Speculation About the Discovery of Ideal Forms

[AshvinP]

The standard answer to that is God cannot do that which is logically impossible (under any formulations of logic). Like He can't choose to not exist. I'll go with that for now.

What is the form of idealism that rejects omnipotence. omniscience and omnipresence? As far as I understand, Eastern spiritual traditions do not restrict Consciousness to only limited powers, knowledge, or locations, unless we are considering meta-cognition a "power", but even then our meta-cognition must be included in the One Consciousness.

Omnipotence and omniscience are exactly those logically impossible things that God just cannot do. Unlike the omnipresence, because in idealism there is nothing existing outside consciousness, which is the same as to say that consciousness is "omnipresent".

Knowing the Eastern traditions quite well, I've never heard them mentioning "omnipotence and omniscience", that is a Western theological invention.

Perhaps you are correct, but leaving aside Western-Eastern debate, I am still wondering how omniscience is not necessitated by idealism. Everything that can possibly exist is known. Otherwise we are positing some separate realm of "potentially known" ideas which only become known after an alter experiences them?

[Eugene I]

Perhaps you are correct, but leaving aside Western-Eastern debate, I am still wondering how omniscience is not necessitated by idealism. Everything that can possibly exist is known. Otherwise we are positing some separate realm of "potentially known" ideas which only become known after an alter experiences them?

Because, as I said before, the very idea of the possibility of the experience of the actual uncountable infinity of all ideas is logically inconsistent and have no supporting evidence in our conscious experience.

Such separation only happens if you start speculating about the difference between "potentially" and "actually known" ideas. But if you do not assume any reality to the existence of "potential" ideas (which would be a "potentialistic" version of Platonism), then such split just does not occur. We simply state that any idea exists only when it is actually experienced by consciousness, period.

[Eugene I]

PS: in the classical Christian theology the "omnipotence" meant that God could "create" the world out of "nothing" with his "omnipotence", implying that that the world would have some kind of different "nature" which is different from the "nature of God". But in idealism there is no other "nature" that can possibly exist other than Consciousness, which means that Consciousness can not "create" anything other than forms and aspects of Consciousness (ideas and conscious forms and phenomena) . So, it is not "omnipotent", it is potency is only limited to what can exists as aspects and forms of consciousness, and it can not create anything of a "nature" different from the "nature" of Consciousness, or anything "outside" Consciousness.

[AshvinP]

Perhaps you are correct, but leaving aside Western-Eastern debate, I am still wondering how omniscience is not necessitated by idealism. Everything that can possibly exist is known. Otherwise we are positing some separate realm of "potentially known" ideas which only become known after an alter experiences them?

Because, as I said before, the very idea of the possibility of the experience of the actual uncountable infinity of all ideas is logically inconsistent and have no supporting evidence in our conscious experience.

Such separation only happens if you start speculating about the difference between "potentially" and "actually known" ideas. But if you do not assume any reality to the existence of "potential" ideas (which would be a "potentialistic" version of Platonism), then such split just does not occur. We simply state that any idea exists only when it is actually experienced by consciousness, period.

Well, from my perspective, there is a logical impossibility under idealism when we claim some ideal forms can exist in potential state without being known. That creates the potential-actual duality of forms which is likely a bad assumption by scholastic theologians. In that sense, I also disagree with theology of creation ex nihilo, especially since its normally employed in the dualist framework. Formative force is an aspect of OP.

We do not find that doctrine in Judeo-Christian scripture. Rather, in John's Gospel, we find that "in the beginning was the Word [Logos], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made". That is quite a monist assertion from the idealist perspective.

[Eugene I]

Well, from my perspective, there is a logical impossibility under idealism when we claim some ideal forms can exist in potential state without being known.

Exactly. That is why the only logically consistent option is to assume that ideal forms simply do not exist in any sense in a "potential" state, and only exist when they are actually experienced by Consciousness. "Potential existence" is a logically inconsistent idea, and it is useless and unnecessary anyway (IMO).

[Cleric K]

Eugene, you didn't address my fractal analogy for what it was. The conversation again drifted into the above - do the potentially existing 'really' exist.

My point was fairly simply. That the "actually known" ideas, even though we experience them in isolation, still exist in certain relation with ideas which can be found at some future point, as if these ideas somehow 'knew' that they should be compatible with other ideas not yet discovered. And this was not an argument that 'proves' the existence of some pool of infinite idea. It was more an argument that we find ideas existing in relations irrelevant of what we philosophize intellectually about their nature.

'Solving' the problem by shifting the burden on MAL to keep track of every quark in the universe doesn't do much. Our desire for finiteness is entirely product of our intellectual thought. We insist on finiteness because we're unconsciously biased by the nature of our intellectual thinking. It feels to us that Consciousness which holds a finite amount of elements is more consistent. It feels like there wouldn't be enough "RAM" for the existence of infinity. We're simply projecting our intellectual experience to something far beyond us, which we can never understand through a sum of thoughts.

This is a major obstacle for higher cognition. If we imagine the higher states of consciousness as some expanding sphere which encompasses more and more thought-forms (for example the actual quarks) it's understandable why we resist the idea of infinity - we imagine that we would be crushed by the weight of all those thoughts! There should be a limit! But all these things issue simple because we can't distinguish how our intellectual thinking creeps into domains which it was simply not intended for. And that's why we need actual spiritual science which leads us to the real states of higher consciousness and not to fantasies about MAL that carries the burden of the thought-forms of all particles.

The trouble is that the empty state is abused. It is what it is. It only gives us the possibility to experience a higher ground from which we can discover that our spiritual activity is capable of continually climbing out of the conscious patterns of our normal life. But when we imagine that this empty state corresponds to the primal state of the One Consciousness, we open the door for a world of confusion. As long as it's imagined that the higher forms of cognition lay between the empty state and the intellectual state, we're simply looking only 'outwards'. We have learned not to identify with the face on the Deep M@L picture but we don't admit that there's something behind the face - it is assumed that when we reach the empty state we've climbed above any form and idea (that is, everything is now in front of our consciousness, even though in the form of emptiness), and simply let anyone who wants to tinker with Imaginative, Inspirative and Intuitive consciousness, to do so below/in front of us. I've said this before: on what grounds can the mystic claim that the empty state gives the foundation of existence, when on the gradient between the intellectual and the empty state, it is never experienced anything of which the higher forms of cognition speak? The mystic claims that the empty state is Everest, although he never experiences the passing of camps 1,2,3,4. At what point on our way to the empty state the soul organs become perceptible? The soul, life, physical bodies? Our own Karmic web that relates us to other souls? The beings of the higher hierarchies? The planetary spheres? And these are not some modern "Western" inventions. Although in different kind of consciousness (dream-like, atavistic), the ancient Hindus knew about all these things. Today it's assumed that all these things are irrelevant and as long as it's grasped in the most abstract way that it's all one big consciousness, all enigmas have been solved. I don't know how such a glaring contradiction continues to go on without lighting up any red lamps (actually I very well know the reasons, but that's how the saying goes).

There are many things that can be said about infinity but I don't see the point at this time. How about the fact that in the astral world the whole activity of counting no longer exists? Without proper self-knowledge we don't realize that we project things into the higher worlds without noticing. Counting is only possible because we have the firm support of the physical body, we have 'fingers that we can count' (this goes much deeper than it looks). Not that the idea of number doesn't exist in the higher worlds but things are very different. Numbers are something very different in the Devachan. Here we count twelve constellations of the Zodiac, above we experience as a holistic quality the twelvefoldness of the Outer Spheres, just as we experience here 'red' as a holistic quality. In Devachan we don't count. To be able to count we need to be able to support several thoughts at the same time. This is only possible when we interfere with the formed brain. Even in the Imaginative realm we no longer hold several thoughts at a time. There's only one idea-image that fills the entire consciousness and it metamorphoses smoothly (that's why all ascent to higher cognition always passes through concentration of spiritual activity). This image is infinitely detailed in the most real sense, yet we encompass it as something holistic. All quarrels about finity-infinity simply become meaningless as soon as we cross the threshold.

So we see how much of our conceptions must change if we are to ever approach the reality of the higher worlds and not only some fantastic picture made of intellectual material. It's obvious that the gradient between the intellectual and the empty state doesn't reveal anything of the above. In our age the picture of the One Consciousness has been unknowingly reduced to an intellectual ego inflated to Cosmic proportions and emptied of its contents. The reason is very simple - because this is what we can imagine! We can't imagine the higher states through the material of the intellect. But intellect emptied of contents is palpable. As long as this emptied intellectual state considers itself to represent the very boundary of existence, the higher forms of consciousness (the Depth of M@L) will forever remain behind its emptied face.

[Eugene I]

Eugene, you didn't address my fractal analogy for what it was. The conversation again drifted into the above - do the potentially existing 'really' exist.

My point was fairly simply. That the "actually known" ideas, even though we experience them in isolation, still exist in certain relation with ideas which can be found at some future point, as if these ideas somehow 'knew' that they should be compatible with other ideas not yet discovered. And this was not an argument that 'proves' the existence of some pool of infinite idea. It was more an argument that we find ideas existing in relations irrelevant of what we philosophize intellectually about their nature.

Cleric, I agree with such position. As long as Ashvin would not sense any "duality" here

The trouble is that the empty state is abused. It is what it is. It only gives us the possibility to experience a higher ground from which we can discover that our spiritual activity is capable of continually climbing out of the conscious patterns of our normal life. But when we imagine that this empty state corresponds to the primal state of the One Consciousness

You misunderstood me here. I did not say that the "state" of the absence of forms is "primal" in any way. On the opposite, I said that it has no primacy or benefit compared to the state of forms whatsoever. But what it practically helps with is to discover the unconditional and unchangeable "aspects" of Consciousness (existence and awareness). And those aspects are not "states", because a state is something that changes, but these aspects of existence and awareness never change, they are equally ever-omni-present regardless whether any forms are present of absent.

The mystic claims that the empty state is Everest, although he never experiences the passing of camps 1,2,3,4.

Cleric, I'm repeating 101-th time that they do not make such claim (may be some of them do, but I disagree with those).

Today it's assumed that all these things are irrelevant and as long as it's grasped in the most abstract way that it's all one big consciousness, all enigmas have been solved. I don't know how such a glaring contradiction continues to go on without lighting up any red lamps (actually I very well know the reasons, but that's how the saying goes).

I don't know who assumes those structures and hierarchies irrelevant, I assume them very relevant.

So we see how much of our conceptions must change if we are to ever approach the reality of the higher worlds and not only some fantastic picture made of intellectual material. It's obvious that the gradient between the intellectual and the empty state doesn't reveal anything of the above. In our age the picture of the One Consciousness has been unknowingly reduced to an intellectual ego inflated to Cosmic proportions and emptied of its contents. The reason is very simple - because this is what we can imagine! We can't imagine the higher states through the material of the intellect. But intellect emptied of contents is palpable. As long as this emptied intellectual state considers itself to represent the very boundary of existence, the higher forms of consciousness (the Depth of M@L) will forever remain behind its emptied face.

Cleric, you are repeating the same misconception about the non-dual perspective again and again. The non-dual perspective is not to negate anything that exists in the intellect and the realm of forms and ideas and not to place them any lower in the hierarchy of existence. On the opposite, it is to enhance them to encompass the unconditional aspects of Consciousness. And the key benefit of such enhancement is that it allows to dispel the identification with forms while not impeding their further development in any way, but only benefiting such development by liberating them from cognitive distortions of false identifications with forms.

But I understand your frustration. Indeed the wide-spread people's impression about those "mystical" samadhi-states of non-dual traditions somehow got associated with whole bunch of bizarre ideas which have nothing to do with what the non-dual perspective actually is. And it is true that some mis-practices within those traditions can lead to inflation of ego to Cosmic proportions (which is especially a potential pitfall in the Advaitic tradition IMO).

There are many things that can be said about infinity but I don't see the point at this time. How about the fact that in the astral world the whole activity of counting no longer exists? Without proper self-knowledge we don't realize that we project things into the higher worlds without noticing. Counting is only possible because we have the firm support of the physical body, we have 'fingers that we can count' (this goes much deeper than it looks). Not that the idea of number doesn't exist in the higher worlds but things are very different. Numbers are something very different in the Devachan. Here we count twelve constellations of the Zodiac, above we experience as a holistic quality the twelvefoldness of the Outer Spheres, just as we experience here 'red' as a holistic quality. In Devachan we don't count. To be able to count we need to be able to support several thoughts at the same time. This is only possible when we interfere with the formed brain. Even in the Imaginative realm we no longer hold several thoughts at a time. There's only one idea-image that fills the entire consciousness and it metamorphoses smoothly (that's why all ascent to higher cognition always passes through concentration of spiritual activity). This image is infinitely detailed in the most real sense, yet we encompass it as something holistic. All quarrels about finity-infinity simply become meaningless as soon as we cross the threshold.

I definitely agree that we have a very limited perspective in our human form (which is actually nothing wrong, I think it was intentional when we decided to incarnate). Yet, when we try to push the limits and penetrate into the ideal world "behind", we should be very careful not to confuse our fantasies with the actual realities of that world. So, yes, you can try, there is nothing wrong with that. But my personal approach is more careful, I think it is quite dangerous to confuse and fool ourselves with misconceptions and false beliefs. There are so many traditions and mystical teachings with plethora of the schemes of how the astral and spiritual world is structured and works, most of them contradicting each other. You may pick up one of those that "feels true" to you, but I would rather stay away from that until I have a good evidence and my own direct experience with those structures to know which ones are real. But I never deny the existence of such structures, thee are definitely many structures in the universe of Consciousness, and we will know them when the right time comes and when we will have enhanced abilities to know them directly without any need to fantasize about them. There is a reason and a Divine and our own intent that we, in our human state, are veiled from and devoid of the knowledge of the spiritual world. It is our "incarnation contract" where we agreed to give up our knowledge of that world. I understand the desire and curiosity to know it, but there was a reason why we gave up that knowledge, and the reason was not to gain it back while we are in the human form, but to experience life exactly from the limited human perspective and learn what we can learn while perceiving the world from that limited perspective.

[Eugene I]

PS: I'm not denying a value of spiritual science, it can be useful, enriching our perspective and fun to explore, as with any other sciences. I just do not think that using spiritual science to get the knowledge of the spiritual structures and hierarchies was the ultimate goal and intention for our incarnation into the human form.

[Cleric K]

I definitely agree that we have a very limited perspective in our human form (which is actually nothing wrong, I think it was intentional when we decided to incarnate). Yet, when we try to push the limits and penetrate into the ideal world "behind", we should be very careful not to confuse our fantasies with the actual realities of that world. So, yes, you can try, there is nothing wrong with that. But my personal approach is more careful, I think it is quite dangerous to confuse and fool ourselves with misconceptions and false beliefs. There are so many traditions and mystical teachings with plethora of the schemes of how the astral and spiritual world is structured and works, most of them contradicting each other. You may pick up one of those that "feels true" to you, but I would rather stay away from that until I have a good evidence and my own direct experience with those structures to know which ones are real. But I never deny the existence of such structures, thee are definitely many structures in the universe of Consciousness, and we will know them when the right time comes and when we will have enhanced abilities to know them directly without any need to fantasize about them. There is a reason and a Divine and our own intent that we, in our human state, are veiled from and devoid of the knowledge of the spiritual world. It is our "incarnation contract" where we agreed to give up our knowledge of that world. I understand the desire and curiosity to know it, but there was a reason why we gave up that knowledge, and the reason was not to gain it back while we are in the human form, but to experience life exactly from the limited human perspective and learn what we can learn while perceiving the world from that limited perspective.

I'm not at all saying that venturing into higher consciousness is immune to illusions. But what we speak of most of the time, like the core of PoF, requires nothing but sound thinking. It is this that puzzles me. For example the view that consciousness creates the ideas.
* The difficulty comes from the fact that the whole concept of pure consciousness (above forms and ideas) can exist only as an abstract idea within the intellect.
* Then you say that this view is supported by the experience of the empty state.
* I answer that this is only an abstract projection because the empty state is not devoid of ideal content - it still has the perception of emptiness and the general idea of emptiness which fill the entirety of consciousness (otherwise we wouldn't be able to think about the experience, since thinking deals with ideas and perceptions). Furthermore I point out that there are still many layers of ideal content behind the empty state which are the object of experience of the higher states of consciousness.
* Then you say that I misunderstand you and you don't claim that the empty state is fundamental (which implicitly admits that the idea of pure consciousness without forms and ideas can be nothing but an abstract idea inspired from the experience of the empty state). But you still maintain that pure consciousness is the primordial creator of ideas and as such anything which explores the relations of ideas (even higher idea-beings) is only a form of "spiritual rationalism" that misses the non-dual essence.

I hope you see the disconnect here. On one hand we have the idea of pure consciousness creating in itself forms and ideas. Yet we don't have any direct experience of such kind of consciousness. We can speak of this consciousness as reality only if we confuse the empty state for it. Yet even though you agree that the empty state is not identical with the supposed pure consciousness above form and idea, you have faith that it points reliably to such a state. This is confirmed and from the bold text above - something which I pointed attention to from the very beginning - that the gate of death is considered as a special boundary. So in the final run it all boils down to belief in the supposed nature of consciousness after death (I'm not clear if you think that it is in principle impossible to cross that boundary while in a body or it's simply not relevant to do so for an incarnated soul, as it would ruin the supposed initial intention).

In a nutshell I say that the empty state is mistaken as direct confirmation for the existence of pure consciousness (above form and idea) while in fact this can only exist as abstract idea inspired from the empty experience. Then the abstract idea is taken and is used to argue that penetrating the world of ideas is only an exotic adventure, since nondualism already addresses the pure consciousness beyond ideas.

PS: I'm not denying a value of spiritual science, it can be useful, enriching our perspective and fun to explore, as with any other sciences. I just do not think that using spiritual science to get the knowledge of the spiritual structures and hierarchies was the ultimate goal and intention for our incarnation into the human form.

Well, the above is a completely natural result when we take the beforementioned stance about the gate of death. This splits the world into two spheres with different rules. No wonder that penetrating into the spiritual is seen only as an interesting but quite optional (speaking for humanity's evolution as a whole) endeavor. Anyone can see for themselves how different everything becomes if we assume for a moment the standpoint of true monism (which is the only direct experience we can know), without presupposing that we are only temporary visitors in the Earthly sphere, coming from another sphere, with other rules of existence. Honestly, I don't see how it is "less dangerous" to base our whole life on a pure belief about the nature of existence in the yonder sphere, while ignoring the "more dangerous" path of direct experience that is available for us, which starts with lucid and unprejudiced thinking and gradually and naturally transforms into higher forms of spiritual activity, revealing the depth of reality.

[Cleric K]

PS: Happy Wesak!