Please Log in to Vote.

4 out of 4 members found this useful.

General Discussion: Brahman is the World

Posted November 5th, 2008 by Corey deVos in The Daily VOS

In this discussion, Mokie and Ken discuss the concept of Integral Satsang, an Indian term that roughly translates as "in company of the truth." The word satsang is derived from the Sanskrit roots sat (true) and sanga (company), and can be interpreted in three important ways: a) the company of the "highest truth," b) the company of a group of students or practitioners gathered to study, discuss, and assimilate that truth, and c) the company of a spiritual teacher who acts as a conduit between the people and the truth. While typically associated with the Advaita Vedanta tradition, the concept of satsang can be applied to any spiritual tradition or community, East, West, contemplative or traditional. Whether you find yourself in the church, the mosque, the synagogue, or the zendo—you are in some form of satsang, seeking to understand some version of spiritual truth, taught by some spiritual teacher or leader, to a community of other seekers and practitioners.

When asked what makes an Integral satsang different than most traditional satsang settings, Mokie refers to the famous quote by Indian sage Shankara:

The world is an illusion
Brahman alone is real
Brahman is the world

Or, put another way:

Flee the many,
Find the One
Embrace the Many as the One

Most traditional satsangs tend to excel at leading people through the first two stages of realization. Helping to dislodge our fixations within the world of appearances and leading us to the timeless Now behind it all, these communities and teachings do a great deal to shift people's identity from the effulgence of the many to the pristine stillness of the One. For many this shift represents the primordial urge toward spiritual practice, a persistent intuition that the world is somehow brittle, facile, and lacking any real substance or meaning—a cardboard parade marching across saran-wrap streets. There is often a sense of something infinitely more dwelling just beneath the surface, a secret eternity obscured only by its obviousness. The melodies of timeless thought ribbon through our minds, threading our souls together into the living jewelry of consciousness, as the rhythms of a bottomless heart echo through the hallways of always.

Spirit whispers its sweet seraphic music into our innermost ear, a siren's song that leads us to the far shore of eternity. We follow the ubiquitous hymns to the center of the universe, where all is still and silent, but never ever static. Released from the brutalities of impermanence we begin to awaken at last, recognizing the singularity of Being that underlies every experience we have ever had.

But the story does not have to end here.

More than anything, an Integral satsang places special emphasis upon the final stage of realization: Brahman is the world. It is within this final stage of nondual realization that enlightenment comes truly alive; an overflowing impulse to infuse the world with the living light of transcendent awareness, giving sight to the blind appetites of evolution. We begin to recognize the broken and illusory world as no different than the eternal Oneness that lies at its core, watching form slide through the effortless expanse of the One—form that is itself a manifestation of the One, a fractalized reflection of emptiness. There is, in fact, no real separation between form and emptiness anywhere to be found—emptiness is form, and form is emptiness, as the Many and the One entwine themselves like frenzied lovers after an eternity of longing.

In Reference to:

Brahman is the World

show all sub-comments
Please Login to Add Comments
Watched Posts Settings

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Beautifully written, Corey!

Posted November 6th, 2008 by Dustin DiPerna

"A fractalized reflection of emptiness" -- "giving sight to the blind appetites of evolution"

I've never heard it articulated better! So gorgeous, my brother.

Much Love,

Please Login to Add Comments

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

If this is the case...

Posted November 6th, 2008 by steven martini

...that we are born transcending and including any habits carried by spirit from the pre-physical life level, what would that saved data look like? Lines of Intelligence? In the UR we know DNA is the messenger of information between generations of creation - this makes me wonder do the choices we make in our daily lives actively change the DNA we would pass forward? Physical Karma? Again, in the UR, our DNA is certainly effected by the environment, our food, we are effected emotionally in the LL by our family, friends, community - all of which effect our overall state of Health. Hell, for all we know, Kosmic Gamma Rays are showering through us each and every instant of the Now. A stray subtle nano-meteor could in complete stealth light our DNA filaments up (for good or bad), thus making the Earth's Magnetosphere our Mafia of perpetual protection. If we ever discovered that the Don Magnetosphere needed a certain amount of Human Bodies as food to replenish it's power, for some energetic reason beyond our understanding, we might easily find ourselves engaging in Trans-rational Mayan Sacrafice with the bodies being faithful volunteers acting in service through their own volition. What would these willing souls be taking with them to the next life and how to store it? (other than in those mysterious Pyramids built by those wacky Integral Egyptians)

Of course, Brahman, being one with it all, needs none of it.

I, on the other hand, threw away my TV for this. Thanks for the awesomely Integral Satsang Ken and Mokie!

13 Comments

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

Brahman is the World

Posted November 6th, 2008 by Schalk Schalk in response to If this is the case...

Exquisite writing Corey!

Steven: your point got me thinking ...

... have we asked the obvious question, through the "eye" of which quadrant does it make sense to speak of ... Brahman as being the World?

Is this truth actually best understood as being a form of beauty apprehension that happens in the marriage of 2nd Tier cognition, spirit, self, and aesthetics in the UL quadrant interior?

I am not quite seeing how the statement "Brahman is the World" makes sense if we are talking about UR exteriors, on any line.

Steven's point tripped this idea for me ... does a physicist need Brahman to see to the end of the universe? Or does that even make sense? Is there even a role for the word "Brahman" in right column truth apprehension at all?

Would we ever need to sacrifice a "body" (using the UR eye to see if we have accomplished this) if we understood that the "truth" that is telling us to do it, is an UL "beauty realization" instead?

And what about - the LL quadrant? Here we see through the collective lens of inner senses of justice and goodness. But, the realization that Brahman is the World, I am not sure this is something that properly arises when we travel up any line with a LL (or LR) perspective. Or is it?

So, any thoughts on the application of AQAL to this truth?

I am thinking that the realization of the truth of the "Brahman is the World" statement is an UL event,

...and that to shift the perspective to an UR one and try to make sense of it, may lead to ... something, I am not sure what to call it.

Or ... is the realization of Brahman is the World something that integrates 2nd Tier consciousness of all 4 quadrants simultaneously? Where ... no single quadrant perspective can get you there, and you must simultaneously "hear" the beauty, true, and goodness of all 4 to ... know it as "True."

E.g. I have been ruminating over the campaign and discussions about it, and discussions between pundits on TV, and something that struck me ... there was an enormous amount of ... quadrant shifting.

Someone would make a point that is evaluated based on UL beauty, and the rebuttal point would be a truth that is understand from a LR systems perspective. So, what do we call this? A fallacy? A confusion of "eyes?"

I am almost overwhelmed right now about how important it seems to be to dust off this simple AQAL principle. I wonder if all the talk about "stages" is really just a lot less important than ... getting AQAL quadrants right! When we agree on the "eye" that is to assess the "evidence" and we agree on the "line" within the "eye" (or quadrant) that is at issue, we have ... set proper boundaries that ... can only lead to mutual discovery and upgrading of what we see, and should almost never lead to ... frustration or confusion or ... well, frustration.

The frustration we all feel is absolutely justified I think. It is a function of us knowing that ... somehow the "eye" has been switched in mid-stream, and like Wittgenstein said, the issue of truth or falsity is no longer even germane, because ... we are at the level of "nonsense."

I am making it a personal goal to be more aware of AQAL. Just the simple issue of - which quadrant is this "thing" a function of? Because, it seems almost always a problem when a "thing" or "holon" from one quadrant gets ... re-cast in light that is used to "see" in another quadrant.

So, what do I have to be doing and what do I have to be looking at and where do I have to be finding evidence to realize that ... BRAHMAN IS THE WORLD?

12 Comments

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Brahman and the Quadrants

Posted November 6th, 2008 by Jerry Sherwood in response to Brahman is the World

Shalk,

Love your questions

Just want to "rif" on them a bit and see where it leads.

To realize the World is Brahman (the many are actually just One) is a state experience. It is not development along the cognitive line (strictly speaking)

The meaning and value given to the experience of the State of realization will depend on the cognitive and values lines (just to name a couple) as these are necessary for meaningful interpretation.

At the moment of the State experience "the World is Brahman" there is no inside/outside, no I/thou the is NO-THING, (there are no quadrants).

When the added Realization of "Brahman is the World" (the One is the Many) occurs "Things" reappear but are now seen in the Context .... Brahman and the World are One .... the quadrants and all phenomena within them are understood differently (presuming an understanding of quadrants to begin with).

Now, the World is Beautiful everywhere I look, There is perfection (goodness) in all Relationship, and it is quite apparent that the Truth is the World is One (no self existing entities with in it, everything is interdependent)

It seems to me that it is clearly possible for one to experience this State (the mystery of the One) even while looking out on the world with the Eye of Truth (more than one scientist has attested to this), And, it is quite aparent that justice defined is extremely limited, there is no possibility of tht rigid codes of conduct can always be just. But, given enough "space" it often becomes apparent that Life is ultimately just, the Great Perfection may become evident.

In the end run though ... no matter which Eye we say we are using there is only the Upper Left of immediate experience that can be verified. In the end there is only one EYE ... the artificial division into three modes of knowing really only point to three ways of interpreting what we see.

Quadrants are useful for understanding conflicting interpretations and resolving those conflicts. But, in the end they are an artifical division of the intellect. Integral theory acknowledges this by noting that the four quadrants simultaneously arise together. One is not present without the others. And there you are again, back to the Four as One and the One as Four

.--

It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.

11 Comments

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Good

Posted November 7th, 2008 by steven martini in response to Brahman and the Quadrants

Real

Good

Love

Read

Thrice

Please Login to Add Comments

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

AQAL

Posted November 7th, 2008 by Schalk Schalk in response to Brahman and the Quadrants

Jerry:

Thanks for looking at this.

You said that the realization that Brahman is the World is a state experience. Hmm. I am wondering if we can get into this closely. Is it more accurate to say that ... "saying that Brahman is the World" is an interpretation of something experienced in a state?

I am fully with you when you say that the "meaning" we give to an experienced state is a function of our altitude development.

You pointed out that at the moment of the realization, there is not inside or out, no singular or plural. The realization does not ... come "as a quadrant perspective." But, the interpretation ... that is where we make a choice to speak in terms of a quadrant perspective. We have an experience of some-thing and then we immediately ... can choose to look at it .... as an interior holon or an exterior holon.

I am not trying to quibble by the way. I am just struck right now, by how important it is to be clear ... on how we are looking at something. What are we using to taste something?

So, just to be clear, I am not trying to say "Brahman is not the World." Or that "Brahman may not be the World."

What I am trying to find out is this: what is the relationship between "knowing that Brahman is the World" and the AQAL quadrants?

Now, I am fully aware that there is an important distinction between:

a. immediate experience of a non-dual state

b. interpretation of a state

c. realization that Brahman is the World

d. saying that Brahman is the World after realizing it

e. saying that Brahman is the World without having realized it

f. etc.

What I am most interested in is - how do the quadrants play into my "understanding" that Brahman is the World?

I am also fully aware that ... the only thing that is real is that which is present in deep dreamless sleep. Let's just assume that we agree with that. So, anything we think or say or point to about Brahman is not real to begin with, from that level.

Let me try one last time, which quadrant would I be looking through if I wanted to verify whether in fact, "Brahman is the World?" Or can it be verified in any quadrant? If so, which line of knowing would I be using. Or can it be known on any line of intelligence? Is there an altitude that must be attained before the interpretation that "Brahman is the World" will arise?

9 Comments

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Re:AQAL

Posted November 7th, 2008 by Jerry Sherwood in response to AQAL

Shalk,

It can be awkward to speak in terms of Brahman and the world. After all, these too are just signifiers, and each comes with certain baggage and preconcieved notions of what they mean. So first, let me explain the difficulty we face with these words, for we are very near to falling into a dualistic trap. (I do not imply that you have done so. This is a cautionary note for me, you and any who read this exchange)

Brahman signifies the ultimate. For most of us that means Consciousness. We tend to associate Consciousness with our individual interior (UL) and to a much, lesser extent (if any at all) the shared We space (LL)

The world signifies the relative. For most of us that means objects and we tend to associate that with the physical world of things, individual and collective (UR, LR)

This of course is already in error (as I suspect you have already seen) because the relative world of objects consist of all objects of perception.There are the obvious exterior objects we know through the five senses and, less obvious, are the objects of our interior world: thoughts, feelings, and imaginations.

Then we have the problem with there being no stable definition of Consciousness. Anyone who has even had a cursory look into this field of study knows what I mean. Is Consciousness an epiphenomena or an inherent property of matter? For that matter what physicist can define matter these days?

If this isn't confusing enough consider this, there really is no clear distinction between our experience of the "outer" world and the "inner" world. We are perfectly capable of "reproducing" the sensations of the outer world without any apparent outside stimulus. We do so every night when we dream. Furthermore, our interior world continually colors our perceptions of the outside world. There is a noticiable difference in experience of the same event by a person in a depressed state versus a person in an elated state. Finally, how we percieve the world affects how we act in the world and this has effects on that world.

So, there is the quandry we face in trying to determine whether the statement Brahman is the World is a statement about Truth (UR,LR) Beauty (UL) or Goodness (LL) because it is a statement that includes all of that and more. Brahman is the Absolute (all that has been, is now and forever will be, plus unmanifest potential) and Brahman is the illusory relative world (all objects of perception whether considered interior or exterior)

So, we really are down to the two very important and pertinent questions you raise. What quadrant are we speaking from when we say Brahman is the world. And, what quadrant do we look at to discover if this is a valid statement?

I tried to address these in my first "rif" through this question. Let me see if I can be more explicit and bring a little clarity to the subject.

To say "Brahman is the world" is too ambiguous to be designated to any one quadrant. In fact, as an interpretation of a state experience it is the most inclusive we can make. Because, the "world", as I noted above, is the simultaneous arising of all four quadrants (all objects of perception, interior and exterior).

If I state that Brahman is "Sat, Chit, Annanda" (consciousness, mind, and bliss) I am making a truth statement of an asthetic and interior nature. Specifically I see the oneness of Awareness, Thoughts, and Feelings. This a felt experience of beauty beyond description and the statement signifies the perspective of the UL quadrant.

If I state that Brahman is "The Great Perfection" I am making a truth statement regarding the quality of relationship. It is Good. This is a statement that signifies the perspective of the We Space of the LL quadrant.

If I state that Brahman is "The One without a Second" I am making a truth statement regarding the observable fact that all physical reality is interdependent. There are no self existing entities or separate objects. There is only the, apparently infinite, Totality. This is primarily a statement that signifies the perspective of the UR, and LR quadrants. (there is a slight measure of UL since all interior objects are included, but there is little question concerning their dependent nature to begin with)

This leaves the most interesting question. How do we or can we validate any of these statements?

There is little question concerning the validation of UL claims. This is the very question that spawned Ken's interest in formulating the integral map in the first place. His integral theory gives us an unqualified Yes to this question. Follow the injunction (meditate or other interior explorations) see the result and confirm what you see with the community of those that have likewise followed the injunction.

immho, we do have a way to validate the truth statement of the LL quadrant; All relationship reflects the Great Perfection. How? One way is through the work of Byron Katie, as exemplified in her book "Loving What Is". If followed, her injunctions expose the relative nature of our assumptions concerning relationship and reveal the Great Perfection of relationship as a mirror for our own evolution.

In regards to validation of the truth claim of the UR, LR, that everything is interdependent I think this has already been accomplished. Is there any scientist that claims otherwise? Furthermore, we have only to do what the ancient ones have said all along. Look at the world and question your assumptions about the separate nature of "things". Do these assumptions even hold up under the clear light of rational thought? Once that false structure falls away the Intuition that "All is One" floods into the intellect with such force it can no longer be denied.

Finally, if science ever determines that consiousness is an inherant property of the "matter" of the universe we will have moved a long way towards validation of the All quadrant statement "Brahman (concsiousness) is the World"

----------------------------

It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.

8 Comments

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Correction to my sloppy thinking

Posted November 7th, 2008 by Jerry Sherwood in response to Re:AQAL

In my above comment I give a good demonstration of what occurs when we take something as exquisite, yet complex, as Integral theory and attempt to address a question without taking time to thoroughly evaluate what is being said. A great example of just what Shalk has been addressing. That we take care how we use our words and how we interpret the words of others, in light of the Integral model.

My mistakes (at least the one's I have caught after a good nights sleep):

What was offered as possible means of validating the truth claims in the UR and LR quadrants was in error. The experiment proposed was of the UL variety. It was an excercise in introspection through the examination of the rationality of my reasoning. It does not produce "measureable" results. In the world of form measurements are what count. (now, please feel free to skewer me if I have stumbled into another pit :-)
What was offered as a possible means of validating the truth claims in the LL quadrant falls in the same trap. What was suggested as a validation proccess was really an UL exercise. Since I am not familiar with hermunetics and and other LL disciplines I am not sure if a LL investigation is possible. Probably not.

I do stand by (until shown otherwise?) the interpretation frames of reference I gave above. But, what I pointed out later was not a valid verification process appropriate to the UR, LR, and LL quadrants. Rather it points out that an UL experiment is not necessarily limited an introspective look at the content exclusive to the UL (thoughts/feelings). The reason this is so is exactly the reason I fell into a hidden trap - because of the interconnectedness of the four quadrants and the fashion in which they interact.

Finally, I would say that it is unlikely that any validation process is applicable to the UR, LR, and LL when it comes to any qualities of the Absolute. That is because that each of these quadrants require measurable data for verification. By definition the Absolute is beyond our capacity to measure. All measurements are relative, it is the mind that determines the measurements that determines the results. (not the outcome, just the nature of the results. Results must relate to the measurement)

Now please Shalk (or anyone else who cares to chime in) .... What have you to say on all of this?

Jerry

------------------------------------------------

It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.

7 Comments

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

The world is brahman...

Posted November 7th, 2008 by camfree in response to Correction to my sloppy thinking

Hi Jerry, I'll chime here and add something. If I understand you correctly you're wanting to validate the truth-claim that "Brahman is the world" in the Exterior (UR, LR) and Lower Left (Culture / We) quadrants...

There is a long tradition in the West that says Spirit is revealed in Nature - Aquinas called the Natural world the Right-hand of God and Scripture the Left-hand of God... Simply stand in awe and reverence before the miracle of creation and you have direct evidence that 'Brahman is (in) the world'. Brahman as the great web-of-life

And in the same way, open the Koran or any of the sacred texts, and the traditions will also tell you that you have direct evidence that 'Brahman is (in) the world' - this time from the LL quadrant... Brahman as the living word

And similarly, take a look at social artifacts (from pyramids to cathedrals to NASA shuttles to cyberspace) - those LR holons that reveal the ingenuity and creativity of human culture and once again we see that Brahman is (in) the world.

I'm not sure that this helps, maybe its too simplistic? I'm not talking about measurement, verification and proof here, as KW does with his three stands of good knowledge in the UL... but thanks anyway, it's a good question to ask. Cameron

"Become passers-by" (Jesus of Nazareth)

1 Comment

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Thank You

Posted November 7th, 2008 by Schalk Schalk in response to Correction to my sloppy thinking

Jerry:

I am pretty stunned right now - I've been following various Integral threads for about 9 months now, and it just hit me - this is the first time I have ever seen anyone reflect on what they have said and come back and say, "wait, I thought about it again, and maybe what I said before was not right or confusing ..." Wow.

This has enormous implications.

I salute you for that.

Now, I believe that you and Camfree understand - I am not pretending that I know the answer. And I am not tossing out questions to get people to reveal themselves so I can swoop in with the answer.

I am genuinely struggling to find a way to be really clear on how the quadrant theory applies to what we choose to look at. After all, choosing to look at anything is already a limitation on the world, a bathing in illusion, right? But, the relative is real. And Brahman is Relative, right?

I guess I am trying to get more clear on - when we choose to hold any holon up for inspection in our awareness, what exactly is the role of the quadrants in this act?

I am pretty sure I know what it means to "subjectively introspect."

And I am pretty sure I know what it means to "participate in a community's subjective awareness."

And I am comfortable with the distinction between these and looking at exteriors, whether they are of what we choose to call an individual holon (which of course is never an individual), and an exterior system (which of course can be seen as an individual holon as well).

What is driving me is the nagging sense that - there is more to learn and a more faithful application of quadrant theory.

I personally find great liberation when I can see quite clearly how I am habitually failing to exercise a skill or a mode of discernment that it ... really not that hard or impossible. It's just that it ... requires a little more care or insight.

So, there are all kinds of aphorisms and statements from the traditions "Brahman is the World" and "the Tao that can be Tao-ed is not the Eternal Tao" and "God is Love" and ... etc.

And I think - it would seem that if we knew what we were doing and cared about the "fidelity" of words, then ... to hear any of those aphorisms would be almost an invocation of something powerful.

This is maybe the old notion that ... you don't use the Lord's name in vain. And of course, I am not saying anyone is using the Lord's name in vain.

What I am trying to get at is - the quadrants are perspectives. The lines of development run through all of the quadrants.

Let me stop here - this is something that I am not real comfortable with. The lines of development run through the quadrants. Do all lines operate in each quadrant? That is to say, for example, when I am seeing exterior systems, does it make sense to say that my awareness can be at a given altitude along the emotional line or the kinesthetic line or the spirit line as I am perceiving a system as a system?

Back to the main idea, though. Does is make sense to say that ... you either understand the truth of the statement Brahman is the World immediately as a lived in realization or you understand the words as words and maybe have a vague sense of what they are point at ... but that the realization of the true is not happening in that understanding?

Something else is happening. When I understand but don't "realize" that Brahman is the World, which quadrant am I barking up? And is there a particular quadrant or line or both in/on which the statement must be pursued? Or should be pursued?

I am completely aware that to talk about the Absolute and to think that the talk is the thing .. is .. well ... you know what I mean.

I also understand the idea of tetra-arising. So, I am not really so interested in answering was IS TRUE, but in finding if there are more fruitful ways for us to use and benefit from our capacity to dance with the relative.

But, I have a strong sense that there is a radical liberation awaiting us in our meanderings in the relative world if we can get more clear on what we are doing as we go about the journey making choices on what to attend to and to point at.

Especially the pointing. I can confuse a lot of people if I call attention to a holon that is properly evaluated and appreciated in UL, for example, and then ... I start .. critiquing it or assessing it with a ... LL or UR eye.

I have a strong sense that this parsing out of what we are up to at all times may be the key to ... ensuring that interactions among humans are fruitful. I am wondering if the confusion and pointless grinding in the world are not similar to what happens in the physical world when we try to use the wrong tool for something.

So, I am thinking that it almost seems like a good idea to provide caveat statements. The following is a reference to something that is beautiful and it should be tested through the following interior injunction...

By the way, I am not asking for ... what is really true, and I know you don't think I am. But, I guess I am trying to explore ... what is the most effective or exquisite way to use what we know about quadrants to advance ... wonderful discoveries and inner growth?

Because in a relative sense, I really do think that we do ourselves a lot of harm by switching quadrant perspectives mid-stream and ... not being clear that we are doing this.

For the last 9 months I have been participating in political discussions. And the basic modus was this: someone would make a statement that was probably intended as a reference to LL justice, and yet, I would see the underlying statements about .. what was being implicated in a LR quadrant. And so we'd go back and forth. My truth criteria was looking at the external world of systems, and the answer would be to look at the collective interior.

And there was more than just disagreement. There was heat that arose from ... the intuitive sense that ... there is a mismatching of criteria.

Or, someone would make a reference to a perspective at a given altitude within a quadrant, say, "TEAL" and I would bring up "AMBER." And there was heat because, not that we disagreed, but that ... people wanted to talk about TEAL. And then I would switch quadrants and start talking about AMBER from a different quadrant, and this would make it worse! And only one time that I recall someone pointed out to me - "hey, this is about the me space." Actually, I think he pointed it out three times, but, I didn't make the connection that "I really only want to talk about something if it preserves the LL awareness." And I would insist that ... we cannot do that because ... the "we space" cannot be allowed to float on a cloud that is constructed from ignorance and faulty right quadrant statements and ideas of inclusion.

And on and on. And as I try to understand it, I realize how valuable it would be if we were more explicit about what we are trying to do, in which quadrant, and on which line, and if there is a particular altitude that we want to join each other at, we should somehow be able to say that.

Then ... when something comes along that is jarring, we don't have to revert to confusing evidence that is testable in a different quadrant. I kept finding that the answers were not convincing, and now I realize it is because the evidence pointed as was not a function of the space or quadrant that was trying to be explored in the first place.

So, we can be "smarter" in every way about realizing what we are doing, what we are up to, what we are trying to ... "get at."

And, types plays in here too. People can go round and round with "he was guilty and should be condemned" and the answer is "let's all get along" and "no, he doesn't deserve to get along, he broke the rules" and "the rules are just man-made, let's show a little love." And so, if we were more clear and aware of the "type" that we want to use, we'd be more ... effective everywhere.

Types are not sexy to talk about. Not many people seem to bring up issues involving types. But it is huge in my opinion.

For example, I was stunned by the hostility to Sarah Palin. And let's not get into the merits of whether she was a proper choice. But, I think that a consideration of types helps a lot here. A lot of women saw her as ... "abdicating the female type" and "joining in the male, agency, rule maker" type of dialogue. Hillary on the other hand spoke clearly with a female voice which blended respect for the male type voice.

But, we just assumed ...

And so, I guess this is what I am going to try and do more of ... look at exactly what I am up to, and what others want to "be up to" and try and be more clear about the quadrant, the line, the altitude, the type that is offered as the governing modality. To violate that leads to ... friction. And the friction is useful, inasmuch as it serves to remind us that we are forgetting something that we should know.

But the duty runs both ways, there is the duty for me to be aware of what is happening and there is the duty of the brothers and sisters to point out what they are hoping to discover and what criteria is being used to evaluate the Big 3 ways of knowing.

This may be the single most liberating endeavor right now for me. And I sense that it is something that we all need to do a lot better on.

4 Comments

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

P.S.

Posted November 7th, 2008 by Schalk Schalk in response to Thank You

Jerry:

I wanted to make a final remark also about discovering the truth.

In courtrooms, the rules of evidence are pretty developed. Over time, a lot of people have honed them into a way to get to some kind of truth. The values are that we get to a truth in an economical way and as fairly as possible.

And what is really interesting is this - evidence is allowed if it is relevant to the matter. If it tends to make the existence of a material fact more or less likely.

And so, when you look at ... which quadrants are allowed to speak in court, you find that ... the preferred quadrant is UR. If you can point to something that proves an UR fact, that is almost always admissible. Because we trust it and we can talk about it .. and we can measure it. There is a lot of reliability.

If I come into court and say "here is a photograph I took - it shows the event we are discussing." Everyone is happy. We may debate whether the photo is authentic, but .. if that is a given, then we trust the image.

But, the UL also is allowed to speak. For example, every crime has an act (discoverable through the UR eye) and ... a mental element (implied through a 3rd person look at a 1st person interior). A person who accidentally fires a gun while asleep has ... fire a gun, but he is not guilty of a crime, unless it was the crime of sleeping with a gun!

Witnesses are allowed to speak about what someone said they were thinking at the time. What was motivating them to act?

So, we prefer UR evidence, but we also demand UL evidence of intention or mental state. But, where things get really ugly or .. where judges shut you down quickly is when ... you start getting into LL and LR evidence. Because ... we don't trust the reliability of any given person to speak to the truth of those things!

It's not so much that people can't speak to the truth, but its that ... there are so many ways for the evidence to get skewed. It is harder to "pin down" and verify lower quadrant reports of anything. By definition ... you have more than one moving part! That's why it's a lower quadrant event.

This is not just me speaking. This is the collective assessment of nearly every country that has developed a civil legal system. We have collectively found that ... when witnesses (people reporting on what they have observed) limit their observation to the upper quadrants, ... the jury (or the judge or whoever is empowered to make a conclusion) can then assess the Upper quadrant evidence as a whole and arrive ... at a lower quadrant conclusion!

You did UR X (we observed it) and you were thinking UL Y (we have inferred that) and ... that means that ... we are going to evaluate it with LL Z conclusion of good/bad and based on that evaluation LR ABC truth will be the consequence to you, sir.

But, we don't let it work the other way around. We don't let witnesses come in and tell us about the mood of a group or who thinks what about what is just, or to a less extent how a system works. We don't let a witness come in and talk for an hour about how "capitalism is bad." (There is a limited LL form of evidence known as "reputation" where you can come in a say "I am a part of the community that he belongs to and in the community he has the reputation of being X." But even then, the reputation has to refer to a relevant quality such as "careful" or "diligent" or "respecting of others.")

So, what I am suggesting is ... when we speak about what we have experienced in an UL capacity and what we have observed in an UR capacity, we tend to be on more solid ground. There is much less room for us to be ... spinning our wheels.

But, when we start "reporting" on LL and LR, it is more complex, and while it is totally legitimate to talk about these things, there are just magnitudes of new ways we can ... never see eye to eye in those domains. And this is a truth that has been literally written into our legal system as a procedure for evidence.

Every statement I make ... implies that I have some kind of evidence to back it up. When I say something that obviously could never have right quadrant evidence, you might then ask ... well maybe there is LL evidence, so you check with what you know, and then as a final resort you say "well, he may live in some wacky world where this is true in an UL sense."

So, if I am clear with you that I am referencing UL or even LL evidence, you respect me more. I don't put you through the rigamarole of trying to find if there is right quadrant evidence for what you are saying.

That alone for me makes a huge difference - are we going to look for evidence of anything on the interior or the exterior of a holon?

Please Login to Add Comments

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Re: Thank You

Posted November 7th, 2008 by Jerry Sherwood in response to Thank You

Shalk,

You certainly have a wonderful inquiring mind. And it is not useless inquiries that you make, although since they are so numerous and detailed some may feel that way. They would be wrong. You have cleary defined the motivation that drives you and it is a commendable one. How do I see your goal and motive in the simplest of terms? You seek precision in communications as a means of reducing conflict. It appears to me that this is a goal you share with KW.

His efforts began with trying to reconcile the apparently conflicting truths he was being exposed to in his various university studies and his spiritual investigation. In his efforts to resolve inner conflict he was led to the formulation of Integral theory that has the potential to lessen external conflicts. So, where does the Integral language fit into all of this?

I would like to go into it in another blog topic, Integral Communications. I hope you don't mind, I would like to enter it in the category "Shalk Talk" in my blogs, and I in no way implying anything deragatory towards you. However, I will not publish (under that category) until you have given your consent either here, or through a private message.

You have so many other juicey topics in the previous comment I will probably print them out, highlight and we can use for future blogs. Again, let me know if this is alright with you as well.

It is my pleasure to engage in this conversation with you. It is my hope that others will join in.

Jerry--

It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.

2 Comments

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Communication and the Integral Knife

Posted November 7th, 2008 by Schalk Schalk in response to Re: Thank You

Jerry:

I too am enormously pleased to be able to share this space with you.

I would love to go down that road and will look forward to it.

I am not so keen on the idea of naming the thread after me. It just feels ... not productive. And kind of excessive. I do appreciate your offer though and I know you meant it as a way of simply keeping the thread on course or ... defined.

Can I propose the name in the subject line above? This is to make it clear that, we honor and understand the value of the Absolute, and assimilation, and communion, and the like, but ... we have a hunch that some very useful things can come from ... using Integral as a knife of discriminating awareness to get as clear as we can about ... how our communication can be ... uplifted through the use of AQAL theory.

I am hoping that the mutual inquiry can be joined by a number of people, and that at all times we share a spirit of contributing "food for thought" and "proposed applications" without there being a sense that "someone is laying down the law about how things really work." I have no interest in establishing a position as "the one who really knows." But I do have an interest in finding ways to say "here is how we can improve our way of pointing to paths that will allow others to know."

Because ... for all we know and all we do, it seems like we are just barely, collectively, getting good at cutting right in to the heart of the matter. Our ability to use AQAL as a compass is just beginning.

Schalk

1 Comment

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

Does Brahman need the world?

Posted November 7th, 2008 by camfree

Great writing Corey (again),

In response to Schalk's post - i think you answered yr own question when you wrote: "the realization of Brahman is the World... integrates 2nd Tier consciousness of all 4 quadrants simultaneously..." ... Yes, since the manifest world has an AQAL texture or fabric... to say Brahman is the world implies that this realization occurs and is unpacked in an AQAL fashion

A question: is this Non-dual realization merely a "state experience" - something that happens in meditation, where the entire manifest world (form) arises inside ones ever-present awareness (emptiness)? Or is Shankara's realization the very "overflowing impulse to infuse the world with the living light of transcendent awareness" - i.e. to transform the world?

I think that Shankara intended the former, but that it is the latter that is a better, more updated, version of what Non-duality means...

From another angle, I'm basically asking: how does the evolutionary story of the post/modern world shift Shankara's realization? I suppose we get:

The evolving universe is an illusion
God alone is real
God is the evolving universe

Does this change anything? It seems to put more emphasis on actually transforming the space-time world - i.e., social justice, political activism, service to the poor, etc... But the idea that "God needs our help" is a little blasphemous to some of the Non-dual traditions (Hinduism, Buddhism)... I focus on this is another blog post where I suggest that Brahman depends on us just as we depend on Brahman, and that from an evolutionary context God is maybe, incomplete, not-yet-all.... Cameron

"Become passers-by" (Jesus of Nazareth)

1 Comment

User login

General Discussion: Brahman is the World

Beautifully written, Corey!

If this is the case...

Brahman is the World

Exquisite writing Corey!

Steven: your point got me thinking ...

... have we asked the obvious question, through the "eye" of which quadrant does it make sense to speak of ... Brahman as being the World?

Is this truth actually best understood as being a form of beauty apprehension that happens in the marriage of 2nd Tier cognition, spirit, self, and aesthetics in the UL quadrant interior?

I am not quite seeing how the statement "Brahman is the World" makes sense if we are talking about UR exteriors, on any line.

Steven's point tripped this idea for me ... does a physicist need Brahman to see to the end of the universe? Or does that even make sense? Is there even a role for the word "Brahman" in right column truth apprehension at all?

Would we ever need to sacrifice a "body" (using the UR eye to see if we have accomplished this) if we understood that the "truth" that is telling us to do it, is an UL "beauty realization" instead?

And what about - the LL quadrant? Here we see through the collective lens of inner senses of justice and goodness. But, the realization that Brahman is the World, I am not sure this is something that properly arises when we travel up any line with a LL (or LR) perspective. Or is it?

So, any thoughts on the application of AQAL to this truth?

I am thinking that the realization of the truth of the "Brahman is the World" statement is an UL event,

...and that to shift the perspective to an UR one and try to make sense of it, may lead to ... something, I am not sure what to call it.

Or ... is the realization of Brahman is the World something that integrates 2nd Tier consciousness of all 4 quadrants simultaneously? Where ... no single quadrant perspective can get you there, and you must simultaneously "hear" the beauty, true, and goodness of all 4 to ... know it as "True."

E.g. I have been ruminating over the campaign and discussions about it, and discussions between pundits on TV, and something that struck me ... there was an enormous amount of ... quadrant shifting.

Someone would make a point that is evaluated based on UL beauty, and the rebuttal point would be a truth that is understand from a LR systems perspective. So, what do we call this? A fallacy? A confusion of "eyes?"

The frustration we all feel is absolutely justified I think. It is a function of us knowing that ... somehow the "eye" has been switched in mid-stream, and like Wittgenstein said, the issue of truth or falsity is no longer even germane, because ... we are at the level of "nonsense."

I am making it a personal goal to be more aware of AQAL. Just the simple issue of - which quadrant is this "thing" a function of? Because, it seems almost always a problem when a "thing" or "holon" from one quadrant gets ... re-cast in light that is used to "see" in another quadrant.

So, what do I have to be doing and what do I have to be looking at and where do I have to be finding evidence to realize that ... BRAHMAN IS THE WORLD?

Brahman and the Quadrants

Good

AQAL

Jerry:

Thanks for looking at this.

You said that the realization that Brahman is the World is a state experience. Hmm. I am wondering if we can get into this closely. Is it more accurate to say that ... "saying that Brahman is the World" is an interpretation of something experienced in a state?

I am fully with you when you say that the "meaning" we give to an experienced state is a function of our altitude development.

I am not trying to quibble by the way. I am just struck right now, by how important it is to be clear ... on how we are looking at something. What are we using to taste something?

So, just to be clear, I am not trying to say "Brahman is not the World." Or that "Brahman may not be the World."

What I am trying to find out is this: what is the relationship between "knowing that Brahman is the World" and the AQAL quadrants?

Now, I am fully aware that there is an important distinction between:

a. immediate experience of a non-dual state

b. interpretation of a state

c. realization that Brahman is the World

d. saying that Brahman is the World after realizing it

e. saying that Brahman is the World without having realized it

f. etc.

What I am most interested in is - how do the quadrants play into my "understanding" that Brahman is the World?

I am also fully aware that ... the only thing that is real is that which is present in deep dreamless sleep. Let's just assume that we agree with that. So, anything we think or say or point to about Brahman is not real to begin with, from that level.

Re:AQAL

Correction to my sloppy thinking

The world is brahman...

Re: The world is brahman

Thank You

Jerry:

This has enormous implications.

I salute you for that.

Now, I believe that you and Camfree understand - I am not pretending that I know the answer. And I am not tossing out questions to get people to reveal themselves so I can swoop in with the answer.

I am genuinely struggling to find a way to be really clear on how the quadrant theory applies to what we choose to look at. After all, choosing to look at anything is already a limitation on the world, a bathing in illusion, right? But, the relative is real. And Brahman is Relative, right?

I guess I am trying to get more clear on - when we choose to hold any holon up for inspection in our awareness, what exactly is the role of the quadrants in this act?

I am pretty sure I know what it means to "subjectively introspect."

And I am pretty sure I know what it means to "participate in a community's subjective awareness."

And I am comfortable with the distinction between these and looking at exteriors, whether they are of what we choose to call an individual holon (which of course is never an individual), and an exterior system (which of course can be seen as an individual holon as well).

What is driving me is the nagging sense that - there is more to learn and a more faithful application of quadrant theory.

I personally find great liberation when I can see quite clearly how I am habitually failing to exercise a skill or a mode of discernment that it ... really not that hard or impossible. It's just that it ... requires a little more care or insight.

So, there are all kinds of aphorisms and statements from the traditions "Brahman is the World" and "the Tao that can be Tao-ed is not the Eternal Tao" and "God is Love" and ... etc.

And I think - it would seem that if we knew what we were doing and cared about the "fidelity" of words, then ... to hear any of those aphorisms would be almost an invocation of something powerful.

This is maybe the old notion that ... you don't use the Lord's name in vain. And of course, I am not saying anyone is using the Lord's name in vain.

What I am trying to get at is - the quadrants are perspectives. The lines of development run through all of the quadrants.

Something else is happening. When I understand but don't "realize" that Brahman is the World, which quadrant am I barking up? And is there a particular quadrant or line or both in/on which the statement must be pursued? Or should be pursued?

I am completely aware that to talk about the Absolute and to think that the talk is the thing .. is .. well ... you know what I mean.

I also understand the idea of tetra-arising. So, I am not really so interested in answering was IS TRUE, but in finding if there are more fruitful ways for us to use and benefit from our capacity to dance with the relative.

But, I have a strong sense that there is a radical liberation awaiting us in our meanderings in the relative world if we can get more clear on what we are doing as we go about the journey making choices on what to attend to and to point at.

Especially the pointing. I can confuse a lot of people if I call attention to a holon that is properly evaluated and appreciated in UL, for example, and then ... I start .. critiquing it or assessing it with a ... LL or UR eye.

So, I am thinking that it almost seems like a good idea to provide caveat statements. The following is a reference to something that is beautiful and it should be tested through the following interior injunction...

By the way, I am not asking for ... what is really true, and I know you don't think I am. But, I guess I am trying to explore ... what is the most effective or exquisite way to use what we know about quadrants to advance ... wonderful discoveries and inner growth?

Because in a relative sense, I really do think that we do ourselves a lot of harm by switching quadrant perspectives mid-stream and ... not being clear that we are doing this.

And there was more than just disagreement. There was heat that arose from ... the intuitive sense that ... there is a mismatching of criteria.

And on and on. And as I try to understand it, I realize how valuable it would be if we were more explicit about what we are trying to do, in which quadrant, and on which line, and if there is a particular altitude that we want to join each other at, we should somehow be able to say that.

So, we can be "smarter" in every way about realizing what we are doing, what we are up to, what we are trying to ... "get at."

Types are not sexy to talk about. Not many people seem to bring up issues involving types. But it is huge in my opinion.

But, we just assumed ...

But the duty runs both ways, there is the duty for me to be aware of what is happening and there is the duty of the brothers and sisters to point out what they are hoping to discover and what criteria is being used to evaluate the Big 3 ways of knowing.

This may be the single most liberating endeavor right now for me. And I sense that it is something that we all need to do a lot better on.

P.S.

Jerry:

I wanted to make a final remark also about discovering the truth.

In courtrooms, the rules of evidence are pretty developed. Over time, a lot of people have honed them into a way to get to some kind of truth. The values are that we get to a truth in an economical way and as fairly as possible.