New topic split from 'concise criticism of analytic idealism' thread.

[Lou Gold]

Oh, the image of the Native American portrait with the Eagle in flight above. I posted it to show that the "aboriginal" view also places the eagle representation of spirit above the human and it has done so long before its appearance in Spiritual Science.

This comment really highlights the issue. Spiritual science doesn't claim to have discovered aspects of man which were never known before. In fact it's quite the opposite. What it reveals is exactly how, in a scientific way, the aboriginals knew about the Eagle nature in man, as well as the ancient Indians, Persians, Egyptians, Greeks, etc. Steiner has dozens of lectures on these topics. He goes into the precise ways in which our higher Self, consisting of manifold beings who possess their own individuality, has been emanating this knowledge into human consciousness for many epochs and ages, preserved in ancient Wisdom traditions and various esoteric streams. And all of it is done in a way which is not simply giving us teachings to absorb, but new thinking skills which weave trains of logical thought and allow us to participate in the very process by which our ancestors acquired their spiritual knowledge, except now actively from within instead of passively from without. Until one can admit they don't know exactly what spiritual science is, and what it conveys, there is really no being 'grateful' for it.

Many from the past to the present have ways for going within. Many have evolved into the present and are participating with an even deeper understanding of their past. Everyone, with individual variations, is evolving. The emanating of this knowledge is not limited to a particular path. As Orwell famously said of the individual quest, “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” Participation has been evolving in diverse (suffering and joyous) ways for all with lots of risings and falls. Science is surely involved. So are events. It's not a passive process. I am grateful for the living God Who gives me never ending ways to increase my appreciation of and compassion toward all and to Whom I am devoted. I have no doubt that this opportunity exists in diverse forms for all.

[AshvinP]

Oh, the image of the Native American portrait with the Eagle in flight above. I posted it to show that the "aboriginal" view also places the eagle representation of spirit above the human and it has done so long before its appearance in Spiritual Science.

This comment really highlights the issue. Spiritual science doesn't claim to have discovered aspects of man which were never known before. In fact it's quite the opposite. What it reveals is exactly how, in a scientific way, the aboriginals knew about the Eagle nature in man, as well as the ancient Indians, Persians, Egyptians, Greeks, etc. Steiner has dozens of lectures on these topics. He goes into the precise ways in which our higher Self, consisting of manifold beings who possess their own individuality, has been emanating this knowledge into human consciousness for many epochs and ages, preserved in ancient Wisdom traditions and various esoteric streams. And all of it is done in a way which is not simply giving us teachings to absorb, but new thinking skills which weave trains of logical thought and allow us to participate in the very process by which our ancestors acquired their spiritual knowledge, except now actively from within instead of passively from without. Until one can admit they don't know exactly what spiritual science is, and what it conveys, there is really no being 'grateful' for it.

Many from the past to the present have ways for going within. Many have evolved into the present and are participating with an even deeper understanding of their past. Everyone, with individual variations, is evolving. The emanating of this knowledge is not limited to a particular path. As Orwell famously said of the individual quest, “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” Participation has been evolving in diverse (suffering and joyous) ways for all with lots of risings and falls. Science is surely involved. So are events. It's not a passive process. I am grateful for the living God Who gives me never ending ways to increase my appreciation of and compassion toward all and to Whom I am devoted. I have no doubt that this opportunity exists in diverse forms for all.

This is what you choose to believe, Lou, precisely because you ignore the science, or use the word "science" here to be synonymous with whatever you happen to already know.

If I were to ask, "what are the three bodies of man, in what ways do they function, how are they perceived, how precisely do they relate us to the higher planes of consciousness through the fourth member, etc.", could you give me an answer? More importantly, is there any possible way the answers to this and similar questions are not of the utmost relevance for how well we understand the 'emanations' of spiritual knowledge? Of course they are. So it seems there is always secretly implicit in all the "I agree spiritual science is great" statements, also "[but I doubt anyone actually has such precise knowledge because there is a hard duality which makes science of the physical world possible but science of spiritual world impossible]". It would never occur for anyone to say or try to defend the statement, "many people who have never studied civil engineering also have a deeper understanding of how to build bridges in the most optimal and safe way".

[Lou Gold]

This comment really highlights the issue. Spiritual science doesn't claim to have discovered aspects of man which were never known before. In fact it's quite the opposite. What it reveals is exactly how, in a scientific way, the aboriginals knew about the Eagle nature in man, as well as the ancient Indians, Persians, Egyptians, Greeks, etc. Steiner has dozens of lectures on these topics. He goes into the precise ways in which our higher Self, consisting of manifold beings who possess their own individuality, has been emanating this knowledge into human consciousness for many epochs and ages, preserved in ancient Wisdom traditions and various esoteric streams. And all of it is done in a way which is not simply giving us teachings to absorb, but new thinking skills which weave trains of logical thought and allow us to participate in the very process by which our ancestors acquired their spiritual knowledge, except now actively from within instead of passively from without. Until one can admit they don't know exactly what spiritual science is, and what it conveys, there is really no being 'grateful' for it.

Many from the past to the present have ways for going within. Many have evolved into the present and are participating with an even deeper understanding of their past. Everyone, with individual variations, is evolving. The emanating of this knowledge is not limited to a particular path. As Orwell famously said of the individual quest, “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” Participation has been evolving in diverse (suffering and joyous) ways for all with lots of risings and falls. Science is surely involved. So are events. It's not a passive process. I am grateful for the living God Who gives me never ending ways to increase my appreciation of and compassion toward all and to Whom I am devoted. I have no doubt that this opportunity exists in diverse forms for all.

This is what you choose to believe, Lou, precisely because you ignore the science, or use the word "science" here to be synonymous with whatever you happen to already know.

If I were to ask, "what are the three bodies of man, in what ways do they function, how are they perceived, how precisely do they relate us to the higher planes of consciousness through the fourth member, etc.", could you give me an answer? More importantly, is there any possible way the answers to this and similar questions are not of the utmost relevance for how well we understand the 'emanations' of spiritual knowledge? Of course they are. So it seems there is always secretly implicit in all the "I agree spiritual science is great" statements, also "[but I doubt anyone actually has such precise knowledge because there is a hard duality which makes science of the physical world possible but science of spiritual world impossible]". It would never occur for anyone to say or try to defend the statement, "many people who have never studied civil engineering also have a deeper understanding of how to build bridges in the most optimal and safe way".

I do not say, "I agree spiritual science is great" or "I disagree spiritual science is great". I say that I celebrate that there are many ways in the evolutionary process. Some are indeed better or worse, which will be born out by results in world such as reduction of suffering, increased healing, repair, renewal, etc, etc. The process involved is vast. Yes, I've seen and participated in a bit, seen glimpses, seen results. And, yes, I'm grateful for the ways I've been guided and supported in my passages in this process.

[AshvinP]

Many from the past to the present have ways for going within. Many have evolved into the present and are participating with an even deeper understanding of their past. Everyone, with individual variations, is evolving. The emanating of this knowledge is not limited to a particular path. As Orwell famously said of the individual quest, “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” Participation has been evolving in diverse (suffering and joyous) ways for all with lots of risings and falls. Science is surely involved. So are events. It's not a passive process. I am grateful for the living God Who gives me never ending ways to increase my appreciation of and compassion toward all and to Whom I am devoted. I have no doubt that this opportunity exists in diverse forms for all.

This is what you choose to believe, Lou, precisely because you ignore the science, or use the word "science" here to be synonymous with whatever you happen to already know.

If I were to ask, "what are the three bodies of man, in what ways do they function, how are they perceived, how precisely do they relate us to the higher planes of consciousness through the fourth member, etc.", could you give me an answer? More importantly, is there any possible way the answers to this and similar questions are not of the utmost relevance for how well we understand the 'emanations' of spiritual knowledge? Of course they are. So it seems there is always secretly implicit in all the "I agree spiritual science is great" statements, also "[but I doubt anyone actually has such precise knowledge because there is a hard duality which makes science of the physical world possible but science of spiritual world impossible]". It would never occur for anyone to say or try to defend the statement, "many people who have never studied civil engineering also have a deeper understanding of how to build bridges in the most optimal and safe way".

I do not say, "I agree spiritual science is great" or "I disagree spiritual science is great". I say that I celebrate that there are many ways in the evolutionary process. Some are indeed better or worse, which will be born out by results in world such as reduction of suffering, increased healing, repair, renewal, etc, etc. The process involved is vast. Yes, I've seen and participated in a bit, seen glimpses, seen results. And, yes, I'm grateful for the ways I've been guided and made passages in this process.

The materialist can say the exact same thing and come up with plenty of good results which came from materialistic thinking. And when you respond to them with negative results, they can say, "yeah that's the short term cost of building a civilization with modern technology, but just wait and see how all these things are addressed by further advances in material technology". And there's not a single thing you or I could ever say to anyone who is thinking this way which would persuade them that there are cracks in the foundation which need to be paid attention to and investigated.

Eventually, they would end up like Jim, who actually comes to the idealist forum and says, "I simply can't understand what you are writing to me... it's all mostly unintelligible or irrelevant, so I won't bother". You take a similar route, Lou - "it's all philosophical stuff and I'm not a philosopher, just a storyteller who lives and lets live". Yet you continue to post your own narratives on all these topics whenever the opportunity arises. So if some are indeed better or worse than others, how do we figure out which ones? We can't simply judge things by their surface-level results, for reasons already mentioned. Neither can we judge them by ancient results which were only possible without supporting the institutions of modern civilization.

Our evolved logical reasoning and scientific cognition gives us the means to evaluate these things objectively in ways that were never possible even 250 years ago. It builds the optimal bridge between the perceptual world we are all familiar with and the supersensible worlds which we have only known dimly as external revelation and the abstract theories of philosophers, theologians, and psychologists. We need to sit up and take notice of that fact, that momentous transition which has occurred, and see into what future it is taking us. That is, if we are actually interested in figuring out which approaches to the higher worlds are better or worse than others.

[Lou Gold]

This is what you choose to believe, Lou, precisely because you ignore the science, or use the word "science" here to be synonymous with whatever you happen to already know.

If I were to ask, "what are the three bodies of man, in what ways do they function, how are they perceived, how precisely do they relate us to the higher planes of consciousness through the fourth member, etc.", could you give me an answer? More importantly, is there any possible way the answers to this and similar questions are not of the utmost relevance for how well we understand the 'emanations' of spiritual knowledge? Of course they are. So it seems there is always secretly implicit in all the "I agree spiritual science is great" statements, also "[but I doubt anyone actually has such precise knowledge because there is a hard duality which makes science of the physical world possible but science of spiritual world impossible]". It would never occur for anyone to say or try to defend the statement, "many people who have never studied civil engineering also have a deeper understanding of how to build bridges in the most optimal and safe way".

I do not say, "I agree spiritual science is great" or "I disagree spiritual science is great". I say that I celebrate that there are many ways in the evolutionary process. Some are indeed better or worse, which will be born out by results in world such as reduction of suffering, increased healing, repair, renewal, etc, etc. The process involved is vast. Yes, I've seen and participated in a bit, seen glimpses, seen results. And, yes, I'm grateful for the ways I've been guided and made passages in this process.

The materialist can say the exact same thing and come up with plenty of good results which came from materialistic thinking. And when you respond to them with negative results, they can say, "yeah that's the short term cost of building a civilization with modern technology, but just wait and see how all these things are addressed by further advances in material technology". And there's not a single thing you or I could ever say to anyone who is thinking this way which would persuade them that there are cracks in the foundation which need to be paid attention to and investigated.

Eventually, they would end up like Jim, who actually comes to the idealist forum and says, "I simply can't understand what you are writing to me... it's all mostly unintelligible or irrelevant, so I won't bother". You take a similar route, Lou - "it's all philosophical stuff and I'm not a philosopher, just a storyteller who lives and lets live". Yet you continue to post your own narratives on all these topics whenever the opportunity arises. So if some are indeed better or worse than others, how do we figure out which ones? We can't simply judge things by their surface-level results, for reasons already mentioned. Neither can we judge them by ancient results which were only possible without supporting the institutions of modern civilization.

Our evolved logical reasoning and scientific cognition gives us the means to evaluate these things objectively in ways that were never possible even 250 years ago. It builds the optimal bridge between the perceptual world we are all familiar with and the supersensible worlds which we have only known dimly as external revelation and the abstract theories of philosophers, theologians, and psychologists. We need to sit up and take notice of that fact, that momentous transition which has occurred, and see into what future it is taking us. That is, if we are actually interested in figuring out which approaches to the higher worlds are better or worse than others.

I don't need to know the cosmology of people who believe a mountain is sacred in order to know that they will treat it better than those who believe that it is a pile of rocks. Similarly, I don't need to know the details of Spiritual Science to appreciatively receive whatever fine results it can produce. Nor, would I feel that they detracted from or derailed the results I witness along my way. All I can say to you and others is please share the practical results of your ways so that all beings may benefit.

[AshvinP]

I do not say, "I agree spiritual science is great" or "I disagree spiritual science is great". I say that I celebrate that there are many ways in the evolutionary process. Some are indeed better or worse, which will be born out by results in world such as reduction of suffering, increased healing, repair, renewal, etc, etc. The process involved is vast. Yes, I've seen and participated in a bit, seen glimpses, seen results. And, yes, I'm grateful for the ways I've been guided and made passages in this process.

The materialist can say the exact same thing and come up with plenty of good results which came from materialistic thinking. And when you respond to them with negative results, they can say, "yeah that's the short term cost of building a civilization with modern technology, but just wait and see how all these things are addressed by further advances in material technology". And there's not a single thing you or I could ever say to anyone who is thinking this way which would persuade them that there are cracks in the foundation which need to be paid attention to and investigated.

Eventually, they would end up like Jim, who actually comes to the idealist forum and says, "I simply can't understand what you are writing to me... it's all mostly unintelligible or irrelevant, so I won't bother". You take a similar route, Lou - "it's all philosophical stuff and I'm not a philosopher, just a storyteller who lives and lets live". Yet you continue to post your own narratives on all these topics whenever the opportunity arises. So if some are indeed better or worse than others, how do we figure out which ones? We can't simply judge things by their surface-level results, for reasons already mentioned. Neither can we judge them by ancient results which were only possible without supporting the institutions of modern civilization.

Our evolved logical reasoning and scientific cognition gives us the means to evaluate these things objectively in ways that were never possible even 250 years ago. It builds the optimal bridge between the perceptual world we are all familiar with and the supersensible worlds which we have only known dimly as external revelation and the abstract theories of philosophers, theologians, and psychologists. We need to sit up and take notice of that fact, that momentous transition which has occurred, and see into what future it is taking us. That is, if we are actually interested in figuring out which approaches to the higher worlds are better or worse than others.

I don't need to know the cosmology of people who believe a mountain is sacred in order to know that they will treat it better than those who believe that it is a pile of rocks. Similarly, I don't need to know the details of Spiritual Science to appreciatively receive whatever fine results it can produce. Nor, would I feel that they detracted from or derailed the results I witness along my way. All I can say to you and others is please share the practical results of your ways so that all beings may benefit.

The above basically assumes the mountains, as they appear and function now on the physical plane, are their full spiritual potential. What you are conveying is a form of spiritism which is, in fact, the last phase of materialism. When the materialist runs out of room to explore the physical, spatially and conceptually, he must start exploring the spiritual in terms of physical processes. He must only look for the spiritual in what is already familiar to him, perceptually and conceptually, in the physical world. The spiritual scientist does not do this - he looks for the spiritual in what is unfamiliar to him, unsuspected by his current perceptions and concepts on the physical plane. He orients towards the pole of future becoming which simply cannot be mechanically derived from past perceptions and concepts, no matter how ancient, intelligent, and wise they are. Scientific spiritual thinking has a burning desire for the world's appearances to be raised up through our own creative activity, our psychospiritual technology which can also interface with physical technology, and thereby bring about something brand new in the course of Cosmic evolution.

Now you are probably tempted here to have the thought, "ok well this has now become philosophy and science above my paygrade, and it's simply not my path." That's fine, but I would ask anyone who has such a thought to at least be honest with themselves and reflect on whether they have ever given themselves the opportunity to integrate the spiritual thinking path, or whether such a thought closes off all such opportunities. I can think of a few times you have presumed [incorrectly] to understand what spiritual science claims, but not a single time you have asked questions about it with genuine curiosity and interest. Is this humility, curiosity, wonder, imagination, a burning interest in our future becoming? It doesn't seem like any of those things to me. Just as the materialist passively waits for physical technology to save the day, to cleanse all the oceans, rivers, forests, etc. of their impurities introduced by humanity, the spiritist passively waits for humanity to stop interfering with Nature and then expects everything will be returned to spiritual glory.  

Since when did a few people treating a mountain well become a lofty goal of humanity? No matter how little we physically interfere with the mountain, that will not stop it from rigidifying and disintegrating in the course of the Earth's evolution. So how can the vast majority of people who believe it is only a pile of rocks come to know that it is something much more noble and will be revealed as such through their own spiritual activity? Here I don't mean "activity" like ingesting substances so we are flooded with 'spiritual' perceptions, as Cleric discusses in this post, but actually making an effort to attune our spiritual organization with the higher worlds and beings who art the natural world and all its kingdoms, including our own inner experience. It is about reaching a deeply shared understanding and harmonized goals amongst ourselves, which will only come through a shared understanding with the higher beings within whom humanity's consciousness is nested. It shouldn't be about comparing spiritual scorecards and adding up the superficial results to see who is more 'advanced' or 'virtuous' or 'spiritual' than whom.

We can point to all sorts of outward manifestations of spiritual scientific results, like biodynamic agriculture, honey bee farming with spiritual understanding, imaginative education for children, etc. But the real inner manifestations of the results, not just of Steiner's spiritual science, but of Western initiatic science in general, won't even be noticed as "results" until an inversion is reached through higher development of scientific consciousness. Then it becomes more and more clear how our inner desires, feelings, thoughts will have the most practically beneficial results for ourselves individually, humanity as a whole, and the Earth herself. Our conscious relations with the higher worlds become the most practically important of all. All the truly lasting and significant outer, physical manifestations will only follow from the inner achievements of human scientific cognition, in concert with higher Centers of consciousness. I would much rather share a common Ideal with people on this forum to actually live and breathe in the higher worlds, an Ideal we surely have not reached yet, than to signal our 'virtues' by endlessly reciting poetry and such which dwells on the bygone beauty of nature and other peoples' purely physical achievements. 

[Lou Gold]

The materialist can say the exact same thing and come up with plenty of good results which came from materialistic thinking. And when you respond to them with negative results, they can say, "yeah that's the short term cost of building a civilization with modern technology, but just wait and see how all these things are addressed by further advances in material technology". And there's not a single thing you or I could ever say to anyone who is thinking this way which would persuade them that there are cracks in the foundation which need to be paid attention to and investigated.

Eventually, they would end up like Jim, who actually comes to the idealist forum and says, "I simply can't understand what you are writing to me... it's all mostly unintelligible or irrelevant, so I won't bother". You take a similar route, Lou - "it's all philosophical stuff and I'm not a philosopher, just a storyteller who lives and lets live". Yet you continue to post your own narratives on all these topics whenever the opportunity arises. So if some are indeed better or worse than others, how do we figure out which ones? We can't simply judge things by their surface-level results, for reasons already mentioned. Neither can we judge them by ancient results which were only possible without supporting the institutions of modern civilization.

Our evolved logical reasoning and scientific cognition gives us the means to evaluate these things objectively in ways that were never possible even 250 years ago. It builds the optimal bridge between the perceptual world we are all familiar with and the supersensible worlds which we have only known dimly as external revelation and the abstract theories of philosophers, theologians, and psychologists. We need to sit up and take notice of that fact, that momentous transition which has occurred, and see into what future it is taking us. That is, if we are actually interested in figuring out which approaches to the higher worlds are better or worse than others.

I don't need to know the cosmology of people who believe a mountain is sacred in order to know that they will treat it better than those who believe that it is a pile of rocks. Similarly, I don't need to know the details of Spiritual Science to appreciatively receive whatever fine results it can produce. Nor, would I feel that they detracted from or derailed the results I witness along my way. All I can say to you and others is please share the practical results of your ways so that all beings may benefit.

The above basically assumes the mountains, as they appear and function now on the physical plane, are their full spiritual potential. What you are conveying is a form of spiritism which is, in fact, the last phase of materialism. When the materialist runs out of room to explore the physical, spatially and conceptually, he must start exploring the spiritual in terms of physical processes. He must only look for the spiritual in what is already familiar to him, perceptually and conceptually, in the physical world. The spiritual scientist does not do this - he looks for the spiritual in what is unfamiliar to him, unsuspected by his current perceptions and concepts on the physical plane. He orients towards the pole of future becoming which simply cannot be mechanically derived from past perceptions and concepts, no matter how ancient, intelligent, and wise they are. Scientific spiritual thinking has a burning desire for the world's appearances to be raised up through our own creative activity, our psychospiritual technology which can also interface with physical technology, and thereby bring about something brand new in the course of Cosmic evolution.

Now you are probably tempted here to have the thought, "ok well this has now become philosophy and science above my paygrade, and it's simply not my path." That's fine, but I would ask anyone who has such a thought to at least be honest with themselves and reflect on whether they have ever given themselves the opportunity to integrate the spiritual thinking path, or whether such a thought closes off all such opportunities. I can think of a few times you have presumed [incorrectly] to understand what spiritual science claims, but not a single time you have asked questions about it with genuine curiosity and interest. Is this humility, curiosity, wonder, imagination, a burning interest in our future becoming? It doesn't seem like any of those things to me. Just as the materialist passively waits for physical technology to save the day, to cleanse all the oceans, rivers, forests, etc. of their impurities introduced by humanity, the spiritist passively waits for humanity to stop interfering with Nature and then expects everything will be returned to spiritual glory.  

Since when did a few people treating a mountain well become a lofty goal of humanity? No matter how little we physically interfere with the mountain, that will not stop it from rigidifying and disintegrating in the course of the Earth's evolution. So how can the vast majority of people who believe it is only a pile of rocks come to know that it is something much more noble and will be revealed as such through their own spiritual activity? Here I don't mean "activity" like ingesting substances so we are flooded with 'spiritual' perceptions, as Cleric discusses in this post, but actually making an effort to attune our spiritual organization with the higher worlds and beings who art the natural world and all its kingdoms, including our own inner experience. It is about reaching a deeply shared understanding and harmonized goals amongst ourselves, which will only come through a shared understanding with the higher beings within whom humanity's consciousness is nested. It shouldn't be about comparing spiritual scorecards and adding up the superficial results to see who is more 'advanced' or 'virtuous' or 'spiritual' than whom.

We can point to all sorts of outward manifestations of spiritual scientific results, like biodynamic agriculture, honey bee farming with spiritual understanding, imaginative education for children, etc. But the real inner manifestations of the results, not just of Steiner's spiritual science, but of Western initiatic science in general, won't even be noticed as "results" until an inversion is reached through higher development of scientific consciousness. Then it becomes more and more clear how our inner desires, feelings, thoughts will have the most practically beneficial results for ourselves individually, humanity as a whole, and the Earth herself. Our conscious relations with the higher worlds become the most practically important of all. All the truly lasting and significant outer, physical manifestations will only follow from the inner achievements of human scientific cognition, in concert with higher Centers of consciousness. I would much rather share a common Ideal with people on this forum to actually live and breathe in the higher worlds, an Ideal we surely have not reached yet, than to signal our 'virtues' by endlessly reciting poetry and such which dwells on the bygone beauty of nature and other peoples' purely physical achievements. 

Ashvin,

In the spirit of compatibility more than contest, you might find the paper of Merlin Sheldrake (I've posted it here.) as a serious and thoughtful contribution to the dialogue. Note: It must be read thoroughly to grasp its depth and nuance. I hope you enjoy it.

With regard to Cleric's recent post, I for one, do not assert that a single powerful cleansing or breakthrough of the "doors of perception" guarantees a "free float" into future evolution. I've had two such events separated by about 15 years; the first in a dream and the second in a Santo Daime ceremony. In both cases, I was not presented with a done deal but rather a powerful opening into future maintenance and evolutionary work, which continues for me to this day where I find myself in the best school I've yet experienced. Nothing final, of course, I expect more to come.

[AshvinP]

Ashvin,

In the spirit of compatibility more than contest, you might find the paper of Merlin Sheldrake (I've posted it here.) as a serious and thoughtful contribution to the dialogue. Note: It must be read thoroughly to grasp its depth and nuance. I hope you enjoy it.

With regard to Cleric's recent post, I for one, do not assert that a single powerful cleansing or breakthrough of the "doors of perception" guarantees a "free float" into future evolution. I've had two such events separated by about 15 years; the first in a dream and the second in a Santo Daime ceremony. In both cases, I was not presented with a done deal but rather a powerful opening into future maintenance and evolutionary work, which continues for me to this day where I find myself in the best school I've yet experienced. Nothing final, of course, I expect more to come.

Lou,

At this point, I have to assume you think that I am just picking random fights with you on various threads, trying to persuade you to look into Steiner or spiritual science more and get on 'my' path, but not really following my reasoning at all. I am actually responding to a pattern of thinking and emphasis in your posts which is consistent and, in some ways, escalating. You don't seem to realize that everything you are posting is diametrically opposed to what we are saying, even though I am telling you it is and giving you very detailed reasons why. The Sheldrake paper on Schultes is exactly what Cleric addressed in that post I linked to.

Or, if you mean a "serious and thoughtful contribution to the dialogue", as in a rebuttal to everything I have been writing, then I have to ask to elaborate how. I at least want to know that you understand the simple point that, in my view, what Sheldrake (son) seems to be advocating for, if it were to be adopted as a widescale 'spiritual scientific' path, would comparable to people who start performing brain surgery on patients with a 3,000 year old understanding of the physical brain processes. It's downright reckless and born of this same fixation that I have been writing to you about for many pages now, on regressing to past modes of consciousness to penetrate into genuine understanding of the higher worlds. He even explicitly references the 'doors of perception' argument (which I think originated with Blake but was written as a book by Huxley). There is, of course, something real taking place with the ingesting of substances, but it's not in the least expanding the cognitive faculties necessary to resonate with what is being perceived.


Compare:

Schultes’s attitude was a predictable consequence of his modern scientific training. But it wasn’t inevitable. Over the second half of the twentieth century, a number of Western researchers came to quite different conclusions about the ontological status of psychedelic visions. Unlike Schultes, many chose not to omit ambiguity and confusion from their accounts of their own psychedelic experiences. Indeed, ambiguity and confusion was framed by many researchers as a central feature, whether by psychoanalysts, who were interested in repressed memories, or psychotherapists, who were interested in patients’ levels of self-awareness (Dyck, 2008: 15). Nor was it unusual for Western researchers to describe psychedelic substances as providing access to realms of experience that were different, but not necessarily any less real than those experienced during the ‘ordinary’ states of consciousness normally associated with modern scientific knowledge making. ‘I did tell you of my experience of the dog world using lsd didn’t I?’ wrote the psychiatrist Humphrey Osmond to Aldous Huxley in 1956. ‘The dog world is very different from ours and wholly different from our construction of it.’33 Huxley’s idea of the ‘doors of perception’ arose from the idea that our normal sensory faculties filter out sensory information. In this view, psychedelics open up human capacity for perception and experience, and could permit, as Huxley wrote in a letter to Osmond, ‘the “other world” to rise into consciousness’ (Bisbee et al., 2018: xliii). In these accounts, and those of the patients, the nuanced textures of psychedelic experiences were foregrounded, rather than reduced to epiphenomenal ‘intoxications’

To what Cleric just wrote:

This gives us a good analogy to distinguish between simply cleansing the doors of perception (corresponding to the surgery) and actually organizing our inner being. There are many ways into which our ordinary consciousness may open up towards the finer spectrums and experience imagery. This is possible also with psychedelics. Yet the greatest mistake of our age is to believe that this represents some objective perception of the deeper layers of existence. In reality, the mystical and psychedelic experiences present us a flood of phenomena, similarly to the color sensations a formerly blind person receives after operation. And here's the great difference: opening the doors of perceptions and experiencing a flood of phenomena doesn't in the least equate to seeing, in the very same sense that the flood of color that the blind man experiences is not yet seeing. To see means to be able to make sense of the perceptions. Everything should integrate into a musical whole.
...
I hope this analogy with the blind man acquiring sight makes it clear why there's difference between simply cleansing the doors - which in the analogy corresponds to the surgical procedure - and the organization - which corresponds to the development of brain centers which one has to begin perfecting much like starting from a baby stage. The greatest obstacle for seeing this aright is the desire to consider ourselves complete beings, self-sufficient in our thoughtless state where everything is consider to be just what it is, with no further questions asked, instead of realizing that our fully conscious evolutionary journey hasn't even begun yet.

And please answer the simple question of whether you understand the divergence in approach that we are speaking of and which you keep re-emphasizing with your posts?

[Lou Gold]

Ashvin,

In the spirit of compatibility more than contest, you might find the paper of Merlin Sheldrake (I've posted it here.) as a serious and thoughtful contribution to the dialogue. Note: It must be read thoroughly to grasp its depth and nuance. I hope you enjoy it.

With regard to Cleric's recent post, I for one, do not assert that a single powerful cleansing or breakthrough of the "doors of perception" guarantees a "free float" into future evolution. I've had two such events separated by about 15 years; the first in a dream and the second in a Santo Daime ceremony. In both cases, I was not presented with a done deal but rather a powerful opening into future maintenance and evolutionary work, which continues for me to this day where I find myself in the best school I've yet experienced. Nothing final, of course, I expect more to come.

Lou,

At this point, I have to assume you think that I am just picking random fights with you on various threads, trying to persuade you to look into Steiner or spiritual science more and get on 'my' path, but not really following my reasoning at all. I am actually responding to a pattern of thinking and emphasis in your posts which is consistent and, in some ways, escalating. You don't seem to realize that everything you are posting is diametrically opposed to what we are saying, even though I am telling you it is and giving you very detailed reasons why. The Sheldrake paper on Schultes is exactly what Cleric addressed in that post I linked to.

Or, if you mean a "serious and thoughtful contribution to the dialogue", as in a rebuttal to everything I have been writing, then I have to ask to elaborate how. I at least want to know that you understand the simple point that, in my view, what Sheldrake (son) seems to be advocating for, if it were to be adopted as a widescale 'spiritual scientific' path, would comparable to people who start performing brain surgery on patients with a 3,000 year old understanding of the physical brain processes. It's downright reckless and born of this same fixation that I have been writing to you about for many pages now, on regressing to past modes of consciousness to penetrate into genuine understanding of the higher worlds. He even explicitly references the 'doors of perception' argument (which I think originated with Blake but was written as a book by Huxley). There is, of course, something real taking place with the ingesting of substances, but it's not in the least expanding the cognitive faculties necessary to resonate with what is being perceived.


Compare:

Schultes’s attitude was a predictable consequence of his modern scientific training. But it wasn’t inevitable. Over the second half of the twentieth century, a number of Western researchers came to quite different conclusions about the ontological status of psychedelic visions. Unlike Schultes, many chose not to omit ambiguity and confusion from their accounts of their own psychedelic experiences. Indeed, ambiguity and confusion was framed by many researchers as a central feature, whether by psychoanalysts, who were interested in repressed memories, or psychotherapists, who were interested in patients’ levels of self-awareness (Dyck, 2008: 15). Nor was it unusual for Western researchers to describe psychedelic substances as providing access to realms of experience that were different, but not necessarily any less real than those experienced during the ‘ordinary’ states of consciousness normally associated with modern scientific knowledge making. ‘I did tell you of my experience of the dog world using lsd didn’t I?’ wrote the psychiatrist Humphrey Osmond to Aldous Huxley in 1956. ‘The dog world is very different from ours and wholly different from our construction of it.’33 Huxley’s idea of the ‘doors of perception’ arose from the idea that our normal sensory faculties filter out sensory information. In this view, psychedelics open up human capacity for perception and experience, and could permit, as Huxley wrote in a letter to Osmond, ‘the “other world” to rise into consciousness’ (Bisbee et al., 2018: xliii). In these accounts, and those of the patients, the nuanced textures of psychedelic experiences were foregrounded, rather than reduced to epiphenomenal ‘intoxications’

To what Cleric just wrote:

This gives us a good analogy to distinguish between simply cleansing the doors of perception (corresponding to the surgery) and actually organizing our inner being. There are many ways into which our ordinary consciousness may open up towards the finer spectrums and experience imagery. This is possible also with psychedelics. Yet the greatest mistake of our age is to believe that this represents some objective perception of the deeper layers of existence. In reality, the mystical and psychedelic experiences present us a flood of phenomena, similarly to the color sensations a formerly blind person receives after operation. And here's the great difference: opening the doors of perceptions and experiencing a flood of phenomena doesn't in the least equate to seeing, in the very same sense that the flood of color that the blind man experiences is not yet seeing. To see means to be able to make sense of the perceptions. Everything should integrate into a musical whole.
...
I hope this analogy with the blind man acquiring sight makes it clear why there's difference between simply cleansing the doors - which in the analogy corresponds to the surgical procedure - and the organization - which corresponds to the development of brain centers which one has to begin perfecting much like starting from a baby stage. The greatest obstacle for seeing this aright is the desire to consider ourselves complete beings, self-sufficient in our thoughtless state where everything is consider to be just what it is, with no further questions asked, instead of realizing that our fully conscious evolutionary journey hasn't even begun yet.

And please answer the simple question of whether you understand the divergence in approach that we are speaking of and which you keep re-emphasizing with your posts?

Let me try to keep my answer quite simple. MS shows that Schultzes was not able using the reductive view of his version of modern science to be able to ocularly see the different varieties of plants that his Amazonian informants enmeshed in a different cosmology could see quite easily at a distance. Thus, cleaning the doors of perception for Schultzes yielded only interesting displays of colors and not a new way of seeing the practical world. He ended up being almost exactly like the blind man portrayed in Cleric's blind man example. This is the interesting compatibility I saw between the views of Cleric and MS, a compatibility that you reject.

Yes, we do keep circling around each other in quite predictable ways. I suspect the cause of this is that we are on different paths: mine being one that prioritizes devotion and yours being one that prioritizes the thinking mind. These are, of course, two of the four great paths characterized in the Hindu tradition as Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Rāja Yoga and Jñāna Yoga or Service, Devotion, Science of Mind and Self Knowledge (functioning as different branches of the same tree). One option is to endlessly debate the differences in a polarized dialectical style. Another option is to appreciate and respect the diverse contributions each branch makes.

[Cleric K]

Yes, we do keep circling around each other in quite predictable ways. I suspect the cause of this is that we are on different paths: mine being one that prioritizes devotion and yours being one that prioritizes the thinking mind. These are, of course, two of the four great paths characterized in the Hindu tradition as Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Rāja Yoga and Jñāna Yoga or Service, Devotion, Science of Mind and Self Knowledge (functioning as different branches of the same tree). One option is to endlessly debate the differences in a polarized dialectical style. Another option is to appreciate and respect the diverse contributions each branch makes.

We often hear something like "all spiritual paths lead to the same place". But what is the nature of that 'place'? It seems that people on Earth will eternally repeat that same phrase and see the paths as parallel lines going into infinity. Then they say "Well, as far as we can see in our vicinity, these paths are parallel - they have no points in common. Yet somewhere out there in the infinite distance, so the story says, they converge. But this is infinitely far away - certainly beyond the threshold of death. So for all intents and purposes we can live on Earth on our parallel paths and don't worry that they have no nearby points in common - celebrate diversity! Eventually these paths have a common point at infinity but we need not to bother with this at present - certainly not while we're still in a body!"

It's very nice that you compare the different yoga paths to branches of the same tree but at the same time, there's not a trace of interest to approach the inner perspective of the tree - not in the distant future but starting today. What's your view on that, Lou? Do you think that while within an Earthly costume, all paths are parallel and there's no point to seek the evolving consciousness of the tree? Do you think that the common point between the paths can be found only after death?