Metamorphoses of the Spirit: Transfiguring our Thinking (Part I)

[Eugene I]

I'm not going to enter into debates over scriptures here. I just want to point out that there's specific difference in what it means to worship a god in pre-Christian times and what this becomes after that. All this is related to the metamorphosis of Spirit.
To explain what it means to worship in Spirit and Truth will take another sermon so I'll save it But these things are precisely the indicators for the way the relations between the soul and the Divine, metamorphose with evolution.

I could address the distinction between the unities too but I feel this will only turn into a circle so I'll refrain at this time.

So what you are saying is that only Christians have a special "privileged" access to the Divine and only they can worship the Divine in Spirit and Truth, and the followers of other traditions, no matter how they approach the Divinity in Love, knowledge, spiritual experience or devotion, simply do not have such access, even though it was not their fault to be born in other cultures or times. I think it is simply not true.

There has been definitely a metamorphic process of progressive development of human form of consciousness over time which was going on for millennia in science, philosophy and all spiritual traditions. Often along such process the phases of gradual and quantitative changes would alternate with phases of metamorphic and qualitative changes. All traditions evolved and developed much ahead of their starting points. But to claim that the further progression and metamorphosis is only available through the Christian tradition is just another statement of Christian exclusivity (which we already discussed so many times).

[Cleric K]

So what you are saying is that only Christians have a special "privileged" access to the Divine and only they can worship the Divine in Spirit and Truth, and the followers of other traditions, no matter how they approach the Divinity in Love, knowledge, spiritual experience or devotion, simply do not have such access, even though it was not their fault to be born in other cultures or times. I think it is simply not true.

There has been definitely a metamorphic process of progressive development of human form of consciousness over time which was going on for millennia in science, philosophy and all spiritual traditions. Often along such process the phases of gradual and quantitative changes would alternate with phases of metamorphic and qualitative changes. All traditions evolved and developed much ahead of their starting points. But to claim that the further progression and metamorphosis is only available through the Christian tradition is just another statement of Christian exclusivity (which we already discussed so many times).

So we are back to the traditions as a kind of Cantor's dust independently evolving organisms within the neutral container. I understand this and I don't have anything more to say besides what have already been said. Spiritual investigation only shows that there's a whole organic spiritual world that relates the apparently independent particles (as apparent as the fingers seem independent if the hand is not seen) into an evolving organism. If some particles maintain that they are independent of that organism, they are free to explore where this belief will lead them. I'm not asking anyone to believe me. On one hand we have a body of observations which reveal the intricate depth-relations between things and their unfoldment in time. This explains everything that otherwise must forever remain as disconnected facts the best explanation for which is "Well, that's what Consciousness wanted to experience". On the other hand the path to these observations is fully disclosed and available to anyone. I don't see how any of this can be accused of being exclusivist.

[AshvinP]

Does this entail something like the nagual to jaguar shapeshifting alluded to in the Castaneda books? Or shapeshifting into some unprecedented imaginal form?

I don't know. My feeling on this is that it's not about such shapeshifting. At least in the more conceivable stages it should be more about changing height, the length and shape of limbs, etc. When we have to deal with animal forms in religious and mythological context, it should be clear that almost certainly we're speaking about astral phenomena. I don't know how appropriate it is to speak of these things here. Pulling such things out of context makes the one speaking to simply look crazy. In the process of involution certain soul qualities of instinctive nature were expelled from the Cosmic human (this happens well before any process of mineralization). The thrust out soul qualities assume their own life which later form into the animal world. So in occult sense, when we speak about the animal world, we're envisioning spiritual processes that had to be differentiated from man, otherwise the human form would be too instinctually hard-wired for the spirit to make use of it. A certain balance was needed. The form couldn't be too free from instincts because the spirit wouldn't be able to take on all the tasks needed to consciously support the existence of the form. Yet enough flexibility was also needed so that the spirit could gradually take foot in the human form and continue its work from within outwards. The human brain provides such flexibility.

In this sense, when we speak of shapeshifting like in the Mesoamerican traditions, it's more likely to be about disembodied souls, probably of inferior character, who can strongly associate with the above mentioned expelled astral forms. For visionary clairvoyance this would be experienced precisely as human form that shapeshifts into animal form. It's also possible that these beings can associate with actual physical animals and influence them to attack someone, for example.

So no flying spaghetti monsters then?

Seriously though, under idealism, ever-evolving shapeshifting imagery is what the activity of Consciousness is always engaged in, albeit over many aeons, while in human alter-mode working on the hyper-acceleration of that process. So if it could happen on demand in some future version of now may not be all that far-fetched.

This is a fascinating topic to consider. When people talk about "uploading human consciousness" into the cloud or whatever, some of this imagery comes to mind. Right now we already have people on instagram and tick tock using animal filters to change their digital form, and that digital aspect of their "identity" seems even more real for them than their physical 'real world' identity. Not to mention all the 'transgender' surgical procedures young kids are seeking out and irresponsible parents/teachers are even encouraging in some cases. My uninformed speculation would be that it is the 'shadow side' of metamorphic process working towards higher astral form. And technology is rapidly progressing in that regard. But that is just my pure speculation.

[Cleric K]

So no flying spaghetti monsters then?

Seriously though, under idealism, ever-evolving shapeshifting imagery is what the activity of Consciousness is always engaged in, albeit over many aeons, while in human alter-mode working on the hyper-acceleration of that process. So if it could happen on demand in some future version of now may not be all that far-fetched.

Ever-evolution is certainly the case. Without going into a long post, I just want to point out that the physical life forms assume their shape not in the way a painter or a sculptor will go about it. Everything in living nature assumes its form from within outwards. For example, the fact that man has head, arms, legs, etc. is not due to God starting with blank canvas and deciding to create a being with such structure. First there are purely spiritual processes. Before there are hands there's purely spiritual activity which works upon higher-order processes. In the process of densification and mineralization it is like the spirit wants to preserve these processes, while the forces around become more and more restrictive. The hands take their form as the spirit strives to preserve its creativity within the processes even though the environment forces them to become more and more rigidified. This is a very one-sided example. There are so many things to be considered. For example the number of fingers, the number of phalanges, all these things are projections of Cosmic relations.

What I'm saying is that focusing entirely on form shapeshifting grossly misses the point. What really shapeshifts is our spiritual organism, the physical form is only accretion of the spiritual processes. So when we speak of man changing into a jaguar we need not be fascinated by the sensory vision of this but focus on what the inner experience of that man could possible be? What would be the goal of this? All creative work of the spirit always proceeds from facing certain challenges that need creative solutions. In that sense the activity of the Spirit is not a result of bored-time play with the paintbrush but always a kind of search for creative solutions within certain spiritually-environmental scenario. The evolution of one wave of beings gives them creative ideas that result in the initial conditions for a next wave of beings to experience their unique metamorphic processes.

[Simon Adams]

These terms are not very helpful. What I consider Psyche (Soul-Spirit) is essentially what you are calling "god" - precisely the Holy Trinity aka Godhead of Christianity. I know you stated before your view is different from anyone else on this forum, and presumably that is because you consider the Godhead to transcend any sort of ontological classification, i.e. idealism. We cannot speak of Godhead as "Idea" any more than we can speak of Him as "matter". That definitely is in tension with the monism I am arguing for because it implicitly sets up a dualism.

The trouble is that you need to accept some types of dualism. I don’t believe there is any substantial duality between mind and matter, but nonetheless my thoughts are immaterial, and my body is material. So that’s a type of dualism. Just because the cartesian dualism is fundamentally wrong, doesn’t mean all dualism’s necessarily are.

As an example, people throw around ‘timeless’, ‘beyond time’ etc as if it’s a kind of obvious base reality, with little seeming appreciation of what it means. We may be able to experience something of a timeless realm within, but the reality I would argue is beyond the limits of our understanding. I would also argue that applies to all absolutes. Timelessness and infinity are the same, even though from our normal relative perspective they should be opposites. Our existence is relative, always changing. We have hints of absolutes through our minds, either via experience of the formless screen out of which our thoughts are shaped, or via our thoughts when we engage with the likes of maths. But all the while we exist in and of the relative, it is our only mode of experience. So do you deny there are any absolutes, or do you accept that as a duality?

That monism is not about rearranging bricks on the wall. It is about forgetting the brick wall ("dying to our sin") and seeing what sort of new wall is built from within our own spiritual essence and through our own spiritual activity ("baptized and born again in the Spirit"). So yes it is definitely at odds with those who want to maintain a "traditional" brick wall of any sort and simply rearrange the top bricks from time to time. That simply is not adequate for true spiritual progression in our age.

Everyone has their ‘wall of personal truths’, without one you would not be able to speak or even think.

I understand it is very difficult for those steeped in such tradition to walk away from it, especially if they have family and friends, etc. who will be estranged from them because of it. It's a terribly difficult situation for anyone to navigate. There are many bricks of the person's identity seemingly dependent on that foundation.

My family is not at all religious, the vast majority of the people I know are not religious. For me the ‘difficult’ situation was everyone thinking “Simon’s gone all weird and started meditating, Tai Chi, Reiki etc”, then far more so when I started going to church. So I am not attached to any traditions related to religion other than what I have chosen with eyes wide open to all it’s historic failings.

All I can offer that person right now in response are the words of Christ quoted before, which may seem harsh but are still necessary for us to take seriously:

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it."

I don’t think you should be too harsh on yourself. Even though you don’t fully understand why Jesus gave Simon the name “Peter”, or the binding in heaven of what is bound on earth, or “this is my body”, you do still believe the words. As he said, “He who is not against me, is for me”

[Eugene I]

As an example, people throw around ‘timeless’, ‘beyond time’ etc as if it’s a kind of obvious base reality, with little seeming appreciation of what it means. We may be able to experience something of a timeless realm within, but the reality I would argue is beyond the limits of our understanding. I would also argue that applies to all absolutes. Timelessness and infinity are the same, even though from our normal relative perspective they should be opposites. Our existence is relative, always changing. We have hints of absolutes through our minds, either via experience of the formless screen out of which our thoughts are shaped, or via our thoughts when we engage with the likes of maths. But all the while we exist in and of the relative, it is our only mode of experience. So do you deny there are any absolutes, or do you accept that as a duality?

Our awareness and beingness are exactly timeless, they never change and never affected by anything, and we can know it intimately/directly and experientially even in the very midst of our limited, ever-changing and relative existence. And the the highest Godhead has the same awareness and the same beingness (otherwise he would not be experiencing anything and would simply not exist). Yes, we are experiencing only relative and ever-changing, but behold - the experiencing itself is never relative and never changing.

[Simon Adams]

Our awareness and beingness are exactly timeless, they never change and never affected by anything, and we can know it intimately/directly and experientially even in the very midst of our limited, ever-changing and relative existence.

Yes and so there is a duality even in our experience of non duality. Even when we have a ‘pure’ experience where we have no centre and feel ourselves as one with ‘nothingness’, we are still aware of being an experiencer of that. The experience is still to some extent in time, even though it’s like touching timelessness, and time passes differently than normal. We can realise the timelessness of the now, but it’s still a moving now.

And the the highest Godhead has the same awareness and the same beingness (otherwise he would not be experiencing anything and would simply not exist).

This is an assumption - how does anyone know what is fundamental? The physicalist says matter is fundamental. The idealist realises this is a natural assumption, as no matter how much you break down matter all you get is more matter, but a misunderstanding of the real nature of matter nonetheless. How do you know that there is nothing which sustains consciousness, and therefore has full awareness of all that is in consciousness (just as mind at large sustains matter and ‘knows’ all matter, even though it is not matter)?

[AshvinP]

These terms are not very helpful. What I consider Psyche (Soul-Spirit) is essentially what you are calling "god" - precisely the Holy Trinity aka Godhead of Christianity. I know you stated before your view is different from anyone else on this forum, and presumably that is because you consider the Godhead to transcend any sort of ontological classification, i.e. idealism. We cannot speak of Godhead as "Idea" any more than we can speak of Him as "matter". That definitely is in tension with the monism I am arguing for because it implicitly sets up a dualism.

The trouble is that you need to accept some types of dualism. I don’t believe there is any substantial duality between mind and matter, but nonetheless my thoughts are immaterial, and my body is material. So that’s a type of dualism. Just because the cartesian dualism is fundamentally wrong, doesn’t mean all dualism’s necessarily are.

As an example, people throw around ‘timeless’, ‘beyond time’ etc as if it’s a kind of obvious base reality, with little seeming appreciation of what it means. We may be able to experience something of a timeless realm within, but the reality I would argue is beyond the limits of our understanding. I would also argue that applies to all absolutes. Timelessness and infinity are the same, even though from our normal relative perspective they should be opposites. Our existence is relative, always changing. We have hints of absolutes through our minds, either via experience of the formless screen out of which our thoughts are shaped, or via our thoughts when we engage with the likes of maths. But all the while we exist in and of the relative, it is our only mode of experience. So do you deny there are any absolutes, or do you accept that as a duality?

You are referring to polarities of experience (timelessness-time, absolute-contingent, etc.). They are poles precisely because one cannot exist without the other. Therefore, they can be distinguished (and must be for experience) but never divided ("dualism"). The latter is what I cannot accept. I cannot accept a transcendent "absolute" God who may go on existing without the "contingent" world. Such a God can never be experienced and therefore may as well not exist for all intents and purposes.

That monism is not about rearranging bricks on the wall. It is about forgetting the brick wall ("dying to our sin") and seeing what sort of new wall is built from within our own spiritual essence and through our own spiritual activity ("baptized and born again in the Spirit"). So yes it is definitely at odds with those who want to maintain a "traditional" brick wall of any sort and simply rearrange the top bricks from time to time. That simply is not adequate for true spiritual progression in our age.

Everyone has their ‘wall of personal truths’, without one you would not be able to speak or even think.

I understand it is very difficult for those steeped in such tradition to walk away from it, especially if they have family and friends, etc. who will be estranged from them because of it. It's a terribly difficult situation for anyone to navigate. There are many bricks of the person's identity seemingly dependent on that foundation.

My family is not at all religious, the vast majority of the people I know are not religious. For me the ‘difficult’ situation was everyone thinking “Simon’s gone all weird and started meditating, Tai Chi, Reiki etc”, then far more so when I started going to church. So I am not attached to any traditions related to religion other than what I have chosen with eyes wide open to all it’s historic failings.

I did not mean going to church would be difficult, but rather not going to church, because the modern dogma did not seem accurate, would be difficult in many Catholic families. And I was not speaking about you personally, rather the hypothetical people we were discussing in relation to "brick walls".

All I can offer that person right now in response are the words of Christ quoted before, which may seem harsh but are still necessary for us to take seriously:

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it."

I don’t think you should be too harsh on yourself. Even though you don’t fully understand why Jesus gave Simon the name “Peter”, or the binding in heaven of what is bound on earth, or “this is my body”, you do still believe the words. As he said, “He who is not against me, is for me”

I lost you here. Maybe sarcasm? Either way I would never claim to "fully understand" any such things before experiencing them, and even then not "fully", unlike modern theologians who act as if they understand all such things without experiencing any of them.

[Eugene I]

Yes and so there is a duality even in our experience of non duality. Even when we have a ‘pure’ experience where we have no centre and feel ourselves as one with ‘nothingness’, we are still aware of being an experiencer of that. The experience is still to some extent in time, even though it’s like touching timelessness, and time passes differently than normal. We can realise the timelessness of the now, but it’s still a moving now.

This is much simpler, you don't need to feel any "nothingness" at all. And the awareness of being an "experiencer" is only an idea by the way, you cannot find any "experiencer" no matter how much you search. It's about conscious experiencing itself. The content of what is experienced always changes, but the experiencing itself never changes, "time" does not apply to it.

This is an assumption - how does anyone know what is fundamental? The physicalist says matter is fundamental. The idealist realises this is a natural assumption, as no matter how much you break down matter all you get is more matter, but a misunderstanding of the real nature of matter nonetheless. How do you know that there is nothing which sustains consciousness, and therefore has full awareness of all that is in consciousness (just as mind at large sustains matter and ‘knows’ all matter, even though it is not matter)?

I don't claim that it is "fundamental", neither I claim that I have full awareness of all that is in consciousness. But experiencing is definitely a "prerequisite" for any conscious experience because without the experiencing (the ability to have conscious experience) no awareness of any forms would be possible.

[AshvinP]

Yes and so there is a duality even in our experience of non duality. Even when we have a ‘pure’ experience where we have no centre and feel ourselves as one with ‘nothingness’, we are still aware of being an experiencer of that. The experience is still to some extent in time, even though it’s like touching timelessness, and time passes differently than normal. We can realise the timelessness of the now, but it’s still a moving now.

This is much simpler, you don't need to feel any "nothingness" at all. And the awareness of being an "experiencer" is only an idea by the way, you cannot find any "experiencer" no matter how much you search. It's about conscious experiencing itself. The content of what is experienced always changes, but the experiencing itself never changes, "time" does not apply to it.

This is an assumption - how does anyone know what is fundamental? The physicalist says matter is fundamental. The idealist realises this is a natural assumption, as no matter how much you break down matter all you get is more matter, but a misunderstanding of the real nature of matter nonetheless. How do you know that there is nothing which sustains consciousness, and therefore has full awareness of all that is in consciousness (just as mind at large sustains matter and ‘knows’ all matter, even though it is not matter)?

I don't claim that it is "fundamental", neither I claim that I have full awareness of all that is in consciousness. But experiencing is definitely a "prerequisite" for any conscious experience because without the experiencing (the ability to have conscious experience) no awareness of any forms would be possible.

I see we ended up back here at step one

Simon is right, there is no experience without continuity of the "moving now" and ideal content ("we can know [our awareness] intimately/directly") . That knowing is what truly weaves us into our shared Consciousness. I hope this becomes more clear in the final part.

Simon is also wrong, it is not an assumption that Consciousness is fundamental, more like a very informed guess. What is really an assumption is that there is something which "sustains consciousness" external to Consciousness, because that something we do not experience and, by definition, cannot ever experience.