KASTRUP AND SHELDRAKE ON THE COSMIC MIND

[Stranger]

So "awareness-thinking-willing" is eternally existing. If you don't want to say it is an "entity", fine -- that is just a debate over the meaning of 'entity'. It is still an ontological claim, just as my starting point that "there is only ideational activity" is ontological. They are ontological because they deny the reality of the non-experiential or non-ideational. But the point with both is that one then needs to go on and find within the fundamental claim an explanation for life, the universe, and everything. And I am saying that if one claims there is no "I" within ATW or within "ideational activity" there is much that cannot be explained. One may not like to call the "I" an entity, like an apple, but one must call it real.

Seems like we are lost in linguistics here. To me everything present in the direct experience of sentient beings is real just as it is present (by "sentient beings" I mean streams of direct conscious experiences). Awareness is present as awareness, thinking as thinking, willing as willing, sense perception of an apple as sense perception of an apple, the idea of "I' is present just as an idea of "I", the idea of "eternal existence" is present as an idea of "eternal existence", and all of it is unified in a single continuous field of experience and all of it is real just as it is directly present in my or someone else's experience (otherwise, what would "unreal experience" mean?). The willing activity of these streams of direct experiences and their inter-connectedness can in principle explain all life and all the universe. If something is not present in any direct experience of any sentient being, there is no ground to assume that it exists. I do not know what "eternally existing" means, this has no reference in my direct experience other than some abstract idea of "eternal existence". All there is in my direct experience always happens "here and now", even though the content is ever-changing while the presence and awareness are never-changing, so I don't know what the idea of "eternity" is actually referring to.

Consider this illustration: suppose you are playing in a computer-generated virtual reality and you see an appearance of a monster (which is a perception). Then an idea emerges in your stream of conscious experience that there is an actual real monster existing "out there". Now, the appearance of the monster (as a perception) is definitely real, the idea that "monster exists out there" is also real, however, does all of that mean that there is actually a real monster existing "out there"? Not at all. This is what usually happens in our steams of experience (mostly habitually and unconsciously) - we fabricate a bunch of ideas about existence of some "things" out there while there is no ground to believe that they actually exist. In this way we become believing in the real existence of matter, or external material universe, or some "eternal existence" of anything at all, including the "I". Again, the presence of such ideas is definitely real, but that does not mean that the "things" they refer to actually exist. As I said before, thinking has enormous power to deceive itself into believing in real existence of some "entities" that actually, as a fact of direct experience, only exist as a content of its own ideas.

[ScottRoberts]

Seems like we are lost in linguistics here. To me everything present in the direct experience of sentient beings is real just as it is present (by "sentient beings" I mean streams of direct conscious experiences). Awareness is present as awareness, thinking as thinking, willing as willing, sense perception of an apple as sense perception of an apple, the idea of "I' is present just as an idea of "I", the idea of "eternal existence" is present as an idea of "eternal existence", and all of it is unified in a single continuous field of experience and all of it is real just as it is directly present in my or someone else's experience (otherwise, what would "unreal experience" mean?). The willing activity of these streams of direct experiences and their inter-connectedness can in principle explain all life and all the universe.

Ok, then I'll give an alternate definition of "I" (though I would say it amounts to the same as the one I gave earlier): the "I" is (at least, it might be more) awareness of permanence in what is experienced. I look around the room and see most of it is the same as what I saw yesterday. And because there is awareness of permanence there is awareness of change. So, the idea of "I" refers to more than just the word "I". It is what allows the knowledge that the chair I am sitting in is the same chair I sat in yesterday. Or that the weather today differs from that of yesterday.

How else can you explain awareness of connectedness, inter- or personal?

[Stranger]

Ok, then I'll give an alternate definition of "I" (though I would say it amounts to the same as the one I gave earlier): the "I" is (at least, it might be more) awareness of permanence in what is experienced. I look around the room and see most of it is the same as what I saw yesterday. And because there is awareness of permanence there is awareness of change. So, the idea of "I" refers to more than just the word "I". It is what allows the knowledge that the chair I am sitting in is the same chair I sat in yesterday. Or that the weather today differs from that of yesterday.

How else can you explain awareness of connectedness, inter- or personal?

Well, I think it's just one of the innate abilities of consciousness to be able to cognize changes or permanence in the stream of experienced phenomena. Our cognition compares the current phenomena with the memory recollections of the previous ones (and a memory recollection is itself a phenomenon occurring in the current moment) and is able to detect either changes or invariance in their appearances. I don't see a necessity to assume "eternal existence" of anything in order to account for this ability.

[Cleric K]

Seems like we are lost in linguistics here. To me everything present in the direct experience of sentient beings is real just as it is present (by "sentient beings" I mean streams of direct conscious experiences). Awareness is present as awareness, thinking as thinking, willing as willing, sense perception of an apple as sense perception of an apple, the idea of "I' is present just as an idea of "I", the idea of "eternal existence" is present as an idea of "eternal existence", and all of it is unified in a single continuous field of experience and all of it is real just as it is directly present in my or someone else's experience (otherwise, what would "unreal experience" mean?). The willing activity of these streams of direct experiences and their inter-connectedness can in principle explain all life and all the universe. If something is not present in any direct experience of any sentient being, there is no ground to assume that it exists. I do not know what "eternally existing" means, this has no reference in my direct experience other than some abstract idea of "eternal existence". All there is in my direct experience always happens "here and now", even though the content is ever-changing while the presence and awareness are never-changing, so I don't know what the idea of "eternity" is actually referring to.

I would like to add a clarifying question here. When we take the "I" as something that needs to be defined and explained, it might be difficult to reach agreement. Let's look at something simpler.

Eugene, can you think the words "I think" in a meditative manner while feeling them as an expression of self-evident intuitive truth? I don't mean to philosophize about the words. No, I mean to slowly and in full concentration pronounce the words with your inner voice, while trying to feel how they are an expression of an obvious and truthful fact. If you feel that these words need to be somehow justified or proven, then it is not yet the meditative activity that I'm referring to. The "I think" should become the central experience, the real-time experienced manifestation of your spiritual activity. If you find this challenging, just slow it down. Go slow motion if needed, but the thought should feel as a real-time mirror of the meaning that you invest in the activity.

Notice that here the "I" part of the thought doesn't postulate any entities or separateness. It's a symbol for self-reference. The Mystery of Being refers to itself while it pronounces this word. The Being may not know what it is, it doesn't philosophize about its nature, but it surely can use the symbol "I" as referring to the intuitive fact that the pronounced words proceed from its inner mystery. Of course, this has been described from a third-person perspective, in reality we have to coincide with that Being and see how "I" self-refers to the mystery of our Being.

These are a lot of words to explain something very simple. Obviously, they are only to help us assume the inner intuitive asana from whence the thought should be experienced. Thus in the end, after we have the intuitive orientation, only the "I think" thought should remain as a real-time meditative experience. I emphasize - it is the real-time pronunciation that the thought-words refer back to. "I" doesn't carry any extra luggage. It doesn't define what the mystery of Being is, it doesn't constrain it in any way. It is only a symbol in which the mystery of your first-person Being expresses the fact of its own existential mystery. A symbol that points not to something else in consciousness but back towards the Source from whence the thought flows.

My question is whether you can think in such a deeply experiential and intuitive way this "I think" thought and feel it as an expression of an obvious truth? Or you feel certain discomfort if your have to use the symbol "I", as if something forbids you to recognize your own existence and express it in a self-referring symbol?

[Stranger]

I would like to add a clarifying question here. When we take the "I" as something that needs to be defined and explained, it might be difficult to reach agreement. Let's look at something simpler.

Eugene, can you think the words "I think" in a meditative manner while feeling them as an expression of self-evident intuitive truth? I don't mean to philosophize about the words. No, I mean to slowly and in full concentration pronounce the words with your inner voice, while trying to feel how they are an expression of an obvious and truthful fact. If you feel that these words need do be somehow justified or proven, then it is not yet the meditative activity that I'm referring to. The "I think" should become the central experience, the real-time experienced manifestation of your spiritual activity. If you find this challenging, just slow it down. Go slow motion if needed, but the though should feel as a real-time mirror of the meaning that you invest in the activity.

Notice that here the "I" part of the thought doesn't postulate any entities or separateness. It's a symbol for self-reference. The Mystery of Being refers to itself while it pronounces this word. The Being may not know what it is, it doesn't philosophize about its nature, but it surely can use the symbol "I" as referring to the intuitive fact that the pronounced words proceed from its inner mystery. Of course, this has been described from a third-person perspective, in reality we have to coincide with that Being and see how "I" self-refers to the mystery of our Being.

These are a lot of words to explain something very simple. Obviously, they are only to help us assume the inner intuitive asana from whence the thought should be experienced. Thus in the end, after we have the intuitive orientation, only the "I think" thought should remain as a real-time meditative experience. I emphasize - it is the real-time pronunciation that the thought-words refer back to. "I" doesn't carry any extra luggage. It doesn't define what the mystery of Being is, it doesn't constrain it in any way. It is only a symbol in which the mystery of your first-person Being expresses the fact of its own existential mystery. A symbol that points not to something else in consciousness but back towards the Source from whence the thought flows.

My question is whether you can think in such a deeply experiential and intuitive way this "I think" thought and feel it as an expression of an obvious truth? Or you feel certain discomfort if your have to use the symbol "I", as if something forbids you to recognize your own existence and express it in a self-referring symbol?

I did this meditation, in fact, I've done it many times before. I know, Cleric, you are referring to a "mysterious" intuitive sense of "self-reference" and "self-agency" that most people carry deep in sub-conscious. I lost most of it some time ago. When I do "I think" exercise, a thought arises in the limitless space of awareness with no self-reference to any "I" whatsoever. The mystery is solved for me, it was just an intuitive feeling-idea of "self" residing in subconscious that developed in my early childhood and have been residing there as a continuous background sense of self over my lifetime. This became an obvious truth for me after I saw the sense of "I" for what it really is - just a fabricated thought-feeling not referring to any actual reality, nothing really mysterious. After doing this practice for some time where this sense-idea of "I" was continuously brough into the light of awareness and seen for what it is, it gradually faded away over time. But it was one of the major backbones of the dualistic perception of reality that seemingly divided reality into "me" and "not me" around which a bubble of egoic desires and fears was built. Once it faded, the bubble also started to slowly disintegrate. This is because every fear or desire needs to refer to the sense of "self" ("I want", "this is desirable for me", "I fear", "this is threatening or insulting to me"), but when this reference point of "me" is gone, these fears and desires have nothing to refer to or to ground in, so they do not proliferate and eventually fade away. This frees up the cognition from being self-centered and short-circuited to servicing the egoic desires so that the cognition can now focus on developing its higher capacities and compassion and becoming transparent and open to the universe and to the needs of other beings. This bubble of "self" is in fact the very veil that blinds us from recognizing our true nature.

And what is left in the direct experience after the veil of "self" is gone is a real mystery: alive, aware, cognizant, brilliant space of awareness-thinking-willing present here and now and constantly creating the world of beautiful forms with no reference to any "I" whatsoever. The selfless Buddha Nature, Christ-consciousness resurrected to life after being buried under the veil of the illusion of separate self.

"Those who understand the nature of self and understand how the feelings act, they will not find the place for their "I", and thereby will reach the state of peace and liberation. The world holds to the idea of "I" which causes other deluded ideas to proliferate. If that which acts is not the "I", then there is no doer behind the acts, no knower behind the knowing. Oh you people, the slaves of "I", laboring for your self from sunrise to sunset, living in constant fears and desires, listen to the good news: your master does not exist! Self is a delusion, an illusion, a dream. Open your eyes and wake up! See the things for what they are, and you will find peace. The one who woke up is no longer afraid of nightmares. The one who realized the nature of a rope that seemed to be a snake is no longer afraid of the snake. The one who found that "I" does not exist will let go all selfish fears, desires and lusts."

Buddha Shakyamuni

“Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me." Matthew 16:24
"I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me" Galatians 2:20

(my comment: How would it be possible to "deny yourself" if this "self" would be something real? That would be a denial or runaway from reality, so this cannot be what Christ and St. Paul actually meant. Obviously, they were referring to the denial of the illusion of self.)

[Cleric K]

I did the exercise, in fact, I've done it many times before. I know, Cleric, you are referring to a "mysterious" intuitive sense of "self-reference" and "self-agency" that most people carry deep in sub-conscious. I lost most of it some time ago. When I do "I think" exercise, a thought arises in the limitless space of awareness with no self-reference to any "I" whatsoever.

If you expect that "I" to emerge as another object next to the thought and see them referring to one another (as if through graph arrows) then obviously I don't see that either.

But what happened with your realization that you are one with the causal essence of reality? It seems you have reverted to your old ways and now Thinking has once again become just a contemplative process of thoughts entering and leaving the limitless space of awareness on their own. Do you no longer feel creatively responsible for your thoughts? Not 'you' in the sense of your false ego but You as the essence of the One Cosmic Being? If you move a triangle in your imagination do you feel having something to do with it or there's no mover and the triangle moves itself?

[Lou Gold]

I'm really enjoying the back-and-forth in this thread and learning much along the way

I have not done the meditations (I'm a terrible meditator) but contemplating the dialogue I was moved to a commonplace thought. We've all had the experience of being in a tense or conflictual situation and being told by an inner or outer voice: "Don't take it personally" and even as the difficulties remain awareness produces more calmness and clarity. It can even produce more loving acceptance.

Hmm... is this because in essence (in reality) the separate person and personal do not exist even at the mundane practical level? Of course, not taking it personal can be extraordinarily difficult. Not easy to be a true Bodhisattva or Christ. As Sheldrake of observes, it's not easy to break long-existing habits treated as "reality".

[Stranger]

I did the exercise, in fact, I've done it many times before. I know, Cleric, you are referring to a "mysterious" intuitive sense of "self-reference" and "self-agency" that most people carry deep in sub-conscious. I lost most of it some time ago. When I do "I think" exercise, a thought arises in the limitless space of awareness with no self-reference to any "I" whatsoever.

If you expect that "I" to emerge as another object next to the thought and see them referring to one another (as if through graph arrows) then obviously I don't see that either.

But what happened with your realization that you are one with the causal essence of reality? It seems you have reverted to your old ways and now Thinking has once again become just a contemplative process of thoughts entering and leaving the limitless space of awareness on their own. Do you no longer feel creatively responsible for your thoughts? Not 'you' in the sense of your false ego but You as the essence of the One Cosmic Being? If you move a triangle in your imagination do you feel having something to do with it or there's no mover and the triangle moves itself?

Yes, there is definitely an agency of creating thoughts. But the agency does not need an agent, it's only our dualistic thinking pattern dividing the world into subjects and objects that assumes the necessity for any action to be a "doer" of the action. Agency is just agency, Will without a "willer", Knowing without a "knower". We are basically imposing and extrapolating our idea of a "thing" or a "self" (a "being", a "knower", a "doer") that we derived from our dualistic perception of reality unto the Reality as a whole. When we try to push away our bubble of personal separate self, what happens is that we still carry that mysterious subconscious sense of "I", but now we extrapolate it and attach it to the Cosmic scale of reality. In other words, the idea of "Being"/"I" is only a residue of our conceptual understanding of reality carried from the older dualistic perception of it.

However, I would say that, from a practical perspective, this is a stretch, it's not necessary and it's not for everyone. I agree with you that once we break through the bubble of the separate-self, it is good enough to still carry and refer to this mysterious feeling of the One Cosmic Being, the Cosmic "I". This is the path of most religious traditions (except for Buddhism), and it practically works and allows us to expand our subconscious sense of Being/I onto the Cosmic scale. So, let's say that I agree with you at this point.

But from the philosophical perspective it still has an explanatory gap and inconsistency which I mentioned before:

Moreover, if we assume that there exists the "I"-entity and that this "I" is universal for all sentient beings, then we run into a logical contradiction. How come if there is only one "I", then one sentient being does not experience the thoughts and perceptions of any other sentient being? If there is only one "I" which knows and experiences everything, then all knowledge and experiences would necessarily have to be shared and integrated into a single stream of conscious knowledge-experience.

It's precisely because there is no universal "I", a universal center of doing and experiencing, that ATW can think and act "locally" in the individuated streams of thinking and actions. The experiences and ideas can certainly be shared between the individuated streams; however, they also many not.

Now, I wonder how would that align with Scott's understanding of "eternal existence" of the personal self? Is there only one Cosmic Self, or does every individual being has its own one? I'm still confused here

But if anyone wants to move further beyond the limits of any residual concepts, one can try, but that's only for mavericks One way to accomplish it: we need to dive really deep into the subconscious root of this sense of "I" in meditation and investigate it for what it really is, what it does, where it came from and how it shapes our perception of reality (that's how it is done in Buddhism in vipassana meditation). Another way to approach this is the way suggested by the Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite - to know the Reality (God) in direct experience beyond any residual human concepts (i.e. in Divine Darkness):

in the diligent exercise of mystical contemplation, leave behind the senses and the operations of the intellect, and all things sensible and intellectual, and all things in the world of being and non-being, that thou mayest arise by unknowing1 towards the union, as far as is attainable, "with Him who transcends all being and all knowledge. For by the unceasing and absolute renunciation of thyself and of all things thou mayest be borne on high, through pure and entire self-abnegation, into the superessential Radiance of the Divine Darkness.

[Federica]

Whoever wants to be my disciple must... you have quoted that verse so many times Eugene. Around in circles. These words are so much your typical last resort since they lay themselves open wide enough for you to mistreat them as "linguistic labels" and enroll them at the service of your pre-determined intentions.
...deny themselves... deny themselves... deny themselves... What else if not a token of non-duality in Christ's message.

[Stranger]

Whoever wants to be my disciple must... you have quoted that verse so many times Eugene. Around in circles. These words are so much your typical last resort since they lay themselves open wide enough for you to mistreat them as "linguistic labels" and enroll them at the service of your pre-determined intentions.
...deny themselves... deny themselves... deny themselves... What else if not a token of non-duality in Christ's message.

Not a problem, if you don't accept it, there are no expectations whatsoever. It's a completely free choice. Breaking from the separate self is not for everyone, it is not easy to do and most people don't even know why would they need to do it, they are perfectly fine within the cozy bubbles of their separate selves, and nobody is going to judge them for that. But there is no free lunch, it goes with the package of sufferings caused by the reactivity, fears and frustrations of the egoic self. Most people still believe it's worth it. But the door is still there for anyone who wants to go beyond the bubble, juts knock, and it will open (no quotes from Gospels here, even though there is one... ).