Stranger wrote: ↑Thu Aug 14, 2025 11:30 pm
Cleric, I think we discussed it before, but it's an important point to clarify. There are two approaches to unity, and they are practically accomplished in two different ways.
...
So, the bottom line is: we have these two approaches, neither of them in any way inferior to another. Each can be practiced alone and there is nothing wrong with that. But they do not contradict each other or exclude each other, they actually complement each other quite well. So, based on my understanding and experience, the best approach is to practice them both in synergy. Exercising just one of them is like spreading unity along one of the dimensions, while when exercised in synergy, the unity becomes all-encompassing spreading in both dimensions.
My last remark is that I'm not trying to criticize SS or show it as inferior or flawed. On the opposite, I'm offering a way to enhance SS to include another approach that would compliment its existing approaches and push its envelope. If SS it truly a science, it should never enclose itself in a rigid framework established by its founders, but should be open to grow in all relevant dimensions of development. And if SS claims to be a continuation and further development of ancient spiritual traditions, why would it exclude the insights and practices of nondual traditions?
Yes, we’re indeed revisiting a prior conversation, but let’s try to reiterate it once again.
Let’s imagine two tourists visiting Paris. One tries to follow the perceptions of the buildings, gains spatial intuition of what is where, and so on. The other says, “This is all fine, but you are missing something: There’s also the mysterious quality of Parisness.”
I think there’s no need to explicitly show how this analogy maps to what we are discussing. Let’s first consider the two positions as exaggerated extrema, such that it is easier to contrast them. If the second approach is taken one-sidedly, the tourist focuses on a general nebulous feeling of Parisness and moves through the city as in a dream – perceptual images morph, there’s no intuition of North, South, East, West, buildings and people blend into one another. The person simply flows through the seemingly unbroken stream of experiencing and focuses on its holistic feeling.
It is easy to see that plunging into such a general feeling of Parisness works well only as long as we are
satisfied with the dream flow. If we begin to bump into images, if we find ourselves in dream loops, certain frustration begins to fill our existential volume, and we feel forced to look more closely into the dream images, to develop some intuition of the lawfulness of their metamorphoses, and so on.
On the other hand, it is also easy to see the other extreme. Many people today simply go to the major landmarks, take selfies, post them on Instagram, and check out Paris from their list. It would be right to say that this person misses the Parisness. To approach the latter, we need to ‘thicken’ our conscious experience around the mere perceptions. Buildings have their history, the city has history, the people have a specific mentality, and so on. All of this forms a complicated living stream. Learning about all of this gradually expands and grows our intuitive being. This expanding intuitive volume can be called Parisness in the true sense. It is not vague but filled with high-resolution meaningful experiences.
So it is clear. The second approach can be no more than
an ideal direction. It is obvious that if a savage is dropped in Paris and simply focuses on some vague holistic quality of Parisness, none of the expanded reality, which in fact makes Paris Paris, will be discovered. In the exact same way, if the child simply repeats “mathematics, mathematics…” it will never encounter the reality of number, even though it
assumes that by focusing on the blurry concept of mathematics, it
already encompasses everything about it.
I’m quite certain that you will agree with all of this. The second approach opens up the way. That’s why we often emphasize the need for prayer and opening toward that which does not yet fit in our geometry of existence. But at the same time, the true Parisness (or Being) can only be reached by slowly and gradually expanding and integrating the particulars.
If we agree on this, what is it that we disagree on? I’ll try to illustrate it in the following way.
One person (A) walks through Paris as in a dream, enjoying the Oneness flow of phenomena. The other person (B) says, “Here’s the Louver, over there is Arc de Triomphe. They are connected with such and such events, and such and such historical figures,” and so on. A says, “Alright, I don’t deny what you say. You can investigate these details if that’s your thing. I just remind you not to forget the Parisness.”
At a certain point, B says, “In the way I see things, if you keep your current trajectory, your dream will turn into a nightmare. You’re headed toward such and such obstacles.” Now A may say, “Hmm.. let me
see.” He becomes more lucid in the dream and examines more closely the flow, and eventually recognizes the danger. Another reaction, however, could be that A gets annoyed and says, “You’re just trying to ruin my dream flow. My Parisness flow feels perfectly fine. It seems that you have simply drifted in the slums of Paris. You are seeing your surroundings, and you are trying to project them on me too.”
This is pretty much the situation. In the broadest lines, we agree. It is clear that simply focusing on the diffuse Oneness of Being leaves us free-falling through an indeterminate dream. It is also clear that this dream cannot attain proper resolution and meaning by keeping basking in the general feeling of Oneness, any more than we can understand something about Paris by simply basking in the murky feeling of Parisness. We surely need the high ideal – to seek the fuller and fuller volume of the One inner Cosmos, but to have true consciousness of this volume, it needs to become a reflection of lucid intuitive intents.
What plays out in our conversations is not some principal misunderstanding of the above. It is certain
selectiveness driven by secret sympathies and antipathies.
A enjoys the free-falling dream flow. Half-heartedly, he has some interest also in the full intuitive reality of Paris, but the more he opens his eyes, the more he discovers Paris that is not precisely as the one dreamed of. In this Paris we have certain responsibilities, we’re entangled in the general development of the city, and so on. Then A says “Oh, no, these must be the slums. I have no interest in them. The problem is that no matter how I try to open my eyes, I always see Paris in its complex nature. I would rather keep dreaming of the Paradise, easygoing Paris, and in the future, from time to time, I’ll peek until what I see matches my ideal of Parisness. Only then will I open my eyes fully and behold the beauty I dream of.”
B says: “Keep the ideal of Paradise Paris always as a guiding light. But don’t close your eyes. Overcome your preferences, your sympathies and antipathies, and discover Paris
as it is here and now. Then the great work begins, such that from the Paris of today will grow the Paris of the future. If you only keep dreaming of Paradise and just open your eyes from time to time to see if you’re there yet, you’re leaving it to others to build and direct your fate while you dream.”
