Nietzsche and Christianity - Metaphysical Idealist Critique

[SanteriSatama]

But you made a good point and I agree, the ontic reality can not transition between non-metacognitive and metacognitive states since its fundamental nature must be unchangeable, only forms that are unfolded in it can undergo any transitions. In other words, if anything undergoes any change or development, it cannot be the fundamental itself on the ontic level, but only a form or an activity of the fundamental. And that also applies to the divine mind, personality and self, as well as our alters' minds and selves, which are all not fundamental because they all experiences transitions and changes.

That doesn't make any sense, if you can speak in verbs instead staying attached to nouns. There's no need for unchangeable "ontic reality" if you realize and keep doing so.

[Eugene I]

Non-duality is rather clearly spoken especially in Gospel of Thomas.

Right, but that Gospel belongs to Gnosticism which is radically and fundamentally different from authentic Christianity. All Christian traditions reject Gnosticism as something completely alien to it (ask Ashvin ) And I agree, Gnosticism has a strong infusion of non-duality, possibly as an influence from the East.

[AshvinP]

Non-duality is rather clearly spoken especially in Gospel of Thomas.

Right, but that Gospel belongs to Gnosticism which is radically and fundamentally different from authentic Christianity. All Christian traditions reject Gnosticism as something completely alien to it (ask Ashvin ) And I agree, Gnosticism has a strong infusion of non-duality, possibly as an influence from the East.

Not really. Jung is often considered a Gnostic Christian, although I don't think that term does him enough justice.
I say it only tells half the story, but within that half it brings some insights into the Christ reality which mainstream traditions are sorely lacking.

[SanteriSatama]

And I agree, Gnosticism has a strong infusion of non-duality, possibly as an influence from the East.

Yes, influences flowed strongly both ways during the Hellenistic era, comparing and fusing Socratic etc. Greek and Buddhist etc. Indian impulses. This is often mentioned:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Similarit ... d_Buddhism

While esoteric and hidden (gnostic, occult, hermetic) Christian traditions were persecuted by what was transformed into state religion of Roman Empire, that does not mean that they are not Christian in some sense.

[AshvinP]

Non-duality is rather clearly spoken especially in Gospel of Thomas.

Right, but that Gospel belongs to Gnosticism which is radically and fundamentally different from authentic Christianity. All Christian traditions reject Gnosticism as something completely alien to it (ask Ashvin ) And I agree, Gnosticism has a strong infusion of non-duality, possibly as an influence from the East.

Not really. Jung is often considered a Gnostic Christian, although I don't think that term does him enough justice.
I say it only tells half the story, but within that half it brings some insights into the Christ reality which mainstream traditions are sorely lacking.

And after further thought, these insights are also found within the mainstream traditions in one form or another. Certainly within the Gospels, Acts and Paul's epistles and the various rituals. But the metaphysical rationalist-dualist split of the 15-16th centuries onwards has rendered them M.I.A. within the mainstream churches for all intents and purposes.

[Cleric K]

I sincerely apologize for the length of these posts. I'm sure that this is utterly irritating for many. I try to compress them as much as possible but these are such important things that even if I get the hate of many I still choose to post them.


Thank you, Eugene!
I was divided if I should continue the discussion because as I said, after certain point we do more harm than good. Nevertheless I feel the need to say few more things. I propose to do this without any feeling of pressure and confrontation between our viewpoints but to do it entirely for the sake for anyone else who might be silently reading Much like the youtube sessions which don't serve to change the speakers' positions but are useful for the viewers.

First about what is called dual-ego states. There's something misunderstood here - maybe not by you but by many others for sure. When this term is used it is usually implicitly felt that they are synonymous of certain intoxication with self importance. This feeling is so ingrained that it's practically impossible for many to think of some god in any different way than some Cosmic hyperinflated ego on a power trip. But this is not the case.

We can approach reality if we consider that what is usually called a self-conscious being is actually nothing else than a Cosmic spiritual perspective. How do we understand that? Interestingly, it is precisely the experienced non-dualist practitioners that are in the best position to understand this. Even the most initiated non-dualists wouldn't deny that they always experience a certain conscious perspective. This is self-evident in the sensory case. If we do open eye meditation, even if we enter the undivided state there's no doubt that we experience the same visual perspective. This holds true even in closed eye meditation, although it's more difficult to specify it. We can go the other way: if we experience the undivided state can we claim that we merge with the Whole MAL and experience the perspectives of all possible beings (human and otherwise) at the same time, as some Cosmic superposition? I haven't met anyone who can honestly claim this. Maybe you can correct me. So clearly, (practical) nonduality is not about this. It's more that our sense of self becomes non-existent and there are no longer means to think for ourselves as something specific. But we nevertheless continue to experience the Universe from a specific vantage point. Now this is a tremendously important observation and admittedly, one that is not often mentioned. So in some sense we can speak of two levels of nonduality. The first is what we agree on - the collapse of the sense of self. But the second remains, even if we don't think about it. But it is nevertheless there! It's clear that the perspective that we experience is different from the infinity of other perspectives that could be experienced. We can acknowledge this fact only in retrospect, after we return to our normal state, because in the undivided state we can't think about it.

This is key observation - even though we are practicing nonduality this doesn't change the fact that even without any sense and thought of self, we still experience a unique Cosmic perspective. Abolishing our thoughts about this doesn't in any way dissolve the perspective itself. So if we are to be fully objective we have to say that in the practice of nonduality we get away with the feelings and thoughts of separateness but our conscious perspective is still individual - only one of infinitely many possible which continue to affect us from the 'outside'. This is also what Ashvin pointed out. What we 'smear out' is the feelings and thoughts of separateness but the individual perspectives remain.

If we appreciate this deeply we'll be a step closer to understand something of the higher stages of consciousness. The higher beings are not at all concerned with some egos of theirs, they don't need to 'think' of themselves as egos, but this doesn't prevent them to experience and comprehend the uniqueness of the perspective through which they conduct their activity. As said, nondualists are in the best position to understand this because this is how they strive to live their lives. Even if enlightened, they continue to experience life through the perspective of their bodies and souls. Even if they don't call it 'self' anymore they are still individual spiritual beings, for the simple reason that they experience unique spiritual perspective - one of infinitely many possible - and clearly dependent on its relations with other perspectives/beings. No honest nondualist will claim that after enlightenment he walks around while experiencing the bodily perspectives of all human beings. Even though in his feelings and thoughts he feels himself undivided from the whole, obviously he's still divided in relation to other bodily perspectives.

The usual way to circumvent this is by saying "Yes, while in the body, it's impossible to experience all perspectives simultaneously but after death, in Nirvana, this is what happens." Fair enough, but this is where I personally can no longer follow such a philosophy as a spiritual path. Why? Because from this point onwards it's a matter of belief. It's placing a bet - it could be that, but it could be not. And here's again where the gnostic path differs substantially. The experience of the Christ nature doesn't depend on belief that can only be verified after death. It can be experienced not in a month, not tomorrow but in this very moment. Our spiritual activity is always at hand - it is entirely up to us to explore it in its depths or not.

The beings that you described as belonging to the hierarchy of the dualistic beings are not some pumped up egos roaming the heavens but simply spiritual perspectives which conduct their activity from their viewpoints - in no different way that an enlightened nondualist continues to live and conduct his activity from his bodily/spiritual perspective. The higher beings are under absolutely no illusion about being 'separate'. Actually they live what humans call non-dualism to the fullest. But they are also objective enough to recognize that even though they are part of the Whole, they still experience a unique spiritual perspective of that Whole and by necessity all their activity is in accordance to it - again, just as it is for an enlightened nondualist.

So in a nutshell, that's what I can point about modern non-dualism - there's a focus on the nondual aspect while the fact that one still experiences individual conscious perspective is not much commented on. Then the claim that true superposition of all perspectives will be experienced after death is entirely an object of unverifiable belief.

If we understand rightly all the above we naturally conclude that, as far as the higher worlds are concerned, there's no such thing as dual and non-dual beings. All beings are in full awareness of their oneness but they still experience unique spiritual perspectives within the Whole. The difference is that some perspectives are more obscured than others and this is what causes them to conduct their activity in harmful ways - they simply lose sight of the Whole. This is when the spiritual perspective becomes what we call egoic. There's nothing egoic in the perspective of the Christ being. Here I would like to mention also that the Christ is not the highest being, which is fairly obvious from the Bible itself, since he talks about the Father. Yet he also says "I and my Father are one." Although you say that there's nothing about non-dualism in the Bible, there's actually more than that because in Christianity it is acknowledged exactly what we were speaking so far - that even though there's ultimate unity of being ("I and my Father are one." and also "as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us") this doesn't mean that beings don't experience unique perspectives within the One. (Here it might be asked: If the Christ is not the highest being why focus on him? Why not go straight to the top? It'll take us too far to go into details. In a childish way it can be answered: Because no one gets to the age of 30 before he becomes 15. "no man cometh unto the Father, but by me")

(Here we can add something about the egoic state. The way we described it suggests that it has very little to do with the fact whether a being thinks of itself as an ego or not. It's more about how much of the interconnectedness of beings is perceived. This is pretty clear - the fact that we live and act without thought and feeling of separateness doesn't mean that our spiritual perspective is comprehensive enough such that can prevent us from doing harm in roundabout ways that we yet don't perceive.)

So it turns out that properly understood Christianity in its depth already contains everything that the non-dualist experiences - the undivided being and also the unique perspective. The big difference is that the nondualist focuses on the undivided being and disregards the unique perspective as an inevitable side effect of a life in a body. In esoteric Christianity there's no such disregard - both are considered and within this consideration actually lies the actual path that leads man to the higher worlds, where everything can be verified - not after death but while on Earth. That's also how we find that the soul after death doesn't at all dissolve in Nirvana. Even Buddha continues to live in his unique spiritual perspective and continues to work harder than ever for the evolution from within the Astral world. When we understand this properly we can acknowledge that there's something in today's non-dualistic schools that Lou calls 'spiritual bypass', even though, ironically, he uses it exactly for that which does not bypass anything but evolves gradually. Our spiritual journeys are completely interrelated with the destinies of all beings and there's no way around this. Whether we like it or not, whether we admit it or not, we experience individual spiritual perspectives, regardless if we have a thought of an ego or not. Higher cognition reveals that we can't sidestep this process and teleport into Nirvana. The nondualist believes that in his no-self state he has reached the grounds of being. He expects that after death the whole world will vanish as a figment of Cosmic fantasy. The Christian Initiate is under no such illusion because he knows both the bodily and the beyond world. The whole Solar system continues to evolve as an organism and it is our duty to recognize more and more the interrelationships between beings, so that we can conduct our lives in the most fruitful way for the unfoldment of Whole. That's where true morality comes from - directly from comprehending our individual spiritual perspective in relation to the perspectives of all other beings. This is also where we understand how the world and our own perspective come about. The planets, life forms, our earthly consciousness - all these secrets unveil before us as we evolve. It's not just a floating dream image - it's the collective work of countless beings and our evolution depends on and passes through finding our way within this miraculous edifice.

As far as the 'personification' of the higher beings - I think this should already be clear. It is not a question to impose some personas on these beings but to recognize that they experience unique spiritual perspectives within the Whole. Are they metacognitive? As I said in the discussion about this, they are fully self-aware (perspective-aware), much more that we are, but they don't think in abstract concepts - they don't need to. The experience of their unique perspective within the Whole gives them all that's needed about what they are and what they can do with their activity. Once again - the nondualist is in the best position to understand this - even though he silences self-awareness, he is still fully and lucidly perspective-aware, and can act in full consciousness.

but I remain with my position and will continue along my chosen path

For myself I can say that I didn't choose my position by picking it from a basket of beliefs but because it's the only thing so far that leads beyond belief. I will be forever grateful to destiny for my atheistic/scientific period. The methodological approach, the rigorous and clear thinking - these are the fruits from that period for which I thank all the time. The nondual path doesn't work for me. Yes, I can confirm the undivided state but that doesn't give me any certainty about the afterlife. From that point onwards it's all about picking a belief-of-choice. And I don't like placing bets. Meanwhile, the pinhole of my own spiritual activity is always at hand. So it's a very simple decision for me: wait until death to check your bet or simply verify what can be verified while alive? I can testify that going through that pinhole leads to mode of consciousness that reveals reality which we can never experience while staying on the borderline of the undivided state. If I stumble on anything more real than the reality of the higher worlds I'll gladly change my path. I'm not path committed - I'm Truth and reality committed. But so far the only direction where things become more and more real, logical, comprehensive, consistent and all-encompassing is by going deeper and deeper into reality. Sounds like tautology? Well, it's actually a simple fact. How can things become more real except by penetrating deeper and deeper into reality itself?

[AshvinP]

As far as the 'personification' of the higher beings - I think this should already be clear. It is not a question to impose some personas on these beings but to recognize that they experience unique spiritual perspectives within the Whole. Are they metacognitive? As I said in the discussion about this, they are fully self-aware (perspective-aware), much more that we are, but they don't think in abstract concepts - they don't need to. The experience of their unique perspective within the Whole gives them all that's needed about what they are and what they can do with their activity.

Man, that's a real eye-opener! So much time is wasted these days over questions which only linger because we have not yet considered the essence of the concepts we are employing. Metacognition develops for a specific purpose, which is to allow experientially limited beings to partially grasp and communicate about those infinitely vast experiences which currently fall outside of their limited experiential scope. That is what we call "abstractions" or even "archetypes". But from the perspective of much higher-order beings they are no longer necessary because the scope of experience has been greatly enlarged. They can grasp and communicate "abstract" ideas like we can grasp and communicate basic concepts related to our direct sense perceptions. Am I following correctly?

[Eugene I]

Well, Cleric, I need to comment a bit on your post.

- Your understanding of non-duality as being targeted towards the dissolution of personal perspective into a Cosmic superposition with a total loss of personal perspective is not quite correct. It is true that this is the position of some non-dualistic Eastern schools, but by far not all of them. And those that do not share such position also do not assume a loss of personal perspective in the samadhi states, whether incarnate of discarnate. The point is: the seeming division of the wholeness into the multiplicity of personal perspectives does not constitute the dualistic state or perception per se, it is not problematic by itself and not something to be transcended or overcome. What is problematic is the illusion of separation and of the reality of the perspective "locus point" - of the "perceiver" - with which we associate our sense of separate self.

- Still the way you termed it as "personal perspective" is not exactly accurate I would say. In the non-dual state there is not only a dissolution of the sense of separate self, but also a dissolution of the sense of any "perspective" whatsoever. What is left is an infinite space of luminous experiencing/awareness where conscious phenomena appear and disappear with no perspective at all, and with no sense of a perceiver or of a locus point of a perspective. There is also no sense or perception of internal vs external, or subject vs objects. Yet there (presumably, if we are not solipsists) is still a multiplicity of the contents of experiences within the universe of Consciousness, with each content appearing as a "separate" space of experience that we associate with our personal fields of experience. This is the best I can describe it, even though it may sound confusing, sorry. But when experienced, it feels very natural and easy. Cognitive and creative "body-mind " activity in such state is not impeded at all, and in fact, it is more effective/efficient compared to the self/perceiver-centered state (which is loaded with so much baggage associated with our self-story). In that state is it clear that the perceptions and senses of separate self and of the "experiencer/subject as a locus of perception" are just stories/fantasies that do not correspond to any factual realities and to how we actually directly and consciously experience the world, just like we find that the perception and sense of "materiality" that typically accompanies our ordinary perception of the world turns out to be a fantasy that is irrelevant to how we actually directly and consciously experience the world.

Other than that I appreciate you insights and admit a possibility of higher-level spiritual beings living in a state that we would describe as non-dual. Yet, having experienced the non-dual state myself, I'm puzzled about why any divine being existing in a non-dual state would want to create a world populated with creatures (humans) genetically designed/programmed to experience the world dualistically? Perhaps the experience of the dualistic state and the sense of separation, even though it is so prone to confusion and suffering, is a necessary developmental gate/stage to get some important insights and facilitate further development of consciousness? This remains an open question to me. I do not fully or fanatically subscribe to the Buddhist views and remain open to any alternatives and possibilities, yet I rely on my direct experience of many spiritual states and insights that I had over my long life, including the "ordinary" human dualistic states and the non-dualistic ones, and I can clearly see the important and fundamental differences between them.

[AshvinP]

Well, Cleric, I need to comment a bit on your post.

- Your understanding of non-duality as being targeted towards the dissolution of personal perspective into a Cosmic superposition with a total loss of personal perspective is not quite correct. It is true that this is the position of some non-dualistic Eastern schools, but by far not all of them. And those that do not share such position also do not assume a loss of personal perspective in the samadhi states, whether incarnate of discarnate. The point is: the seeming division of the wholeness into the multiplicity of personal perspectives does not constitute the dualistic state or perception per se, it is not problematic by itself and not something to be transcended or overcome. What is problematic is the illusion of separation and of the reality of the perspective "locus point" - of the "perceiver" - with which we associate our sense of separate self.

- Still the way you termed it as "personal perspective" is not exactly accurate I would say. In the non-dual state there is not only a dissolution of the sense of separate self, but also a dissolution of the sense of any "perspective" whatsoever. What is left is an infinite space of luminous experiencing/awareness where conscious phenomena appear and disappear with no perspective at all, and with no sense of a perceiver or of a locus point of a perspective. There is also no sense or perception of internal vs external, or subject vs objects. Yet there (presumably, if we are not solipsists) is still a multiplicity of the contents of experiences within the universe of Consciousness, with each content appearing as a "separate" space of experience that we associate with our personal fields of experience. This is the best I can describe it, even though it may sound confusing, sorry. But when experienced, it feels very natural and easy. Cognitive and creative "body-mind " activity in such state is not impeded at all, and in fact, it is more effective/efficient compared to the self/perceiver-centered state (which is loaded with so much baggage associated with our self-story). In that state is it clear that the perceptions and senses of separate self and of the "experiencer/subject as a locus of perception" are just stories/fantasies that do not correspond to any factual realities and to how we actually directly and consciously experience the world, just like we find that the perception and sense of "materiality" that typically accompanies our ordinary perception of the world turns out to be a fantasy that is irrelevant to how we actually directly and consciously experience the world.

Other than that I appreciate you insights and admit a possibility of higher-level spiritual beings living in a state that we would describe as non-dual. Yet, having experienced the non-dual state myself, I'm puzzled about why any divine being existing in a non-dual state would want to create a world populated with creatures (humans) genetically designed/programmed to experience the world dualistically? Perhaps the experience of the dualistic state and the sense of separation, even though it is so prone to confusion and suffering, is a necessary developmental gate/stage to get some important insights and facilitate further development of consciousness? This remains an open question to me. I do not fully or fanatically subscribe to the Buddhist views and remain open to any alternatives and possibilities, yet I rely on my direct experience of many spiritual states and insights that I had over my long life, including the "ordinary" human dualistic states and the non-dualistic ones, and I can clearly see the important and fundamental differences between them.

Eugene, help me out, because I am having a hard time figuring out how the bolded statements are reconciled from your perspective?

[Cleric K]

Metacognition develops for a specific purpose, which is to allow experientially limited beings to partially grasp and communicate about those infinitely vast experiences which currently fall outside of their limited experiential scope. That is what we call "abstractions" or even "archetypes". But from the perspective of much higher-order beings they are no longer necessary because the scope of experience has been greatly enlarged. They can grasp and communicate "abstract" ideas like we can grasp and communicate basic concepts related to our direct sense perceptions. Am I following correctly?

Yes! Here we really go into the domain of higher consciousness but let's say that when we push somebody in normal life he has a sensory perception of touch, while when an Angel 'pushes' another, it experiences the living, Imaginative experience of the action. Language is probably the closest we can compare this to, except that it's not sensory words that must interpreted but the whole conscious experience is of this kind. When a being conducts its meaningful activity it imprints in the perspectives of other beings as Imaginative content that carries something (may not be perfectly the same) of the meaning that the first experiences. That's why the Imaginative stage of consciousness is called 'reading the occult script'.

Our abstractions are like sclerotized particles of the Imaginative world. We juggle them in purely mechanical way. Yet it is through this juggling that we asymptotically approach the true Imaginations. We can't build the Imaginations out of the concepts, just as we can't build the living organism from its bones. But we approach them in this way and we can't do this in any other way. If this way is resisted man imagines that he can simply ditch thinking. When he does this, he remains in vague, nebulous, general feeling of the 'undivided flow' but he always remains without comprehension of this flow. That's why he feels forced to either postulate that the flow is in principle blindly-instinctive or he imagines that any understanding will be achieved after death. Alas, if we don't understand the Imaginative world while on Earth, the sojourn between incarnations is just as nebulous and vague.

Our mode of cognition, based on mineral combination of dead concepts is unique and is very specific for our fall-based evolutionary scenario. But it is also an important condition for the experience of freedom (I'll say something in the next post)

PS: That's also why I used the polarity example, some time ago, with the Light and Dark. In certain sense our consciousness is only a diminished conscious perspective. Yet when the gaze of man is turned only 'downwards' he can only understand the lesser states of consciousness (dream, sleep) but he can't create the Imaginative state by mechanical gluing of abstract concepts. That's why it's easier to assume that higher stages don't exist. If we are to address them, we need completely different soul toolset. We need concentration, humility and prayer (in the deep sense, not as wishing for a new car). That's how the soul opens up for what it can't yet encompass within itself.