The Central Topic

[Soul_of_Shu]

Any hope we could let Cleric's and Eugene's latest posts (prior to this post) stand as reasonable summations of their respective takes on so-called 'veils', regarding their origin, telos, dispelling, overcoming, etc, and notwithstanding which one may or may not be most exacting, allow others to assess them accordingly, take away whatever stage-specific lesson may resonate, whatever they find helpful from each, without further claims of misrepresentation, evasion, subversion, etc? (Not bloody likely I hear y'all thinking )

[Cleric K]

That's not quite true. In the advanced stages of non-dual practices (Dzogchen in Buddhism or Sahaja Samadhi in Advaita) the non-dual state is active state with fully meta-conscious cognitive activity, including willing and thinking. But in the initial stages of practice the emphasis is on the passive state of just observation of the arising phenomena. The practice is gradually staged to allow to master it step by step. What you are referring to is only the initial passive stages. But even at the initial stages the conscious cognition of thinking activity is encouraged. For example, the Vipassana meditation involves the insight into the originations of thoughts and activity of thinking and willing, basically of everything that is going on in consciousness, in order to achieve the insight into their inter-connectedness and dependent origination and the activity of consciousness causing them to arise. That's a 2500 yrs old practice.

Anyway, there is a variety of veils, that's why it gets confusing. Yes, there are veils that you are describing in the realms of meanings that we could know but remain ignorant to, and I fully agree that when we humans develop our cognition we expand into these realms of meanings previously unknown to us. However, in the human form there are still certain limits to such expansion set by the veils that veil certain realms of reality from us, specifically the noncorporeal realms. I already suggested why there were put in place for a reason and we in general can not and are not supposed to break them, even though there are exceptions to that (there are indeed some reports of clairvoyance, plus all those NDE accounts etc). Again, one of the reasons for that is that in order to be able to focus and develop in certain dimensions, we need to limit ourselves in some other dimensions, it is a "microscope" effect. We humans are here in the "microscope" limited-focused mode where we can accomplish things that are not possible to accomplish without such focus in the noncorporeal forms. We need to master how to use such "microscope" mode to get the best of it instead of trying to break it. But by all means we can and we should expand our cognition into dimensions that are available to us in our human form, and that includes all the realms of meanings accessible to us.

The only thing that keeps your dual view from becoming non-dual is that you keep the realm of meaning to be categorically different from what you call noncorporeal realm. They are one and the same. It's the Deep MAL picture. The higher realms are the thought-time-waves within the deeper strata of the ideal world. I know that you'll object that we can't be certain if we're only imagining them in our private bubble of meaning while the real strata are behind the veil. When seen in this way, the veil is really our self-imagined Kantian wall, something which we erect for ourselves, behind which we imagine the true reality, without realizing the we already live in the only reality.

But this objection is based on misconception. It's assumed that the higher order meaning is simply more concepts in the intellect which we simply imagine to correspond to higher levels behind the veil. But this isn't so. Higher meaning is something different. I can only present this as an analogy. I math-illiterate man speaks with a mathematician, the latter may say "There's a mode/realm of cognition where thinking weaves in mathematical thoughts". The former says "how do you know that there's such a realm and not that you're simply fantasizing about it with your non-math thoughts?" I guess this makes it pretty obvious. The answer is that the realm is not defined by some special veil which separates it from the non-math realm but by the character of the thoughts themselves. If we think mathematically we're in the math realm. It forms continuum with the non-math realm. It's similar with the higher strata of reality. We know that we're there not because we perceive some visions which we interpret with our intellect but because we live in different kind of cognition. The realm is distinguished by the form of cognition, not by what we imagine to lie behind perceptions. In this mode we cognize not sensory-like phenomena which are strictly related to our bodily complex but processes that spread also outside the body. Furthermore we can't imagine the reality of that mode of cognition through arrangement of intellectual thoughts any more that we can imagine mathematical thoughts through arrangements of non-mathematical thoughts. We can approach that mode with analogies and metaphors (as we're doing here) but ultimately we must enter the higher forms of cognition to know them in their reality.

I'm meditation on something now, which I'll post to Mike. I hope it will give a little more practical sense for the way cognition changes.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Any hope we could let Cleric's and Eugene's latest posts (prior to this post) stand as reasonable summations of their respective takes on so-called 'veils', regarding their origin, telos, dispelling, overcoming, etc, and notwithstanding which one may or may not be most exacting, allow others to assess them accordingly, take away whatever stage-specific lesson may resonate, whatever they find helpful from each, without further claims of misrepresentation, evasion, subversion, etc? (Not bloody likely I hear y'all thinking )

See, Shu says to Shu, I told ya so

[Eugene I.]

The only thing that keeps your dual view from becoming non-dual is that you keep the realm of meaning to be categorically different from what you call noncorporeal realm. They are one and the same. It's the Deep MAL picture. The higher realms are the thought-time-waves within the deeper strata of the ideal world. I know that you'll object that we can't be certain if we're only imagining them in our private bubble of meaning while the real strata are behind the veil. When seen in this way, the veil is really our self-imagined Kantian wall, something which we erect for ourselves, behind which we imagine the true reality, without realizing the we already live in the only reality.

But this objection is based on misconception. It's assumed that the higher order meaning is simply more concepts in the intellect which we simply imagine to correspond to higher levels behind the veil. But this isn't so. Higher meaning is something different. I can only present this as an analogy. I math-illiterate man speaks with a mathematician, the latter may say "There's a mode/realm of cognition where thinking weaves in mathematical thoughts". The former says "how do you know that there's such a realm and not that you're simply fantasizing about it with your non-math thoughts?" I guess this makes it pretty obvious. The answer is that the realm is not defined by some special veil which separates it from the non-math realm but by the character of the thoughts themselves. If we think mathematically we're in the math realm. It forms continuum with the non-math realm. It's similar with the higher strata of reality. We know that we're there not because we perceive some visions which we interpret with our intellect but because we live in different kind of cognition. The realm is distinguished by the form of cognition, not by what we imagine to lie behind perceptions. In this mode we cognize not sensory-like phenomena which are strictly related to our bodily complex but processes that spread also outside the body. Furthermore we can't imagine the reality of that mode of cognition through arrangement of intellectual thoughts any more that we can imagine mathematical thoughts through arrangements of non-mathematical thoughts. We can approach that mode with analogies and metaphors (as we're doing here) but ultimately we must enter the higher forms of cognition to know them in their reality.

I'm meditation on something now, which I'll post to Mike. I hope it will give a little more practical sense for the way cognition changes.

Of course the meanings are categorically the same in all realms, even though they are different in their qualities. E.g. mathematical meanings are different in qualities from musical etc. The "veils" are only disconnects in communication channels. For example, let's say I have some special meanings in my consciousness right now. But, unless you are telepathic, you in your human form are "veiled" from directly perceiving the meaning that I have. You have no way of knowing them unless I communicate them to you, even though they are categorically the same results of thinking activity as the meanings that you may have. No matter how you try to imagine the meanings that I have with all your intuitive and imaginative high-order cognition, you still can not know them unless I communicate them to you. In the same way we in our human form are "veiled" from certain noncorporeal realms of meanings because the communication channels are temporarily "veiled" (turned off, and for a reason!). We could know them if we could communicate to them, they are possible for us to cognate, but we can't do it now because they are not communicable to us in our human form. So, "veiling" some communication channels in the universe of meanings does not create any dualities, it only creates (temporary) communication disconnects.

[AshvinP]

The only thing that keeps your dual view from becoming non-dual is that you keep the realm of meaning to be categorically different from what you call noncorporeal realm. They are one and the same. It's the Deep MAL picture. The higher realms are the thought-time-waves within the deeper strata of the ideal world. I know that you'll object that we can't be certain if we're only imagining them in our private bubble of meaning while the real strata are behind the veil. When seen in this way, the veil is really our self-imagined Kantian wall, something which we erect for ourselves, behind which we imagine the true reality, without realizing the we already live in the only reality.

But this objection is based on misconception. It's assumed that the higher order meaning is simply more concepts in the intellect which we simply imagine to correspond to higher levels behind the veil. But this isn't so. Higher meaning is something different. I can only present this as an analogy. I math-illiterate man speaks with a mathematician, the latter may say "There's a mode/realm of cognition where thinking weaves in mathematical thoughts". The former says "how do you know that there's such a realm and not that you're simply fantasizing about it with your non-math thoughts?" I guess this makes it pretty obvious. The answer is that the realm is not defined by some special veil which separates it from the non-math realm but by the character of the thoughts themselves. If we think mathematically we're in the math realm. It forms continuum with the non-math realm. It's similar with the higher strata of reality. We know that we're there not because we perceive some visions which we interpret with our intellect but because we live in different kind of cognition. The realm is distinguished by the form of cognition, not by what we imagine to lie behind perceptions. In this mode we cognize not sensory-like phenomena which are strictly related to our bodily complex but processes that spread also outside the body. Furthermore we can't imagine the reality of that mode of cognition through arrangement of intellectual thoughts any more that we can imagine mathematical thoughts through arrangements of non-mathematical thoughts. We can approach that mode with analogies and metaphors (as we're doing here) but ultimately we must enter the higher forms of cognition to know them in their reality.

I'm meditation on something now, which I'll post to Mike. I hope it will give a little more practical sense for the way cognition changes.

Of course the meanings are categorically the same in all realms, even though they are different in their qualities. E.g. mathematical meanings are different in qualities from musical etc. The "veils" are only disconnects in communication channels. For example, let's say I have some special meanings in my consciousness right now. But, unless you are telepathic, you in your human form are "veiled" from directly perceiving the meaning that I have. You have no way of knowing them unless I communicate them to you, even though they are categorically the same results of thinking activity as the meanings that you may have. No matter how you try to imagine the meanings that I have with all your intuitive and imaginative high-order cognition, you still can not know them unless I communicate them to you. In the same way we in our human form are "veiled" from certain noncorporeal realms of meanings because the communication channels are temporarily "veiled" (turned off, and for a reason!). We could know them if we could communicate to them, they are possible for us to cognate, but we can't do it now because they are not communicable to us in our human form. So, "veiling" some communication channels in the universe of meanings does not create any dualities, it only creates (temporary) communication disconnects.

Meanings are not reducible to other meanings.

You say everyone has their own meanings.

Somehow you don't even perceive overlap of mathematical and musical meanings...

Your position is dualism/pluralism with all sorts of hard problems.

This is simple. Cleric is trying to help you understand what you are practically saying in every comment, but you refuse to accept you may have a blind spot. That is absolute impossibility for you. We already know from your comments here and email to BK this is about your dislike of "cults" i.e. any detailed spirtual outlook, and not about logical philosophical or metphysical arguments. Why you are even pretending anymore? It's exhausting.

[Soul_of_Shu]

and email to BK this is about your dislike of "cults"

Damn ... did you really have to remind us of that fiasco

[AshvinP]

and email to BK this is about your dislike of "cults"

Damn ... did you really have to remind us of that fiasco

Apparently. I bet Cleric could program a bot to substitute for Eugene at this point, given the perfectly predictable stock arguments seemingly pulled out of a hat in response to him. It's all become so... fake.

[Soul_of_Shu]

and email to BK this is about your dislike of "cults"

Damn ... did you really have to remind us of that fiasco

Apparently. I bet Cleric could program a bot to substitute for Eugene at this point, given the perfectly predictable stock arguments seemingly pulled out of a hat in response to him. It's all become so... fake.

Well, certainly always one more getting an edge in word-wise ... as if to keep the cognitive disconnect cleaved.

[Eugene I.]

I'm meditation on something now, which I'll post to Mike. I hope it will give a little more practical sense for the way cognition changes.

Cleric, I apologize for missing your post here. You explained it well and as I read it, I think there are some takeaways. One is to learn from Steiner's mistakes and understand why he made them so that we don't do them again. As you said earlier, there are meanings that belong to the "isolated abstractions" (Fourier domain) and meanings that belong to the Absolute Idea ("time domain"). You were right to say that it is easier to cognate the meanings belonging to the soul-spirit domain compared to the meanings of the elemental domain. This is exactly because the latter are "veiled" from us by more structural layers that are not possible for us in human form to penetrate through with our cognition (or as I said - we have no open communication channels to those layers). The epistemological problem is how to know if a meaning that we cognize belongs to the "isolated abstractions" (Fourier domain) or meanings that belong to the Absolute Idea ("time domain") category. Steiner's example shows that it is indeed not easy to distinguish and even his sense of higher-cognitive intuition failed him. We can't assume that every one of our high-cognition intuition automatically belongs to the domain of the Absolute Idea just because we believe it is. There needs to be a way to somehow verify or at least justify it, otherwise it is not science but just a dreamworld of a variety of personal beliefs and intuitions. Science is about acquiring new meanings and intuitions and verifying them against reality. If we only keep intuitions-making and drop the verification part, it is not science anymore.

[Anthony66]

Almost all my posts here have always been focused on one single topic. Those who are able to grasp these things will see that I've been talking about the same thing from many different angles. I don't do that because I pretend to be the first to know of such things but because I realize the urgency of the times and how time slips through our fingers while we serve centuries old mental habits. Let me make one more attempt to point attention to that central theme.

Cleric,

I've been reading carefully some of the dialog associated with this thread and a few more pieces have come together for me. I certainly grok TCT, I might even be able to use my own words and concepts to articulate it.

My "question of the day" pertains to the truths that can be extracted from the perceptions in front of the veil, without development of the depth thinking. I think we agree that our science is very successful and taking our fragments of perception and establishing horizontal relationships and laws that appear to govern these. But what about discerning spiritual truths or evaluating the various religious claims, for example the propositions, "Jesus died for our sins", "Jesus rose bodily from the dead" or "there is an un-caused first mover"?

This is the domain of the religious apologist and they operate in the domain of the horizontal. The inferences they make are convincing to some and belief results in changes to willful actions. But being devoid of the vertical element, are such arguments of little weight for the esoterist? How do you engage with such claims?