Idealism, Materialism and Zen

[Eugene I.]

There is a sphere of laws for the human idea ("conditioned world" with "fabricated laws") and a sphere for the "absolute Thinking", and the two spheres are entirely separated from one another.

They are two aspects of one and the same reality of Thinking/Consciousness. One aspect is unconditioned and invariant, the other one is conditioned and variable/impermanent, but there is no duality or separation between them. This oneness of them is not an abstract concept, it can be known with supra-conceptual direct and experiential Gnosis/Jnana, or Kensho in Japanese Zen (which closes any Kantian gap). But the duality that you see here is certainly an abstraction.

[AshvinP]

There is a sphere of laws for the human idea ("conditioned world" with "fabricated laws") and a sphere for the "absolute Thinking", and the two spheres are entirely separated from one another.

They are two aspects of one and the same reality of Thinking/Consciousness. One aspect is unconditioned and invariant, the other one is conditioned and variable/impermanent, but there is no duality or separation between them. This oneness of them is not an abstract concept, it can be known with supra-conceptual direct and experiential Gnosis/Jnana, or Kensho in Japanese Zen (which closes any Kantian gap). But the duality that you see here is certainly an abstraction.

As we have pointed out often, this ignores the depth structure 'between' the "unconditioned and invariant" eternal Idea, and the "conditioned and variable" human ideas. The intellect, which is also still interpreting the mystical experience, has flattened out the Cosmos and its polar relation of One-Many. When it is flattened out, i.e. the depth structure is removed, and the concept inevitably lapses into dualism and abstractions. There is an entire gradient of spiritual activity which exists between the poles of the Cosmic feminine and masculine, as Cleric indicated before. To perceive this gradient in a concrete way, we must be willing to freely place the intellect in service to a higher Imaginative thinking; to develop the soul organ ("philosophic organ" below) for spiritual sight.

"Socrates in Plato shows, that an ignorant slave may be brought to understand and of himself to solve the most difficult geometrical problem. Socrates drew the figures for the slave in the sand. The disciples of the critical philosophy could likewise represent the origin of our representations in copper-plates; but no one has yet attempted it, and it would be utterly useless... The sense, the inward organ, for it is not yet born in him. So is there many a one among us... to whom the philosophic organ is entirely wanting. To such a man philosophy is a mere play of words and notions, like a theory of music to the deaf, or like the geometry of light to the blind."

- Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Biographia Literaria (1817)

[Eugene I.]

No, the depth structure of the Cosmos (of the conditioned world) is always there, and the nondual Gnosis does not deny or ignore it in any way, but it still lies within the Cosmos in its 2D plane of existence (of ideas and appearances). But there is another depth structure extending in the 3-rd dimension of the existential aspect of reality. These two depth structures do not exclude or flatten each other, but complement each other so that the knowledge of both dimensional depths restore the knowing of the 3D-fullness and depth of reality as a whole.

[Starbuck]

Some great contribution in this thread.


It does seem to be the same old question. Using duality bound language to affirm an unconditioned reality beyond duality. Good luck with that!

[Cleric K]

No, the depth structure of the Cosmos (of the conditioned world) is always there, and the nondual Gnosis does not deny or ignore it in any way, but it still lies within the Cosmos in its 2D plane of existence (of ideas and appearances). But there is another depth structure extending in the 3-rd dimension of the existential aspect of reality. These two depth structures do not exclude or flatten each other, but complement each other so that the knowledge of both dimensional depths restore the knowing of the 3D-fullness and depth of reality as a whole.

How what you call 2D conditioned world is created? It's fairly obvious that it is not created by intellectual thoughts. Instead, the latter are only tiny ripples which our spirit speaks. We can't say we create even our character, our sympathies, antipathies, desires, preferences, interests. Instead, our activity is being funneled by these layers. Even less we can say that we create the life processes, not to mention the physical forms.

All the latter things, you claim belong the the depth which lies within the 2D plane of the Cosmos. Yet this is the only real depth we can explore. Furthermore, the more we do that, the more we find the levels of consciousness which are indeed in position to speak forth life and worlds.

So where do you place, for example, the beings which support the life process of the plant world? Do they belong to the 2D plane too? Or they already extend toward what you call 3D?

[Eugene I.]

How what you call 2D conditioned world is created? It's fairly obvious that it is not created by intellectual thoughts. Instead, the latter are only tiny ripples which our spirit speaks. We can't say we create even our character, our sympathies, antipathies, desires, preferences, interests. Instead, our activity is being funneled by these layers. Even less we can say that we create the life processes, not to mention the physical forms.

All the latter things, you claim belong the depth which lies within the 2D plane of the Cosmos. Yet this is the only real depth we can explore. Furthermore, the more we do that, the more we find the levels of consciousness which are indeed in position to speak forth life and worlds.

So where do you place, for example, the beings which support the life process of the plant world? Do they belong to the 2D plane too? Or they already extend toward what you call 3D?

The 2D world of conditioned existence is created by creative activity of Thinking/Consciousness. The Thinking itself, its existence, awareness and willing/cognitive ability do not belong to the conditioned existence, it is unconditioned.

So where do you place, for example, the beings which support the life process of the plant world? Do they belong to the 2D plane too? Or they already extend toward what you call 3D?

Any beings are the activities of the same Thinking. Their activity and its outcomes happen in the 2D world of conditioned existence. The difference is that some of them may realize that they are not just the activities, but they are primarily That (the Thinking-Beingness itself) which manifest all activities and experiences them. In the former case their realm of knowledge is contained in the 2D world, in the latter case it extends to the 3-rd dimension of Thinking knowing itself. I don't have direct communication with those beings so I cannot assess their realm of knowledge, but I would assume, since they are elemental, it's likely limited to the 2D.

[Eugene I.]

It is instructive to look at Steiner's vs Fichte's views on the dichotomy of cognition and the nature/unity of Thinking.

Attend to yourself: turn your attention away from everything that surrounds you and toward your inner life; this is the demand that philosophy makes on its disciple. Our concern is not with anything that lies outside, but only with yourself. This science presupposes a completely new inner sense organ, through which a new world is revealed which does not exist for the ordinary man at all.

The Fichte's "new sense organ" is pointing to the Gnosis/Jnana - Consciousness/Thinking direct experiential knowing of itself.

Steiner in PoF suggests that Fichte is mistaking - missing the role of the cognition in the wholeness of Consciousness:

Even if the I is free insofar as its own activity is concerned, nevertheless the I cannot but
posit something. It cannot posit “activity, as such, by itself,” but only a definite activity …
Unless the I sets to work on something given which it posits, it can do “nothing,” and
therefore cannot posit either. Fichte’s own principle actually shows this: the I posits its
existence. Existence is a category. This means we have arrived at our principle: the activity
of the I is to posit, by a free decision, the concepts and ideas of the given. Fichte arrives at
this conclusion only because he unconsciously set out to prove that the I “exists.” Had he
worked out the concept of cognition, he would have arrived at the true starting point for a
theory of knowledge, namely: the I posits cognition.

In self-observation the activity of the I is actually seen, not one-sidedly turned in a
particular direction, not as merely positing existence, but revealing many aspects of itself as
it strives to grasp directly the world-content in thinking. Self-observation reveals the I
engaged in the activity of building up the world picture by combining the given with
concepts. For someone who has not elaborated the above considerations for himself,
however, and who therefore does not know that the I only arrives at the full content of
reality when it approaches the given with its thought-forms — for him the process of
knowledge appears to consist of spinning the world out of the I itself. This is why Fichte
sees the world-picture more and more as a construction of the I. He emphasizes ever more
strongly that it is essential for the science of knowledge to awaken the faculty for watching
the I while it constructs the world. He who is able to do this appears to Fichte to be at a
higher stage of knowledge than someone who can see only the construction, only the
finished product … Ordinary consciousness sees only what is posited [was gesetzt ist],
what is in some way or other determined. It lacks insight into the antecedent, into the
ground — that is, why something is posited in just the way it is, and not otherwise. To
secure knowledge of these antecedents is, for Fichte, the task of a completely new sense
organ.

No matter from what aspect Fichte is considered, we shall find that his line of thought gains
power and life when we think of the activity of the I, which he presents as gray and empty
of content, as filled and organized by what we have called the process of cognition.

The fact that the I is freely able to become active in itself makes it possible for it to produce
the category of cognition through self-determination; in the rest of the world, by objective
necessity the categories are connected with the given corresponding to them. It must be the
task of ethics and metaphysics to investigate the nature of this free self-determination on
the basis of this theory of knowledge. These sciences will also have to investigate whether
the I can objectify ideas other than those of cognition. The present discussion shows that
the I is free when it cognizes, when it objectifies the ideas of cognition. For when the
directly given and the thought-form belonging to it are united by the I in the process of
cognition, then the union of these two elements of reality — which otherwise would remain
forever separated in consciousness — can only take place though a free act.

Steiner is right, Fichte indeed misses the role of cognition as an inseparable aspect of Thinking. Yet, Steiner himself misses the role of the "new sense organ" - the direct Gnosis of Thinking knowing itself regardless of the cognition. So, that aspect missed, in Steiner's view, it is only cognition that can restore the unity of the given and the thought-form. In reality it is both - the unity it always there and is known directly by Gnosis, but complementary to that, it can be also known by cognition. These two do not contradict but complement each other, and in reality they are never separate anyway, because as soon as Thinking realizes itself through the awareness of Gnosis, it immediately embraces it with cognition.

[AshvinP]

Any beings are the activities of the same Thinking. Their activity and its outcomes happen in the 2D world of conditioned existence. The difference is that some of them may realize that they are not just the activities, but they are primarily That (the Thinking-Beingness itself) which manifest all activities and experiences them. In the former case their realm of knowledge is contained in the 2D world, in the latter case it extends to the 3-rd dimension of Thinking knowing itself. I don't have direct communication with those beings so I cannot assess their realm of knowledge, but I would assume, since they are elemental, it's likely limited to the 2D.

So you assume the beings responsible for the rich plant kingdom which envelops the planet Earth as her breathing life-process, are limited to the "2D world" while we atomic human egos, with our mystical 'knowing', who are entirely dependent on the plant kingdom for our own life, are operating in the "3D world" beyond their grasp? That really captures the egoic nature of the intellect which considers itself at the apex of evolution, and which also mirrors the materialist understanding of evolution.

[Cleric K]

How what you call 2D conditioned world is created? It's fairly obvious that it is not created by intellectual thoughts. Instead, the latter are only tiny ripples which our spirit speaks. We can't say we create even our character, our sympathies, antipathies, desires, preferences, interests. Instead, our activity is being funneled by these layers. Even less we can say that we create the life processes, not to mention the physical forms.

All the latter things, you claim belong the depth which lies within the 2D plane of the Cosmos. Yet this is the only real depth we can explore. Furthermore, the more we do that, the more we find the levels of consciousness which are indeed in position to speak forth life and worlds.

So where do you place, for example, the beings which support the life process of the plant world? Do they belong to the 2D plane too? Or they already extend toward what you call 3D?

The 2D world of conditioned existence is created by creative activity of Thinking/Consciousness. The thinking itself, its existence, awareness and willing do not belong to the conditioned existence, it is unconditioned.

So where do you place, for example, the beings which support the life process of the plant world? Do they belong to the 2D plane too? Or they already extend toward what you call 3D?

Any beings are the activities of the same Thinking. Their activity and its outcomes happen in the 2D world of conditioned existence. The difference is that some of them may realize that they are not just the activities, but they are primarily That (the Thinking-Beingness itself) which manifest all activities and experiences them. In the former case their realm of knowledge is contained in the 2D world, in the latter case it extends to the 3-rd dimension of Thinking knowing itself. I don't have direct communication with those beings so I cannot assess their realm of knowledge, but I would assume, since they are elemental, it's likely limited to the 2D.

A lot of the problems come from the strong dichotomy between conditioned and unconditioned. Practically every form of spiritual activity operates within certain context. Only the Absolute can be said to be truly unconditioned, since it is all potential at once. But at the same time this is not a state of being that can be conceived. We can think about that state but we can't say "What I think now is unconditioned". The very fact that we are phase-locked to a perspective following a line of spiritual metamorphosis, already shows that we're operating within certain spiritual constraints. If that was not the case we would be able to jump to any conceivable state of being, anywhere in space and time, in any metaverse we want.

For example, even if I experience samadhi, my whole existence is still conditioned, since I continue my life on Earth. It's true that my thinking has climbed higher and has undressed many sheaths of conditioning but we can't say that we're now truly unconditioned. There are still deeper layers of conditioning, including deeper sympathies and antipathies, our life and physical sheaths, our temporal context. Knowing that the absolute unconditioned exists, doesn't mean that we operate from these heights. This is what is being repeated here over and over again. We have truly practical, communicable, verifiable methods through which our spiritual activity can shed more and more of the cocoons of conditioning. Not in theory but as real, life-transformative inner path. Yet you say that all this belongs to the 2D plane and it misses the existential growth along the 3D dimension. OK then. So tell us what are the real steps along this path perpendicular to the plane? If this direction truly leads to the greater depth of reality it should be possible to describe the types of effort we need to apply and the general milestones along that path. So far we hear only the most vague generalities concerning 'experiencing' and 'beingness' without any clue how this manifests in our T, F, W life, besides to the fact that we believe we're no longer conditioned by anything.

[Eugene I.]

A lot of the problems come from the strong dichotomy between conditioned and unconditioned. Practically every form of spiritual activity operates within certain context. Only the Absolute can be said to be truly unconditioned, since it is all potential at once. But at the same time this is not a state of being that can be conceived. We can think about that state but we can't say "What I think now is unconditioned". The very fact that we are phase-locked to a perspective following a line of spiritual metamorphosis, already shows that we're operating within certain spiritual constraints. If that was not the case we would be able to jump to any conceivable state of being, anywhere in space and time, in any metaverse we want.

For example, even if I experience samadhi, my whole existence is still conditioned, since I continue my life on Earth. It's true that my thinking has climbed higher and has undressed many sheaths of conditioning but we can't say that we're now truly unconditioned. There are still deeper layers of conditioning, including deeper sympathies and antipathies, our life and physical sheaths, our temporal context. Knowing that the absolute unconditioned exists, doesn't mean that we operate from these heights. This is what is being repeated here over and over again. We have truly practical, communicable, verifiable methods through which our spiritual activity can shed more and more of the cocoons of conditioning. Not in theory but as real, life-transformative inner path. Yet you say that all this belongs to the 2D plane and it misses the existential growth along the 3D dimension. OK then. So tell us what are the real steps along this path perpendicular to the plane? If this direction truly leads to the greater depth of reality it should be possible to describe the types of effort we need to apply and the general milestones along that path. So far we hear only the most vague generalities concerning 'experiencing' and 'beingness' without any clue how this manifests in our T, F, W life, besides to the fact that we believe we're no longer conditioned by anything.

Right, there is no such state as unconditioned existence at least known to us, all existence that we know is conditioned in its forms. There is only unconditioned aspects of existence that are never conditioned by forms. So yes, there is a value in cognizing the cocoons of conditioning, no question about that. Yet, new levels of development become open when Thinking cognizes its own unconditioned aspects. Again, there is no contradiction between these two directions of the advancing of the knowledge, they complement each other on the higher level and only seemingly contradict on lower/intermediate levels of development.

So far we hear only the most vague generalities concerning 'experiencing' and 'beingness' without any clue how this manifests in our T, F, W life, besides to the fact that we believe we're no longer conditioned by anything.

Because it is really impossible to describe, it's like describing the taste of tea to someone who never tried it The realization of Gnosis does not remove the conditioning right away, but slowly facilitates the diminishing of it over time when the activity of Thinking, the thought forms that it manifests and shapes, get more aligned with the unconditional aspects of its own nature (its own lawfulness). At the same time, "cognizing the cocoons of conditioning" also helps along the same process, so again, they do not contradict but complement each other.