Essay: Beyond the Flat M@L

[Cleric K]

Eastern traditions speak of levels of existence other than this human plane, and these levels of existence are either more pleasurable (ie heaven) or with more suffering and anguish (ie hell).
But I’m all cases these levels of existence are all seen as appearances, temporary and therefore still having degrees of falsity.
My take and the Eastern practices is that if someone is interested in more heavenly levels of existence then go for it, but it not spiritual growth or evolution, nor does it result in spiritual freedom.

In your view, what is spiritual growth and evolution? Learning to totally let go of all conscious phenomena and maintaining minimal attachedness with the Earthly dream? Then, if the other (higher) levels of being are merely optional side quests having nothing to do with the path to freedom, how do you envision the true state of freedom after death?

[Federica]

I have some more work left before I can properly answer that.

I've been struggling a lot with the n-times"stop the free fall now" vs. "maybe put it on the side, actually don't rush it just yet" type of seemingly irreconcilable messages. That's been 'advanced' work for me. Not the ideas in themselves. But now it's OK, I could wrap my head around that.

I'm glad you are resolving it on your own. As you can imagine, esoteric spiritual practice is a highly individualized endeavor, as it should be to engender inner freedom. To give someone really specific advice like "do this exercise now, do that one later, stop the exercises and study" or anything similar, would be as irresponsible as a doctor giving tailored medicinal and nutritional advice without having spent a lot of time with the patient. So I hope that's not what it sounds like I am doing. I just want to point out various broad conceptual considerations, which will integrate into a more holistic tapestry over time, even if it's not evident at first, and perhaps the most general counsel which will be helpful for anyone. From there, our own trial and error and living feedback from the rhythmic alternation of meditative and sensory-intellectual life, which it sounds like you are already receiving and discerning, will be most helpful

On that note, I just came across yet another lecture which has something directly relevant to offer on the topic of 'rushing' or not rushing, as the case may be

The essence of Rosicrucian training may be described in two words: true self-knowledge. The Rosicrucian pupil has to distinguish two things, not merely theoretically but practically, so that they become part of his everyday life. There are two forms of self-knowledge — the lower form, called by the Rosicrucian pupil “self-mirroring”, which should serve to overcome the lower self, and the higher form of self-knowledge which is born out of self-renunciation.
...
You can get out of the habit of self-admiration by a particular method which can be practised whenever you have five minutes for it. You must start from the principle that all characteristics are one-sided; you must learn to recognise in what respects yours are one-sided and then try to balance them. This principle may not amount to much in theory, but in practice it is highly effective. If you are industrious, you must ask yourself whether your activity may not be wrongly applied. Quickness, too, is one-sided; it needs to be supplemented by careful deliberation. Every quality has its polar opposite; you should cultivate its opposite and then try to harmonise the two extremes. For example, make haste slowly; be quick and yet deliberate; deliberate and yet not slow. Then the pupil will begin to grow beyond himself. All this is not part of meditation, but must be acquired alongside it.
...
It is by attention to small details that this harmony can be achieved. If your tendency is not to let anyone finish what he is saying, you must keep a watch on yourself and make up your mind that for six weeks you will keep silent, as far as possible, when someone else is talking. Then you must accustom yourself to speak neither too loudly nor too softly. Things such as this, which are generally not thought of, contribute essentially to inner self-development, and the more attention you pay to quite insignificant characteristics, the better it will be. If you try not only to acquire certain moral, intellectual or emotional qualities, but to get rid of some external habit, this will be particularly effective. It is a question not so much of investigating your inner self as of endeavouring to perfect the qualities which you have not yet fully developed, and to complement those you already have by cultivating their polar counterparts.

As you can imagine, esoteric spiritual practice is a highly individualized endeavor, as it should be to engender inner freedom.

It’s not just that I can imagine it, Ashvin, I actually experience it (yes, I am particular about vocabulary for better or worse, nothing new in that )


Besides, giving specific advice is certainly not what it sounds like you are doing, plus you have made the idea clear before. The disclaimer is well in place, no worries about it. That being said, I doubt the comparison with a medical doctor is fitting. Regardless of how much spiritually evolved one is, it’s a matter of personal inclination, responsibility, and choice to decide for oneself how to interpret and what to do with what one reads on this forum, including possible suggestions and advice, no matter how generic or specific. This choice is immediately accessible to any adult with normally developed mental activity. For the sake of argument, and given the philosophical/spiritual topic: if the balance of responsibilities was not as I’m saying, this place would not be a forum, but a place exposed to unduly exerted/endured influence. This is without doubt not the case here. And it builds on an equally shared discretion of all parties involved - on the sender’s side, as well as on the receiver’s.


In other words, we all have direct access to, and responsibility for making sense of our existence and place in this universe, individually and collectively. There is nothing more immediately and rightly accessible to the individual than inquiring these questions. Not so for the body of knowledge - some might call it an art - a medical doctor is supposed to possess, and apply in an individualized way, to patients who are lacking it, and have to practice trust, to some extent, blindly. So a doctor that was to abuse that trust, to misuse that art, would certainly be irresponsible, but conversations here can’t be evaluated by that same token. So I don’t think suggestions and evaluations, even specific ones, are irresponsible, as long as they are offered to the best of one’s knowledge and understanding, as well as with good faith and intention. I have actually both received and sometimes written such types of messages on this forum. And I have seen it done by others too. As you can imagine, for the suggestions I have expressed, I consider that my action has been responsible. Of course, this completely preserves everyone’s freedom to express more or less explicit and personal messages in the first place. I certainly don’t apply any judgments in this respect, except to myself. Overall, this is clearly a question of ethics, of right behavior, but I would imagine that individual perspective (and maybe karma?) also play an important role, where some might feel a relatively stronger imperative coming from responsibility and others from other things.


In my case, I take a high risk/high cost approach to the questions explored on this forum, because I consider them priorital, and I intend to invest in them as much relative weight and engagement as I feel I am able to manage (and sometimes I am not sure about exact quantities, I have to guess, and I might go a little over). The exposure to risks I’m talking about is, to a very large extent, self-exposure. I do it not because I like to feel uncomfortable of course, but because I believe it’s worth the price, and that nothing else is as relevant anyway. I would agree that, to a minor extent, risks could also possibly extend to those who engage in exchanges with me. The reasons why I still do it are as follows. First, risk is inevitable in all sorts of interactions anyway, and is very weakly correlated to how much time has been spent with a person. Second, I believe that my intention, good faith and understanding are appropriate safeguard (although, as I said above, everyone is the primary responsible for their own reading approach). Third, I believe that positive intentions alone can favor positive developments for others.


This hopefully also clarifies that, when I said that circles just can’t be squared, and later, that I had wrapped my head around seemingly irreconcilable suggestions, I was not expressing any expectations for specific advice. To be clear, the 'irreconcilable' advice was not yours, and not even specific to me in that case. It seems obvious, but just to be clear: in my post above, I was also not expressing any judgments on how others write posts. It's the opposite, I am thankful for the posts. The whole initiative was about taking some risks by posting about my experience with meditation, with the intention to create a positive dynamic, both for myself and others. In this case I am not sure if it's been useful for others. For my part, as it turned out, I ended up paying a price in terms of struggles. I did learn from the struggles, I can tell you. Better said, I've learned from the posts, about the struggles, and it was clearly worth the effort. That’s all.


Well, that’s not all - A thank you is missing, for the new quote and inspiration. If nothing else, I found it very useful to reveal or confirm, as the case may be, how much of a beginner one is on the path of self-knowledge.

[lorenzop]

‘Freedom after death’ makes no sense to me, if one dies, If one is subject to death, then it’s over and done at death or perhaps the dream continues-I do not know.
The only spiritual freedom is stepping out of the realm of death (falsity). In these living moments, stepping into the absolute spiritual
Heavenly realms offer increasing joy and pleasure but not freedom.
Brahman is a ‘simple thang’, and the only freedom

[AshvinP]

It’s not just that I can imagine it, Ashvin, I actually experience it (yes, I am particular about vocabulary for better or worse, nothing new in that )


Besides, giving specific advice is certainly not what it sounds like you are doing, plus you have made the idea clear before. The disclaimer is well in place, no worries about it. That being said, I doubt the comparison with a medical doctor is fitting. Regardless of how much spiritually evolved one is, it’s a matter of personal inclination, responsibility, and choice to decide for oneself how to interpret and what to do with what one reads on this forum, including possible suggestions and advice, no matter how generic or specific. This choice is immediately accessible to any adult with normally developed mental activity. For the sake of argument, and given the philosophical/spiritual topic: if the balance of responsibilities was not as I’m saying, this place would not be a forum, but a place exposed to unduly exerted/endured influence. This is without doubt not the case here. And it builds on an equally shared discretion of all parties involved - on the sender’s side, as well as on the receiver’s.


In other words, we all have direct access to, and responsibility for making sense of our existence and place in this universe, individually and collectively. There is nothing more immediately and rightly accessible to the individual than inquiring these questions. Not so for the body of knowledge - some might call it an art - a medical doctor is supposed to possess, and apply in an individualized way, to patients who are lacking it, and have to practice trust, to some extent, blindly. So a doctor that was to abuse that trust, to misuse that art, would certainly be irresponsible, but conversations here can’t be evaluated by that same token. So I don’t think suggestions and evaluations, even specific ones, are irresponsible, as long as they are offered to the best of one’s knowledge and understanding, as well as with good faith and intention. I have actually both received and sometimes written such types of messages on this forum. And I have seen it done by others too. As you can imagine, for the suggestions I have expressed, I consider that my action has been responsible. Of course, this completely preserves everyone’s freedom to express more or less explicit and personal messages in the first place. I certainly don’t apply any judgments in this respect, except to myself. Overall, this is clearly a question of ethics, of right behavior, but I would imagine that individual perspective (and maybe karma?) also play an important role, where some might feel a relatively stronger imperative coming from responsibility and others from other things.


In my case, I take a high risk/high cost approach to the questions explored on this forum, because I consider them priorital, and I intend to invest in them as much relative weight and engagement as I feel I am able to manage (and sometimes I am not sure about exact quantities, I have to guess, and I might go a little over). The exposure to risks I’m talking about is, to a very large extent, self-exposure. I do it not because I like to feel uncomfortable of course, but because I believe it’s worth the price, and that nothing else is as relevant anyway. I would agree that, to a minor extent, risks could also possibly extend to those who engage in exchanges with me. The reasons why I still do it are as follows. First, risk is inevitable in all sorts of interactions anyway, and is very weakly correlated to how much time has been spent with a person. Second, I believe that my intention, good faith and understanding are appropriate safeguard (although, as I said above, everyone is the primary responsible for their own reading approach). Third, I believe that positive intentions alone can favor positive developments for others.


This hopefully also clarifies that, when I said that circles just can’t be squared, and later, that I had wrapped my head around seemingly irreconcilable suggestions, I was not expressing any expectations for specific advice. To be clear, the 'irreconcilable' advice was not yours, and not even specific to me in that case. It seems obvious, but just to be clear: in my post above, I was also not expressing any judgments on how others write posts. It's the opposite, I am thankful for the posts. The whole initiative was about taking some risks by posting about my experience with meditation, with the intention to create a positive dynamic, both for myself and others. In this case I am not sure if it's been useful for others. For my part, as it turned out, I ended up paying a price in terms of struggles. I did learn from the struggles, I can tell you. Better said, I've learned from the posts, about the struggles, and it was clearly worth the effort. That’s all.


Well, that’s not all - A thank you is missing, for the new quote and inspiration. If nothing else, I found it very useful to reveal or confirm, as the case may be, how much of a beginner one is on the path of self-knowledge.

Federica,

I get what you are saying, and if it was implied that anything you have asked about or responded to others' questions so far was 'irresponsible', that was not my intention. And I agree with you that whatever we have been discussing so far, even when it gets into deeper spiritual territory, has been well worth the 'cost' of exploring that unfamiliar territory.

For me, the responsibility comes as we discern, in humility, how little we know of the higher spiritual dynamics and their effect on our daily lives. This does not pertain to any philosophical or intellectual discussion, but only to occult advice. These higher-order dynamics, of course, are not separate from what happens on the physical plane - they have the most significant effect on our spirit, soul, and body, including our physical and emotional health. So I don't think the comparison to medical advice was unapt. In fact, medical doctors and the healthcare industry will become a lot more responsible in their approach towards patients once they become more conscious of these higher-order dynamics and the gap between 'occult' advice and mainstream approaches to healthcare, psychology, etc. dwindles down. The more conscious we become of these intimate dynamics, the more responsible we become for, not only our own lives, but those of others who we interact with, to whatever extent possible. This is a completely free, voluntary responsibility we can take on, so it's not a question of adhering to any dogmatic rules of conduct, but it is nevertheless a matter of conscience which I feel should be at the center of every individual's consciousness when pursuing the spiritual path and sharing their experiences with others, especially when the intention is to guide others in a certain course of conduct for their own spiritual path. Clearly this must be done - otherwise there would be no Steiner, Anthroposophy, or similar occult teaching streams. But we also need great wisdom and discipline to discern when and how to go about it, if we choose to do so.

[Cleric K]

‘Freedom after death’ makes no sense to me, if one dies, If one is subject to death, then it’s over and done at death or perhaps the dream continues-I do not know.
The only spiritual freedom is stepping out of the realm of death (falsity). In these living moments, stepping into the absolute spiritual
Heavenly realms offer increasing joy and pleasure but not freedom.
Brahman is a ‘simple thang’, and the only freedom

If I'm understanding you right, what in your view is spiritual freedom is what we elsewhere called 'stepping out of the movie'. The ability to feel one's inner being belonging to the foundations of reality (Brahman). Then whether we're in prison, at work, in hell, in heaven, we can always step out and feel that it is all a flow of (false) appearances. This of course doesn't make the appearances evaporate but we can at least save ourselves some emotional dramatization.

Would it be correct to say that for you it is enough to have this feeling of being stepped out of the movie? In other words, you don't care if your thoughts, feelings and actions determine parts of the movie plot - for example, it is irrelevant to you if tomorrow you'll starve because today you did nothing to prepare for the next day? As long as you understand the starvation to be only a false appearance, you consider that it's not worth your time to steer anything in the world of falsities?

[Federica]

Federica,

I get what you are saying, and if it was implied that anything you have asked about or responded to others' questions so far was 'irresponsible', that was not my intention. And I agree with you that whatever we have been discussing so far, even when it gets into deeper spiritual territory, has been well worth the 'cost' of exploring that unfamiliar territory.

For me, the responsibility comes as we discern, in humility, how little we know of the higher spiritual dynamics and their effect on our daily lives. This does not pertain to any philosophical or intellectual discussion, but only to occult advice. These higher-order dynamics, of course, are not separate from what happens on the physical plane - they have the most significant effect on our spirit, soul, and body, including our physical and emotional health. So I don't think the comparison to medical advice was unapt. In fact, medical doctors and the healthcare industry will become a lot more responsible in their approach towards patients once they become more conscious of these higher-order dynamics and the gap between 'occult' advice and mainstream approaches to healthcare, psychology, etc. dwindles down. The more conscious we become of these intimate dynamics, the more responsible we become for, not only our own lives, but those of others who we interact with, to whatever extent possible. This is a completely free, voluntary responsibility we can take on, so it's not a question of adhering to any dogmatic rules of conduct, but it is nevertheless a matter of conscience which I feel should be at the center of every individual's consciousness when pursuing the spiritual path and sharing their experiences with others, especially when the intention is to guide others in a certain course of conduct for their own spiritual path. Clearly this must be done - otherwise there would be no Steiner, Anthroposophy, or similar occult teaching streams. But we also need great wisdom and discipline to discern when and how to go about it, if we choose to do so.

Ashvin,

We took two different sides of the comparison to medical advice. I understand - and to the extent it's possible, I agree with - everything you have expressed here. I was not implying any judgments of irresponsibility (which by the way I would have accepted, had they existed). Thanks for this further illustration.

[lorenzop]

‘Freedom after death’ makes no sense to me, if one dies, If one is subject to death, then it’s over and done at death or perhaps the dream continues-I do not know.
The only spiritual freedom is stepping out of the realm of death (falsity). In these living moments, stepping into the absolute spiritual
Heavenly realms offer increasing joy and pleasure but not freedom.
Brahman is a ‘simple thang’, and the only freedom

If I'm understanding you right, what in your view is spiritual freedom is what we elsewhere called 'stepping out of the movie'. The ability to feel one's inner being belonging to the foundations of reality (Brahman). Then whether we're in prison, at work, in hell, in heaven, we can always step out and feel that it is all a flow of (false) appearances. This of course doesn't make the appearances evaporate but we can at least save ourselves some emotional dramatization.

Would it be correct to say that for you it is enough to have this feeling of being stepped out of the movie? In other words, you don't care if your thoughts, feelings and actions determine parts of the movie plot - for example, it is irrelevant to you if tomorrow you'll starve because today you did nothing to prepare for the next day? As long as you understand the starvation to be only a false appearance, you consider that it's not worth your time to steer anything in the world of falsities?

This is a real mess and not ‘Eastern thinking’ at all.

[Cleric K]

This is a real mess and not ‘Eastern thinking’ at all.

I'm not trying to describe 'Eastern thinking' - I'm trying to understand your thinking.

[Anthony66]

Just as there are objective criteria for healthy and diseased biological life forms, so there are healthy and pathological soul processes. The soul and spirit realm are not made of some abstract energies that we can manipulate with particle accelerators. They are made of ... well, soul and spirit 'material', in other words - environments out of which our thoughts, feelings, will precipitate. The attunement of the latter is not a matter of some mechanical polishing, a kind of soul plastic surgery we can get in exchange of money. It is what we, individually make of ourselves. As far as we are beings with biological life we partake in the Natural order. But with our soul and spirit we partake in the Moral order of the Cosmos. What the physical laws are for the natural world, so are the moral laws for the soul and spirit world. They are not some rigid laws carved in stone as some commandments. They are the living realms within which our spiritual nature flows. They look like laws of social behavior only from our limited Earthly perspective, because we're still as children that need to be told not to poo into and eat from the same plate - that's how unaware we are of the ways reality works. On high there are living spiritual processes that shape the structure of our evolutionary matrix. When we conduct our thoughts, feelings and will in ways incompatible with these strata of reality, we experience the consequences - pain, suffering, torment, hopelessness, fear, death. These are not arbitrary punishments invented by some harsh God. These are natural things, as it is natural than one will bleed to death if his throat is slit. They are the intrinsic dynamics of worlds that people want to know nothing about. Yet this doesn't excuse them from the consequences, in the same way that fire would not excuse those who didn't know its laws. Fire burns without discrimination and says to man "you'll know better next time". The same words are spoken to us from the spiritual world but people don't yet know better.

Cleric,

Is this "Moral order" and "moral laws" subject to evolutionary change? Might a certain right action be deemed morally commendable in one age and not another? If so, what ultimately makes something a morally praiseworthy act apart from aligning with the moral contours of the day? Does it make any sense to speak of a higher-higher morality by which the current "moral order state of play" can be evaluated? Are things evolving in a morally desirable direction?

Is this moral order the outworking of the whims of higher beings or the interplay of gazillion moral agents?

I hope this array of questions is enough the convey to gist of my musings.

[Cleric K]

Cleric,

Is this "Moral order" and "moral laws" subject to evolutionary change? Might a certain right action be deemed morally commendable in one age and not another?

Yes, just like a human being needs different nutrition, ideas and activities at different stages of life.

If so, what ultimately makes something a morally praiseworthy act apart from aligning with the moral contours of the day? Does it make any sense to speak of a higher-higher morality by which the current "moral order state of play" can be evaluated?

Ultimately it is the deeper insight in the whole Cosmic evolutionary process. This is what man is called upon today. A free being extracts its moral conduct from living understanding of the flow of reality. That's why in PoF it's spoken about Moral Imagination, Moral Intuition. The moral laws of the past were given by Initiates who gave them as external rules for human beings, since they had to be guided as children. But we enter times where everyone can become an initiate. This means that we gain consciousness of ourselves as being embedded in the spiritual being of the Cosmos. Then we have to determine our moral conduct in freedom according to our ideals and insight into the Cosmic flow of reality.

Are things evolving in a morally desirable direction?

It depends on our freedom. It can be said that there's always a path for greater integration. Before the awakening of the spirit in man (as ego) man has been led in a morally desirable direction. But today, as we've become much more independent, it is up to us to pick our direction in full consciousness and freedom.

Is this moral order the outworking of the whims of higher beings or the interplay of gazillion moral agents?

Higher beings are also moral agents so it's an interplay of the whole hierarchy of beings. 'Whims' sounds slightly arbitrary. But as the ancient Hindus said - all existence proceeds within the outbreath and inbreath of Brahman. So this Cosmic Time-Pulse is the 'carrier wave' within which all states of being manifest. Beings on the Light path work in harmony with that wave, manifesting within it as a symphonic hierarchy. Beings on the dark path have forms of consciousness with partial understanding of the Whole and seeking their own goals within it. Out of ignorance they may try to expand their kingdom, when in fact, within the context of the greater waves, it might be time to spiritualize it and integrate it. For these beings it is said: "And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it." This is what it means to understand the Time context of evolution.