Intuitive Idealism vs. Analytic Idealism (Part II): An alternative formulation of idealism

[AshvinP]

Ashvin,

I've been too busy these days to properly reply to you. I feel this conversation is an important one, and I think it will take some time to make clear what our differences are. So I hope you will be patient with me and be willing to wait sometimes for days until I respond.

I see two intertwined questions here: one is the relation between thinking and feeling; the other is the question of whether the spiritual evolution of humanity has necessarily to follow one single path.

The first question is too difficult for me to tackle right now. For now I'll only say that I partially agree with that quote from Cleric: when one reaches a certain level of spiritual development thinking and feeling become unified or harmonized, so that there can be no conflict between them. I love the expression "Thinking of the Heart".

But I doubt that the way to get there is to "pass through Thinking and rise its cognitive element into the world of Feeling". From my perspective, the way to harmonize Thinking and Feeling is rather to let the logical mind be guided by the heart.

To reach the Truth, the heart is the guide, not the thinking mind. By "heart" I don't mean egoic sympathies and antipathies, likes and dislikes, of course. In fact, if we inquire into sympathies and antipathies, likes and dislikes, we always find not true feelings, but mental concepts. Sympathies and antipathies are distorted feelings, feelings distorted by thoughts, prejudices, mental constructs. A very clear indication of this is that for the enlightened Heart (the human heart free of distortion and conditioning) there are no antipathies, no dislikes. The Heart loves everything, everything that is real.

It's the Heart what knows the Truth, not the thinking mind (or logical reasoning). The thinking mind can bring understanding and clarity to what the heart knows, but the heart is the only guide. Only the heart can distinguish the real from the unreal (what is really there, or here, from fantasies created by the mind). Only the heart can know the truth directly.

What I call intuition is a working together of heart and head (or thinking mind). But like I said, this is a difficult question for me. I don't know exactly how this works. I'm learning.

Here is an example that may be useful: when I read Cleric's posts, I usually don't understand intellectually most of what he says. My logical reasoning mind would instantly dismiss his words as gibberish. But my heart tells me that there is something deeply truthful and authentic in Cleric's words. That makes me want to read him more carefully and try to understand.

Having said all this, I can go back to the second question: the unified (or not) spiritual evolution of humanity. I can see that I have some egoic dislikes and antipathies against mainstream Western culture (including Christianity). These come from my cultural conditioning, and have to do with mental constructs around ethnic identity, etc. But I can see through those, and find a deeper layer of undistorted feeling, which I know comes from my true heart.

And this is what my heart says: there is only ONE humanity. And this one humanity is the expression and manifestation of the one true nature, the one universal consciousness.

That's it. And now my logical reasoning can come in and try to make sense of that insight, and here is what I can come up with at the moment: cultural diversity is not an obstacle to realizing the fundamental unity and oneness of humanity. We don't need to reach some future evolutionary stage to realize and acknowledge that oneness. We can realize it right now. With all our cultural differences.

So my personal provisional conclusion is that the question of whether the spiritual evolution of humanity will follow a single, unified path remains completely open. Maybe you and Barfield are right, and that's where we are heading. But I don't see any reason why this should be the case. In my imagination I can envision a completely unified humanity (sharing a state of "final participation", or maybe further developments of spirit), and I can also envision a diversified humanity, with different groups living in different spiritual worlds but still being able to communicate with each other and recognize their fundamental unity. Both possibilities seem equally beautiful to me. Maybe I lean more towards the second possibility, but I don't reject the first one at all.

And for the present, I feel it would be wiser if we all remained open and open-minded around this question... None of us knows what is going to happen, after all. My sense is that not even The Creative Intelligence behind all this knows what is going to happen in the end. (And yet again, I'm also open to the possibility that there is a Divine Plan.) In any case, I don't think we can reach any conclusion one way or another by employing logical reasoning alone.

So what do you think? Is it okay to acknowledge that we really don't know? Or do you see that attitude as an obstacle?

Adur,

Thank you again for the very considerate post. I would much rather you take a few days or a few weeks or however long you need and write the sort of post written above than just try to shoot off a few uninformed responses quickly. I think you also sense what Cleric, Scott, and myself (and perhaps a few others) sense - it becomes more and more difficult to be interested in the "what is an 'alter'?" sort of questions when we dig deeper into spiritual science. That is not to simply rag on people who ask that question, but just pointing out the simple fact that those questions never get anyone very enthused. They don't inspire people to write an essay or even wait a few days to think and construct a very considerate response. The one thing I would say is that, in my experience so far, as soon as we start approaching these deeper spiritual questions, especially if it is with someone with a natural antipathy for Western spiritual tradition, there will be a very strong urge to bail out. I hope that does not happen here. Let's put the first question to the side as you suggest and pick it up here:

But I doubt that the way to get there is to "pass through Thinking and rise its cognitive element into the world of Feeling". From my perspective, the way to harmonize Thinking and Feeling is rather to let the logical mind be guided by the heart.

From what I understand, which is a not a whole lot but I think enough to answer this question (Cleric can correct if I am wrong about anything), spiritual science is speaking of actual spiritual realms which are the source of our thoughts and feelings. We find this in various Western mytho-philosophical traditions. Aristotle speaks of the ten celestial spheres. Aquinas does as well, and makes clear he is speaking of angelic beings. Many others do as well in their own various ways. When the cognitive element is raised by the Spirit into the world of feeling (Soul), this should be taken quite literally. We are never talking about you or my "personal" realm of thoughts and feelings, which essentially do not exist. I think that goes to a larger overall point - this sort of spirituality is, in fact, a science. We cannot simply say "I doubt" or "I feel" it is this way or that way, and we cannot expect to somehow know which way it is without engaging in some deep study first. The intellect does not like to admit that all the science it learned at school was not actually telling it about what gives rise to its internal activities such as thoughts and feelings, and likewise it does not want to admit that mystical experience or "gut instinct" or unconscious "intuition" does not provide reliable knowledge either.

Here is an example that may be useful: when I read Cleric's posts, I usually don't understand intellectually most of what he says. My logical reasoning mind would instantly dismiss his words as gibberish. But my heart tells me that there is something deeply truthful and authentic in Cleric's words. That makes me want to read him more carefully and try to understand.

I don't think that is what is happening. This is my reasoned conclusion and not simply something I am repeating from Steiner or Cleric, although their Thinking also pointed me in the right direction. The problem is that we don't sense our true Thinking anymore, it just happens in the background without us being aware. It is like our breathing but even harder for modern intellect to bring into full conscious awareness. You are never simply "feeling" Cleric's words without Thinking - if we really reflect on it (and this is where PoF is invaluable), that makes very little sense. Words are products of Thinking and Thinking is essentially shared activity. There are not multiple realms of isolated thoughts for each individual "alter". So you are subconsciously intuiting the deep truth and authenticity of Cleric's words, and since it is subconscious Thinking, you incorrectly attribute it all to your feeling "heart".

To reach the Truth, the heart is the guide, not the thinking mind. By "heart" I don't mean egoic sympathies and antipathies, likes and dislikes, of course. In fact, if we inquire into sympathies and antipathies, likes and dislikes, we always find not true feelings, but mental concepts. Sympathies and antipathies are distorted feelings, feelings distorted by thoughts, prejudices, mental constructs. A very clear indication of this is that for the enlightened Heart (the human heart free of distortion and conditioning) there are no antipathies, no dislikes. The Heart loves everything, everything that is real.

Everything you are saying here is somewhat true, if we limit "thinking" to abstract intellect. That is one of the things people, especially with sympathy for Eastern background, simply cannot fathom in the modern age. That the intellect is not the max capacity of human Thinking. There is a good reason for this - ancient Eastern people did actually Think through their soul. Except there was no such thing as "abstract intellectual" thinking at that time, only what we now call "Imagination". I would not call sympathies and antipathies "distorted feelings" - they are deeply rooted in our soul by way of past lives, which of course is a whole different topic altogether.

Having said all this, I can go back to the second question: the unified (or not) spiritual evolution of humanity. I can see that I have some egoic dislikes and antipathies against mainstream Western culture (including Christianity). These come from my cultural conditioning, and have to do with mental constructs around ethnic identity, etc. But I can see through those, and find a deeper layer of undistorted feeling, which I know comes from my true heart.

And this is what my heart says: there is only ONE humanity. And this one humanity is the expression and manifestation of the one true nature, the one universal consciousness.

I think there is really a complete misunderstanding of "spiritual evolution" here. Again, this comes from the abstract intellect only thinking in rigid and linear concepts. Let me put it this way - there are many, many spiritual beings undergoing evolution in various 'places' of the Cosmos, and they are all at different stages of evolution. It is precisely the spiritual evolutionary view which allows us to say there is not one linear path of development for everyone, or a couple of paths in this part of the world, a couple in that, and a few of them can get absorbed or wiped out at any given time. That is purely Earthly intellectual thinking. When we raise into higher cognition and perceive the ONE essentially spiritual realm and the manifold beings who populate it with their own paths and capacities and interwoven 'stories' and 'timelines', we will see how it is actually our Earthly perspective which invents the false narrative of one small planet in a mostly empty Cosmos with limited resources and all cultures fighting over them endlessly. I am not speaking from experience of higher cognition now, but just my carefully Reasoned conclusions.

So my personal provisional conclusion is that the question of whether the spiritual evolution of humanity will follow a single, unified path remains completely open. Maybe you and Barfield are right, and that's where we are heading. But I don't see any reason why this should be the case. In my imagination I can envision a completely unified humanity (sharing a state of "final participation", or maybe further developments of spirit), and I can also envision a diversified humanity, with different groups living in different spiritual worlds but still being able to communicate with each other and recognize their fundamental unity. Both possibilities seem equally beautiful to me. Maybe I lean more towards the second possibility, but I don't reject the first one at all.

And for the present, I feel it would be wiser if we all remained open and open-minded around this question... None of us knows what is going to happen, after all. My sense is that not even The Creative Intelligence behind all this knows what is going to happen in the end. (And yet again, I'm also open to the possibility that there is a Divine Plan.) In any case, I don't think we can reach any conclusion one way or another by employing logical reasoning alone.

So what do you think? Is it okay to acknowledge that we really don't know? Or do you see that attitude as an obstacle?

I think I mostly addressed this above. It is very egotistical for us to say, "I have limited knowledge of these matters, so I am just going to assume Reality is the way I envision it to be" or "how I feel it to be". (we all do this to varying extents, so I am not singling you out by any means). All beings (not just humanity) will be integrated under our view (which is not to be confused with smearing out the perspectives into one unified blob or anything similar). Humans will play a critical role in raising up other beings into this integral Unity just like other beings are currently raising us up. We should definitely remain open minded, and we can definitely admit what we do not yet know, but there is no warrant to say "we can never know in this lifetime". It is only our abstract intellect guided by unconscious or semi-conscious sympathies and antipathies which leads us to that conclusion. We can still pursue logical reasoning through higher cognition, just of a much different qualitative sort. Of course this is a conclusion which we have reached through argument and experience (especially in Cleric's case), and again PoF is invaluable in this regard - we are not asking anyone to simply take our word for it. In fact, that would defeat the entire purpose of our current spiritual evolutionary state, which is to develop spiritual freedom through genuine Self-knowledge. We are simply asking people to put some time and effort into researching and reasoning these things for themselves, and it appears you are already beginning to do that. The real test for all of us is whether we can persevere when the excuses, doubts, subconscious desires and feelings, etc. inevitably manifest in full force and try to convince us it's hopeless to seek this higher knowledge and to simply give up.

[AshvinP]

But I doubt that the way to get there is to "pass through Thinking and rise its cognitive element into the world of Feeling". From my perspective, the way to harmonize Thinking and Feeling is rather to let the logical mind be guided by the heart.

Here is an example that may be useful: when I read Cleric's posts, I usually don't understand intellectually most of what he says. My logical reasoning mind would instantly dismiss his words as gibberish. But my heart tells me that there is something deeply truthful and authentic in Cleric's words. That makes me want to read him more carefully and try to understand.
...
To reach the Truth, the heart is the guide, not the thinking mind. By "heart" I don't mean egoic sympathies and antipathies, likes and dislikes, of course. In fact, if we inquire into sympathies and antipathies, likes and dislikes, we always find not true feelings, but mental concepts. Sympathies and antipathies are distorted feelings, feelings distorted by thoughts, prejudices, mental constructs. A very clear indication of this is that for the enlightened Heart (the human heart free of distortion and conditioning) there are no antipathies, no dislikes. The Heart loves everything, everything that is real.

Everything you are saying here is somewhat true, if we limit "thinking" to abstract intellect. That is one of the things people, especially with sympathy for Eastern background, simply cannot fathom in the modern age. That the intellect is not the max capacity of human Thinking. There is a good reason for this - ancient Eastern people did actually Think through their soul. Except there was no such thing as "abstract intellectual" thinking at that time, only what we now call "Imagination". I would not call sympathies and antipathies "distorted feelings" - they are deeply rooted in our soul by way of past lives, which of course is a whole different topic altogether.

A bit more from Steiner on this, since it's clearly a big issue for many people who value of life of feeling more than thinking today.

Many prejudices are prevalent regarding such statements about thinking as are brought forward here. Many persons are inclined to undervalue thinking, and to place higher the “warm life of feeling” or “emotion.” Some, indeed, say it is not by “sober thinking,” but by warmth of feeling, by the immediate power of “the emotions,” that one raises oneself to higher knowledge. People who talk thus fear to blunt the feelings by clear thinking. This certainly does result from the ordinary thinking that is concerned only with matters of utility; but in the case of thoughts that lead to higher regions of existence, the opposite happens. There is no feeling and no enthusiasm to be compared with the sentiments of warmth, beauty and exaltation enkindled through the pure, crystal-clear thoughts which relate to higher worlds. For the highest feelings are as a matter of fact not those which come “of themselves,” but those which are achieved by energetic and persevering work in the realm of thought.

[Adur Alkain]

Thanks, Cleric! This is really helpful.

I agree with pretty much everything you are saying here. There is no fundamental dualism. Everything, including egoic or automatic thoughts, ultimately comes from the Creative Dynamism.

My only question is this: how do you go about finding within yourself that Creative Dynamism that "brings the thoughts into existence?"

In the Diamond Approach the central spiritual practice is called "inquiry": it consists in paying attention to one's experience, including our thoughts. Whenever a thought or an emotion arises, the practice of inquiry consists in experiencing it fully, without trying to change it, and in trying to understand where it comes from. It is possible, with some practice, to distinguish thoughts that come from the ego or the superego from thoughts that come from a deeper, unconditioned level of discriminating consciousness. So, we can deidentify from the thoughts coming from ego while identifying with the thoughts coming from our true nature.

You can phrase this differently by saying that you don't actually deidentify with the egoic thoughts: you deidentify with the false ego-identity that is distorting those thoughts.

Is this similar to what you propose? Or do you have a different kind of practice, conducing to that recognition of the underlying Creative Dynamism?

Great question!

What I have in mind is a little more immediate experience. When we inquire thoughts in the way you describe, it is like we observe a thought that enters our camp like a foreign messenger and we try to figure out if he comes from the lands to the North or the South. If we reckon that he's from the South we imagine that as the result of mechanical brain processing. If we decide that he must be coming from the North we imagine it is the result of the Creative Dynamism. There's one more hidden factor though. Where do the thoughts that make the inquiry itself come from?

The thing is that the above question is rarely asked. The reason is that we are used to experience thoughts about things (including other thoughts) but the actual thinking process is, so to speak, in the blind spot of consciousness.

We can only approach these matters with living experiences. For example, consider the thought "I think the speech". Now this shouldn't be just noted on the computer screen. We really need to turn it into an exercise. We calm down, close our eyes if this helps us to become more focused, and slowly and clearly pronounce these words with our inner voice, while trying to be fully conscious of how we truly speak forth the verbal thoughts into existence. It's not only about mechanically producing the inner words but also at the same time experiencing what they mean. It's very powerful exercise! We can also observe how we pronounce the thought "dog" but the above thought has the very significant benefit that the contents of the words refer directly back towards the actual process the births them. A kind of recursion but not intellectual one, where one thought simply leads to another in endless loop, but thought that points attention to an actual intuitively experienced spiritual activity that is always there but is usually in the blind spot and we only notice the ripe fruits.

Now think again. Where do these words that we have spoken within us come from? If we say "the ego, the super-ego, the brain" we're simply overlying more thoughts on top of the original. Yet the source of these additional thoughts again remains in the blind spot.

We can see it thus. In the exercise of inquiry you describe, we behold a World Content of phenomena - including thoughts that we observe impartially and try to figure our from which system they proceed. But is there something in the World Content for which we know in a completely different and direct way, the reason for its existence? Yes, these are the thoughts that we experience livingly in the described exercise. When we experience "I think the speech" we know the source of the verbal worlds in a level of intimacy that we don't even conceive if we say "these words are product of the ego or super-ego". In the latter case we have mental explanation for where the thoughts might be coming from but we're still outside the Universal Creative process that actually brought them into existence. When we experience livingly, in full consciousness "I think the speech" we experience the actual Creative Dynamism at work. We witness part of the World Content (the verbal thoughts) for which the creative cause is fully known - we're one with that cause, we are that cause.

This is so simple that most people simply don't believe it. They think there must be some kind of mistake. It seems to them that it's much more probable that the experience of being creatively responsible for the thoughts, is some kind of positive feedback (imagine ringing microphone) that reinforces itself and perpetuates the illusion. OK. But if that is the case, can anyone show an instance of something else within the World Content, besides our livingly experienced thoughts, for which the creative cause is ever directly experienced? We can certainly say that the Creative Dynamism is responsible for our thoughts, or the super-ego, or the mechanical brain, but we only witness the end product of these things. We don't experience from within how the brain creates the lower thoughts, neither we experience from within the super-ego how they come about (assuming we're only inquiring impartially, fully deidentifying with the thoughts). This is why I said that this kind of looking at things is concealed dualism - because although we claim that we're one and the same with the Universal Consciousness and its Creative Dynamism, effectively we never find a first-person experience of that Dynamism, we only note the end results. This effectively means that we, as the Universal Consciousness itself, are divided in ourselves and say "An opaque part of me is creating the thoughts while I only witness the results". Yet the part that says that never finds the other part that supposedly experiences the creating. They are forever separated ... unless we consider Thinking, where the two parts find themselves - the one that creates and the one that perceives.

Now the question may arise "But then what am I? The brain? The ego? The super-ego?" This question loses meaning when it is asked like that. There's only One Universal consciousness. The question should be transformed into: "Now that I've finally found myself and I'm responsible for my thoughts, it's my task to investigate the forces that work within me and pull me in one or another direction and suggest to me to think about this or that. I need to direct my creative activity according to that knowledge. If I want to experience Peace, Love, Intelligence, Harmony, Righteousness, I need to seek out the forces that resonate and support my activity in that direction and resist the forces that lead me in the opposite."

This is wonderful stuff, Cleric!

I did the exercise you propose (considering the thought "I think the speech") and I think I totally got it! I truly experienced the Creative Dynamism at work, like you say. Amazing!

Like you say, it's so simple that it's hard to believe. It was quite a surprise for me. When I read your description of the exercise my first reaction was "this is nonsense"... but it wasn't! When I actually closed my eyes and did the exercise, I got it. It really works. Thank you!

Now I can see, or at least glimpse, how this path of Thinking can actually lead to liberation, peace, harmony, etc.

This doesn't mean that I'm going to take that path. It doesn't feel right for me, personally (like I said before, it feels like "too much work"). But I'm quite convinced that it can be effective and liberating for those who feel an affinity to it.

I understand that you, like Ashvin, believe that there is only one path to the Truth, or to spiritual liberation. I rather think that there are many paths. Maybe all paths will eventually meet at some shared Truth, but maybe some of those paths will always have different perspectives, different ways of experiencing the one Truth. I personally think it's beautiful to have different paths we can follow, according to our personal preferences. And then we can have conversations like this, to "compare notes". I love it.

I'll finish by saying that the path I'm in (the practice of inquiry in the Diamond Approach) is not exactly how you imagine it. I gave a very rough description of it in my last reply. I'm only a DA student, not a teacher, so I'm not really able of explaining the practice properly. But it certainly doesn't imply adding additional layers of conceptual thought to our experience (like "this thought comes from my ego") or anything like that. It is a direct recognition of where the thoughts come from. This direct recognition often involves whole insights about our conditioning, about the way our experiences in early childhood (most usually with our parents) gave rise to the egoic structures that shape and limit our perceptions, emotions, thoughts, etc. I can't go into details here. But the end result is that you can actually gain access to the Universal Creative process that gave rise to those egoic structures. When you inquire deep enough, there are no blind spots left. You can actually get to see how the brain works.

The main difference, I think, between this path (the DA inquiry path) and the "Thinking path" you are following (does it have a proper name?) is that your path is a "hands-on" approach (you actively take control of your thoughts, seeking the forces that support you in your search of Peace, Love, etc., and resisting the forces that undermine you), while the DA path is a "hands-off" approach. In the Diamond Approach, there is no goal. You are not trying to get anywhere. You don't try to change your experience in any way. According to the DA, the attempt to change or manipulate our own experience is the main source of all our egoic conditioning and suffering. So in this kind of inquiry you just try to understand what is going on in your experience. That by itself is enough to open it up. Eventually, after working through layers and layers of psychological structures, you reach the Universal Consciousness and Creative Dynamism that is the fundamental reality, the true nature of everything.

Anyway. Like I said, I'm just a student, and I can't really do justice to this path. But it works wonderfully for me, so I can't help doing a little "propaganda" here.

But I fully respect this "Thinking path" of yours, and I'm very interested to hear about any spiritual realizations you may reach (or have reached already) by following it throroughly.

[AshvinP]

I understand that you, like Ashvin, believe that there is only one path to the Truth, or to spiritual liberation. I rather think that there are many paths. Maybe all paths will eventually meet at some shared Truth, but maybe some of those paths will always have different perspectives, different ways of experiencing the one Truth. I personally think it's beautiful to have different paths we can follow, according to our personal preferences. And then we can have conversations like this, to "compare notes". I love it.

Adur, one brief comment here. Think about the degrees of freedom you opened up by trying that simple exercise. You came to an experience of your own spiritual activity which most people will not consciously reach in an entire lifetime in the modern age. And of course that is tiniest of steps you can take towards "liberating your Thinking", as you say. So which path is really limiting? The one that adds assumptions which do not come from the gives of experience (that is what DA really sounds like from your description, although I am not familiar), thereby actively preventing you from ever taking a harder look at your own Thinking and its role in the phenomena, or the one which remains entirely within the realm of your intimate experience? Each abstract assumption you add on is like another piece of chain which shackles your Thinking. We will merely think it is "hands off" because we are not looking at our subconscious thinking which influences all of our conscious thoughts as well. We liberate from that by coming to know it deeply. The "feeling" approach you mentioned before will never even consider to look at what Cleric is saying because it is ruled out a priori. That is what truly created only one path for you. Cleric's path and my path so far into this realm were extremely different, which we could explain more if necessary, but since there is actually a shared Reality of imaginations, inspirations, and intuitions, we (and many other 20th century thinkers) begin converging naturally and independently on the same conclusions about that Reality. Your approach so far is arbitrarily limiting yourself to one tiny sphere of abstract conclusions that can be reached, which is the same sphere as many in the modern age and on this forum. Again I don't mean this as personal critique, as we clearly think it is an endemic aspect of modern cultures.

[Eugene I]

Each abstract assumption you add on is like another piece of chain which shackles your Thinking. We will merely think it is "hands off" because we are not looking at our subconscious thinking which influences all of our conscious thoughts as well. We liberate from that by coming to know it deeply. The "feeling" approach you mentioned before will never even consider to look at what Cleric is saying because it is ruled out a priori. That is what truly created only one path for you. Cleric's path and my path so far into this realm were extremely different, which we could explain more if necessary, but since there is actually a shared Reality of imaginations, inspirations, and intuitions, we (and many other 20th century thinkers) begin converging naturally and independently on the same conclusions about that Reality. Your approach so far is arbitrarily limiting yourself to one tiny sphere of abstract conclusions that can be reached, which is the same sphere as many in the modern age and on this forum. Again I don't mean this as personal critique, as we clearly think it is an endemic aspect of modern cultures.

"there is only one path to the Truth, or to spiritual liberation" is exactly another "abstract assumption you add on like another piece of chain which shackles your Thinking". You don't realize how many abstract assumptions you already implicitly hold in your CPP paradigm.

[AshvinP]

Each abstract assumption you add on is like another piece of chain which shackles your Thinking. We will merely think it is "hands off" because we are not looking at our subconscious thinking which influences all of our conscious thoughts as well. We liberate from that by coming to know it deeply. The "feeling" approach you mentioned before will never even consider to look at what Cleric is saying because it is ruled out a priori. That is what truly created only one path for you. Cleric's path and my path so far into this realm were extremely different, which we could explain more if necessary, but since there is actually a shared Reality of imaginations, inspirations, and intuitions, we (and many other 20th century thinkers) begin converging naturally and independently on the same conclusions about that Reality. Your approach so far is arbitrarily limiting yourself to one tiny sphere of abstract conclusions that can be reached, which is the same sphere as many in the modern age and on this forum. Again I don't mean this as personal critique, as we clearly think it is an endemic aspect of modern cultures.

"there is only one path to the Truth, or to spiritual liberation" is exactly another "abstract assumption you add on like another piece of chain which shackles your Thinking". You don't realize how many abstract assumptions you already implicitly hold in your CPP paradigm.

I explicitly stated the above in bold, which you apparently ignored or decided to interpret in the exact opposite way. My essays also explicitly survey a number of different 20th century thinkers who took completely different paths, in fact were not even aware of each other, and still converged on the same conclusions. That convergence does not mean we are restricted to "one path" any more than a civil engineer and an electrical engineer reaching the same conclusions does. This "one path" objection you are adding on for no apparent reason, other than disliking the conclusions, is the real abstract assumption here, not tied to any experience of the world.

[Eugene I]

I explicitly stated the above in bold, which you apparently ignored or decided to interpret in the exact opposite way. My essays also explicitly survey a number of different 20th century thinkers who took completely different paths, in fact were not even aware of each other, and still converged on the same conclusions. That convergence does not mean we are restricted to "one path" any more than a civil engineer and an electrical engineer reaching the same conclusions does. This "one path" objection you are adding on for no apparent reason, other than disliking the conclusions, is the real abstract assumption here, not tied to any experience of the world.

So you think that if some independent thinkers arrived at the same conclusions, it is a proof that their conclusions are true? Even though some other independent thinker arrive at different conclusions? This is what's called "confirmation bias" in science.

[Cleric K]

This is wonderful stuff, Cleric!

I did the exercise you propose (considering the thought "I think the speech") and I think I totally got it! I truly experienced the Creative Dynamism at work, like you say. Amazing!

Like you say, it's so simple that it's hard to believe. It was quite a surprise for me. When I read your description of the exercise my first reaction was "this is nonsense"... but it wasn't! When I actually closed my eyes and did the exercise, I got it. It really works. Thank you!

Now I can see, or at least glimpse, how this path of Thinking can actually lead to liberation, peace, harmony, etc.

This doesn't mean that I'm going to take that path. It doesn't feel right for me, personally (like I said before, it feels like "too much work"). But I'm quite convinced that it can be effective and liberating for those who feel an affinity to it.

I understand that you, like Ashvin, believe that there is only one path to the Truth, or to spiritual liberation. I rather think that there are many paths. Maybe all paths will eventually meet at some shared Truth, but maybe some of those paths will always have different perspectives, different ways of experiencing the one Truth. I personally think it's beautiful to have different paths we can follow, according to our personal preferences. And then we can have conversations like this, to "compare notes". I love it.

I'll finish by saying that the path I'm in (the practice of inquiry in the Diamond Approach) is not exactly how you imagine it. I gave a very rough description of it in my last reply. I'm only a DA student, not a teacher, so I'm not really able of explaining the practice properly. But it certainly doesn't imply adding additional layers of conceptual thought to our experience (like "this thought comes from my ego") or anything like that. It is a direct recognition of where the thoughts come from. This direct recognition often involves whole insights about our conditioning, about the way our experiences in early childhood (most usually with our parents) gave rise to the egoic structures that shape and limit our perceptions, emotions, thoughts, etc. I can't go into details here. But the end result is that you can actually gain access to the Universal Creative process that gave rise to those egoic structures. When you inquire deep enough, there are no blind spots left. You can actually get to see how the brain works.

The main difference, I think, between this path (the DA inquiry path) and the "Thinking path" you are following (does it have a proper name?) is that your path is a "hands-on" approach (you actively take control of your thoughts, seeking the forces that support you in your search of Peace, Love, etc., and resisting the forces that undermine you), while the DA path is a "hands-off" approach. In the Diamond Approach, there is no goal. You are not trying to get anywhere. You don't try to change your experience in any way. According to the DA, the attempt to change or manipulate our own experience is the main source of all our egoic conditioning and suffering. So in this kind of inquiry you just try to understand what is going on in your experience. That by itself is enough to open it up. Eventually, after working through layers and layers of psychological structures, you reach the Universal Consciousness and Creative Dynamism that is the fundamental reality, the true nature of everything.

Anyway. Like I said, I'm just a student, and I can't really do justice to this path. But it works wonderfully for me, so I can't help doing a little "propaganda" here.

But I fully respect this "Thinking path" of yours, and I'm very interested to hear about any spiritual realizations you may reach (or have reached already) by following it throroughly.

Adur,
I'm really glad you tried the exercise and could find something new in it.

Now I won't try to dissuade you about your chosen path. These things are very sensitive and are usually related with things we bring from past lives. I would like to only leave you with a thought.

The goal of the exercise is to help us discover that the Universal Creative process is living in us, to realize that the One Consciousness has a 'first-person' creative perspective and we can become 'concentric' to it, when we experience our thinking as a fully conscious creative process - in that instance we are the One Consciousness experiencing the creation of thoughts.

There isn't really any other conscious phenomena known to us that can give us direct experience of the creative perspective of the One Consciousness. You say "But the end result is that you can actually gain access to the Universal Creative process that gave rise to those egoic structures." That sounds great. But do we really realize what exactly we imply with the words 'gain access'? As I think you agree, the Universal Creative makes real sense only from its first-person perspective. Otherwise it acts on us as external Nature/God. If we expect that the 'end result' is that we experience some Cosmic processes that create the egoic structure in the way we experience how Sunlight warms a bowl of water, then we do attain to some kind of knowledge about this process but what about the actual first-person perspective of the Universal Creative? At what point our 'hands off' contemplating experience transforms into the Universal Creative? Because let's be clear - to understand in the true sense how the Universal Creative gives rise to anything it means that you have to experience from the first-person perspective this process. It would be as if you give rise to the phenomena.

So basically we already have access right here and right now to the Universal Creative. We have point of contact with it every time we are fully consciously involved in thinking. If we say "OK. I understand but this is only one of the possible paths. I don't feel inclined just yet to find my unity with the Universal Creative. I'll put aside my creative spiritual activity in which I am the Universal Creative and focus on clearing the ground and encompassing the totality of consciousness. Then at some future point I'll find again this "I am" although at this point I'm not sure what form that might take."

So this is the thought. Are we ignoring the only certain and directly experienceable place where we are one and the same with the Universal Creative, in order to postpone that unity towards some indeterminate future moment where we hope it will come to us from another direction, even if we can't even imagine what that could be?

I'm not asking for an answer. This question is something for you alone. A splinter in the mind that constantly reminds about itself.

And Thank you again for your thoughtful and considerate participation in these discussions. It's such a joy to communicate with people who actually read and comprehend even when it feels foreign to their chosen path!

(I'll address your question about spiritual realizations separately)

[Eugene I]

The goal of the exercise is to help us discover that the Universal Creative process is living in us, to realize that the One Consciousness has a 'first-person' creative perspective and we can become 'concentric' to it, when we experience our thinking as a fully conscious creative process - in that instance we are the One Consciousness experiencing the creation of thoughts.

There isn't really any other conscious phenomena known to us that can give us direct experience of the creative perspective of the One Consciousness. You say "But the end result is that you can actually gain access to the Universal Creative process that gave rise to those egoic structures." That sounds great. But do we really realize what exactly we imply with the words 'gain access'? As I think you agree, the Universal Creative makes real sense only from its first-person perspective. Otherwise it acts on us as external Nature/God. If we expect that the 'end result' is that we experience some Cosmic processes that create the egoic structure in the way we experience how Sunlight warms a bowl of water, then we do attain to some kind of knowledge about this process but what about the actual first-person perspective of the Universal Creative? At what point our 'hands off' contemplating experience transforms into the Universal Creative? Because let's be clear - to understand in the true sense how the Universal Creative gives rise to anything it means that you have to experience from the first-person perspective this process. It would be as if you give rise to the phenomena.

So basically we already have access right here and right now to the Universal Creative. We have point of contact with it every time we are fully consciously involved in thinking. If we say "OK. I understand but this is only one of the possible paths. I don't feel inclined just yet to find my unity with the Universal Creative. I'll put aside my creative spiritual activity in which I am the Universal Creative and focus on clearing the ground and encompassing the totality of consciousness. Then at some future point I'll find again this "I am" although at this point I'm not sure what form that might take."

So this is the thought. Are we ignoring the only certain and directly experienceable place where we are one and the same with the Universal Creative, in order to postpone that unity towards some indeterminate future moment where we hope it will come to us from another direction, even if we can't even imagine what that could be?

So, from the first-person direct experience we know that there is a universal creative process, and yet at the same time there is a multiplicity of personal subjective perspectives each performing its own local creative process (even though it is interconnected with other processes within the global and collective activity). No questions about that. But then you suggest that all these processes are heading to converge into a single synchronous spiritual activity process all going in the same direction with no creative diversity, and perhaps all personalized subjective perspectives melting into the single global one. For one, this is an abstract assumption. Even if we do see such globalization tendency, it does not mean that it is necessarily the ultimate global telos, it might be just a temporary byproduct of some higher meta-telos. Another thing: what was the point for the Universal Creative to split into the multiplicity of subjective perspectives only to eventually unite back into one global perspective, if such one/single global perspective was already there in the first place?

[Soul_of_Shu]

So basically we already have access right here and right now to the Universal Creative.

Seems like this is to say that we are never apart from the Creative Divine doing what the Divine imperatively does in Thinking up all this idea construction, including the curious confused idea that we are somehow other that That, and must figure out how to do what we're already doing ...