leave the forum and do the 'real inner work' that leads to inner growth and flowering. Things can be stated this way only to a limited extent. That is because the process of explicating our intuitive orientation and sharing it with others is critical for expanding that intuition and for the Cosmic redemptive tasks that genuine spirituality seeks to fulfill. In fact, verbal language is instrumental for reconciling the Earthly experience with Cosmic Being because it helps us evaluate and course-correct from disharmonious soul tendencies that we normally flow along with as individuals and collectives.

Language is only a problem when we are not cognitively centered in the intuitive depth structure of existence, so we start to treat the linguistic symbols as realities that refer to some 'real world' or 'Being' on the 'other side' of our cognitive soul life. Then we obscure the fact that our cognitive soul life is entirely concentric with Being as such and the sensory and linguistic symbols are testimonies for the higher-order currents of intuitive activity from which they condensed. They provide critical feedback on how to better harmonize our activity with those currents, just as bumping our leg into something gives us feedback to adjust our inner state to be more attentive and present in our movements. Verbal language is feedback for our thinking movements and the more we exercise it, the more 'data' we have to work with in fine-tuning our thinking instrument by which we link with Divine intents.

[ScottRoberts]

If you look into your direct experience, you will not find any "real I" other than your idea of "I". The idea that there is some "I" behind the actions that cannot know itself "just like an eye that cannot see itself" is only an abstract idea that we have been conditioned to believe in. Essentially it's no different than the idea of "matter" which somehow exists "out there" but cannot be directly experienced. If there is something you cannot find in your direct conscious experience, it means that there is simply no ground to believe that it actually exists. This applies to the abstract idea of a spaghetti monster, the abstract idea of matter, this also applies to the abstract idea of "I".

This is bad ontology, in the sense that if one denies the reality of the "I" one cannot explain ordinary experience.

I define the human "I" as that which connects the many experiences of a particular human into a particular stream of awareness. Without the "I" (the connecting) there would be no memory, and no language, indeed, no stream. It differentiates humans from other animals.

And note, there would also be no conscience, so an I-less ontology does not explain morality.

When looked directly into the actual facts of conscious experience, all that can be found is only Aware-Thinking-Willing (ATW) manifesting thoughts and actions.

An "ATW manifesting" is also not found. Only the thoughts and actions are found. So you should be rejecting ATW as well.

Moreover, if we assume that there exists the "I"-entity and that this "I" is universal for all sentient beings, then we run into a logical contradiction. How come if there is only one "I", then one sentient being does not experience the thoughts and perceptions of any other sentient being? If there is only one "I" which knows and experiences everything, then all knowledge and experiences would necessarily have to be shared and integrated into a single stream of conscious knowledge-experience.

So don't assume it. My I connects my experiences. Yours with yours.

[Stranger]

If you look into your direct experience, you will not find any "real I" other than your idea of "I". The idea that there is some "I" behind the actions that cannot know itself "just like an eye that cannot see itself" is only an abstract idea that we have been conditioned to believe in. Essentially it's no different than the idea of "matter" which somehow exists "out there" but cannot be directly experienced. If there is something you cannot find in your direct conscious experience, it means that there is simply no ground to believe that it actually exists. This applies to the abstract idea of a spaghetti monster, the abstract idea of matter, this also applies to the abstract idea of "I".

This is bad ontology, in the sense that if one denies the reality of the "I" one cannot explain ordinary experience.

I define the human "I" as that which connects the many experiences of a particular human into a particular stream of awareness. Without the "I" (the connecting) there would be no memory, and no language, indeed, no stream. It differentiates humans from other animals.

And note, there would also be no conscience, so an I-less ontology does not explain morality.

When looked directly into the actual facts of conscious experience, all that can be found is only Aware-Thinking-Willing (ATW) manifesting thoughts and actions.

An "ATW manifesting" is also not found. Only the thoughts and actions are found. So you should be rejecting ATW as well.

Moreover, if we assume that there exists the "I"-entity and that this "I" is universal for all sentient beings, then we run into a logical contradiction. How come if there is only one "I", then one sentient being does not experience the thoughts and perceptions of any other sentient being? If there is only one "I" which knows and experiences everything, then all knowledge and experiences would necessarily have to be shared and integrated into a single stream of conscious knowledge-experience.

So don't assume it. My I connects my experiences. Yours with yours.

So, it seems that you are suggesting that each sentient being has an ontological entity that you call "I" which is "that" which "connects the many experiences of a particular human into a particular stream of awareness", that which is the agent of actions etc? And each being has its own "I" different from the "I"s of other beings? So, now there is a multiplicity of ontological entities in the universe? This doesn't look like a monistic ontology.

But anyway, my approach is anti-ontological meaning that I don't assume an existence of any "ontological entities" at all. For me existence is tautological with presence in the direct conscious experience. The experiences of a particular human are connected into a particular stream of awareness, this unified stream is just present here and now in the direct experience, it is where the agency occurs and experienced, including moral actions, so all aspects of aware-thinking-willing are present in the direct experience here and now as a fact. The aware-thinking-willing with all forms that it creates is the "bottom of reality" and there is no further explanation needed. Linguistically we can label it as "I" as a brief substitute for such long sentence. But there is no need to assume an existence of some ontologically eternally existing entity called "I", just like there is no need to assume ontological existence of matter to account for the natural perceptual phenomena observed in our stream of consciousness.

IMO any ontology is equally bad. I believe you are aware of the Madhyamaka philosophy (the middle way, Nagarjuna etc) that rejects the "extremist" views of eternalism (ontological existence of entities) and nihilism (claim that nothing exists at all). Another way to say it is that "ontological existence" is a concept that can be questioned, but "presence in direct experience" is an undeniable fact of experience and hence cannot be questioned.

[Lou Gold]

Ashvin says:

So which is it, Eugene, is the 'direct method' sufficient or not? Is it sufficient for developing the love and compassion to simply treat each other more kindly? Then what is the purpose of the intuitive and imaginative abilities of thinking? Let's remember, St. Francis of Assisi didn't simply go around using the medicines of his time to heal people, but drew on completely unsuspected spiritual forces for healing through the Christ impulse. These healing forces are nothing other than the higher cognitive forces. They are one and the same thing. If we don't arbitrarily segregate these forces into exploring the 'dual realm' or 'mundane realm', because we fundamentally misunderstand their nature, then we too can participate in channeling those healing forces into the karmic organism of humanity.

Lou asks:

Seems that the "bad guys" also draw upon archetypal forces such as Satan or malicious beings from the Underworld. "Beyond the self" does not necessarily imply healing or more loving. Thinking matters in all directions. How would you express your view without the duality of verbal language?

Exactly, which is why cognitive growth into the higher worlds is critical. The bad guys, including Satan himself, are not cognitively aware of how the imaginative life is structured by higher ideal streamlines of destiny. They can't see how their decisions fit into the much more encompassing goals of the progressive hierarchies. And that is simply a Macrocosmic image of humanity today. We traverse the labyrinth of the inner life with little clue of how our intents, thoughts, feelings, and actions feedback to and feed-forward from the depths of spiritual reality, precipitating in the sensory domain as all manner of disharmonious relations, i.e. cruelty, illness, misfortune, and war. The more we cognitively attune to the ideal streamlines, the more we can channel the healing forces that work toward Cosmically redemptive goals into the Earthly domain. This is the deeper meaning of manifesting the 'new Heaven and new Earth'. This is no abstract utopian fantasy, but simply a more lucid consciousness of how reality has evolved from time immemorial.

Duality does not reside in verbal language, but rather in our soul-life that wishes to keep its fundamental Being compartmentalized from its Earthly experiences and tasks. This is what we have seen expressed in many comments here - there is a time for philosophy and thinking, to help clear the weeds so to speak, and then a time to leave the forum and do the 'real inner work' that leads to inner growth and flowering. Things can be stated this way only to a limited extent. That is because the process of explicating our intuitive orientation and sharing it with others is critical for expanding that intuition and for the Cosmic redemptive tasks that genuine spirituality seeks to fulfill. In fact, verbal language is instrumental for reconciling the Earthly experience with Cosmic Being because it helps us evaluate and course-correct from disharmonious soul tendencies that we normally flow along with as individuals and collectives.

Language is only a problem when we are not cognitively centered in the intuitive depth structure of existence, so we start to treat the linguistic symbols as realities that refer to some 'real world' or 'Being' on the 'other side' of our cognitive soul life. Then we obscure the fact that our cognitive soul life is entirely concentric with Being as such and the sensory and linguistic symbols are testimonies for the higher-order currents of intuitive activity from which they condensed. They provide critical feedback on how to better harmonize our activity with those currents, just as bumping our leg into something gives us feedback to adjust our inner state to be more attentive and present in our movements. Verbal language is feedback for our thinking movements and the more we exercise it, the more 'data' we have to work with in fine-tuning our thinking instrument by which we link with Divine intents.

WOW!

[lorenzop]

So which is it, Eugene, is the 'direct method' sufficient or not? Is it sufficient for developing the love and compassion to simply treat each other more kindly? Then what is the purpose of the intuitive and imaginative abilities of thinking? Let's remember, St. Francis of Assisi didn't simply go around using the medicines of his time to heal people, but drew on completely unsuspected spiritual forces for healing through the Christ impulse. These healing forces are nothing other than the higher cognitive forces. They are one and the same thing. If we don't arbitrarily segregate these forces into exploring the 'dual realm' or 'mundane realm', because we fundamentally misunderstand their nature, then we too can participate in channeling those healing forces into the karmic organism of humanity.

The way to love and compassion is through more Being. The field of action is too complex and bewildering to love and compassion through a specific way of thinking or feeling.

[ScottRoberts]

So, it seems that you are suggesting that each sentient being has an ontological entity that you call "I" which is "that" which "connects the many experiences of a particular human into a particular stream of awareness", that which is the agent of actions etc? And each being has its own "I" different from the "I"s of other beings? So, now there is a multiplicity of ontological entities in the universe? This doesn't look like a monistic ontology.

There are a multiplicity of entities in reality. There is you, and there is me, and there is an apple. Apparently by "ontological entity" you mean something (or non-thing) that is eternal and omnipresent. Well, ok, by that definition then an "I" is not an ontological entity, since my "I" is distinguishable from "everything". But it is real, since without it I wouldn't be able to use the word 'apple' (or the word 'I'), and wouldn't know what I had for breakfast.

But anyway, my approach is anti-ontological meaning that I don't assume an existence of any "ontological entities" at all. For me existence is tautological with presence in the direct conscious experience. The experiences of a particular human are connected into a particular stream of awareness, this unified stream is just present here and now in the direct experience, it is where the agency occurs and experienced, including moral actions, so all aspects of aware-thinking-willing are present in the direct experience here and now as a fact. The aware-thinking-willing with all forms that it creates is the "bottom of reality" and there is no further explanation needed. Linguistically we can label it as "I" as a brief substitute for such long sentence. But there is no need to assume an existence of some ontologically eternally existing entity called "I", just like there is no need to assume ontological existence of matter to account for the natural perceptual phenomena observed in our stream of consciousness.

IMO any ontology is equally bad. I believe you are aware of the Madhyamaka philosophy (the middle way, Nagarjuna etc) that rejects the "extremist" views of eternalism (ontological existence of entities) and nihilism (claim that nothing exists at all). Another way to say it is that "ontological existence" is a concept that can be questioned, but "presence in direct experience" is an undeniable fact of experience and hence cannot be questioned.

So "awareness-thinking-willing" is eternally existing. If you don't want to say it is an "entity", fine -- that is just a debate over the meaning of 'entity'. It is still an ontological claim, just as my starting point that "there is only ideational activity" is ontological. They are ontological because they deny the reality of the non-experiential or non-ideational. But the point with both is that one then needs to go on and find within the fundamental claim an explanation for life, the universe, and everything. And I am saying that if one claims there is no "I" within ATW or within "ideational activity" there is much that cannot be explained. One may not like to call the "I" an entity, like an apple, but one must call it real.