Anthroposophy as Fascio

[AshvinP]

Which is what you have done with regards to "thinking". You include it in your 'trinity' in name only, while stripping it of all functional qualities we know from intimate experience. That's why when I say the Logos is incarnate in our logical reasoning faculty, you call it "esoteric BS", but then go on to say the Logos is "Thinking, creative power of God". The latter is simply a remote abstraction for you, as 'God the son' or 'second member of Trinity' is for the fundamentalists. You don't want it to have any immanent connection to our first person thinking experience, for reasons already mentioned. You would rather endlessly fragment the Divine into various modes, fragment those modes into abilities, those abilities into activities, those activities into forms, and emphasize or discard the latter as you so please, than admit this concrete and living connection.

Because logical reasoning is only a small component of Thinking. So, when you said that "Logos, the logical reasoning faculty which remains with us in our enlivened and expanded cognition through proper esoteric training", it was actually you who do not know what Thinking is from the first person experience because you reduce Thinking/Logos to only logical reasoning.

But on the bigger picture, there is a deeper reason why you relentlessly try to twist and misinterpret my position and try to find any possible ways to prove it wrong and prove that I am an ignorant person. I'm not omniscient and my views may indeed have flaws, but the main point I'm trying to make is that by reaching to the experiential knowledge of our Divine nature of Oneness we can liberate ourselves from the deception of the dualistic realm ruled by the Luciferian hierarchy, and then continue living and evolving further and acquiring deeper knowledge in the nondual state. Christ and Buddha taught us exactly that. But the dualistic hierarchy does not want us to know about that and to believe that this is even possible, or they may say it may be possible but after eons of slow evolution under their rule, so in the meantime we would have to continue incarnating into humans bound to their dualistic lawful structures and their hierarchy. They call even thinking about a slight possibility of such liberation from their rule as following "egoic preferences", while in reality it is a Divine call in our hearts to return to the unity with the Divine. All spiritual traditions knew about this hierarchy, of which I gave plenty of quotes, but you deny it and call it "conspiracy theory", of course because they do not want us to know that. So, what happens when you get involved in esoteric practices without exercising your spiritual discernment is that you become connecting and subduing yourself more and more to this deluded hierarchy so they have more access to your mind and can influence you, and you start believing in their agenda and teachings, become a member of their hierarchy and their representative among humans channeling their messages. This is not my interpretation, this is what you guys are saying all the time about becoming "nested" in the hierarchy of high-order beings and becoming fully compliant with their lawful structures that control our soul structure, you are just unaware that you are connecting with a wrong hierarchy. They masquerade as benevolent, they do not look and act evil, their teachings seem to make sense, they give us all possible reasons to continue living in the dualistic state disconnected from our true Divine nature, they have a long-term plan for our evolution as long as we continue staying in the dualistic state and bound to their rule and Karmic laws. The proof that it is a wrong hierarchy is obvious, because they reject the need and even the possibility of realizing the Oneness of our Divine nature in this very human life (and not after eons) and channeling this rejection through you, well duh! because such realization would release us from their rule. The true Divine hierarchy would never do that. This is not to say that every esoteric practice is wrong, but to say that you have to be aware of the reality of this hierarchy masquerading as benevolent, and develop and exercise spiritual discernment before engaging with them. We indeed need to connect to higher order beings but only of the Divine hierarchy, and the key sign that you are connecting to the Divine hierarchy is that they immediately start helping you to connect directly to your Divine nature and realize the gnosis of Oneness. You also need to carefully and deeply study and understand the authentic spiritual traditions of the West and East (and not their second-hand interpretations) which all point to the realization of the Divine nature and reaching to Oneness, as well as warning us about the reality of the false-light hierarchy.

The nature of higher cognition which maintains logical discernment has been illustrated and metaphorically pointed to you by Cleric who knows how many times now. It is you who choose to reduce every mention of "thinking" in this context to only the discursive reasoning you are familiar with. Every time you mention "spiritual discernment" you are speaking of this logical faculty without knowing it. In general, you choose to reduce the whole spectrum of concrete and accessible spiritual knowledge to only that knowledge which you have already attained (which is the same amount anyone with normal cognition and internet access has attained). Instead of using the Kantian divide to rule out all other knowledge which points away from your preferences for absolute atomistic soul freedom (as you used to do a few years ago, calling it 'subjective fantasy'), you now ascribe it to delusions of the evil dualistic hierarchy. Thereby you cut off the only means by which you could awaken to the deeper soul tendencies which steer your beliefs, opinions, theories, and mystical experiences. So you are subconsciously enslaved to these soul tendencies and project that feeling of oppression onto the 'dualistic matrix' and onto anyone who tries to point you in the direction of working towards spiritual freedom, by becoming conscious of the forces which animate the tip of your current thinking. Your first steps to this freedom are less than a stone's throw away, if you are only willing to sacrifice the prideful illusion that you are already free.

[Federica]

Not a "component". Components are for function, modeling, actionability. To come a tiny less opposite to truth, replace your component-concept with this:

Oh cmon, don't be so picky , suggest a better word and I will agree with you, I hope you know what I meant. I'm not a native English speaker so I admit that my statements are often not precise.

I do, but you do not. It's not about the word. Words are tokens, we can pick whatever we prefer, of course within the fluid restrictions set by the necessity of exchanging with others, and as it seems, we are a majority of non-native English speakers here, so this is just an unhelpful diversion.
It's not about words, it is about the shape that you take with your thinking when you write down the word "component", versus the shape that you are not forming, because you throw your thinking gesture into an Ikea drawer divider.

[Stranger]

The nature of higher cognition which maintains logical discernment has been illustrated and metaphorically pointed to you by Cleric who knows how many times now. It is you who choose to reduce every mention of "thinking" in this context to only the discursive reasoning you are familiar with. In general, you choose to reduce the whole spectrum of concrete and accessible spiritual knowledge to only that knowledge which you have already attained (which is the same amount anyone with normal cognition and internet access has attained). Instead of using the Kantian divide to rule out all other knowledge which points away from your preferences for absolute atomistic soul freedom (as you used to do a few years ago, calling it 'subjective fantasy'), you now ascribe it to delusions of the evil dualistic hierarchy. Thereby you cut off the only means by which you could awaken to the deeper soul tendencies which steer your beliefs, opinions, theories, and mystical experiences. So you are subconsciously enslaved to these soul tendencies and project that feeling of oppression onto the 'dualistic matrix' and onto anyone who tries to point you in the direction of working towards spiritual freedom, by becoming conscious of the forces which animate the tip of your current thinking. Your first steps to this freedom are less than a stone's throw away, if you are only willing to sacrifice the prideful illusion that you are already free.

Fine, let's say I'm all doing it all wrong. I already said many times that it is not about me at all. All I'm doing is just pointing to the messages of Christ and Buddha calling us to Oneness which you relentlessly reject. Do it your way but follow exactly what Christ and Buddha and masters of other traditions told us to do, which I gave plenty of quotes about, which is exactly to reach to the Oneness with the Divine and realize our Divine nature in this very lifetime. Or say I reject such possibility and will continue working for and under the dualistic hierarchy. Be honest. It is also not only about you, but about other people here. You self-appointed yourself to be a spiritual teacher of anthoposophy, and so you are responsible for what you teach people here and where you lead them to. Think about the huge bad Karma that you will accumulate in case if you mislead people.

Jesus said to his disciples: “Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come. It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble. (Luke 17)

And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch (Mt. 15: 14)

[Federica]

Eugene! Please travel with your mind inside the Matrjosjka set, and once you have landed at its core, see that we are all constantly pupils and teachers at some level.

[AshvinP]

The nature of higher cognition which maintains logical discernment has been illustrated and metaphorically pointed to you by Cleric who knows how many times now. It is you who choose to reduce every mention of "thinking" in this context to only the discursive reasoning you are familiar with. In general, you choose to reduce the whole spectrum of concrete and accessible spiritual knowledge to only that knowledge which you have already attained (which is the same amount anyone with normal cognition and internet access has attained). Instead of using the Kantian divide to rule out all other knowledge which points away from your preferences for absolute atomistic soul freedom (as you used to do a few years ago, calling it 'subjective fantasy'), you now ascribe it to delusions of the evil dualistic hierarchy. Thereby you cut off the only means by which you could awaken to the deeper soul tendencies which steer your beliefs, opinions, theories, and mystical experiences. So you are subconsciously enslaved to these soul tendencies and project that feeling of oppression onto the 'dualistic matrix' and onto anyone who tries to point you in the direction of working towards spiritual freedom, by becoming conscious of the forces which animate the tip of your current thinking. Your first steps to this freedom are less than a stone's throw away, if you are only willing to sacrifice the prideful illusion that you are already free.

Fine, let's say I'm all doing it all wrong. I already said many times that it is not about me at all. All I'm doing is just pointing to the messages of Christ and Buddha calling us to Oneness which you relentlessly reject. Do it your way but follow exactly what Christ and Buddha and masters of other traditions told us to do, which I gave plenty of quotes about, which is exactly to reach to the Oneness with the Divine and realize our Divine nature in this very lifetime. Or say I reject such possibility and will continue working for and under the dualistic hierarchy. Be honest. It is also not only about you, but about other people here. You self-appointed yourself to be a spiritual teacher of anthoposophy, and so you are responsible for what you teach people here and where you lead them to. Think about the huge bad Karma that you will accumulate in case if you mislead people.

Jesus said to his disciples: “Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come. It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble. (Luke 17)

And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch (Mt. 15: 14)

Eugene, this is silly. It is like talking to an evangelical preacher who can't imagine that the 'virgin birth' points to something much more spiritually profound than the idea that Mary gave birth to Jesus without Joseph's involvement. He asks us to believe all laws of reality were suspended for this "miracle" rather than seeking the depth of structure to the laws we already know. Your miracle of "oneness" which bypasses all lawful evolutionary structure is no different. We have already established that can't happen on Earth - your 'oneness' realization doesn't even tell you the spiritual nature of Light - so you blame the dualistic matrix and place all faith in what might happen after death. It is no less a miracle to believe all lawful becoming within the Earthly context evaporates after death, as we have explained in many different ways. But the preacher doesn't listen to reason - he simply keeps repeating his dogma of the virgin birth, tells us we are 'false prophets' for suggesting anything else, and we are probably going to hell unless we agree with him. Absolutely no sound reasoning is provided, only repetitive reams of isolated quotes and appeals to "tradition". That's your current role on this forum and it helps no one.

What helps is people finding ways to loosen the rigid intellectual mask and gradually discovering the leeway through which the unified Spirit can express itself in the here and now, for the benefit of all Earthly evolution. Between someone like Cleric and yourself, for ex., I think it's perfectly clear from the quality of posts who has incarnated the Spirit through that imaginative leeway and who has not yet. "By their fruits shall you know them." Sometimes these things need to be put a little bluntly. By the way, I used to be in the evangelical preacher role myself. Scott can attest to that. These are all metamorphic stages we must pass through before something truly new can emerge. The major risk and error is getting stuck in one stage or another, absolutizing our current understanding of "reality" or "god" or "oneness", and thereby missing opportunities to grow into higher stages. How our thoughts, feelings, and actions on Earth will affect our evolution after death can be known with clarity and precision, and there's nothing tyrannical about seeking this knowledge with logical discernment intact. We have nothing to lose by it except our chains.

[Stranger]

I'm telling you again that is not even in the least about me. It is about the teachings of Christ, Buddha and Buddhist masters, Rumi, Dionysius, Ramana Maharshi and all other masters of Advaita, and many others, about reaching to actualized Oneness with the Divine in this very lifetime, which you call "dogma". I take it as your final rejection of them. So, if this is in fact what antroposophy is teaching, then I would suggest renaming this thread to "Anthroposophy as Fiasco". Bye for now.

“When the Buddha was alone after he had sent out the first sixty disciples on missions to propagate the doctrine, Mara the Evil One approached him saying:
"Bound art thou by all the snares,
Both those of devas and of men,
In great bondage art thou bound,
Recluse, you won't be freed from me."”
(Vin I 20f.)

“ And so Mara the Evil One directed the Buddha’s attention to Brahma's assembly. When this was said, the Buddha told Mara the Evil One, 'I know you, Evil One. Don't assume, "He doesn't know me." You are Mara, Evil One. And Brahma, and Brahma's assembly, and the attendants of Brahma's assembly have all fallen into your hands. They have all fallen into your power. And you think, "This one, too, has come into my hands, has come under my control." But, Evil One, I have neither come into your hands nor have I come under your control.”
MN 49

In Buddhism, Mara is a malignant celestial king who tried to stop Prince Siddhartha achieving Enlightenment by trying to seduce him with his celestial Army

[ScottRoberts]

Manyness, as part of the Trinity, is Thinking ability, not the products of Thinking (forms). Thinking ability (Manyness) never stops, it is intrinsic and timeless, it is an aspect of the fundamental Trinity of Beingness-Awareness-Manyness.

The reason for not placing Oneness as the ontological prime is that from Oneness one cannot get Manyness (by which I mean experience of many things, as with normal consciousness). This is Oneness-mysticism's hard problem, just as materialists have the hard problem of consciousness, which is to say they have no means of explaining how many events can be experienced as a unit (i.e., as one).

The extreme response the Oneness-mystics use to their hard problem is to declare the many as illusion. Which is, of course nonsense. So the next attempt to solve their hard problem is to declare that Oneness has the potential to produce the many. Which is what you are doing, in positing a "thinking ability" which is not "thinking activity". But this is just arm-waving, saying "somehow" the One can produce Many, just as the materialist is arm-waving by saying that when the many get sufficiently complex, consciousness "somehow" happens.

To avoid both hard problems, one can stick to the empirical, and note that every experience requires both the One and the Many. To avoid dualism (the third horn of the tetralemma) note that they are not things or states, but polar forces. The One acts on the Many (unifying), and the Many acts on the One (shaping a new Many).

But, says the Oneness-mystic, I have experienced the state of Oneness-without-Many. Have you? Have you not simply switched focus from focusing on the Many pole of the polarity (our usual state) to focusing on the Oneness pole, and the Many is simply out-of-focus, just as Oneness is simply out-of-focus while in the normal state?

By the way, you are interpreting the Heart Sutra literally out of context of the Buddhist teachings. Also, the Heart Sutra is of late origin from China and does not represent the authentic Buddhist teachings in full. It is a common knowledge in Buddhism that the state of stopping the Thinking activity is achievable, but there is no particular value in attaining such state as a goal of spiritual practice.

You say that "Buddhist teachings" happens to align with your ontology. But are there not many "Buddhist teachings", just as there are many Christian teachings? So you have simply chosen the one that agrees with you.

Also, in the Christian theology it is a common understanding that God is not compelled to create the Universe of Forms, so He creates the Universe as an act of free choice. He of course did it as a result of some Thinking activity prior to manifestation of the Universe and beyond the linear time. So, God, as B-E-T, is prior to the universe of forms, he is sovereign and is never conditioned by the universe, even though always involved with it and the universe is never ontologically separate from Him. And so we can be like Him when we go through Theosis and realize the unconditioned Oneness of our Divine nature.

Maybe Christian theology needs some updating. After all, they didn't have a Nagarjuna to point them to the Middle Way.

Please note that I am not insisting that my ontology is the One True ontology. I am merely saying that it avoids the hard problems that arise by holding to one of the four horns of the tetralemma, as is the case with yours.

[Stranger]

The reason for not placing Oneness as the ontological prime is that from Oneness one cannot get Manyness (by which I mean experience of many things, as with normal consciousness). This is Oneness-mysticism's hard problem, just as materialists have the hard problem of consciousness, which is to say they have no means of explaining how many events can be experienced as a unit (i.e., as one).

The extreme response the Oneness-mystics use to their hard problem is to declare the many as illusion. Which is, of course nonsense. So the next attempt to solve their hard problem is to declare that Oneness has the potential to produce the many. Which is what you are doing, in positing a "thinking ability" which is not "thinking activity". But this is just arm-waving, saying "somehow" the One can produce Many, just as the materialist is arm-waving by saying that when the many get sufficiently complex, consciousness "somehow" happens.

To avoid both hard problems, one can stick to the empirical, and note that every experience requires both the One and the Many. To avoid dualism (the third horn of the tetralemma) note that they are not things or states, but polar forces. The One acts on the Many (unifying), and the Many acts on the One (shaping a new Many).

Any ontology has to pose some fundamental saying that "somehow" that fundamental is what it is. The best we can do, exactly as you said, is to align our understanding of the fundamental with our direct experience. So, for ordinary people who have no deep meditation experience, all they know from experience is only ever-present Many, so they are naturally drawn to the ontology that you just described. But some people with more advanced meditative experience achieve states with the absence of Many as an experiential fact, and that fact is the experiential proof for them that the Many cannot be the ontological fundamental (because the fundamental, by definition, cannot come and go, appear and disappear).

I don't see any "hard problem" here because the Thinking ability to produce Many is still present and can act at any moment, so it is really no more problematic than to say that producing Many by thinking is itself a "hard problem". The fact that Thinking can stop and resume its form-producing activity does not change anything for the mystery of how forms are produced by Thinking. The "hard problem", as it was formulated by Chalmers, relates to "brutal emergence" when certain phenomena of a completely different ontological nature emerge from something claimed to be more fundamental reality. In our case we are still withing idealism where all we have - Beingness, Awareness, Thinking and the Many forms, - are all of the same nature of conscious experiences that can be directly experienced, so the "hard problem" does not occur. But yes, there are still "soft problems" and explanatory gaps as it is in any known version of idealism (which materialists keep pointing to).

But, says the Oneness-mystic, I have experienced the state of Oneness-without-Many. Have you? Have you not simply switched focus from focusing on the Many pole of the polarity (our usual state) to focusing on the Oneness pole, and the Many is simply out-of-focus, just as Oneness is simply out-of-focus while in the normal state?

You are right, Oneness is actually always within the space of our direct conscious experience, but it is normally out of focus. However, the experience of the absence of Many is an advanced meditative state when the focus of attention is already fully extended to the wholeness of the space of the direct experience, so nothing is out of focus. You may still argue that absence of something in direct experience may happen for other reasons and does not constitute a proof of its actual absence. But as I said, it is not actually important, let's assume you are right and there is no such thing as a state with the absence of Many, and so Manyness of forms always coexist with Oneness.

A more problematic statement is this: "The One acts on the Many (unifying), and the Many acts on the One (shaping a new Many)." which implies that One can be conditioned or changed by many, and so in this equation One and Many become fully equal in the ontological terms. You can argue that Many indeed can act on Thinking shaping its next willing and thought-creating acts, and that's why I called Thinking as a "bridge" between the One and Many. However, the other two aspects of Trinity, the Beingness and Awareness, are absolutely nonconditional with respect to Many as a fact of our direct experience. No matter what happens in the realm of Many, it never affects even in the least the Beingness and Awareness, they never alter, all that can happen is that they can just go out of our focus of attention while never ceasing to be present in our direct experience. They are, as a matter of fact of experience, absolutely timeless and unaffected by the world of Many. This is the fact that Buddhists and Advaitists have always been pointing to and emphasizing. So, a natural ontology based on such experiential observation would be to consider Beingness-Awareness as the ontic fundamental.

Please note that I am not insisting that my ontology is the One True ontology. I am merely saying that it avoids the hard problems that arise by holding to one of the four horns of the tetralemma, as is the case with yours.

Sure, nether do I. We may even take an entirely anti-ontological approach and claim that nothing is ontically fundamental, the world is just what it is with everything "ontologically equal" so to speak, that would be a good Middle Way and I'm all for it. Still, even in this case, we would have to admit, after carefully looking into our direct conscious experience, that there are "aspects" of it that are changeless and that unite the experience into unbreakable Wholeness/Oneness while still co-existing with Manyness of forms. Either way, ontological or not, we cannot get away from Oneness other than if we just ignore it, either deliberately or out of ignorance.

You say that "Buddhist teachings" happens to align with your ontology. But are there not many "Buddhist teachings", just as there are many Christian teachings? So you have simply chosen the one that agrees with you.

It was the Buddha himself who, in his original teachings in Pali Canon, taught about reaching the state of the absence of Many (which is called nirodha sampati in Pali Canon). Chinese Buddhists in the 6-th century, when they composed the Heart Sutra, were not aware of it because Pali canon was not translated to Chinese at that time, and they only had some pieces of the teachings of Mahayana schools that penetrated to China at that time. To be more specific, it was Bodhidharma who brought a specific version of Mahayana Buddhism to China that later formed into the Chan/Zen school.

By the way, the tetralemma was first used by the Buddha, but he was using it not to present it as a polarity, but to argue that the ideas of "existence" and "non-existence" are simply non-applicable to the liberated state of the Tathagata:

"But for one who doesn't love becoming, who isn't fond of becoming, who doesn't cherish becoming, who knows & sees, as it actually is present, the cessation of becoming, the thought, 'The Tathagata exists after death' or 'The Tathagata does not exist after death' or 'The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death' or 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death' doesn't occur.
Sariputta-Kotthita Sutta

[ScottRoberts]

Any ontology has to pose some fundamental saying that "somehow" that fundamental is what it is.

Ah, but your view requires two ("Being/Experience" is the first, to which "thinking ability" must be added to (somehow) account for our experience), while mine just requires one ("ideational activity").

The best we can do, exactly as you said, is to align our understanding of the fundamental with our direct experience. So, for ordinary people who have no deep meditation experience, all they know from experience is only ever-present Many, so they are naturally drawn to the ontology that you just described. But some people with more advanced meditative experience achieve states with the absence of Many as an experiential fact, and that fact is the experiential proof for them that the Many cannot be the ontological fundamental (because the fundamental, by definition, cannot come and go, appear and disappear).

They are not drawn to my ontology. They are drawn to dualism or materialism. But it only takes a little philosophizing to see that one must acknowledge a force to unify the many. One doesn't need deep meditation experience to realize manyness alone isn't sufficient.

I don't see any "hard problem" here because the Thinking ability to produce Many is still present and can act at any moment, so it is really no more problematic than to say that producing Many by thinking is itself a "hard problem".

You don't see a "hard problem" because you have already arm-waved it away with your "thinking ability",

A more problematic statement is this: "The One acts on the Many (unifying), and the Many acts on the One (shaping a new Many)." which implies that One can be conditioned or changed by many, and so in this equation One and Many become fully equal in the ontological terms. You can argue that Many indeed can act on Thinking shaping its next willing and thought-creating acts, and that's why I called Thinking as a "bridge" between the One and Many. However, the other two aspects of Trinity, the Beingness and Awareness, are absolutely nonconditional with respect to Many as a fact of our direct experience. No matter what happens in the realm of Many, it never affects even in the least the Beingness and Awareness, they never alter, all that can happen is that they can just go out of our focus of attention while never ceasing to be present in our direct experience. They are, as a matter of fact of experience, absolutely timeless and unaffected by the world of Many. This is the fact that Buddhists and Advaitists have always been pointing to and emphasizing. So, a natural ontology based on such experiential observation would be to consider Beingness-Awareness as the ontic fundamental.

When there is a cat, there is catness. When there is something (which is always), there is being. When there is experiencing (which is always), there is experience. Are not the capitalizations, and the big words "unconditioned", "absolute", etc., just attempts to make being and experience something more than their simple meanings? This strikes me as idolatry, or misplaced concreteness, or something.

I might add that one way I think Christian theology needs updating is to alter its claim that God is unchanging. Rather, I would argue that in each of our experiential acts I stay the same as I am changed by the experience. Same with God. As an idea in God's mind, as I change-while-not-changing, so is God changing-while-not-changing. Which, of course, is something Aristotelian logic can't handle. And so one brings in polar logic: changing and changelessness are a tetralemmic polarity, a temporal version of the more spatial Manyness/Oneness polarity.

Still, even in this case, we would have to admit, after carefully looking into our direct conscious experience, that there are "aspects" of it that are changeless and that unite the experience into unbreakable Wholeness/Oneness while still co-existing with Manyness of forms. Either way, ontological or not, we cannot get away from Oneness other than if we just ignore it, either deliberately or out of ignorance.

You have noted, I hope, that I haven't ignored Oneness. I just don't make it prior to Manyness.

It was the Buddha himself who, in his original teachings in Pali Canon, taught about reaching the state of the absence of Many (which is called nirodha sampati in Pali Canon). Chinese Buddhists in the 6-th century, when they composed the Heart Sutra, were not aware of it because Pali canon was not translated to Chinese at that time, and they only had some pieces of the teachings of Mahayana schools that penetrated to China at that time.

I will just note that the Chinese origin of the Heart Sutra is disputed. In any case, perhaps the Pali Canon also needs updating. Oh, wait, it has been (Mahayana, Vajrayana, etc.) Pick your Buddhist teachings to suit.

[Stranger]

Ah, but your view requires two ("Being/Experience" is the first, to which "thinking ability" must be added to (somehow) account for our experience), while mine just requires one ("ideational activity").

Right, you can call it "ideational activity". But the fact of the direct experience is that it has certain transcendental "qualities" or "aspects" that are immutable and that "glue" all of the manifold of Manyness into One - the "qualities" of Beingness and Awareness. This is the undeniable fact, but one can ignore it of course if its spiritual significance is not realized.

They are not drawn to my ontology. They are drawn to dualism or materialism. But it only takes a little philosophizing to see that one must acknowledge a force to unify the many. One doesn't need deep meditation experience to realize manyness alone isn't sufficient.

Exactly. That's what I was saying too: deep meditation is irrelevant, the key is the acknowledgement of the unity-aspect.

When there is a cat, there is catness. When there is something (which is always), there is being. When there is experiencing (which is always), there is experience. Are not the capitalizations, and the big words "unconditioned", "absolute", etc., just attempts to make being and experience something more than their simple meanings? This strikes me as idolatry, or misplaced concreteness, or something.

Well, the reason these aspects and their meanings are so emphasized is psychological/practical/ethical, rather than philosophical. it is because they are typically ignored in our mundane state of mind, which in turn is the cause of our dualistic perception of the world where we only see manyness and do not notice oneness, and as a consequences, have a completely distorted way of interpreting reality, which has significant implications such as selfishness, suffering, inappropriate behavior and so on. That was the Buddha's approach: he was never concerned about philosophy and only talked about the practical and ethical aspects.

I might add that one way I think Christian theology needs updating is to alter its claim that God is unchanging. Rather, I would argue that in each of our experiential acts I stay the same as I am changed by the experience. Same with God. As an idea in God's mind, as I change-while-not-changing, so is God changing-while-not-changing. Which, of course, is something Aristotelian logic can't handle. And so one brings in polar logic: changing and changelessness are a tetralemmic polarity, a temporal version of the more spatial Manyness/Oneness polarity.

I'm fine with that as long as Oneness is acknowledged and not ignored or denied.

You have noted, I hope, that I haven't ignored Oneness. I just don't make it prior to Manyness.

Great, so we are in agreement here.

I will just note that the Chinese origin of the Heart Sutra is disputed. In any case, perhaps the Pali Canon also needs updating. Oh, wait, it has been (Mahayana, Vajrayana, etc.) Pick your Buddhist teachings to suit.

Well, you can add extra stuff and interpretations on top of the Pali Canon (which was done in many schools), but you can't subtract anything from it, that's the Buddhist Bible, the words of the Buddha