On Attaining Spiritual Sight (Part I)

[Stranger]

I would say that Eugene means that Heidegger inquires about Being itself rather than beings. Perhaps he is referring to this ontological difference, which is so central to Heidegger’s thought. When we ask about things, forces, processes, essences, and so on, we are asking about beings, not about Being itself, which is something like the condition and possibility in which beings can exist.

This is exactly right, Güney.

I don't think you were agreeing with Guney, Eugene, as indicated in his response.

In any case, the issue is that "Steiner and his followers dismiss the whole dimension of Being-Knowing, the experiential-existential modality of phenomena and of thinking itself together with its ontological, epistemological and spiritual significance", seems like a flat-out falsity from our perspective. If I interpret those words with the meaning that most people familiar with this domain would ascribe to them, it seems to me like you have failed to understand even the basics of what SS is about. It's almost as if you tried to characterize was SS is about in bold, and then added that Steiner and his followers dismiss it.

Alternatively, you are using those words to mean something completely different, and I was wondering if you could elaborate on that meaning. You also threw in that Heidegger recognized this meaning in 'Being and Time', which exists as a blind spot for SS. That seems like an easy way to help me understand what was meant - just quote the book!

We had these discussions long time ago, there is no point of going through another circle of them
https://www.metakastrup.org/viewtopic.php?p=6273#p6273
https://www.metakastrup.org/viewtopic.p ... 0&start=40

[Federica]

I would like to add a basic occult physiology perspective on this difference between the spiritual scientific path of intuitive thinking, and the mystical path to oneness. The legitimacy of drawing such parallel between spiritual paths and the human organism is illustrated by the well-known ideas of microcosm (of the human being) as a compressed image of the macrocosm (the whole reality); duality of the human experience across spiritual and material worlds; “as above so below”; body-soul-spirit; etcetera. In fact, each distinct path and associated meditation technique - spiritual scientific concentration of thought and feeling on the one hand, and mystical meditation on the other - have their own specific images, or effects, on the entire human organism, including the material body.

Before coming to these effects, some context is necessary. We know that, in the head system, man takes in the outward impressions that stream in through the sense organs, then through the spinal nervous system (soul instrument) then they are impressed on the blood (instrument of the ego, our normal sense of self). Of this indirect (sense-based) perception of the outer world, we are conscious in our ego - the conscious receiver of soul experiences. The material counterpart of this process of becoming aware of the outer world is this link between the nerves (for example optic nerve) and the blood, which happens in the head system. Further, we know that the oxygenated red blood leaves the heart through the aorta, to reach the entire body and limbs. From the aorta, part of the flow branches out towards the head, where it receives the sense impressions from the nerves. Similarly, in the metabolic system there is a specular branching out of the blood flow from the major circulation, going to the inner organs of the spleen, liver and gall bladder. Here something happens similar to the blood impressions taking place in the head-system. The blood is like a printable material that can be impressed from two sides, outer and inner. From the outside, it receives the sense impressions, and from the inner side, the nutritive impulses, transformed by the mentioned inner organs. These inner organs neutralize the intake of outer substances coming from the stomach, to make them compliant to the rhythms of the human organism, ready to be impressed on blood. This impression on the blood from the inside is mediated by the sympathetic (not the spinal) nerve system. However, we are unaware of this metabolic process, whilst we are aware of outer perceptions in the head system.

From an esoteric perspective - keeping in mind the perfect correspondence between the microcosm of the incarnated human being and the macrocosm of reality at large - this entire cycle, centered around the two-fold nature of the blood system (the ego, the duality of man), can be seen as a specular process: on the one hand, the world-at-large streams in from all directions and impresses onto the ‘front side’ of the blood; then this extract is processed, and condenses as inner metabolic organs. These organs, on the other hand, work back to impress the results of metabolism on the ‘back side’ of the blood, so as to close the circle of outer and inner perception through the ‘workaround’ of the incarnated human being.

Now, the spiritual scientific practice of concentration of thoughts and feelings has for material effect a transformation of the head/outward side of the described cycle. By contrast, the mystical practice of dilution of thoughts and feelings has for material effect a transformation of the inward/metabolic side of the cycle. Namely, through concentration - through focusing conscious activity on one picture away from other impressions - an ability is developed whose physical correlate is the seizing of the nervous terminations. The spinal nerve system is taken control over, through exercising the thinking will. The sense nerves are controlled, like capped, so that the outer impressions are not allowed to reach the blood flow. They are not allowed to produce the usual conscious experience “I am inside my body here, and the outer world is out there”, which is the normal ego (blood) experience of being an incarnated human in our time. In this way, another self, a higher self, begins to be experienced out there in the world, in the contained impressions. The soul becomes able to experience the world at large in awake consciousness. The forcible link of the higher self with the physical body and lower ego is side-tracked, and the manifold living complexity of oneness is experienced directly, from within a consciousness who lives fully-fledged in the world-at-large, rather than indirectly, as we normally do through bodily perception.

By contrast, through mystical dilution of thoughts and feelings, the path to clairvoyance is pursued from the other side, the inward side. By discarding willed thinking, one sinks entirely into oneself, in the unconscious/unwilled, in one’s own organism, to try and emerge from the other side. Physically, this correlates with thrusting the blood into the inner organs, with deepening and strengthening (not severing) the connection between the sympathetic nervous system and the blood. This is the opposite of the intuitive thinking path. Man is dual, connected to reality-at-large through both sides of the human organism, the outer and the inner, the head system and the metabolic system. The mystical path attempts to reach the unity of being from the other side - the inner side - taking the personality along as is, rather than keeping it out. In this way, a level of clairvoyance may be developed, through the metabolic organs (which are nothing else but images of the inner/outer planets). However, there are various problems with this inward path that goes through the unconscious. The ego is taken along, with all its possibly unpurified features, while on the spiritual scientific path, catharsis is a precondition. Moreover, in our time it is not possible to completely emerge into oneness from that side (as it was in more ancient times, when man had a different organism, and a more unitary and aware relation to the inner organs, felt as direct portals to the continuity between worlds.

Today there is no possible differentiation on the mystical path. Only a general, perhaps sensual impression of mystical communion can be experienced, but that’s opaque. No precise, willed participation can be known. If the pains of developing the intellect are not to be for nothing, the only real path to overcome the optical illusion of matter is through the conscious side, that is, through freedom to will the spiritual activity, not through sinking into the unconscious unwilled. That path suited a man who had not yet developed the means to freedom of thoughts and feelings (intellectual soul). Today, that path is closed.

[AshvinP]

I would say that Eugene means that Heidegger inquires about Being itself rather than beings. Perhaps he is referring to this ontological difference, which is so central to Heidegger’s thought. When we ask about things, forces, processes, essences, and so on, we are asking about beings, not about Being itself, which is something like the condition and possibility in which beings can exist. Heidegger’s philosophy is often associated with mysticism, particularly by philosophers who attempt to explore mysticism without religion. He is also frequently linked to negative theology.

That is what I suspected as well, Guney, and I suppose Eugene has now confirmed it.

It's interesting because if we translate this same point from 'beings' and 'Being', to 'matter' and 'Spirit/Will/etc.', the fundamental flaw should become more obvious. If one says that by studying the material objects, forces, and processes of nature, we are not simultaneously studying the revealed Spirit/Will/etc., then there is obviously a dualistic mindset. Indeed, we have discussed this many times before with Eugene, but he simply can't notice the schism that occurs in his thinking process while such mental pictures condense.

The other issue is that the cognitive scale spectrum is entirely ignored, because it isn't suspected to exist. I have used the pet cat metaphor before - from the cat's perspective, the agency of my being is the condition and possibility in which many of her experiential states can unfold. It is not the only condition and possibility - obviously, her feline instincts, her physical structure, etc., are not fashioned through my intellectual scale spiritual activity. Yet the environment in which those instincts can come to expression is fashioned through my being. In that sense, my being exists as a link in an organic chain of Being that cannot be ignored to account for the context of the cat's existence.

That is the sense in which spiritual science speaks of 'hierarchical beings'. They are the superimposed conditions and possibilities in which Earthly beings can exist. Thus, by traversing the cognitive scale spectrum, we reconcile the default dualistic stance in practice (not just on paper). Being knows itself at ever-higher levels of meaningful integration, and this knowledge alone can elucidate the contextual conditions under which beings can unfold their existence. Otherwise, we remain as passive spectators only commenting on 'the nature of Being' and we hold open the duality between the inquiries into 'beings' versus 'Being'. Such a duality does not exist at the Divine scale - there is no compartmentalization of knowing tasks into orthogonal domains. The question is whether we want to grow into the Divine scale with our knowing activity, or simply spectate on it from the intellectual sidelines.

As mentioned, I am currently rereading *Meditations on the Tarot* and Tomberg’s *Lazarus* book. For me, it has been one of the most formative, if not the most formative, occult book I have read so far. What was your experience with this work?

I will try to get back to you on this with a more thorough reply. In short, I agree Tomberg's MoT is a masterpiece and probably the most profound compilation of imaginative exercises and esoteric insight to be compiled into a single book. Moreover, the more we work through this spiritual exercise, the more we see how it shares the exact same esoteric foundations as spiritual science, albeit with a unique style, metaphors, references, examples, etc. We will notice all the ways in which Tomberg is addressing higher cognition, the stages of spiritual evolution, the angelic hierarchies, and so on, not just as optional details, but as fundamental to the Christ impulse and what it accomplished for humanity. The so-called 'controversy' or 'break' is overblown, in my view, and practically can only exist so long as we remain on the surface of either Tomberg or Steiner.

[Stranger]

That is the sense in which spiritual science speaks of 'hierarchical beings'. They are the superimposed conditions and possibilities in which Earthly beings can exist. Thus, by traversing the cognitive scale spectrum, we reconcile the default dualistic stance in practice (not just on paper). Being knows itself at ever-higher levels of meaningful integration, and this knowledge alone can elucidate the contextual conditions under which beings can unfold their existence. Otherwise, we remain as passive spectators only commenting on 'the nature of Being' and we hold open the duality between the inquiries into 'beings' versus 'Being'. Such a duality does not exist at the Divine scale - there is no compartmentalization of knowing tasks into orthogonal domains. The question is whether we want to grow into the Divine scale with our knowing activity, or simply spectate on it from the intellectual sidelines.

We discussed this many times before. There is no dichotomy or duality here, and "Being knowing" is not limited to a passive observing. Quite the opposite, it's an active and creative mode. So, the answer is to grow both into the Divine scale of knowing activity and into the Divine dimension of Being knowing itself, and to align both in harmony. When one is exercised without the other, there will inevitably be limits to our scale of development/evolution.

It is true that in some so-called "non-dual" schools they teach only passive observation of Being while ignoring the scale, structures and dynamics of beings as something "unreal", but as I said many times before, I agree that it's a teaching-practice of a limited usefulness. It may be useful to do it for some period of time in order to focus primarily on Being and dive deeper into this dimension in order to discover deeper aspects of it. But becoming stuck in such state would be a mistake leading to stagnation. The point of it is to discover and grow into the dimension of Being, and then integrate it with the active mode on the path of unfolding of the interconnected existence and evolution of beings.

Being knows itself at ever-higher levels of meaningful integration, and this knowledge alone can elucidate the contextual conditions under which beings can unfold their existence.

That's exactly right, and this inevitably happens at a certain level of beings evolution. Such knowing further unfolds into deeper layers and aspects of the dimension of Being-Awareness and its inseparable integration with the dimensions, structures and aspects of active Thinking-Willing-Feeling. But the reason why Güney and me complained about the disregard of these aspects in SS is that there seems to be no mention of or elaboration on these aspects anywhere in Steiner's texts or in your essays. That does not invalidate the value of SS in its methods and insights into the dimension of beings T-W-F unfolding activity, but it just makes the SS approach and methodology limited only to the developmental stages before the integration with the aspects of Being-Awareness.

[AshvinP]

That is the sense in which spiritual science speaks of 'hierarchical beings'. They are the superimposed conditions and possibilities in which Earthly beings can exist. Thus, by traversing the cognitive scale spectrum, we reconcile the default dualistic stance in practice (not just on paper). Being knows itself at ever-higher levels of meaningful integration, and this knowledge alone can elucidate the contextual conditions under which beings can unfold their existence. Otherwise, we remain as passive spectators only commenting on 'the nature of Being' and we hold open the duality between the inquiries into 'beings' versus 'Being'. Such a duality does not exist at the Divine scale - there is no compartmentalization of knowing tasks into orthogonal domains. The question is whether we want to grow into the Divine scale with our knowing activity, or simply spectate on it from the intellectual sidelines.

We discussed this many times before. There is no dichotomy or duality here, and "Being knowing" is not limited to a passive observing. Quite the opposite, it's an active and creative mode. So, the answer is to grow both into the Divine scale of knowing activity and into the Divine dimension of Being knowing itself, and to align both in harmony. When one is exercised without the other, there will inevitably be limits to our scale of development/evolution.

It is true that in some so-called "non-dual" schools they teach only passive observation of Being while ignoring the scale, structures and dynamics of beings as something "unreal", but as I said many times before, I agree that it's a teaching-practice of a limited usefulness. It may be useful to do it for some period of time in order to focus primarily on Being and dive deeper into this dimension in order to discover deeper aspects of it. But becoming stuck in such state would be a mistake leading to stagnation. The point of it is to discover and grow into the dimension of Being, and then integrate it with the active mode on the path of unfolding of the interconnected existence and evolution of beings.

Being knows itself at ever-higher levels of meaningful integration, and this knowledge alone can elucidate the contextual conditions under which beings can unfold their existence.

That's exactly right, and this inevitably happens at a certain level of beings evolution. Such knowing further unfolds into deeper layers and aspects of the dimension of Being-Awareness and its inseparable integration with the dimensions, structures and aspects of active Thinking-Willing-Feeling. But the reason why Güney and me complained about the disregard of these aspects in SS is that there seems to be no mention of or elaboration on these aspects anywhere in Steiner's texts or in your essays. That does not invalidate the value of SS in its methods and insights into the dimension of beings T-W-F unfolding activity, but it just makes the SS approach and methodology limited only to the developmental stages before the integration with the aspects of Being-Awareness.

Eugene, all aspects of Being-Awareness are addressed by SS, you just need to remain open to the possibility that you don't see it yet. This is what we have been trying to help you see. You have introduced a false dichotomy between (1) "growing into the Divine scale of knowing activity" and (2) "growing into the Divine dimension of Being knowing itself". These only seem like different things from the compartmentalized intellectual scale. Only from that perspective, one can contemplate SS and feel like it is missing (2). Yet if one actually takes the time to grow into (1), the intellect is immediately disabused of this illusion and will perceive how SS brings both (1) and (2) into harmony, a harmony that naturally exists at the deeper scales of knowing.

If we imagine the life of a Divine being, let's say an Archangel, do we imagine that they spend part of their time inquiring into the TFW dimensions, structures, and aspects of the World process and another portion of their time experiencing the ineffable Godhead, the absolute 'Being-Awareness', as if these are two separate activities? Such a 'separation of concerns' can only be maintained at the human intellectual scale. Thus, we only need to stop taking everything in SS so theoretically, and instead endeavor to live out the Divine scale experiences it describes. Then we will stop separating our concerns so rigidly and participate in the Divine life where our inquiries are perfectly harmonized and unified.

[Stranger]

Eugene, all aspects of Being-Awareness are addressed by SS, you just need to remain open to the possibility that you don't see it yet. This is what we have been trying to help you see. You have introduced a false dichotomy between (1) "growing into the Divine scale of knowing activity" and (2) "growing into the Divine dimension of Being knowing itself". These only seem like different things from the compartmentalized intellectual scale. Only from that perspective, one can contemplate SS and feel like it is missing (2). Yet if one actually takes the time to grow into (1), the intellect is immediately disabused of this illusion and will perceive how SS brings both (1) and (2) into harmony, a harmony that naturally exists at the deeper scales of knowing.

If we imagine the life of a Divine being, let's say an Archangel, do we imagine that they spend part of their time inquiring into the TFW dimensions, structures, and aspects of the World process and another portion of their time experiencing the ineffable Godhead, the absolute 'Being-Awareness', as if these are two separate activities? Such a 'separation of concerns' can only be maintained at the human intellectual scale. Thus, we only need to stop taking everything in SS so theoretically, and instead endeavor to live out the Divine scale experiences it describes. Then we will stop separating our concerns so rigidly and participate in the Divine life where our inquiries are perfectly harmonized and unified.

I fully agree with that, this is what in fact happens along the evolutionary path. I have always been saying that there s no dichotomy here, the unfolding in BA and TWF dimensions should happen wholistically and harmoniously without artificially separating them into separate realms. But I'm still wondering why is it that the aspects of inquiring into TWF dimensions are so much elaborated in Steiner's texts, your and Cleric's essays and forum posts, while inquiring into the BA aspects are almost never even mentioned? This seems to me a rather biased approach not aligned with what you just said in your above post.

[AshvinP]

Eugene, all aspects of Being-Awareness are addressed by SS, you just need to remain open to the possibility that you don't see it yet. This is what we have been trying to help you see. You have introduced a false dichotomy between (1) "growing into the Divine scale of knowing activity" and (2) "growing into the Divine dimension of Being knowing itself". These only seem like different things from the compartmentalized intellectual scale. Only from that perspective, one can contemplate SS and feel like it is missing (2). Yet if one actually takes the time to grow into (1), the intellect is immediately disabused of this illusion and will perceive how SS brings both (1) and (2) into harmony, a harmony that naturally exists at the deeper scales of knowing.

If we imagine the life of a Divine being, let's say an Archangel, do we imagine that they spend part of their time inquiring into the TFW dimensions, structures, and aspects of the World process and another portion of their time experiencing the ineffable Godhead, the absolute 'Being-Awareness', as if these are two separate activities? Such a 'separation of concerns' can only be maintained at the human intellectual scale. Thus, we only need to stop taking everything in SS so theoretically, and instead endeavor to live out the Divine scale experiences it describes. Then we will stop separating our concerns so rigidly and participate in the Divine life where our inquiries are perfectly harmonized and unified.

I fully agree with that, this is what in fact happens along the evolutionary path. I have always been saying that there s no dichotomy here, the unfolding in BA and TWF dimensions should happen wholistically and harmoniously without artificially separating them into separate realms. But I'm still wondering why is it that the aspects of inquiring into TWF dimensions are so much elaborated in Steiner's texts, your and Cleric's essays and forum posts, while inquiring into the BA aspects are almost never even mentioned? This seems to me a rather biased approach not aligned with what you just said in your above post.

This is why I asked for an example of "inquiring into the BA aspects". Because, from our perspective, such inquiry is found throughout the lectures, texts, and posts. I can therefore only suspect that it's not being recognized, for reasons which we have come across many times before. But if you shared an example of such an "inquiring into the BA aspect", it may be easier to show it is thoroughly addressed by the path of spiritual science. On the other hand, if such BA inquiring is axiomatically considered to be beyond anything described through higher cognitive experience, then obviously the imagined duality between them will remain.

[Stranger]

This is why I asked for an example of "inquiring into the BA aspects". Because, from our perspective, such inquiry is found throughout the lectures, texts, and posts. I can therefore only suspect that it's not being recognized, for reasons which we have come across many times before. But if you shared an example of such an "inquiring into the BA aspect", it may be easier to show it is thoroughly addressed by the path of spiritual science. On the other hand, if such BA inquiring is axiomatically considered to be beyond anything described through higher cognitive experience, then obviously the imagined duality between them will remain.

Well, one example is what Güney summarized in here: "When we ask about things, forces, processes, essences, and so on, we are asking about beings, not about Being itself, which is something like the condition and possibility in which beings can exist. "
Another example is in my post here, but I wrote similar messages extensively in other threads: https://www.metakastrup.org/viewtopic.p ... 692#p24692
May be I missed it, but could you give me some examples of inquiring into the BA aspects throughout the lectures, texts, and posts?

[AshvinP]

This is why I asked for an example of "inquiring into the BA aspects". Because, from our perspective, such inquiry is found throughout the lectures, texts, and posts. I can therefore only suspect that it's not being recognized, for reasons which we have come across many times before. But if you shared an example of such an "inquiring into the BA aspect", it may be easier to show it is thoroughly addressed by the path of spiritual science. On the other hand, if such BA inquiring is axiomatically considered to be beyond anything described through higher cognitive experience, then obviously the imagined duality between them will remain.

Well, one example is what Güney summarized in here: "When we ask about things, forces, processes, essences, and so on, we are asking about beings, not about Being itself, which is something like the condition and possibility in which beings can exist. "
Another example is in my post here, but I wrote similar messages extensively in other threads: https://www.metakastrup.org/viewtopic.p ... 692#p24692
May be I missed it, but could you give me some examples of inquiring into the BA aspects throughout the lectures, texts, and posts?

And I responded to that, showing it's exactly the 'condition and possibility in which beings can exist' that spiritual science has in mind when exploring the scale spectrum of hierarchical beings. If we try to envision the latter as floating objects that interact with each other like we have been accustomed to via normal sensory life (we see a plant here, an animal there, a fellow human somewhere else, etc.), then we will never grasp what SS is describing. Rather, we need to start thinking more in terms of scales of superimposed potential, which provide the conditions under which a coherent stream of existence can unfold. Then we are already making progress toward reconciling the inquiry into 'beings' with the inquiry into 'BA'. The experience of the former is only possible through a gradient of the latter, which is described in detail via spiritual science, for example, in this lecture cycle.

If we take the descriptions of hierarchical consciousness described in such lectures as a 'dead system of concepts' (as Rodriel put it above), then we will fail to notice the overlap between them and BA as such. Yet if we try to feel how those higher forms of consciousness shape the very fabric of our sense of BA when we are in meditation, then we may realize that it's all a unified spectrum. Those higher forms shape the very possibility of our BA meditative experience, and our TFW experience takes shape as specific modulations over that core inner flow which is fractally self-similar at all scales. It all depends on us admitting in humility that our mediative experience of BA, no matter how deep and profound and universal it feels, is still only a constrained intuition of even deeper scales of spiritual activity over which it is modulated. It is these deeper scales that are artistically described by SS.

We can also reference Cleric's previous post to you here. The rotary motion metaphor can be very helpful for orienting to this unified spectrum of BA, which manifests through the 'decomposed' hierarchies.

[Stranger]

It all depends on us admitting in humility that our mediative experience of BA, no matter how deep and profound and universal it feels, is still only a constrained intuition of even deeper scales of spiritual activity over which it is modulated. It is these deeper scales that are artistically described by SS.

There can not be any scales "deeper" than Being-Awareness because BA is the very condition and possibility in which any activity of TWF on any scale can ever happen or any beings can ever exist. Just like all layers, structures and depths of the ocean all exist within the ocean and there are no scales deeper than the ocean itself, likewise all scales of spiritual activity always exist and happen in BA and nothing can exist "outside" of BA. But of course, within the "ocean" of BA, there are deeper scales of spiritual activity for us to discover and grow into, which are beyond my current level of cognition and spiritual perception, and I humbly accept that.

But again, in the links you pointed to, I don't see any mention or consideration of BA-aspects or reality. For example, in that Cleric's post the phrase

"Then if we go even further than the national spirits, we can experience the common element in all human beings. This leads us too to a perspective of the World flow that is a coherent be-ing. And this is the be-ing know as the Christ."

is clearly referring to a be-ing, not the Being in how it's envisioned by Heidegger:

"'Being' is not something like a being but is rather "what determines beings as beings."
M. Heidegger