Moments 4: Inner Dialogues 1

Inner Dialogues 1

How do we know anything?

We know as we experience. 

And are we able to experience all things physical and metaphysical, material and divine?

Absolutely. Not "all things" at one time within one's physical limitations, but "all things" from without those limitations and from within one’s source and eternity. 

Why then have we lost that sense of experiencing what is as it is beyond physical limitations, what is both material and divine as each thing is?

You have lost that sense from within the limitations of the so-called five primary senses, and its associated sense of ego and identity—-therein lies the fallacy: The five primary senses are not primary at all. If one were to consider them in that fashion linearly, from first to last, they are the last of the senses, the most apparent, what appears as sensing, or as the manifestation of the truth of sensing. The real question is then, what is 'sense' and 'sensing’ or what does it mean to truly sense? Do you sense your existence, for instance? Which sense is that? That would be a start.

I do sense my existence. All senses and sensing that involve one's existing or being, a culmination of all sensing, senses, and beyond, as a whole, holistically and in totality, is how I sense my existence. Then the five senses (seeing, hearing, taste, touch, and smell) do appear as minuscule and last in that order, only that appearances are the most apparent aspect of the creation of objects by the five external senses, for objects also exist in their delicate and still more subtle forms. And even as they exist in their density, they are not known as they are. Rather their exterior is known by the external senses. Therefore, the five primary senses must be called, five external senses, which do not capture the inner, delicate, and still more subtle forms of sensing. Meanwhile, there’s this underlying sense of existing or ground of being that always is, and is therefore vitally alive, giving rise to all vitality, senses, and sensing, which in itself senses things as they are, from within one’s source and from without all appearances and in harmony with their source.

And if so, why has this been forgotten by modern philosophy for so long? Modern philosophy, even philosophies that have spiritual inclinations, seem to be satisfied with rational descriptions of sensing, or at best attempt to prove something beyond the senses that we can not adequately experience due to our limitations. For instance, among the last of modern philosophers, for Immanuel Kant, "knowledge begins with the senses," and we can not know things as they are, because sense-perceptions are far too limited; then Kant like others goes onto draw a line in limiting thought, after which one must "make room for faith" (Critique of Pure Reason, Bxxx) as faith is brought in to help understand what can not be explained or reasoned. And modern society behaves this way, believing that all there is to the senses is defined by the external senses, as we then strive to make sense of things through a mix of complex and external sensory inputs. This should be called, faith with disbelief, which is self-contradictory, because there is this existential sense of being that is not limited to sense-perception and yet that being is not known and at the same time can not be known—but it can somehow be known by faith! Then this faith remains a mystery, because its source which is 'god' is an unproven concept, or an ambiguous concept at best, which is defined through complex practical and emotional concepts like those explained in Spinoza's Ethics or Kant's Critique of Practical Reason. This simply transfers one kind of thing to another that is more abstract, and leaves modern humans in ambiguity as to what that spirit, divinity, ‘god’, or something in itself actually is. 

What you are saying is, God, Divinity, Creator, Creatorship, or that pure intelligence can be experienced. One could see, hear, feel, and experience the creator, from within the inner, delicate, and still more subtle realms of existing, satisfying the external senses from within their source of being—-but this has not been shown within prominent Aristotelian and western cultures since ancient times. When it is shown, it is undermined or ridiculed as some form of mysticism, emotionalism, and the like, due to the mistrust in the general sphere of religions and religious studies. This kind of mental empiricism, rationalism, and scientism is the direct result of this mistrust, for it is believed all spirituality has failed, or at best spiritual traditions present a form of 'functionalism' (serve a purpose) or have practical reasons or ritualistic purposes  that are fundamentally founded on certain types of superstition, while positively these functions may be reasoned morally to produce better humans. But in the final analysis, there is no sign of "God” or that source by whatever name, and things in themselves and their source is allocated to some practical reason of a complex rational and empiricist sort; whereas, the source of oneself simply is and can not be as complex as it is deemed. 

Yes, it seems modern spirituality is a complex rational process that eastern, ancient, and indigenous cultures would simply not understand, not because they lack the understanding but rather that it is somewhat empty at its core. To them complex rational, philosophical, and theological reasoning as it exists today would be a kind of mockery of something that is so simple, real, and close at hand. Even among the ancient religions that are so-called western, which exist today, for instance as the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) whose origins are eastern-asiatic—to them, the forms of religion we practice by any name, in all major traditions, would seem like a strange new-age phenomena. To them, cultivating the inner senses and interacting with divine forces, or recognizing the source of things as they are in their essence, spirit, and vitality, would be a natural daily occurrence and encounter. To moderners, it seems relatively remote and impossible to have such experiences daily and ongoing; although some indigenous cultures and modern practitioners, like the Kogi of the Sierra Nevada Mountains of Columbia, and a number of modern spiritual practitioners, do recognize the spiritual forces with great ease. They are simply not of interest to moderners who find such subjects as taboo, and those who approach spirituality merely through rational thought and an ambiguous sense of faith will often find themselves dissatisfied, for after all their beliefs do not lead to actual experiences.

For instance, the belief in Angels. While many believe in them, the experience of Angels is not a reality to them. So they imagine, rationalize, and have faith. If they are asked, who or what the Angels actually are, and if they can produce some evidence that could introduce another to them, usually they resort to complex theological and rational explanations. However, if you turn back to the early part of the same traditions that believe in Angels, their belief was predicated by their experiential knowledge of Angels. Today there are those who have such experiences, however, once more modern religion approaches all such subjects with doubt and superstition, often undermining or belittling those with such experiences as backwards or superstitious—when in fact those who believe without having the actual experience are far more superstitious than those they mock.   

Now the belief in the Creator or any sort of collective divine intelligence is even more ambiguous than Angels. As a result, the mind resorts to a god created by the imagination and rationality, and when one presses such mind for an actual God or the supreme divine intelligence—that is, when one asks for a real experience that could validate the existence of divine forces, such minds often look at you as if you have gone mad. This is because modern and mainstream thought often misses the mark and the intentions of a genuine experiencer of true spirituality, for many reasons, known and unknown, simple and complex. At the same time, sincere seekers and finders neither search in the mass-markets of spirituality, nor do they stage a showing of their discoveries. 

The aforementioned has also been the case historically, and it shall continue in the same manner. Peace-makers and peace-keepers of the truth of spiritual discoveries do not stir and over-stimulate large populations into a kind of mass-hysteria of the popular sort that the general masses look for; for instance, in such things as, revolutionary-like enlightenments, big-tech and large capitalist and consumerist populations constantly desiring expansions, new religions or new age movements that feed such governments and empires, mega-billion and trillion entertaining and fame oriented epicenters and coliseums of sports and gaming industries—all such notions and more of the same are destructive in nature, somewhat like the kind of modern animal farming that unnaturally mass-produces and bloats-up animals with steroids on assembly lines, much like our capitalism on steroids which was not the intention of the founding fathers. or the kind of farming of large forests that are unnaturally cultivated by destroying vast natural habitats and the soil we depend upon, much like our daily lives. In fact, the very population that engenders such growth must inevitably foster entire races of pre-diabetic, obese, depressed, addicted, and imbalanced youth, who like the animals and unnatural farms appear as consumerist and capitalist nations on steroids. As a result, why would the wise sages, who are the torch bearers and peacekeepers of such true discoveries play into the destructive games of the masses? It is simply unwise. 

Now, shall we discuss meditation in order to create a certain balance, or say, a fair playing ground between all such extremes? It is time we respond to the common request of what meditation is and what it means, also as an answer and continuation of this general message. And we shall begin with ancient Egypt. 

—Houman Z. Emami

Continued in "Inner Dialogues 2"