Nietzsche and Christianity - Metaphysical Idealist Critique

[AshvinP]

Only if we assume all interpretations have equal truth value within a pragmatic framework, i.e. they are equally useful in our psycho-spiritual development. But we know that assumption is silly and is yet another consequence of the spirit of our age. The spirit which divides language from reality. BK's idealism is also radically different from any modern cultural narratives, so should we just rest comfortable in that fact and accept it will never be more than an intellectual hobby for the select few? The 'esoteric Christian tradition we are referencing has been there from the very beginning, well before any explicit idealism or materialism or any other 'ism', and is contained in some form within the practices of every other major Christian tradition, so I am confident there is a reason why it has been maintained throughout and hopeful that our efforts at experiencing its truths are not in vain.

...Well I applaud you for being honest that it's simply a matter of preference for you, even if it takes a few mischaracterizations of Nietzsche to get there No doubt all of our preferences, conscious and unconscious, make us resonate with one tradition more than another. Where we always seem to disagree is whether our preferences control the pragmatic truth value of these spiritual traditions. I suggest to you, as usual, that they do not.

Well, there is one thing common to virtually every blend of Christian faith, be it exoteric or esoteric, old or new: each of them claims to know the truth and the truth values, or at least pointing to where and how that absolute truth can be found. Yet most of them sadly disagree with each other even on very fundamental positions. For an unbiased observer this situation is an indication that they simply formulated their beliefs, views of preferences and their opinions into a "faith" and then claim it to be the absolute truth or at least a pointer to it. Once they imprison themselves into the cloister of their opinionated absolutistic faith, they are doomed to always maintain the claim of superiority and to be in the permanent opposition and conflict with each other and with every other existing philosophy or belief.

I'm sure Cleric's latest tour de force already addressed the above, but my 2 cents would be to consider what makes you so confident that it is only the Christians who are biased while you remain an "unbiased observer" of those traditions. What is it within you that views every claim to 'superiority' as a claim that must be, axiomatically, "imprisoned" and shallow?

[Soul_of_Shu]

But... in another sense, we can also see why humanity's gross negligence, i.e. sinfulness, which stems from lack of participation in the Divine ...

The point being, this metaphysical split matters at every level of analysis.

Agreed, although I'm more inclined to say that this 'sin' stems from the maya-spell of the segregated identity notion, a so-called 'fallen' state that renders us seemingly apart from a now objectified Divinity 'out there' that we must strive to be redeemed by. Rather, as a wise guy once apparently said: "... nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘Look there!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you” ... For we alters are none other than the Divine dressed in corporeal garb for the sake of this relational expression/exploration/experience, as suffering prone as it may be, Divine beings striving to become ... well, God only knows what

[Eugene I]

I agree with Dana, yes, the personification of the Cosmic Consciousness is the key difference between monotheistic and non-monotheistic blends of idealism.

Cleric, thanks for your, as usual, insightful comments and a picture of a refined Christian perspective. Let me give a slightly different perspective on this, from a similarly refined Buddhist perspective (which may not align in details with the official and historical Buddhist views, just like your position does not align with the traditional Christianity). When looking at Buddhism, we should look at its historical development and not only at the original Buddha's teachings. Even though in many traditional Buddhist schools the Shakyamuni Buddha is considered as almost a divine being and his teaching are considered as the truth, in fact he was an ordinary human being who simply initiated the Buddhist tradition and gave it the original impulse. His key spiritual discovery was the realization of the non-dual Buddha's nature, however, that by itself does not make any person omniscient (Buddha included). Since Shakyamuni the Buddhist tradition went through a significant development and advancement. So, it is true that the original Buddha's views, teachings and practices, as well as those of the early Buddhist schools, were limited in scope and perspective, and that is why in the later Mahayana tradition they were called "Hinayana" - the "small vehicle". If we look at the most advanced schools, such as Tibetan Dzogchen or Japanese Zen, we can see the integration of what you call the "Feminine" non-dual, empty and indifferent aspect of reality with the "Masculine" creative aspect. For example, you can see the fascination of the Zen monks with the creative beauty of the world of forms in Zen poetry, music and art. And you can see their active involvement in the life of this world and of humanity in the last 10-th stage of the "return to the market" in the famous Buddhist "Ox herding" poem. In Dzogchen we can see a total acceptance of the world of forms as the perfect expression of the "Nirmanakaya" - the creative diversity-creating aspect of reality which compliments the "Dharmakaya" - the non-dual emptiness aspect and the "Samhogakaya" - the aspect of non-dual luminous Awareness.

However, there are still two key differences between the Christian and the Buddhist approach to such integration:

- As Dana pointed, the creative aspect of the fundamental reality in monotheistic view (including Christian) is personified and understood as possessing metacognition, self, subjective perspective and free will. In non-monotheistic views (including BK's and Buddhist) it is not personified.

- A key insight of the Buddhist path is attaining the realization of non-dual aspect of reality which breaks the illusion of separation and dualistic perception that makes us to divide the world in our imagination into multiplicity of separate subjects and objects. One of the consequences of such insight is opening the possibility of attaining liberation - the freedom from self-driven impulses and limited views, and opens the way to post-egoic development of consciousness. This is not to deny that the egoic way of consciousness development is doomed or wrong, it definitely has its own merits. So, it is clear that there are two possible venues of the spiritual development of individuated as well as the collective consciousness - the dualistic and non-dualistic. I would never claim that one is superior to the other, they are simply two different paths, and each of us has a free choice to choose one of them. The best approach is to try each and then make a conscious and informed choice.

- This following view may be controversial, but I would suggest that the Christ consciousness represents the collective state and collective higher-self of the humanity in the dualistic state of consciousness. This is why Christ never spoke of non-duality and why non-duality is unheard of in Christianity and other monotheistic traditions. From the Buddhist perspective, the Brahma - the creator of the material world and the spiritual ruler of humanity (which would arguably correspond to Christ and/or Yahve/Allah of monotheistic traditions) is actually one of the divine beings in the dualistic state of consciousness, one of many deities inhabiting the realms of the divine beings (as was written in the "Invitation of Brahma" sutta). Some of those realms belong to "samsara" and inhabited by the beings (divine and of other types) with dualistic perception, others with non-dualistic perception reside in the nirvanic realms, both realms include a variety of races and worlds (according to the Buddhist cosmology). Now, "the dualistic state of consciousness" term is not an insult in any way, but is simply pointing to the fact that Brahma does not realize or simply disregards his non-dual Buddha's nature, and as a consequence, created and is guiding his creation together with humanity along the dualistic path. That does not mean that he is inferior, ill-intended or evil in any way (as it was portrayed in Gnosticism for example). He is simply maintaining and managing the development of the community of conscious beings (that live in either his astral created ream or incarnate as humans on Earth) along the dualistic path, himself believing and trying to convince his followers to believe that the dualistic ego-driven path is the most superior to any other paths with superior values and developmental goals. This is also why the monotheistic and specifically Christian traditions are inherently dualistic and only focus on the human and angelic races and realms and never speak of any other races and realms, not even to mention any non-dualistic ones. In that sense, such perspective is quite limited to the specific realm of Brahma (so-called Brahmaloka in Buddhism) with his position as the God and the ruler of this realm. And he indeed has strong points, no question about that, the ego-driven developmental path is definitely very dynamic and involves a wide range of experiences and states of consciousness unattainable on the non-dual path. Yet, himself and his followers, being not experientially and intimately familiar with the non-dual path and perspective, can not appreciate the benefits and developmental perspectives of the non-dual path, and this is why he/they consider the non-dual path as an inferior one. Also, being not familiar with his non-dual nature as a more fundamental level of reality to his Self, he considers his Self as the most fundamental metaphysical reality, and that is also strongly reflected in most monotheistic traditions (as they have been historically initiated by him or his messengers) that consider God to be the ultimate and absolute metaphysical reality, and this belief remains to be one among the fundamental and irreconcilable differences between monotheistic and non-dualistic spiritual traditions and worldviews.

Anyway, I think we went too far here and we are already talking about things that are far beyond us and our ability to verify or falsify such views, we are simply discussing personal beliefs. We had this dispute going on here for quite while and I think we presented our arguments extensively and not much more can be added. You position is clear to me, I respect it and understand it and have nothing against it (except that I believe its superiority claims are ungrounded), but I remain with my position and will continue along my chosen path.

[AshvinP]

But... in another sense, we can also see why humanity's gross negligence, i.e. sinfulness, which stems from lack of participation in the Divine ...

The point being, this metaphysical split matters at every level of analysis.

Agreed, although I'm more inclined to say that this 'sin' stems from the maya-spell of the segregated identity notion, a so-called 'fallen' state that renders us seemingly apart from a now objectified Divinity 'out there' that we must strive to be redeemed by. Rather, as a wise guy once apparently said: "... nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘Look there!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you” ... For we alters are none other than the Divine dressed in corporeal garb for the sake of this relational expression/exploration/experience, as suffering prone as it may be, Divine beings striving to become ... well, God only knows what

Agreed, but a key question remains whether reuniting with Divinity is what Cleric refers to as a "smearing out" of individuated identity into the Cosmic Womb or rather it is more like a clarifying of our expanded "I"'s exact interrelated relationship with the whole 'network' of Divinities. That is essentially the difference between Eastern and Western, and it seems rather silly for us in the year 2021 to continue claiming such distinctions are not extremely important or remain forever inaccessible to us until after "it" happens.

[AshvinP]

- As Dana pointed, the creative aspect of the fundamental reality in monotheistic view (including Christian) is personified and understood as possessing metacognition, self, subjective perspective and free will. In non-monotheistic views (including BK's and Buddhist) it is not personified.

Don't be so fast to put BK in that camp. It seems to me like he prefers the non-metacognitive perspective but is also finding it increasingly difficult to deny the metacognitive purposes of Nature as it unfolds. I have never really understood the non-metacognitive to metacognitive transition within ontic reality as opposed to our linear temporal 'interface'. In the ontic case, how can one ever be prioritized over the other as being more 'fundamental'?

[Eugene I]

Don't be so fast to put BK in that camp. It seems to me like he prefers the non-metacognitive perspective but is also finding it increasingly difficult to deny the metacognitive purposes of Nature as it unfolds. I have never really understood the non-metacognitive to metacognitive transition within ontic reality as opposed to our linear temporal 'interface'. In the ontic case, how can one ever be prioritized over the other as being more 'fundamental'?

Well yes, there are certainly differences between BK's position and the non-dualistic one, otherwise BK himself would openly state his non-dualist position. It seems that he remains neutral/agnostic to it at this point. But you made a good point and I agree, the ontic reality can not transition between non-metacognitive and metacognitive states since its fundamental nature must be unchangeable, only forms that are unfolded in it can undergo any transitions. In other words, if anything undergoes any change or development, it cannot be the fundamental itself on the ontic level, but only a form or an activity of the fundamental. And that also applies to the divine mind, personality and self, as well as our alters' minds and selves, which are all not fundamental because they all experiences transitions and changes.

[SanteriSatama]

Really, aren't all monotheistic religions essentially idealism insofar as they refer to, and rely upon, the 'Will' of God, which implies some fundamentally aware agency at its core. However, far too often from there comes undue projection, personification, and extrapolation to profess that this Will actually intends, e.g., that a deadly contagion should be wilfully inflicted upon humankind and its sinful ways. Whereas the primal 'will' that the likes of Bernardo posits has no such moral agenda, and has no inherent 'thus-God-spoke' commandments to offer, leaving us alters to figure that out for ourselves. So it's not so much that such a God is dead, as Nietzsche proclaims, but that such a God never existed in the first place. However, that does not preclude a fundamental, uncaused, irreducible consciousness using feedback from its relational, altermode expression/exploration to evolve, with evermore novelty, a transfigured, less suffering prone, integral stage and state ~ be it Buddha-nature, or Christ-consciousness, awakened heart/mindfulness, or by whatever preferred descriptor.

In the forms of time, by the declaration of death of a such god, it ceased to exist in the first place. That does not mean it didn't exist in the interval between. Just that the interval halted, ceased to be an open interval and became a closed interval.

<[]>

[Eugene I]

Agreed, but a key question remains whether reuniting with Divinity is what Cleric refers to as a "smearing out" of individuated identity into the Cosmic Womb or rather it is more like a clarifying of our expanded "I"'s exact interrelated relationship with the whole 'network' of Divinities. That is essentially the difference between Eastern and Western, and it seems rather silly for us in the year 2021 to continue claiming such distinctions are not extremely important or remain forever inaccessible to us until after "it" happens.

As a correction, the non-dual state of consciousness does not mean or necessarily entail in "smearing out" and disintegrating of individuated conscious activities into the Cosmic Womb. The individuated activities and fields of experiences may (or may not) continue to unfold and develop, however, their perceptions of reality and perspectives on it are changed in a fundamental way and become non-self-centered and non-self-driven when they develop along the non-dual path. BK said in an interview that he "sincerely hopes" that the borders of the alters consciousness disintegrates after the physical death and all its memories become absorbed into the MAL. However, NDE and reincarnation studies data do not support that assumption, and I don't believe that it is necessarily true. Such dissolution may or may not happen and it is possibly a matter of the alter's free choice.

[AshvinP]

Don't be so fast to put BK in that camp. It seems to me like he prefers the non-metacognitive perspective but is also finding it increasingly difficult to deny the metacognitive purposes of Nature as it unfolds. I have never really understood the non-metacognitive to metacognitive transition within ontic reality as opposed to our linear temporal 'interface'. In the ontic case, how can one ever be prioritized over the other as being more 'fundamental'?

Well yes, there are certainly differences between BK's position and the non-dualistic one, otherwise BK himself would openly state his non-dualist position. It seems that he remains neutral/agnostic to it at this point. But you made a good point and I agree, the ontic reality can not transition between non-metacognitive and metacognitive states since its fundamental nature must be unchangeable, only forms that are unfolded in it can undergo any transitions. In other words, if anything undergoes any change or development, it cannot be the fundamental itself on the ontic level, but only a form or an activity of the fundamental. And that also applies to the divine mind, personality and self, as well as our alters' minds and selves, which are all not fundamental because they all experiences transitions and changes.

At the fundamental level, there must be permanence of experience for there to be awareness of forms which are always changing. That can be thought of as the "one eye of the world which looks out from all knowing creatures" (Schopenhauer). Both metaphysical perspectives are non-dual, since they only posit mental activity as ontically real. The West-East difference is broadly whether that "one eye" is self-aware (metacognitive) or not. What I don't understand is how the "one eye" can be truly non-metacognitive while some of the "knowing creatures" are truly metacognitive without resorting to some sort of temporal narrative which makes the latter the product of the former.

[SanteriSatama]

- This following view may be controversial, but I would suggest that the Christ consciousness represents the collective state and collective higher-self of the humanity in the dualistic state of consciousness. This is why Christ never spoke of non-duality and why non-duality is unheard of in Christianity and other monotheistic traditions.

Non-duality is rather clearly spoken especially in Gospel of Thomas.