The 'nuts and bolts' of spiritual practice

[Stranger]

Yes, developing intellect and cognitive abilities if practicing Jnana yoga, but jnana yoga is a difficult path, appropriate for very few . . . why I clarified above. Most practitioners will practice Karma or Bhakti yoga.

Oh, OK, I thought you were talking about Jnana. Well, developing higher cognition is also important together with practicing Bhakti and Karma yoga, that prepares the mind for transitioning to Jnana. Part of the Antroposophic path is also to develop higher intuitive cognition.

[AshvinP]

Regarding the bold - would you say that the gravity of the Sun results only from body\mind activity of conscious agents? I'm not speaking about our intellectual concept of gravity but the fact that we seem to share a common Cosmic context that is more powerful than individual whims and concepts. We experience years, seasons and so on, and can do very little to wish that away. Can we say that these things don't apply to everyone or they apply only if we have interest in them?

Of course, in general we perceive and reason about all this indirectly, through discovering certain lawfulness within our bodily perceptions. It's agreeable that such conceptual understanding requires the support of the individual brain. But what in your view is the true essence of the Cosmic context? Is it only a synchronized, consensual hallucination shared between fully independent conscious agents (like Adur's philosophy)? Something like a multiplayer game where all calculations happen on the individual computer but we only exchange network packets to keep the separate game states on each PC synchronized to one another? Or there's truly something greater than individual minds which serves as the context for our streams of being?

If you opt for the latter, then the question would be whether this living context is of spiritual nature, whether according to the principle of Oneness, human consciousness can expand and know from experiential perspective something of this Macrocosmic context within which our body-bound consciousness is embedded?

If you lean towards the view that there might be such a spiritual context but it is consciously unknowable, then we arrive at Schop's position. On the other hand, if you conceive of the possibility that because of Oneness, there's no principle obstacle that human-level consciousness can find its nested relations within Cosmic Consciousness, then you may conceive that what is here called archetypes, are precisely these Macrocosmic ideal forces that constitute our Cosmic context. We should clearly distinguish between our conceptual symbols for these archetypal forces, which indeed are dependent on our individual brain structures - both physical and more subtle - and the actual Macrocosmically experienced spiritual forces.

So the whole question is whether you conceive as a possibility that the Cosmos is spiritual in nature, whether there are Macrocosmic spiritual perspectives which constitute the inner reality of the Sun, the planets, the kingdoms of Nature and so on, or you lean towards a more agnostic view, where lucid consciousness can emerge only in something like the highly complicated human system, while the inner reality of the Cosmos can be innerly known only asymptotically because the more we expand towards its vastness, the more we discover only the cognitively dark instinctive Will that permeates and moves all, yet can know itself consciously only in human heads.

If we use the expression 'gravity of the Sun', we are implying objects and their relations - in which case I would stick with the explanaition of Physics, gravity is an attractive force between objects with mass and energy. We don't need to add an layer of an Idea of Gravity to explain it.
Re the experience and appreciation of years and seasons; whether we regard these as cultural conditioning and programming passed on from generation to generation, or, if we regard them as cultural archetypes, as shared ideas between minds, minds with elastic and porous borders. Either explanation works without having to add a Season Idea or Year Idea to the world.

Lorenzo,

Do you consider these 'explanations'? What is mass, energy, attractive force?

These are abstracted word-concepts of the intellect, which is exactly that faculty you keep criticizing in relation to foundational reality. You say it's pretty much useless and developing it further, even growing its potential into higher cognitive faculties, won't get us any closer to Being. So how exactly are the intellectual concepts of 'cultural conditioning and programming passed on from generation to generation', working as a completely sufficient and satisfactory explanation of archetypal experiential phenomena? There is a great discrepancy here. You are settling for the mere conceptual symbols that Cleric spoke of, wheras we are referring to the experiential spritual forces underlying those symbols which provide overarching context for our individual and collective Earthly streams of becoming, forces which can't be wished or conceptualized out of existence.

It only makes sense if the Kantian/Schop boundary is erected and you say 'that's the best sort of explanation we can have, because all the finer living, experiential aspects are trapped behind a dissociative boundary which will only dissolve for us upon death'. But then it becomes clear that the 'Oneness' you are speaking of can only be the unified intuitive noise of our own human brain structure. Otherwise it would grow into harmony with the Cosmic forces and become lucidly conscious of how they work into our our lives, beyond the mere conceptual placeholder symbols of mass, energy, gravity, etc.

[lorenzop]

Regarding the bold - would you say that the gravity of the Sun results only from body\mind activity of conscious agents? I'm not speaking about our intellectual concept of gravity but the fact that we seem to share a common Cosmic context that is more powerful than individual whims and concepts. We experience years, seasons and so on, and can do very little to wish that away. Can we say that these things don't apply to everyone or they apply only if we have interest in them?

Of course, in general we perceive and reason about all this indirectly, through discovering certain lawfulness within our bodily perceptions. It's agreeable that such conceptual understanding requires the support of the individual brain. But what in your view is the true essence of the Cosmic context? Is it only a synchronized, consensual hallucination shared between fully independent conscious agents (like Adur's philosophy)? Something like a multiplayer game where all calculations happen on the individual computer but we only exchange network packets to keep the separate game states on each PC synchronized to one another? Or there's truly something greater than individual minds which serves as the context for our streams of being?

If you opt for the latter, then the question would be whether this living context is of spiritual nature, whether according to the principle of Oneness, human consciousness can expand and know from experiential perspective something of this Macrocosmic context within which our body-bound consciousness is embedded?

If you lean towards the view that there might be such a spiritual context but it is consciously unknowable, then we arrive at Schop's position. On the other hand, if you conceive of the possibility that because of Oneness, there's no principle obstacle that human-level consciousness can find its nested relations within Cosmic Consciousness, then you may conceive that what is here called archetypes, are precisely these Macrocosmic ideal forces that constitute our Cosmic context. We should clearly distinguish between our conceptual symbols for these archetypal forces, which indeed are dependent on our individual brain structures - both physical and more subtle - and the actual Macrocosmically experienced spiritual forces.

So the whole question is whether you conceive as a possibility that the Cosmos is spiritual in nature, whether there are Macrocosmic spiritual perspectives which constitute the inner reality of the Sun, the planets, the kingdoms of Nature and so on, or you lean towards a more agnostic view, where lucid consciousness can emerge only in something like the highly complicated human system, while the inner reality of the Cosmos can be innerly known only asymptotically because the more we expand towards its vastness, the more we discover only the cognitively dark instinctive Will that permeates and moves all, yet can know itself consciously only in human heads.

If we use the expression 'gravity of the Sun', we are implying objects and their relations - in which case I would stick with the explanaition of Physics, gravity is an attractive force between objects with mass and energy. We don't need to add an layer of an Idea of Gravity to explain it.
Re the experience and appreciation of years and seasons; whether we regard these as cultural conditioning and programming passed on from generation to generation, or, if we regard them as cultural archetypes, as shared ideas between minds, minds with elastic and porous borders. Either explanation works without having to add a Season Idea or Year Idea to the world.

Lorenzo,

Do you consider these 'explanations'? What is mass, energy, attractive force?

These are abstracted word-concepts of the intellect, which is exactly that faculty you keep criticizing in relation to foundational reality. You say it's pretty much useless and developing it further, even growing its potential into higher cognitive faculties, won't get us any closer to Being. So how exactly are the intellectual concepts of 'cultural conditioning and programming passed on from generation to generation', working as a completely sufficient and satisfactory explanation of archetypal experiential phenomena? There is a great discrepancy here. You are settling for the mere conceptual symbols that Cleric spoke of, wheras we are referring to the experiential spritual forces underlying those symbols which provide overarching context for our individual and collective Earthly streams of becoming, forces which can't be wished or conceptualized out of existence.

It only makes sense if the Kantian/Schop boundary is erected and you say 'that's the best sort of explanation we can have, because all the finer living, experiential aspects are trapped behind a dissociative boundary which will only dissolve for us upon death'. But then it becomes clear that the 'Oneness' you are speaking of can only be the unified intuitive noise of our own human brain structure. Otherwise it would grow into harmony with the Cosmic forces and become lucidly conscious of how they work into our our lives, beyond the mere conceptual placeholder symbols of mass, energy, gravity, etc.

I know little of Kant & Shopen so I can't speak to that.
Re your above: "You say it's pretty much useless and developing it further, even growing its potential into higher cognitive faculties, won't get us any closer to Being. " . . . I never suggested this, read what I posted above.
Re your above: "experiential spritual forces underlying those symbols which provide overarching context for our individual and collective Earthly streams of becoming" . . . I am not sure if these 'experiential spritual forces' exist outside of the finite mind, but I have granted these forces could exist as flotsam/jetsam of a community of like minded conscious minds, and available to those who share similar belief systems or choose to seek them out.
And there could be earth-based Ideas, artifacts of generations of thinking human beings. Being an Idealist, the boundaries of the finite mind are not rigid and fixed, but elastic and porous. However these Ideas would not be eternal or fixed, or given by some higher force, but accumulate.

[AshvinP]

If we use the expression 'gravity of the Sun', we are implying objects and their relations - in which case I would stick with the explanaition of Physics, gravity is an attractive force between objects with mass and energy. We don't need to add an layer of an Idea of Gravity to explain it.
Re the experience and appreciation of years and seasons; whether we regard these as cultural conditioning and programming passed on from generation to generation, or, if we regard them as cultural archetypes, as shared ideas between minds, minds with elastic and porous borders. Either explanation works without having to add a Season Idea or Year Idea to the world.

Lorenzo,

Do you consider these 'explanations'? What is mass, energy, attractive force?

These are abstracted word-concepts of the intellect, which is exactly that faculty you keep criticizing in relation to foundational reality. You say it's pretty much useless and developing it further, even growing its potential into higher cognitive faculties, won't get us any closer to Being. So how exactly are the intellectual concepts of 'cultural conditioning and programming passed on from generation to generation', working as a completely sufficient and satisfactory explanation of archetypal experiential phenomena? There is a great discrepancy here. You are settling for the mere conceptual symbols that Cleric spoke of, wheras we are referring to the experiential spritual forces underlying those symbols which provide overarching context for our individual and collective Earthly streams of becoming, forces which can't be wished or conceptualized out of existence.

It only makes sense if the Kantian/Schop boundary is erected and you say 'that's the best sort of explanation we can have, because all the finer living, experiential aspects are trapped behind a dissociative boundary which will only dissolve for us upon death'. But then it becomes clear that the 'Oneness' you are speaking of can only be the unified intuitive noise of our own human brain structure. Otherwise it would grow into harmony with the Cosmic forces and become lucidly conscious of how they work into our our lives, beyond the mere conceptual placeholder symbols of mass, energy, gravity, etc.

I know little of Kant & Shopen so I can't speak to that.
Re your above: "You say it's pretty much useless and developing it further, even growing its potential into higher cognitive faculties, won't get us any closer to Being. " . . . I never suggested this, read what I posted above.
Re your above: "experiential spritual forces underlying those symbols which provide overarching context for our individual and collective Earthly streams of becoming" . . . I am not sure if these 'experiential spritual forces' exist outside of the finite mind, but I have granted these forces could exist as flotsam/jetsam of a community of like minded conscious minds, and available to those who share similar belief systems or choose to seek them out.
And there could be earth-based Ideas, artifacts of generations of thinking human beings. Being an Idealist, the boundaries of the finite mind are not rigid and fixed, but elastic and porous. However these Ideas would not be eternal or fixed, or given by some higher force, but accumulate.

OK, and I think we agree there is no need to postulate they are eternal or fixed. But this still leaves the question, what is the nature of this non-finite mind and how do we unveil it from within? If that mind is elastic and porous, then why are we still treating the Ideas as constructed from the bottom-up by finite minds from generation to generation? Then 'non-finite mind' becomes only another way of saying, minds encapsulated in the localized brain structure of physical skin and bones, which cooperate with each other in some way to establish cultural norms.

The Idea of 'gravity of the Sun' was brought in to make clear that we are dealing with experiential spiritual forces which are independent of our belief systems or what we choose to seek out, regardless of what community we belong to. It's not so evident with the Ideas related to cultural institutions, but we can't reasonably deny that with respect to the Ideas we usually call 'laws of nature'. Why can't we cognitively unveil the inner reality of these Ideas which are transpersonal, transcultural, and structure the streams of becoming for all Earthly beings?

[lorenzop]

If we proceed with this thinking, there are available 'spiritual forces', then one approach\path would be to nurture a more elastic and porous mind. This is what I have been advocating, culturing unboundedness.
Another approach would intellectual - figuring out and studying these forces, developing the appropriate cognition, etc. I've been suggesting this is the more difficult and strenuous path, suitable only for a few.

[AshvinP]

If we proceed with this thinking, there are available 'spiritual forces', then one approach\path would be to nurture a more elastic and porous mind. This is what I have been advocating, culturing unboundedness.
Another approach would intellectual - figuring out and studying these forces, developing the appropriate cognition, etc. I've been suggesting this is the more difficult and strenuous path, suitable only for a few.

Right, so then two questions:

1) The culturing unboundedness approach is Karma or Bhakti yoga, correct? Are you currently engaged in these practices and, if so, how would you say they have experientially unveiled the spiritual forces related to natural archetypes, like those of the Earthly kingdoms or the Cosmic bodies? Even if there is no unveiling of particular details, how would you describe the Oneness which you experience with these forces during your daily waking life?

2) There is what you call the intellectual approach or Jnana yoga, which we call the higher cognitive approach which works through the intellect so as to enliven it, expand it, and generally perfect its functioning. (we should add that it also involves rhythmic exercise of feeling and will, so in that sense integrates Karma-Bhakti yoga)

The higher cognitive approach certainly recognizes that our normal intellectual life is arduous, strenuous, exhausting, anxiety-inducing, etc. We have all experienced the blessed relief of closing the eyes, shutting the senses, and taking a good nap or going to sleep after an intellectually tasking day, returning to non-thinking spiritual existence. Even if we don't have intellectually demanding duties, the hustle and bustle of modern mechanistic sensory existence, with our devices, screens, etc., is plenty exhausting. Is this why you call the Jnana yoga approach difficult and strenuous, suitable for few?

[lorenzop]

1) As you can likely detect from my use of provisional language re 'spiritual forces', I have no experience this arena, and I currently have zero interest in Earthly Kingdoms or Cosmic Bodies. I regard these as a personal preference or option (even as a distraction) secondary to spiritual growth. If Dharma, especially as an evolutional flow would be considered a spiritual force, then that would be the extent of my interest.

2) Jnana yoga is typically the path of the recluse, those who's most common interuption would be someone offering the recluse a cup of water or rice. Someone with worldly distractions, like a family or job, is rarely suited for the concentration required for Jnana Yoga.
I suspect I would be classified as a Karma Yogi as I practice meditation and offer friendliness and compassion to the world.

[Stranger]

2) Jnana yoga is typically the path of the recluse, those who's most common interuption would be someone offering the recluse a cup of water or rice. Someone with worldly distractions, like a family or job, is rarely suited for the concentration required for Jnana Yoga.

That's not true, you don't have to be a recluse to practice Jnana. Even if you do 15-30 mins a day Jnana meditation this is already good and better than nothing. If you do it consistently over years, it will eventually bring great benefits. What you are saying is the same as to say: "to play music requires 6 hours a day practice and I cannot do it, it is only for professionals, so I will not play at all". You can still play as an amateur 30mins/day, of course you will not be as advanced as a pro, but you can still play fairly well if you practice consistently. Ramana Maharshi taught Jnana to everyone and always encouraged everyone to practice it no matter how busy life they had. But of course, this is only if you want to do it and have a motivation for it, but if you don't want it, you can always find justifications why you should not do it.

[Federica]

2) Jnana yoga is typically the path of the recluse, those who's most common interuption would be someone offering the recluse a cup of water or rice. Someone with worldly distractions, like a family or job, is rarely suited for the concentration required for Jnana Yoga.

That's not true, you don't have to be a recluse to practice Jnana. Even if you do 15-30 mins a day Jnana meditation this is already good and better than nothing. If you do it consistently over years, it will eventually bring great benefits. What you are saying is the same as to say: "to play music requires 6 hours a day practice and I cannot do it, it is only for professionals, so I will not play at all". You can still play as an amateur 30mins/day, of course you will not be as advanced as a pro, but you can still play fairly well if you practice consistently. Ramana Maharshi taught Jnana to everyone and always encouraged everyone to practice it no matter how busy life they had. But of course, this is only if you want to do it and have a motivation for it, but if you don't want it, you can always find justifications why you should not do it.

It's interesting - from listening to Swami Sarvapriyananda my understanding was that Jnana Yoga, the path of knowledge, is simply a more Thinking-oriented approach to grasping reality, while Bhakti Yoga is a more Feeling-oriented, devotional approach, and Karma Yoga is Will-oriented, focused on action. But in the way you describe Jnana Yoga, it sounds more like a specific practice of meditation.

[Stranger]

It's interesting - from listening to Swami Sarvapriyananda my understanding was that Jnana Yoga, the path of knowledge, is simply a more Thinking-oriented approach to grasping reality, while Bhakti Yoga is a more Feeling-oriented, devotional approach, and Karma Yoga is Will-oriented, focused on action. But in the way you describe Jnana Yoga, it sounds more like a specific practice of meditation.

You are right about different approaches in these yogas. Bhakti and Karma are the foundations from which one can proceed to Jnana (without abandoning the Bhakti and Karma). Jnana is intuitive thinking approach and requires meditative practice in order to be able to concentrate on the higher-level intuitive thinking and quiet the chatter of lower-level discursive thinking. Once the practitioner trains their mind and learns that in meditation, they can proceed to maintain the intuitive thinking state and the state of Jnana in everyday life beyond meditation periods.