Saving the materialists

[Stranger]

I don't know Meister Eckhart at all, apart from some isolated quotes that I occasionally find in theoria press. The reason I quoted him is to say that it's practically inevitable to fight with oneself when approaching these things. We have to fight against our own preferences and prejudices, which first and foremost means, we have to see them, and it's not flattering at all, not as an endeavor, not as a finding. It's probably also why not many of those who have come in contact with these ideas here are still around.

True, the egoic self is always resisting these things until it eventually gets transcended and dissolved.

[Federica]

So, what makes the ideal content real and true? Do they become real when higher-order beings implement these ideas in a harmony with the laws of the wholeness of the created structure? After all, they are simply the products of their intuitive-imaginative thinking, aren't they? Or do they become real when they are shared and not simply remain a part of the individual living experience? What is the criterion of "reality" and "truth" in the world of living thinking and of ideations that the living-thinking produces, whether individually or collectively?

Continuing on that, I can give my perspective on this:
- Being-Experiencing-Thinking-Willing-Feeling (BETWF) is undoubtedly real and true as a direct fact of our living experience (and I'm referring here to the actual experience of BETWF and not to the idea or a linguistic token of it)
- the activity of BETWF produces ideal content. The experience of all of this content is real by the fact of being directly present and experienced in the context of BETWF
- Now, what can we say about the reality of the content of these ideas and imaginations? We can say that it is equally real as being part of the reality of the BETWF direct experience. However, saying that it is real is not sufficient for practical purposes and not really relevant. There is another criterion that we can apply here: the criterion of relevance to the wholeness of the world content. And such relevance is not a black-and-white criterion, but rather a spectrum. For example, an experience of schizophrenic hallucination is real, however, the content of such hallucination has little relevance with the rest of the world content. An experience of an idea or imagination of a Sun has more relevance to the world content, and a sensual experience of the Sun has even more relevance, even though all of these experiences are equally real in the experiential sense. But we can sense here that this criterion of relevance is rather relative and simply a matter of the common consensus, as it is simply a criterion of fitness of the parts of the whole world content to the wholeness of the world content itself. And one can argue that everything automatically becomes part of the world content anyway, including the content of hallucinations, dreams and drug trips. It's just that some of the pieces of this content fit together more harmoniously than some others.

But how can you save this understanding from the plague of arbitrariness - with the introduction of a more or less reasonable criterium of relevance according to some more or less identified/identifiable preferred rationale...? How is it better than a best guess? How is it not hanging to itself, floating? Where is the science? Where is the external reference? One can argue it's harmonious, another one can argue it's not, and the world content is again centered around our human experience and cognition.

How can one have an idea of what has relevance in the spiritual world, without an effort to experientially know the higher worlds, not by throwing tentative mental pictures at it, but by progressivily finding it as layered context of our own inner activity of probing the inner space? Because it is possible to let our body-brain in spacetime and move our cognition independently, in the etheric space, only if we accept to let go of our Earthly mental pictures.

[Stranger]

How can one have an idea of what has relevance in the spiritual world, without an effort to experientially know the higher worlds, not by throwing tentative mental pictures at it, but by progressivily finding it as layered context of our own inner activity of probing the inner space?

You are right, that's the only way

[Federica]

How can one have an idea of what has relevance in the spiritual world, without an effort to experientially know the higher worlds, not by throwing tentative mental pictures at it, but by progressivily finding it as layered context of our own inner activity of probing the inner space?

You are right, that's the only way

But we are not talking about the same way, because if we were, you wouldn't suppose that a higher being has mental pictures. Then I think it means you have not yet found that space. The etheric space where the body-brain and its sequences of mental pictures are left behind. Will you find it? I really hope you will. Cleric and Ashvin can help.

[AshvinP]

Eugene, if it may help, what Ashvin says and quotes about transformation of desire and willingness to face the challenges that come with the development of higher cognition, is true for the vast majority of those who take that path, I believe.
It is certainly true for me, and I guess the difficulty is also well captured by these Meister Eckhart's words:

"if we do not have oneness with God, we should want it. And if we don’t yet want it, we should want to want it", that I learned about, in context, from this substack. It's an alternative lens: on the conversion of desire and the magnum opus

It's interesting that you quoted Eckhart because he is actually a "state X" teacher pointing to the same "X" state that Buddha pointed to in that quote that I mentioned, but Eckhart uses somewhat different language and approach to it with simplified techniques and practices adopted for modern people. One of his books is called "Stillness speaks". He calls it "Stillness" or "Space" for a lack of a better word, but the addition of the verb "speaks" points to the fact that it is not an empty state of consciousness.

When you are no longer totally identified with forms, consciousness—who you are—becomes freed from its imprisonment in form. This freedom is the arising of inner space. It comes as a stillness, a subtle peace deep within you, even in the face of something seemingly bad. This, too, will pass. Suddenly, there is space around the event. There is also space around the emotional highs and lows, even around pain. And above all, there is space between your thoughts. And from that space emanates a peace that is not “of this world,” because this world is form, and the peace is space. This is the peace of God.

Now you can enjoy and honour the things of this world without giving them an importance and significance they don’t have. You can participate in the dance of creation and be active without attachment to outcome and without placing unreasonable demands upon the world: Fulfill me, make me happy, make me feel safe, tell me who I am. The world cannot give you those things, and when you no longer have such expectations, all self-created suffering comes to an end. All such suffering is due to an overvaluation of form and an unawareness of the dimension of inner space.

It should be pointed out that Meister Eckhart and Eckhart Tolle are not at all the same individuality Of course, every modern mystical seeker wants to imagine they are a Buddha or a medieval Christian mystic, already reaching the foundational depths of Divine knowledge, but that convenient desire does not make it so.

[Stranger]

But we are not talking about the same way, because if we were, you wouldn't suppose that a higher being has mental pictures. Then I think it means you have not yet found that space. The etheric space where the body-brain and its sequences of mental pictures are left behind. Will you find it? I really hope you will. Cleric and Ashvin can help.

I read the whole series of the latest Cleric's essays (which are great), and I'm familiar with the space you are talking about. I do these kinds of meditations regularly. I did not say that higher beings would have a mental picture, I said that "higher-order being or a group of beings who with their imaginative-intuitive cognition imagine and manifest an intuitive pictorial idea". It's an idea on the intuitive level of cognition, but because a flower has certain visual shape, the intuition of the flower has certain "shapeness" to it, but not as a concrete mental visual picture that we humans have when we use our mental imaginative ability. I hope this is clear.

[Federica]

Eugene, if it may help, what Ashvin says and quotes about transformation of desire and willingness to face the challenges that come with the development of higher cognition, is true for the vast majority of those who take that path, I believe.
It is certainly true for me, and I guess the difficulty is also well captured by these Meister Eckhart's words:

"if we do not have oneness with God, we should want it. And if we don’t yet want it, we should want to want it", that I learned about, in context, from this substack. It's an alternative lens: on the conversion of desire and the magnum opus

It's interesting that you quoted Eckhart because he is actually a "state X" teacher pointing to the same "X" state that Buddha pointed to in that quote that I mentioned, but Eckhart uses somewhat different language and approach to it with simplified techniques and practices adopted for modern people. One of his books is called "Stillness speaks". He calls it "Stillness" or "Space" for a lack of a better word, but the addition of the verb "speaks" points to the fact that it is not an empty state of consciousness.

When you are no longer totally identified with forms, consciousness—who you are—becomes freed from its imprisonment in form. This freedom is the arising of inner space. It comes as a stillness, a subtle peace deep within you, even in the face of something seemingly bad. This, too, will pass. Suddenly, there is space around the event. There is also space around the emotional highs and lows, even around pain. And above all, there is space between your thoughts. And from that space emanates a peace that is not “of this world,” because this world is form, and the peace is space. This is the peace of God.

Now you can enjoy and honour the things of this world without giving them an importance and significance they don’t have. You can participate in the dance of creation and be active without attachment to outcome and without placing unreasonable demands upon the world: Fulfill me, make me happy, make me feel safe, tell me who I am. The world cannot give you those things, and when you no longer have such expectations, all self-created suffering comes to an end. All such suffering is due to an overvaluation of form and an unawareness of the dimension of inner space.

It should be pointed out that Meister Eckhart and Eckhart Tolle are not at all the same individuality Of course, every modern mystical seeker wants to imagine they are a Buddha or a medieval Christian mystic, already reaching the foundational depths of Divine knowledge, but that convenient desire does not make it so.

I didn't notice that!
I only thought ouaah that sounds like a very modern translation

[Stranger]

It should be pointed out that Meister Eckhart and Eckhart Tolle are not at all the same individuality Of course, every modern mystical seeker wants to imagine they are a Buddha or a medieval Christian mystic, already reaching the foundational depths of Divine knowledge, but that convenient desire does not make it so.

Oh sorry, my bad

[Federica]

It should be pointed out that Meister Eckhart and Eckhart Tolle are not at all the same individuality Of course, every modern mystical seeker wants to imagine they are a Buddha or a medieval Christian mystic, already reaching the foundational depths of Divine knowledge, but that convenient desire does not make it so.

Oh sorry, my bad

Are we sure the Lalitavistara Sutras and other Buddhist quotes are not actually from satsang by Mooji?
(joke)

[Stranger]

Are we sure the Lalitavistara Sutras and other Buddhist quotes are not actually from satsang by Mooji?
(joke)

Yes, that's for sure