range of levels

[estrella]

I had read Steve's post about the levels of consciousness (=> Hawkins) as well as Steve's post about quantum leaps.
In "Power vs force" Hawkins says that a level of cscness is "defined" in a person when s/he is born (I rephrase). And that most of all humans do not go further than 5 points of level in their lifetime.
I find many contradictions there and would like your point of views.

Please note that I do not ask this question because I want to "achieve" anything, but because I would like to understand a bit more the concept of these levels described by Hawkins. I also have to point out that I do not ask the question because I would like to know "at which level I range", this is not my point at all.
thanks.
*estrella*

[Spiritual]

The levels of consciousness are a great trap for our ego, it's amazing how bad we wan't to be in the best levels on all areas all the time.
But these levels are flawed, since they are linking emotions and thoughts to our identity, which is not the case.

Even though the emotions and thoughts appear in you, they are not you. In the levels of consciousness there is for example "Joy", which is describes as having an unshakeble feeling of joy/happiness. But this feeling of joy, is an experience, it's impermanent, it's not you.

I think you can best see these levels as a way to see how you're using your potential right now, what you happiness level is at, and what you are sending out dominantly out into the world. But please don't fall in the trap of holding your finger at this "Ladder" to guess where you are at, it's not important.

[Parthon]

Hi Estrella,

I had the very same problem. He spends much of his time talking about how people rarely move up the scale. Then says that we, as a planet, jumped 17 points in the 80s. Confusing.

It was some of the lines which said (verbatim) "Most people don't move up the scale because they don't try. In all the time most people live they go up or down only 5 points. Society doesn't move up because for every person that goes up, enough go down to keep the balance." After these lines I realised I was one of the few people that would try to improve myself and go up the consciousness scale. Just saying I was one of those was a freedom creator.

However, like Spiritual said, you can't be attached to the scale and you can't identify with it. It's a useful tool to look to where you can next improve yourself, but if you listen too closely to what it says you will become stuck. The book was most helpful to draw values from in order to construct a better path to becoming more conscious.

One thing about the book I didn't like was how much he talked about how truthful the book was. It was almost like he was trying to break through our ego's resistance with proof. Unfortunately it came across as very crass. For someone who calls himself a conscious person the book read very much like a condescending lecture. Perhaps he could rewrite the book more from Love and finally achieve the magical 1000 number.

[estrella]

Originally Posted by Parthon

However, like Spiritual said, you can't be attached to the scale and you can't identify with it. It's a useful tool to look to where you can next improve yourself, but if you listen too closely to what it says you will become stuck. The book was most helpful to draw values from in order to construct a better path to becoming more conscious.

"Spiritual" said,

Even though the emotions and thoughts appear in you, they are not you. In the levels of consciousness there is for example "Joy", which is describes as having an unshakeble feeling of joy/happiness. But this feeling of joy, is an experience, it's impermanent, it's not you.

I like "which is describes as having an unshakeable feeling of joy/happiness. But this feeling of joy, is an experience,", it's exactly what I think, too.
Again, I do *not* seek to calibrate myself. My question was about general understanding about the levels.
I do not pretend to be in *any* level, I am surely in one of all of them (between 0 and 1000 ), but my question was also about Steve's post, which said that he (Steve) experienced so many levels from his school-years on until now. Btw, my question was neither about my personal growth, but about:

- a general understanding about the levels.-
What do you think about the statement that the level is predefined when a human being is born?
Hawkins quotes Wilber, for exemple, and Wilber says (I think) that a human being begins always at the lowest level and grows from there.

I am beginning to think, for example, that the levels of consciousness described by Hawkins are different ones, completely (?) different ones (than those described by Wilber, for example, or any other). That those presented by Hawkins describe a state of being, that's all.
The weak and strong energy fields enter here, I think. THe "zero" is somewhere between pride and courage, nearer to pride.

I mean: A human being, born in a healthy environment, in a healthy family, etc, (but not safe from flaws and faults of mankind!) - that I understand that this person has already got all the potential in him (her) when born. The potential of a certain level. When this human being hits an age where he comes to realize that he has free will, that he is some*one*, etc, he will perhaps go virtually through levels (as courage, acceptance..) *but* his real, potential level may be higher. (in this example).
And to make it clearer, another example: s.o. born in an unhealthy environment with a potential of a relatively high level of consciousness, may go through one or two lower than pride and then come up and will be quite healthy when reaching "courage". In spite of his former experiences.
(As an aside: I also think that the *raising* itself of consciousness builds sth. in the Now that is experienced by those around, so that the whole is growing).

I think that there is easy confusion between levels as Hawkins describes and levels of development of Consciousness - in *one* life.

What do you think?

Btw, what I really liked about the book was the pattern of the weak and strong attractors, that one might experience anywhere, and which is really important, I think.

[Spiritual]

It's hard to diffirentiate what comes from your non-physical being, nature and nurture.

You could say that someone who has a very high level consciousness as non-physical being, will faster be in higher consciousness without physical circumstances making any difference. It can also just be genetics that you are a more loving and motivated person. It can also be your surroundings were stimulating you to achieve higher consciousness.

I think children start naturally at almost the highest levels, but you often see that when parents are having difficulties, the children unconsciously also start to cry, be a pain in the butt for the parents, etc etc.

Ultimately I think it is just a coöperation. If you are assuming that we are non-physical beings, then it makes sense that we have a potential within ourselves. Which we then get to florish in an environment which stimulates us (both through negative and positive experiences).