KASTRUP AND SHELDRAKE ON THE COSMIC MIND

[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.

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... ).

This response of attempting a sort subdued shaming is also typical you. You wrote this before. Not super effective, if I may say. But interesting, to say the least, coming from a no-self who is supposedly developing "its higher capacities and compassion and becoming transparent and open to the universe and to the needs of other beings".

[Stranger]

This response of attempting a sort subdued shaming is also typical you. You wrote this before. Not super effective, if I may say. But interesting, to say the least, coming from a no-self who is supposedly developing "its higher capacities and compassion and becoming transparent and open to the universe and to the needs of other beings".

It's the individuated stream of Aware-Thinking-Willing that develops "its higher capacities and compassion and becoming transparent and open to the universe and to the needs of other beings". That's only a conceptual attempt to explain or refer to what actually happens in the direct experience.

[Stranger]

Here is an interesting discussion where they also mention the "falling away of I" at 1:20:30 in the path of tantric Shaivism. But the whole discussion is good for anyone interested.

[AshvinP]

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:

This is in great tension with your previous comment that the Truth should set us free. So on the one hand you claim the experiential Truth is that there is no self-referential "I" agency willing the thoughts (only thoughts being willed), yet on the other hand we can practically expand our consciousness to the Cosmic scale and cultivate the most important virtues by acting as if there there is a "willer" and "thinker" that acts as the coherent 'gravitational' center of thought-forms. Why would existence be such that acting as if an illusion is the truth should also set us free in the most important ways? Why should there be such a schism between the Truth and what is most practical for Cosmically responsible life? We can only make sense of this tension if it all proceeds from the philosophical perspective, the latter masking itself as a direct introspective experience. The philosophical perspective is the one running the show.

These are simply intellectual acrobatics people engage in to avoid the crystal clear intuition that there is creatively responsible agency for the thoughts that are impressed into manifest existence. The materialist jumps through hoops to postulate the agency as the result of unimaginable physical entities existing on the 'other side' of consciousness, and the mysticist jumps through hoops to postulate the agency as a dream of the Pure ATW. In that process, they maintain a schism in their own being that veils the creative secrets of the spiritual Cosmos that can bring true healing and transformation through the "I". What is being discussed here is not about abstractly debating philosophical concepts existing only within the mind fractal, but helping ourselves and others to heal the self-imposed schisms in our being. This can't be done as long we secretly deny creative agency and responsibility for our thoughts.

By the way, if Christ came to teach the "I" (or 'I am') is only a residual human concept, then he went about it most curiously. 

“I am the bread of life”

“I am the light of the world”

“I am the door”

“I am the good shepherd”

“I am the resurrection and the life”

“I am the way and the truth and the life”

“I am the true vine” 

“I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born, I am!”

[Cleric K]

How AI Imagines the conversation:



Title: "The young and foolish, mesmerized by the I-nugget of gold, quietly whispering 'my precious...', looked upon with sadness and compassion by the wise elder, thinking 'he's still young, he'll get over it, he'll find truth one day'"

[Stranger]

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:

This is in great tension with your previous comment that the Truth should set us free. So on the one hand you claim the experiential Truth is that there is no self-referential "I" agency willing the thoughts (only thoughts being willed), yet on the other hand we can practically expand our consciousness to the Cosmic scale and cultivate the most important virtues by acting as if there there is a "willer" and "thinker" that acts as the coherent 'gravitational' center of thought-forms. Why would existence be such that acting as if an illusion is the truth should also set us free in the most important ways? Why should there be such a schism between the Truth and what is most practical for Cosmically responsible life? We can only make sense of this tension if it all proceeds from the philosophical perspective, the latter masking itself as a direct introspective experience. 

It's not a schism at all but a gradual path of attaining higher and higher degrees of liberation by falling away of the residual concepts that are incoherent with Reality. The more of the incoherent concepts fall away, the closer we are to the Truth and the freer we become. Reaching to the Cosmic scale of the "thinker"-"doer" is already a huge advancement beyond the limitations of separate self notwithstanding the fact that it is still acting as if there is a "Cosmic willer" and "thinker". From that state one can advance further if one chooses to.

If you listen to that discussion between Christopher and Rupert, they are discussing the practical steps of this path and mention that the steps cannot be skipped over and each next one needs to be taken after the previous one is achieved. So, each step has its proper place and there is really no schism between them, even though there may seem to be inconsistency between them from a logical perspective.

This can't be done as long we secretly deny creative agency and responsibility for our thoughts.

As I said, nobody denies agency and responsibility here, it's just that agency does not need the "agent" to be able to act.

By the way, if Christ came to teach the "I" (or 'I am') is only a residual human concept, then he went about it most curiously. 

“I am the bread of life”

“I am the light of the world”

“I am the door”

“I am the good shepherd”

“I am the resurrection and the life”

“I am the way and the truth and the life”

“I am the true vine” 

“I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born, I am!”

Please don't get caught into linguistics here, by "I" he was pointing to the presence of the Ultimate Reality in the direct experience. It's the exoteric understanding of religious texts that personified the Divine. The Divine is beyond our dualistic concepts of personal and non-personal. But again, Christ's message is deep and contains the pointers that work for all the levels and steps of liberation. If someone is at the dualistic stage, they will interpret it as "me" reaching out to the personified Christ "outside" their self, and that's already great as a first step. At the step of reaching to the Cosmic "I", they can interpret it as "The Cosmic-I am the true door" and internalize this experience by connecting the dots between their personal sense of "I" and the Cosmic I. At the stage of going beyond "I" they will see it as a pointer to the Divine Presence beyond subjects and objects (individual "I" or Cosmic "I").

[Stranger]

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".

Thank you, brother, nice to see you here again. Hope you are doing well!

[ScottRoberts]

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.

First of all, I have never claimed that my I has eternal existence. In fact, I would deny it, since my I did not exist when I was a baby, and humans in general did not acquire I's until some point in their evolutionary development. Whether, now that I am an I, this will last forever, I don't know. Perhaps it will merge with other I's as a group soul, or whatever.

Anyway, here is why I think it is important to accept the reality of my I, or to put it another way, to understand myself as an agent. It is that, normally, many of my thoughts and feelings are not determined by me. They come from other agents -- advertisers, social conventions, instincts, and so on. To lessen their impact on me I must learn to concentrate, which just is my agency being put in control of my stream of consciousness, rather than being controlled by other agents.

Now, if you want to say that my I is "really" just the Cosmic I working in a localized way, I'm fine with that. But since I am not aware of what the Cosmos is aware of, the Cosmic I is -- to me -- just a bit of dogma. Which is to say that if I want to learn to concentrate, it is just this localized I that I have to work with. The localized I needs to be purified, not done away with.

[Stranger]

First of all, I have never claimed that my I has eternal existence. In fact, I would deny it, since my I did not exist when I was a baby, and humans in general did not acquire I's until some point in their evolutionary development. Whether, now that I am an I, this will last forever, I don't know. Perhaps it will merge with other I's as a group soul, or whatever.

Anyway, here is why I think it is important to accept the reality of my I, or to put it another way, to understand myself as an agent. It is that, normally, many of my thoughts and feelings are not determined by me. They come from other agents -- advertisers, social conventions, instincts, and so on. To lessen their impact on me I must learn to concentrate, which just is my agency being put in control of my stream of consciousness, rather than being controlled by other agents.

Now, if you want to say that my I is "really" just the Cosmic I working in a localized way, I'm fine with that. But since I am not aware of what the Cosmos is aware of, the Cosmic I is -- to me -- just a bit of dogma. Which is to say that if I want to learn to concentrate, it is just this localized I that I have to work with. The localized I needs to be purified, not done away with.

OK, so you are really talking about an individuated agency here (which I never denied), but you are associating it with your intuitive sense of self. What I'm trying to say here is that the agency is not a "subject" but rather it's an "action" (as much as we can describe it with the limitation of language), so labeling it as "personal I" is redundant/unnecessary in principle. I know that you are not going to agree with this, but at least we clarified enough each other's positions (I hope...).

Regarding connecting the dots between personal I and Cosmic I - that would be a discussion between you, Cleric and Ashvin.

[Cleric K]

If you listen to that discussion between Christopher and Rupert, they are discussing the practical steps of this path and mention that the steps cannot be skipped over and each next one needs to be taken after the previous one is achieved. So, each step has its proper place and there is really no schism between them, even though there may seem to be inconsistency between them from a logical perspective.

OK, Eugene, you like to call the reality of Being "stream of ATW" - fine. If you feel more secure speaking of your first-person existence in third-person - that's OK. But when this is taken as an ideal, it is not without repercussions. When you get used to this mode of cognition, everything that defines and constrains your individual stream will be sought in such a third-person way. For example, there's no denying that you have temperament, character, and so on. After all, you have certain preferences. You prefer guitar over some other instrument. You prefer some spiritual traditions over others and so on. Even if you consider yourself ego-less, something still manifests these personalized preferences. You certainly realize that this cannot be some innate quality of pure consciousness. It's only some limited manifestation of the limitless potential of existence. There's something that makes some things more sympathetic to Eugene and others less so. As an engineer, you may say that there's something in the World state that 'stores' this fact. I believe you could say that this is a feature of the riverbed of the ATW stream. But with your approach, the only way you can expect to know something of these constraints is by seeing them as third-person objects, as some phenomena within your 'pure consciousness'. This is already problematic because you very well know that no image in your consciousness can be considered to be the real thing. This opens the question: if you somehow see an image of the riverbed of your character, temperament, interests, preferences, etc. and this image cannot be the reality, then what is the reality of this riverbed and how can it be known in its true nature?