Philosophical Speculations

Cleric K wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:46 pm The first things is with the "Consciousness creates everything". In the highest sense this is clear. But what about our human perspectives? The only thing that we really experience as being created is our own thoughts - this is the only things where the cause is known. Every other perception, or the phenomena entering and leaving consciousness as you say, confronts us as a mystery. Not only that but these mysteries act like actual constraints for our activity. I know that you make the distinction between what our human perspective creates and what the Cosmic does, but still, from your essay one is left with the impression that as soon as one realizes that it's all One Consciousness, somehow every phenomena becomes 'mere floating thoughts'. It's not just that we have forgotten ourselves and took the dream for reality. It's a fact that even if I'm fully convinced that a wall is just a dream picture within Consciousness, I still can't overrule it and pass through it.

My explanation is that there are many semi-autonomous activities ("alters" in BK's terms) in Consciousness, and some of these activities consciously manifest (=fantasize) these dream-like realities (we can call these activities "creator souls", or "creator divinities"), and other activities (me and you) "enter" these dreams as participants/character in order to experience these dream-realities "for real". And of course (what a surprise!), once we act "within" these dreams, we can not penetrate the dream-walls, because they are fantasized not by us, but by those creator-souls who intentionally create the dream such that the walls in it can not be penetrated by the dream characters. Just like in a computer game you (as a character in a game) seemingly can not penetrate the walls within the game. You can see it as a role game with some characters playing outside and controlling the game and its rules, and some others playing inside and having to abide with the rules.

So everything up to this point fits in your view. Now the real difference has to do with the question of death. In your view (not mentioned in this essay but as we discussed it elsewhere) it is precisely that after death we're in position to experience things (if we are developed enough) from the perspective of the One Consciousness. In other words, after death, humanity, the planets, the Sun really become the floating Cosmic thoughts of the One Consciousness and we can think them away and continue with other forms of creativity if we so desire. Spiritual investigation draws a different picture, revealing that the movie scenario hierarchy doesn't become floating dream picture after death but is still there. The consciousness is very different but there are still whole worlds of phenomena which are beyond our control - they enter and leave our awareness without asking us for permission. Higher cognition explores the actual gradient of the movie hierarchy. It really allows us to experience the higher creative perspectives of the One Consciousness from which it really is the case that things are being spiritually created. For example, in my ordinary consciousness I look at a rose and say "it's just a thought within the One Consciousness". Yet I don't experience it as such. I can neither create, nor destroy a rose through my own activity. But through higher forms of consciousness we can reach the worlds from which the idea-form of the rose is being projected.

Not after the death necessarily, I actually have such experience right now. And there is no mystery in it, many other practitioners of the non-dual path also do, some once in a while, others more advanced have it more or less continuously. The fact that I can not control the appearance of a flower is simply because there are other conscious activities in Consciousness that are independent of my "local" volitional activity that "project" the appearance of this flower to me. In other words, by acquiring the "perspective" of One Consciousness, I do not "take over" the control of all its local volitional activities, they still continue in a semi autonomous way.

Spiritual investigation reveals that the souls of the dead continue to live within the Spheres in between incarnations. The stages of consciousness within the movie hierarchy which support through their free activity the Spheres themselves, lie much higher than anything that man will reach anytime soon.

Oh, absolutely agree, they continue as the "local" individuated activities, trails of thoughts and actions in Consciousness in discarnate forms.

Now this is the moot point because from the point of mysticism, what the spiritual investigator reveals simply reflects his or her limitations. The investigators see a long process of future evolution up the gradient of being, simply because they don't dare to find true liberation. The funny thing is that the mystic doesn't experience the Spheres, the souls of the dead in between incarnations, the archetypal forces of the rose, the planets and the Sun. He only experiences a spread out selfless idea that everything that exists is a creation of consciousness. The immediate human experience confirms that only for our thoughts, but it's nevertheless assumed that after death things will be otherwise. We're now fully conditioned by the Spheres and our own completely human limitations but after death we're the creators of the Cosmos.

All those Spheres (that are only forms) and discarnate souls and all their activities definitely take place in a hierarchical way, there is overwhelming amount of NDE experiences confirming that. I do have a sense of the hierarchical structure of mind with lower and higher levels of cognition, and the sense of the subtle presence of the spiritual world "behind the scenes" of the first layer of sense perceptions and crude thoughts. Liberation does not mean that we need to stop, deny, escape them or anything like that. It only means that any identification with them is dropped, but all these activities on all Spheres still perfectly continue along their developmental path. It's just that our path now becomes that of non-self-identification, because "behind the scene" of all these activities and forms there is a non-stopping and unconditioned presence of the Beingness and Awareness of Consciousness being continuously aware of itself and of all its forms that constantly unfold within it, but never self-identifies with them.

Eugene I wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:15 am

AshvinP wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:04 pm We are back to the nature of Consciousness, then. Is there a Consciousness separate from willing-feeling-thinking activity? If so, then we are at dualism. If not, then we must claim Thinking is not involved or Thinking cannot experience its own activity, which makes very little sense to me. That is also what Cleric's Deep M@L post was challenging (non-Thinking M@L).

Thinking activity, as well as any other activity (volitional, perceptional etc) is of course not separate from Consciousness and happens in and to Consciousness. The ability to think is the innate aspect of Consciousness, yet every particular thought and idea it produces is always only a impermanent form in Consciousness (that appears and disappears in it). Thinking is only one of the ways Consciousness can experience itself and reflect on, and it is a perfectly valid way. But when thinking addresses the actual conscious experience, any activity of thinking is always and only a reflection of the actual direct conscious experiences. In other words, I can experience the redness of an apple directly, and then I can reflect on it by recalling that experience and thinking about it.

That is dualism, Eugene. You are separating the formless activity from the formative activity and claiming the former is permanent while the latter is impermanent. There is no way to make such a claim non-dualistic.

Another issue is that you are taking "Thinking" in narrow intellectual sense. Maybe it's better for me to call it "Primary Imagination" (PI), as Coleridge did. This PI activity does occur prior to conscious reflection. It is what allows you to connect concepts of "redness" and "apple-ness" together with the bare percept and end up with the "red apple" or "redness of an apple".

Yet, there is another way that Consciousness can experience itself prior to thinking - it amazingly can experience itself directly by direct (non-thinking) knowing that it IS and it is AWARE, in other words, experiencing its beingness and its direct experiencing (which is called Jnana in the Advaita tradition). However, we are usually not aware of such direct experience of beingness because we habitually approach the reality through thinking only. In order to practically experience such Jnana, one needs to stop thinking for some time and just notice and directly experience the reality of the aware presence of Consciousness that is always here prior to any thinking and always directly experiences itself. Then one can go back to thinking (because there is nothing wrong with it). Amazingly we also find that such Jnana is always present even when we think and act, but its presence is so subtle that we just usually do not notice and ignore it.

Same thing here - you are describing PI activity but calling it "direct knowing" which experiences itself.

The reality of such Jnana closes the Kantian gap. The Kantian gap is seemingly present to us when we identify ourselves with our thinking activity and understand that our phenomenal experiences and thoughts can not penetrate through a seeming barrier between us and the reality itself "as it is". When we drop such identification, we can realize the presence of Jnana which is nothing else than the Kantian "thing in itself" directly experiencing itself. Because we are only Consciousness, then Consciousness has no Kantian gap from itself to itself, because Consciousness itself is the "thing in itself", but, being directly Conscious of itself, has the ability to know itself experientially and directly. The "spiritual science" has a different solution and claims to cross the Kantian gap by posing that the world of ideas is what the Kantian "thing in itself" actually is, and so, we can directly access it through our thinking abilities due to the innate ability of thinking to apprehend ideas.

Right, so maybe there are at least two ways to close the gap. But the first way is through a non-functional experience of the phenomenal world in mystical state, which then defeats the purpose of closing the gap. Or if you are claiming it is after leaving the mystical state and continuing to function as normal, then we really have to question whether the formless mystical state was Reality or rather a tool to approach the Reality with formative force when we return to 'normal' state and beyond, which is not any different from what spiritual science is claiming.

Eugene wrote:

Ashvin wrote: That's what I was asking in my first response - what is the difference between an "impermanent form" in your essay and an illusion. You claimed the Self is the former in your essay but not the latter. In your response to my comment, you clarified that a movie experience of Santa Clause is real, but the ideal content of Santa Clause in the movie is an illusion. Maybe that wasn't the best analogy for you to use. So, what can we compare the non-illusory yet also impermanent form of Self-Christ to?

I do not like the word "illusion", it's too confusing. Christ as a personality that I'm aware of is a "Santa Claus" of the movie of the world unfolding within the Cosmic Consciousness, or we can say - a character of the dream unfolding in Consciousness (sorry for such analogy, but that's what you asked for), and it is no more and no less real than any other dream characters. These characters are not illusions, they are just what they are - actual dream characters with certain thinking, perceiving and feeling activities and forms all unfolding within Consciousness. Now, if you claim that Christ is an innate aspect of Consciousness that actually produces the whole dream, than that is an entirely different position, but as I said, in such case I do not believe that such aspect has any personal agency.

As for personal vs. non-personal, I do not get how you "have no experience" of personalities. You always experience a personal agency behind will, feeling and thought, except maybe when you are in a deep meditative state. So the only reason you can say the OP is non-personal is because you equate deep meditative experience for the Reality-in-itself, even though experience of personal agency is much more frequent and pervasive.

You do not have to believe me, but I just do not. I often experience no personal agency even when in active state, but I often still experience this sense of agency. When I do experience it, I can't help noticing that this sense of agency is exactly what it is - a sense, a thought-feeling form appearing and disappearing in Consciousness. For me it means that this sense of agency and personality belongs to the category of impermanent forms, which means that it is definitely real as much as any other form is real, but it is not one of the unchangeable aspects of Consciousness. It's a though-form, but a though can not be an "agent" that actually produces other forms. A form can cause other forms to arise (like one thought can be a cause for an appearance of other thoughts in the stream of dependent origination of thoughts), but that does not mean that any thought can be an actual "agent" that produces or experiences other forms. Now, you can of course argue that the "sense of agency" is only a reflection of the "actual agency", and the fact that I often lose the sense of agency does not mean that the actual agency (as some actual unchangeable aspect of Consciousness) ceases to exist. And I admit that it would be possible, but that also means that I actually have no direct experience of such "actual agency" but I can only have a reflection of it in my "sense of agency" (just like my reflection of "Santa Claus" does not mean that such actual personality exists), which means that I have no way to prove to myself that the "actual agency" even exist.

Well, yeah... that may be the hardest claim to believe yet. Are you claiming when reading comments on this forum you are not experiencing any sort of personal agency behind the comments? Keeping in mind that recognizing certain limited forms of personal agency are impermanent is not the same as experiencing personal agency as such to be impermanent.

Eugene wrote:

I probably should have clarified more. The spiritual science path is inclusive of many spiritual traditions because they are viewed as streams of a unified whole which only appear to remain separate from each other. On the other hand, it is clearly exclusive to a materialist path, for ex. Your path excludes the possibility of most paths being hierarchically nested within an esoteric Christian path, and rather treats the spiritual streams as parallel without every unifying into a higher whole (but that's fine for you because they all end up in an Ocean of non-personal, non-diversified Consciousness?). The overall point is, every world-conception excludes the [pragmatic] Truth value of other ones, including yours.

I approach it differently, I only take my approach as an inference and a possibility, I do not take it "religiously", and therefore can not claim its exclusivity. I accept the possibility that Christian path may turn out to be true, and therefor there is no way I can exclude it. I still follow my chosen path because it practically works for me and resonates with me, which does not mean that it is "true" and it may very well turn out at some point that I will need to switch to another path. It is only when you have a personal belief that your path is "true", then by the fact of such belief you make your path exclusive, and here I agree with you. But I do not hold such belief, I again only take my path as an inference. I do not know which path is true, but that does not hold me from taking paths, because I need to keep going, so I do take one of the paths that practically works for me and "sounds about right" to me, without firmly believing that it is actually the "true" one.

I take this whole line of reasoning to be addressed by Russel's critique of unhealthy solipsism, i.e. solipsism where my limited ego is the only real thing in the world. There is likely no one who truly believes that because no on acts as if that were true. You are here commenting and defending a certain perspective and therefore you are ascribing some higher value to that perspective, otherwise there would be absolutely no reason for you to do so.

AshvinP wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:00 am That is dualism, Eugene. You are separating the formless activity from the formative activity and claiming the former is permanent while the latter is impermanent. There is no way to make such a claim non-dualistic.

It's not a claim, it's a statement of the experiential fact that forms always change, yet there are some aspects on Consciousness that never change and that are impossible to ever experience any change of (can you ever experience the absence of existence, or the absence of experiencing?). The fact that certain aspects of reality of Consciousness are distinguishable by their qualities does not create any duality and does not "separate" these aspects from Consciousness. We all know that there is a variety of qualities of Consciousness, including the variety of forms and of aspects (some aspects like forms are always impermanent, some other aspects are always permanent), but the fact of the existence of such variety is not duality, it's just a fact.

Another thing we may notice (also as facts of experience) is that the Beingness and Awareness are not just some permanent "aspects" of reality, but the very prerequisites of its existence, as well as of the existence of any forms: if there would be no Beingness (=existence), no forms would ever exist, and likewise, if there would be no awareness pertinent to existence, then forms and the existence itself could never be actually experienced. On the other hand, none of the the forms that appear and disappear are the prerequisites for the Beingness and Awareness of Consciousness, Consciousness can perfectly exist and be aware of itself in the absence of any forms whatsoever. These are again only statements of facts.

Duality is when we start believing that there exist realities that actually separate from Consciousness (like matter or some mythical "entities"). The fact of a variety of aspects and forms and their qualities that exist within Consciousness (with some of them being permanent and others being impermanent) does not constitute a duality.

Right, so maybe there are at least two ways to close the gap. But the first way is through a non-functional experience of the phenomenal world in mystical state, which then defeats the purpose of closing the gap. Or if you are claiming it is after leaving the mystical state and continuing to function as normal, then we really have to question whether the formless mystical state was Reality or rather a tool to approach the Reality with formative force when we return to 'normal' state and beyond, which is not any different from what spiritual science is claiming.

Once the "mystical" state is experienced (even though I don' think there is anything "mystical" in it, it is completely natural), it does not completely go away, but it becomes always present notwithstanding any activity of forms and thinking, and it does not impede such functioning in any way. So the experience, that may first started as "non-functional", becomes over time fully functional. In the Advaita tradition the "non-functional" experience of Jnana (in the absence of thinking) is called "Nirvikalpa Samadhi", and the "functional" experience of it that is ever-present amongst all the activities is called "Sahaja Samadhi". For anyone who experienced it, it becomes obvious that Jnana (the direct experiencing by Consciousness of itself) is always present, because there is no way it can be ever absent, but our activity of the mind simply never noticed it and always ignored it.

Well, yeah... that may be the hardest claim to believe yet. Are you claiming when reading comments on this forum you are not experiencing any sort of personal agency behind the comments? Keeping in mind that recognizing certain limited forms of personal agency are impermanent is not the same as experiencing personal agency as such to be impermanent.

Sometimes I do experience a sense of personal agency, and sometimes I really don't (and neither of those experiences really bother me .

I take this whole line of reasoning to be addressed by Russel's critique of unhealthy solipsism, i.e. solipsism where my limited ego is the only real thing in the world. There is likely no one who truly believes that because no on acts as if that were true. You are here commenting and defending a certain perspective and therefore you are ascribing some higher value to that perspective, otherwise there would be absolutely no reason for you to do so.

As I said elsewhere, I'm not a solipsist and I do believe in the existence of other "alters" (in BK's terms) of Consciousness, but that is about the only inference that I hold as a firm belief.

Eugene I wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 2:12 am

AshvinP wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:00 am That is dualism, Eugene. You are separating the formless activity from the formative activity and claiming the former is permanent while the latter is impermanent. There is no way to make such a claim non-dualistic.

It's not a claim, it's a statement of the experiential fact that forms always change, yet there are some aspects on Consciousness that never change and that are impossible to ever experience any change of (can you ever experience the absence of existence, or the absence of experiencing?). The fact that certain aspects of reality of Consciousness are distinguishable by their qualities does not create any duality and does not "separate" these aspects from Consciousness. We all know that there is a variety of qualities of Consciousness, including the variety of forms and of aspects (some aspects like forms are always impermanent, some other aspects are always permanent), but the fact of the existence of such variety is not duality, it's just a fact.

It may possibly be a fact, but it's a fact which entails dualism. We should be clear about that. The naïve dualist thinks the existence of physical stuff and mental stuff is a fact. We are rightly skeptical of that because it does not fit well into the other facts, particularly the fact of our conscious experiences. You cannot explain the interaction of permanent formless stuff giving rise to impermanent formed stuff and more than they can explain the interaction of material stuff giving rise to mental stuff. As we have discussed, the practical aspect of how these ideas fit together in our ideal framework is important.

But, at least the naïve dualist can claim there seems to be stuff existing independent of them without any conscious effort. You can only claim there seems to be lack of all forms when you actively engage in something which gets rid of those forms. There are many things I can infer that I have experienced or am experiencing without currently being aware of them. Like many experiences from childhood and dreams or the deep workings of my inner processes. The question ends up being whether we want to take temporary lack of experience of thought-forms over sustained experience of thought-forms combined with intuition and reason. That is what I see your perspective doing.

Another thing we may notice (also as facts of experience) is that the Beingness and Awareness are not just some permanent "aspects" of reality, but the very prerequisites of its existence, as well as of the existence of any forms: if there would be no Beingness (=existence), no forms would ever exist, and likewise, if there would be no awareness pertinent to existence, then forms and the existence itself could never be actually experienced. On the other hand, none of the the forms that appear and disappear are the prerequisites for the Beingness and Awareness of Consciousness, Consciousness can perfectly exist and be aware of itself in the absence of any forms whatsoever. These are again only statements of facts.

Duality is when we start believing that there exist realities that actually separate from Consciousness (like matter or some mythical "entities"). The fact of a variety of aspects and forms and their qualities that exist within Consciousness (with some of them being permanent and others being impermanent) does not constitute a duality.

More accurately, what I experience is becoming-ness. And there would be no becoming-ness without forms. Although I recognize there is a good chance of another state in which the other pole of being-ness is only experienced (also I infer that I cannot experience continuous change of forms without being-ness). So I conclude neither pole by itself is the whole picture.

Eugene wrote:

Ashvin wrote: Right, so maybe there are at least two ways to close the gap. But the first way is through a non-functional experience of the phenomenal world in mystical state, which then defeats the purpose of closing the gap. Or if you are claiming it is after leaving the mystical state and continuing to function as normal, then we really have to question whether the formless mystical state was Reality or rather a tool to approach the Reality with formative force when we return to 'normal' state and beyond, which is not any different from what spiritual science is claiming.

Once the "mystical" state is experienced (even though I don' think there is anything "mystical" in it, it is completely natural), it does not completely go away, but it becomes always present notwithstanding any activity of forms and thinking, and it does not impede such functioning in any way. So the experience, that may first started as "non-functional", becomes over time fully functional. In the Advaita tradition the "non-functional" experience of Jnana (in the absence of thinking) is called "Nirvikalpa Samadhi", and the "functional" experience of it that is ever-present amongst all the activities is called "Sahaja Samadhi". For anyone who experienced it, it becomes obvious that Jnana (the direct experiencing by Consciousness of itself) is always present, because there is no way it can be ever absent, but our activity of the mind simply never noticed it and always ignored it.

So why can't we just say the "direct experiencing by Consciousness of itself" is what we call "Thinking" in the broadest sense? And the experience of that direct experiencing is a thought-form? The only reason I can see for you refusing to do that is because it leads to a path that is not aligned with your a priori conceptions.

Eugene wrote:

Ashvin wrote:I take this whole line of reasoning to be addressed by Russel's critique of unhealthy solipsism, i.e. solipsism where my limited ego is the only real thing in the world. There is likely no one who truly believes that because no on acts as if that were true. You are here commenting and defending a certain perspective and therefore you are ascribing some higher value to that perspective, otherwise there would be absolutely no reason for you to do so.

As I said elsewhere, I'm not a solipsist and I do believe in the existence of other "alters" (in BK's terms) of Consciousness, but that is about the only inference that I hold as a firm belief.

I wasn't claiming you are a solipsist, but rather that an 'unhealthy' solipsist also makes arguments for metaphysical-spiritual ideas which are not at all aligned with their behavior in life, like you are doing with the argument that you advocate for a position without placing any higher value on it relative to other positions.

AshvinP wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 4:09 am It may possibly be a fact, but it's a fact which entails dualism. We should be clear about that. The naïve dualist thinks the existence of physical stuff and mental stuff is a fact. We are rightly skeptical of that because it does not fit well into the other facts, particularly the fact of our conscious experiences. You cannot explain the interaction of permanent formless stuff giving rise to impermanent formed stuff and more than they can explain the interaction of material stuff giving rise to mental stuff. As we have discussed, the practical aspect of how these ideas fit together in our ideal framework is important.

Let's agree to disagree, I don't see it as dualism, I see it as a fact of the existence of a variety of forms, qualities and aspects in the oneness of Consciousness.

The question ends up being whether we want to take temporary lack of experience of thought-forms over sustained experience of thought-forms combined with intuition and reason. That is what I see your perspective doing.
More accurately, what I experience is becoming-ness. And there would be no becoming-ness without forms. Although I recognize there is a good chance of another state in which the other pole of being-ness is only experienced (also I infer that I cannot experience continuous change of forms without being-ness). So I conclude neither pole by itself is the whole picture.

I think we discussed it before. I'm fine with the possibility that formlessness never exists (in time) without forms (even though I do have experience of the suspension of thought-forms). I did not mean to "take temporary lack of experience of thought-forms over sustained experience of thought-forms combined with intuition and reason." The practical importance of experiencing the "temporary lack of experience of thought-forms" is that it helps to recognize the unchanging aspects of Consciousness that continue to exist even when the though-forms are suspended. This is all what it is good for.

But I like your "becoming-ness" vs "being-ness" description, that is what it essentially is: there are two aspects/qualities of Consciousness: never-changing "being-ness" and ever-changing "becoming-ness". The "becoming-ness" is always happening and unfolding through forms, but there is nothing permanent in its forms, the particular forms in which the "becoming-ness" manifests are always different, they are fluid by nature. This is it. But my other point is that, among other forms of becoming-ness, there are though-forms of personal agency and self-identification, but again, they are never permanent, they many exist now and would be gone tomorrow. But there is no such personal agency in the aspect of "being-ness".

So why can't we just say the "direct experiencing by Consciousness of itself" is what we call "Thinking" in the broadest sense? And the experience of that direct experiencing is a thought-form? The only reason I can see for you refusing to do that is because it leads to a path that is not aligned with your a priori conceptions.

We are free to use whatever linguistic labels we want, but the danger is that some labelings are confusing and for different people point to different realities. The is why I avoid using the word "Self" for the "being-ness", because that might confuse people to think that "being-ness" has any "sense of personal self" (which it does not). Similarly, using the term "Thinking" for Jnana (=Gnosis) may be confusing, because people may think that they can know the Consciousness only by their cognitive/mental/rational thinking. That is why in Advaita they used a separate term "Jnana" (with is essentially "knowing"=Gnosis, but not in a "mental" way). And then the reflection of that direct experience of Jnana by mental thinking would be a though-form. so, I would rather stick with the term "Gnosis" rather than "Thinking".

Essentially it is not about which aspect of reality "prevails over" which. All these aspects co-exist in Consciousness on equal terms (even though it is the fact that the unchanging aspects are prerequisites for the changing ones). The main point is about dropping the self-identifications with forms, and this is where the recognition of the unchanging and ever-changing aspects may help with. When we self-identify with impermanent forms, this is where we create the "psychological" duality: we split the world in our cognition into "me" and "others" with a plethora of negative spiritual and psychological consequences of egotism and divisions associated with such self-identification. Our naïve sense of self, when taken to reflect the actual reality of the existence of "real separate self-entities" (which our naïve realism compels us to do), always brings about an accompanying sense of otherness and an existential split in our perception of reality, it is inevitable. When we drop such self-identification with temporary forms, and just allow forms to unfold freely, the psychological "split" and sense of "otherness" with all their egoic content just stops happening. So, it's not so much about philosophy, but rather about spiritual transformative path and the psychology of cognition (which is a spiritual science in a "non-dual" way).
__________

On another note, it is also instructive to look at the Heidegger's seminal "Being and Time" paper. Although we agreed to avoid distinguishing being-ness and becoming-ness on any ontic basis, Heidegger seems to had no problems with such distinction. Here are a few interesting quotes:

"Heidegger will later call the ontological difference, the crucial distinction between Being and beings (entities)". (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Heidegger wrote: Being-in is not a ‘property’ which Dasein sometimes has and sometimes does not have. (Heidegger points to the non-changing aspect of Being)

Dasein is ontically distinguished by the fact that, in its very Being, that Being is an issue for it. (Heidegger points to the ontic priority of Being)

'Being' is not something like a being but is rather "what determines beings as beings. (Heidegger point to the Being as a pre-requisite of beings)

In existing, Dasein occurs… as a transcending beyond beings into the disclosure of being as such, so that in this transcending not only its own possibilities of being [our first route] but also the being of other beings [our second route] is disclosed. (Heidegger points to the transcedental aspect of Being)

Fundamental ontology, from which alone all other ontologies can take their rise, must be sought in the existential analytic of Dasein.

So, if we take the ontological position within metaphysics, this is what ontology is about: distinguishing between the ontic/fundamental aspects of reality from "emergent"/non-fundamental ones. Alternatively, we may take an anti-ontological position and refuse to make any of such distinctions. I'm fine with either one, but I'm just just saying - if we choose not to distinguish being-ness from becoming-ness on any "ontic" grounds (but only distinguish them by their qualities), than it is an anti-ontological metaphysics.

Eugene I wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 2:16 pm Essentially it is not about which aspect of reality "prevails over" which. All these aspects co-exist in Consciousness on equal terms (even though it is the fact that the unchanging aspects are prerequisites for the changing ones). The main point is about dropping the self-identifications with forms, and this is where the recognition of the unchanging and ever-changing aspects may help with. When we self-identify with impermanent forms, this is where we create the "psychological" duality: we split the world in our cognition into "me" and "others" with a plethora of negative spiritual and psychological consequences of egotism and divisions associated with such self-identification. Our naïve sense of self, when taken to reflect the actual reality of the existence of "real separate self-entities" (which our naïve realism compels us to do), always brings about an accompanying sense of otherness and an existential split in our perception of reality, it is inevitable. When we drop such self-identification with temporary forms, and just allow forms to unfold freely, the psychological "split" and sense of "otherness" with all their egoic content just stops happening. So, it's not so much about philosophy, but rather about spiritual transformative path and the psychology of cognition (which is a spiritual science in a "non-dual" way).

No one is arguing for egotism or a naïve sense of self. That should be beyond clear by now. What is at stake is whether personality and Self as such is an emergent form from an underlying sea of pure awareness-beingness. If they are, then we are truly left with a dualism of "me-others" and "Reality". There is nothing non-dual about that view and it is not at all psychologically satisfying or healthy. It does not motivate us in spiritual trans-formation. We cannot move across formations which are not fundamentally real.

Eugene wrote:
On another note, it is also instructive to look at the Heidegger's seminal "Being and Time" paper. Although we agreed to avoid distinguishing being-ness and becoming-ness on any ontic basis, Heidegger seems to had no problems with such distinction. Here are a few interesting quotes:

"Heidegger will later call the ontological difference, the crucial distinction between Being and beings (entities)". (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Heidegger wrote: Being-in is not a ‘property’ which Dasein sometimes has and sometimes does not have. (Heidegger points to the non-changing aspect of Being)

Dasein is ontically distinguished by the fact that, in its very Being, that Being is an issue for it. (Heidegger points to the ontic priority of Being)

'Being' is not something like a being but is rather "what determines beings as beings. (Heidegger point to the Being as a pre-requisite of beings)

In existing, Dasein occurs… as a transcending beyond beings into the disclosure of being as such, so that in this transcending not only its own possibilities of being [our first route] but also the being of other beings [our second route] is disclosed. (Heidegger points to the transcedental aspect of Being)

Fundamental ontology, from which alone all other ontologies can take their rise, must be sought in the existential analytic of Dasein.

So, if we take the ontological position within metaphysics, this is what ontology is about: distinguishing between the ontic/fundamental aspects of reality from "emergent"/non-fundamental ones. Alternatively, we may take an anti-ontological position and refuse to make any of such distinctions. I'm fine with either one, but I'm just just saying - if we choose not to distinguish being-ness from becoming-ness on any "ontic" grounds (but only distinguish them by their qualities), than it is an anti-ontological metaphysics.

Heidegger is not a good reference for you, because he took Thinking as an ontic aspect of Being.

Heidegger wrote:This rubric, after it was prepared in Kant's "transcendental logic," reaches the highest meaning possible in metaphysics through Hegel. "Logic" here means the ontology of absolute subjectivity. This "logic" is not a discipline, it is part of the matter itself; in the sense of Being, as Being is thought of in Hegel's metaphysics, it is the Being of beings as a whole...

Do we attend now in a more questioning attitude than before to what the words [cannot paste Greek] designate, the presence of what is present? Perhaps, and if so, then best by renouncing any notion that we could succeed at the first attempt, without long preparation. Public opinion today cherishes the notion that the thinking of thinkers must be capable of being understood in the same way as the daily newspaper. That all men cannot all follow the thought processes of modern theoretical physics is considered quite in order. But to learn the thinking of thinkers is in essence much more difficult, not because this thinking is still more involved but because it is simple - too simple for the easy fluency of common notions.
-What is Called Thinking?

AshvinP wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 4:03 pm No one is arguing for egotism or a naïve sense of self. That should be beyond clear by now. What is at stake is whether personality and Self as such is an emergent form from an underlying sea of pure awareness-beingness. If they are, then we are truly left with a dualism of "me-others" and "Reality". There is nothing non-dual about that view and it is not at all psychologically satisfying or healthy. It does not motivate us in spiritual trans-formation. We cannot move across formations which are not fundamentally real.

As I said above, I don't see it as any kind of dualism, but simply as a differentiation in the qualities/aspects of reality: there are variable aspects and invariable ones within the oneness of Consciousness, it is simply an experiential fact. Then, all of these "selves", "me-others" are variable forms, they are perfectly real, yet always impermanent. So, if we do not identify with these forms but just take them simply as they are - impermanent coming-and-going forms, then there is no dualism whatsoever. But yes, once we identify with "me" than all sorts of dualism immediately come into place - dualism between "me" and "others" and "me" and reality. In other words, a split into "me"-"other" occurs only as a consequence of identification with "me". The "spiritual science" is the approach to close such split by "thinking-it-away" and finding the unity in the ideas of unity, while retaining self-identification with "me" (or perhaps by projecting/transforming the sense of "me" into a higher-level sense of "Me"). Does it work spiritually and psychologically? Perhaps it does for some people, but may not work so well for others. The approach of the Eastern traditions is to drop any identification with "me" whatsoever, so the "me"-"otherness" and "me"-reality splits just do not happen at all.

Eugene I wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:50 am Liberation does not mean that we need to stop, deny, escape them or anything like that. It only means that any identification with them is dropped, but all these activities on all Spheres still perfectly continue along their developmental path. It's just that our path now becomes that of non-self-identification, because "behind the scene" of all these activities and forms there is a non-stopping and unconditioned presence of the Beingness and Awareness of Consciousness being continuously aware of itself and of all its forms that constantly unfold within it, but never self-identifies with them.

Every time I say to myself that I'm done posting but then you drop something like the above that leaves me bewildered

Let's first settle down that Occidental esoterism doesn't have a problem with misidentification and ego-mania. The fact that there's One Consciousness is perfectly clear. In another thread we reached the conclusion that it's a linguistic difference. What I can easily call "I"-experience without any ill feelings, you prefer to call individual conscious space, in order to avoid language traps like "I" and "self". We also mentioned that the language is not the real source of the problem. Even if we force newspeak to the masses this won't at the least promote morality. Neither diminished sense of agency helps. As an example I said that some of the worst crimes happen in a state of consciousness where the perpetrator has absolutely no sense of agency. Such people report in retrospect that they were practically observing the unfoldment of the act. The lack of sense of agency is not something that should easily be equated with higher development. Actually there're more examples than not, where lack of agency only wrecks havoc because the person is simply a blind outlet for passions of unknown origins. Anyone who has attempted any kind of work on self-improvement knows that the first condition is constant vigilance. The simple fact is that moral action is only possible when one has explored the depths of their own being and they are conscious of the driving forces behind the outermost appearances. Popular Eastern practices today place overemphasis on this dropping of the identification - like this in itself solves the problems. We have agreed previously that the Buddhist becomes a moral person not because he has de-identified but because of the earnest and tireless work on self perfection, such as the prescribed in the eightfold path. All of this we have commented previously.

As said, modern Initiation does not at all misidentify with anything. It simply proceeds where the Eastern method leaves off. This is not a criticism - this is how evolution works - every new development steps on the achievements of the previous. So what the Great Buddha taught remains working in full force. Buddha gave the methods for self-perfection. This means to be able to differentiate between the lower and the higher nature in man and employ all conscious effort to make the higher master over the lower - that's the essence of the eightfold path. The emphasis on de-identification becomes so talked about only later (for reasons that can be commented another time). Western esoterism steps on the foundations of the East and the Middle-East. The One Consciousness is a fact. The work on self-perfection is at the heart of things. Yet mere de-identification doesn't really change anything. Even if we wholeheartedly embrace the living experience of the One Consciousness, this doesn't mean that we find the causes of phenomena within our perspective, let alone the ability to influence them. This is an elementary fact. This is where spiritual evolution focuses next. The Initiate says "OK, so there's One Consciousness. I must constantly keep in check my lower nature through consciously exercising the methods of self-perfection. Through de-identification I reach the experience of the One Consciousness. Yet there's still a chasm between it and my limited perspective. The creativity of the One Consciousness I experience only in the very limited forms of my spiritual activity. Although I understand that all other phenomena proceed from the same conscious space, they are utterly beyond my comprehension. This will now become the focus of my investigation. The fact that there's One Consciousness and everything exists with it, is an eternal Truth. But this truth in itself is sterile. I live within it, I understand it, yet the thing that the truth signifies is infinitely remote from me. It becomes my mission to penetrate into the actual reality of this Mystery - not only as a general and eternal truth but as livingly experienced reality. It's not enough bask in the light of the idea that my consciousness is part of the Great One Consciousness. I know that is my true essence but I'll forever remain disconnected from it unless I set out to discover the processes through which the Great One Consciousness becomes my limited perspective. Not only as a theoretical scheme but as livingly experienced reality. I can only understand in the real sense my current perspective when I experience in detail how the creative forces of the One Consciousness shape my existence."

As we spoke, if at this point you say "That's true but after death we really can be liberated and we can experience the creative Cosmic perspective responsible for the Sun, planets, all life, etc. as we experience our thoughts today, and we are free to move into other domains of creativity" then the conversation ends. It's my word against yours. But then you say that Liberation does not mean that we need to stop, deny, escape them or anything like that. It only means that any identification with them is dropped, but all these activities on all Spheres still perfectly continue along their developmental path. This really puzzles me. It forces me to investigate once more where exactly the difference lies.

If I'm to take the Eastern stance (which I had. Practically what's below corresponds to my historical experience), I would only be comfortable to do so through the firm belief that I'll be free after death. The fact that I de-identify of my self doesn't free me from the flaws of my character, much less from my entanglement with other beings and the Cosmic landscape. I could be in peace with such a position only if I have unshakable faith that after I'm gone I'll be free. But if I'm aware that the Earth is not simply a temporary sandbox but the mineral shadow of a Cosmic developmental process, then my next logical question would be - then what's my role in that developmental process? It'll be too painful for me focus on the experience of One Consciousness while I don't do anything for bridging the chasm.

If we take the nondual state as the highest goal, a very specific picture of social life on Earth emerges. Civilization of enlightened humans who are free of egoistic desires, all of which become meaningless when the Oneness of Consciousness becomes experiential reality. Then everyone is free to do whatever they want as long as the basic principles of Oneness are abided. Yet this, like many noble visions, has an important prerequisite - they all start with "Only if everyone did this or that ... Earth would be Heaven." The fact of reality is that everyone doesn't do this or that but the most varied things that go contrary to them. Western esoterism, instead of going for utopian visions in the form of "Only if everyone ...", dives right into the depths and investigates what are the spiritual reasons that people think, feel and do the things they do. This is the dive into Deep M@L. Everything converges there. We understand at the same time the true reasons for sin, the details of the Cosmic development process and how we can contribute in the most constructive way to it, and the actual bridging of the chasm - through the higher forms of cognition we experience the creative perspectives of the One Consciousness.

Sorry Eugene, I promised that I'm not retriggering anything but your last post provoked me
In the way that you described it, if you admit that we are living through coils within coils of the One Consciousness, and we are only gradually evolving out of them, then why you give such great preference to the nondual state, when it clearly doesn't help in itself with the unfoldment of development? Yes, it is an important prerequisite but in itself it only leads to the living acknowledgment of the Oneness and not to its realization. Western esoterism on the other hand, completely logically, continues the process - that's the whole meaning of evolutionary development. Oneness is the foundation stone but unless the actual process of spiritual osmosis is initiated, the long process of bridging of the chasm can never even begin.

This is very elementary but I need to state it again, just to make sure it's explicit. The livingly experienced acknowledgment of the One Consciousness, such as in the mystical state, is one thing and without doubt of prime importance. But it's an obvious fact that there's a precipice between our limited human experience and the supposed liberated and creative state of the Consciousness. The fact that we de-identify with the transient phenomena doesn't in the least make us independent of them - this is the simple fact of experience. So not being confused with the impermanent is an important condition but we need something more if we are to evolve towards true liberation. And here's where Western esoterism takes the relay, so to speak, and continues further. Oneness is not only acknowledged but its realization is initiated. To realize the oneness means to investigate reality and elucidate the subconscious individual and collective processes that blindly drive humanity and cause all kinds of mischief. Then to organize these processes through serious work, such as in the essence of the eightfold path. And of course then comes the role of the impulse of Love, which is the only inner reality which allows for the limited perspective to integrate the creative forces of the One Consciousness - not as a general and nebulous, heartfelt idea but as actual cognitive reality. We not only recognize that the forces of the larger than us One Consciousness cause phenomena to enter and leave our perspective but we consciously and freely, out of Love, unite with the Cosmic spiritual forces which are the actual causes of the phenomena.

Cleric K wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 4:46 pm Let's first settle down that Occidental esoterism doesn't have a problem with misidentification and ego-mania. The fact that there's One Consciousness is perfectly clear. In another thread we reached the conclusion that it's a linguistic difference. What I can easily call "I"-experience without any ill feelings, you prefer to call individual conscious space, in order to avoid language traps like "I" and "self". We also mentioned that the language is not the real source of the problem. Even if we force newspeak to the masses this won't at the least promote morality. Neither diminished sense of agency helps. As an example I said that some of the worst crimes happen in a state of consciousness where the perpetrator has absolutely no sense of agency. Such people report in retrospect that they were practically observing the unfoldment of the act. The lack of sense of agency is not something that should easily be equated with higher development. Actually there're more examples than not, where lack of agency only wrecks havoc because the person is simply a blind outlet for passions of unknown origins. Anyone who has attempted any kind of work on self-improvement knows that the first condition is constant vigilance. The simple fact is that moral action is only possible when one has explored the depths of their own being and they are conscious of the driving forces behind the outermost appearances. Popular Eastern practices today place overemphasis on this dropping of the identification - like this in itself solves the problems. We have agreed previously that the Buddhist becomes a moral person not because he has de-identified but because of the earnest and tireless work on self perfection, such as the prescribed in the eightfold path. All of this we have commented previously.

I agree, and that is why the "no-self" component in the Buddhist tradition is only a small and the "negative" component of the practice. It is "negative" in a sense that it removes the ill-functioning patterns and misconceptions and empties the space in the psyche from them. Taken alone, such practice would indeed be rather destructive and leave a person with spiritual hollowness. Instead, in the Buddhist practice, once the "space" in the psyche is cleared, the emphasis is made on the development of unifying "positive" qualities and patterns to fill that cleared space, such as seeing a unifying common ground/aspect of all the forms in the universe and based on that developing qualities of compassion/empathy, love and appreciation of beauty of the world. In a way, it is a "re-training" of the cognitive and behavioral patterns of the psyche away from self-centered ill-functioning ones towards well-functioning and healthy ones.

As said, modern Initiation does not at all misidentify with anything. It simply proceeds where the Eastern method leaves off. This is not a criticism - this is how evolution works - every new development steps on the achievements of the previous. So what the Great Buddha taught remains working in full force. Buddha gave the methods for self-perfection. This means to be able to differentiate between the lower and the higher nature in man and employ all conscious effort to make the higher master over the lower - that's the essence of the eightfold path. The emphasis on de-identification becomes so talked about only later (for reasons that can be commented another time). Western esoterism steps on the foundations of the East and the Middle-East. The One Consciousness is a fact. The work on self-perfection is at the heart of things. Yet mere de-identification doesn't really change anything. Even if we wholeheartedly embrace the living experience of the One Consciousness, this doesn't mean that we find the causes of phenomena within our perspective, let alone the ability to influence them. This is an elementary fact. This is where spiritual evolution focuses next. The Initiate says "OK, so there's One Consciousness. I must constantly keep in check my lower nature through consciously exercising the methods of self-perfection. Through de-identification I reach the experience of the One Consciousness. Yet there's still a chasm between it and my limited perspective. The creativity of the One Consciousness I experience only in the very limited forms of my spiritual activity. Although I understand that all other phenomena proceed from the same conscious space, they are utterly beyond my comprehension. This will now become the focus of my investigation. The fact that there's One Consciousness and everything exists with it, is an eternal Truth. But this truth in itself is sterile. I live within it, I understand it, yet the thing that the truth signifies is infinitely remote from me. It becomes my mission to penetrate into the actual reality of this Mystery - not only as a general and eternal truth but as livingly experienced reality. It's not enough bask in the light of the idea that my consciousness is part of the Great One Consciousness. I know that is my true essence but I'll forever remain disconnected from it unless I set out to discover the processes through which the Great One Consciousness becomes my limited perspective. Not only as a theoretical scheme but as livingly experienced reality. I can only understand in the real sense my current perspective when I experience in detail how the creative forces of the One Consciousness shape my existence."

Here I absolutely agree with you, Cleric. As I said before, all this non-dual "enlightenment" is not in any way the final state or spiritual destination, but only a beginning of a different phase in the spiritual development, which is not anymore obstructed with distorted identifications and ill-functioning patterns, but yet still lacking in the knowledge of many aspects and yet-unknown realms of the Universe of Consciousness and having still a lot to learn and discover.

As we spoke, if at this point you say "That's true but after death we really can be liberated and we can experience the creative Cosmic perspective responsible for the Sun, planets, all life, etc. as we experience our thoughts today, and we are free to move into other domains of creativity" then the conversation ends. It's my word against yours. But then you say that Liberation does not mean that we need to stop, deny, escape them or anything like that. It only means that any identification with them is dropped, but all these activities on all Spheres still perfectly continue along their developmental path. This really puzzles me. It forces me to investigate once more where exactly the difference lies.

If I'm to take the Eastern stance (which I had. Practically what's below corresponds to my historical experience), I would only be comfortable to do so through the firm belief that I'll be free after death. The fact that I de-identify of my self doesn't free me from the flaws of my character, much less from my entanglement with other beings and the Cosmic landscape. I could be in peace with such a position only if I have unshakable faith that after I'm gone I'll be free. But if I'm aware that the Earth is not simply a temporary sandbox but the mineral shadow of a Cosmic developmental process, then my next logical question would be - then what's my role in that developmental process? It'll be too painful for me focus on the experience of One Consciousness while I don't do anything for bridging the chasm.

If we take the nondual state as the highest goal, a very specific picture of social life on Earth emerges. Civilization of enlightened humans who are free of egoistic desires, all of which become meaningless when the Oneness of Consciousness becomes experiential reality. Then everyone is free to do whatever they want as long as the basic principles of Oneness are abided. Yet this, like many noble visions, has an important prerequisite - they all start with "Only if everyone did this or that ... Earth would be Heaven." The fact of reality is that everyone doesn't do this or that but the most varied things that go contrary to them. Western esoterism, instead of going for utopian visions in the form of "Only if everyone ...", dives right into the depths and investigates what are the spiritual reasons that people think, feel and do the things they do. This is the dive into Deep M@L. Everything converges there. We understand at the same time the true reasons for sin, the details of the Cosmic development process and how we can contribute in the most constructive way to it, and the actual bridging of the chasm - through the higher forms of cognition we experience the creative perspectives of the One Consciousness.

Right, so as I said above, I see the non-dual state as a simply more functional and liberated way to continue the development, including the component of such development that you mentioned - investigation into the depths of the MAL (called alaya-vijnana in the Buddhis tradition). So it is not about "either this or that", but "both".

And also, as I said, grounding one's worldview in the direct "pre-thinking" experience of non-dual aspects of reality does not negate thinking in any way, it actually enhances and enriches it by brining more direct experiential knowledge to it to "crunch" upon.

Sorry Eugene, I promised that I'm not retriggering anything but your last post provoked me
In the way that you described it, if you admit that we are living through coils within coils of the One Consciousness, and we are only gradually evolving out of them, then why you give such great preference to the nondual state, when it clearly doesn't help in itself with the unfoldment of development? Yes, it is an important prerequisite but in itself it only leads to the living acknowledgment of the Oneness and not to its realization. Western esoterism on the other hand, completely logically, continues the process - that's the whole meaning of evolutionary development. Oneness is the foundation stone but unless the actual process of spiritual osmosis is initiated, the long process of bridging of the chasm can never even begin.

Agree, even though I would say it is not just "acknowledgement", but actual existential experience of it. Yet, of course, it is still only a prerequisite for a more "healthy" way towards further evolutionary development.

This is very elementary but I need to state it again, just to make sure it's explicit. The livingly experienced acknowledgment of the One Consciousness, such as in the mystical state, is one thing and without doubt of prime importance. But it's an obvious fact that there's a precipice between our limited human experience and the supposed liberated and creative state of the Consciousness. The fact that we de-identify with the transient phenomena doesn't in the least make us independent of them - this is the simple fact of experience. So not being confused with the impermanent is an important condition but we need something more if we are to evolve towards true liberation. And here's where Western esoterism takes the relay, so to speak, and continues further. Oneness is not only acknowledged but its realization is initiated. To realize the oneness means to investigate reality and elucidate the subconscious individual and collective processes that blindly drive humanity and cause all kinds of mischief. Then to organize these processes through serious work, such as in the essence of the eightfold path. And of course then comes the role of the impulse of Love, which is the only inner reality which allows for the limited perspective to integrate the creative forces of the One Consciousness - not as a general and nebulous, heartfelt idea but as actual cognitive reality. We not only recognize that the forces of the larger than us One Consciousness cause phenomena to enter and leave our perspective but we consciously and freely, out of Love, unite with the Cosmic spiritual forces which are the actual causes of the phenomena.

I can't find even a single word here to disagree with

So, the bottom line is: we know from our practical exploration of both Western "spiritual science" and Eastern "non-dual" traditions that both have their important merits and both catalyze further spiritual development of consciousness. It would be silly to oppose them in "either this or that" way and then beat each other in proving which one is "better". It would be much more productive to learn from both and adopt them both (or at least certain components of them, dropping the ones that are no longer relevant). Such synergy would only multiply the cumulative growth. I'm also open to indigenous pantheistic traditions and I think they can also add a lot to the pool of spiritual practice and development. Yet, it is still important to understand and clarify the specific differences and details between these approaches, and I think we did a good investigation of these things here.