Essay: Man, Know Thyself

[AshvinP]

A lot of this discussion reminds of the 'post-modern' maxim that, not only is there is no canonical interpretation of a set of 'facts', but all interpretations are equally plausible. When we leave everything in, we are soon left with nothing meaningful. I prefer Spinoza's maxim, "everything excellent is as difficult as it is rare".

Yup! I actually prefer the shamanic way, which is to save what works. I, for one, do not advocate hanging onto everything. Just, whatever works.

Then the question becomes, how are we defining "what works"? Works for who, what, where and over what time frame?

[Lou Gold]

A lot of this discussion reminds of the 'post-modern' maxim that, not only is there is no canonical interpretation of a set of 'facts', but all interpretations are equally plausible. When we leave everything in, we are soon left with nothing meaningful. I prefer Spinoza's maxim, "everything excellent is as difficult as it is rare".

Yup! I actually prefer the shamanic way, which is to save what works. I, for one, do not advocate hanging onto everything. Just, whatever works.

Then the question becomes, how are we defining "what works"? Works for who, what, where and over what time frame?

Well, we can go on endlessly with definitional or hypothetical challenges but let me assert that mutual respect (treating others as one would want to be treated) works pretty decently. Also the principles that gave the Haudenosaunee one thousand years of peace would be worth contemplating. Traditional medicines and healing ways also but I'm sure there's no one right way for all and, yes, times do change.

[Cleric K]

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."

[AshvinP]

Yup! I actually prefer the shamanic way, which is to save what works. I, for one, do not advocate hanging onto everything. Just, whatever works.

Then the question becomes, how are we defining "what works"? Works for who, what, where and over what time frame?

Well, we can go on endlessly with definitional or hypothetical challenges but let me assert that mutual respect (treating others as one would want to be treated) works pretty decently. Also the principles that gave the Haudenosaunee one thousand years of peace would be worth contemplating. Traditional medicines and healing ways also but I'm sure there's no one right way for all and, yes, times do change.

What if a person wants to be treated without respect? I know it's a trite objection, but I also think it's more common than we may imagine. Humans are not simple creatures with transparent motivations and desires.

And what exactly are the principles which gave the Huadenosaunee 1,000 years of peace?

[Eugene I]

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.

Myself being long-term practitioner of many spiritual traditions, I entirely agree that there is a hierarchy of realms of consciousness development. At the same time there are evidences that souls from higher realms often incarnate into lower ones to gain certain experiences and enhance their perspectives, so the progression is not necessarily linear. But the point I was making is that there is not a single direction of hierarchy of reams and there is no single highest "Divine" realm where every living soul will eventually arrive. Instead, there is a multitude of dimensions/directions of hierarchy of realms for soul progressions, and neither of them is superior to others. Some examples: there is a higher realm of love and union with the Divinity of Love where the adepts of monotheistic religions progress, there is also a higher realm of Nirvana where the Buddhists progress, there is a higher realm of Divine Gods of indigenous traditions where the adepts of pantheistic traditions progress, there is a higher realm of Aesthetics where the artists and musicians progress, there is a higher realm of Aesthetics where the artists and musicians progress, there is a higher ream of knowledge where philosophers progress, there is a higher realm of technology and science where the technologists and scientists progress, and more and more. The progressions towards each of those realms are grounded on the progressively ascending developments and gaining progressively deeper experiences and insights. So the point is: the universalist claim that there is only a single highest "Divine" realm where all developmental paths will eventually converge is ungrounded. It may turn out to be true, but so far there is plenty of evidences and reasons to believe that it is not true.

[Eugene I]

PS: And, as the consciousness progresses and expands, we may find that it's not just quantitative progression and acquihiring more experiences of the same kind along the same venues of progression, but qualitative expansion with the discovery of previously unknown dimensions of progression and hierarchical ascension and new kinds of conscious experiences and knowledge. The space of consciousness is infinite and inexhaustible not only quantitively, but also qualitatively. And that is a good news and it means that we will never be bored and will never stagnate at the happiest and highest final state of "paradise" (whatever it may be at the end of the dimension of hierarchical progression of your choice).

[Cleric K]

So the point is: the universalist claim that there is only a single highest "Divine" realm where all developmental paths will eventually converge is ungrounded.

First, not all development paths converge, even in principle. Clearly, there can be many paths that go in completely different directions and by definition can never converge.
Now about the claim of "only a single highest 'Divine' realm". Can there be two or three highest Divine realms? There can be two or three distinct goals, which individual beings pursue as their highest aspirations but it makes no sense to speak of several highest Divine realms. Even if we speak about them, this only means that they are not the highest. Clearly, they co-exist in some other common Realm - if that was not the case, we wouldn't be able to talk about them - we would know only that which happens to be in our own world. In that sense the common realm where the two or three
other realms exist will turn out to be higher then them because it contains them within itself.

Now the real question is why and where we put the limit for ourselves on this path of integration. Why do we speak of the separate gods and how they should be respected but we can't speak of the common universal principle that makes it possible for these gods to co-exist in a common realm?

[Eugene I]

First, not all development paths converge, even in principle. Clearly, there can be many paths that go in completely different directions and by definition can never converge.
Now about the claim of "only a single highest 'Divine' realm". Can there be two or three highest Divine realms? There can be two or three distinct goals, which individual beings pursue as their highest aspirations but it makes no sense to speak of several highest Divine realms. Even if we speak about them, this only means that they are not the highest. Clearly, they co-exist in some other common Realm - if that was not the case, we wouldn't be able to talk about them - we would know only that which happens to be in our own world. In that sense the common realm where the two or three
other realms exist will turn out to be higher then them because it contains them within itself.

Now the real question is why and where we put the limit for ourselves on this path of integration. Why do we speak of the separate gods and how they should be respected but we can't speak of the common universal principle that makes it possible for these gods to co-exist in a common realm?

Right, as you argued, what we are progressing towards might be the eventual and total integration of all progressive knowledge, spiritual growth and experiences towards the "oneness of all" and the knowledge of the "universal principle". However, based on the view that the space of consciousness is infinite and inexhaustible both quantitively and qualitatively, such final integration may be non-achievable. Yet, I agree that the integration of the acquired knowledge and spiritual growth is a necessary part of the expansion of consciousness, because without the integration such expansion process would reduce to endless fragmentation.

Also, such "universal principle" may turn out to be a very basic mechanism of consciousness functioning (how consciousness generates conscious experiences, ideations, meanings and willful actions) which may be far from our theistic idea of "omniscient and spiritually perfect God".

It is also quite possible that, even though the reality is fundamentally only consciousness (according to idealism), the world we are experiencing might turn out to be not a creation of the highest Principle or highest God, but a result of technological progress and simply a virtual reality simulation run on a powerful consciousness-based supercomputer. In other words, part of the universal consciousness is simulating virtual realities according to the codes created by some advanced conscious beings. In such case, these beings are not "gods" in any sense, but simply advanced technologists. So, many of human religions may turn out to be nothing more than the "cargo cults". Yet, this would not negate the fact that these virtual realities were designed for specific purposes, which again might be the exploration of the space of consciousness, acquiring unique experiences and progressing towards multiple developmental dimensions, including the spiritual ones.

[Cleric K]

OK. Got it

Well, in closing I can only say that all that we've been writing here in the final run proceeds from thinking. Which returns us to the path of development that leads us toward the source of thoughts. I already understand that this path for you seems like only one of the infinite equally possible paths. And I'm not saying that everyone should follow it. Everyone has their own Karma that leads them to specific experiences needed for development. But as far as the path itself is concerned- even if not taken - there's something that sets it apart from all others. There are infinite outward forms that thinking can address, love, worship and believe in. Yet thinking is only one. And for this reason there's only one path that leads towards its essential being of thinking. All other paths lead towards the periphery, towards the application of thinking but since thinking is one, there's only one direction to turn to if we want to penetrate its deeper essence. This at least makes this path unique and different from all the infinite outward paths.

I'll stop here. The path is there, I can only point attention to it.

[Eugene I]

Well, I both agree and disagree. I agree that this is all part of thinking (in a broader sense, including many forms of non-rational and even non-mental thinking if it makes sense). In a way, we can say that, because at the end all we do is thinking, then all we progress towards is also only a direction of "more thinking". 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.

Still, having been myself on those paths, I perfectly understand the inner motivations of people progressing towards their paths of choice, and have no intention to criticize them or attempt to prove them wrong. The only thing I can say, from purely my personal perspective, is that the ultimate goal of many spiritual traditions (including Buddhism that I sympathize with) seems to be too "boring" and stagnated to me. OK, I achieve the perfect and unconditional peace of Nirvana, or ultimate union with God, or the knowledge of the Ultimate Principle, and there is nowhere else to go or to progress, nothing more to know. Is this what I really want to achieve? May be as a temporary goal yes, but not as the ultimate one. I might want to explore each of those developmental venues to the very end, but only as intermediate gates and not as the final destinations to be stuck there and stagnate for the rest of the eternity in perfect happiness. I personally find happiness and satisfaction in exploration and creativity, not in static experiences no matter how wonderful they are.