Stranger wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 8:40 pm
I can give a geometrical-metaphorical analogy here to illustrate. Imagine a 2D space and a nested circular structure similar to Cleric's
picture in here, but in 2D for simplicity. There is definitely a deep structure there converging to the Core. That's the metaphor of our evolutionary-metamorphic introspective process of developing into the core of our being until we discover the Self at the very center of it. But then it turns out that the whole 2D space and all the circles of the depth-structure have never been apart from the same Self and they are in the very essence, in their existential core, nothing else than the same Self. All the circles are equally the same Self, and not that there is "more" Self in the center of the structure compared to the periphery. In other words, the Self is like the very 2D space where the whole structure has always been contained, and the very "substance" of which all circles are made. So, from the perspective of the Self, all is equally contained in it in a "flat" way. At the same time, the depth-structure always remains intact, it is still there with all its circles and with the evolutionary curvature toward the center. And so, both "deep" and "flat" perspectives are simultaneously valid: the structure lies "flat" on the 2D space, yet it simultaneously has "depth" in the direction of the movement toward the center.
So, it's only when we travel along the curvature towards the center of the structure, we think that there is only a dimension of depth (because that's where the curvature is dragging us), we think that we are approaching the Self from the peripheral regions where we cannot find the presence of the Self, and so we think that there is "more" Self in the center, and "less" or "no" Self at the peripheries. And that is perfectly fine at that particular stage of the soul's evolutionary process. But once we discover the Self in the core of the structure, we also discover that the same Self has been all the time equally everywhere all along our travel through the structure, we just could not see and recognize it until we got closer to the core and discovered it there. In other words, the Self is equally everywhere but it is veiled from our soul's perception when we are at the periphery circles of the evolution, and it can only be discovered/unveiled once we sufficiently evolve introspectively closer to the center.
Now, to clarify, please don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing against the point Cleric made in the "deep MAL" topic, he was totally right about criticizing some modern nondualists who ignore the depth structures of the spiritual universe and think that they can "shortcut" the whole developmental vertical path and just "jump" into the state of the "nondual soup", where, as they often say "there is nobody there and nothing else to do". No, that's cheating, and as a result, can be detrimental for the soul's growth.
Eugene,
Thank you, that's helpful, and no worries, I am not getting it as an argument against Cleric's Deep MAL, at all.
If I'm getting your 2D geometry right: rather than a flat MAL strewn with single bubbles (as in Bernardo’s drawings), your geometry looks like a simplified Deep MAL, simply collapsed onto a plane. This preserves the potential for convergence to center of all possible individual points, or viewpoints, out of an infinity of differentiated individual peripheral positions. So in this sense, it seems to me consistent with Deep MAL. But then when Oneness - or Self - is represented in this geometry by the plane on which the concentric circles exist, there's a question: what does this really, concretely, mean to the singular viewpoints - to us now, for example - to be encompassed within that Self, Oneness, or Plane? Beyond the abstract geometrical statement that we are all, knowingly or unknowingly, included within the plane, what concrete difference does it make to the quality, the twists, and the turns of our progression?
To be clear, I am not arguing that it doesn't make any difference. Rather, I’m connecting to what Cleric said, that it’s a vague, potentailly misleading characterization. As such, it does the job of appeasing any pre-existing yearning for unity, agreement, expansiveness, belonging, love. But knowing that our humble quest has to be, and is, for naked Truth - simply that, whatever it might be - it becomes clear that such
Plane of Oneness (if I may name your visualization this way) manifests,
by its existing, a superimposed concept stacked on Deep MAL to remedy any pre-existing needs, needs brought possibly unprocessed to the spiritual inquiry, and
by its features - as pervasive Plane of Oneness on which we evolve while moving to center - it manifests a vagueness or 'joker' quality, described above by Cleric as “wildcard”, where the ”place of the human being within this differentiated oneness” remains highly ambiguous, and actually
undifferentiated. Again: what is the concrete difference the Plane of Oneness makes for us? Such abstract, ‘placeholder’ quality introduced by the Plane of Oneness appears even more clearly when we notice that it forces you to create a narrative to make it fit, to make it sink into the geometry, or to make the geometry fit into it:
we think that we are approaching the Self from the peripheral regions where we cannot find the presence of the Self, and so we think that there is "more" Self in the center, and "less" or "no" Self at the peripheries
I would say, it does not have to be like that, this is a narrative. One could still be not very advanced in the direction of the center, and convinced of the illusion of multiplicity, of the unitary character of reality, even from within the ‘peripheral regions’ of MAL.
My point here is that there's a big risk: to wholeheartedly dive into the inquiry, bringing to it something that has more to do with our pre-existing views and wishes, than with the peeks of Truth that we glance at from the path. To dispel this risky mixture of what we pre-hold in ourselves and what we see as elements of Truth, it would be necessary to be able to overview ourselves as strangers - I find your nickname excellent omen in this sense!
What would be necessary is the ability to objectively grasp from above all our subconscious biases, and preferences, and beliefs, and all the deep reasons why we hold them. But this is simply not immediately possible, as we start off. It's too big of an ask. And that’s why Steiner gifted us PoF. To guide us, as long as we can connect with our available reservoir of humility and trust. PoF's essential function is to safely direct the eagerness, or even fury, of our spiritual quest, as we first approach it along the direction that Steiner
is highlighting for us - I'm using present continuous on purpose here. In other words, PoF is here to take our hand and show us, little step by little step, a very safe marked path along which we trust that we are protected from falling prey to our own biases, mistaking them for bricks of Truth, until one day we will be enabled to draw our own path, way down the road.
I hope it’s clear that I see myself as a complete beginner in this endeavor. The only experience that allows me to contrast and express the above, is that of my ongoing struggles - as facilitated by Cleric and Ashvin - with my own biases and pre-existing views and wishes. Cleric and Ashvin are making possible for me, and for anyone else listening, the experience of progressively separating, bit by bit, those personal views and wishes we all hold without exception, from the quest, from the path, so that we can find, or recognize, our way ahead
in ourselves (living) along the marked path, and still not
in our biases, that we constantly try to check in as hand luggage on the journey. I am constantly doing it, Eugene, and it’s a painful but necessary process to see this happening in ourselves. Every post written to you here is highly useful to me as well, helping me see how I am constantly attracted back to my own biases, and through them, to Maya. I constantly need to be nudged away from a part of myself that I try to check in, over and over again.
All this points to the crucial importance of looking at the all-encompassing
Plane of Oneness, remaining open to the question: what if this enormous thing I am merged with is too big to be checked in as hand luggage on the path? Could it be that it won’t properly fit into the cabin, but rather obscure the view and spoil the whole journey?
And this is not to discard or disrespect Oneness, but only to open for it to progressively form afresh, as we go forward, out of Truth, rather than out of our initial expectations. In this pursuit, a sort of experiment is coming to mind. Instead of prefiguring Oneness as a majestic gate that we will encounter on our way towards the center, and enter in blissful expansion of consciousness at some point, can we for a moment imagine to attract that gate towards us, all the way to us, and consider Oneness as a given - simply as our monism. Let's provisionally say that the Plane of Oneness is simply our manifested, present sense that reality is unitary. It’s our rejection of naive realism. Let’s take it for our common acknowledgement: "we are in Oneness". Now, from here, when we look ahead, what do we see? How do we proceed? What is the mystery, what are the motives, what do we do next?