Insight into the full nature of reality

[AshvinP]

It is time for humanity to awaken that it isn't the only metaphor-forming community of be-ings in the Cosmos, and that its very be-ing is a metaphor for Cosmic Be-ing.

Absolutely, and not just a metaphor, but an actuality: our own be-ing it is actually the same as the Cosmic Be-ing. We all are "be-ing" in the same way as the whole Cosmos is "Be-ing".

Ontically, Dasein [Being] is not only close to us - even that which is closest: we are it, each of us, we ourselves.
MARTIN HEIDEGGER, BEING AND TIME

तत्त्वमसि tat tvam asi - you are THAT
Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7.

When I said there are other 'metaphor-forming' beings, I intended to communicate there are Be-ings whose 'metaphorical thinking' doesn't only lead to attuning their understanding to deeper dynamics of their inner activity, as ours does, but leads to the creation and re-absorbtion of physical worlds and beings with life forces and specific soul-constellations.

For vertical spirituality, the question is not whether we are THAT, but where are we THAT? We clearly are not yet THAT on the physical plane - our creative thinking can at best manipulate the mineral kingdom to create new lifeless technologies, but it cannot create new life out of itself (abiogenesis). Yet if we are THAT, then there must be a plane of consciousness on which our creative thinking manifests with Wisdom and Will, i.e. participates in the very structuring of the physical world with all its kingdoms.

So where and how is this taking place? These are questions of vertical spirituality aka spiritual science. Standard evolutionary theory conceives that human beings evolve in response to changing environmental conditions which are independent of their activity, but spiritual science discerns that it's the other way around - human beings use their spiritual activity, in co-operation with yet higher beings, to create the environmental conditions which will allow for their optimal evolution and that of all other living beings through our successive incarnations. How does this happen? Obviously we can't confuse what I just wrote for an actual answer to the 'where/how' questions.

If we feel the answers to these questions are either impossible to find or haven't been found yet, then we haven't yet understood the vertical depth gradient of Time-rhythms in which all activity-modes of Be-ing are superimposed. It's not a matter of answering the questions out of our mechanical trains of sense-based thoughts on the physical plane, but of growing our "I" into the higher planes of thinking Consciousness where we have already answered the questions and turned the answers into World-forming activity.

[Stranger]

It's not a matter of answering the questions out of our own personal thoughts on the physical plane, but of growing our "I" into the higher planes of Consciousness where we have already answered the questions and turned the answers into World-forming activity.

Exactly

[Stranger]

Although the dance of creation changes around me in the hall of eternity, I shall be the Same
Sri Anandamayi Ma

[AshvinP]

It's not a matter of answering the questions out of our own personal thoughts on the physical plane, but of growing our "I" into the higher planes of Consciousness where we have already answered the questions and turned the answers into World-forming activity.

Exactly

Here is a really crude analogy we could use. When a military person wants to gather intel, he may send out drones as 'feelers' which survey territorties and returns the information to a centralized operation, where that information is further elaborated into genuine intelligence which can be creatively put to use in the World. Perhaps these drones can eventually reach a stage where they are ensouled and that they feel to be willing-feeling-thinking out of their own personal being. Yet they are still existing within the sphere of the centralized operation which coordinates their every move for precise and definite aims. "For in him we live and move and have our being."

Do we understand ourselves to be the 'drones' of nested Be-ings who say "I" with respect to human tribes, nations, civilizations, the species as a whole, the Earth as a whole? The drones may say to themselves, "I am THAT", but in so doing they block their own capacity to become conscious of the centralized operations which administer their every move, i.e. their every perception, feeling, thought, act. This is why the wise guidance has always warned against idolatry and pride. It's not some arbitrary decree to keep us from saying we are Gods, but to teach us the deeply moral path through which our self-consciousness gradually deconditions our be-ing from the higher administration, in direct proportion to how morally responsible we have become to wield such creative freedom, and we then actually become Gods, rather than only saying it or experiencing it in isolated fragments.

[Federica]

The drones may say to themselves, "I am THAT", but in so doing they block their own capacity to become conscious of the centralized operations which administer their every move, i.e. their every perception, feeling, thought, act.

Yes - said in provocative terms: "I am THAT" cannot be stolen. It has to be earned.

...the very ‘geometry’ of our intuitive sense of being lives on the waves of cascade of higher beings, whose perspective is progressively aliased until it reaches our state. One higher being can hold into its consciousness our whole incarnation as a picture, another being grasps the whole evolution of humanity, another grasps the evolution of the whole Solar organism. These beings work in musical harmony, each perfecting the details of the Cosmic organism at their level. Only our “I”, like the prodigal son, has decided to steal the life it has received ...

[Federica]

Again I say, "I dunno" and perceive a great diversity of efforts as as the best systemic insurance that something might fit well (lawfully) in a changing contexts. But, with respect, I don't want to run loops. I do want excellence along paths. I'm only defending respect for many ways to participate in the expansion of awareness. I feel in terms of which one is best for me and don't project it as best for all.

Lou,

In the politics of philosophy, with this unassuming manifesto of Both/And , you are casting your vote for the populists - as a non-philosopher, which makes total sense. Let's protect the excellence of our system of paths in VUCA world, so that somehow, somewhere "something might fit well (lawfully) in changing contexts". It's the measure of the socratic “I know that I know nothing” reversed into the unambitiously excessive “I dunno and I don’t need to” (but still advocate systemic insurance for everyone and excellence for every path).

[Lou Gold]

Again I say, "I dunno" and perceive a great diversity of efforts as as the best systemic insurance that something might fit well (lawfully) in a changing contexts. But, with respect, I don't want to run loops. I do want excellence along paths. I'm only defending respect for many ways to participate in the expansion of awareness. I feel in terms of which one is best for me and don't project it as best for all.

Lou,

In the politics of philosophy, with this unassuming manifesto of Both/And , you are casting your vote for the populists - as a non-philosopher, which makes total sense. Let's protect the excellence of our system of paths in VUCA world, so that somehow, somewhere "something might fit well (lawfully) in changing contexts". It's the measure of the socratic “I know that I know nothing” reversed into the unambitiously excessive “I dunno and I don’t need to” (but still advocate systemic insurance for everyone and excellence for every path).

Federica, by using a polar framing you are presuming an either/or between populism and elitism. This NOT how I'm framing it, which is a defence of an inclusive center both/and capable of holding the the essential system balance. It seems to me that you fear inclusion. Is this so? I don't say “I know that I know nothing” of the Great Mysteriousness. I say that I know a little bit far short of the big picture, which does not indicate no discernment or that anything goes. It means that my faith in expanded awareness is firm

[Federica]

Again I say, "I dunno" and perceive a great diversity of efforts as as the best systemic insurance that something might fit well (lawfully) in a changing contexts. But, with respect, I don't want to run loops. I do want excellence along paths. I'm only defending respect for many ways to participate in the expansion of awareness. I feel in terms of which one is best for me and don't project it as best for all.

Lou,

In the politics of philosophy, with this unassuming manifesto of Both/And , you are casting your vote for the populists - as a non-philosopher, which makes total sense. Let's protect the excellence of our system of paths in VUCA world, so that somehow, somewhere "something might fit well (lawfully) in changing contexts". It's the measure of the socratic “I know that I know nothing” reversed into the unambitiously excessive “I dunno and I don’t need to” (but still advocate systemic insurance for everyone and excellence for every path).

Federica, by using a polar framing you are presuming an either/or between populism and elitism. This NOT how I'm framing it, which is a defence of an inclusive center both/and capable of holding the the essential system balance. It seems to me that you fear inclusion. Is this so? I don't say “I know that I know nothing” of the Great Mysteriousness. I say that I know a little bit far short of the big picture, which does not indicate no discernment or that anything goes. It means that my faith in expanded awareness is firm

Lou, I understand well that it seems to you that I fear inclusion, I know you are sincere as you are saying that. Just as it seems to Eugene that I am uncomfortable with Oneness. The answer is: No, it is not so. And you know that I put my best intentions in our dialogue, and the tough wording is meant for the best. Lou, you have to manage to somehow see that your affirmation of, or firm faith in, expanded awareness, as in "we dunno - or we know a little bit - and it's enough" is the outer face of an understandable fear of knowing/of the unknown due to an endless, understandable, karmic craving for comfort and protection. But it so happens that "knowing a bit" is not enough. We are not living up to our duty and potential if we stop there. As tough as it may sound, Karma cannot be an excuse, because we happen to be provided with Will. There's a reason why we have it. The firm wish to include any possible path is nothing else than the negation that there is something True that we can come to know. Because it’s scary, we dilute it and annihilate it (the Truth) in the apparently welcoming and soothing sea of the Both/And. But it's not OK to go on playing around like that, even if we are scared... I am writing some more on the other thread.

[Cleric K]

Personally, I think it would be most presumptuous to assert knowledge of what's best for the Cosmic Whole and it is similarly presumptuous that humans will be the species to discover it.

It means that my faith in expanded awareness is firm

How are these two reconciled? Does it mean that we have faith only up to a point where we hit the hard ceiling of expanded awareness, which makes it unlikely that humans can grow into (discover) the holistic depth of reality? (and by growing into reality I don't mean it in the expansionist sense, where the intellect trespasses in the subtle realms only to salvage them and infect them with the germs of the Old World. It's rather that the intellect has to become the rootstock on which the Divine Nature is grafted)

[AshvinP]

Lou,

In the politics of philosophy, with this unassuming manifesto of Both/And , you are casting your vote for the populists - as a non-philosopher, which makes total sense. Let's protect the excellence of our system of paths in VUCA world, so that somehow, somewhere "something might fit well (lawfully) in changing contexts". It's the measure of the socratic “I know that I know nothing” reversed into the unambitiously excessive “I dunno and I don’t need to” (but still advocate systemic insurance for everyone and excellence for every path).

Federica, by using a polar framing you are presuming an either/or between populism and elitism. This NOT how I'm framing it, which is a defence of an inclusive center both/and capable of holding the the essential system balance. It seems to me that you fear inclusion. Is this so? I don't say “I know that I know nothing” of the Great Mysteriousness. I say that I know a little bit far short of the big picture, which does not indicate no discernment or that anything goes. It means that my faith in expanded awareness is firm

Lou, I understand well that it seems to you that I fear inclusion, I know you are sincere as you are saying that. Just as it seems to Eugene that I am uncomfortable with Oneness. The answer is: No, it is not so. And you know that I put my best intentions in our dialogue, and the tough wording is meant for the best. Lou, you have to manage to somehow see that your affirmation of, or firm faith in, expanded awareness, as in "we dunno - or we know a little bit - and it's enough" is the outer face of an understandable fear of knowing/of the unknown due to an endless, understandable, karmic craving for comfort and protection. But it so happens that "knowing a bit" is not enough. We are not living up to our duty and potential if we stop there. As tough as it may sound, Karma cannot be an excuse, because we happen to be provided with Will. There's a reason why we have it. The firm wish to include any possible path is nothing else than the negation that there is something True that we can come to know. Because it’s scary, we dilute it and annihilate it (the Truth) in the apparently welcoming and soothing sea of the Both/And. But it's not OK to go on playing around like that, even if we are scared... I am writing some more on the other thread.

Since we are mentioning Karma, I wanted to share an interesting lecture which approaches it from a more Eastern (theosophical) angle, which Eugene and Lou may also appreciate. I think it is relatively easy to follow even for those unfamiliar with the language of Theosophy or spiritual science. It also goes to show that what we normally know as "thinking", i.e. intellectual trains of thought-forms, should not be conflated with the Divine Thinking (or Ideation) which is the real creative World Process flowing into and constellating our normal thinking, and which we are seeking to inherit.

In Indian esotericism twelve forces are differentiated which draw man down again into physical existence. The first of these forces is Avidja: ignorance. Avidja is what draws us down again into physical existence for the simple reason that we shall only have fulfilled our mission on the Earth when we have extracted from it all possible knowledge. On the other hand we have not fulfilled our mission as long as everything that we should learn from physical existence has not yet been extracted.

After Avidja what next draws us back is what the earth contains because we ourselves have made it, which therefore belongs to our Organisation. When a mason, for instance, has worked on the building of a cathedral, this has become a part of himself. There is a reciprocal attraction between them. What has an organ-creating tendency for the original instigator, whether it be the work of Leonardo da Vinci or the smallest piece of work, forms an organ in the human being and this is the cause of his return. All that the man has done, taken together, is called Sanskara or the organising tendency which builds up the human being. This is the second thing which draws him back.

Now comes the third. Before the human being entered into any incarnation he knew nothing of an outer-world. Self-awareness first began with the first incarnation; previously man had no consciousness of self. He had first to perceive the outer objects on the physical plane before he could develop consciousness of self. True as it is that what a man has done draws him back to the physical plane, so is it true that knowledge of things draws him back. Consciousness is a new force which binds him to what is here. This is the third element that draws him into a new earth-life. This third force is called Vijnana = consciousness.

Up to this point we have remained very intimately within the human soul. As the fourth stage appears what comes towards the consciousness from outside, what was indeed already there without man, but what he had first to learn to know with his consciousness — this was present outside in his previous existence, but only disclosed itself after his consciousness opened to it. It is the separation between subject and object, or, as the Sanscrit writer says, the separation between name and form (Nama-rupa). Through this man reached the outer object. This is the fourth force that draws him back, for instance the memory of a being to which he has attached himself.

Next comes what we form as mental image in connection with an external object: for example, picturing a dog is merely making a mental image, which is however the essential thing for the painter. It is what the intellect makes of a thing: Shadayadana.

Now there is a further descent into the earthly. The mental picture leads us to what we call contact with existence: Sparsha. Whoever depends on the object stands at the stage of Nama-rupa; whoever forms pictures stands at the stage of Shadayadana. The one however who differentiates between the pleasing and the unpleasing will reach the point where he prefers the beautiful to the unbeautiful. This is called contact with existence: Sparsha.

Somewhat different however from this contact with the outer-world is what at the same time stirs inwardly as feeling. Now I myself come into action: I connect my feeling with one thing or another. That is a new element. Man becomes more involved. It is called Vedana: Feeling.

Through Vedana something quite new again arises, that is, longing for existence. The forces which draw man back into existence awaken more and more strongly within himself. The higher forces compel all human beings to a greater or lesser degree; they are not individual. Eventually however, quite personal forces appear which draw him back again into the earthly world. That is the eighth force. Trishna = Thirst for existence.

Still more subjective than the thirst for existence is what is named Upadana: Comfort in existence. With Upadana man has something in common with the animal, but he experiences it more spiritually and it is the task of man to spiritualise what is gross in this soul element.

Then comes individual existence itself, the sum of all the earlier incarnations when he was already on the earth: Bhava = individual existence, the force of the totality of earlier incarnations. Previous incarnations draw him down into existence.

With this we have retraced the stages of the Nidanas up to individual birth. The esotericist differentiates two further stages which go beyond the period of individual existence. Here he differentiates a previous condition that gave the impetus towards birth, before man had ever been incarnated. This is called Jata: what before birth gave the impetus to birth.

The impetus towards birth is interconnected with a different impulse. It brings with it the germ of dissolution, the urge to extricate oneself from individual birth. What interests us is that this earthly existence of ours falls again into decay and we are freed, able to become old and die (jaramarana). These are the twelve Nidanas which work like strings, drawing us ever and again down into existence. (The meaning of Nidana is string, loop.)

[next lecture]

We thus differentiate three stages. The first consists in external deeds brought about through the hands; the second is what is brought about through the spoken word, and the third by what is brought about through thought. And thought is something far more comprehensive than the spoken word. Thought is no longer, as with language, different among the different peoples, but belongs to the whole of humanity.

So man ascends from actions, through words to thoughts, and in this way he becomes an ever more universal being. There is no general norm for action, no logic for deeds. Everyone must act for himself. But there is no purely personal speech. Speech belongs to a group. Thought on the other hand belongs to the whole of humanity. Here we have a progression from the particular to the universal in these three human stages: deeds, words, thoughts.

In so far as he expresses himself in the outer world, man leaves behind him traces of the spirit of the whole of humanity as thought; the traces of a human group soul as word; traces of his separate human being as actions. This is most clearly expressed by pointing out the effects of what is brought about through these three stages. An individuality is like a thread which goes through all forms of personal manifestation in the different incarnations. An individuality creates for further incarnations. A people as a speech-community creates for new peoples. Humanity creates for a new humanity, for a new planet. What a man does for himself personally has significance for his next incarnation; what a nation speaks has significance for the next sub-race, for the next incarnation of a people. And when a world will be there in which our entire thinking no longer lives purely as thinking, but makes its appearance in the results of this, thinking, then a new humanity, that is to say, a new planet, comes into being. Without these great perspectives we cannot understand Karma.

What we think, has significance for the next planetary cycles. Let us now enter into the following thoughts: Will the humanity, i.e., what remains of us, which will inhabit a future planet, will this humanity still think? Just as little as a new race will speak the same language as the previous one, just as little will the future humanity still think. It is laughable to ask in our thoughts what Divinity is. On the next planet man will not think, but will comprehend the surrounding world by means of another activity having a form quite different from thought on this planet. Thinking is something connected with us. When we explain the world by means of thought, this world-explanation is for ourselves alone. This is of immensely wide import because the individual sees how as a member of humanity he is also spun into the threads of karma and how he lives and weaves into the whole karmic web.

When the Eastern occultist expounds such things he says: Our whole life is of such a nature that we seem to be surrounded by the boundaries of speaking and thinking. If we do away with these, for the ordinary man hardly anything is left. That something is still left to him when he has gone beyond all this, is the result of esotericism. What then remains is the experience of Nirvana.

The Planetary Spirit who represents the Being of the World is now incarnated in thinking, but in the future will be incarnated in something else.