Metaphysics - Idealism without woo-woo

[Lou Gold]

OK. Here we go again. Your full statement was "There's no such direct experience that in itself says "by the way, I'm not real". We can come to such conclusions only consequently, through thinking." However, one chooses how to identify (attach) to the experience. The meditative practice of relaxing (detaching) the identification will release a previously obfuscated experience. Relax the 'I' identification and experience other than 'I'. As Rumi says,

When the soul lies down in that grass,
the world is too full to talk about.
Ideas, language, even the phrase “each other”
doesn’t make any sense.

You can't think 'me' without thinking 'other' and this is why the Bhagavad Gita says, "The difficulty begins with the thought of 'I' and 'mine'. It is the identification tat is the illusion.

Here we are finding intersection. I do agree that relaxation of identification is the way to self knowledge.
What I'll argue is that this de-identification stops short. What I mean is that when we fuse with the Universe, in the way it is commonly done, it is only another form of identification. Our ego expands and lovingly embraces the totality of experience. We don't feel separation anymore because we have identified with the the world content. We have left nothing outside of ourselves. Of course, this identification is rarely explicit as in "I'm now one with the Universe". This we don't do, because we avoid the I-word. But we are nevertheless there, spread over the world, lovingly allowing ourselves to be carried on the chords of creation. And canary in the coal mine that betrays this, is the simple fact that after we are in our normal state we can say in full honesty "I experienced oneness with the Universe, we were one". This in itself should make us aware that our "I" was there all along, experiencing, recording and then being able to recall the experience. Even if in the higher state there were no trace of our intellect, our desires, our flaws, etc., still, the same essential nature that animates both our lower and higher experience is present in both cases. That's why we can have awareness of transitioning between one state and the other. There's something common in both states, that is able to witness the transition. (again, not arguing about ontic "I". It's just difficult to escape the specifics of language, which is designed to express in this way)

So I fully agree that we need to de-identify but I should say that this process can go much deeper and in a direction that not many are willing to take. Precisely because one becomes aware of the iceberg. It is easy to push away the contents of the ego and spend some time spread out over the fabric of the Cosmos. It's a much more disturbing experience to witness what we are made of.

I don't think it's so rare unless you are identifying with something EXTRAORDINARY like the UNIVERSE. Ramana says, "I see God in the tree because I see the tree as a tree." Mooji offers a very simple beginning meditation:

This is the easy part. Then comes the task of residing in the awareness, which requires the deeper work that becomes disturbing to the extent that you identify with aspects that you see and don't like instead of just releasing them. But folks are attached to their "positive" or "justified" self-image, which makes seeing deeper a horrible experience. Much easier to accept being a sinner, being forgiven and not doing it again. This is called 'learning' and it happens quite naturally.

[Lou Gold]

It's the egoic striving or what Trungpa called 'spiritual materialism' that is problematic.

Riffing off Blake from the view of Ramana ...

To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour

To see a World in a Grain of Sand, see a Grain of Sand as a Grain of Sand, etc

[Eugene I]

There's something common in both states, that is able to witness the transition. (again, not arguing about ontic "I". It's just difficult to escape the specifics of language, which is designed to express in this way)

So I fully agree that we need to de-identify but I should say that this process can go much deeper and in a direction that not many are willing to take. Precisely because one becomes aware of the iceberg. It is easy to push away the contents of the ego and spend some time spread out over the fabric of the Cosmos. It's a much more disturbing experience to witness what we are made of.

Cleric, that's right. But what was it that was common in all our states and was able to witness all the transitions and experience? It is the very ability to experience, the "awareness", the "presence" and "awareness" of the conscious experience itself. This is the common denominator and irremovable aspect of every conscious state and experience. It's irremovable simply because it is impossible to experience the state of the absence of experiencing/awareness. But in addition to its ability to experience and to be aware (which is basically the same thing), we know from the direct experience that it also has ability to will and to create thoughts with meanings. Is this "awareness" (synonymous with "consciousness") the ontic ground of reality, or is there any other deeper ontic layer "below" it that escapes our ability of direct experience it - we do not know. Getting to this bottom of our experientially given to us reality - to the "awareness" itself - is as far as we seem to be able to go. Going beyond that with our imagination and ability to think so far remains only speculative. We can draw a bunch of metaphysical models of what this ontic reality could be - whether it's "God", or "I", or "matter", or any other kind of "thing in itself", but those models (except for logically incoherent or nonsensical ones) remain beyond the ability to be grounded in experience and to verify/falsify them experimentally or experientially. And there would be nothing wrong with that as long as we accept them as they really are - just assumptions and personal preferences. When they only remain assumptions, they do not limit and fix our perspectives, they only remain useful but temporary cognitive tools. It is when we take them as firm beliefs as if they actually describe the reality as it is - this is where we lock ourselves into fixed and limited perspectives, and as a consequence, often get confrontational with people who do not share our beliefs while feeling righteous about such confrontation because we think that we fight for the truth.

[Eugene I]

Lou, I can see you are really getting into the non-duality (or so-called for the lack of a better word). It's a fascinating journey.

[Lou Gold]

Lou, I can see you are really getting into the non-duality (or so-called for the lack of a better word). It's a fascinating journey.

Hehe. I lean toward the thought that I'm really getting into The Great Mysteriousness that includes duality and non-duality. But rather than parse and debate the lingo it is surely more fun to explore this fascinating journey called 'life'.

What's genuinely interesting to me is that I don't feel as if I've rejected more dualist views. Jesus, Mary and the Holy Cross are firmly in my heart. Buddha is in my mind. Ramana on my altar. Lao Tzu is all along the way. Wakan Tanka in simple being. And standing at the ocean, waves of appreciation keep arriving. Breaching Humpback Whales, pods of leaping dolphins, giant sea turtles and my own frail aging body. All Praises and Glories. Touch the Earth and Blessed Be.

[Eugene I]

Right, I would say - exploring the non-dual aspect of the Great Mysteriousness

[Cleric K]

It is when we take them as firm beliefs as if they actually describe the reality as it is - this is where we lock ourselves into fixed and limited perspectives, and as a consequence, often get confrontational with people who do not share our beliefs while feeling righteous about such confrontation because we think that we fight for the truth.

Yes, Eugene,
pointing attention to the given facts is the most we can do (although even this can be considered an act of aggression sometimes )

For things that are outside the field of the initially given (available for everyone), we can only share our experiences and describe the path that led us from the given to them. In this way anyone can verify for him/herself if interested.

[Eugene I]

I agree, Cleric

[AshvinP]

There's something common in both states, that is able to witness the transition. (again, not arguing about ontic "I". It's just difficult to escape the specifics of language, which is designed to express in this way)

So I fully agree that we need to de-identify but I should say that this process can go much deeper and in a direction that not many are willing to take. Precisely because one becomes aware of the iceberg. It is easy to push away the contents of the ego and spend some time spread out over the fabric of the Cosmos. It's a much more disturbing experience to witness what we are made of.

Cleric, that's right. But what was it that was common in all our states and was able to witness all the transitions and experience? It is the very ability to experience, the "awareness", the "presence" and "awareness" of the conscious experience itself. This is the common denominator and irremovable aspect of every conscious state and experience. It's irremovable simply because it is impossible to experience the state of the absence of experiencing/awareness.

So do you agree that we are 'bottoming out' at some thing/process which has continuity of experience, i.e. some before and after 'identity'?

[Eugene I]

So do you agree that we are 'bottoming out' at some thing/process which has continuity of experience, i.e. some before and after 'identity'?

Yes, we are bottoming out at this continuity and at the very awareness of the conscious experience ("experiencing of experiencing"), but I don't see how this has anything to do with "identity". We can say (again, as a result of thought processing and some abstraction of such experience) that such "process" in its continuity is "identical to itself", but this sounds to me like a tautology. The thing is: as soon as we reflectively picture this "thing" in out thoughts in an attempt to understand it, we tend to ascribe to it some properties and abstractions that we are already familiar with - such as "entity", "identity", "self", "thing", "I", etc. And this is OK because that is the only way our intellect can approach this Mystery. But once the intellect starts believing that such description is in fact what the reality of the Mystery is (like "I know that this is Self", or "this is God"), we become blind to the actual mystery of this reality and replace it in our imagination with our mental model of it. Such modeling and substitution of reality does not always happen rationally, in fact it most often happens irrationally and subconsciously. But either way, as Lao Tze said long ago, "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao".

IMO the best we can do is to experience this Mystery of the reality as it is directly and appreciate its Mysteriousness in awe. This is something the Christian mystics such as Dionisius the Areopagitis and the author of "The Cloud of Unknowing", as well as many Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist and Sufi mystics, knew very well. This is not to stop the intellect from exploring the Mystery and attempting to understand it, but it is to put the limits to the claims of the intellect that it can know anything definitely and exhaustibly about any fundamental aspects of the Mystery beyond our direct experience of it.