Metamorphoses of the Spirit: Transfiguring our Thinking (Part II)

[Adur Alkain]

And thank you for pointing to Almaas, somehow I've never heard of him, but his approach and works sure look like worth exploring.

Almaas's work is definitely worth exploring. I'm pretty sure people will still be studying his books in the far future. But reading them requires some effort. It's like learning a new language. I recommend, as an entry point, Spacecruiser Inquiry. And as a more advanced read I recommend The Inner Journey Home, where he exposes his whole metaphysics.

[Adur Alkain]

Eugene mentioned that there must have been Memory of such experience to recall it in later experience-thought. Also there is no way of speaking about it without that ideal content. This is obvious to see, but sometimes our intellect later tells us the meaning was only added after the 'raw' experience. Notice how it is your intellect stating that (or someone else's intellect) rather than anything in the experience, which, through its undeniable meaning, is telling the exact opposite.

Ashvin and Eugene,

There is no memory involved in pure awareness. The memory, and the speaking about it, comes afterwards.

It is possible to speak about experiencing the absence of memory, the absence of thought and discrimination. I don't see why it shouldn't be.

I have experienced not only pure awareness, but also absolute nothingness (which according to Almaas is the deepest dimension of reality). Nothingness is pure nothing. No consciousness, no awareness. Nothing. It is possible to experience that. And it's possible to speak about it afterwards.

To the thinking mind this probably sounds nonsensical. But to the soul who has actually experienced it, it is the most profound (and terrifying) experience one has ever had.

Experientially, the soul can recognize with great clarity the different dimensions, and the transitions from one to the other. Moving from the dimension of consciousness to that of pure awareness, one experiences the dissolution of all forms, all discriminations. Formless awareness is like an infinite ocean of undifferentiated experience. Awareness aware of itself. No memories. No meanings. There may be a sense of pure bliss and freedom, but that too can dissolve, and there is only awareness.

And then, moving from pure awareness into nothingness is like an absolute darkness swallowing everything, dissolving awareness into nothingness. This is (at least in my own experience) truly terrifying. This nothingness is, I believe, the source of our deepest terrors. But once one surrenders to it, the absolute nothingness reveals itself as the true source of everything. Coming back from that experience is like being born again, renewed. (This is exemplified in the death and resurrection of Christ.)

So, in a way, when we speak about these experiences we are mainly speaking of what we experienced before and after the actual experience. Of the experience itself, the discriminating mind can only remember a pale reflection. Meaning, discrimination and understanding come in only afterwards. I don't see the problem with this.

[Eugene I]

Ashvin and Eugene,

There is no memory involved in pure awareness. The memory, and the speaking about it, comes afterwards.

It is possible to speak about experiencing the absence of memory, the absence of thought and discrimination. I don't see why it shouldn't be.

I have experienced not only pure awareness, but also absolute nothingness (which according to Almaas is the deepest dimension of reality). Nothingness is pure nothing. No consciousness, no awareness. Nothing. It is possible to experience that. And it's possible to speak about it afterwards.

I also experienced nothingness in a lucid dreamless sleep. There was literally absolutely nothing at all. But the fact that I was able to recall this state later when I woke up (and I still remember it very well) means that it was recorded in the memory, therefore the memory was functioning in this state, but if the memory is functioning, that is not nothingness anymore. Also, the fact that you/I were able to get out of that state means that there was still volition functioning that made a movement to pull out of that state. Otherwise, if volition would be absent, what could cause the consciousness to return to the full-functioning state?

Experientially, the soul can recognize with great clarity the different dimensions, and the transitions from one to the other. Moving from the dimension of consciousness to that of pure awareness, one experiences the dissolution of all forms, all discriminations. Formless awareness is like an infinite ocean of undifferentiated experience. Awareness aware of itself. No memories. No meanings. There may be a sense of pure bliss and freedom, but that too can dissolve, and there is only awareness.

Yes, I'm familiar with this state and experience it in deep meditation.
But:

And then, moving from pure awareness into nothingness is like an absolute darkness swallowing everything, dissolving awareness into nothingness. This is (at least in my own experience) truly terrifying. This nothingness is, I believe, the source of our deepest terrors. But once one surrenders to it, the absolute nothingness reveals itself as the true source of everything. Coming back from that experience is like being born again, renewed. (This is exemplified in the death and resurrection of Christ.)

Wait a sec! The fact that you were aware of that state, that you experienced it simply means that the awareness/experiencing was still present. It is impossible to experience a state of the absence of awareness/experiencing (unless we are talking of different kinds of awareness)

So, in a way, when we speak about these experiences we are mainly speaking of what we experienced before and after the actual experience. Of the experience itself, the discriminating mind can only remember a pale reflection. Meaning, discrimination and understanding come in only afterwards. I don't see the problem with this.

Correct, you can suspend/"turn of"" your discrimination/understanding, but again, the fact that you experienced and memorized that state of the absence of discrimination/understanding means that memory and conscious experiencing was still functioning.

[Cleric K]

There is no memory involved in pure awareness. The memory, and the speaking about it, comes afterwards.

It is possible to speak about experiencing the absence of memory, the absence of thought and discrimination. I don't see why it shouldn't be.
...
So, in a way, when we speak about these experiences we are mainly speaking of what we experienced before and after the actual experience. Of the experience itself, the discriminating mind can only remember a pale reflection. Meaning, discrimination and understanding come in only afterwards. I don't see the problem with this.

Adur,
We should distinguish the act of remembering things which summons up content within the soul, and the actual integrative process of memory which is the basis of the "I"-experience. Think of it in this way: there's something of your everyday self that was present in the empty state. It's true that there are no thoughts, images, remembrances, etc. in the empty state but there's still duration of experience. An essential part of the "I" is going through the experience and building up the memory organism (this buildup is duration). If that was not the case you would never be able to remember the experience or know that you have went through it. Actually we go through that experience every night in deep sleep but we're not conscious of it. That's why we have only dim memory that we have spent time in deep sleep. We don't remember the terror of the void but still we can tell that time has passed. This shows that there was at least small amount of consciousness present, enough to integrate the duration of the experience into memory. If we didn't have that, the moment we fall asleep (assuming no dreams) we would feel as if we immediately wake up as if no time has passed, even if we've been sleeping for days.

And then, moving from pure awareness into nothingness is like an absolute darkness swallowing everything, dissolving awareness into nothingness. This is (at least in my own experience) truly terrifying. This nothingness is, I believe, the source of our deepest terrors. But once one surrenders to it, the absolute nothingness reveals itself as the true source of everything. Coming back from that experience is like being born again, renewed. (This is exemplified in the death and resurrection of Christ.)

The feeling of terror is a normal stage in the development of the highest form of cognition which is called in spiritual science Intuitive consciousness. The death and resurrection is very precisely what is going on. The terror is associated with the losing of the grounds of the Earthly "I" beneath its feet, so to speak. As you say, the terror is overcome only when we find the stable bearings of the "I" within the nothingness. The death and resurrection of Christ is not simply an exemplification of the process - it's actual reality. In the most real sense the Christ is the Life of our "I" in this realm. When we unite with the Christ in this way, we begin to realize that what we've called nothingness is actually quite full of Life - as you say, it's the source of all. It's just that this Life is made of "I"s. It's the spiritual world and we live within the "I"s of spiritual beings and the Christ being is the actual essence of our Macrocosmic "I". We simply don't have self-consciousness within the nothingness unless we unite with the Cosmic I AM. When we attain to this consciousness the nothingness is revealed to be a spiritual world full of beings. The Christ Being replaces terror with courage and certainty in the eternal core of our being.

Maybe the following excerpt can be of use:

If we could have a clear grasp of the ego and place it before us like the external physical body; if we could look for the environment upon which the ego depends in the same way as the physical body is dependent upon what is seen by the eyes and perceived by the senses, — if we could look for the environment of the ego in the same way as we do for that of the physical realm, in the clouds, mountains, etc., or, in the same way as the physical body does for its means of nourishment we should come at last to an expression of the cosmos, to a cosmic tableau, which even to-day is, as it were, imprinted upon our environment and is invisibly within it, similar to the cosmic appearance of ancient Saturn*.
* ancient Saturn has nothing to do with our current planet Saturn. It's a state of existence which I called 'the first eon' in the Deep M@L essay. Note that the other name of Saturn is Chronos - Time. The whole existence in the first eon is one of pure time or pure memory.
This means that a man who wishes to learn to know the ego in its own world must represent to himself a world such as ancient Saturn. This world is hidden; to man it is a super-sensible world. At the present stage of his evolution man could not possibly bear the perception of it. It is veiled by the Guardian of the Threshold Who conceals it from him. And it requires a certain grade of spiritual development to support such a vision. It is indeed a vision to which we have to become accustomed. — And above all you must form a conception of what is necessary, to be able to feel such a cosmic tableau as reality. You must think away everything that can be perceived by the senses, you must even think away your own inner world, in so far as this consists of the wonted working of the mind. Further, you must think away everything that is in the world; all the concepts you have within you. Thus you must remove from the external world all that the senses can perceive, and from the inner world all the workings of the mind, all conceptions. And now, if you wish to form an idea of that soul-disposition which a man must have if he really holds the thought that everything is taken away and man alone remains, we cannot say otherwise than that he must learn to feel dread and fear of the infinite emptiness yawning around him. He must be able to feel, as it were, his environment tinged and saturated with that which inspires dread and fear wherever he turns, and at the same time he must be able to overcome this fear by inner firmness and certainty.

Without these two frames of mind, — dread and fear of the infinite emptiness of existence and the overcoming of this fear it is impossible to have the faintest conception of the ancient Saturn existence underlying our own world. Neither of these feelings is much cultivated by people in themselves. Hence in literature we find but few descriptions of this condition. It is naturally only known to those who in course of time endeavour to seek the origin of things by means of clairvoyant forces.

...

In order to understand what underlies the world it does not suffice to speak of it in concepts, or to form concepts and ideas on it; it is far more necessary to call up an impression of the feeling aroused by the infinite emptiness of the ancient Saturn existence. A feeling of horror accompanies the mere hint of it. If we wish to ascend clairvoyantly to the state of Saturn, we must prepare ourselves by-acquiring a feeling that may be compared to the giddiness experienced on a mountain, when a man stands at the edge of an abyss and feels that he has no sure footing under him, that he cannot retain it in any place and wants to give way to forces over which he has no longer any control. But that is only the most elementary of these apprehensive feelings. Next he loses not only the ground beneath him, but also what eyes can see, ears hear and hands grasp; in fact all spatial environment. And he can do no other than lose every thought that may come to him, in a sort of condition of dimness or sleep; and then he can arrive at having no perception at all. He may be so deeply absorbed in this impression that he can do no other than come to the condition of dread, which often is like a giddiness not to be overcome.

Man of to-day has two possibilities. The first is that he may have understood the Gospels, or the Mystery of Golgotha. Anyone who has really understood these in their full depths — naturally not as modern theologians speak of them, but in such a way that he has drawn from them the deepest that can be expressed in them — will take something with him into that emptiness, which seems to expand from a given point and fills emptiness with something similar to courage. It is a feeling of courage, of protection through being united with that Being Who accomplished the sacrifice on Golgotha. The other way is to penetrate into the spiritual worlds without the Gospels through a real true Theosophy. This is also possible. (You know that we emphasise the fact that we do not start from the Gospels when we consider the Mystery of Golgotha, but that we should arrive at it even if there were no Gospel at all). It would not have been possible before the Mystery of Golgotha took place; but it is the case to-day, because something entered the world through the Mystery of Golgotha which enables a man to understand the impressions of the spiritual world directly through his own impressions. This is what we call the ruling of the Holy Spirit in the world, the ruling of cosmic thought in the world. Whether we take one or the other of these two ways, we cannot lose ourselves and we cannot, so to say, fall into the bottomless abyss when we stand before the dreadful emptiness. If we now approach this dreadful emptiness with the other preparations given us by the various methods, for instance, those in my book, The Knowledge of Higher Worlds etc. and other methods dependent on these — and enter a world born from that which has so shaken our minds, which can now be grasped by our conceptions when we live into that world, when we place ourselves, so to say, in the Saturn existence, then we learn to know Beings — not in the least similar to those we perceive in the animal, plant or mineral kingdoms but Beings. This is a world where there are no clouds, no light, it is quite devoid of sound, but we become acquainted with Beings — indeed those Beings, called in our terminology, Spirits of Will or Thrones. We learn so to know them that the surging sea of courage becomes a true objective reality for us.

Evolution in the Aspect of Realities: Lecture 2

[Soul_of_Shu]

Wait a sec! The fact that you were aware of that state, that you experienced it simply means that the awareness/experiencing was still present. It is impossible to experience a state of the absence of awareness/experiencing (unless we are talking of different kinds of awareness)

Yes, I like the way Rupert Spira puts it: there is no absence of awareness, but rather the awareness of absence—or the utter absence of any objects of awareness, aka no-thingness. Indeed, to apply a descriptor of any sort is already the inkling of an idea. But what ya gonna do if such ideation is the ontological imperative? I suppose join a forum like this one

[Adur Alkain]

I also experienced nothingness in a lucid dreamless sleep. There was literally absolutely nothing at all. But the fact that I was able to recall this state later when I woke up (and I still remember it very well) means that it was recorded in the memory, therefore the memory was functioning in this state, but if the memory is functioning, that is not nothingness anymore. Also, the fact that you/I were able to get out of that state means that there was still volition functioning that made a movement to pull out of that state. Otherwise, if volition would be absent, what could cause the consciousness to return to the full-functioning state?

Experientially, the soul can recognize with great clarity the different dimensions, and the transitions from one to the other. Moving from the dimension of consciousness to that of pure awareness, one experiences the dissolution of all forms, all discriminations. Formless awareness is like an infinite ocean of undifferentiated experience. Awareness aware of itself. No memories. No meanings. There may be a sense of pure bliss and freedom, but that too can dissolve, and there is only awareness.

Yes, I'm familiar with this state and experience it in deep meditation.
But:

And then, moving from pure awareness into nothingness is like an absolute darkness swallowing everything, dissolving awareness into nothingness. This is (at least in my own experience) truly terrifying. This nothingness is, I believe, the source of our deepest terrors. But once one surrenders to it, the absolute nothingness reveals itself as the true source of everything. Coming back from that experience is like being born again, renewed. (This is exemplified in the death and resurrection of Christ.)

Wait a sec! The fact that you were aware of that state, that you experienced it simply means that the awareness/experiencing was still present. It is impossible to experience a state of the absence of awareness/experiencing (unless we are talking of different kinds of awareness)

So, in a way, when we speak about these experiences we are mainly speaking of what we experienced before and after the actual experience. Of the experience itself, the discriminating mind can only remember a pale reflection. Meaning, discrimination and understanding come in only afterwards. I don't see the problem with this.

Correct, you can suspend/"turn of"" your discrimination/understanding, but again, the fact that you experienced and memorized that state of the absence of discrimination/understanding means that memory and conscious experiencing was still functioning.

Eugene,

This is a fascinating discussion! Precisely because it is so difficult to remember these states, and to speak about them.

I think you are making some unwarranted assumptions. For example, you speak of "recording", as if our memory were a sort of tape recorder recording all our expereinces as they happen. This is clearly a materialistic notion, the idea that memories are somehow "stored" in our brain. Or, being an idealist, you could say that memories are not stored in our brain, but in our consciousness, or whatever. But actually, there's no need to assume any kind of "storage". If we recognize that, in an idealist perspective, time and space are not fundamental, it makes more sense to suppose that memory involves a sort of "time travel". Consciousness is not constrained by the localization in space-time of the phsycal body, so that could be a way of understanding how memory works.
In this perspective, memory doesn't add anything to the present experience. It is a way of looking at the past, but it doesn't influence the past or add anything to it.

You also speak of volition, but I don't see why you need to assume that it is our volition that takes us from one state to the next. That's not my experience. When I'm sleeping and I wake up, it happens by itself. My volition doesn't play any part in it.

But then, I must agree with what you say: "It is impossible to experience a state of the absence of awareness/experiencing." This is an obvious truth, and I expressed myself sloppily when I said "It is possible to experience nothingness". Nothingness brings about the total cessation of experience.

So, my point is not that we can experience nothingness, but that we can know it is there. We can know that nothingness or absolute emptiness is the ground and source of all experience, not by directly experiencing the nothingness, but by experiencing how our awareness dissolves into nothingness, and how it arises out of it.

I'm going to post a video below, where A. H. Almaas discusses this very point with Rupert Spira.

[Adur Alkain]

Wait a sec! The fact that you were aware of that state, that you experienced it simply means that the awareness/experiencing was still present. It is impossible to experience a state of the absence of awareness/experiencing (unless we are talking of different kinds of awareness)

Yes, I like the way Rupert Spira puts it: there is no absence of awareness, but rather the awareness of absence—or the utter absence of any objects of awareness, aka no-thingness. Indeed, to apply a descriptor of any sort is already the inkling of an idea. But what ya gonna do if such ideation is the ontological imperative? I suppose join a forum like this one

Hi Soul of Shu!

Eugene was right, like I said in my reply to him: It is impossible to experience the absence of awareness. But, as much as I love Rupert Spira (I think he is a wonderful teacher of the nonduality view), I don't think it's true, as he says, that awareness is always present and never goes away. It may be comforting to think that there is an enduring, never-ending ground to reality: pure awareness, but I don't think it's true. Sometimes awareness dissolves and there is absolute nothingness (no experience), and that's reality too.

In this video Rupert Spira has a fascinating discussion around this topic with A.H. Almaas (Hameed Ali). It is interesting for me to see that Rupert had difficulties in understanding what Hameed was saying, while Hameed could understand perfectly well what Rupert was saying. For me this shows that Almaas is a more advanced teacher. It is natural that most people find it much easier to understand Rupert's words, than to understand Hameed's (you can see that in the comments on the YouTube page). But when you can understand both, like I believe I do, I feel Hammed has a deeper and broader insight into fundamental reality.

A year later they met again at the same conference, and in that occasion they reached a much better understanding (meaning, Rupert Spira was able to finally get -up to a point- what Almaas was saying). The video of the second conversation is also available on YouTube.

The discussion about the cessation of awareness or nothingness starts around 27:37.

[Soul_of_Shu]

In this video Rupert Spira has a fascinating discussion around this topic with A.H. Almaas (Hameed Ali). It is interesting for me to see that Rupert had difficulties in understanding what Hameed was saying, while Hameed could understand perfectly well what Rupert was saying. For me this shows that Almaas is a more advanced teacher. It is natural that most people find it much easier to understand Rupert's words, than to understand Hameed's (you can see that in the comments on the YouTube page). But when you can understand both, like I believe I do, I feel Hammed has a deeper and broader insight into fundamental reality.

A year later they met again at the same conference, and in that occasion they reached a much better understanding (meaning, Rupert Spira was able to finally get -up to a point- what Almaas was saying). The video of the second conversation is also available on YouTube.

The discussion about the cessation of awareness or nothingness starts around 27:37.

Adur ... I just found A.H. to come across as unconvincing, and never really gave an unequivocal answer to Rupert's inquiry, and seemed to be the one 'not getting it'. In the old MS forum that preceded this one, there were numerous discussions about the topic of the absence of awareness, as opposed to the awareness of absence, and so I doubt that any further such discussion is going to make much difference here. But if A.H. seems convincing to some, then so be it.

[Eugene I]

So, my point is not that we can experience nothingness, but that we can know it is there. We can know that nothingness or absolute emptiness is the ground and source of all experience, not by directly experiencing the nothingness, but by experiencing how our awareness dissolves into nothingness, and how it arises out of it.

I'm going to post a video below, where A. H. Almaas discusses this very point with Rupert Spira.

I do not agree with that. We can never experience the actual event of awareness "dissolving" into nothingness, because if we would experience such event, the awareness would still be there to experience it. Awareness can not experience the actual event of its own "dissolution". So there is no way to experientially prove that such state of "awareness dissolved into nothingness" actually exist. It is only your unprovable assumption/hypothesis/belief (religious or philosophical).

Philosophically your position can be classified as neutral monism, because you are claiming that the ontological ground of reality is "nothingness" where, in its "pure" form, there is yet no awareness, consciousness or existence, and the awareness and all forms and aspects of reality "emerge" from this nothingness. This is exactly neutral monism, which if fine, such ontology does exist and there are philosophers subscribed to it. One of the main problems of this ontology is the same "hard problem of consciousness" that materialism has to struggle with: how something fundamentally non-conscious (such as "nothingness" or "matter") can make conscious experience possible?

[Adur Alkain]

Adur ... I just found A.H. to come across as unconvincing, and never really gave an unequivocal answer to Rupert's inquiry, and seemed to be the one 'not getting it'. In the old MS forum that preceded this one, there were numerous discussions about the topic of the absence of awareness, as opposed to the awareness of absence, and so I doubt that any further such discussion is going to make much difference here. But if A.H. seems convincing to some, then so be it.

Soul of Shu,

in their second conversation a year later, Rupert himself said that he was beginning to understand Hameed's view, unlike in their first conversation. It's not a matter of being convincing or unconvincing. To me it's very clear what Hameed was trying to say, but it is also clear that it is very difficult, or maybe impossibe, to understand him without having studied his works for some time.

A.H. Almaas has thousands of students around the world, fully commited to his teachings. But he himself says that his teaching is not for everybody. If he doesn't appeal to you and doesn't intrigue you in any way, forget about it.

(As a personal anecdote, the first time I came across one of his books I thought it was total gibberish and didn't read more than one or two chapters. Years later, after doing some spiritual work, I listened to somebody on youtube recommending that same book... I tried again and it blew my mind! The most profound, life-changing book I've ever read! These things happen.)

Going back to that conversation between Rupert and Hameed, Rupert is very commited to a particular view: nonduality. Hameed is not commited to any particular view, so he was all the time saying: "Yes, I see what you are saying, but it's also possible to see it this other way..." Rupert thought he was contradicting him, but he wasn't.

I don't know how many students Rupert has, but I guess you must believe in nonduality as the ultimate truth to be his student. Or maybe not believe in it, but be open to it, since the goal of his teaching seems to be to reach that one truth. On the other hand, Hameed's students can be dualists, materialists, idealists, Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, nondualists, or whatever works for them. Hameed only encourages them to find their own truth. It's a different thing altogether.