Anthroposophy as Fascio

[ScottRoberts]

Of course ,Cosmos is of idea-nature. What else can it possibly be if it all exists within the Divine Consciousness? But the Divine Consciousness itself is not an idea, it is THAT which creates and which is aware of all ideas, but which is not reducible to only its ideas. All Cosmos as a whole of all ideas is only a manifestation, only forms of the Divine Consciousness, but the Divine is more than all of its manifestations.

Oneness and Manyness are a tetralemmic polarity, meaning one gets into trouble by accepting any of the four horns of the tetralemma: absolutizing any of: Oneness, Manyness, Oneness and Manyness, neither Oneness nor Manyness. The above (and many other remarks you've made) is prioritizing Oneness over Manyness. It evidences a falling off the Middle Way.

I think to get back on, one should just note that Thinking implies Being (Thinking is) and Experience (Thinking is experienced), so the BE of BET are unnecessary add-ons. Adding them on serves no purpose other than to imply the possibility that God might choose to not Think, in which case we and the Cosmos would disappear.

So all one needs (ontologically speaking) is Thinking, while noting that Thinking requires the polar forces of Oneness and Manyness. To be sure some wordwork is needed to show that feeling and willing are embedded in Thinking, and that sense perception is a kind of Thinking, which is why the phrase 'ideational activity' might be better.

[Stranger]

Oneness and Manyness are a tetralemmic polarity, meaning one gets into trouble by accepting any of the four horns of the tetralemma: absolutizing any of: Oneness, Manyness, Oneness and Manyness, neither Oneness nor Manyness. The above (and many other remarks you've made) is prioritizing Oneness over Manyness. It evidences a falling off the Middle Way.

Well, you can describe it that way, I'm OK with describing it as tetralemmic polarity. But Oneness is not the absence of forms, Oneness is always simultaneously Mayness, there is actually no polarity here, they are just two co-existing aspects of the same Reality. Reality is Oneness in the fundamental aspect with simultaneous diversity of forms, just like the ocean is made of the same water but manifests a diversity of waves on its surface and they are not in polarity to each other. But when we function in dualistic mode, we only perceive the aspect of multiplicity and do not experience the aspect of Oneness, which makes the world appear to us as a conglomerate of separate things and selves, and sensing ourselves as a separate self, and that's dualistic perception. But within the realm of forms we find a lot of polarities that serve as forces to govern the dynamics of the forms.

I think to get back on, one should just note that Thinking implies Being (Thinking is) and Experience (Thinking is experienced), so the BE of BET are unnecessary add-ons. Adding them on serves no purpose other than to imply the possibility that God might choose to not Think, in which case we and the Cosmos would disappear. So all one needs (ontologically speaking) is Thinking, while noting that Thinking requires the polar forces of Oneness and Manyness. To be sure some wordwork is needed to show that feeling and willing are embedded in Thinking, and that sense perception is a kind of Thinking, which is why the phrase 'ideational activity' might be better.

Agree on "ideational activity", disagree that adding Being and Experience is unnecessary. Knowing these aspects serves a key purpose, because when we disregard them, we neglect the fundamental transcendental timeless and unconditioned aspects of God where we can find and experience Oneness, and so we get entangled in the dualistic mode of perception, see above. The Thinking aspect is not transcendental per se, but rather a bridge between the immanent and transcendental, the creative power of God. As you said, God can choose not to Think, but it cannot choose not to Be and not to Experience, so those two aspects are absolutely immutable and timeless by nature ("unbecome, unfabricated"). That's why Buddha said that knowing the "unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated" has the power of emancipation from the "born — become — made — fabricated". God, in all its aspects, creates forms freely and is never bound by the structures of its creations, yet always fully involved with them. And so we, when we fully realize and connect with our Divine nature with all its fundamental aspects, can also become like God (=Theosis): co-creators that are never bound by the structures of creations but always involved with them.

The Trinity of fundamental aspects of God have been revealed in both Christian and Buddhist traditions. In Buddhism the fundamental nature (Dharmata) is Trikaya and has three aspects: Dharmakaya (Emptiness-Beingness), Sambhogakaya (lucidity of Experiencing-Awareness) and Nirmanakaya (power of manifestation of forms, Thinking). In Christianity it is the Father (Beingness), the Holy Spirit (Lucid Awareness) and the Logos (Thinking, creative power of God). Both traditions emphasize the key importance of realizing all of these three aspects.

"There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is thus discerned."
Buddha, Iti. 2.16

[ScottRoberts]

As you said, God can choose not to Think,

I didn't say that, in fact I deny it. I said that you are saying, or at least implying, that. So, we have distinct ontologies. Yours, I am saying, is off the Middle Way, in that you put Oneness as prior to Manyness. Or to put it in more or less Heart Sutra terms, you accept that Manyness is not other than Oneness, but you are denying that Oneness is not other than Manyness. How else can there be Being/Experience without Thinking?

[Stranger]

I didn't say that, in fact I deny it. I said that you are saying, or at least implying, that. So, we have distinct ontologies. Yours, I am saying, is off the Middle Way, in that you put Oneness as prior to Manyness. Or to put it in more or less Heart Sutra terms, you accept that Manyness is not other than Oneness, but you are denying that Oneness is not other than Manyness. How else can there be Being/Experience without Thinking?

Manyness, as part of the Trinity, is Thinking ability, not the products of Thinking (forms). Thinking ability (Manyness) never stops, it is intrinsic and timeless, it is an aspect of the fundamental Trinity of Beingness-Awareness-Manyness. And so, Oneness is not prior to Manyness. But Thinking activity can stop, and it is possible to experience it in meditation or in lucid deep sleep. But this is not actually important and I don;t want to go into arguing about it again (we did it before), you can stick to the ontology that B-E-T (Oneness) is prior to forms, or you can choose the ontology that they are ontologically equivalent. The fact of experience is that they are inseparable, and that is what is important, so Oneness is never broken when forms appear. So, there is no problem with Thinking activity and no point to stop it. The problem arises when Thinking activity, as a trail of thoughts, disregards the experiential realization of Oneness of the B-E-T and goes into the dualistic deluded mode.

By the way, you are interpreting the Heart Sutra literally out of context of the Buddhist teachings. Also, the Heart Sutra is of late origin from China and does not represent the authentic Buddhist teachings in full. It is a common knowledge in Buddhism that the state of stopping the Thinking activity is achievable, but there is no particular value in attaining such state as a goal of spiritual practice.

Also, in the Christian theology it is a common understanding that God is not compelled to create the Universe of Forms, so He creates the Universe as an act of free choice. He of course did it as a result of some Thinking activity prior to manifestation of the Universe and beyond the linear time. So, God, as B-E-T, is prior to the universe of forms, he is sovereign and is never conditioned by the universe, even though always involved with it and the universe is never ontologically separate from Him. And so we can be like Him when we go through Theosis and realize the unconditioned Oneness of our Divine nature.

[Federica]

Manyness, not "Mayness"!
When reasoning is abstract, it doesn't really matter, as one can see...

[Stranger]

Manyness, not "Mayness"!
When reasoning is abstract, it doesn't really matter, as one can see...

Thanks, fixed.
You are right, it is always dangerous to go into abstract reasoning and disconnect form the direct experience which these reasonings are supposed to only reflect. When such disconnect happens, reasoning starts reflecting its own reasonings and gets lost into a hall of mirrors.

[AshvinP]

Manyness, not "Mayness"!
When reasoning is abstract, it doesn't really matter, as one can see...

Thanks, fixed.
You are right, it is always dangerous to go into abstract reasoning and disconnect form the direct experience which these reasonings are supposed to only reflect. When such disconnect happens, reasoning starts reflecting its own reasonings and gets lost into a hall of mirrors.

Which is what you have done with regards to "thinking". You include it in your 'trinity' in name only, while stripping it of all functional qualities we know from intimate experience. That's why when I say the Logos is incarnate in our logical reasoning faculty, you call it "esoteric BS", but then go on to say the Logos is "Thinking, creative power of God". The latter is simply a remote abstraction for you, as 'God the son' or 'second member of Trinity' is for the fundamentalists. You don't want it to have any immanent connection to our first person thinking experience, for reasons already mentioned. You would rather endlessly fragment the Divine into various modes, fragment those modes into abilities, those abilities into activities, those activities into forms, and emphasize or discard the latter as you so please, than admit this concrete and living connection.

[Stranger]

Which is what you have done with regards to "thinking". You include it in your 'trinity' in name only, while stripping it of all functional qualities we know from intimate experience. That's why when I say the Logos is incarnate in our logical reasoning faculty, you call it "esoteric BS", but then go on to say the Logos is "Thinking, creative power of God". The latter is simply a remote abstraction for you, as 'God the son' or 'second member of Trinity' is for the fundamentalists. You don't want it to have any immanent connection to our first person thinking experience, for reasons already mentioned. You would rather endlessly fragment the Divine into various modes, fragment those modes into abilities, those abilities into activities, those activities into forms, and emphasize or discard the latter as you so please, than admit this concrete and living connection.

Because logical reasoning is only a small component of Thinking. So, when you said that "Logos, the logical reasoning faculty which remains with us in our enlivened and expanded cognition through proper esoteric training", it was actually you who do not know what Thinking is from the first person experience because you reduce Thinking/Logos to only logical reasoning.

But on the bigger picture, there is a deeper reason why you relentlessly try to twist and misinterpret my position and try to find any possible ways to prove it wrong and prove that I am an ignorant person. I'm not omniscient and my views may indeed have flaws, but the main point I'm trying to make is that by reaching to the experiential knowledge of our Divine nature of Oneness in this lifetime we can liberate ourselves from the deception of the dualistic realm ruled by the Luciferian hierarchy, and then continue living and evolving further and acquiring deeper knowledge in the nondual state. Christ and Buddha taught us exactly that. But the dualistic hierarchy does not want us to know about that and to believe that this is even possible, or they may say it may be possible but after eons of slow evolution under their rule, so in the meantime we would have to continue incarnating into humans bound to their dualistic lawful structures and their hierarchy. They call even thinking about a slight possibility of such liberation from their rule as following "egoic preferences", while in reality it is a Divine call in our hearts to return to the unity with the Divine. All spiritual traditions knew about this hierarchy, of which I gave plenty of quotes, but you deny it and call it "conspiracy theory", of course because they do not want us to know that. So, what happens when you get involved in esoteric practices without exercising your spiritual discernment is that you become connecting and subduing yourself more and more to this deluded hierarchy so they have more access to your mind and can influence you, and you start believing in their agenda and teachings, become a member of their hierarchy and their representative among humans channeling their messages. This is not my interpretation, this is what you guys are saying all the time about becoming "nested" in the hierarchy of high-order beings and becoming fully compliant with their lawful structures that control our soul structure, you are just unaware that you are connecting with a wrong hierarchy. They masquerade as benevolent, they do not look and act evil, their teachings seem to make sense, they give us all possible reasons to continue living in the dualistic state disconnected from our true Divine nature, they have a long-term plan for our evolution as long as we continue staying in the dualistic state and bound to their rule and Karmic laws. The proof that it is a wrong hierarchy is obvious, because they reject the need and even the possibility of realizing the Oneness of our Divine nature in this very human life (and not after eons) and channeling this rejection through you, well duh! because such realization would release us from their rule. The true Divine hierarchy would never do that. This is not to say that every esoteric practice is wrong, but to say that you have to be aware of the reality of this hierarchy masquerading as benevolent, and develop and exercise spiritual discernment before engaging with them. We indeed need to connect to higher order beings but only of the Divine hierarchy, and the key sign that you are connecting to the Divine hierarchy is that they immediately start helping you to connect directly to your Divine nature and realize the gnosis of Oneness. You also need to carefully and deeply study, practice and understand the authentic spiritual traditions of the West and East (and not their second-hand interpretations) which all point to the realization of the Divine nature and reaching to Oneness, as well as warning us about the reality of the false-light hierarchy.

[Federica]

Eugene,
Precisely because Thinking is what it is, it's unfortunately not without consequences when you state things such as those you state in your first paragraph for example, with the intention that drips from it. You are not staying true to even your own rules of conduct every time you get caught in this type of vortex. Do a reality check, because everyone is seeing these fluctuations.

Because logical reasoning is only a small component of Thinking.

Not a "component". Components are for function, modeling, actionability. To come a tiny bit less opposite to truth, replace your component-concept with this:

[Stranger]

Not a "component". Components are for function, modeling, actionability. To come a tiny less opposite to truth, replace your component-concept with this:

Oh cmon, don't be so picky , suggest a better word and I will agree with you, I hope you know what I meant. I'm not a native English speaker so I admit that my statements are often not precise.