Formlessness><form as the uncaused, irreducible ontic fundamental

[Eugene I]

I agree with a lot of what you wrote, but I also want to point out that the tabula rasa notion of the infant human mind is scientifically incorrect. We come into the world with a fair amount of innate ideal content.

Oh, absolutely agree. This content is pre-created by our local Divinity, so in that sense the local Divinity is our spiritual parent.

[Eugene I]

So, IMO, both developmental paths and perspectives are valid and beneficial. We do need to develop under the guidance of our parenting Divinity, follow its ideas, telos and meanings to learn from (which is opened to us in Christianity and most other monotheistic traditions), and at the same time at some stage of our development we also need to learn to realize and reclaim our fundamental freedom and fundamental nature as consciousness, and learn to use the creative abilities innate and equally available to all conscious beings and gradually become creator-souls in full potential (which is opened to us in some Eastern traditions).

[ScottRoberts]

Well, than what would you say about the evidences of non-active state of consciousness with an absence of any thoughts, conscious phenomena and any phenomenal activity at all? Those states were experienced by many people (me included). You could argue of course that this state has memory function "running", and therefore technically is not an entirely "inactive" state.

I don't know, but I can speculate, based on Merrell-Wolff's experience. Which was: experiencing what he called "Nirvana", which he defined as "awareness of absence of objects", as distinct from normal consciousness as being "awareness of objects". Then he moved on to a higher state, in which he recognized these two "awarenesses" as being the same. So my speculation is that in normal consciousness we are polarized in the direction of objects, but this polarization can reverse to being in the direction of absence of objects. Or to put it another way, in normal consciousness, formlessness (which is nevertheless "there") is obfuscated, while in Nirvana, form (which is nevertheless "there") is obfuscated.

[Simon Adams]

I agree with a lot of what you wrote, but I also want to point out that the tabula rasa notion of the infant human mind is scientifically incorrect. We come into the world with a fair amount of innate ideal content.

I agree there is tons of instinctual ‘knowledge’ by default, but I was referring to the fact that they can’t then learn things like language. I’m not quite sure what it would be like to try to understand ‘reality’ without having language. In some ways maybe they would have a better intuitive understanding of some aspects of spiritual reality which we loose in abstracting things, but it’s difficult to imagine how they would have insights that could be correlated to discussions of formlessness without forms etc...

[Simon Adams]

If they met on the road, I imagine the chat might go like this ... Buddha says: "Did you hear the zen koan that goes: 'If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill the Buddha" ... Jesus says: "Yeah right, tell me about it!"

I would give you a clap - but only with one hand...

O

[Eugene I]

I don't know, but I can speculate, based on Merrell-Wolff's experience. Which was: experiencing what he called "Nirvana", which he defined as "awareness of absence of objects", as distinct from normal consciousness as being "awareness of objects". Then he moved on to a higher state, in which he recognized these two "awarenesses" as being the same. So my speculation is that in normal consciousness we are polarized in the direction of objects, but this polarization can reverse to being in the direction of absence of objects. Or to put it another way, in normal consciousness, formlessness (which is nevertheless "there") is obfuscated, while in Nirvana, form (which is nevertheless "there") is obfuscated.

Sorry to say that, but Merrell-Wolff obviously had a wrong understanding of the Buddhist Nirvana, which is actually the awareness in the second sense - the awareness which is independent of the presence or absence of "objects" (forms). Which means that in the actual Nirvana neither formlessness not form is obfuscated, but both are clearly experienced as possible states of consciousness experienced with the same fundamental unconditional awareness. The "awareness of absence of objects" is called the 6-th jhana in Buddhism and is considered as a meditation technique from where, as the next step, the unconditional awareness can be discovered. This was explained in some Pali Canon suttas by Buddha. So, basically, Merrell-Wolff rediscovered for himself what has been known to Buddhists for 2.5 millennia.

[Simon Adams]

Simon, right. I think everyone agrees that we, and conscious activity in general (ok, I accept your term ), has an innate ability to express, generate and experience meanings, ideas and forms. The question is - where do they come from, how are they generated, or perhaps they might always exist somewhere or somehow, or else? And, as you said, another question is: do the sense perceptions originate from ideas (as being Divine creations), or they somehow develop "naturally" through some different origination mechanism. So, different philosophies and spiritual traditions offer different answers to those questions, and the answers seem to be quite incompatible with each other.

One of the major demarcations in that sense is the difference between mono-theistic and poly-theistic (or-poly-creators) views. In the former one the ideas and the sense perceptions of the world both originate in the single supra-Divine mind, while the Divine allowing them to further run and develop "on their own" in the minds of the creature souls.

In the poly-creators view the ideas and creations originate in multiplicity of minds working together. Every individual stream of consciousness possesses the innate ability to created ideas and forms. But some of them may be local Gods-creators-Demiurges of a large intelligence and creative power scale, in which case the inhabitants of their realms would experience and view the ideas and perceptions as if originated from their local creator. In such case it is quite possible that the universe where we live is a creation of such local Divinity, and we experience ideas and perceptions of the world originated in him. The difference with the mono-theistic view is that this scenario is still not absolute and we are not constrained to experience only the ideas and perceptions originated in our local Divinity, but, as possessing the innate ability to create ideas and forms ourselves, can continue doing that on our own and regain our spiritual self-sufficiency and freedom from being bound to ideas and forms created by some other beings. Not that those pre-created ideas or forms are bad in any ways, but simply because we can do it and it is our path to learn how to do it, become creators and unleash our creative abilities. So, in a way, such local universes are local universities, "incubators" for young souls who have not yet fully developed their creative potential and need assistance and training from more developed "Divine" souls. For such young souls their supervisor may look like the highest-and-absolute-God-of-everything, just like children tend to "deify" their parents in their minds, and there is nothing wrong with that, it's entirely natural.

When I was an atheist, I decided that this image of parents to young kids, as knowing and controlling almost everything, was the origin of the idea of god. It seemed to me this left a gap in the psyche that people filled with god or gods. In some ways my atheist idea of god seems closer to your idea of god described here, although with a lot less reality of course. I’m quite prepared to accept local structures and processes, and even a hierarchy of sorts, but this idea of god as ‘the greatest being’, let alone “local divinities”, is just completely different from what I mean by god. He is shockingly ‘other’, I’m not sure how I could describe this so that you wouldn’t think as you do.

On much of what you say about spiritual reality I get what you’re saying and often agree, but when you talk about god we’re talking about completely different things. To put it another way, if we just stick to the realm I would call within-god-but-not-god, then we have plenty to agree on. The life that is in this realm has huge creative potential, nature creates it’s own forms in amazing diversity and complexity, from stars to diamonds, insects like ants create unique hills and animals such beavers build unique damns, and we can create our our own ideas and forms. All of this is essentially spiritual creativity to me, but it’s set in place to be like this by a no-thing, something other, that makes the formless potential possible in the first place.

Anyway I don’t think we will agree on this, and no amount of debating which change such a fundamental difference

[AshvinP]

In the poly-creators view the ideas and creations originate in multiplicity of minds working together. Every individual stream of consciousness possesses the innate ability to created ideas and forms. But some of them may be local Gods-creators-Demiurges of a large intelligence and creative power scale, in which case the inhabitants of their realms would experience and view the ideas and perceptions as if originated from their local creator. In such case it is quite possible that the universe where we live is a creation of such local Divinity, and we experience ideas and perceptions of the world originated in him. The difference with the mono-theistic view is that this scenario is still not absolute and we are not constrained to experience only the ideas and perceptions originated in our local Divinity, but, as possessing the innate ability to create ideas and forms ourselves, can continue doing that on our own and regain our spiritual self-sufficiency and freedom from being bound to ideas and forms created by some other beings. Not that those pre-created ideas or forms are bad in any ways, but simply because we can do it and it is our path to learn how to do it, become creators and unleash our creative abilities. So, in a way, such local universes are local universities, "incubators" for young souls who have not yet fully developed their creative potential and need assistance and training from more developed "Divine" souls. For such young souls their supervisor may look like the highest-and-absolute-God-of-everything, just like children tend to "deify" their parents in their minds, and there is nothing wrong with that, it's entirely natural.

When I was an atheist, I decided that this image of parents to young kids, as knowing and controlling almost everything, was the origin of the idea of god. It seemed to me this left a gap in the psyche that people filled with god or gods. In some ways my atheist idea of god seems closer to your idea of god described here, although with a lot less reality of course. I’m quite prepared to accept local structures and processes, and even a hierarchy of sorts, but this idea of god as ‘the greatest being’, let alone “local divinities”, is just completely different from what I mean by god. He is shockingly ‘other’, I’m not sure how I could describe this so that you wouldn’t think as you do.

On much of what you say about spiritual reality I get what you’re saying and often agree, but when you talk about god we’re talking about completely different things. To put it another way, if we just stick to the realm I would call within-god-but-not-god, then we have plenty to agree on. The life that is in this realm has huge creative potential, nature creates it’s own forms in amazing diversity and complexity, from stars to diamonds, insects like ants create unique hills and animals such beavers build unique damns, and we can create our our own ideas and forms. All of this is essentially spiritual creativity to me, but it’s set in place to be like this by a no-thing, something other, that makes the formless potential possible in the first place.

Anyway I don’t think we will agree on this, and no amount of debating which change such a fundamental difference

This is very interesting. You both are employing the Kantian divide at different ends of the spiritual spectrum. Eugene views the fundamental formlessness as being so 'other' that we cannot possibly relate it to our normal consciousness, and Simon views the fundamental form of God as being so 'other' we cannot possibly relate it to our normal relationships with children, parents, etc. Does anyone else see that happening? And, if so, do you also see the consequences which flow from that in our current lives, if in fact the Ontic Prime is necessary for all existence?

[Eugene I]

When I was an atheist, I decided that this image of parents to young kids, as knowing and controlling almost everything, was the origin of the idea of god. It seemed to me this left a gap in the psyche that people filled with god or gods. In some ways my atheist idea of god seems closer to your idea of god described here, although with a lot less reality of course. I’m quite prepared to accept local structures and processes, and even a hierarchy of sorts, but this idea of god as ‘the greatest being’, let alone “local divinities”, is just completely different from what I mean by god. He is shockingly ‘other’, I’m not sure how I could describe this so that you wouldn’t think as you do.

On much of what you say about spiritual reality I get what you’re saying and often agree, but when you talk about god we’re talking about completely different things. To put it another way, if we just stick to the realm I would call within-god-but-not-god, then we have plenty to agree on. The life that is in this realm has huge creative potential, nature creates it’s own forms in amazing diversity and complexity, from stars to diamonds, insects like ants create unique hills and animals such beavers build unique damns, and we can create our our own ideas and forms. All of this is essentially spiritual creativity to me, but it’s set in place to be like this by a no-thing, something other, that makes the formless potential possible in the first place.

Anyway I don’t think we will agree on this, and no amount of debating which change such a fundamental difference

Right, we will not agree obviously

But you are right, such "otherness" of the "Ultimate Divinity" is probably the most fundamental feature of monotheistic traditions and the most fundamental difference between them and non-dual traditions. In the latter the "otherness" is overcome by realizing that the Divine "otherness" is nothing else than our own fundamental nature (Atman, Buddha's nature). From the point of view of the "separate self" of a human soul this nature feels very alien, and this is why the souls on the path of exoteric religions go "out there" to reach to it in their spiritual quest. In the esoteric monotheistic traditions (including esoteric versions of Christianity) the soul turns inwards and finds the Divine as their own core, the intuitive sense of highest Self, and there is where the sense of "otherness" gradually dissolve, in Sufism being dissolved completely. The level of higher Self is a layer of divine ideating creative activity, with the Self being a conscious spiritual activity on the highest level of creativity, no question about that. The Eastern non-dual traditions go even further and penetrate through the spiritual realm of Self into more fundamental level of the reality of consciousness, experientially discovering THAT which we all are on our most fundamental level and in WHICH all spiritual activity of Self and all mini-selves happen (or at least this is what they claim, and I accept that you are not going to agree with that ).

[Simon Adams]

This is very interesting. You both are employing the Kantian divide at different ends of the spiritual spectrum. Eugene views the fundamental formlessness as being so 'other' that we cannot possibly relate it to our normal consciousness, and Simon views the fundamental form of God as being so 'other' we cannot possibly relate it to our normal relationships with children, parents, etc. Does anyone else see that happening?

Does Eugene do that? From my own experiences and limited understanding of the eastern way of seeing these things, the formless consciousness Eugene talks of is indeed nothing like what we think of as consciousness when we perceive things, but at the same time when, you do perceive it directly, you realise that it was all there all along. There is nothing new you have found, you have just removed all the jitter that was hiding it. It’s a profound revelation, but you don’t discover anything new as such. Nonetheless to describe it to someone is always going to be like the famous finger pointing at the moon.

I guess in a way there is something similar in what I am saying about god, in that all our descriptions like “father”, “god”, “being” etc are also in a way like fingers pointing at the moon. However the divine mystic experience is not one of ‘that which you always knew but weren’t aware of’. It truly is of other-than-us, which is why kenosis is so different from say, nirvana, despite some similarities in the ways people aim for them.