Metamorphoses of the Spirit: Transfiguring our Thinking (Part II)

[Eugene I]

This brings to mind Nagarjuna's teaching that Nirvana is the cessation of grasping for foundations, and that 'there is not the slightest difference between cyclic existence and nirvana'. However, the Buddhist realization of emptiness is accompanied by compassion, which to me entails making things better, ie progressive change and metamorphosis. So I think there is space for Western ideals of progress alongside Buddhist emptiness (though the latter does imply there is not One True Path but many paths).

Oh, definitely so. At certain periods of my life I practiced both and found both having important insights and yet still lacking what the other counterpart had. An integration of both approaches IMO would be the most complete and beneficial paradigm and spiritual practice (and that's what I'm trying for myself).

[AshvinP]

Again, someone taking the idealist outlook seriously would also take psychic facts as "substantial" reality. They would ask questions about psychic processes which lead to spiritual conclusions rather than dismiss them as "fantasy", each isolated bubble of consciousness having its own fantasy to play with. The latter conception is still the infant's milk we are drinking rather than the solid food we should be eating by this metamorphic stage of spiritual development. And if one wants to find psychological motivations, the first question to ask is whether the claim alleviates a person's responsibility for disciplined thinking or puts more responsibility for such thinking on their shoulders. The reason to dismiss spiritual claims out of hand is almost always a function of the former, and I suspect it is no different right now in your dismissal of Cleric's spiritual claims.

We definitely have shared fantasies, no question about that. And we are definitely developing out fantasies and our fantasizing abilities, making them more sophisticated. and advanced. There is definitely a value and a meaning to that. But as always, it is good to have a balance here, because we also have a tendency to overdo and overvalue them and become slaves to the fantasized structures that we collectively create (Divine included). The Consciousness that creates the fantasies becomes a prisoner of its own fantasies by taking them for more than what they are and what they are worth. But running to another extreme to dismiss and trump them in an attempt to break free from such slavery is as much a mistake. Only when Consciousness realizes that it is the master of its own fantasies, it can use them to the full capacity and full benefit.

The problem here is that what you label "fantasy" is anything more specific than the most general, hazy, smeared out image of Consciousness as ineffable quality of awareness. All attempts to add resolution to such a vague image is what you call "becoming a prisoner" of fantasies. I know you will deny and that and claim some definition is added by your particular Eastern view, incorporating some NDE accounts and what not, but the practical result is always the same. When more specific resolution is added, you feel the needs to push back, because you cannot tolerate one spiritual landscape being given more truth-value than another. Such things seem to strike at your very core. And obviously there is some value to such skepticism in a time when things can be easily over-spiritualized, but the skepticism should also be matched with constructive criticism. As time goes on, your criticisms become less constructive and more distracting from the overall points raised. I have no problem with someone challenging my or anyone else's claims, but they have now literally become one word challenges like "ditto". Such things lead us absolutely nowhere in metaphysical-spiritual discussions while we desperately need to be heading somewhere in those discussions.

[Eugene I]

When more specific resolution is added, you feel the needs to push back, because you cannot tolerate one spiritual landscape being given more truth-value than another.

I already gave you an analogy from math. In older times people believed that there only one "true" geometry (Euclidian). It turned out that there is a variety of axiomatic geometries in math. Some of them are "wrong" in a sense that they are inconsistent and logically contradicting. But there is a variety of other geometries that are consistent, some of them are more encompassing and having broader scope and may include some others, others are non-overlapping with each other, yet none of them can be claimed to be the "true" geometry.

Similarly, there is a variety of spiritual landscapes and paradigms. Some of them are indeed distortive, inconsistent and harmful, others are more consistent and beneficial for progressive development of consciousness, but none of the latter are the "truest" or "absolutely true". Some of them claim that they are "truer" than all others and they represent the "absolute truth", but this very claim makes such landscapes/paradigms distortive and harmful because they deprive Consciousness from it's innate freedom from being conditioned and imprisoned by its own fabricated/fantasized landscapes/paradigms. It is the landscapes that should serve Consciousness, not Consciousness that should serve landscapes. Landscapes are simply tools for Consciousness to grow and develop, and landscapes should change and adapt to the level of development. But once a landscape is declared to be the "absolute/ultimate" and Consciousness chooses to believe in such claim, it becomes stuck and imprisoned in such landscape for as long as it holds such belief.

For me it is obvious that purely Western landscape/paradigm is incomplete and lacking certain crucial insights. Similarly, the Eastern one is also lacking certain important aspects discovered by the Wester one. That does not mean that simple integration of both will finally brings us to the "ultimate paradigm", I think we would be still quite far from that (if its ever achievable at all). Yet, such integration would definitely be more complete and beneficial compared to each of them separately, and IMO that would be the next level landscape that would serve the humanity better at its next level of the metamorphic development.

[AshvinP]

When more specific resolution is added, you feel the needs to push back, because you cannot tolerate one spiritual landscape being given more truth-value than another.

I already gave you an analogy from math. In older times people believed that there only one "true" geometry (Euclidian). It turned out that there is a variety of axiomatic geometries in math. Some of them are "wrong" in a sense that they are inconsistent and logically contradicting. But there is a variety of other geometries that are consistent, some of them are more encompassing and having broader scope and may include some others, others are non-overlapping with each other, yet none of them can be claimed to be the "true" geometry.

Similarly, there is a variety of spiritual landscapes and paradigms. Some of them are indeed distortive, inconsistent and harmful, others are more consistent and beneficial for progressive development of consciousness, but none of the latter are the "truest" or "absolutely true". Some of them claim that they are "truer" than all others and they represent the "absolute truth", but this very claim makes such landscapes/paradigms distortive and harmful because they deprive Consciousness from it's innate freedom from being conditioned and imprisoned by its own fabricated/fantasized landscapes/paradigms. It is the landscapes that should serve Consciousness, not Consciousness that should serve landscapes. Landscapes are simply tools for Consciousness to grow and develop, and landscapes should change and adapt to the level of development. But once a landscape is declared to be the "absolute/ultimate" and Consciousness chooses to believe in such claim, it becomes stuck and imprisoned in such landscape for as long as it holds such belief.

For me it is obvious that purely Western landscape/paradigm is incomplete and lacking certain crucial insights. Similarly, the Eastern one is also lacking certain important aspects discovered by the Wester one. That does not mean that simple integration of both will finally brings us to the "ultimate paradigm", I think we would be still quite far from that (if its ever achievable at all). Yet, such integration would definitely be more complete and beneficial compared to each of them separately, and IMO that would be the next level landscape that would serve the humanity better at its next level of the metamorphic development.

That is an argument from ignorance and arrogance. It says, "if I don't know which landscape is most accurate and useful, then they must be of equal value (except for the ones I deem 'inconsistent')." It is also hypocritical argument - "If I say Consciousness exists to grow and develop, and the Western-Eastern landscapes are 'incomplete' in the manner I say they are when serving the purpose I gave to Consciousness, then that landscape is immune from my previous criticism". I am honestly amazed how people can hold such positions without seeing the obvious problems in them. I guess that is what I have been writing about in many of the essays, the sheer unrelenting power of these modern mental habits, but it still surprises me sometimes.

[JustinG]

I think a problem with notions of spiritual progression or spiritual hierarchies of any sort is that they can be a source of attachment, grasping and pride, which defeats their purpose. In this respect, Buddhist traditions offer a lot of wisdom.

On this topic, I found The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika, with a commentary by Jay Garfield to be a great book https://www.amazon.com.au/Fundamental-W ... 0195093364. Garfield is an analytical philosopher who matches BK in terms of logical coherence and consistency. From a Nagarjunic perspective, idealism, like all metaphysics, can be seen as a useful fiction rather than something that has grasped inherently existent truths and is therefore superior to other paths.

[Simon Adams]

There is a sense in which I just don’t know what to think of Cleric’s framing of things. It’s clearly a sophisticated and eloquently argued philosophy, but like Ben and Eugene, it doesn’t really connect with me, with my own search for truth into the experience of self, or in relation to god. None of us see the whole truth, and I feel there must be something there as it’s clearly well thought through, but it’s definitely a different path from the one I’m on.

[JustinG]

There is a sense in which I just don’t know what to think of Cleric’s framing of things. It’s clearly a sophisticated and eloquently argued philosophy, but like Ben and Eugene, it doesn’t really connect with me, with my own search for truth into the experience of self, or in relation to god. None of us see the whole truth, and I feel there must be something there as it’s clearly well thought through, but it’s definitely a different path from the one I’m on.

Yes, I think there are many paths. I don't doubt many states of ecstasy, bliss and altered perceptions can be achieved through various forms of deep mediation or philosophizing. But the broader question is what the point of achieving such states is?

One Buddhist path which has some appeal to me is the Insight by the nature method http://www.buddhanet.net/budasa10.htm of the Thai Buddhist monk and reformer Buddhadasa Bhikku https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhadasa. Some excerpts:

"- the intensity of concentration that comes about naturally is usually sufficient and appropriate for introspection and insight, whereas the concentration resulting from organized training is usually excessive, more than can be made use of. Furthermore, misguided satisfaction with that highly developed concentration may result. While the mind is fully concentrated, it is likely to be experiencing such a satisfying kind of bliss and well- being that the meditator may become attached to it, or imagine it to be the Fruit of the Path. Naturally occurring concentration, which is sufficient and suitable for use in introspection, is harmless, having none of the disadvantages inherent in concentration developed by means of intensive training.

- Deep concentration is a major obstacle to insight practice. To practice introspection one must first return to the shallower levels of concentration; then one can make use of the power the mind has acquired.

- The expression "insight into the true nature of things" refers to seeing transience, unsatisfactoriness and non-selfhood, seeing that nothing is worth getting, nothing is worth being.

- A skeptic may ask: "If nothing at all is worth getting or being, does it follow that nobody ought to do any work or build up wealth, position and property?"... If the defilements responsible for the desire to be and get things had been completely eliminated, what was the force that motivated the Buddha and all Arahants to do all this?

- They were motivated by discrimination coupled with goodwill (metta)... The example of the Buddha shows that the power of pure discrimination and pure goodwill alone is sufficient to keep an arahant living in the world, and, what is more, doing far more good for others than people still subject to craving."

[Eugene I]

I think a problem with notions of spiritual progression or spiritual hierarchies of any sort is that they can be a source of attachment, grasping and pride, which defeats their purpose. In this respect, Buddhist traditions offer a lot of wisdom.

Exactly, that's what I was trying to say by labeling them as "fantasies". These structures definitely have values and meanings, but investing too much of emphasis into them can lead to grasping and pride, which is essentially Consciousness that created them becomes imprisoned by the products of its own fabrication. There is nothing wrong with fabricating structures and ideas, they can be means of progressive development of Consciousness and unleashing its creativity, as long as Consciousness does not grasp to them and does not start to believe in their over-importance to the extent that it becomes a slave and a prisoner of them. And once that happens, it entails in psychological consequences - suffering, neuroses, conflicts, fears of losing etc. "Ye shall know them by their fruit."

None of us see the whole truth, and I feel there must be something there as it’s clearly well thought through, but it’s definitely a different path from the one I’m on.

Right, these different spiritual perspectives often discover important truths and insights and can contribute to the overall progression of our knowledge. However, they often fall prey to the pride of believing that they are the most superior spiritual/philosophical paradigms because they allegedly see the ultimate truth.

[Cleric]

Similarly, there is a variety of spiritual landscapes and paradigms. Some of them are indeed distortive, inconsistent and harmful, others are more consistent and beneficial for progressive development of consciousness, but none of the latter are the "truest" or "absolutely true". Some of them claim that they are "truer" than all others and they represent the "absolute truth", but this very claim makes such landscapes/paradigms distortive and harmful because they deprive Consciousness from it's innate freedom from being conditioned and imprisoned by its own fabricated/fantasized landscapes/paradigms. It is the landscapes that should serve Consciousness, not Consciousness that should serve landscapes. Landscapes are simply tools for Consciousness to grow and develop, and landscapes should change and adapt to the level of development. But once a landscape is declared to be the "absolute/ultimate" and Consciousness chooses to believe in such claim, it becomes stuck and imprisoned in such landscape for as long as it holds such belief.

I think a problem with notions of spiritual progression or spiritual hierarchies of any sort is that they can be a source of attachment, grasping and pride, which defeats their purpose. In this respect, Buddhist traditions offer a lot of wisdom.

I find it tiresome that we need to spend so much time and energy on trying to argument something which is so elementary.

On one hand we have various philosophies which accept (rightfully) the fundamental reality of consciousness but then are tempted to focus entirely on this general truth and consider any more detailed facts as locking into fantasies, becoming lost in conceptualizations, attaching to prideful hierarchies and so on. It's more than clear that this general truth doesn't at all allow us to fantasize away our environment - both physical and spiritual, inner and outer - even though we assume that it's all just a fantasized picture. Every our action, feeling, thought are shaped by this environment. It's one thing to be aware of this and strive to become more and more conscious of these conditioning forces, but it's altogether different thing to imagine that we are in the most 'secure' position if we simply focus on the idea that 'it's all a fantasy'. Even the most fervent defender of this idea would agree that we can't get away on Earth without learning some of the laws of the inner and outer environment if we want to be healthy, functional, creative and useful to the social organism. Yet all these factors simply evaporate when it's looked beyond the threshold of death.

On the other hand we have attempts to investigate the very nature of these spiritual factors. Not in order to build some power-hierarchy around them but in order to have the knowledge how to navigate in the best way the invisible constraints that we otherwise bump into all the time and naively explain as "Well, maybe that's what Consciousness wanted to experience". This is necessary not only for our immediate experience but also for having proper course for future development. Without such knowledge we can never know if we aren't headed into quicksand few moves from now.

I'm really struggling to find ways to show how elementary this thinking error is. It's like we are kids arguing. Some say "you have to take life more lightly, it's just a fantasy. Don't take too seriously any ideas about reality, you'll just be attached and imprisoned by them. All paths on the playground are equally valid." Other kids say "Well but maybe we should take the time and learn something about the laws that govern this reality after all. Today we're fed and clothed by our parents but tomorrow we'll have to provide for ourselves. It will be of no use to try and imagine cold and hunger being mere fantasy. How can we become the architects of this reality if we don't learn something about it and instead just laugh and play with what's already created?"
(please, don't take this metaphor as if I advocate that we shall become dull adults thinking only about Earthly matters. It's really about unfolding our potential as truly creative spiritual beings)

How can one fail to pierce through this picture and see the basic nature of the emotions involved? To choose to believe that we're here only for fun, art and games? Can't we see how serious of an assumption this is? Assumption that can be verified only after death? How can we accuse the kids who choose to investigate the given and unfold their activity in accordance to the facts, of trying to be superior and prideful. Why? Just because they challenge the Pollyanna dream of the other kids? And they challenge it not with empty words but with facts that anyone can observe, as long as they have the good will to do so?

So tell me honestly - who of the kids are really living entirely in their imaginations?

[AshvinP]

There is a sense in which I just don’t know what to think of Cleric’s framing of things. It’s clearly a sophisticated and eloquently argued philosophy, but like Ben and Eugene, it doesn’t really connect with me, with my own search for truth into the experience of self, or in relation to god. None of us see the whole truth, and I feel there must be something there as it’s clearly well thought through, but it’s definitely a different path from the one I’m on.

We should really dwell on what Simon says here. I have a feeling many others feel the same way as him. Cleric's posts make a ton of sense, they are "sophisticated and eloquent and well thought through", there "must be something there". BUT, we simply cannot relate to them. They are not describing the spiritual tradition(s) we are most familiar with and the perception-thought we have on a daily basis. We don't know what to make of them. We don't even know where to start in our consideration of them. What we do know, however, is that we cannot take such specific spiritual claims on faith, as much consideration (or even experience) with religious cults has taught us in the past.

Those sentiments are all natural and healthy, as long as they continue provoking questions and thinking. If they provoke a complete lack of consideration, a shutting off to consideration, then we must reevaluate. I would have a very difficult time coming to terms with Steiner and Cleric's view if I had not already been familiar with Barfield, Gebser and the metamorphic arguments before. Not just hearing about them and knowing the outline, but reading their books and becoming very familiar with the content. These things take effort and for someone who is not naturally inclined to Western idealist metamorphic perspective, like I am, it must be that much more difficult to devote the effort and time necessary.

We also do not like to be told that what we firmly believe is wrong. If someone joined the forum today and starting making great arguments against Barfield and his assessment of language meanings over time, I would resist it greatly. Or if they pointed out Gebser inserted examples of art into his work which simply do not exist. Or if pointed out serious logical flaws in Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom. I would resist all such arguments fiercely. But, of course, that is not the situation that I find myself in. It is very much the opposite of the situation I am in, so I can only speculate about my hypothetical reactions in those situations.

At the end of the day, I cannot make better arguments for my views than what I have put into these essays. I don't want to speak for Cleric but I imagine it is not much different with him and his numerous and lengthy essays/posts. I will continue writing mine because they are of great personal benefit to my thinking process and I suspect there are at least a few people who appreciate the content. But I cannot speak to someone, let alone convince someone, who has set their mind against these considerations. I don't think there has been a single comment yet on Steiner's claims about the essence of Thinking activity (except maybe Eugene at the beginning) and that is disappointing, but understandable for the reasons above.

I just hope at some point we get past this radical skepticism and cynicism of all views different from our own and delve into the substance of what is being said. That is what most of us had to do for the transition away from materialism-dualism to idealism as well. We should not arbitrarily stop at the most general idealism and consider it a success because we all get a chance to share opinions of equal value if we stay in the same place of purely speculative thought forever. Sometimes our pride in our own intellectual capacity has to take a back seat to a genuine curiosity for deeper knowledge and insight. I am perfectly aware this will sound like "projection" to those who are being criticized. So be it...