The Nature of the sensory world or do we really *know* the ultimate ground of reality?

[Stranger]

'falls into place' as in - nothing more needs to be done.

As an analogy, if we look at professional musicians, as listeners we see how effortless their playing is, how freely the music flows and seamlessly fall into place. But what we do not see is their inner state of highly developed focus and mindfulness while preforming and we do not know how much their mastery is based on the foundation of everyday hard work and efforts. The effortless playing comes after many years of consistent practice and still requires consistent practice to maintain it.

Likewise, In the Eastern traditions the state of seamless and effortless abiding in oneness (in the knowledge of Self) during everyday activities usually comes after a long period of transformation of consciousness in consistent meditation practice to make such knowledge stable and seamless. Oneness usually does not just come in and transform us on autopilot, we need to do our part of the work to clean the space in our consciousness so that Oneness can fill it.

But it also depends on individual circumstances, some people progress much faster and are able to do it with less efforts and sweat, but it is believed that this happens because they did the hard work and practiced in the previous lives. We should not judge them and tell them that they are doing it wrong because we do not know their individual circumstances (so, maybe you are just one of them). But the reality is: for the majority of folks it's just does not happen that way. But the question is: how do we know for ourselves how to approach it and how much of the hard work we actually need to do? The answer is: experimentally by trying. If we try to go along the effortless path expecting everything just to fall into place and then after some months or years nothing happens, then we will know that we do not belong to the category of those lucky ones, and so, if we really want to progress, we still need to do the work, there is no shortcut.

[Cleric K]

I would rather describe it not as an experience of a "being", but as a spiritual activity of consciousness/subjectivity resonating and interconnecting with another spiritual activity of the same consciousness/subjectivity. There is an experience of Being, but again, it is the same Being active in both spiritual activities.

That's OK but speaking of "same Being" still puts things somewhat at a distance. It sounds a little like "the same electric current powers these two motors". This is easy to imagine because as we picture this, we place ourselves as a third person that observes from the side. But let's try to move even closer to the concrete experiences. Things get interesting when we really consider first-person spiritual activity. As a simplified example let's say some being is imagining a rotating triangle. It uses its creativity to vary the speed and even the direction of rotation. Now let's say in a state of Oneness we resonate with that being such that we reach the point where "it is the same Being active in both spiritual activities". As you said previously, maybe that being is unaware that we're resonating with it. Yet we feel as the One and only Being that is responsible for the spiritual activity. It feels as if we're creatively responsible for the rotation, change in speed in direction. For example, we may even have some creative reason to rotate the tringle in a particular pattern. Maybe we rotate it in the rhythm of our favorite song from our childhood. It's interesting now what does all this mean for the being that doesn't suspect any of this. From its perspective it is creatively responsible for the rotation. It may even has its own reasons, quite different from ours, to rotate it as it does. How do we reconcile this situation?

[Stranger]

That's OK but speaking of "same Being" still puts things somewhat at a distance. It sounds a little like "the same electric current powers these two motors". This is easy to imagine because as we picture this, we place ourselves as a third person that observes from the side. But let's try to move even closer to the concrete experiences. Things get interesting when we really consider first-person spiritual activity. As a simplified example let's say some being is imagining a rotating triangle. It uses its creativity to vary the speed and even the direction of rotation. Now let's say in a state of Oneness we resonate with that being such that we reach the point where "it is the same Being active in both spiritual activities". As you said previously, maybe that being is unaware that we're resonating with it. Yet we feel as the One and only Being that is responsible for the spiritual activity. It feels as if we're creatively responsible for the rotation, change in speed in direction. For example, we may even have some creative reason to rotate the tringle in a particular pattern. Maybe we rotate it in the rhythm of our favorite song from our childhood. It's interesting now what does all this mean for the being that doesn't suspect any of this. From its perspective it is creatively responsible for the rotation. It may even has its own reasons, quite different from ours, to rotate it as it does. How do we reconcile this situation?

Here we are getting back to the "sense of me" again. What you described here is a sense that "I am a being who is doing and who is creatively responsible for the rotation", this is exactly our "sense of self" as a "doer'. Likewise, when we experience something, we sense our "self" as an "experiencer", as a "center of experience" (and this is where the subject-object split happens where we see our self as an experiencer separate from the object being experienced). So practically, many people, when attempting spiritual practice, simply extrapolate their sense of self (sense of being a "being" and a "doer" responsible for actions) to some higher Self or Cosmic Self (Cosmic Being) and imagine that there is one Being that is doing exactly what they were thinking they were doing as little selves - performing actions and experiencing objects. There is nothing wrong with such approach, it may practically happens at a certain stage of development, and we can accept it at those stages as a "provisional truth", so if you want to approach it this way then it is ok. But then, if you start to apply some logic to it, the questions like you asked naturally arise because it indeed does not really make much sense.

So, if you really want to know my answer, then you may disagree with it, and if you do, I will not go into a further dispute, but here it is. Some days ago I wrote that at some level of approaching Oneness the sense of "agency as a being responsible for a spiritual activity" disintegrates. The Divine has no sense of "me", because the sense of "me" can only develop if there is anything other than "me", but if the Divine is the only one existing, then there is nothing against which the "me" can be defined/identified. It turns out that what we call here "Being" is not a kind of entity that is doing or experiencing anything. The "Being" is existence-presence (from the word "be"=exist), not of any kind of "entity", but an alive and conscious clarity that is creative and aware with no actual "entity-doer-experiencer" or "me" to be found in it. It can still be called "Self" (because it is conscious and active) but this Self has nothing to do with our mundane sense of self-doer-experiencer. But this fact of the absence of "me" does not preclude the Self from any conscious activity at all. In this case the question you asked simply does not apply. As an analogy, our human common sense tells us that there can be either waves or particles, but it turns out that on the quantum level neither of these ideas apply, and if we try to apply them then we run into logical paradoxes. Likewise, on the Cosmic Divine level our sense-idea of self-doer-experiencer does not apply, and if we still try to apply it, we will likewise run into paradoxes one of which you just described.

This realization of the redundancy of "me" may happen naturally at some stage or can be actively researched in meditations. If enquired through our inner first-person phenomenal experience, it turns out that what in fact happens is a spiritual activity experiencing and acting, and then in our thinking we attach a sense-idea-label "it is me doing that" to all those actions and experiences. There were published experiments that showed that when we do some quick action (like pushing the breaks) the reflective sense of "I pushed the breaks" happens after the breaks were actually pushed. So, it is just a redundant sense-idea of "me-doer" hanging around in our mundane consciousness, but the harmfulness of this idea is that it is the center of our sense of ego around which our egoic desires revolve and develop. OK, I will not go into that again....

Also, FYI, here are some practical details. The extrapolation of the sense of self to the Cosmic Self is the practice used in the Advaita tradition. I am not going to argue here against it. But in the Buddhist practice the route is quite different: first the practical work on disidentifying from the sense of self is done before approaching the Oneness-Self. In this case such extrapolation of the mundane sense of self to Oneness does not happen, so IMO it is a more "clean" way of approaching Oneness. But I'm not claiming that it necessarily has to be done this way, it is just from my experience more efficient.

[Federica]

[The "Being" is existence-presence (from the word "be"=exist), not of any kind of "entity", but an alive and conscious clarity that is creative and aware with no actual "entity-doer-experiencer" or "me" to be found in it.

How can creativity be realized, achieved, or understood without a sense of me? "Being” is creative of what? In which sense?

[Stranger]

How can creativity be realized, achieved, or understood without a sense of me? "Being” is creative of what? In which sense?

The problem is that we here are discussing really advanced spiritual practices on an open public forum. Cleric pointed to a paradox that naturally arises if we try to apply the sense of "me" to the Cosmic Being, and I had to answer that it resolves on the more advanced stages of practice, but this may confuse people, so I'm sorry about that. If it does not make sense to you then just disregard it, otherwise it may really confuse you and do more harm than good.

But if you still want to know the answer, as an analogy, humans for a long time had a sense-idea that there is a "center" in the Cosmos. They first thought that the Earth is such a center, then Bruno claimed that the center is rather the Sun, but then people realized that there is actually no center in the Universe at all and the Universe can perfectly exist without any center. Likewise, we humans in our mundane state believe that we have a "center" as some "self" that experiences the world and performs the actions, but in reality such center does not actually exist, it is just a redundant sense-idea that we humans developed in our early childhood by being conditioned by our parents and the collective human karma. It turns out that Consciousness has no "center" that experiences and acts, but it still acts and experiences everything equally everywhere - right at the every point where the phenomena are created and experienced. You can actually see it in your phenomenological experience in meditation if you suspend your sense of self and then you can find that this is how actually experiencing and acting happens. That is the only practical way to "deny yourself" according to the Christ's advice. Otherwise, we enter into an irresolvable situation: how can you "deny" yourself while still being a "self"? It makes no sense and never works in practice. You can put yourself into chains like some Christian ascetics did in order to "deny yourself", and it still would be your "self" trying to fight with your own "self" as if splitting into two parts. It makes no sense.

[Cleric K]

Here we are getting back to the "sense of me" again. What you described here is a sense that "I am a being who is doing and who is creatively responsible for the rotation", this is exactly our "sense of self" as a "doer'. Likewise, when we experience something, we sense our "self" as an "experiencer", as a "center of experience" (and this is where the subject-object split happens where we see our self as an experiencer separate from the object being experienced). So practically, many people, when attempting spiritual practice, simply extrapolate their sense of self (sense of being a "being" and a "doer" responsible for actions) to some higher Self or Cosmic Self (Cosmic Being) and imagine that there is one Being that is doing exactly what they were thinking they were doing as little selves - performing actions and experiencing objects. There is nothing wrong with such approach, it may practically happens at a certain stage of development, and we can accept it at those stages as a "provisional truth", so if you want to approach it this way then it is ok. But then, if you start to apply some logic to it, the questions like you asked naturally arise because it indeed does not really make much sense.

So, if you really want to know my answer, then you may disagree with it, and if you do, I will not go into a further dispute, but here it is. Some days ago I wrote that at some level of approaching Oneness the sense of "agency as a being responsible for a spiritual activity" disintegrates. The Divine has no sense of "me", because the sense of "me" can only develop if there is anything other than "me", but if the Divine is the only one existing, then there is nothing against which the "me" can be defined/identified. It turns out that what we call here "Being" is not a kind of entity that is doing or experiencing anything. The "Being" is existence-presence (from the word "be"=exist), not of any kind of "entity", but an alive and conscious clarity that is creative and aware with no actual "entity-doer-experiencer" or "me" to be found in it. It can still be called "Self" (because it is conscious and active) but this Self has nothing to do with our mundane sense of self-doer-experiencer. But this fact of the absence of "me" does not preclude the Self from any conscious activity at all. In this case the question you asked simply does not apply. As an analogy, our human common sense tells us that there can be either waves or particles, but it turns out that on the quantum level neither of these ideas apply, and if we try to apply them then we run into logical paradoxes. Likewise, on the Cosmic Divine level our sense-idea of self-doer-experiencer does not apply, and if we still try to apply it, we will likewise run into paradoxes one of which you just described.

This realization of the redundancy of "me" may happen naturally at some stage or can be actively researched in meditations. If enquired through our inner first-person phenomenal experience, it turns out that what in fact happens is a spiritual activity experiencing and acting, and then in our thinking we attach a sense-idea-label "it is me doing that" to all those actions and experiences. There were published experiments that showed that when we do some quick action (like pushing the breaks) the reflective sense of "I pushed the breaks" happens after the breaks were actually pushed. So, it is just a redundant sense-idea of "me-doer" hanging around in our mundane consciousness, but the harmfulness of this idea is that it is the center of our sense of ego around which our egoic desires revolve and develop. OK, I will not go into that again....

Also, FYI, here are some practical details. The extrapolation of the sense of self to the Cosmic Self is the practice used in the Advaita tradition. I am not going to argue here against it. But in the Buddhist practice the route is quite different: first the practical work on disidentifying from the sense of self is done before approaching the Oneness-Self. In this case such extrapolation of the mundane sense of self to Oneness does not happen, so IMO it is a more "clean" way of approaching Oneness. But I'm not claiming that it necessarily has to be done this way, it is just from my experience more efficient.

You are again trying to solve the mystery by enforcing some kind of newspeak - as if this solves anything. So "me-doer" not OK, "Self" - admissible. Let's clear up the terminology. After death you attain to your nondual state and the creative and sovereign Self in you decides to do whatever in the nondual world. Another realized nondual being decides to go to the Andromeda galaxy and explore the nondual worlds in that context. In your view what is the correct terminology to address this fact that these two relative perspectives of the One Self are having different experiences (even in deep meditation) in very different contexts (even if as realized nondual perspective they are conscious of their fundamental unity)? If we're not allowed to speak of individual beings who feel themselves as creatively becoming, then what words should we use?

[Stranger]

You are again trying to solve the mystery by enforcing some kind of newspeak - as if this solves anything. So "me-doer" not OK, "Self" - admissible. Let's clear up the terminology. After death you attain to your nondual state and the creative and sovereign Self in you decides to do whatever in the nondual world. Another realized nondual being decides to go to the Andromeda galaxy and explore the nondual worlds in that context. In your view what is the correct terminology to address this fact that these two relative perspectives of the One Self are having different experiences (even in deep meditation) in very different contexts? If we're not allowed to speak of individual beings who feel themselves as creatively becoming, then what words should we use?

The words don't really matter as long as they do not cause confusion, the problem is that the words we use come from our human language and refer to our mundane human experiences. As I said, the nondual state is an experience of a very different kind for which human words do not directly apply because there are no experiential references for them in the mundane human experience. IMO it is OK to use the word "Self" if we really know what it is pointing to as a reality of nondual experience, but it is better to avoid it to avoid confusion that you just pointed to. That is why in the Buddhist tradition they rather avoid the word "Self" and use "Dharmata" or "Buddha's nature" instead.

So, more precisely speaking, these are not different "relative perspectives of the One Self", but rather different "fields" of phenomenal experiences in one Consciousness. There is no "single center of experience" or "perspective of the Self" in Consciousness, neither there are individuated "centers of experience" or "perspectives of the self", but it can be described more like an infinite "space" of Consciousness having experiences in a variety of the fields of experience exactly at each "point" of every phenomenon and action. In other words, the experiences and actions are continuously "distributed" across the infinite space of Consciousness and then "conglomerate" into individuated fields of experiences (which we call "souls") and interact with each other within this space of Consciousness. These experiences still form all kinds of structures and meanings and laws etc and this does not mean that this "space" is "flat". I'm trying to describe in human words how it is actually experienced in the nondual state, but I understand that it may not make much sense. In a way, we can apply the analogy of a "neural network" in which there is no actual "center" or "self" that controls everything but rather a network of neurons acting and interacting with each other coherently or incoherently and conglomerating into multiple local semi-autonomous networks.

I understand that what I'm presenting here is challenging your habitual views of "personal perspective", "personal self' or "higher Self" etc. I do not expect you to agree, and if you do not, I'm not going to argue. It is just because you started asking questions about it so I gave you my answers, just FYI. But still you are right, we are running into a paradox when we try to apply our sense of "relative personal perspective" or "personal self" to the Cosmic Self, and it is not because we use improper terminology, but because these ideas simply do not apply to the Cosmic Consciousness, they are "incoherent" with it.

[Cleric K]

The words don't really matter as long as they do not cause confusion, the problem is that the words we use come from our human language and refer to our mundane human experiences. As I said, the nondual state is an experience of a very different kind for which human words do not directly apply because there are no experiential references for them in the mundane human experience. IMO it is OK to use the word "Self" if we really know what it is pointing to as a reality of nondual experience, but it is better to avoid it to avoid confusion that you just pointed to. That is why in the Buddhist tradition they rather avoid the word "Self" and use "Dharmata" or "Buddha's nature" instead.

So, more precisely speaking, these are not different "relative perspectives of the One Self", but rather different "fields" of phenomenal experiences in one Consciousness. There is no "single center of experience" or "perspective of the Self" in Consciousness, neither there are individuated "centers of experience" or "perspectives of the self", but it can be described more like an infinite "space" of Consciousness having experiences in a variety of the fields of experience exactly at each "point" of every phenomenon and action. In other words, the experiences and actions are continuously "distributed" across the infinite space of Consciousness and then "conglomerate" into individuated fields of experiences (which we call "souls") and interact with each other within this space of Consciousness. These experiences still form all kinds of structures and meanings and laws etc and this does not mean that this "space" is "flat". I'm trying to describe in human words how it is actually experienced in the nondual state, but I understand that it may not make much sense. In a way, we can apply the analogy of a "neural network" in which there is no actual "center" that controls everything but rather a network of neurons interacting with each other coherently or incoherently and conglomerating into multiple local semi-autonomous networks.

I understand that what I'm presenting here is challenging your habitual views of "personal perspective", "personal self' etc. I do not expect you to agree, and if you do not, I'm not going to argue. It is just because you started asking questions about it so I gave you my answers, just FYI. But still you are right, we are running into a paradox when we try to apply our sense of "relative personal perspective" or "personal self" to the Cosmic Self, and it is not because we use improper terminology, but because these ideas simply do not apply to the Cosmic Consciousness.

I'm perfectly fine with your 'fields' description. But isn't it clear to you that all those difficulties arise solely because you try to absolutize the Oneness pole in contrast to the "individuated fields of experiences"? You gave the example with the field and particles to Federica, yet you succumb into exactly that error in the case of the One (wave) and the Many (particle). Even Lorenzo pointed it out. There's no conscious becoming that is not in between these two Cosmic Poles of existence.

Basically in your philosophy, with your thinking you imagine your Self completely in the pole of One, which is the 'true reality' and try to look upon existence from there, seeing the other pole as an illusionary effect that you stand above.

All problems then begin to emerge from this perspective. On some level you know that these problems are unsolvable. They are just as unsolvable as trying to balance a scale at the end rather than at the center. But this impossibility doesn't deter you. You simply make a bold postulate: "maybe it is the incarnate state with its genetics and difficult conditions that prevents me to balance the scale on its end. This shall be different after death. Then I'll be in a completely different world which I can't even conceive at this point but in that world scales exist which are balanced on their end."

This is easily solvable condition. I tried to illustrate this trap of thinking quite some time ago with the Yin-Yang fractal.



All problems arise because we believe that we can position ourselves fully in the pole of Oneness and thus be above the pole of Many (the Many is only in our Divine Mind, so to speak). Of course, we can't help but still experience reality through an individual field within the Whole. And that's the point where the inner battle begins. Instead of finding our place within the interference and evolutionary integration of the two Cosmic Poles, we want to absolutize ourselves within the pole of One and believe that in this way we have overcome the illusion of the pole of Many, even though we can't really extricate ourselves from our individuated field. The only solution remains to simply close our eyes for this problem and decide that it's unsolvable on Earth, then expect the impossible scale balanced on its end to become our true reality after death.

[Stranger]

I'm perfectly fine with your 'fields' description. But isn't it clear to you that all those difficulties arise solely because you try to absolutize the Oneness pole in contrast to the "individuated fields of experiences"? You gave the example with the field and particles to Federica, yet you succumb into exactly that error in the case of the One (wave) and the Many (particle). Even Lorenzo pointed it out. There's no conscious becoming that is not in between these two Cosmic Poles of existence.

Basically in your philosophy, with your thinking you imagine your Self completely in the pole of One, which is the 'true reality' and try to look upon existence from there, seeing the other pole as an illusionary effect that you stand above.

I think you misunderstood me, Cleric. There are no "Poles" of One and Many. There are no "perspectives" from which the reality is experienced. We picture it as if there is an "eye" that looks at the reality, whether it is the Divine One-Eye, or a multitude of our individual "eyes", individual personal "perspectives". This is an abstract model incoherent with Reality. These models of "Poles" and "perspectives" simply do not apply to the reality of Consciousness. There is only an "infinite space" of Consciousness where the experiences and actions continuously distributed and experienced at every "point" of actual experience-activity-phenomenon where there is no "subject-object" separation between the phenomenon and its experience. Each phenomenon is simultaneously its action, its presence and its conscious experience. This "space of consciousness" is only an analogy and has nothing to do with the "outer space" that we perceive. These distributed experiences-activities conglomerate into "souls" and structures that interact with each other, but really the borders between such "souls" are provisional and fuzzy, there is no actual separation between them. You can actually experience this "space" in the nondual state, this is what actually happens in the "base layer" of Reality on which we overlay our models and ideas of "Poles", "personal perspectives" "selves" and so on in our thinking minds (and funny but these ideas also happen in the same "space of Consciousness").

In meditation you can try to touch something and closely examine where the experience of touch actually happens. We usually perceive as "me" somewhere in the head experiencing the touch, but if you look very closely at the actual phenomenal experience, you will discover that the experience happens exactly at the phenomenon of touch, the phenomenon is in fact its own experience and it is inseparable from its own experience, and there is no "experiencer" in our head that actually experiences the touch. You can try the same exercise with imaginations. Usually when we have thoughts, they are more closely associated with our sense of "head" which makes us believe that it is our "self in the head" that has those thoughts. But again, if we examine more closely, we can make the thoughts appear not in the head area, and also see that the experience of thoughts are likewise inseparable from the thoughts themselves.

Anyway, you push me to explain the nondual experience in human words, which, as I told you many times, is not possible. I can only give analogies that only serve as abstract pictures of it. But then, for the same reason, they inevitably get misunderstood and I have to spend much time trying to correct these misunderstandings that only leads to more misunderstandings. I think it's a futile exercise.

[Cleric K]

I think you misunderstood me, Cleric. There are no "Poles" of One and Many. There are no "perspectives" from which the reality is experienced. We picture it as if there is an "eye" that looks at the reality, whether it is the Divine One-Eye, or a multitude of our individual "eyes", individual personal "perspectives". This is an abstract model incoherent with Reality. These models of "Poles" and "perspectives" simply do not apply to the reality of Consciousness. There is only an "infinite space" of Consciousness where the experiences and actions continuously distributed and experienced at every point. The "space" is only an analogy and has nothing to do with the "outer space" that we perceive. These distributed experiences-activities conglomerate into "souls" and structures that interact with each other, but really the borders between such "souls" are provisional and fuzzy. You can actually experience this "space" in the nondual state, this is what actually happens in the "base layer" of Reality on which we overlay our models and ideas of "Poles", "personal perspectives" "selves" and so on in our thinking minds (and funny but these ideas also happen in the same "space of Consciousness").

OK, but then, if you follow your philosophy to its ultimate conclusions, it makes no sense for you to make any plans for your post-incarnational nondual future. These plans exist only for the illusionary Eugene perspective. When you shed all the layers after death and reach the base layer, together with this the question "from whose worldline you have arrived there" ceases to have any meaning. Since the base layer is completely One, it makes no sense for the One Self to exist there and still feel that it has arrived from Eugene's worldline. This would mean that the base layer is not absolutely base after all because it is imbued with some relative knowledge about how it was reached. For example, if John Smith dies into nonduality and reaches the base layer, that would have to be a slightly modified base layer which encodes the intuition that it has been reached from JS's worldline and not Eugene's.

There are two solutions. Either we exist within a relative modification of the base layer, which contains concrete intuition about the worldline that has led us to this point or there would have to be complete indeterminacy about the worldline through which the base layer has been reached. The former would mean that even the base layer has relative beingness because there are as many versions of the base layer as there are different worldlines from which it has been reached. The latter would mean that all of Eugene's plans for some high quality nondual time are meaningless because the base layer state you have reached could have been equally reached by any other enlightened being, who, by the way, may have had a plan to go on a Bodhisattva mission right away. There's no 'you' who would be able to appreciate the fact that you have reached the nondual state through all the hard work that you currently invest. That Self that lives in the base layer can't tell apart if it's there because of Eugene's work or John Smith's.