The realm of the Demiurge

[Stranger]

PS: here is where I said before
attaining nondual state of consciousness is what is really crucial, while at the same time developing higher cognition, intuitive and imaginative thinking is also important, they really go hand-in-hand.
meaning that higher cognition pertains to both before and after the transition to nondual mode and should be developed during both stages.

[Stranger]

Eugene has made it clear that for him the nondual state is only at the threshold of the nondual worlds where consciousness can still exist and be active.

PS: just to clarify, it's not just my personal opinion, this is how the nondual state is understood in most Mahayana Buddhist schools (I can give plenty of quotes), and also how Christ described it as a state of Oneness and simultaneously abundant life:

I came that they may have life, and may have it abundantly (John 10:10)
May they be in us, just as you are in me and I am in you. (John 17:21)

[Cleric K]

Cleric, this is your misunderstanding, see my answer to Anthony. Intuition, Inspiration and Imagination may work in both dual and nondual modes (I clearly remember that I said that in one of my older messages, but it would be hard to find it now in 20 pages of the topic), so it may already be exploring the nondual world, or it may not. To test yourself if your higher or lower cognition is exploring the nondual world or not, see the simple test in my answer to Anthony.

OK, then let's from now on keep in mind that whenever we speak of Intuition, Inspiration and Imagination, we mean that in the nondual mode (where we don't bother to make an image for ourselves or try to define our boundaries but we creatively steer the becoming of our boundless first-person perspective within the Whole, which is not our private property but a dynamic interplay of all beings). Would you explore these stages of consciousness now? Or you would still say that what we speak of is not yet the true nondual mode and prefer your more integral approaches?

[AshvinP]

...

FYI - I moved Guney's comment and your response to this new thread.

[Stranger]

OK, then let's from now on keep in mind that whenever we speak of Intuition, Inspiration and Imagination, we mean that in the nondual mode (where we don't bother to make an image for ourselves or try to define our boundaries but we creatively steer the becoming of our boundless first-person perspective within the Whole, which is not our private property but a dynamic interplay of all beings). Would you explore these stages of consciousness now? Or you would still say that what we speak of is not yet the true nondual mode and prefer your more integral approaches?

My understanding is that Intuition, Inspiration and Imagination are the faculties that can be employed in both dualistic and nondual modes, but it depends on how we define them. If you want to define them as only pertaining to the nondual way of perceiving, I'm fine with that. Just make sure it passes the "test" that I wrote above, otherwise people may confuse themselves by believing that they are employing the Intuition, Inspiration and Imagination while still operating in the dualistic mode. For example, you can do the Conformal Cyclic Meditation and believe that you are exploring your intuitive and imaginative cognition, while still remaining in the dualistic mode of perception where you perceive your "self/I" as the experiencing "center", the "perceiver" of these intuitions (so the subject-object split still remains).

[mikekatz]

Cleric, this is your misunderstanding, see my answer to Anthony. Intuition, Inspiration and Imagination may work in both dual and nondual modes (I clearly remember that I said that in one of my older messages, but it would be hard to find it now in 20 pages of the topic), so it may already be exploring the nondual world, or it may not. To test yourself if your higher or lower cognition is exploring the nondual world or not, see the simple test in my answer to Anthony.

OK, then let's from now on keep in mind that whenever we speak of Intuition, Inspiration and Imagination, we mean that in the nondual mode (where we don't bother to make an image for ourselves or try to define our boundaries but we creatively steer the becoming of our boundless first-person perspective within the Whole, which is not our private property but a dynamic interplay of all beings). Would you explore these stages of consciousness now? Or you would still say that what we speak of is not yet the true nondual mode and prefer your more integral approaches?

I also thank everyone for this discussion. It does now seem very circular:

…in the nondual mode (where we don't bother to make an image for ourselves or try to define our boundaries but we creatively steer the becoming of our boundless first-person perspective within the Whole, which is not our private property…

“Where we”, who is this we?
“Image for ourselves”, who is ourselves?
“Our boundaries”, who is our?
“We creatively”, who is we?
“Our boundless first-person perspective”, who is our, and who is first-person?
“Our private property”, who is our?

See Eugene’s test of experiencing a non-dual state. This is not it.

An experienced non-dual state is not the rising of yourself into a higher plane with a broader view of reality. A non-dual state is an experience where egoity ends and there is just REALITY. Impossible to describe. But, no ego, no mind, no thought. Just experiencing. And returning back into a dual-state, after that, the ego and mind return and lock duality in.

To me, this is the difference between Cleric and Eugene, and their respective approaches / traditions. In Cleric’s view, the mind and Thinking are the way to break out of the non-dual. In Eugene’s view, mind and Thinking are tools of the dual domain and cannot ever reach the non-dual.

[Cleric K]

…in the nondual mode (where we don't bother to make an image for ourselves or try to define our boundaries but we creatively steer the becoming of our boundless first-person perspective within the Whole, which is not our private property…

“Where we”, who is this we?
“Image for ourselves”, who is ourselves?
“Our boundaries”, who is our?
“We creatively”, who is we?
“Our boundless first-person perspective”, who is our, and who is first-person?
“Our private property”, who is our?

See Eugene’s test of experiencing a non-dual state. This is not it.

An experienced non-dual state is not the rising of yourself into a higher plane with a broader view of reality. A non-dual state is an experience where egoity ends and there is just REALITY. Impossible to describe. But, no ego, no mind, no thought. Just experiencing. And returning back into a dual-state, after that, the ego and mind return and lock duality in.

To me, this is the difference between Cleric and Eugene, and their respective approaches / traditions. In Cleric’s view, the mind and Thinking are the way to break out of the non-dual. In Eugene’s view, mind and Thinking are tools of the dual domain and cannot ever reach the non-dual.

Mike, I'm not sure that Eugene would agree with your depiction of the nondual state. We have established that in the nondual state there's still a unique perspective within reality. Otherwise reality should feel as being experienced from all perspectives simultaneously (only in this way there's no longer justification to speak of distinct perspectives e.g. nondual being).

Eugene has further advanced to the point where there's willful spiritual activity within the nondual state, it's not just passive experiencing of an inexplicable mishmash of reality.

[Stranger]

An experienced non-dual state is not the rising of yourself into a higher plane with a broader view of reality. A non-dual state is an experience where egoity ends and there is just REALITY. Impossible to describe. But, no ego, no mind, no thought. Just experiencing. And returning back into a dual-state, after that, the ego and mind return and lock duality in.

To me, this is the difference between Cleric and Eugene, and their respective approaches / traditions. In Cleric’s view, the mind and Thinking are the way to break out of the non-dual. In Eugene’s view, mind and Thinking are tools of the dual domain and cannot ever reach the non-dual.

Mike, this is a very subtle subject. With "no ego, no mind, no thought. Just experiencing" I think you actually described the "I am nothing" stage, this is a practical stage towards the nondual realization which people normally go through (see my post here). However, this is only an intermediate stage and it is important not to get stuck there. The next stage is "I am everything" where the Thinking-Willing (on the high cognition level) does function in full capacity operating with intuitive meanings but only in the nondual way where the discursive thoughts/meanings related to "self" do not occur. In the nondual traditions it is called "no mind" mode, where "mind" is meant as the egoic dualistic way of lower-order thinking, so "no-mind" does not mean a total absence of thinking, but only suspension of the egoic-dualistic layer of thinking. So, the above test (a test whether or not the thought/perception of "self" as a perceiver/doer is sill present) is the key test, while the degree of the functioning of Thinking in the nondual mode may vary depending on the stage of practice. Temporarily putting the active mode of thinking on hold as a stage of practice is indeed useful (at the "I am nothing" stage of practice) because it allows to experientially discover "just experiencing" as the ever-present aspect of Reality. But once that is achieved, the next stage is to engage in higher-cognition Thinking-Willing (without re-engaging in the perception of "self") while maintaining the awareness of the all-encompassing aspect of Experiencing. Basically, every perception, form or idea becomes equanimously and inseparably experienced with the same Awareness everywhere without perceiving a "self" as the center of such experiencing/awareness.

Really, if we look at our direct conscious experience when any phenomenon (idea/thought, form, feeling, perception etc) is experienced, its experiencing is inseparable from the phenomenon itself. We cannot say "here is a phenomenon, and here is separately its experiencing/awareness", they are the same "thing", there actually is no subject of experiencing (awareness or "that" which is aware) that is separate from an object of it, and there is no act of experiencing separate from the phenomenon. The experiencing of every phenomenon is immediate, intimate and inseparable from the phenomenon. So, the key is to realize that the presence of phenomena (thoughts, perceptions etc) does not "break" the nonduality of experiencing. The experiencing remains undivided and ever-present regardless of the presence or absence of any phenomena or spiritual activity. But we normally unconsciously superimpose an imagination-idea on top of this direct experience that there is a "self"-center separate from the phenomenon that is actually experiencing this phenomenon. That idea is a delusion but it is where the dualistic perception is rooted. Once this deluded idea is dissolved, the World of forms continues to unfold and the spiritual activity of Thinking can function freely in the nondual mode without being distorted through the delusion of "self"-center as the "experiencer" of the World.

So, there is indeed a controversy between Anthroposophists who advocate the active mode of Thinking on higher cognition and nondualists who advocate the "I am nothing" "no thinking, just experiencing" mode as the final state of realization. But this controversy resolves at the nondual stage of "I am everything".

“Where we”, who is this we?
“Image for ourselves”, who is ourselves?
“Our boundaries”, who is our?
“We creatively”, who is we?
“Our boundless first-person perspective”, who is our, and who is first-person?
“Our private property”, who is our

Unfortunately, our common human language is inherently dualistic and bears an implied subject-object split in its every sentence. We do not have another "nondual" language. So, the fact that someone uses the pronouns like "I, we, our" does not necessarily mean that they are speaking from a dualist perspective. Again, it is only the "test" on the presence of the "self-center" thought that shows what mode of cognition is actually engaged here. And even if the "self"-thought is not present, it is still possible to use the common language with pronouns with understanding that they relate to semi-autonomous individuated spiritual activities of the same One Consciousness, so "we" still exist/function as spiritual activities, but not as "entities" ("self"-centers of experiencing). This is exactly how Rupert Spira worded it: "a self is not an entity, it is an activity".

[Lou Gold]

An experienced non-dual state is not the rising of yourself into a higher plane with a broader view of reality. A non-dual state is an experience where egoity ends and there is just REALITY. Impossible to describe. But, no ego, no mind, no thought. Just experiencing. And returning back into a dual-state, after that, the ego and mind return and lock duality in.

To me, this is the difference between Cleric and Eugene, and their respective approaches / traditions. In Cleric’s view, the mind and Thinking are the way to break out of the non-dual. In Eugene’s view, mind and Thinking are tools of the dual domain and cannot ever reach the non-dual.

Mike, this is a very subtle subject. With "no ego, no mind, no thought. Just experiencing" I think you actually described the "I am nothing" stage, this is a practical stage towards the nondual realization which people normally go through (see my post here). However, this is only an intermediate stage and it is important not to get stuck there. The next stage is "I am everything" where the Thinking-Willing (on the high cognition level) does function in full capacity operating with intuitive meanings but only in the nondual way where the discursive thoughts/meanings related to "self" do not occur. In the nondual traditions it is called "no mind" mode, where "mind" is meant as the egoic dualistic way of lower-order thinking, so "no-mind" does not mean a total absence of thinking, but only suspension of the egoic-dualistic layer of thinking. So, the above test (a test whether or not the thought/perception of "self" as a perceiver/doer is sill present) is the key test, while the degree of the functioning of Thinking in the nondual mode may vary depending on the stage of practice. Temporarily putting the active mode of thinking on hold as a stage of practice is indeed useful (at the "I am nothing" stage of practice) because it allows to experientially discover "just experiencing" as the ever-present aspect of Reality. But once that is achieved, the next stage is to engage in higher-cognition Thinking-Willing (without re-engaging in the perception of "self") while maintaining the awareness of the all-encompassing aspect of Experiencing. Basically, every perception, form or idea becomes equanimously and inseparably experienced with the same Awareness everywhere without perceiving a "self" as the center of such experiencing/awareness.

Really, if we look at our direct conscious experience when any phenomenon (idea/thought, form, feeling, perception etc) is experienced, its experiencing is inseparable from the phenomenon itself. We cannot say "here is a phenomenon, and here is separately its experiencing/awareness", they are the same "thing", there actually is no subject of experiencing (awareness or "that" which is aware) that is separate from an object of it, and there is no act of experiencing separate from the phenomenon. The experiencing of every phenomenon is immediate, intimate and inseparable from the phenomenon. So, the key is to realize that the presence of phenomena (thoughts, perceptions etc) does not "break" the nonduality of experiencing. The experiencing remains undivided and ever-present regardless of the presence or absence of any phenomena or spiritual activity. But we normally unconsciously superimpose an imagination-idea on top of this direct experience that there is a "self"-center separate from the phenomenon that is actually experiencing this phenomenon. That idea is a delusion but it is where the dualistic perception is rooted. Once this deluded idea is dissolved, the World of forms continues to unfold and the spiritual activity of Thinking can function freely in the nondual mode without being distorted through the delusion of "self"-center as the "experiencer" of the World.

So, there is indeed a controversy between Anthroposophists who advocate the active mode of Thinking on higher cognition and nondualists who advocate the "I am nothing" "no thinking, just experiencing" mode as the final state of realization. But this controversy resolves at the nondual stage of "I am everything".

“Where we”, who is this we?
“Image for ourselves”, who is ourselves?
“Our boundaries”, who is our?
“We creatively”, who is we?
“Our boundless first-person perspective”, who is our, and who is first-person?
“Our private property”, who is our

Unfortunately, our common human language is inherently dualistic and bears an implied subject-object split in its every sentence. We do not have another "nondual" language. So, the fact that someone uses the pronouns like "I, we, our" does not necessarily mean that they are speaking from a dualist perspective. Again, it is only the "test" on the presence of the "self-center" thought that shows what mode of cognition is actually engaged here. And even if the "self"-thought is not present, it is still possible to use the common language with pronouns with understanding that they relate to semi-autonomous individuated spiritual activities of the same One Consciousness, so "we" still exist/function as spiritual activities, but not as "entities" ("self"-centers of experiencing). This is exactly how Rupert Spira worded it: "a self is not an entity, it is an activity".

This is exactly how Rupert Spira worded it: "a self is not an entity, it is an activity".
[/quote]

Yes! And an ego is a habitual activity. Pretty simple.

[Federica]

This is exactly how Rupert Spira worded it: "a self is not an entity, it is an activity".

Yes! And an ego is a habitual activity. Pretty simple.

Good news here. Spirituality should be pretty simple, it should elevate us above the worldly burdens, not add more responsibilities on our plate, obviously.
I wonder why some keep on over-complicating it so much, when one can take the self-test, like yourselves activities did, and join the easy-going soul movement!