Bernardo's latest essay

[SanteriSatama]

I get the impression that the whole discussion goes back to Buddha feeling and thinking that gods and their universes of forms and emotional drama and what not is not the ultimate truth, but something to get away from. Nietzsche, Heidegger etc. of European spirit of progress, as represented on this forum, is deep down about evolution of theology in the most concrete sense. Becoming better gods.

The Netflix soap opera 'Lucifer' is IMHO astonishingly deep theologically, in it's silly and fun way. No spoilers yet from me, in case someone who has not seen the latest season and wants to watch.

[AshvinP]

"because the person who feels they have ascertained primal meaning by pure Experiencing will feel there is no need to go further. They could go further or they could not, it makes very little difference to their lives. This person will naturally be so skeptical of claims to 'higher knowledge' than the knowledge already gained by Experiencing they will never consider those claims properly. They may even view those claims as being directly harmful 'fantasies' to others by excluding other claims."

There are indeed some Eastern "extremist" schools that would make such claim. But I disagree with it and do not subscribe to such view, and this is why I say that such extremist Eastern approach is incomplete and lacking.

Assuming your epistemic dualism is correct, what is the practical significance for our arguments about seeking higher knowledge, engaging in spiritual science, adopting Christo-centric spirituality, etc.? Does it make any difference to those arguments or not at all? The reason I ask is because you often respond that you simply want us to have a more "complete" understanding of what you call "being a human" above. You say our essays and comments are only presenting one side of the story and another major "aspect" is missing from them. So what difference would that more complete understanding, which integrates the "missing aspect", make to any of the specific claims we make in matters of philosophy or spirituality?

The difference it makes is more "existential" rather than philosophical, so to speak. It kind of makes the experiencing of Reality more full/encompassing, or perhaps more fulfilling (=full-filling), but I can't really describe it in words. It is like you can be a scientist (e.g. spiritual one) and at the same time a musician. On one hand, these activities almost do not interfere with each other, but on the other hand, the do affect each other in some ways.

What I hear you saying in the above is that it makes absolutely no difference to the philosophical or spiritual arguments. If I had that "more full/encompassing or fulfilling" experience which you cannot describe, the arguments in my essays and comments would not change one iota. Which makes sense, because Cleric has had that experience you speak of and his arguments are the same as mine when it comes to these issues. So what exactly is the purpose of making this comment:

"Ashvin and Cleric think that ideas can experience themselves or other ideas, and that such experiencing is just another idea, just like materialists think that matter can experience itself and that conscious experiencing is just an epiphenomenon of matter."

Simon had a clear practical purpose in his disagreement - he feels our view diminishes the ineffable power of the Christian God who he places faith in and undermines the Catholic faith by reducing His "otherness". He readily admits that his view implies a hard dualism but the conviction of his faith is enough so that does not bother him. What is the practical purpose of your disagreement? The best you offer is "they do affect each other in some ways" which you cannot specify more. Of course if it was only that one comment, it would be barely worth mentioning. But it is not - it is every thread these issues come up.

[DandelionSoul]

DandelionSoul, it seems to me that a point BK made impinges on your argument - that is, the idea of the Ground being not nothing, but a superposition of all possibilities; in other words, a plenum. Emptiness then implies that forms are hitherto unrealized and unmanifest. However, the potential for manifestation removes the idea of a vacuum.

I read this before work and am only now having the chance to respond, and I appreciate you taking the time to engage. I would reply in three ways to your (/Kastrup's) point here.

The first is that I can't see how that in which no forms are realized or manifest and all possibilities are held in superposition -- which is to say, that in which nothing has happened and nothing exists -- is meaningfully different from just being nothing. How is a plenum with nothing actually in it, comprised of nothing actual at all, different from a vacuum?

The second is that any talk of potentials being actualized presupposes time. The actualization of potential is always already a temporal process, and inescapably so, to the extent that even your description -- "hitherto unrealized" -- is a temporal one. If the Ground is timeless, if it grounds all spatiotemporal relationships and spacetime itself, then how does it make sense to talk about potentials that have not yet been realized? And if is impossible to talk about the Ground meaningfully without talking about its arisings, then I continue to be unable to reach any conclusion besides the one I've reached: attempting to analyze the Ground apart from its arisings yields literally nothing, pure vacuity, empty emptiness. The Ground and the arisings are mutually construed. Indeed, it is only constituted as Ground in relationship with its arisings, so in the last instance, there just is no non-relational reality.

The third is to point out that Kastrup himself calls the Ground "void" and existence "empty" and approvingly quotes Adyashanti in describing reality as "emptiness dancing." Further, he himself points out that the single universal subject itself only exists insofar as it is actually experiencing, and says that the term "medium of mind" is metaphorical. And if the medium of mind is metaphorical, because all that actually exists is experience, well, then, the potentials contained within the medium of mind prior to its (metaphorical) movements are also metaphorical -- how can they be anything else? And, further, although he says that it must be "in a sense" something other than nothing, that "in a sense" is an important qualifier: it's his admission that it also is nothing. Indeed, he goes so far as to say that M@L is nothing but its experiences.

Kastrup is willing to swallow the paradox whole, or, at least, he was back when he released Why Materialism Is Baloney, even to name it as paradox. All the above takes place within five paragraphs, capped off with, "Existence is but a disturbance of the void and, thus, fundamentally empty. At the same time, obviously existence is not empty: just look around!"

So ultimately, I just don't see the sense in taking Rovelli to task for pointing out that if you were to dig to the Ground, you would find it empty -- you would find nothing -- and drawing out from that the conclusion that there is literally nothing but relationships and that substances (all the way down to the Ground) are constituted from those relationships. He is embracing, in different words, the selfsame paradox that Kastrup himself embraces (or, at least, once embraced), the paradox that form and emptiness are not two, that being and nothing are not two, that matter and mind are not two, that Ground and arisings are not two. And if they are not two, then "Ground" and "no Ground" are also not two.

[DandelionSoul]

The distinction for me is that "Ground is no-thing" speaks of the Ground in its formless aspect of existence, while "there is no Ground" denies it any existence whatsoever. However, that is not very important compared to the truth of your bolded statements - the Ground as the Tri-Unity of formlessness, form and self-awareness which comes from their eternal dynamic interplay.

I think I don't see the distinction between nonexistence and formless existence, between "no-thing" and "nothing," but that may be a linguistic idiosyncrasy. For me, "to exist" means "to be something," or, with a nod to its etymology, "to stand out." Not to be something is to be nothing, and hence, not to exist. The language gets fuzzy, though, because there are also... erm... existent nothings, nothings reified through their peculiar relationship with things. My go-to example might be the rests in a musical piece -- the rest is, in a sense, nothing, but it's a nothing that exists in that it stands out: it is something that stands in relationship to the various sounds.

But the Ground is a little different, in that it's an (in fact, the) absolute nothing: it is nothing in relation to all that is or could be. It is neither this nor that, neither here nor there, with no qualities or properties or traits, not demarcated or delimited or shaped or formed, infinite and indefinite nothing. Hence... it does not exist, except insofar as something exists. The Ground is not-two, and for the Ground, being and nonbeing are not-two, and so "Ground" and "no-Ground" are not-two.

With all that said -- your Tri-Unity resonates very strongly with my (allegorical or metaphorical or parabolic) view of the Trinity, and I'm glad that you mentioned it.

[SanteriSatama]

I think I don't see the distinction between nonexistence and formless existence, between "no-thing" and "nothing," but that may be a linguistic idiosyncrasy. For me, "to exist" means "to be something," or, with a nod to its etymology, "to stand out." Not to be something is to be nothing, and hence, not to exist.

The etymological nod is IMO very important, linking existence with phenomenology. In Plato's Sophist, the polarity of being vs non-being develops later into Aristotlelian-Scholastic concept pair "actual-potential".

English idiosyncracy of reifying thinginess also in word-concpet "nothing" speaks already from almost inescapable subject-object division.

[Ben Iscatus]

although he says that it must be "in a sense" something other than nothing, that "in a sense" is an important qualifier: it's his admission that it also is nothing. Indeed, he goes so far as to say that M@L is nothing but its experiences.

I find it helpful to think in terms of his usual metaphor: the lake, or the ocean. All forms are merely ripples on the lake, arranged in coherent patterns (shaped by archetypes). Then it is easier to grasp, because a lake is not nothing. I've also heard BK refer to the old 'fish don't know that they're in water' idea.

[Eugene I]

I get the impression that the whole discussion goes back to Buddha feeling and thinking that gods and their universes of forms and emotional drama and what not is not the ultimate truth, but something to get away from. Nietzsche, Heidegger etc. of European spirit of progress, as represented on this forum, is deep down about evolution of theology in the most concrete sense. Becoming better gods.

The Netflix soap opera 'Lucifer' is IMHO astonishingly deep theologically, in it's silly and fun way. No spoilers yet from me, in case someone who has not seen the latest season and wants to watch.

Why don't we grasp a higher truth, and still at the same time try to become better gods? Why use the ultimate truth in an escapist way to "get away from" the drama of life? Arguably, opening to higher truth should actually help to become "better gods" and make life more balanced with less unnecessary confusion and suffering, when viewed from a different broader perspective of a higher truth, would not it?

[AshvinP]

The distinction for me is that "Ground is no-thing" speaks of the Ground in its formless aspect of existence, while "there is no Ground" denies it any existence whatsoever. However, that is not very important compared to the truth of your bolded statements - the Ground as the Tri-Unity of formlessness, form and self-awareness which comes from their eternal dynamic interplay.

I think I don't see the distinction between nonexistence and formless existence, between "no-thing" and "nothing," but that may be a linguistic idiosyncrasy. For me, "to exist" means "to be something," or, with a nod to its etymology, "to stand out." Not to be something is to be nothing, and hence, not to exist. The language gets fuzzy, though, because there are also... erm... existent nothings, nothings reified through their peculiar relationship with things. My go-to example might be the rests in a musical piece -- the rest is, in a sense, nothing, but it's a nothing that exists in that it stands out: it is something that stands in relationship to the various sounds.

But the Ground is a little different, in that it's an (in fact, the) absolute nothing: it is nothing in relation to all that is or could be. It is neither this nor that, neither here nor there, with no qualities or properties or traits, not demarcated or delimited or shaped or formed, infinite and indefinite nothing. Hence... it does not exist, except insofar as something exists. The Ground is not-two, and for the Ground, being and nonbeing are not-two, and so "Ground" and "no-Ground" are not-two.

With all that said -- your Tri-Unity resonates very strongly with my (allegorical or metaphorical or parabolic) view of the Trinity, and I'm glad that you mentioned it.

Let's put in terms of activity we are all familiar with - Thinking - which also happens to be aspect of the Ground. There is formless pole of Thinking - the activity which observes constantly changing thought-form but can never be observed as a thought-form. There is also form pole of Thinking - thought-form which is observed and constantly changing. One pole cannot exist without the other and they constitute each other working against each other (not-two), but the polar relationship is real and exists. Now that I think of it, maybe I do agree with Rovelli more than BK, because the Ground is a polar relationship.

[SanteriSatama]

Why don't we grasp a higher truth, and still at the same time try to become better gods? Why use the ultimate truth in an escapist way to "get away from" the drama of life? Arguably, opening to higher truth should actually help to become "better gods" and make life more balanced with less unnecessary confusion and suffering, when viewed from a different broader perspective of a higher truth, would not it?

Why indeed? Because the "higher truth" comes from immeasurable suffering and the will to escape. The story of Siddhartha Gautama is about the polarity of a happy child becoming young man who travels the world and opens his heart to all suffering in the world, lets all the pain of empathy in, and transforms that experience and energy to an escape route. The Buddhist interpretation of Christ, the Pure Land story, tells of Christ's suffering and willed creation of the frozen Pure Land where souls can stay in timeless stasis to escape the hell on earth, all the hells we create by our endless judgement and guilt.

Why is the story of Boddhisatva Ksitigarbha called strong lesson? Because the relative blindness of Avalokiteshvara who lets all suffering in, by necessity refuses the escape route to become the relative blindness of the Ksitigarbha wow, the choice not to escape and rest like a coward of subjective and separate escape, but to stay until all sentient beings in all hells are liberated. And then Ksitigarbha wakes from his blindness only to realize that his wow is creating all the hells as the necessity of his perspective of the healer. All this was necessary for Ksitigarbha to strengthen and accept his throne as the Creator and King of Hell, where without the sinful error of separation, in full empathy, he faces his ultimate truth, the ultimate question of Choise with absolute and libertarian free will: In this moment of full responsibility, full guilt, full Judgement: to liberate experiencing from suffering, shall I cancel this All and end experiencing-an-sich? Shall I commit my self-righteous suicide as the God of All?

When the answer is no, and times are allow to time and suffering to continue, when attatching Love attaches in acceptance of the pain that comes from the choice, what is left? The choice of no-choice of becoming better gods, creating more joy with less suffering while accepting also the empirical truth of the codependent relation of joy and suffering. An evolutionary balance of ultimate imbalance. The relational gospel of more-less relation. For example, we can become a field of god, where each of us can be an aggregate aspect of God in various degrees of more and less of Our Divine Aspects.

[Eugene I]

Why is the story of Boddhisatva Ksitigarbha called strong lesson? Because the relative blindness of Avalokiteshvara who lets all suffering in, by necessity refuses the escape route to become the relative blindness of the Ksitigarbha wow, the choice not to escape and rest like a coward of subjective and separate escape, but to stay until all sentient beings in all hells are liberated. And then Ksitigarbha wakes from his blindness only to realize that his wow is creating all the hells as the necessity of his perspective of the healer. All this was necessary for Ksitigarbha to strengthen and accept his throne as the Creator and King of Hell, where without the sinful error of separation, in full empathy, he faces his ultimate truth, the ultimate question of Choise with absolute and libertarian free will: In this moment of full responsibility, full guilt, full Judgement: to liberate experiencing from suffering, shall I cancel this All and end experiencing-an-sich? Shall I commit my self-righteous suicide as the God of All?

Suffering that we experience in the delusional state becomes the motivation and reason we seek for liberation to escape from suffering. But once we get it, the motivation and reason to escape goes away.

When the answer is no, and times are allow to time and suffering to continue, when attatching Love attaches in acceptance of the pain that comes from the choice, what is left? The choice of no-choice of becoming better gods, creating more joy with less suffering while accepting also the empirical truth of the codependent relation of joy and suffering. An evolutionary balance of ultimate imbalance. The relational gospel of more-less relation. For example, we can become a field of god, where each of us can be an aggregate aspect of God in various degrees of more and less of Our Divine Aspects.

Agree. And IMO the dimension of joy-vs-suffering is not the only dimension of life. I personally find creativity and exploration of the limitless (not "infinite" but limitless ) fractal of conscious forms, states, ideas and experiences and discovering/experiencing the beauty those forms (mathematical included) worth the suffering.