On Attaining Spiritual Sight (Part I)

[Stranger]

1. Anything that is said about beings, the Cosmic processes, etc. is automatically seen as mere wax patterns in the SH. Then one says, “There’s nothing wrong with studying these patterns in the SH, trying to give them shape, be creative in them, and so on, but this should be balanced with the NH – with Being and Awareness.” The latter, however, is nothing but the disguised intensification of the egoic sense of Being to Cosmic proportions. This Cosmically inflated ego wants to feel self-determined through and through, which means gradually liberating itself from all connections with beings (and their hidden Being), practically reducing itself to a distinct point in the One sphere of potential, independent of all other Beings.

Nice writing, Cleric. This #1 is indeed one of the well-known pitfalls on the so-called "mystical" path. This is a mistake and it's not how it's supposed to work, but it sometimes does happen when people conflate the Being with the personal sense of "I".

Another comment: the actual Being-Awareness is not somewhere there at the extreme NP, it's not a polarity. It's literally equally everywhere, right here and now present in our direct experience and in every thing and every polarity in the universe. It's just a matter of direct experiential knowing of it, or not knowing of it. But when people conflate it with one of the polarities of the spiritual universe, another mistake happens when only the "NP" is accepted as "the absolute" and everything else is discarded as "an illusion".

[Federica]

Another comment: the actual Being-Awareness is not somewhere there at the extreme NP, it's not a polarity. It's literally equally everywhere, right here and now present in our direct experience and in every thing and every polarity in the universe. It's just a matter of direct experiential knowing of it, or not knowing of it. But when people conflate it with one of the polarities of the spiritual universe, another mistake happens when only the "NP" is accepted as "the absolute" and everything else is discarded as "an illusion".

It's hard to believe you don't see the inner axis described by Cleric. I think it's not possible. The only other option I can imagine is that you have jumped to the end of Cleric's post and only read the final recap? If not, would you please explain?

Let’s start from the basics.



Above, we have an artistic depiction of our inner experience. This should be completely comprehensible to anyone who has had at least some contact with the popular idealistic ideas of our age (BK, DH, etc.). So basically, the sphere symbolizes our inner experience – the only thing we ever know. It needs to be thought of as experienced from within, and not seen from the outside.

Anyone who has at least some notion of metaphors like the dashboard and the idea of ‘core subjectivity’ should be able to conceive of an inner ‘axis’ (of course, grasped with the needed imaginative flexibility). Below, the ‘Southern Hemisphere’ (SH) is the dashboard. Obviously, in reality, we have phenomena in the full volume of inner space, not only in the geometrical lower half of inner space. The Northern Hemisphere (NH) is the approach to pure Being (core subjectivity, MAL, etc.).

[Stranger]

It's hard to believe you don't see the inner axis described by Cleric. I think it's not possible. The only other option I can imagine is that you have jumped to the end of Cleric's post and only read the final recap? If not, would you please explain?

Anyone who has at least some notion of metaphors like the dashboard and the idea of ‘core subjectivity’ should be able to conceive of an inner ‘axis’ (of course, grasped with the needed imaginative flexibility). Below, the ‘Southern Hemisphere’ (SH) is the dashboard. Obviously, in reality, we have phenomena in the full volume of inner space, not only in the geometrical lower half of inner space. The Northern Hemisphere (NH) is the approach to pure Being (core subjectivity, MAL, etc.).

I did read the article. The reason is that there are many ways in which different people understand or interpret the "Being". When the Being is understood as the "core subjectivity", the "MAL", or the "I", then surely it refers to a pole on this inner axis which Cleric was refferring to, and here we obviously have a polarity of such "Being" as opposed to other phenomena that such "Being" perceives. In this paradigm there is a polarity and duality between the "Being that perceives" and everything else which is not the "Being" and which is perceived by the "Being". But this is not at all what Heidegger and non-dual traditions meant by Being. Stil, the core subjectivity, the "I", does exist, and such interpretation of "Being" described by Cleric has its validity and he described such interpretation correctly. But it's just that its completely irrelevant to the non-dual Being of Heidegger and non-dual traditions which transcends the "I" and subjectivity, but is still equally immanent to both the subjectivity and to all the phenomena that the subjectivity perceives.

[Güney27]

It's hard to believe you don't see the inner axis described by Cleric. I think it's not possible. The only other option I can imagine is that you have jumped to the end of Cleric's post and only read the final recap? If not, would you please explain?

Anyone who has at least some notion of metaphors like the dashboard and the idea of ‘core subjectivity’ should be able to conceive of an inner ‘axis’ (of course, grasped with the needed imaginative flexibility). Below, the ‘Southern Hemisphere’ (SH) is the dashboard. Obviously, in reality, we have phenomena in the full volume of inner space, not only in the geometrical lower half of inner space. The Northern Hemisphere (NH) is the approach to pure Being (core subjectivity, MAL, etc.).

I did read the article. The reason is that there are many ways in which different people understand or interpret the "Being". When the Being is understood as the "core subjectivity", the "MAL", or the "I", then surely it refers to a pole on this inner axis which Cleric was refferring to, and here we obviously have a polarity of such "Being" as opposed to other phenomena that such "Being" perceives. In this paradigm there is a polarity and duality between the "Being that perceives" and everything else which is not the "Being" and which is perceived by the "Being". But this is not at all what Heidegger and non-dual traditions meant by Being. Stil, the core subjectivity, the "I", does exist, and such interpretation of "Being" described by Cleric has its validity and he described such interpretation correctly. But it's just that its completely irrelevant to the non-dual Being of Heidegger and non-dual traditions which transcends the "I" and subjectivity, but is still equally immanent to both the subjectivity and to all the phenomena that the subjectivity perceives.

To clarify this for everyone: For Heidegger, "being" means something different than in everyday language. When we say, "The tree is beautiful," we use the word "is" without questioning its meaning. Everything "is." Yet, what enables this "is" is not a being, not a thing, not thinking, not a process—but rather, these things are, and thus they are beings (ontic).
Why is there something rather than nothing?
How can one answer this question? With God or the spirit? With the primordial soup?

No, because these are, and thus they require the mysterious word we designate as "is." Being is not; it is the "is." "It" enables the emergence of any processes or things, and thus it precedes any entity or process. This is the mystery of Heidegger’s ontology. It always withdraws and remains hidden, while things (entities, thoughts, etc.) only have their being through it. Heidegger even states that God is not being but is subordinate to it. However, he does not attribute consciousness to being; rather, he remains silent, as these matters are forever ineffable.

When we say that everything exists in one consciousness experienced from different perspectives, we are still talking about an entity, a being, which as such does not explain being but is itself through "it." If someone wants to identify being with God, they identify it with an entity—even if it is the highest entity—a being that is, and thus not the being that they seek to question. This critique is what is known as ontotheology. I believe Cleric is not aware of Heidegger’s concept of being, as it is the most complex and central theme of his philosophy, which is highly intricate and convoluted. I hope I have expressed this clearly enough to advance the discussion.

[Kaje977]

Yes, clarifying the terms first here would be really useful to follow along the conversation or at least to syntactically differentiate them (like using another word for it). Otherwise, we'll just run in circles here. If possible, we could maybe even make some kind of a highlighting PHP script or plugin for phpBB, such that commonly used terms can be hovered over with the mouse and then display a small box, giving an explanation or cross-referencing other topics. That would be insanely useful to navigate the forum, to be fair.

So, if I understood correctly, for Heidegger, “Being” is not a substance, a state, or a place. It is the intangible enabling factor, the event that makes it possible for us to encounter things (beings) in the first place. The closest analogy (I can think of right now) a language could get to that in a phenomenological way (leaving aside any spiritual practices) is a "verb" in contrast to substantives which would be more closer to "beings". Correct?

(Anyway, in my mother tongue (German) we actually do differentiate the word more clearly. "beings" ("Seiendes") and Being ("Sein"). Maybe that's why I don't seem to have much difficulty understanding it. Or I misunderstood it)

Okay, now back to the main topic:

From what I understood so far (correct me if I'm wrong), Cleric's main point seems to be more practical than theoretical/philosophical. He does not argue against "Being" per se, but rather against a certain form of practice regarding Being, which he considers to be a solipsistic and egotistical dead end. So his answer is written in such a way that it serves a comparison of two spiritual worldviews in order to highlight this error. So, Cleric says, that the error is the assumption that spiritual progress or the attainment of "non-duality" means freeing oneself from the world of concrete things, processes, and other living beings (“small-"b" beings") in order to merge into a state of "pure Being" or "pure awareness". Basically, one becomes a "cosmically inflated ego". So, according to Cleric, although one theoretically feels "at one with everything" in practice one is an "infinitely isolated point". The true reality of other beings ("the Being of other beings") is dismissed as fundamentally unknowable. "One celebrates one's own liberation, which in truth is total isolation" is the intuitive point I sensed from his text. Did I get Cleric's point correct here? Correct me if I'm wrong.

So, Cleric wants to find a new concept of "non-duality" or "unity" such that true unity is not the negation of multiplicity, but the direct experience of the deep, inner interconnection within this multiplicity. At least, that's how I understood all of this.

[Stranger]

To clarify this for everyone: For Heidegger, "being" means something different than in everyday language. When we say, "The tree is beautiful," we use the word "is" without questioning its meaning. Everything "is." Yet, what enables this "is" is not a being, not a thing, not thinking, not a process—but rather, these things are, and thus they are beings (ontic).
Why is there something rather than nothing?
How can one answer this question? With God or the spirit? With the primordial soup?

No, because these are, and thus they require the mysterious word we designate as "is." Being is not; it is the "is." "It" enables the emergence of any processes or things, and thus it precedes any entity or process. This is the mystery of Heidegger’s ontology. It always withdraws and remains hidden, while things (entities, thoughts, etc.) only have their being through it. Heidegger even states that God is not being but is subordinate to it. However, he does not attribute consciousness to being; rather, he remains silent, as these matters are forever ineffable.

When we say that everything exists in one consciousness experienced from different perspectives, we are still talking about an entity, a being, which as such does not explain being but is itself through "it." If someone wants to identify being with God, they identify it with an entity—even if it is the highest entity—a being that is, and thus not the being that they seek to question. This critique is what is known as ontotheology. I believe Cleric is not aware of Heidegger’s concept of being, as it is the most complex and central theme of his philosophy, which is highly intricate and convoluted. I hope I have expressed this clearly enough to advance the discussion.

You nailed it, Güney.

[Güney27]

PS: He doesn't designate consciousness to Being, because consciousness is an attribute of beings, which are possible because of Being.

[Stranger]

So, Cleric wants to find a new concept of "non-duality" or "unity" such that true unity is not the negation of multiplicity, but the direct experience of the deep, inner interconnection within this multiplicity. At least, that's how I understood all of this.

That's right, but as I said in the previous post, Cleric was (rightly!) criticizing one of the distorted interpretations of "non-duality" which is actually quite common in the modern "spiritual" scene. But as you can tell from the latest Güney's post, the Being (in the Heidegger's sense) can not be distilled into some "pure awareness" polarity separate from the rest of the world because it is inseparably imminent to every world's being, form and phenomena. There is basically no gap at all between the Being and all beings, forms and phenomena of the world.

[Kaje977]

That's right, but as I said in the previous post, Cleric was (rightly!) criticizing one of the distorted interpretations of "non-duality" which is actually quite common in the modern "spiritual" scene.

Mhh. Well, I don't see the reason for this discussion then. If both of you are, essentially, saying the same, then what's wrong? Am I missing something? Maybe Cleric and Ashvin can elaborate on that further.

But as you can tell from the latest Güney's post, the Being (in the Heidegger's sense) can not be distilled into some "pure awareness" polarity separate from the rest of the world because it is inseparably imminent to every world's being, form and phenomena. There is basically no gap at all between the Being and all beings, forms and phenomena of the world.

I think this is really the crux of the issue here, then. Who is right? Should we treat "Being" as yet another state or not?

Seeing Cleric's POV, I can see that he essentially says that spiritual ascension does not lead one away from other beings, but deeper into their being.
And this seems to mean that true oneness does not mean dissolving into a formless ocean, but experiencing how one's own being is interwoven with the being of all other beings ("to know how other beings live in our being and vice versa"). And this is, probably, where the collision here with you and Güney happens, I assume: One gains direct, intuitive knowledge of the reality of other beings, instead of perceiving them only as indirect "imprints" in one's own consciousness. It is a path of community and deep connection, not isolation. Did I get this right? Or are you agreeing here as well with Cleric?

[Stranger]

I think this is really the crux of the issue here, then. Who is right? Should we treat "Being" as yet another state or not?

Well, Being is not another state, it is the very possibility of every state to exist. The Buddhists call it "suchness". As you said it yourself: "So, if I understood correctly, for Heidegger, “Being” is not a substance, a state, or a place." Or as Guney described it: ""It" enables the emergence of any processes or things, and thus it precedes any entity or process. "

Seeing Cleric's POV, I can see that he essentially says that spiritual ascension does not lead one away from other beings, but deeper into their being.
And this seems to mean that true oneness does not mean dissolving into a formless ocean, but experiencing how one's own being is interwoven with the being of all other beings ("to know how other beings live in our being and vice versa"). And this is, probably, where the collision here with you and Güney happens, I assume: One gains direct, intuitive knowledge of the reality of other beings, instead of perceiving them only as indirect "imprints" in one's own consciousness. It is a path of community and deep connection, not isolation. Did I get this right? Or are you agreeing here as well with Cleric?

Yes, there is this path to deep connection through the direct, intuitive knowledge of the reality of other beings, which is the subject of the study and practice of SS, and here I fully agree with Cleric. But it goes yet to another level of connectedness and unity when the common Being of all beings is directly intuitively recognized.