On Attaining Spiritual Sight (Part I)

[Stranger]

Great. I guess you still stand by your view that the communications of SS are not drawn from the dimension of Oneness. Instead, as people usually imagine it, Imagination, Inspiration, Intuition, are considered only progressively 'looser' and 'intuitive' (bordering on hallucinatory) intellectual arrangements of mental pictures that aim to 'explain' the total panorama of appearances.

If this is the case, then what would communications that indeed draw from the dimension of Oneness be like (a question asked many, many times, most recently by Ashvin a little above)? Since, as you say, the dimensions are not fully orthogonal but work into one another, then it's logical that certain experiences in the dimension of Oneness should be found as tied with corresponding phenomena in the dimension of phenomenal appearances. What could communicating such interrelated experiences be like, such that they wouldn't be immediately dismissed as mere shuffling of esoteric mental images in the phenomenal dimension? I asked Guney something similar. Effectively, if you think that the communications of SS do not sound as emerging from the dimension of Oneness, this implies that you have certain intuition about what such communications should be like (otherwise there would be nothing to contrast the comm. of SS to, thus you wouldn't be able to say where they are likely to be drawn from). So what betrays SS? For example, what makes it implausible that an Initiate can grow into highly radical forms of Being in the dimension of Oneness, and there experience directly from first-person Oneness something of the perspective of, say, an Archai, then trace how the intuitive intents intrinsic to that higher-order perspective play out in the phenomenal shadows? Is it that the Being of the Archai cannot be found in the dimension of Oneness in the first place (it doesn't exist there but only down in the shadows)? Or you doubt concretely the ability of, say, Steiner to reach Oneness (within the dimension of Oneness) with the Being of the Archai and glimpse through the momentarily merged perspectives?

That's a good question. I would expect that for the beings of such advanced level of higher cognition as Steiner, or another Initiate or a higher-order discarnate being, it would be natural to be able to intuit into the existential dimension of Oneness. There is no barrier there and noone is excluded from accessing these dimensions as long as we have sufficiently developed intuitive cognition. However, from the discussions and essays on this forum, from reading the PoF and seeing other quotes from Steiner, I have not seen any mentioning of any aspects of the dimeson of Oneness/Being. And whenever I came here and try to draw some attention to these matters, I was always harshly criticized (but I admit that this could be due to my poor ability to clearly articulate such subtle and elusive realities). While in the nondual traditions tons of texts have been written over millennia about practical and philosophical approaches, descriptions and practical implications of these realities (albeit by the expense of underestimating the value of the structural and lawful aspects of the world of beings), in the SS texts there seems to be not even a mention about the realities of this dimension (at least from what I have seen so far). Is this because the dimension of Oneness is so inexplicable that any explicit talk about it is avoided in SS circles? Or is it because this dimension is well known to Anthroposophists but mostly ignored because it is deemed unimportant? Or perhaps may it be because in SS people use different terminology to point to the realities of this dimension that I misinterpreted? Or may it be because I simply missed them? But it turns out that I'm not the only one, and that Guney also noticed the same issue. So, if the latter is the case, as I asked before, could you give me some examples of quotes from Steiner or any other Anthroposophist explicitly discussing the dimension of Being and its unifying aspects?

[Stranger]

PS: to be fair, there are some pointings to Oneness in Steiner's texts which I quoted in this thread, but these quotes apparently do not articulate the actual aspects of Being/Oneness or advanced practices for attaining the realization of it, but rather only give some hints on initial stages of moving towards the direction of it.

[Cleric]

That's a good question. I would expect that for the beings of such advanced level of higher cognition as Steiner, or another Initiate or a higher-order discarnate being, it would be natural to be able to intuit into the existential dimension of Oneness. There is no barrier there and noone is excluded from accessing these dimensions as long as we have sufficiently developed intuitive cognition. However, from the discussions and essays on this forum, from reading the PoF and seeing other quotes from Steiner, I have not seen any mentioning of any aspects of the dimeson of Oneness/Being. And whenever I came here and try to draw some attention to these matters, I was always harshly criticized (but I admit that this could be due to my poor ability to clearly articulate such subtle and elusive realities). While in the nondual traditions tons of texts have been written over millennia about practical and philosophical approaches, descriptions and practical implications of these realities (albeit by the expense of underestimating the value of the structural and lawful aspects of the world of beings), in the SS texts there seems to be not even a mention about the realities of this dimension (at least from what I have seen so far). Is this because the dimension of Oneness is so inexplicable that any explicit talk about it is avoided in SS circles? Or is it because this dimension is well known to Anthroposophists but mostly ignored because it is deemed unimportant? Or perhaps may it be because in SS people use different terminology to point to the realities of this dimension that I misinterpreted? Or may it be because I simply missed them? But it turns out that I'm not the only one, and that Guney also noticed the same issue. So, if the latter is the case, as I asked before, could you give me some examples of quotes from Steiner or any other Anthroposophist explicitly discussing the dimension of Being and its unifying aspects?

I'll gladly return to examples, but first, we should really pin down what you are expecting to see.

I suspect that your remarks are not merely cosmetic. For example, we may easily feed Steiner's lectures to ChatGPT and ask it to 'season' them with more talk about 'oneness'. Then every other sentence would be something like "And don't forget that there's oneness through and through. The True Being of the described Archangels, Archai, etc., must be understood as residing in the dimension of Oneness; their inner life interpenetrates."

Would you be satisfied if such constant reminders were present throughout the text? Would you then say, "OK, so now I can really consider what is here described about these perspectives of Being. The interspersed words about unity, and so on, give me assurance that these descriptions indeed precipitate from within the dimension of Oneness?" To be honest, I doubt it. The way I see it is that what troubles you is that there's talking about Beings in the first place. It is assumed that anyone speaking from the dimension of Oneness should only describe the unity, and any mention of individual beings is seen as a sign that they have dropped into the lower world.

Let's look at things clearly. Above, you implicitly recognized that higher development into the dimension of Oneness (more radical changes in the perspective) should lead to clearer consciousness of what this dimension consists of, what Beings constitute it.

Let's use the following illustration for support:



Let the greater cone symbolize the True Oneness of all Being. The small cone represents a particular human Earthly perspective. Now, the first thing to recognize here is that what we call 'dimension of multiplicity' is actually the experience of our bodily space. We do not experience the outer World as such, but the interiority of inner space that has been constrained to the density and friction of a physical form. It is not that the World is inherently disconnected and fragmentary. It is that our bodily life is experienced in a seemingly disconnected flow of perceptions, mental images, and so on.

This is extremely important to comprehend. Even though we’re talking about dashboards and so on, we can still feel that the old habits sneak in, and we still talk about objects, forces, beings (as creature-blobs that can be located in space), as if this is what the World is made of (or at least this particular 'dimension'). In the deeper sense, there’s no world of multiplicity as some special dimension of reality where everything is made of parts, while in the other dimension there's only oneness of consciousness. Even atoms, which are the emblem of multiplicity, when grasped from a deeper perspective, are streamlines of temporal Being. So let’s be clear. The multiplicity comes because our first-person stream of becoming becomes choppy, seemingly jumping from image to image, perception to perception, without us being able to sense the inner connection. This choppiness of our flow (of which our intellectual thinking is part) is like a filter through which the fuller reality is experienced in an aliased way.

As we advance toward Eing, it is as if we stabilize our inner flow such that we can contemplate it without feeling choppy and disconnected. Now that our chopping activity is left behind, we find ourselves within a flow of Being where it seems there are no sharp edges, there are no separate parts that roll through our mind-cone. Now we feel united with the underlying Oneness of the World Flow.

Nevertheless, as we have pointed out so many times, this state is still individual. We still experience the World Being from a unique ‘angle’. We experience an evolutionary streamline of integrating intuition of existence.

Now we arrive at a certain contradiction. We are used to seeing distinct things within our lower cone. For example, I may see two people. My gaze switches between one and the other. There’s multiplicity. If I rise to Eing such switching basically ceases, our whole inner flow assumes a more monolithic character, as if everything is in focus all at once. This monolithic state is often interpreted as if separate beings are illusions. If I take this conclusion rigidly, I’ll have an inner resistance to conceive of individual Beings. It feels that intuiting the individual perspectives of Being somehow throws me back into the fragmentary stream. Yet, at the same time, there surely are individual perspectives of Being within the dimension of Oneness. If that were not the case, we would expect that as soon as we reach the purity of Eing, we should experience all possible perspectives all at once. This would be the ultimate Oneness. This contradiction is the source of greatest confusion. How to innerly relate to these perspectives of Being, without feeling that this drags us down into multiplicity? Trying to say that individual beings exist only ‘below’ simply breeds confusion because, first, we close our eyes to the fact that ‘above’ we are still a unique perspective, and second, we mistake our choppy intellectual cognition, switching between images of this or that being, for the actual contents of the World. If we are a perspective within the dimension of Oneness, it’s only fair to admit that there are also infinitely many others.

The solution to this conundrum is not difficult to understand. We only need to consider a novel way of relating to the multiplicity within the dimension of Oneness. Speaking in very simplistic terms, let’s imagine that we want to know two Angels in their true Being. If we expect to see two different images of winged beings and be able to switch our gaze from one to the other, we’re indeed still in Maya. We’re gazing at the multiply-refracted bodily phenomena down our cone. Instead, let’s imagine that the inner Being of one Angel is the green rays, the other is blue rays (the image does not account for the hierarchical nature of Being). These Beings are not some sharply outlined bodies in some ‘spiritual’ space, but we are speaking entirely of interpenetrating first-person perspectives of existence. The first step is to realize that our perspective is always embedded within those of higher beings (which, so to speak, find their being within ensembles of colors). To know one Angel we need to morph our inner Being while in the Eing mode (imagine moving the small cone horizontally), such that we attune to the ‘greenness’ of the one Angel streaming as if behind our perspective. We can imagine that this greenness is like a contextual carrier stream within which certain feelings and images condense. To know the other Angel, we gently morph our perspective and become attuned to the blueness of the other Angel. Now our inner flow condenses within the contextual carrier of the blue Angel. As such, whatever crystallizes within our perspective is no longer a perception rippling through the senses but a holistic expression of our intuitive context guided by the Angelic inner flow. It is critically important to understand that these 'blueness' and 'greenness' are not perceptions within our lower cone. We do not see the reality of these Beings. Instead, we allow our inner flow to be, as if inspired, by these Beings. Certain contextual aspects of our first-person flow are now driven by these Beings. We recognize the Being not by outer appearance but by the Thoughts (Imaginations) that it produces through our ego. This is the key - in these states of higher cognition, our ego does not feel as the source of our inner life, but it is the ego 'mask' (which may no longer resemble the interior of a human face) through which the most varied spiritual Beings express themselves - we are completely One with aspects of them in this act. We say 'aspects of them' because the Being even of an Angel cannot 'squeeze' its fullness through a human ego shape.

This is the general solution to the conundrum. It is not an intellectual trick. It is not an alternative metaphysical theory. It is reality that can be experienced when we go further and further in the dimension of Oneness. The most important thing is to overcome the naive notion that toward the dimension of Oneness we have to do away with the multiplicity of Being. If we stubbornly insist that everything should feel ‘one’, we’re simply blurring our consciousness within these depths. This simply moves us more into a solipsistic mood. Basically, we deny the existence of other individual perspectives just for the convenience of resting blissfully into a singular perspective and convincing ourselves that there’s nothing else beyond it.

I’ll stop here. Before going any further, this question must be completely cleared. I repeat: if we naively and completely abstractly divide reality into a region of multiplicity and a region of oneness, we create for ourselves an irresolvable hard problem. We can only know the dimension of Oneness if we come to know the individual Beings that constitute the total One Being of the Cosmos. It is true that we need to overcome the multiplicity of our sensory-intellectual life, but it is completely false that in this way we also somehow enter a region where there’s no longer multiplicity of individual Beings. To know the fullness of the dimension of Oneness is to gradually become acquainted with its individual ‘colors’ of Being. If we stick to the abstract notion of oneness, superficially trying to close our eyes to the multiplicity of perspectives in the higher worlds, we are simply focusing on a single color, ignoring all others, and in solipsistic pride trying to fantasize the Cosmos as woven of our own color.

The key takeaway from all this is that we transition from encompassing a multiplicity of mental images within our cone and mistaking their discreteness for the discreteness of reality, to knowing Beings by allowing them to manifest through our ego (and in the act experience our Oneness). By morphing through their perspectives, we learn the individual colors of the Oneness. This alone leads us toward their true unity (instead of mistaking blurry vision for unity).

[Stranger]

Cleric, I think we discussed it before, but it's an important point to clarify. There are two approaches to unity, and they are practically accomplished in two different ways.

The first approach is the approach of SS, the one that you just described, and the one that Steiner outlined in his quote:

Instead, we allow our inner flow to be, as if inspired, by these Beings. Certain contextual aspects of our first-person flow are now driven by these Beings. We recognize the Being not by outer appearance but by the Thoughts (Imaginations) that it produces through our ego.

“Lastly, at the fourth stage of knowledge Inspiration also ceases. Of the elements customarily observed in everyday knowledge, the ego alone remains to be considered. The attainment of this stage by the occult student is marked by a definite inner experience. This experience manifests itself in the feeling that he no longer stands outside the things and occurrences that he recognizes, but is himself within them. Images are not the object, but merely its imprint. Also, inspiration does not yield up the object itself, but only tells about it. But what now lives in the soul is in reality the object itself. The ego has streamed forth over all beings; it has merged with them. The actual living of things within the soul is Intuition. When it is said of Intuition that “through it man creeps into all things,” this is literally true. — In ordinary life man has only one “intuition” — namely, of the ego itself, for the ego can in no way be perceived from without; it can only be experienced in the inner life. A simple consideration will make this fact clear. It is a consideration that has not been applied by psychologists with sufficient exactitude. Unimpressive as it may appear to one with full understanding, it is of the most far-reaching significance. It is as follows. A thing in the outer world can be called by all men by the self-same name. A table can be spoken of by all as a “table”; a tulip by all as a “tulip.” Mr. Miller can be addressed by all as “Mr. Miller.” But there is one word that each can apply only to himself. This is the word “I.” No other person can call me “I.” To anyone else I am a “you.” In the same way everyone else is a “you” to me. Only I can say “I” to myself. This is because each man lives, not outside, but within the “I.” In the same way, in intuitive cognition, one lives in all things. The perception of the ego is the prototype of all intuitive cognition. Thus to enter into all things, one must first step outside oneself. One must become “selfless” in order to become blended with the “self,” the “ego” of another being.”

Rudolph Steiner. The Stages of Higher Knowledge

The unity in this approach is attained not by realizing the Being-Eing dimension common to all things and beings, but by intuitively penetrating the inner worlds of other beings, sharing their thoughts and perceptions. I want to be clear that I have nothing against this approach and I do practice it myself to the best of my abilities. Let's call this approach "unity through shared Thinking-Willing-Feeling"

The other approach is the one of the nondual traditions (and Heidegger's as well if his philosophy would be further developed into a practical method). I think I already described it in details in my previous posts, but it should be obvious that it practically works in a different way - we connect with other beings not through just intuitively sharing their qualia, but through experientially realizing the common ground/dimension of Being-Eing. Amazingly, the result is similar, simply because, as I said many times, the Being is never separate from beings, the Oneness of Being never negates the multiplicity of beings, but rather equally penetrates the whole universe of forms, and so by attaining the intuitive insight into the Oneness of Being, we simultaneously attain intuitive insights into the inner worlds of other beings and allow ourselves to intuitively "merge" with them. Let's call this approach "unity through shared Being". I think it now became clear to us that this approach has not been studied and practiced in SS, possibly because in Anthropology the "unity through shared Thinking-Willing-Feeling" approach was deemed sufficient.

So, the bottom line is: we have these two approaches, neither of them in any way inferior to another. Each can be practiced alone and there is nothing wrong with that. But they do not contradict each other or exclude each other, they actually complement each other quite well. So, based on my understanding and experience, the best approach is to practice them both in synergy. Exercising just one of them is like spreading unity along one of the dimensions, while when exercised in synergy, the unity becomes all-encompassing spreading in both dimensions.

My last remark is that I'm not trying to criticize SS or show it as inferior or flawed. On the opposite, I'm offering a way to enhance SS to include another approach that would compliment its existing approaches and push its envelope. If SS it truly a science, it should never enclose itself in a rigid framework established by its founders, but should be open to grow in all relevant dimensions of development. And if SS claims to be a continuation and further development of ancient spiritual traditions, why would it exclude the insights and practices of nondual traditions?

[lorenzop]

I'm no theologian, but doesn't the Bible consistently warn of the dangers of reaching out to, contacting and especially blending ourself with spiritual beings (other than God)?

[AshvinP]

The other approach is the one of the nondual traditions (and Heidegger's as well if his philosophy would be further developed into a practical method). I think I already described it in details in my previous posts, but it should be obvious that it practically works in a different way - we connect with other beings not through just intuitively sharing their qualia, but through experientially realizing the common ground/dimension of Being-Eing. Amazingly, the result is similar, simply because, as I said many times, the Being is never separate from beings, the Oneness of Being never negates the multiplicity of beings, but rather equally penetrates the whole universe of forms, and so by attaining the intuitive insight into the Oneness of Being, we simultaneously attain intuitive insights into the inner worlds of other beings and allow ourselves to intuitively "merge" with them. Let's call this approach "unity through shared Being".

What prevents this 'other approach' from transducing its intuitive insights into precise symbolic concepts (acting as anchor points) for the lawful interrelations of the inner worlds of other beings, such that we elucidate the lawful dynamics of the familiar sensory spectrum (which is like an aliased and objectified panorama of interfering 'color' streams from all such beings)? Because clearly this isn't done in the 'other approach', either because it can't be done or it is chosen not to be done, otherwise I'm sure you would have provided examples by now.

[Stranger]

I'm no theologian, but doesn't the Bible consistently warn of the dangers of reaching out to, contacting and especially blending ourself with spiritual beings (other than God)?

It warns to be cautious and exercise discernment when contacting spiritual beings, but that does not mean we have to completely isolate ourselves from communicating or blending with any beings. Also, blending does not mean loosing the autonomy of individual consciousness and free will, but rather thinking and acting in harmony. Rather, it's expanding our horizon of individual thinking and perception into shared realms and inner realms of other beings.

And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness.
2 Corinthians 11:14

[Stranger]

What prevents this 'other approach' from transducing its intuitive insights into precise symbolic concepts (acting as anchor points) for the lawful interrelations of the inner worlds of other beings, such that we elucidate the lawful dynamics of the familiar sensory spectrum (which is like an aliased and objectified panorama of interfering 'color' streams from all such beings)? Because clearly this isn't done in the 'other approach', either because it can't be done or it is chosen not to be done, otherwise I'm sure you would have provided examples by now.

There must be a reason why you always so fiercely oppose the "other approach" no matter what. I wonder what could be the reason?

[AshvinP]

What prevents this 'other approach' from transducing its intuitive insights into precise symbolic concepts (acting as anchor points) for the lawful interrelations of the inner worlds of other beings, such that we elucidate the lawful dynamics of the familiar sensory spectrum (which is like an aliased and objectified panorama of interfering 'color' streams from all such beings)? Because clearly this isn't done in the 'other approach', either because it can't be done or it is chosen not to be done, otherwise I'm sure you would have provided examples by now.

There must be a reason why you always so fiercely oppose the "other approach" no matter what. I wonder what could be the reason?

I don't see why you view it as "fierce opposition". It is a genuine question to try and understand what you are pointing toward in this other approach.

Of course, we are all skeptical that this - "we simultaneously attain intuitive insights into the inner worlds of other beings and allow ourselves to intuitively "merge" with them" - could be accurate in the other approach. It doesn't explain why you have repeatedly expressed that you cannot intuit how the sensory panorama and its metamorphoses unfold. Because it is precisely merging with the inner worlds of other beings, their characteristic qualities, activity, and relations, which would elucidate that for us. It also doesn't explain why no modern texts from this other approach exist with artistic descriptions of the rich inner worlds of other beings and how they translate into our familiar imaginative experience.

Is there a reason why you are avoiding this simple question?

[lorenzop]

I'm no theologian, but doesn't the Bible consistently warn of the dangers of reaching out to, contacting and especially blending ourself with spiritual beings (other than God)?

It warns to be cautious and exercise discernment when contacting spiritual beings, but that does not mean we have to completely isolate ourselves from communicating or blending with any beings. Also, blending does not mean loosing the autonomy of individual consciousness and free will, but rather thinking and acting in harmony. Rather, it's expanding our horizon of individual thinking and perception into shared realms and inner realms of other beings.

And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness.
2 Corinthians 11:14

The power and strength of other spiritual beings will always be limited and fractional - and any particular spiritual being may not be benevolent. I don't see the value with the risk - not since the unlimited power of cosmic intelligence or divine Being is available. Why the risk - why the distraction?