Philosophical Speculations

Federica wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 8:32 am ScottRoberts, where have you been all this time?

Watching you, Ashvin, and Cleric delve into actual spiritual science in a way that I seem unable to do with any great focus (I'm not good at concentration and meditation exercises).

Stranger wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 12:18 pm

ScottRoberts wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 2:10 am You don't see a "hard problem" because you have already arm-waved it away with your "thinking ability",

Well, "thinking ability" is fundamental, it's not "arm-waving", it's just applying the ontological approach. You declare the Manyness as fundamental, I declare Thinking (as "thinking ability") as fundamental.

Manyness is not fundamental. Oneness is not fundamental. The polarity of the Manyness and Oneness forces is fundamental (also known as "ideational activity"). Manyness and/or Oneness considered outside the polarity are abstractions.

But anyway, I'm ok with your ontology but there is one problem with it. How can Manyness be fundamental (ontologically equal to Oneness) if it is impermanent, or as Buddha said, "born — become — made — fabricated"? The only way around it that I can see is to go Platonic...

Well, I think I've provided another way around it, namely to drop this talk of "fundamental unconditioned Oneness", from which conditional Manyness emerges, and replace it with fundamental changeless/changing polarity.

ScottRoberts wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 8:46 pm Manyness is not fundamental. Oneness is not fundamental. The polarity of the Manyness and Oneness forces is fundamental (also known as "ideational activity"). Manyness and/or Oneness considered outside the polarity are abstractions.

Oh, got it! Unity in polarity. It makes sense, and that's what the Heart Sutra is saying too - Oneness is no other than Manyness, Manyness is no other than Oneness, and that is actually what we see in the direct experience, they are inseparable and undifferentiatable.
And you are right, no "hard problem". You convinced me

So, go to the extreme of the polarity of Manyness and ignore Oneness, and we are stuck in the dualistic mode of fighting egos.
Go to the extreme of Oneness and disregard Manyness, and we get stuck in the "mystical reductionism" and escapism from the world.
Restore the wholeness and the balance of both polarities, and we get to the next level of the spiritual evolution.

The Advaitists say "not one and not two". So, it's both One and Many together inseparably. In a way, can-be called "diversified Super-Unity", but the labels don't really matter.

Stranger wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 9:09 pm

ScottRoberts wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 8:46 pm Manyness is not fundamental. Oneness is not fundamental. The polarity of the Manyness and Oneness forces is fundamental (also known as "ideational activity"). Manyness and/or Oneness considered outside the polarity are abstractions.

Oh, got it! Unity in polarity. It makes sense, and that's what the Heart Sutra is saying too - Oneness is no other than Manyness, Manyness is no other than Oneness, and that is actually what we see in the direct experience, they are inseparable and undifferentiatable.
And you are right, no "hard problem". You convinced me

So, go to the extreme of the polarity of Manyness and ignore Oneness, and we are stuck in the dualistic mode of fighting egos.
Go to the extreme of Oneness and disregard Manyness, and we get stuck in the "mystical reductionism" and escapism from the world.
Restore the wholeness and the balance of both polarities, and we get to the next level of the spiritual evolution.

What a nice path back to the Middle Way and balance. Thank you!

Concerning the Form and Emptiness of the Heart Sutra, I once explored it visually by contemplating the art of Henry Moore.

Immersing my awareness in the works of a great artist like Moore was a powerful experience. Almost immediately, the way that I perceived the world began to change. It’s not easy to express exactly how it changed but my attention shifted. I began to see objects not as isolated entities but as embedded in larger environments – the inside and outside and surroundings of the subject became more apparent and as important as the piece of art.

I understood that the final perceived vision is an interaction, a dynamic and participatory dance of form and space. Moore demolished the hierarchical, elitist and monumental vision of art as somehow above, beyond and separate from the viewer. He re-visioned the sculpture, the viewer and environment as part of a participatory world.

In the photo below, Moore's sculpture reveals the relationship of form and emptiness both within the framed image and between what is within the image-at-large and outside of it.

ScottRoberts wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 8:19 pm

Federica wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 8:32 am ScottRoberts, where have you been all this time?

Watching you, Ashvin, and Cleric delve into actual spiritual science in a way that I seem unable to do with any great focus (I'm not good at concentration and meditation exercises).

Oh, thanks for counting me on the side of those who delve into actual spiritual science! The reality is, though, that I also don't have a great focus with exercises. But I know I can improve, and you probably mean something similar, and future-oriented, when you say " I seem unable". May I ask (if you feel like sharing a few thoughts, and if not, sorry for the inappropriateness): from the standpoint of your accomplished and refined philosophical understanding, how do you see your philosophical-spiritual way forward? What keeps you interested in following SS discussions, is it a kind of preparation, an inexplicable appeal, something else?

Stranger wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 5:54 pm 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.

I'm not after ontology or debris either. The issue has never really been about some conflict between Manyness and Oneness, or the lack of the latter. Even superficial thinking should conclude that some kind of dynamic balance has to be in play. On the abstract level this is the easiest thing to agree on, as the dialogs here show.

All the disagreements proceed when we have to enter the concrete details on how this balance has to be worked upon. The constant insistence on Oneness only obscures the actual issue. For most people Oneness immediately associates with the idea of a unified Cosmic organism but your interpretation is quite peculiar because you seek from Oneness only the Divine attributes while demanding full independence within the Cosmic organism (for example the ability to go to any planet or galaxy after death). Thus your philosophy always implies very strong (nondual) Manyness, even though it remains unspoken.

So the real problem is not that spiritual science has no Oneness but that in your view it seeks the path of integration in an erroneous way. This can be exemplified in a very rudimentary way thus:



On the left we have your philosophy. We're submerged in the dual world and are separated from the nondual world by the veil of death. True balance and integration are impossible to achieve below the veil. It's only a stage that has to be overcome. Convergence happens only on high.

On the right we have the view which understands the veil to be really the portal of our "I". That's also why it is known as the Guardian at the Threshold. Through initiation something of the consciousness that we have between death and new birth is bridged with our Earthly existence. Then it's already clear that the point of evolutionary integration is not in this or that world but is where our "I" is.

Even such elementary diagram can give us intuition for the ways in which the two approaches differ. For example, the first view depicts what has been presented with the school graduation metaphor. Basically the dual world is seen only as a malformed appendage and the only lesson we need to learn here is that after death we have to move to the true axis of balance. From the beyond, the dual world seems as some lateral creation which any soul who feels adventurous may go to explore but as a whole that world has no direct relevance to the nondual - that's why it's assumed one can safely dismiss any knowledge that can be acquired there. For example, such things as the kingdoms of Nature, the elements, the planets and so on, are considered to be relevant only for the dual world. In other words, even if we pass through life on Earth with our eyes closed and nourish only one thought our whole life - to move to the nondual axis after death - it is assumed we'll be lacking absolutely nothing in the higher world. That is, the skills acquired on Earth do not translate to the higher world, where completely orthogonal activities are pursued. Maybe the only skill that has relevance also on high is the resistance to the temptation not to be seduced back to Earth.

The other view shows that the higher and the lower world are inseparable, they are like the physical and the spiritual body of the Cosmos. Thus true balance can only be found by understanding how our higher nature can be nourished such that it can work creatively on the lower. Please note that presenting things in this way doesn't mean that we're always stuck in between the spirit and gross matter. The later is only the specific way the World content is constrained due to chaotic spiritual relations.

Of course, simply stating all this won't change anyone's mind (and it shouldn't!) but let's at least try to use it as a map of where the actual disagreements proceed from. The question is not that there's not enough Oneness but where and how the balance has to be sought and worked upon.

Cleric K wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 2:29 pm All the disagreements proceed when we have to enter the concrete details on how this balance has to be worked upon. The constant insistence on Oneness only obscures the actual issue. For most people Oneness immediately associates with the idea of a unified Cosmic organism but your interpretation is quite peculiar because you seek from Oneness only the Divine attributes while demanding full independence within the Cosmic organism (for example the ability to go to any planet or galaxy after death). Thus your philosophy always implies very strong (nondual) Manyness, even though it remains unspoken.

Well, going to "any planet" is still living within the Cosmic organism, isn't it? But I think you misunderstood me as I never said that we can randomly jump to "any" planet, but said many times that the form that we incarnate into has to match our current state of spiritual development. So, let me try to clarify again.

The difference between "dual" and "nondual" is not so much in which form we exist. We can live as a discarnate spirit and be in the dualistic state, or we can live in a human form and be in the nondual state. The difference between dual and nondual is how we experience and perceive the world. Dualistic state is when we only perceive the Manyness and have no clue about the Oneness and, as a consequence, experience the world in a fractured way as a conglomerate of separate selves and things and experience ourselves as a separate ego-self residing somewhere in our head in this fractured world, and as a further consequence, have strong egoic Karmic entanglements and patterns of personal likes and dislikes binding us to the fractured world of separate things and selves. Nondual state is when we can experience and see the Divine spirit pervading the whole Cosmos uniting everything into one space and one organism, so we experience both Oneness and Manyness in a perfect balance and unity, and as a consequence, see the world as not a conglomerate of separate things/selves and ourselves as separate selves, and thus have no Karmic ego-complex of egoic likes, dislikes, patterns and entanglements.

But realistically, the transition between dual and nondual state does not happen overnight and takes multiple lifetimes. There is a continuity of soul's evolutionary paths, no shortcuts are possible. So no, we can not jump just to any random planet after leaving the human body, but our next form after human life has to match our current state of maturity. As I said, the decision for the next incarnation is made with the help of spirit guides with the goal to facilitate the further soul's progress in the best way. It can be another human incarnation or incarnation into another form, all depending on the maturity of the soul. And even if the soul is already in a more mature state, it can return to human form with Bodhisattva mission to help humanity.

Just like in human schools, all knowledge and lessons that we acquired on all levels of study are always relevant and important and will remain in our memory. But if you are in grade 4, the lessons from grade 2 are no linger relevant to your studies. Likewise, all lessons and knowledge we gain from our human incarnations are and will always remain relevant and important, even though they we acquired in the dualistic state. But, the more a soul progresses beyond the dualistic state, the less relevant the lessons of the dualistic realm become. Now, that only applies to the lessons that we have from the dualistic realm of relationships and situations within our human dualistic society and does not apply to the knowledge of the "kingdoms of Nature, the elements, the planets and so on". I'm repeating again that the realm of "kingdoms of Nature, the elements, the planets and so on" is NOT dual. What makes it appear as dual is only our dualistic perception of it.

Now, regarding the lawful structures, different forms of organisms and their structures in the Cosmos have different degree of restrictions by the lawful structures depending on the dimension level. It is more dence and more restricted on lower dimensions, and less dense with more degrees of creative freedom on higher dimensions. Just like in our society the civil and religious laws and structures are needed to limit people in doing harm to each other and guide them in their development, likewise the structures and laws of our inner body and soul limit us in doing more harm to ourselves and others, but also give us the ways/curvatures for further development. When a soul is deep in the dualistic state, it is more beneficial for it to be in a more dense form more restricted by lawful structures. If we do so much harm to ourselves and each other even in such densely restricted state as human, imagine how much more harm we could do if we would be given more freedom and creating powers. When a soul becomes more mature, especially when it is on some level of the nondual path, it becomes more responsible and wise to have more degrees of freedom in its activities, so forms less restricted by lawful structures become a better fit for its state of maturity. In a very mature nondual state when the soul develops new structures that match the Divine qualities of Love, Beauty, Compassion, balance of Oneness-Manyness, and has no remainders of any egoic and dualistic Karmic structures left, any limiting lawful structures are not needed anymore, the soul ascends to the level of freedom of the Divine and can become a co-creator with the Divine. So, at that stage, there is no benefit for such soul to incarnate into densely restricted forms such as humans, but they can still return for Bodhisattva missions.

Now, if humanity as a whole evolves further in significant ways and leaves behind its deeply dualistic culture, conditioning and collective Karmic structures, then it would become possible for more advanced souls, even on advanced nondual stages, to incarnate in humans. I would assume that at that time humans will also have much more advanced technology that will loosen such the dense limitations of human form. There is nothing inherently wrong with the Earth realm that makes it incompatible with more advanced spiritual states. In the meantime, the majority of human souls will continue slowly evolving and reincarnating into humans because their developmental pace matches the pace of humanity as a whole. Some will be left behind and will probably start incarnating on the planets populated by less developed species. Some will join humans when they graduate from incarnations in those less developed species. And some will progress sufficiently further ahead and will not be incarnating into humans anymore, because human form with its cultural and collective-karmic conditioning will not be a fit for their developmental level, unless they decide to return on a Bodhisattva mission.

Then it's already clear that the point of evolutionary integration is not in this or that world but is where our "I" is.

That is exactly right, the threshold is primarily internal and it is where we for the first time experientially realize the pole of Oneness and turn our path towards the point of Oneness-Manyness balance of integration, as opposed to traversing through only the realm of duality. And then anything manifesting in external ways will be only a match and a consequence of these internal realizations, including which realm or form we will take after the human life.

Federica wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 6:17 pm

Stranger wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 5:29 pm let's take one example: suppose after finishing this human life my soul or my higher self decides to move to some other realm or incarnate into other planet race in order to diversify its life experiences and their lessons and facilitate further spiritual evolution, as long as that realm or race is a fit for the current state of the soul's maturity. A massive amount of available NDE and regression accounts indicate that souls actually do that all the time.

If you are trying to point to imprecisions in my statements, then yes, I do it all the time too . In other places I said that the reincarnation decisions are made with the help of spirit guides, and also that some souls incarnate mostly into humans, while others take more diversified paths. Just like in our human realm, many people live in one country of their birth all their life, while many others move from country to country. The key is that any incarnation form usually has to match the developmental level of the soul (again, unless a soul is on the bodhisattva mission). I would suggest to try to understand the core meaning of what people are trying to convey and not be so demanding to the precision of statements, we are not in a mathematical conference here.

Stranger wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 5:58 pm I'm repeating again that the realm of "kingdoms of Nature, the elements, the planets and so on" is NOT dual. What makes it appear as dual is only our dualistic perception of it.

Stranger wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 3:25 am I have no interest in the "hows" of the dualistic state of being, be it a state of consciousness or of material structures.