Essay: Man, Know Thyself

[Cleric K]

But this seems to me a too reductionist approach. I would not agree that there is only one dimension of the progression of thinking, because the variety of qualitative modes and directions of progression of thinking and spiritual development is inexhaustible, and that is exactly what makes is beautiful, unpredictable and full of new never-ending discoveries. It also opens to us the freedom of choice of the dimensions of our preference and never-ending space of development and exploration.

I believe you're mistaking what I talk about for a path that philosophizes about thinking - that is - thinking about thinking (although this is certainly a beginning). Thinking is only the focus point, the pinhole through which we go. After all, if we want to reach the source of creative spiritual activity isn't it the most logical thing to turn our attention to exactly this activity? If I want to trace the origin of thought I wouldn't go too look for it in feeling or non-thought. Thinking is the point of contact with spiritual activity - it's a limited form of spiritual activity, and as such it's the most logical place to start our quest for the more unrestricted forms of spiritual activity - the higher forms of activity. In other words, we focus on a thought in order to penetrate into the essence that animates it and to find ourselves active in that essence at a higher level.

As described in the essay, the goal is not at all to get stuck in thinking and do more thinking, forsaking every other qualitative experience. It's that through the concentrated meditation, when we hold a single focused thought, actively energizing it, we come to recognize the 'carrier waves' underlying it, deeper stratum of reality that can never be known as long as we are engaged in thinking or even thinking about thinking. Clearly, we can never reach this realm in a no-thought (no activity) meditation either - we can't reach the essence of what we are avoiding. Once we pass through the focus point, not only that we are not stuck in 'mere thought' but we begin to find everything from our ordinary consciousness plus a whole other world of qualities that simply can't be perceived in the ordinary state. In the higher state we find a new level of self. Somehow it's still 'me', although 'me' that's of a different kind. I know that this 'me' has always been expressing through my ordinary self, but at the same time my ordinary self is too entranced in the thought forms, feelings, beliefs, etc. to ever recognize what gives it its spiritual life. Normally the higher 'me' is 'mute', with 'tied hands and legs', capable of only moving a finger - which stirs the substance and forms the ordinary thought-forms. From my ordinary perspective, my higher 'me' is hidden in the blind spot of consciousness - the one place that I never consider. I address the blind spot when I want to find from where my spiritual activity proceeds. But I can't do that it the same way I find any other perception or a thought - these lie in the contents of my consciousness - now I want to find what is the essence that makes these contents possible. By concentrating on the essence flowing in a thought I rediscover the essence of my being - or at least a part of that essence - that expresses itself in my ordinary state and I'm fully conscious, as another level of 'me', in a state that precedes the crystallization of the thoughts of my ordinary 'me'. I can find another level of 'speech' and 'movement' in a more fundamental and less restricted level of consciousness. In this realm I can see how my ordinary thinking being comes to be what it is. I see what makes it 'tick'.

Even the slightest glimpse of this, opens a whole new venue for me. It's not a one time event, it's just a step in an endless progression. But now I have an idea of direction. Once I've seen the reality of my ordinary self - not by extinguishing it but by seeing it in front of me and how it is animated from the higher spiritual activity that normally goes by unnoticed, I know that this process can go ever further - layer by layer revealing the labyrinths of being that I've been previously wandering by being merged with them.

[Eugene I]

Cleric, such exploration of the "layers of higher self" is perfectly fine, that's what people do in many spiritual traditions, and I've been doing it as well. On the other hand, how can you be sure that what you are approaching is some highest "Self"-entity and not just more layers of spiritual and conscious activity behind the layers of the ordinary activity that were hidden in the blinds spots before? And if that's the case, this path reduces to exploring our unconscious structures that condition our ordinary actions and experiences, such as motivations, desires, unrecognized beliefs, personal biases, etc. This is what Buddhists do in the Vipassana meditations. Yet, it is also likely that by approaching those levels of consciousness we may find the answers to the very core questions of the nature of reality and our spirituals purposes in it, or it may turn out to be just false promises and all we find there is only very basic cognitive patterns of consciousness. We do not know until we reach the end of that path.

But is this the only developmental path that we are all supposed to and destined to follow by some universal telos? I don't think so, and repeating the same statement again, I think there is an infinite multitude of developmental paths available for our exploration, none of them being superior to the other. As a musician I may say "I don't care what are the core or highest structures of my individual consciousness are, I'm happy with what they are, I'm more interested in exploring the aesthetic forms for the rest of my eternity". And who is there to say that I'm wrong and my path is inferior?

[Cleric K]

As a musician I may say "I don't care what are the core or highest structures of my individual consciousness are, I'm happy with what they are, I'm more interested in exploring the aesthetic forms for the rest of my eternity". And who is to say that I'm wrong and my path is inferior?

Now we're talking We are really free to explore the aesthetic forms - this is what the whole living Cosmos is doing. In this sense it may be said that we're talking about a meta-path - in the sense that our exploration of forms is within the context of a larger flow. After all you are now exploring music because someone has invented the guitar, music notation has been invented and so on. You awake in this environment, find the things that inspire you and then you continue to develop this art further. Not only that I won't say that this path is 'inferior' but I'll salute you for it.

The (meta-)path of higher development not only doesn't rob us from our aesthetic exploration but it can even inspire us into regions never before conceived. The path informs us about the direction the flow of context is going. This is not in order to restrict us but the opposite - to be able to guide our creativity in the most fruitful way.

It all boils down to something like this: First we need to recognize that not all states of being are created equal. If I, because of my unrestrained behavior commit a crime and get in prison, my palette for exploration of forms of consciousness will be severely limited. So this is the first thing - what we do either expands our freedom and the spectrum of forms of consciousness, or it limits it, restricts the palette and we find ourselves forced to explore only a limited subset.
Now if you find out that through your music you can not only follow your own path because it gives you creative satisfaction, but you can also influence the overall environment in such a way that it either inspires and expands the palette of creative possibilities in other being, or restricts them and limits them, what would you choose to do?

This is the basic choice that we're making at every single point of our conscious life. Every though, every feeling, every action either leads to domains of greater freedom and more aesthetic forms or leads to more restricted domains.
And this is what the path of development, of knowledge of the self and the Cosmos, is about. The context is constantly transforming. If we know that tomorrow there'll be a storm we won't plan our trip to the mountains - there're plenty of useful things to do at home on a rainy day. Higher knowledge shows us the direction the context is evolving so that we can make our own plans in the most fruitful of ways. It's not about telling anyone what they should do but about having awareness of which paths push us against the flow and thus lead to more restricted spectrum of existence, which inevitably leads to pain and suffering, and which paths lead to expansion, to liberation, to unfoldment of potential. Because we should be quite clear - what gives us instant pleasure doesn't necessarily lead to expanded spectrum of possibilities. The heroin addict knows this only too well. This is a somewhat extreme example but it's a fact that most of our human endeavors are of such character. It's only that their effects are usually much more extended in time and we very often can't connect the dots and see how our past choices have expanded or restricted our current palette. And even further than this, there are things that we'll experience the fruits of, only in our next life. That's how deep things are. Whether we know it or not, we are constantly making choices that have their repercussions in the immediate or the far future.

We do need this higher knowledge. Because there are many paths that lead to restriction, pain and suffering even if it's not immediately obvious from the standpoint of ordinary consciousness. If we are on such a path and say "I don't care, I like it and that's what matters" - OK. Obviously on the path of egoism there's no place for moral questions - even if it's our own future freedom that's at stake. But if we feel at least a hint of responsibility for ourselves, the environment and others, we should be aware of the future that we are preparing.

Higher knowledge not only doesn't diminish our love for music or any other creative conduct but when we perceive how through our endeavors we are contributing for the betterment of the whole world, we experience joy and fulfillment that we couldn't even imagine as long as we enjoy our path only for ourselves. In fact, once we taste this fulfillment, we become inspired to dedicate our life in such a way that everything we do is in harmony with the Flow - we strive to rise our consciousness towards it so that we can make the best decisions that bring Love, Joy and expanded possibilities for the Whole.

[Eugene I]

Well said, Cleric, I would agree with that. My view on this meta-flow is that is encompasses this never-ending "expansion" of consciousness, both on individual and collective level, into the new and unknown realms towards the variety of unknown paths, but overall on the integral level it is indeed a flow of evolution of cosmic consciousness towards, we can say, "higher" levels, with "higher" meaning maturing and growing in knowledge, wisdom, love and compassion, in appreciation of beauty and mystery, and so on.

[Lou Gold]

Well, I'm already unsure if what I say is being intentionally ignored or simply not grasped

In such situation of lack of conclusive data we are forced to cope with a variety of co-existing versions of knowledge and metaphysics.

The whole point of the essay in the beginning of this thread was to hint at a direction of inner development. It is a direction that passes through the 'serotonin fountain' then through NDE and goes further, while retaining full consciousness. I'm not asking anyone to take this on blind faith but it's enough to at least recognize that it's a direction that they have never explored.

As long as we feel locked in sensory consciousness and expect to gain knowledge of the spiritual only through accidental events like NDEs, dreams or entheogens, we are only taking scraps from the spiritual world and then try to put them together, leading to inconclusive results. The main reason for this is that man doesn't reach these states through his own conscious effort but he's forced there. As such, the "I" feels there in a completely different way - it feels as an alien visitor in an alien land. All this is completely different when the "I" puts conscious effort to transform itself such that it can make the transition in complete freedom and self-awareness. It's difficult to estimate how much of a difference this makes. With the external means the human being is forced into a state to which the "I" doesn't know how to relate. That's why the common solution is to accept that the "I" simply shouldn't exist - because the "I"/ego, as it is from ordinary life, simply doesn't fit there! Yet if the slow and gradual path of self transformation is taken, the "I" sheds everything that's incompatible with the higher realms and grows into them, or better said - it allows the higher realms to grow into it, to fertilize it. Then we can speak from direct experience of processes and beings and if we can say something of a general trend of evolution of humanity, it's because we can perceive the deeds of beings that shape this trend.

Again - it's not my point that the above should sound like a 'proof'. It's enough to recognize that it's an unexplored direction and the reason that our knowledge is inconclusive just maybe has something to do with the fact that such a path is either unheard of, or consciously or unconsciously ignored.

Lou, I'm in perfect accord with your inner entities experiences because I can confirm them first hand. But I can also affirm that these experiences are only at the borderline of the astral world. Now you may say 'What an arrogance! To suggest that he's got further than this". Think of it in this way:
You speak with a materialist who sees you as a madman speaking to entities. You tell him "Well, if you take DMT, if you walk the path that I have, you'll find the same results and will have first hand experience". Now if the materialist is open minded he would say "OK. That's true, this is a path I've never explored, so it's an unknown for me. I'm not willing to explore it myself but at least I can listen to reports of whoever goes there and see if it makes any logical sense".
Now we are in a similar position. I say that there's a path of inner-development the leads beyond the borderline of the astral and can go even beyond the astral - to the higher spiritual world - the world of creative beings. I can state this in full honesty because I know from personal experience where entheogens lead and where conscious inner transformation leads. Entheogens can 'shake the snowball' and help us to become aware of some things that might have been hidden in the shadows but if the "I" is to explore it's foundations, it can do that only through its own conscious effort. Physical substance can't replace that inner work. And before you accuse me: I know that you don't base your spiritual life on entheogens and that you take inner work seriously. I'm only saying that there are different kinds of inner work and they don't lead in the same place. Most importantly - the fact the we encounter entities, doesn't mean that we've entered consciously in the realms from which the entities address us.

All this is just to allude to a direction that is simply not being considered today. Now everyone has his or her reasons for this. Most commonly it's simply a personal antipathy for the results that seem to emerge from that direction.

HOWEVER, indigenous and aboriginal peoples already have said this. If awareness of interconnectedness and responsibility for the Garden is a standard of progress, why are they not rated as more progressive?

Because to be progressive means not only to state an obvious fact but to understand how the transformation should be accomplished. To say "we should be good, we should not harm the environment, we should live in peace and love" is something obvious. These things have been spoken through all ages. Yet moralizing seems not to work - if it did, Earth would be a paradise millennia ago. And the reason is that people lack knowledge of their structure, what they are made of, how they function. To be aware of what should be done is one thing. To know how it should be done is another.

Try preaching moral to a cat - that it shouldn't eat mice. You talk and talk, explain the interconnectedness of life and so one. The cat says 'Meow!' - which means "I got it!". And in the next moment she hears a scratching sound and off she goes to catch the mouse. What we are ignorant of is that the cat has certain instinctive nature. She says "I can't help it, I understand what you say but the moment I hear the mouse something surges in me and my whole being runs into that direction".

And here lies the naivety, when it's supposed that the world is not yet fixed because people are not preached enough moral - that they should be moralized more! If someone can't recognize within himself the hard instincts, habits, prejudices, etc. that constantly undermine their moral conduct, there's simply no point to try preach moral to others - how can we teach someone something that we ourselves don't possess?

I don't really see why you are so upset by the things I say. We only have to accept the fact that, whether we want it or not, time moves forward. It's waste of energy to try and restore the state of affairs as they were millennia ago. We should find novel solution that is compatible with the current state.

Can you explain why it's so repulsive to you when it's said "The only true and lasting solution would be for every individual to work upon themselves, to realize the deep sources of egoism and to counter-balance them with the powers of the Sun Spirit living in each one of us. Just as the Sun gives Light and Life to every being, so can every person become a continuation of this Sun process and become conductor of Light, Life and Love. In this way the individual never dries out of their energy because they are constantly replenished by the Source."

Circles again and with this one I'm gonna cordially end it. Yes, you push a superior position and I don't. Yes, I've been to the mountain and my totally transformative experience occurred without entheogens about 15 years before my first drink of Santo Daime, which I subsequently used to clear/clean away toxins. polish my many rough edges, become firmer and firmer and plumb a vast potential called Love. I don't know but perhaps you are journeying upward and focusing on the peak. Perhaps, I'm coming down and integrating/expanding into all directions. Who knows for sure. What I can say is that connecting with my animal nature is as important to me as contact with disincarnate entities. Generally, my model now is a many portaled network more like a mycorrhizal forest network than a mountain palace paradise. I am not the slightest bit upset with the notion of people working on themselves and becoming a channel connecting light and life. Indeed, that's all that I do. On the other hand, I find anyone who asserts an exclusive pin-hole passage to the Source as a danger to the great and essential diversity of forms and processes called life. I never said that I wanted to restore ancient times and when I speak of indigenous peoples, I speak of peoples who have held old wisdom ways while becoming modern. The challenge of corporeal existence is to touch the earth and be blessed in whatever direction you choose to walk your talk.

[Cleric K]

OK. Lou, I'm writing this without expectation of a response - I don't want to perpetuate the circle. I just want to say that

I am not the slightest bit upset with the notion of people working on themselves and becoming a channel connecting light and life. Indeed, that's all that I do.

and

On the other hand, I find anyone who asserts an exclusive pin-hole passage to the Source as a danger to the great and essential diversity of forms and processes called life.

in what I constantly strive to explain, are one and the same thing. I'm not sure how exactly you end up with the dangerous idea. Maybe you imagine that once one experiences the passage through the pinhole, they 'no longer step on the Earth' and turn into proud and arrogant persons. I'm sure there're cases like that but I don't speak in their favor.

The focus on the One is just a part of becoming the channel connecting Light and Life you mention. After all, if we want to channel Light we need a connection to the Source, don't we? We go to the Spring of Water of Life, fill our jugs and then go through the diversity to let everyone drink. It's an alternating process. One doesn't go to the peak to stay there. Neither it would be advisable to always stay in the valley. As a bee collecting honey, we constantly strive towards the heights so that we can absorb the most radiant Sun rays, the cleanest air, the purest mountain water. We can't find these in the valley, even less so in the city. These are the symbols for luminous thoughts, pure feelings and selfless deeds. And the peak is not a place where we escape. It's a path towards our potential improved self - one free of weaknesses, pretentions, selfishness - a self dedicated to the unfoldment of the Cosmic potential. We should never be satisfied with where we are - there's always infinitely more to transform. The less limits we place on that potential self, the more it begins to resemble the perfected Man. This Ideal is a reality for us because as we shed our limitations, vices, bad habits, prejudices, we allow in an osmosis-like action Love, goodness, reason, justice, generosity, mutual-help, mutual-respect, compassion, dedication to flow in and through ourselves. We can only find these at the One Source. If we already had them in ourselves, the world would be a paradise. Then we go on into the world of diversity to bring these gifts of Love, Peace, Joy and Plentitude.

I don't know how such an ideal can be conceived as dangerous or threatening. It's more commonly objected that it's unrealistic, that man is hard-wired for sin and so on. But dangerous?
The only explanation I can think of is if it can't be conceived as possible that there could be anything good within the "I". And this would sound reasonable if we see the "I" as a symbol of separateness, that the Whole lies entirely outside the "I". But we can also envision that it is exactly the "I" that puts us in direct contact with the Whole and as such it can become a channel for all that's good and harmonious in the Whole. This is what the poem that you've posted several times, is all about. We need to Love the One so that His nature can express through ourselves. He doesn't need our Love - it's for our own sake that we need to Love Him, in order to open up for His essence to flow into us and makes us truly Alive. If we don't love Him, we are staying as capped empty bottles.

If man is really hard-wired for sin, well, then all our endeavors are in vain. But anyone who has made even the most preliminary steps in the direction of self-transformation can confirm that we are free to transform our lower nature, to tame it and put it to useful work.
And this is how society is transformed - not by dissolving into an instinctive, unconscious swarm, but by everyone taking this task in full earnestness and devotion. I don't see how a world filled with such luminous individuals, living in true brotherly Love for one another and all Life, can be bad or dangerous.

[Lou Gold]

I'm saying that there is more than one pin-hole and not that all experiences are holy. I offer you the Merkaba as an image for finding the way. Do you accept it as one of many valid ways or not. Yes or no?

[Cleric K]

I'm saying that there is more than one pin-hole and not that all experiences are holy. I offer you the Merkaba as an image for finding the way. Do you accept it as one of many valid ways or not. Yes or no?

Yes.

Years ago I've also worked with the Merkaba. Even I had made myself a small paper model and colored it with a marker as a meditation tool. It still stays on the shelf above my desk:


I also accept music and all other paths as long as they lead towards the good.

The point that I tried to clarify with Eugene, is that there are many different paths for the "I" to work on itself and contribute to the whole but the moment it reaches the point it's ready to unveil the mystery of its own existence, there's only one path - that path that leads to its own essence. There's only one path because there's only one "I", one thinking. There's only one direction to turn into - there's only one pinhole of the "I" - one mystery of the "I".

So I'm not saying that the above should be the path for everyone. It can't be. But it's the place where everyone sooner or later arrives. Because when the "I" familiarizes itself with its outer and inner environment, there remains only one direction left unexplored. And this exploration doesn't extricate us from existence but puts all other paths into perspective. We can see more clearly where each path leads in the context of Cosmic unfoldment. Then we begin to use them as tools - every one at its most appropriate place.

[Lou Gold]

Fine. Next question:

Do you envision (1) an endless one-by-one "I" adaptive incremental transformation or (2) a punctuated equilibrium (extinction event) resulting in the emergence of a new species?

[Lou Gold]

So I'm not saying that the above should be the path for everyone. It can't be. But it's the place where everyone sooner or later arrives. Because when the "I" familiarizes itself with its outer and inner environment, there remains only one direction left unexplored. And this exploration doesn't extricate us from existence but puts all other paths into perspective. We can see more clearly where each path leads in the context of Cosmic unfoldment. Then we begin to use them as tools - every one at its most appropriate place.

OK. I would assert that in our 'new' understanding of paths as tools that have uses and abuses, that we would understand our animal nature (sensory perception and reaction) as well as our so-called 'ego' as tools. Separate 'identities' may also be understand as tools. Do you agree?