Anthroposophy as Fascio

[AshvinP]

So what happens is you polarize to Oneness and practically ignore Manyness in all your reasoning and philosophical-spiritual conclusions. We then show this to you and eventually you realize there is no logical way to deny the pole of Manyness. So you admit it. But instead of seeking to understand how this admission works back into modifying your previously flawed conclusions, you pretend it's what you have been saying all along, that all 4 of us have been misunderstanding you the whole time, and then you instinctively accuse us of denying Oneness or following some false hierarchy or something similar. The same pattern repeats in exchanges with Cleric as well. It's all right here in plain sight.

Where exactly did I ignore Mayness? Give a quote. All I'm saying is that Manyness and Oneness need to be in full harmony, none of them ignored. This is exactly what Christ meant by saying "I came to give life—life in all its fullness." (John 10:10) But you keep rejecting Oneness.

So, I ask you the last time to stop twisting and misinterpreting my words. If you don't I will stop communicating with you because it is completely unproductive. We have a good and productive discussion with Scott and Cleric here, but the only thing you do here is twisting and misinterpreting my words with no honest attempt to constructively contribute or understand what I actually mean.

Eugene, I just gave you 3 separate quotes... how are you not seeing them?

I didn't even post a reply to you, just listed some notes. The reason I did that was precisely to avoid sidetracking the discussion with Scott and Cleric.

You chose to engage. Then, in response to this:

What I'm saying is that this experience of Beingness-Experiencing-Thinking (ability) cannot serve as evidential support for a Ground of our current existence which is not rhythmically influenced by the pole of Manyness, because it is, as you also stated above.

You write:

But I am still amazed that you keep relentlessly rejecting Oneness. Scott is in full agreement that Oneness is at least as ontologically valid as Manyness, why aren't you? What is your problem with Oneness? (I know what the problem is with it for the Lucifer and his hierarchy, they don't want to be one with the Divine)

You have also told Federica and Cleric they have a 'problem' with Oneness, even though it's obvious that "rejecting Oneness" = challenging your polarized understanding of it. You also told Scott he was contradicting "authentic" Buddhist and Christian teaching, as you have repeated to us ad nauseum. It's a symptom of the same underlying problem - confusing your conditioned experience of something for the only 'pure' version of that something, whether it's the mystical experience, the understanding of scripture/theology, or whatever else. In philosophy that is called naïve realism. You can spot it happening with the materialists but not with yourself.

And mentioning 'Lucifer and his hierarchy' at every turn is again the tactic of an evangelical preacher accusing people who question his dogma of being children of Satan. It's remarkable you still feel that's an appropriate tactic to employ in this venue.

[Lou Gold]

this whole discussion is amazing to me.
call me a simpleton.
I want to keep it simple stupid
to kiss

the only way
to know the truth
is to experience it
this is the law

[Stranger]

This sounds like the right esoteric approach

[Cleric]

Within our current limitations of the human soul we cannot claim that we have the full access to all the depths of the Divine, but we do share some fundamental qualities of the Divine, namely Beingness, Awareness and Thinking ability/potential. The Beingness, Awareness and Thinking ability are accessible in our direct first-person experience, and they are exactly the qualities that are unconditional, because, as we can see in our direct experience (if we notice them and include them in our focus of attention), they never ever change and are never affected by anything happening in the world of forms. They are also the qualities that all living beings share, which makes us all united in these qualities. It is the same infinite field of Beingness, Awareness and Thinking potential where we all exist as individuated spiritual activities, that is why it is also Oneness.

Wait a second. Are we speaking about unconditional or unconditioned?

[Stranger]

Wait a second. Are we speaking about unconditional or unconditioned?

Well, how to you define them and what is the difference? This is linguistic. To me unconditional is something that cannot be in principle conditioned. Unconditioned is something that can be conditioned but has not been conditioned so far. It this how you would define it?

Beingness and Awareness cannot be in principle conditioned. It is impossible to alter or make them not to be. Well, for Beingness it is a logical impossibility, Beingness cannot not be, and it cannot be less or more. It just IS. For Awareness it is not so obvious, but after more careful investigation and experiential observation you can come to the same conclusion.

[Stranger]

I would suggest not to get lost in philosophical debris. I'm not insisting on my ontology, I can subscribe to Scott's, it sounds good enough to me. I'm ok with any ontology as long as it is idealistic and embraces Oneness and Manyness as a whole. Philosophical aspects are part of our knowledge, but practical aspects and living knowledge are more important. It is about ethics and values more than about ontology. We need to realize that we cannot live in duality and separation anymore, enough is enough, there have been too much nonsense and suffering on Earth because of our dualistic-egoic mode of thinking and living, we need to come to the realization of Oneness, each of us individually and as humanity, and then continue evolving and living in Manyness in a different way and different mode of consciousness integrated with Oneness. In the Eastern traditions the Oneness was approached through realization of Beingness-Awareness (Sat-Chit), it worked well for many people, but if you don't see any value in this approach, that's totally fine, do it your own way, whatever works for you. These are only practical venues and approaches to Oneness, not any ontological claims, and there may be many other ways to approach and realize it. Just do not say it's going to take eons for us to get there, we need to do it now, or at least start now.

[Lou Gold]

This sounds like the right esoteric approach

Interesting, indeed! I'm barely into it but she grabbed my attention when she mentioned being "overshadowed by a golden light." I've always felt the word "understand" as meaning "to stand under." When I've experienced the golden light it has been as a "shower of light." When standing under it, there are no shadows. This is my experience.

As a storyteller, I use lots of verbal and visual tricks of communication. They are mere metaphors, representations, pointing fingers. I like to pop out productions. It's fun catching light beams with Photoshop. But, it is the Golden Light that is the real deal.

[Stranger]

Interesting, indeed! I'm barely into it but she grabbed my attention when she mentioned being "overshadowed by a golden light." I've always felt the word "understand" as meaning "to stand under." When I've experienced the golden light it has been as a "shower of light." When standing under it, there are no shadows. This is my experience.

Yes, take my testimony too for the Golden Light, but its key attributes are Presence, Oneness and Love together with its appearance.

Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord's disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem.
As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" "Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked. "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."
Acts 9

[Lou Gold]

I would suggest not to get lost in philosophical debris. I'm not insisting on my ontology, I can subscribe to Scott's, it sounds good enough to me. I'm ok with any ontology as long as it is idealistic and embraces Oneness and Manyness as a whole. Philosophical aspects are part of our knowledge, but practical aspects and living knowledge are more important. It is about ethics and values more than about ontology. We need to realize that we cannot live in duality and separation anymore, enough is enough, there have been too much nonsense and suffering on Earth because of our dualistic-egoic mode of thinking and living, we need to come to the realization of Oneness, each of us individually and as humanity, and then continue evolving and living in Manyness in a different way and different mode of consciousness integrated with Oneness. In the Eastern traditions the Oneness was approached through realization of Beingness-Awareness (Sat-Chit), it worked well for many people, but if you don't see any value in this approach, that's totally fine, do it your own way, whatever works for you.

Perfect, Eugene. I especially like your dialogs with Scott. My compliments and deep bow of appreciation to both of you.

YES! Do "not to get lost in philosophical debris."

These are only practical venues and approaches to Oneness, not any ontological claims, and there may be many other ways to approach and realize it. Just do not say it's going to take eons for us to get there, we need to do it now, or at least start now.

Now, in this intensifying, changing and challenging dance of order and chaos, is surely a very ripe moment. "Why not now?' is the best question I can ask of myself. Happily, I testify before God and my Queen that Love is a good thing. May we gather our flowers and share them well for the benefit of all beings.

[Lou Gold]

Interesting, indeed! I'm barely into it but she grabbed my attention when she mentioned being "overshadowed by a golden light." I've always felt the word "understand" as meaning "to stand under." When I've experienced the golden light it has been as a "shower of light." When standing under it, there are no shadows. This is my experience.

Yes, take my testimony too for the Golden Light, but its key attributes are Presence, Oneness and Love together with its appearance.

Without fussing over particular word meanings, I appreciate the trinitarian approach, which I view as a sort of a "spiritual parsimony" -- a recognition of the need for something firm to stand on (a three legged stool) while standing under.

Additionally, the stool is a good metaphor for connecting transcendence and immanence -- it helps us rise up while staying grounded like a tree with crown skyward and deeply rooted.