The realm of the Demiurge

[Lou Gold]

I confess that I've been lurking a tiny bit. Good to see the old gang still at it. I have nothing to add to the argument or analysis but I thought it might be fun to artistically imagine the shine of a being who had fully integrated the non-dualist witness and the dualist polarity within her or his nature. The image below is a photoshop manipulation of the original sculpture “Granite Triple Head” by Ted Ludwiczak. Of course, it's just a vision. Meanwhile, back in the real world, I send good wishes that all may perform according to their highest ideals. ALOHA!

[Stranger]

I send good wishes that all may perform according to their highest ideals. ALOHA!

Aloha, Lou, hope you are doing well

[Anthony66]

I know Stranger is understandably exhausted by this thread but one thing I was hoping would at least be agreed upon here is the relationship between non-dual and imaginative/inspiritive/intuitive modes of cognition. A couple of times Cleric has almost indicated (conceded?) that non-dual cognition is perhaps the entry point to these other forms. The language of orthogonality appears to be resisted. Could we say that non-dual cognition is a mode of imaginative/inspiritive/intuitive cognition? Or perhaps just a mode of all forms of cognition conceptual/imaginative/inspiritive/intuitive?

[Cleric K]

I know Stranger is understandably exhausted by this thread but one thing I was hoping would at least be agreed upon here is the relationship between non-dual and imaginative/inspiritive/intuitive modes of cognition. A couple of times Cleric has almost indicated (conceded?) that non-dual cognition is perhaps the entry point to these other forms. The language of orthogonality appears to be resisted. Could we say that non-dual cognition is a mode of imaginative/inspiritive/intuitive cognition? Or perhaps just a mode of all forms of cognition conceptual/imaginative/inspiritive/intuitive?

Hi Anthony. I’m glad that you’re asking this because it is really at the root of all discussions that we’ve had with Eugene through the years. Even though it seems that, as always, we’ve been going in circles in this thread, I think that although indirectly, Eugene has explicated his position completely clearly.

Let’s start with the following:



This is how almost everyone can grasp nondual spirituality today. It’s all about this ‘stepping out of the movie’, ‘we’re the water and not the waves’ and so on. The realized self manages to extricate itself from the Merry-go-round of outer life (bouncing on the waves) and at least for a while contemplate reality from the laminarity of the water.

From this point onwards opinions diverge. Some people see this as the highest and final achievement. 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.

The problems begin when it is pointed out that for the last two millennia the human state has been developed even further. To be sure, this has been going on only in the most restricted circles of the mystery schools but today the higher knowledge works its way into the general consciousness of humanity. This can be represented in the following way:



All that the above implies is that the point where the intellect collapses is only a point of transition between states. The whole science consists in how to gain consciousness in these higher states and very importantly – how to step-down that consciousness such that it reaches the level of aggregation of concepts and images. In this way a kind of gradient of cognition is developed, which allows the lower being to be fully consciously attuned to the higher flows of the Cosmos. This is important to note – what we know through the higher forms of consciousness is not simply a fancy extension of our personal mental view about reality. It is about becoming conscious of the inner perspectives of the living World itself, with which we're one.

This is what Eugene dismisses. It is unacceptable that Intuition, Inspiration and Imagination may already be exploring the nondual worlds and levels of self. He would rather see the picture thus:



In other words, only the outermost concepts and images are recognized – and these necessarily live in our ordinary intellectual (dual) consciousness – and thus it is assumed that they are a product of dual speculation or at most, gentle flirting with the nondual boundary. That’s why Eugene finds the exercises we often speak about as interesting but he has modified them to be more integral, thus addressing the nondual above.

The reason for all this has become clear in the discussion here. Eugene accepts that there are other levels of nondual self but they are impossible to investigate in clear cognition while on Earth. Thus one can sacrifice everything there is to be sacrificed from the dual realm but the higher sacrifices (through which the higher levels of nondual self are reached) are left for after death. Of course, one can investigate the nondual worlds even here but whatever we experience of them remains quite orthogonal to the dual cognition and no usable gradient can be built.

That’s really all there is to our discussions over the years. It’s just that we usually go in wide circles around this center, yet the center has always been there and the very same. It’s about dismissing even as a remote possibility that Initiatic science has moved forward over the last two thousand years and exceptional beings at the forefront of evolution have developed the methods through which the nondual worlds and beings can be cognitively known. Not as speculations in the dual mind but by gaining consciousness at the nondual levels from which the mind itself and our environment precipitate. At the center of this knowledge is the Cosmic archetypal nature of the I AM, which is discovered as the inner essence and the Inspirer of the small “I”. The small “I” becomes the outlet of Divine Love – of the deeper levels of the nondual Divine Self.

All this is not said in order to convince anybody about which of the two pictures is correct. Here everyone will have to settle that question individually, in complete freedom.

I just want to point once again the fundamental asymmetry between the two pictures. These are not simply two competing religious beliefs about reality. One of them is a completely practical path that can go in full detail about all the steps and milestones, about the methods, about the findings and so on. The other rests on the assumption that it is impossible to know such things while in an Earthly body and thus by definition, all those who claim otherwise are necessarily deluded (which leaves the paradoxical question – if all we can know about the nature of the beyond from our Earthly standpoint, is untrustworthy, then why do we chose to trust our own preferred vision of the beyond, which by the same criteria should be just as untrustworthy).

This explains fully the nature of our dialogs here. As long as we speak of the structure of reality in general, as seen from the side, we’re in full agreement. The moment we have to find our place within that reality, disagreement issues.

Eugene has stated it clearly – if the messages that spiritual science brings about the lawfulness of reality were more in line with his own preferences, he would consider Steiner a genuine nondual teacher, who has made contributions to the development of the gradient of cognition across the worlds. But since the messages speak of too many responsibilities of the young growing humanity, it is much more convenient to see the whole endeavor as lying below the nondual boundary and being heavily influenced by the Demiurge.

With this I’m not trying to perpetuate the discussion. It’s just about pointing at the center of all the circles. It might be disappointing that there’s no definite ‘proof’ here for which one is right. This is someone everyone will have to discover for themselves.

[Cleric K]

Could we say that non-dual cognition is a mode of imaginative/inspiritive/intuitive cognition? Or perhaps just a mode of all forms of cognition conceptual/imaginative/inspiritive/intuitive?

PS: To return the questions above, I would say that, if we really need to use that terminology, non-dual cognition would be simply the general term which points to the totality of imaginative/inspiritive/intuitive cognition. The latter are simply names for the concrete stages along the gradient of non-dual consciousness. In that case, 'non-dual cognition' would simply be a synonym for what we always called simply 'higher cognition'.

[AshvinP]

I know Stranger is understandably exhausted by this thread but one thing I was hoping would at least be agreed upon here is the relationship between non-dual and imaginative/inspiritive/intuitive modes of cognition. A couple of times Cleric has almost indicated (conceded?) that non-dual cognition is perhaps the entry point to these other forms. The language of orthogonality appears to be resisted. Could we say that non-dual cognition is a mode of imaginative/inspiritive/intuitive cognition? Or perhaps just a mode of all forms of cognition conceptual/imaginative/inspiritive/intuitive?

Anthony,

I hope it's also clear that, what may seem like a simple misalignment in understanding of 'higher cognition', as portrayed with Cleric's images above, can lead to a topsy-turvy orientation towards our fellow humanity and our Earthly evolution and the gradient which is necessary for the former to advance the latter. Many things can be conceptually 'agreed' to, but here is where we find out whether our 'agreement' or 'disagreement' actually amounts to anything of living significance. The only reason we can speak of an Earthly evolution is because the lawful gradient is already established and accessible, but it will only expand in the proper direction through our efforts here and now. This is why Eugene also must deny any concrete notion of spiritual evolution on Earth - if such a thing is real, then it means the lawful gradient from dual to nondual exists, accessible to our Earthly consciousness, and many undesired, unpreferred implications follow from there. The deeper reasons why the anti-gradient orientation is so problematic will only be fleshed out for us as we livingly enter the details of the consciousness gradient itself, i.e. spiritual science pursued inwardly. That requires a great level of humility, openness, patience, and persistence. Any love of convenience or ease will not take us very far.

Nevertheless, it is clear even to our normal way of thinking that one orientation leads to what was expressed in the initial videos and websites Eugene posted - the normal projective tendency (which we all harbor by default) finds its extreme form, its natural logical conclusion, in the Demiurge theories which, by axiom, locate the source of evil/suffering in factors beyond our Earthly knowledge and control (which should include the Demiurgic theories themselves, but doesn't). It gets to the point where the one thing everyone used to understand about Christianity (exoteric and esoteric), i.e. the spirit of repentance and confession and locating the source of evil within one's own heart, becomes completely opaque to the intellect and instead the scriptures are cited as support for the exact opposite. It is the same trend we have seen develop in the fundamentalist circles as well, which often vilify some external group of humans and/or demonic entities. They play on the congregation's fears of these external powers. The second orientation discerns that, the more living knowledge we attain of this nested gradient of consciousness through which we rhythmically descend and ascend, the more we take on creative responsibility for our own destinies, motivated by the Truth that those destinies are woven out of our own intents and deeds across these incarnations. We come to experience-know the adversarial forces, which certainly exist, in the most intimate way, as they manifest through our daily lives within our own soul-life.

The first orientation also leads to a radical attitude of expected salvation from forces beyond. Again, this is the default mindset for modern thinking. 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.

Like Cleric said, it's not about believing which view is 'true' based on these crude outlines and remarks. We can't treat any of what was written here as external 'proofs' for one or the other view, because the reality is only experienced from within after sustained effort. Our current conceptual activity is only one tool by which we can intently steer our intuitive becoming towards high ideals, and a tool which must also be sacrificed at a certain stage to give it a new life. But we can also honestly confront the most obvious implications of the orientations above, if one or the other is adopted, for ourselves and for humanity and the Earth organism as a whole. We can let our intellectual concepts surrounding these models/theories really penetrate into our mysterious life of feeling, where we no longer have clear-cut concepts but where there lives a deeper and more immanent wisdom. What is the real living significance of these orientations in the evolving world around us? How do they express themselves in the lives of individuals, families, nations, cultures, and humanity? What has already resulted on Earth from this projective mindset? Ultimately the pursuit of higher cognition and spiritual science cannot be separated from the practical course of life itself, as the seeming discontinuity between the dual and nondual is actively bridged.

[Stranger]

I know Stranger is understandably exhausted by this thread but one thing I was hoping would at least be agreed upon here is the relationship between non-dual and imaginative/inspiritive/intuitive modes of cognition. A couple of times Cleric has almost indicated (conceded?) that non-dual cognition is perhaps the entry point to these other forms. The language of orthogonality appears to be resisted. Could we say that non-dual cognition is a mode of imaginative/inspiritive/intuitive cognition? Or perhaps just a mode of all forms of cognition conceptual/imaginative/inspiritive/intuitive?

Anthony, to state it briefly: imaginative/inspiritive/intuitive are rather the "faculties" of "instruments" of cognition that can be applied in different ways/modes, namely, in both dualistic and nodual modes (we call them "higher cognition", even though there are more to higher cognition then just those three). As a rough analogy, a guitar can be used to play in very different styles of music, like medieval or jazz. This classification is similar to how we classify the Consciousness's fundamental abilities into experiencing, thinking/cognizing, willing, feeling; likewise, cognizing can be further classified into "lower" and "higher" ones. Linguistically we can still call them as "modes of cognition", while nondual and dualistic are rather "modes of perception of reality".

A simple test to see in which mode you are is this: if you sense yourself as the a "self" - as a subject of experiences, of the perceptions of the external or internal world, as a "doer" of actions, as a "center locus" by which all perceptions of the world are experienced (like "I am here at the core center of myself perceiving this object out there"), and if you believe that this sense of "self"-"other" is a truthful state of reality, then you are still in the dualistic mode, there is still the subject-object duality present in your cognition and perception, even though you may be cognizing on the high-cognition levels. In the nondual mode the sense of personal self and of the subject-object (of perception, acting or thinking) are not present. That is by far not the only feature of the nondual mode, but it is one of its main hallmarks. That is why I call these modes "orthogonal", because the sense of and belief in the subject-object ("self-other") as a truthful state of reality cannot be absent and present simultaneously at the same level of cognition.

[Stranger]

This is what Eugene dismisses. It is unacceptable that Intuition, Inspiration and Imagination may already be exploring the nondual worlds and levels of self. He would rather see the picture thus:

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.

[AshvinP]

This is what Eugene dismisses. It is unacceptable that Intuition, Inspiration and Imagination may already be exploring the nondual worlds and levels of self. He would rather see the picture thus:

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.

viewtopic.php?p=19301#p19301

I never disagreed with Steiner about usefulness of developing imaginative, inspirational and intuitive thinking aspects, in fact I am practicing them (I tried some Steiner's exercises but I'm now practicing them in my own way trying to combine with nondual practice) and I find this portion of Steiner's teachings quite useful. What I find missing in Anthroposophy is nonduality. So yes, if he would, in addition to all he already has, add the nondual perspective and practice, and leave the decision for the soul to incarnate or not back into human form freely according to its own discretion, than I would more fully subscribe to it.

[Stranger]

What I find missing in Anthroposophy is nonduality.

Even if that would be true, it does not mean that higher cognition cannot work in both dual and nondual modes. Bit I admit that I'm not always precise in my statements. To be more precise, nonduality was missing in Cleric's and your exposition of Anthroposophy, as you guys always actively rejected the nondual mode as a mode of cognition of any worth in our previous discussions, and it does not necessarily mean that nonduality is missing in Anthroposophy as a whole. I actually pointed to Steiner implying expansion of higher cognition into the nondual mode in this topic, so it would not be true to claim that nonduality is missing in Anthroposophy as presented by Steiner (or perhaps his other followers). But it looks like now you guys are becoming more open to it, which is good, so maybe this is no longer valid.

So, as I said, my only two points of arguing here are these, otherwise I have no other objections against Anthroposophy:
- Accept nonduality as a valid (and actually the only true) mode of cognition/perception
- Let the souls decide whether to reincarnate or not into humans, and not consider the path of incarnating in nondual domains as improper or inferior to incarnating into humans. There are valid arguments for the souls to choose both ways, and both should be considered as equally acceptable choices.