Absent any and all idea construction what remains?

[Soul_of_Shu]

Yes, every state of being is a version of the Now. In certain sense it can be said that our Now is the interference of all other potential Nows. Some Nows, as ours, feel to be experienced in great differentiation. There's potential Now where all Nows nest together as if concentrically. We can call that Eternity. So we're always in an eternal Now but it is being experienced as memory integration process, gradually building up concentrically in the funnel. It's like eternity is decomposed into Nows which find themselves in different relations, just like white light is decomposed in colors. Every Now shares its center with the eternal Now which encompasses all states at once. Our Now too can be seen as the interference of all Nows but they are in different 'phase' relationships and we see them as if separated in Space and Time. Space and Time are really phase shifted wave phenomena. We need to put the Nows back together, make them concentric.

Of course, as has been spoken several times, we must be very careful when we conceive of the eternal state. If our intellect remains in the blind spot we imagine that we can be in the eternal state while the clock continues to tick.
viewtopic.php?p=10498#p10498
There's no absolute clock! Time is the experience of implosion of Nows, integrating towards eternity, which knows all Nows simultaneously.

It's not an easy topic. The only way to approach it is through (T). Once we begin to gain consciouseness of the depth rhythms within which our thinking flows, we also begin to understand the vertical nature of Time. As long as we're entrained in the sequential intellect we can't really break loose from the Newtonian clock. Recently I used the image that in Imagination we begin to Think in chords, while our intellect seems like their arpeggiations. Without living grasp of this non-linear Time (nesting of Nows), the Origin will always seem like a specific point along the absolute Newtonian time arrow. We need to curve that arrow, just like we learned to curve the flat Earth. We can speak of edge of the Earth (beginning, end) only in the flat paradigm. It becomes meaningless in curved Earth. Similarly, we seek point of beginning of Time only if we hold fast to the flat arrow. The more we rise in the depth curvature, the more we find that the beginning and the end are simultaneous and all evolutionary arcs are infinite ways of integrating the differentiated Nows into Eternity.

The exclusion of all idea constructions (neti-neti) is only a certain phase towards realization of non-dual nature of reality including the world of forms and ideas. Rupert explains it quite well here

In at least this version of Now we seem to be on the same page

[Eugene I.]

In at least this version of Now we seem to be on the same page

Cool!

[Cleric K]

The exclusion of all idea constructions (neti-neti) is only a certain phase towards realization of non-dual nature of reality including the world of forms and ideas. Rupert explains it quite well here

In at least this version of Now we seem to be on the same page

As said in the other thread, the primary task today is to get an understanding of the microcosmic and Macrocosmic aspects of the funnel. We can very easily convince ourselves that in instructions like the above, these are quite smeared out.

I've pointed attention to this many times. At what point in the above exercise, we understand that awareness is indeed One? I'm not speaking about an experience reinforcing our belief in Oneness but some actual experience which somehow gives us the immediate knowledge of the Oneness of all? It's quite clear that the only way would be to expand into states where we begin to find the World within the same our conscious space. This is not what the exercises lead to.

Finally, having realized the unlimited nature of awareness, we make a return to the
world of objects and see all objects as made out of awareness.

This is very misleading. We can only speak with confidence about the appearance of our own thoughts. Only for them we know the (T) experience which explains them. To say that the objects are made out of awareness is general, intuitively felt truth but when presented in the above way it leads to very serious hinderance for further development, because it leaves us with the impression that we actually know what the objects are made of. In fact we know nothing. When we say that the table is made of 'awareness' it tells us no more than if we say it's made of 'matter'. If we are honest we must concede that we don't know how sensory perceptions manifest. To speak in the quoted way is like imagining that illuminating a dark room explains the existence of the furniture as coalescence of darkness. We mistake the entering of phenomena in the field of consciousness with their explanation.

Please get this right. I'm not bashing Spira or anyone else on some emotional grounds. I'm not even speaking about Spira in particular. This is a common symptom. The important thing is to understand what is being conflated in these flattened views. All we need is clear unprejudiced thinking. It's perfectly clear that the preoccupation with the so called pure awareness leads only to the threshold where the intellect is silenced. This is the reason why people like Sam Harris can have very different interpretations of these experiences. It is actually fortunate that there are counter-balances like Harris because they serve as a reminder that observing phenomena disappearing and appearing in awareness doesn't really tell us that much. Seriously, put any spiritual inclinations to the side for a moment and think about it. If the materialistic paradigm was to be true, then how would the mystical state differ? Once the intellect collapses, we enter a state without spatial dimensions, without even sense of time, but why couldn't this structureless/boundless brain state be falsely interpreted (once the intellect gets back online) as actual Spiritual Oneness?

These are serious questions that need serious answers. That's why I spoke about the subtle objectification. Even though in the mystical state itself there is no objectification, in the moment the "I" tries to understand its essence, it calls itself 'awareness' and all the world is only shapes in that awareness. And I repeat that this can be seen as right from the perspective of the Divine Word, where Spiritual Activity really speaks forth our spiritual stellar lattice but we need to understand in what relations we find ourselves with these levels of being. This is the primary task today. To find the relation of our own thinking voice which speaks words in the funnel and understands itself as 'awareness', to the hierarchical periphery of the funnel which speaks the world content of our consciousness.

Only when we begin to grow into the depth of the funnel we attain to the true structures within which world phenomena flow. This is very different from simply seeing phenomena coming and going, as we see the fly. Calling the fly 'object made of awareness' doesn't give us the (T) experience of its inner spiritual nature which extends in Time and guides its flight path. I understand perfectly well the appeal of exercises as the above, but what they really do is inflate the ego and lead one to imagine that just because they imagine objects as floating pieces of awareness, they are really standing at the level where they originate. This leads to the inner stance which imagines that it has already expanded to encompass the sphere of awareness and it is now only left to add more details to the picture. In other words, we imagine that when we see the fly, we're already at the correct vantage point if we imagine it as an object made of awareness entering consciousness. We imagine that it is only a matter of refining that object such that we understand the exact way this fly is created. But this is nothing other than the ego hyperinflating and imagining the world as coming and going of microcosmic thoughts. If we don't gain consciousness of this desire to fit the world within our own sphere of awareness, we'll continue to behave as if we're at the apex of the awareness cone. We're blinding ourselves about the hidden forces which make us look only down, instead of realizing the depth hierarchy within which our thinking (including the one that imagines everything simply as objects of awareness) flows.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Cleric ... One has to consider though that Rupert is always keeping in mind the audience he is addressing, which if they were to encounter the ideas you are expressing here, their attention would be quickly lost. Indeed, just as with my experience, I was once drawn to Rupert-like teachings to lead one to and through a certain stage-specific area of understanding, which was needed at the time, so as to be primed to venture beyond that stage. Had I somehow missed that teaching, the ideas you are exploring would have just seemed nonsensical. Rather those ideas are now more approachable because I came at them gradually, primed and ready to move toward them, only once I had taken what was needed from the kind of teaching that RS offers. And I suspect that may well be the case for others too. Not to say that must be the case for everyone, as due to some other incarnational factors, some may already be predisposed toward what you are offering, without having to be primed now. But if Rupert's teaching is what they're first drawn to, I trust there is valid reason for that, just as there will also be valid reason to move beyond it.

[Eugene I.]

It is strange to see so much rejection and resistance to the nonduality by anthroposophists. There might be some deeper spiritual reasons for that, the division may originate in the noncorporeal realms, who knows...

It's interesting to note that Steiner called the afterlife realm "kamaloka" (which literally means "the realm of desires" in Sanskrit), but according to the Buddhist cosmology that realm belongs to Brahmaloka - the realm of Brahma - the deity-creator of the astral/etheric/material worlds, with a hierarchy of his servants, and this is the realm of dualities belonging to samsara. No wonder their philosophy is so opposed to nonduality. This is of course quite esoteric, but still...

I was trying to unify the nondual and Steinerian worldviews into an integrated one, but I think Cleric is right, they are incompatible. And the difference is not simply philosophical, they represent completely different sets of spiritual goals and values.

[Soul_of_Shu]

It is strange to see so much rejection and resistance to the nonduality by anthroposophists. There might be some deeper spiritual reasons for that, the division may originate in the noncorporeal realms, who knows...

I don't really get it either. To use a simple analogy, one can use a perfectly valid road map of Italy to get to the city limits of Venice, but beyond that point that map will not be relevant. Then a map of Venice is relevant ... albeit even then, Venice is so labyrinth-like I still got lost. The only way to really get familiar with Venice is to live there.

[Eugene I.]

I don't really get it either. To use a simple analogy, one can use a perfectly valid road map of Italy to get to the city limits of Venice, but beyond that point that map will not be relevant. Then a map of Venice is relevant ... albeit even then, Venice is so labyrinth-like I still got lost. The only way to really get familiar with Venice is to live there.

Well, the main question is where someone is heading to, what is the goal of the path. The maps will be used according to and depending on the destination. So, if one is heading to Germany, the map of Italy would be irrelevant there (or only useful up to the border).

The Buddhists actually knew it well, in their cosmology the samsaric and nirvanic realms/dimensions do not overlap and pretty much orthogonal to each other, and so their maps are also incompatible and irrelevant to each other.

We discussed this before, there is a popular "Perennial" view (formulated by Huxley) that all spiritual paths/traditions/religions lead to the same spiritual goal and destination, each going through its own slightly different path. It is based on the assumption that the whole universe is evolving towards one and the same ultimate telos and state of being. But I don't think it is actually true, and the incompatibility between the views of anthroposophy and nonduality is a good example. So, we have to live with these incompatibilities. One way is that each path claims that it is the only true path and the other ones are at best incomplete or at worst plain wrong dead ends. In this way there will always be opposition and conflict. The other way is to accept a variety of equally valid but different and incompatible paths. At least this may lead to a peaceful co-existence, but it is understandable that the views of certain paths are structured such that they can not accept such pluralism of spiritual paths and teloses. But still I hope some common grounds and shared values and views can be found.

[Soul_of_Shu]

I've no interest in dissuading anyone from the path they happen to be drawn to. I surely took some detours that no doubt others would have considered misguided and counterproductive, viewing it as foolish intransigence, which in retrospect I still wouldn't change, because I find the lesson learned therein, is still important now.

[AshvinP]

Cleric ... One has to consider though that Rupert is always keeping in mind the audience he is addressing, which if they were to encounter the ideas you are expressing here, their attention would be quickly lost. Indeed, just as with my experience, I was once drawn to Rupert-like teachings to lead one to and through a certain stage-specific area of understanding, which was needed at the time, so as to be primed to venture beyond that stage. Had I somehow missed that teaching, the ideas you are exploring would have just seemed nonsensical. Rather those ideas are now more approachable because I came at them gradually, primed and ready to move toward them, only once I had taken what was needed from the kind of teaching that RS offers. And I suspect that may well be the case for others too. Not to say that must be the case for everyone, as due to some other incarnational factors, some may already be predisposed toward what you are offering, without having to be primed now. But if Rupert's teaching is what they're first drawn to, I trust there is valid reason for that, just as there will also be valid reason to move beyond it.

Isn't it possible your advances in understanding Cleric's illustrations and what they are pointing to came despite being "primed" by Spira. There is a pretty clear pattern I have observed where people begin to see the logic of what Cleric is pointing to, but then quickly lapse into "all is One" smeared out nondual spiritualism, even though his posts are explicitly cautioning against that and giving clear reasons why. I think the path to concrete Thinking would be considerably easier for those who altogether avoid nondual mystical teaching of the Spira sort, because it is nearly the opposite approach of Cleric's in many ways. I can think of no other reason why Eugene has failed to understand everything Cleric has written after an entire year, but has convinced himself that he does, no matter what or how much others tell him he has not. This seems to be a hallmark of prideful nondual spiritualism where the practitioner simply cannot accept that there are modes of spiritual activity which they have not yet experienced or understood, and which cannot be reduced to their own intellectual concepts.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Isn't it possible your advances in understanding Cleric's illustrations and what they are pointing to came despite being "primed" by Spira.

Well, it wasn't Spira I was drawn to, but a teaching the long predates him. And yes, I feel it was vital to first have that understanding of the primacy of Consciousness, and that without that being firmly established, anything else would have been a bridge too far. Mind you, it's never been in my nature to latch onto any given teacher, or teaching, as the be all and end all, as some seem to be prone to do. Likewise, I'm not about to become attached to Cleric either.