The realm of the Demiurge

[AshvinP]

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 a great explication, Eugene! It seems you really put in the effort for Mike The bold is especially a key insight, which Cleric has also illustrated through the hysteresis rhythm of thinking-perception.

Indeed it is difficult to verbalize these nondual experiences, but clearly there is a gradient of understanding through which it can be crystallized into very useful images and concepts, as you have just shown.

[Stranger]

This is a great explication, Eugene! It seems you really put in the effort for Mike The bold is especially a key insight, which Cleric has also illustrated through the hysteresis rhythm of thinking-perception.

Indeed it is difficult to verbalize these nondual experiences, but clearly there is a gradient of understanding through which it can be crystallized into very useful images and concepts, as you have just shown.

I'm glad we finally converged to this common ground!

[Lou Gold]

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!

Yup! Perhaps a simple test of whether one has a balanced relation to ego is whether one can set it aside when such a move would be healthy or helpful? Or, to set it aside just to see if you are free of the compulsions of habit? Same with thinking... methinks.

[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!

Yup! Perhaps a simple test of whether one has a balanced relation to ego is whether one can set it aside when such a move would be healthy or helpful? Or, to set it aside just to see if you are free of the compulsions of habit? Same with thinking... methinks.

Inquiring the compulsion of habit, including thinking habit, is paramount, no perhaps about it.

Science tries to tear down and see how the world works. In SS we have to do the same but to ourselves in vivo. It’s easy to investigate that which is already dead. It’s much more difficult to investigate that which is vibrant with life, especially when it clashes with desires. To investigate the living reality of our being we need to continually overcome ourselves.
So in this direction threshold is to be found. It can only be conceived if you find within yourself the spiritual strength to differentiate your thinking from the being that doesn’t want to let go of certain pleasures.

The question is how to get a clear idea of where the compulsions reside and how to differentiate from them.

All of this would be revealed to you (...) if you took even the first steps to gradually differentiate your cognitive force from the passion-fueled intellectual templates you are currently merged with. But that requires a spirit of humility and willing sacrifice for Cosmic aims.

[Lou Gold]

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!

Yup! Perhaps a simple test of whether one has a balanced relation to ego is whether one can set it aside when such a move would be healthy or helpful? Or, to set it aside just to see if you are free of the compulsions of habit? Same with thinking... methinks.

Inquiring the compulsion of habit, including thinking habit, is paramount, no perhaps about it.

Science tries to tear down and see how the world works. In SS we have to do the same but to ourselves in vivo. It’s easy to investigate that which is already dead. It’s much more difficult to investigate that which is vibrant with life, especially when it clashes with desires. To investigate the living reality of our being we need to continually overcome ourselves.
So in this direction threshold is to be found. It can only be conceived if you find within yourself the spiritual strength to differentiate your thinking from the being that doesn’t want to let go of certain pleasures.

The question is how to get a clear idea of where the compulsions reside and how to differentiate from them.

All of this would be revealed to you (...) if you took even the first steps to gradually differentiate your cognitive force from the passion-fueled intellectual templates you are currently merged with. But that requires a spirit of humility and willing sacrifice for Cosmic aims.

Some may recall that I once shared my poem about "perhaps", which is my way of expressing both hope and humility and not intended as a challenge to other ways. In the great diversity I certainly respect that there are many way to advance and evolve one's self awareness. May the garden bloom with many varieties.

[Stranger]

The question is how to get a clear idea of where the compulsions reside and how to differentiate from them.

All of this would be revealed to you (...) if you took even the first steps to gradually differentiate your cognitive force from the passion-fueled intellectual templates you are currently merged with. But that requires a spirit of humility and willing sacrifice for Cosmic aims.

Exactly, which brings us back to the issue so well described by St. Paul from Ep. to Romans that I quoted so many times. He described it as the "law of sin" in the "flesh", but at our current stage of knowledge what is our understanding of it, where does it resides, what are the lawful structures that support and maintain this "law of sin" running and acting? Modern psychology would say that it resides in "subconsciousness" and developed through early stages of child cognitive development, modern evolutionary biology would explain it by inheriting survival mechanisms from our ancestors. Buddhists would say that these are the karmic patterns residing in so-called "alaya-vijnana", which is a sort of collective subconsciousness giving rise to both sense perceptions of the world and our compulsive thought and feeling patterns.

But do we now know any better where these compulsive patterns reside, how they act, and what are the practical ways to deal with them as we grow towards the higher levels of cognition? The Anthroposophic perspective gives beautiful and optimistic prospects of the spiritual progress of human form laying ahead of us. But is the hope that these patterns will eventually dissolve and lower cognition will be fully harmonized with higher cognition has any factual evidences from our inner experiences, or is it only a wishful thinking? We indeed can "gradually differentiate our cognitive force from the passion-fueled intellectual templates we are currently merged with" and cease to be completely merged with them, but does it make them to completely go away? Are there any Anthroposophic practitioners who attained a full freedom from compulsive thoughts and emotional reactivity rising from our human subconsciousness?

Based on my own experience, I practiced mindfulness and nondual cognition development for years, yet I still experience these compulsive thoughts and emotional reactivity regularly, they did become weaker over time and with mindfulness I can most of the time deal with them and keep them under control, but they still persist. So, if the original intention would be to become completely free of them, then I have to admit that I failed and can only say with St. Paul "O wretched man that I am! "

But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. (Romans 7)

[AshvinP]

The question is how to get a clear idea of where the compulsions reside and how to differentiate from them.

All of this would be revealed to you (...) if you took even the first steps to gradually differentiate your cognitive force from the passion-fueled intellectual templates you are currently merged with. But that requires a spirit of humility and willing sacrifice for Cosmic aims.

Exactly, which brings us back to the issue so well described by St. Paul from Ep. to Romans that I quoted so many times. He described it as the "law of sin" in the "flesh", but at our current stage of knowledge what is our understanding of it, where does it resides, what are the lawful structures that support and maintain this "law of sin" running and acting? Modern psychology would say that it resides in "subconsciousness" and developed through early stages of child cognitive development, modern evolutionary biology would explain it by inheriting survival mechanisms from our ancestors. Buddhists would say that these are the karmic patterns residing in so-called "alaya-vijnana", which is a sort of collective subconsciousness giving rise to both sense perceptions of the world and our compulsive thought and feeling patterns.

But do we now know any better where these compulsive patterns reside, how they act, and what are the practical ways to deal with them as we grow towards the higher levels of cognition? The Anthroposophic perspective gives beautiful and optimistic prospects of the spiritual progress of human form laying ahead of us. But is the hope that these patterns will eventually dissolve and lower cognition will be fully harmonized with higher cognition has any factual evidences from our inner experiences, or is it only a wishful thinking? We indeed can "gradually differentiate our cognitive force from the passion-fueled intellectual templates we are currently merged with" and cease to be completely merged with them, but does it make them to completely go away? Are there any Anthroposophic practitioners who attained a full freedom from compulsive thoughts and emotional reactivity rising from our human subconsciousness?

Based on my own experience, I practiced mindfulness and nondual cognition development for years, yet I still experience these compulsive thoughts and emotional reactivity regularly, they did become weaker over time and with mindfulness I can most of the time deal with them and keep them under control, but they still persist. So, if the original intention would be to become completely free of them, then I have to admit that I failed and can only say with St. Paul "O wretched man that I am! "

But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. (Romans 7)

I really don't want to get into any scriptural debate here, since such a thing cannot possibly be fruitful with the intellect. What follows won't be understood in any living sense until the phenomenology of real-time cognition is also experienced, because that is the key to understanding everything exoteric, let alone esoteric and occult. But since it was mentioned, I will share a tiny morcel of the Anthroposophical perspective on that verse. Much of these deep spiritual truths are contained in one form or another right there in Steiner's first and most important work (according to his own assessment), PoF. That is the beauty of it - we can arrive at the truths of ancient spirituality completely independent of the scriptures through a phenomenology of cognition, an inner examination of our own thinking-perception hysteresis rhythm, and then we return to scripture to find these same inner truths were expressed in the richest, most heartfelt spiritual way. Owen Barfield did a similar thing through a phenomenology of language transformations, which of course reflect the evolution of cognition.

And so, if it were possible [and of course it is not] that a man should have pursued the kind of studies I have been speaking of, without ever having read the gospels, or the epistles of St Paul, without ever having heard of Christianity, he would nevertheless be impelled by his reason to the conclusion that a crucial moment in the evolution of humanity must have occurred certainly during the seven or eight centuries on either side of the reign of Augustus and probably somewhere near the middle of that period. This, he would feel, from the whole course of his studies, was the moment at which the flow of the spiritual tide into the individual self was exhausted and the possibility of an outward flow began. This was the moment at which there was consummated that age-long process of contraction of the immaterial qualities of the cosmos into a human center, into an inner world, which had made possible the development of an immaterial language. This, therefore, was the moment in which his true selfhood, his spiritual selfhood, entered into the body of man. Casting about for a word to denote that moment, what one would he be likely to choose? I think he would be almost obliged to choose the word incarnation, the entering into the body, the entering into the flesh.

And now let us further suppose that our imaginary student of the history of language, having had up to now that conspicuous gap in his general historical knowledge, was suddenly confronted for the first time with the Christian record; that he now learned for the first time, that at about the middle of the period which his investigation had marked off, a man was born who claimed to be the son of God, and to have come down from Heaven, that he spoke to his followers of “the Father in me and I in you,” that he told all those who stood around him that “the kingdom of God is within you,” and startled them, and strove to reverse the direction of their thought — for the word metanoia, which is translated “repentance” also means a reversal of the direction of the mind — he startled them and strove to reverse the direction of their thought by assuring them that “it is not that which cometh into a man which defileth him, but that which goeth out of him.”

Lastly, let me further suppose that, excited by what he had just heard, our student made further inquiries and learned that this man, so far from being a charlatan or lunatic, had long been acknowledged, even by those who regarded his claim to have come down from heaven as a delusion, as the nearest anyone had ever come to being a perfect man. What conclusion do you think our student would be likely to draw?

Well, as I say, the supposition is an impossible one, but it is possible — I know because it happened in my own case — for a man to have been brought up in the belief, and to have taken it for granted, that the account given in the gospels of the birth and the resurrection of Christ is a noble fairy story with no more claim to historical accuracy than any other myth; and it is possible for such a man, after studying in depth the history of the growth of language, to look again at the New Testament and the literature and tradition that has grown up around it, and to accept [if you like, to be obliged to accept] the record as an historical fact, not because of the authority of the Church nor by any process of ratiocination such as C. S. Lewis has recorded in his own case, but rather because it fitted so inevitably with the other facts as he had already found them. Rather because he felt, in the utmost humility, that if he had never heard of it through the Scriptures, he would have been obliged to try his best to invent something like it as an hypothesis to save the appearances.

And that is at the very heart of the Christian telos - saving the appearances, in a literal sense. As St. Paul says, "For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body." These esoteric truths are hiding in plain sight, as it were, but the intellect will continue to selectively ignore what doesn't already fit into its prepackaged narrative and only pay attention to that which does.

So back to PoF - through a careful phenomenology of thinking-perception, Steiner sets out how our intuitive thinking activity, working through the instrumental constraints of the psycho-physical organization, allows for our ego-consciousness to express its will in response to concepts-ideas which serve as the motives for our moral action. That is, it is precisely through the reciprocal cooperation of essential thinking activity and the psycho-physical organism that we are able to become spiritually free beings, as the latter allows the former to become conscious of itself. Again, none of this is abstract conjecture or faith-based arguments - it only takes a careful look at the phenomenology of our most intimate thinking activity. We saw how Max and Federica performed this same phenomenology in their own way on the other thread. I think it's safe to say Federica did not even know of Anthroposophy or esoteric Christianity even a year ago, but she has no trouble reasoning this out for herself in freedom.

But what should humans do prior to embodying their ego-consciousness, i.e. before the incarnation of Christ when the ego-consciousness descended completely onto the physical plane? 

That is where the Law came in, embodied in such cultural institutions as outlined in the OT. It was all preparation for us to responsibly take hold of our capacity for spiritual freedom when it arrived, without tearing each other to shreds in the meantime. If it were possible for people back then to ascend into the spiritual worlds without continuing their moral development on Earth (it wasn't), then it would have been complete chaos. The same holds true even now to a certain extent. We still find it difficult to properly run our own businesses, families, communities, and nations, so what makes us think we are fit to be World-creating entities in the higher planes? Unearned pride, and nothing else. Yet, through many ages of incarnational development, we have progressed to the point where we can at least begin participating in the higher worlds step by step. All development proceeds through gradual stages, which is also clear from any phenomenological investigation of our living experience.

Now, at this stage of our evolution, we cannot rely on the old institutions which embodied the Law (or any external authority), which will only act as a compulsion on our inner spirit, breeding resentment and rebellion (although our weaning off them is obviously a gradual process as well). That is the (partial) meaning of what St. Paul wrote - sin came through the Law because, as long as we were dependent on coercive external authorities for our moral action, we remain enslaved to our psycho-physical sin nature. The external Law could only serve as a temporary crutch, a dressing for our spirituals wounds, until we have written the Law on our hearts through the ego-conscious (willing) development of higher cognition, i.e. Thinking of the Heart. The Pharisees of the NT were still idolizing that temporary crutch to the point where the inner spirit had been lost alotgether. That is what changes through the deed of Christ, who delivers us from this 'body of death' through the full incarnation of the Ego. Now we can spiral the Will into our Thinking, to purify the former and vivify the latter, thereby ascending through the Spirit and the Son to the Father.

As we also find in PoF:

Among the levels of characterological disposition, we have singled out as the highest the one that works as pure thinking or practical reason. Among the motives, we have just singled out conceptual intuition as the highest. On closer inspection it will at once be seen that at this level of morality driving force and motive coincide; that is, neither a predetermined characterological disposition nor the external authority of an accepted moral principle influences our conduct. The action is therefore neither a stereotyped one which merely follows certain rules, nor is it one which we automatically perform in response to an external impulse, but it is an action determined purely and simply by its own ideal content.

Such an action presupposes the capacity for moral intuitions. Whoever lacks the capacity to experience for himself the particular moral principle for each single situation, will never achieve truly individual willing.

By the grace of Christ's sacrificial acts, we now have the capacity to develop our feeling-imbued thinking, through which the Law can be written on our hearts and emanate from within, outwards. There is no discontinuity here - it's not about eradicating the old moral principles (which are, in fact, spiritual beings), but imaginatively and intuitively discovering the inner reasons why they are justified, in each and every individual instance which calls for a moral decision, and thereby deserving of our loyalty, our faith. 

"And do not be afraid of their threats, nor be troubled. But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed."

Of course there is infinite depth which can be explored here. What I wrote is not so much an answer to the question, 'what does St. Paul's verses mean?', but a pointer towards the manner in which we can realize that we are being asked the question and being asked to become the answer through our thought-full lives. These are not matters for the intellect to discursively analyze. They are deeply moral tasks to fulfill for the Earth evolution if we choose to, in complete freedom, through our ceaseless spiritual evolution. 

[Stranger]

It all sounds beautiful, Ashvin, but did not address my question.

[AshvinP]

It all sounds beautiful, Ashvin, but did not address my question.

Eugene,

But do we now know any better where these compulsive patterns reside, how they act, and what are the practical ways to deal with them as we grow towards the higher levels of cognition? The Anthroposophic perspective gives beautiful and optimistic prospects of the spiritual progress of human form laying ahead of us. But is the hope that these patterns will eventually dissolve and lower cognition will be fully harmonized with higher cognition has any factual evidences from our inner experiences, or is it only a wishful thinking? We indeed can "gradually differentiate our cognitive force from the passion-fueled intellectual templates we are currently merged with" and cease to be completely merged with them, but does it make them to completely go away? Are there any Anthroposophic practitioners who attained a full freedom from compulsive thoughts and emotional reactivity rising from our human subconsciousness?

The answer is yes to all of them (except maybe the bold), but what does it do for you if I simply say "yes" and point to Western esoteric masters such as Steiner and others? It does nothing for you, nor should it. How the creation (lower cognition), groaning in anticipation, will be reedemed is something to be revealed in us and through us, exactly as St. Paul said. That is why I said we can't discursively analyze these questions and gather 'evidences' to formulate an answer, but must seek to inwardly become the answers to them. Our whole lives must gradually become an inward imitation of the Divine incarnation and passion, through which the creation is transfigured and resurrected, beginning with our own thought-lives. It is not so much optimism as a healthy balance rooted in the recognition of our own creative responsibility in advancing spiritual evolution.

All optimism and pessimism are thereby refuted. Optimism assumes that the world is perfect, that it must be a source of the greatest satisfaction for man. But if this is to be the case, man would first have to develop within himself those needs through which to arrive at this satisfaction. He would have to gain from the objects what it is he demands. Pessimism believes that the world is constituted in such a way that it leaves man eternally dissatisfied, that he can never be happy. What a pitiful creature man would be if nature offered him satisfaction from outside! All lamentations about an existence that does not satisfy us, about this hard world, must disappear before the thought that no power in the world could satisfy us if we ourselves did not first lend it that magical power by which it uplifts and gladdens us. Satisfaction must come to us out of what we make of things, out of our own creations. Only that is worthy of free beings.

Now with the bold question, if you mean something akin to beholding the 'engine of reality' from the Cosmic periphery where "I am everything", I think Cleric is addressing that very well in the other thread. Steiner also makes an interesting comment which is relevant:

If one is going to do justice to everything connected with these weighty and significant facts, one must free oneself from prejudice. One ahrimanic prejudice is particularly common in those who still harbour a longing to be mystics. The prejudice comes to expression in a certain sensibility, and consists in the belief that what is earthly is worthless and absolutely must be overcome — that it is coarse, contemptible stuff that a spiritually striving person does not even mention. That for which one must strive is the spirit! This is the way such people experience things, even if their concept of the spirit is confused and they can only picture it in terms of the physical senses. Therefore I said that this prejudice expresses itself more as a sensibility in a particular direction. But one will never be able to understand the nature of either mankind or of the world as long as one clings to this prejudiced mode of experience. A person who is living on earth in an earthly human body can only preserve such a sensibility by viewing the earth in a one-sided way. Following from this attitude to the earth comes a longing — a partially justified longing — for the super-earthly and for things that should be experienced between death and a new life. But one will never be able to develop any sort of clarity in one's feelings for the life between death and a new birth as long as earthly things are regarded in the manner to which I just alluded. For, paradoxical though it may sound, the following is a true statement — and you will find it clearly expressed in various lecture cycles: the dead, those living in spirit and the soul in the interval between death and a new birth, speak of the earth in the same way that men on earth speak of heaven. The earth is a shimmering vision that hovers in front of them in the way the vision of heaven hovers in the mind's eye of those on earth. Earth is the desired other world for which those living in heaven yearn. They speak of earth in the way we speak of heaven.
...
So there you have an area in which the spiritual world is a total reversal of what the appearances in the physical world would lead you to expect. But, as I said, this rule should not be abstractly extended to cover everything. I have gone into all this about how the earthly realm becomes the ‘other world’ when we are living between death and a new birth so that you will not misinterpret the contrast that ancient Greek mythology expressed with the words, ‘Uranus’ and ‘Gaia’. Uranus and Gaia were not incompatible, one referring to what is absolutely valuable and the other to what is absolutely worthless. They were conceived as a polarity that exists within a unity: Uranus represents the peripheral, encircling realm whose polar opposite is the point at the centre, Gaia. To begin with, when they spoke of Uranus and Gaia, the Greeks did not limit their thoughts to the narrow confines of human sexuality or earthly life. They were thinking of the contrast we just mentioned — between heaven and earth. This is the contrast they intended.

I also touched on the issue briefly earlier on this thread, in relation to my own ongoing struggles. Do you see any of yourself in this following comment, when you are asking for 'evidences' of spiritual evolution and frustrated that the engine of reality is not unveiled before you after trying some your adapted versions of Steiner or Cleric's exercises? Is it possible that the unwillingness to sacrifice the perspective which holds such expectations is precisely what stands in the way of unveiling the 'machinery' of your own cognitive engine?

When I began my meditations and first had some powerful experiential shifts, this expectant attitude came to the fore. I was constantly wondering, 'ok what does this mean for me? when I am going to get even further revelations? how can I immediately weave what I have experienced into a satisfying theory of the higher worlds?', and similar questions. It is basically a feeling of entitlement - that, because of my initial efforts and deeper insights, I deserve something of great significance in return. It's easy to see where this can lead - if that something in return doesn't come according to my current expectations, then the frustration and resentment gradually starts to build. Then the theory born of the first orientation mentioned above becomes even more enticing, as it provides a convenient, responsibility-free explanation of why I have not progressed further like I expected to. Someone else is pulling the strings and hanging me out to dry, so perhaps I can just go about my life as usual with the hope of severing the strings after death. Basically, we expect the landscape to transform around us, either now or after death, rather than to transform our landscape by inwardly being transformed through the inflow of Cosmic impulses of a deeply moral character.

[Stranger]

Steiner wrote:
For, paradoxical though it may sound, the following is a true statement — and you will find it clearly expressed in various lecture cycles: the dead, those living in spirit and the soul in the interval between death and a new birth, speak of the earth in the same way that men on earth speak of heaven. The earth is a shimmering vision that hovers in front of them in the way the vision of heaven hovers in the mind's eye of those on earth. Earth is the desired other world for which those living in heaven yearn. They speak of earth in the way we speak of heaven.

All right, you still avoided answering the question, but never mind, this Steiner's sentence is a good one which confirms for me what's going on in this realm.