On Attaining Spiritual Sight (Part I)

[AshvinP]

Interestingly enough, this comment just popped up on my Substack notification (which references a previous conversation I had with someone about Aurobindo's criticisms of Steiner). What's most interesting is how well-versed he feels about Anthroposophy, through the portal of conveyors like McDermott and Zajonc, while still not understanding what is meant by 'intuitive thinking'. It's hard to imagine getting more external confirmation of the enormous insufficiency of the APs than this (beyond the inner confirmation we can get from our own experimentation with the PPs). And by the time they reach this point of utter confusion about Anthroposophy, it's practically impossible to undo the damage through any dialogue.

***

"I'm not clear from what you write if you've ever read anything by Sri Aurobindo. Look at "The Intuitive Mind" in The Synthesis of Yoga :https://motherandsriaurobindo.in/Sri-Au ... itive-mind

As far as science, teachers from the Sri Aurobindo Ashram have revolutionized the teaching of scientific psychology in over two dozen Indian universities, and have published a 2 volume manual of Indian psychology.

In Ed Kelly's "Beyond Physicalism," containing articles on radically changing the underlying philosophy of science far better than anything I've come across in 50+ years of studying attempts by Anthroposophists to do so, you'll find in the penultimate chapter a review of Whitehead and Sri Aurobindo showing how both philosophers can provide a foundation that encompasses all of the well replicated studies of parapsychology, including rebirth and near death experiences.

I've read over two dozen books by Steiner, dozens more articles and essays, and talked with students (including Robert McDermott and Arthur Zajonc, former president of the American Anthroposophical Society). I have a video on YouTube with long conversations with Anthroposophists. I fully agree with Trent's analysis, and so far, you don't appear to have refuted anything he's said.

Meanwhile, maybe you can answer something I've never heard clearly explained by Steiner or his students.

What do you mean by Intuitive thinking, and how does it relate to Steiner's praise of Meister Eckhart?

And at some other point, you might explore why it is that Western intellectuals have for over a century taken .0001% of Asian philosophy which denies individuality and ignored the vast majority which, according to Tibetan Buddhist scholar Robert Thurman (a friend of Zajonc, by the way), put forward an understanding of the nature of the individual far greater than most of what you'll find in Anthroposophy or Western mystical literature in general."

[Federica]

You misunderstood my reference to KHW. Obviously, that work cannot be placed on the same level as any of the APs or GPs we were discussing (notice the comparison was between Catching the Light and the work of MS/Ashton).

Ok good to know, but you will admit that, when you speak in plural - when you write: "such books" are Goethean phenomenology - it's difficult to figure out that in your mind you actually intended "such book", meaning only Catching the Light. And we still don't know whether you changed your mind about it since 2023. Regarding KHW, yes of course it's not an isolated book. No Steiner book is. But you did say that the seed exercises were/are not of interest to you? Not interesting enough for you to practice/have practiced them? Or is this also a misunderstanding? By the way, we can obviously find countless examples of people who misunderstood the exercises, like FB, or misunderstood Anthroposophy - like your Aurobindo guy who "read dozens of Steiner's books and spoke with Zajonc". That says nothing at all against the suggested use of exercises based on world phenomena I'm afraid.

KHW is a work of thoroughly phenomenological exercises, designed to increase our sensitivity to our deeper intuitive process and make transparent our soul aspects - implicit assumptions, opinions, expectations, etc. - that continually preclude that sensitivity. It is basically a more advanced version of PoF (Steiner often mentions them together). On top of that, no work in Steiner's corpus stands isolated from other works, but everything hangs together as an organic whole. He often pointed this out himself. There is no indication that someone can pick up KHW and focus exclusively on the seed exercise, somehow developing higher faculties of perception from that alone, without developing any wider orientation to the significance of such exercises in the evolutionary process (nothing in the quote you shared indicates that).

As it clearly appears from the prefaces to the book, this is not exactly the case. Although part of a unity within all other works, the book is said to be valuable even for the reader who is not familiar with Anthroposophy. Regarding the exercices, yes, there are the moral efforts and the work with feelings of devotion and reverence given at the beginning (as I said above). However, the seed and plant exercises (plural, it's not a single exercise) are indeed given as leading by themselves to Imagination, if executed with all the indicated cares and caveats and moral preparation. Not to deny that there are many more exercises to follow, and that a "holistic approach to the various pipelines" is the ideal. The holistic approach is the approach that I have suggested in this thread. Sure, what matters is a "different use of thinking". There's no need to convince me of that. But the problem is, again, how to help the mind understand what that actually means; how to motivate it to attune to the particular flow of the PPs and then stick with them (instead of not even making it half way through an essay).

In that sense, nothing needs to be developed 'side by side', as you mentioned before, because the cognitive methodology does not exclude contemplation of the phenomena of the wider flow. They do not need to be kept as separate concerns. That is quite evident when we consider the game metaphor, the chess metaphor, the phonograph metaphor, and so on, which draw on examples from many activities of ordinary life, including the inquiries of philosophy, natural science, and so on. All of these naturally entail us stretching our imagination into the outputs of the wider flow and considering their wider relations (especially as they come to expression in our daily experience). The key is that this contemplation of the wider outputs should not be arbitrarily divorced from the cognitive context in which it occurs. The wider outputs must be understood as metaphors for deeper spiritual processes that we can come into intimate contact with through our cognitive life. There's no justifiable reason, from a spiritual scientific perspective, to separate the two out into parallel tracks.  

The justifiable reason to use the wider outputs as a funnel - not as an indefinitely separate pursuit - is the fact that, apart from the rarest exceptions, the rule is that people of our time who are in-principle interested are not able to follow the pursuit proposed in the PPs. Please correct me if you have different facts at hand. Beyond social media, have you found that the ones you have shared your or Cleric's essays with - modern PPs for the mind of XXI century - have understood them to some extent? Or even, did anyone make it to the end? Show any signs of interest? Did anyone ask you real questions or offered comments? For my part, I only have one case of someone who really showed interest. That one person is me. And yes, I don't count a "like" or a "thanks for sharing" like a sufficient demonstration of interest. Other than me, I have not found anyone else interested. Did you? If this is not the case, I am simply saying that one has to realize that the mind of the present time needs some additional help. Not a substitute, but an addition. As I commented on the last part of the game metaphor, perhaps an introduction to the series. Perhaps a series on specific wide flow phenomena.

Eventually, I hope you will realize there is no question of emotional attachment to my view because it is not a 'view', a conglomeration of speculations, inferences, and opinions, in any traditional sense. It is simply the way things are when we consider them phenomenologically and holistically, as spiritual science constantly invites us to do. Yes, the givens of our experiential flow can be quite 'inflexible' from the perspective of the soul that wants them to be something different, to be more in conformity with its default habits and expectations. But this is exactly the kind of 'inflexibility' we need in our time, just as we need a strong pillar of concentration in our meditative efforts. We should not be so easily swayed by the currents of our age to the point where we begin thinking, "reading the essays of this forum is rarely a solution to that lack of sense [for higher cognition]", because then we are beginning to turn away from the one avenue of inner development that truly carries hope for the future.

Well, what to say.... I'm not finding how to honestly comment on that and sound nice and positive at the same time. Maybe we should bookmark these words. I guess a good exercise would be that I don't write my comment, but you write it. That could be a great exercise. But I doubt you would be willing to face the discomfort, so let's just bookmark these words...

[AshvinP]

You misunderstood my reference to KHW. Obviously, that work cannot be placed on the same level as any of the APs or GPs we were discussing (notice the comparison was between Catching the Light and the work of MS/Ashton).

Ok good to know, but you will admit that, when you speak in plural - when you write: "such books" are Goethean phenomenology - it's difficult to figure out that in your mind you actually intended "such book", meaning only Catching the Light. And we still don't know whether you changed your mind about it since 2023. Regarding KHW, yes of course it's not an isolated book. No Steiner book is. But you did say that the seed exercises were/are not of interest to you? Not interesting enough for you to practice/have practiced them? Or is this also a misunderstanding? By the way, we can obviously find countless examples of people who misunderstood the exercises, like FB, or misunderstood Anthroposophy - like your Aurobindo guy who "read dozens of Steiner's books and spoke with Zajonc". That says nothing at all against exercises based on world phenomena I'm afraid.

That's quite convenient, Federica Whenever people seem to come away with a bad understanding from the essays, that is rock-solid proof of your viewpoint that "reading the essays of this forum is rarely a solution to that lack of sense [for higher cognition]", but whenever they work with the APs that you continue referencing for years and still have no orientation to the basics of intuitive thinking, that says nothing at all about your viewpoint.

Yes, you misunderstood that comment as well. First, I mentioned the exercise about observing the growth and decay of plants, which is distinct from the seed exercise. Secondly, I mentioned the former as an example of something I find highly desirable and valuable to work towards, that I am highly interested in. The point was that, if I am being honest, based on my inner experimentation, I have to admit there is an underlying hesitation with such exercises that stems from the fact that those phenomenal outputs are less proximate to my intuitive cognitive process, less in phase with my inputs, than my receding psychological states. It is only through the portal of the latter that we gradually build up a healthy orientation to and serious interest in the former. This is, once again, an undeniable fact of our inner structure as modern humans. It is not a subjective viewpoint or opinion.

The justifiable reason to use the wider outputs as a funnel - not as an indefinitely separate pursuit - is the fact that, apart from the rarest exceptions, the rule is that people of our time who are in-principle interested are not able to follow the pursuit proposed in the PPs. Please correct me if you have different facts at hand. Beyond social media, have you found that the ones you have shared your or Cleric essays with - modern PPs for the mind of XXI century - have understood them to some extent? Or even, did anyone make it to the end? Show any signs of interest? Did anyone ask you questions or offered comments? For my part, I only have one case of someone who really showed interest. That one person is me. And yes, I don't count a "like" or a "thanks for sharing" like a sufficient demonstration of interest. Other than me, I have not found anyone else interested. Did you? If this is not the case, I am simply saying that one has to realize that the mind of the present time needs some additional help. Not a substitute, but an addition. As I commented on the last part of the game metaphor, perhaps an introduction to the series. Perhaps a series on specific wide flow phenomena.

We need to re-center this discussion on what really matters, on the truly original intention of this thread, 'on attaining spiritual sight'. All of these speculations about the interest in our essays are quite irrelevant, for many reasons. For one thing, we hardly promote those essays anywhere, as is generally the case with the other APs you have been referencing. I post them on Substack, but I don't do any active promotion, marketing, etc. But even if we did, and most people continued to ignore them, that would have little to do with what's at stake in our orientation to the vital necessity of the PPs in our time.

When you say that the essays on this forum are rarely a solution to developing a sense for higher cognition, does this have anything to do with the sense for higher cognition that you attain through the essays? As you may remember, there have been numerous times on this forum where we began referencing how things are understood from the higher cognitive perspective, and you have said something like, "I cannot really speak to any of that, because it is so far removed from anything I have experienced, I am only speaking about how these things look to me from the intellectual perspective." Has that feeling now shifted with the game loop essays, for example, and you have developed some deeper sense of what 'higher cognition' entails through their pipelines?

If that is the case, then what makes you so special and unique from all other souls who are seeking deeper answers and a better orientation to spiritual reality? You can't appeal to the fact that you never bought into a materialistic philosophy here because Cleric and I have bought into such a philosophy, and yet we are the ones now writing the essays (and as we know, everyone buys into a materialistic outlook on reality by default, whether they hold it as an explicit philosophy or not). In fact, in response to Cleric's latest essay, you wrote: "Every step is so insightful and precise at the same time, that the only way to not get it is by carelessness, I believe." So why are you now practically saying that the only way not to get it is... by existing as a human being who is not you?

[Federica]

You misunderstood my reference to KHW. Obviously, that work cannot be placed on the same level as any of the APs or GPs we were discussing (notice the comparison was between Catching the Light and the work of MS/Ashton).

Ok good to know, but you will admit that, when you speak in plural - when you write: "such books" are Goethean phenomenology - it's difficult to figure out that in your mind you actually intended "such book", meaning only Catching the Light. And we still don't know whether you changed your mind about it since 2023. Regarding KHW, yes of course it's not an isolated book. No Steiner book is. But you did say that the seed exercises were/are not of interest to you? Not interesting enough for you to practice/have practiced them? Or is this also a misunderstanding? By the way, we can obviously find countless examples of people who misunderstood the exercises, like FB, or misunderstood Anthroposophy - like your Aurobindo guy who "read dozens of Steiner's books and spoke with Zajonc". That says nothing at all against exercises based on world phenomena I'm afraid.

That's quite convenient, Federica Whenever people seem to come away with a bad understanding from the essays, that is rock-solid proof of your viewpoint that "reading the essays of this forum is rarely a solution to that lack of sense [for higher cognition]", but whenever they work with the APs that you continue referencing for years and still have no orientation to the basics of intuitive thinking, that says nothing at all about your viewpoint.

Yes, you misunderstood that comment as well. First, I mentioned the exercise about observing the growth and decay of plants, which is distinct from the seed exercise. Secondly, I mentioned the former as an example of something I find highly desirable and valuable to work towards, that I am highly interested in. The point was that, if I am being honest, based on my inner experimentation, I have to admit there is an underlying hesitation with such exercises that stems from the fact that those phenomenal outputs are less proximate to my intuitive cognitive process, less in phase with my inputs, than my receding psychological states. It is only through the portal of the latter that we gradually build up a healthy orientation to and serious interest in the former. This is, once again, an undeniable fact of our inner structure as modern humans. It is not a subjective viewpoint or opinion.

The justifiable reason to use the wider outputs as a funnel - not as an indefinitely separate pursuit - is the fact that, apart from the rarest exceptions, the rule is that people of our time who are in-principle interested are not able to follow the pursuit proposed in the PPs. Please correct me if you have different facts at hand. Beyond social media, have you found that the ones you have shared your or Cleric essays with - modern PPs for the mind of XXI century - have understood them to some extent? Or even, did anyone make it to the end? Show any signs of interest? Did anyone ask you questions or offered comments? For my part, I only have one case of someone who really showed interest. That one person is me. And yes, I don't count a "like" or a "thanks for sharing" like a sufficient demonstration of interest. Other than me, I have not found anyone else interested. Did you? If this is not the case, I am simply saying that one has to realize that the mind of the present time needs some additional help. Not a substitute, but an addition. As I commented on the last part of the game metaphor, perhaps an introduction to the series. Perhaps a series on specific wide flow phenomena.

We need to re-center this discussion on what really matters, on the truly original intention of this thread, 'on attaining spiritual sight'. All of these speculations about the interest in our essays are quite irrelevant, for many reasons. For one thing, we hardly promote those essays anywhere, as is generally the case with the other APs you have been referencing. I post them on Substack, but I don't do any active promotion, marketing, etc. But even if we did, and most people continued to ignore them, that would have little to do with what's at stake in our orientation to the vital necessity of the PPs in our time.

When you say that the essays on this forum are rarely a solution to developing a sense for higher cognition, does this have anything to do with the sense for higher cognition that you attain through the essays? As you may remember, there have been numerous times on this forum where we began referencing how things are understood from the higher cognitive perspective, and you have said something like, "I cannot really speak to any of that, because it is so far removed from anything I have experienced, I am only speaking about how these things look to me from the intellectual perspective." Has that feeling now shifted with the game loop essays, for example, and you have developed some deeper sense of what 'higher cognition' entails through their pipelines?

If that is the case, then what makes you so special and unique from all other souls who are seeking deeper answers and a better orientation to spiritual reality? You can't appeal to the fact that you never bought into a materialistic philosophy here because Cleric and I have bought into such a philosophy, and yet we are the ones now writing the essays (and as we know, everyone buys into a materialistic outlook on reality by default, whether they hold it as an explicit philosophy or not). In fact, in response to Cleric's latest essay, you wrote: "Every step is so insightful and precise at the same time, that the only way to not get it is by carelessness, I believe." So why are you now practically saying that the only way not to get it is... by existing as a human being who is not you?

About the blue, Iet's make it very clear that I have unequivocally put all the "convenience" on your side. Your examples are people who misunderstand everything, and there will always be many of them. Giving evidence of such cases doesn't show much at all, obviously. But I have put all the convenience on your side because, as said, I am ready to reconsider my view, if you can give me even only a couple of cases of persons who have understood the PPs essays or at least seriously engaged with them. I know you don't market, but there still could be interest among friends, family, your Anthroposophical connections and FB group that you administer, or elsewhere. Since you have avoided the question, it seems like even such minimal feedback isn't there. Regarding the carelessness I wrote about, it expresses my deep frustration with the fact that there is no interest in the PPs. But instead of dwelling in frustration, it is incumbent upon me to invest that energy in positive and hopefully useful activity, like for example I expressed in this thread (and in other ways too, of course).

Other than that, Ashvin, it feels unproductive that you continually want to "recenter" what I write along your preferred directions that avoid the main question. I am not going to simply follow your arbitrary orders instead. I accept that you are not interested in this discussion, but you won't force me along the distorting lines you are drawing, for example when you distort what I said about not having a materialistic background.