Personal Development for Smart People^TM Forums

Erock · 03-22-2007, 04:37 AM

With David Hawkins and such we always talk about the levels of consciousness, but I was reading I Am That, and Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj discusses going "beyond" consciousness. Here are the quotes I was able to find mentioning this. Is there a way to go beyond simply being conscious or not?

What do you guys think on this?
Erock

"Q: Still, the question ‘Who am I’ must be of some use.
M: It has no answer in consciousness and, therefore, helps to
go beyond consciousness.

M: Consciousness and unconsciousness do not apply here.
Existence is in consciousness, essence is independent of con-
sciousness.

Q: What is your objection to consciousness?
M: It is a burden. Body means burden. Sensations, desires,
thoughts — these are all burdens. All consciousness is of con-
flict.

M: Knowledge has its rising and setting. Consciousness comes
into being and goes out of being. It is a matter of daily occur-
rence and observation. We all know that sometimes we are
conscious and sometimes not. When we are not conscious, it
appears to us as a darkness or a blank. But a gnani is aware of
himself as neither conscious nor unconscious, but purely
aware, a witness to the three states of the mind and their con-
tents.

M: There is nothing wrong in the idea of a body, nor even in the
idea ‘I am the body’. But limiting oneself to one body only is a
mistake. In reality all existence, every form, is my own, within my
consciousness. I cannot tell what I am because words can des-
cribe only what I am not. I am, and because I am, all is. But I
am beyond consciousness and, therefore, in consciousness I
cannot say what I am. Yet, I am. The question ‘Who am I’ has no
answer. No experience can answer it, for the self is beyond ex-
perience."

Cantando · 03-22-2007, 11:00 AM

Phew, Erock, It's mind boggling enough trying to understand what consciousness is, never mind what may be outside it! But, if consciousness is infinite and we are all encompassed within it, how can there be anything apart from it?

moviestar · 03-22-2007, 06:29 PM

If you are in a state beyond consciousness and you are aware of it, then that is consciousness, by definition (you are conscious). If you are not conscious then you are either asleep or dead.

Erock · 03-22-2007, 07:19 PM

Yeah this book is definitely a step above my current understanding. What interests me though is that I was reading an article in Times all about the brain and neuroscientists being able to turn off and on someone's consciousness at will. It got me thinking, maybe our "essence" as Sri Nisargadatta says, is beyond our consciousness and our brains and bodies.

Erock

Mark Lapierre · 03-22-2007, 11:54 PM

It seems his definition of consciousness is different from any of our definitions.

Quote:

Consciousness comes into being and goes out of being. It is a matter of daily occurrence and observation.

So consciousness could refer to a state of active awareness. But does 'being' refer to existence, or to something like 'soul'?

Quote:

It is a burden. Body means burden. Sensations, desires, thoughts — these are all burdens. All consciousness is of conflict.

Here is sounds like he's equating consciousness to ego.

Quote:

The question ‘Who am I’ has no answer. No experience can answer it, for the self is beyond experience.

"self" is usually understood to mean the egoic projection of self, which is built from experiences. Perhaps he means "true self", whatever exists when ego is no longer present. Which would be that "essense" that you mentioned, Erock. Subjective realists would say that essense is God Consciousness, or whatever name best fits.

But when those neuroscientists turned consciousness on and off, what was their definition of consciousness? Active thought? Did they also "turn off" the subconscious mind? Emotions? All brain activity?

Quote:

In reality all existence, every form, is my own, within my consciousness ... But I am beyond consciousness and, therefore, in consciousness I cannot say what I am.

But ultimately, as with so many spiritual teachers, he contradicts himself. Unless of course his definition of "all existence" allows for something outside of all existence. But if that's the case there's no point reading his words because you'll never know what he means! What's the point of trying to learn from someone if you have to spend so much time and effort figuring out what definition they apply to words which already have enough well-accepted definitions? It's difficult enough understanding people when we do have a shared understanding of the meaning of individual words and phrases.

To answer the question, if consciousness is defined as All-There-Is, then no, it's not possible to go beyond consciousness. Except perhaps complete oblivion. Not sure you want that.

If consciousness is defined as something distinct within All-There-Is, then yes, 'beyond' consciousness is possible. Then you have to figure out what consciousness is, and what's beyond it.

Glass Joe · 03-23-2007, 11:25 AM

I was going to write a longer detailed post about this, but I gave up on it because I'm still trying to grasp all this myself. So here's the summarized version...

Actually... this "summary" too turned out to be longer than I thought it would, and is probably more than you expected. Also, even though I might come across like I'm totally sure of what I'm saying here, I'm really just thinking out loud, so please take whatever's useful and throw out what doesn't make any sense.

Errr... it seems I can't fit everything into one single post...

(continued below...)

Glass Joe · 03-23-2007, 11:26 AM

(continued from above...)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erock

With David Hawkins and such we always talk about the levels of consciousness, but I was reading I Am That, and Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj discusses going "beyond" consciousness. Here are the quotes I was able to find mentioning this. Is there a way to go beyond simply being conscious or not?

The word "consciousness" (lowercase "c") can mean a lot of different things. So the way that I'm using the word here includes waking awareness, and *maybe* dreaming sleep, and *maybe* deep dreamless sleep. I'm not sure about the two sleep states yet though. I guess I'm including anything that involves thoughts, sensory perceptions, feelings, symbolic representation, cause/effect observations, etc. So I'm calling all of that "consciousness", with a lowercase "c".

Personally, I'd say that "going beyond" consciousness is basically "transcending" consciousness. It's like driving a car. For a while at first, you spend a lot of time thinking about how to use and operate the car. But after you get good at driving and gain some skill, all your conscious thoughts about pressing the pedals correctly and looking at mirrors fade away into your subconscious. You are free to think of about where you are going, rather than how to operate the car to get there.

To milk this driving a car analogy even more, you can even "go beyond" thinking about where you are driving and how to get there. If you drive along the same route from point A to point B enough times, that thought process also can become a habit, freeing you up to think about and do other stuff. So you can (theoretically, though some may disagree) talk on a cellphone, or listen to an audiobook with your conscious mind, while your subconscious mind handles all the details of operating the car and navigating the roads.

So, in this same line of thinking as the analogy about driving a car, perhaps we can "transcend" or "go beyond" all conscious thought altogether. It should be possible. I mean, we can "learn how to learn", to the point that the whole learning process can become automatic. And we can "think about thinking". So maybe we can get to the point where consciousness (again, lowercase "c") itself fades into the background and happens more on automatic pilot, rather than through some willful act and careful scrutiny.

The reason why I say "willful act" here is because I think that if you try to control your thoughts too much, then you can never really "go beyond" them. It's like willfully trying drive perfectly, to the point where you press too hard on the brakes or on the accelerator, or make too jerky movements while turning or changing lanes. If you want to drive like a nascar driver, that's one thing and I think that kind of driving should require your full attention. But you drive better on normal roads when you just let the car do most of the work and let the learning process happen naturally. You basically "get a feel" for the car and you get a feel for the road.

And the reason I say "careful scrutiny" is because I think that if you try to monitor your thoughts too much, then you can never "go beyond" them either. I think it's better to just let thoughts come and go as they please, and try not to police them or force them in any particular direction. If one minute you are thinking philosophically and altruistically, that's great. But if the next minute, you are thinking like that guy on "Kid's in the Hall" who crushes people's heads or you are thinking like Homer Simpson ("No TV and no beer make Homer something something"), that's perfectly fine too.

In times of crisis I can see this kind of unmonitored, un-policed, automatic thought/action process happening. In a natural disaster, people go into "crisis mode" and can think and act, without stopping to think about what they're doing. It all happens automatically. Some people run away from the accident automatically to get out of the way, and some people run towards it automatically to help out.

Of course, going on automatic pilot can be a bad thing too, but I think it's harmful only if you aren't ready to live at that level yet. Kind of like the difference between a breakdancer dancing freestyle (a) before he's practiced anything at all and (b) after he's been dancing for many years. Option A is makes things worse, but Option B (in theory) makes things easier.

So maybe everyday life can be lived at that level of awareness that is "beyond" conscious thought. You still think, move, and act like you normally would. It just happens more automatically and naturally. You no longer are thinking about thinking about thinking. No more worrying. You know intuitively, almost instinctively, that you can handle anything that arises in life. Since you identify with everything you perceive (oneness), you feel totally at home with everything around you and totally comfortable with anything that happens.

Thoughts are just as transient and vaporous as material objects, if not more so. So if you believe in the "subjective-reality" model, it should be easier to make the leap to a "subjective-subjective-reality" model, or whatever you want to call it. Actually, "subjective-subjective-reality" doesn't work, because it still implies the existence of a subject. And I don't think there is one, whether it be higher, lower, ultimate, whatever.

It's all about giving up any notion of control, along with any idea of choice, volition, or free will. Which, I agree, is very hard to do and seems counter-intuitive. But the same can be said for a person trying to accept the notion of "subjective reality", coming from the standpoint of only knowing and experiencing "objective reality".

So all I'm saying is the same thing a subjective realist would likely say to an objective realist. "Come see and experience it for yourself."

The "objective reality" model takes the outer world as a given. After enough contradictions with that model, the "subject" questions the stability of the outer world, and the solidity of perceived objects. However, this "subjective reality" model sometimes forgets to question the stability of the inner world, and the solidity of the "subject".

So this "non-subjective reality", dare I say "non-dual reality", model questions the stability of both worlds. It questions the solidity of both objects and subjects.

Some books I'm reading lately refer to this as a reality that is neither objective, nor subjective. There is no "that" out there, and there is no "I" in here. There is neither "I" nor "that". Except if you 100% equate "that out there" with "I in here". I am That. That is Me. It's all the same.

"Subjective reality" finds an identity with the seer. Basically, the seer "in here", shapes and influences what is seen "out there".

"Objective reality" finds an identity with the seen. The seen "out there" shapes and influences the seer "in here".

"Non-subjective reality" identifies with neither. Seer and seen don't exist. Subject and object do not exist. That which "Sees" and that which is "seen" are 100% illusions. 100% Vapor, right down to the core, with absolutely no solid center anywhere to be found.

If at all, dualities "exist" only when you view them as two parts of the same whole. Like the crest and trough of a wave in the ocean. Ultimately, there is no "crest" or "trough". It's all ocean. If taken this way, only then can you say that "seer" and "seen" exist. Seen and seer are 100% the same. One doesn't control the other. One can't control the other.

But something is happening though, otherwise we wouldn't be here discussing this. But there is absolutely no one, no thing, and no force, that is willing it, controlling it, manifesting it, or dreaming it.

There is nothing "up there", as in an idealistic higher self, higher planes of existence/awareness, God-Mind, or Consciousness (capital "c"), running the show, dreaming or willing everything into existence.

There is nothing "down here", as in selfish genes or vibrating strings, running the show either.

There is nothing "out there", as in a deterministic environment or cultural influences, running the show, pushing everything around like billiard balls.

There is nothing "in here", as in an "I", "self", "thought-intentions", or "free will", running the show either.

To try to explain or conceptualize anything, anything at all, whether it be up there, down here, out there, or in here, is by definition dualistic. To try to say anything in particular is even happening, anything at all, is also dualistic.

All there is, is This. Everything is apparently happening and arising automatically. But ultimately, nothing is happening at all. Everything just appears to be happening. (credit: Tony Parsons)

Quote:

But a strange thing has now happened, for I realize that the real self within is actually the real world without, and vice versa. The subject and object, the inside and outside, are and always have been non-dual. There is no primary boundary. The world is my body, and what I am looking out of is what I am looking at.

Because the real self resides neither within nor without, because the subject and object are actually not-two, the mystics can speak of reality in many different but only apparently contradictory ways. They can say that in all reality there are no objects whatsoever. Or they might state that reality contains no subjects at all. Or they can deny the existence of both subject and object. Or they may speak of an "Absolute Subjectivity" which transcends yet includes both the relative subject and the relative object. All of these are simply various ways of saying that the inside world and the outside world are just two different names for the single ever-present state of no-boundary awareness.
-- Ken Wilber (from No-Boundary)

ethereal · 03-23-2007, 04:48 PM

Beautiful stuff, Glass Joe. (I think you do come across as knowing what you're talking about, whether you really do or not

)

Just wanted to add my thoughts:

- they say that when you're enlightened, you perceive the Truth at all times, so that the right actions are almost intuitively shown to you and there is no "you" doing anything, the actions do themselves. I recently was at a satsang with Adyashanti and he said that "the right thing to do is obvious, all the time." I think that's what they mean by Divine Will, or non-action of action, or spontaneous action. Maharaj also talks about how "the conscious mind merges with the unconscious mind so that they are one."

- the notion of control, of free will, and of volition is a conditioned response. We never questioned it so it seems like it's there. But is there really a chooser, a thinker, a doer? Can we control the mind and make it think what we want? Seems like the complete opposite, at times! At best, we set an intention, and related thoughts pop out of nowhere, as Dr. Hawkins describes, like "flying fish out of the sea." Have we ever asked how it really works, or where it really comes from? If thoughts spontaneously occur, then actions/choices resulting from those thoughts must also be spontaneously occurring as a natural consequence. Thus, through correct understanding and perception we can remove these layers of conditioning and get to the underlying truth.

- Same with the notion of a subject-ego "I" as a conditioned concept -- it was the necessity for animals to have this concept/feeling of "I" in order to survive and get food for itself. The all-pervading Awareness was made to focalize in an individual life form through the conceptual filter of the ego, and that allowed for self-preservation. That was the birth of the ego, the animal instinct. And that is our concern, transcending the ego. But by understanding where and why it came about, it makes it easier to transcend.

- Dr. Hawkins says that "all thoughts, opinions, and positionalities are vanities." You think you know, but you really don't

At best the mind can "know about", but it can never know -- to truly know, is to be. If you carefully scrutinize your thoughts and thinking, it will be readily apparent that most of your thoughts are worthless and not that useful. The ones that seem useful are actually also useless, as they all are based on a conceptual filter on Reality and not Reality itself. That's often the reason why spontaneous action gets you better results than pre-planned and rehearsed action, or why subconsciously guided activity is done so much better than consciously done activity.

Dr. Hawkins suggests in Eye of the I, how to transcend the mind:

1) give up / surrender the desire to think
2) give up / surrender the desire for the pleasure of thinking
3) give up / surrender the comfort of the guarantee of the continuation of one's existence.

It's tough, but even partial completion of it gives you so much more peace of mind. I realized that almost all of my thoughts were based on the ego wanting control, especially over the future -- all the plans, backup plans, emergency plans, last resort plans, plans that I will never use, plans that I fantasize about. The ego even wants control over the next split-second moment of experience, even though it theoretically can't have control of it and can't change anything. None of it really mattered or helped me in any way.

- I wish I could add something useful about "non-subjective reality" as you coined it (haha, don't think that term's gonna be popular on this forum

), but you've already said it all, beautifully.

Erock · 03-24-2007, 07:54 AM

If I could say thank you a million times I would. Glass Joe and Ethereal, you guys really made my day! I learned a lot from your guys' responses. Glass Joe, are you saying that ultimately nothing is happening or that ultimately something is happening? I pulled the quotes that confuse me just a little bit, but other than that, your response really helped bring things together.

Thanks a ton
Erock

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glass Joe

But something is happening though, otherwise we wouldn't be here discussing this. But there is absolutely no one, no thing, and no force, that is willing it, controlling it, manifesting it, or dreaming it.

All there is, is This. Everything is apparently happening and arising automatically. But ultimately, nothing is happening at all. Everything just appears to be happening. (credit: Tony Parsons)

ethereal · 03-24-2007, 08:56 AM

Hehe, the classical answer to that question (and well, pretty much every other question) is that "everything is happening, not happening, both, and neither." Ultimate reality cannot be described by any concept whatsoever, so it will always transcend whatever conceptual filters we put on it.

But a way to understand it for all us un-enlightened beings, is that everything that we think is happening, is only the appearance of Ultimate Reality, whereas in its essence, nothing is happening. Like things seem to be happening when we watch a movie, but it's actually just a film, projector, and screen. That's an apt analogy, one that Maharaj uses a lot -- as he says, we are the actors in that movie

So a partial view of Reality it seems like tons of things are happening, but in its totality nothing is happening. And ultimately, everything just IS

judge45 · 03-24-2007, 09:13 AM

Wow, what a bunch of mystic crap.

The wonderment of consciousness is that it is predisposed to be all incompassing, but to rely and deviate from true self may lead to an underestimation of quantifiable responsibilty governed by a six pack of beer.

I honestly don't know what is worse..........a belief in a God that controls you or the craptaular musings of indian people who spent their lives in a village pondering why no one would come and listen to them.

Why will you not wake up to the fact that you are the supreme being??

Stupid? Lazy? Denial?

HTH

Jeff

Michael Chui · 03-24-2007, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge45

Why will you not wake up to the fact that you are the supreme being??

You're responsible for it.

Glass Joe · 03-24-2007, 02:06 PM

That's cool bro... Seriously, no worries... No one is forcing anything on you, so I think you are perfectly safe.

To each his own I guess. We are just talking about some shared patterns of conscious experience here. And if you don't experience any of this yourself, then you simply don't experience it. It really shouldn't matter either way.

For example, there's a lot of stuff in the paranormal / psychic forums that is way over my head. But I usually have no reaction to it either way. I mean, some stuff discussed there I might disagree with, and some stuff I'm actually a little envious of, to be honest, but overall it doesn't really matter. I mean, if I don't experience it, then I just don't experience it. No need for me to get all worked up about it, right?

I'm curious about your apparent hostility though. I mean, if you are open for it, I'd like to hear what brought that on.

In my experience, whenever I read something that I (at first) consider to be total and absolute "mystical crap", to the point where I feel I must shoot it down; or if something I read makes me want to throw the book across the room, that's usually a sign that some kind of growth is on the horizon. But that's just me. Other people might be different.

Anyways, it's up to you. I hope to hear more about this from you. And I really mean that. I mean, as long as you don't hide behind passive aggressiveness and sarcasm, and are authentic, I'm very interested in hearing your point of view. But if you don't feel like elaborating right now, that's cool too.

P.S. I'm going to be offline for the rest of the day today, but should be back later this evening.

Freelancer · 03-24-2007, 08:37 PM

I've read all the responces and what glass joe/ethereal are saying I'm not understanding at all, either your english is to tough/difficult for me or I'm just not ready yet.

I don't necesarily believe all this 'stuff' yet, in a way I'm one foot into subjective reality and the other in objective reality. I can tell you its a weird feeling.

Here's my view on a subjective reality;
I imagine a 'entity' which basically exists and nothing more, it is generating tendrils that are further away from enlightenment and the main 'body'. Each of these tendrils is experiencing a world that is created by the total thoughts/subconscious of all tendrils together. The longer your 'tendril' is the more you believe in objective reality and the more you are basically living in the world created by other 'tendrils'. Your subconscious is only a 'mechanism' to generate a world for the tendrils to experience, and your conscious is only there to experience the world and affect the subconscious to change the world positively or negatively. Both are equally correct because it doesn't really matter what the world is, its just a place to experience and to travel through. The closer you get back to the main 'body' the more enlightened you will become, ultimately you can go beyone the conscious/subconscious and enter the body which is a place of peace and serenity. Looking back all your struggles and problems are valuable but not particularily relevant.

Right now all of this is still inside my mind and imagination, if its true I should start to travel closer to the body and enlightment. Since what governs the subconscious is shaping my views and this world. This view should also explain why when one person is (subconsciously) believing something it doesn't have to manifest itself in the world yet, the rest of these tendrils will hold back the idea's. It might manifest itself partially though. So perhaps in a path to enlightment you need to bring others closer to the 'body' as well so that the world can actually change.

Meh I'm starting to ramble on a bit, I don't know if its true. I hope so because objective reality sometimes isn't that awesome at times, I'm not talking just about pain/sorrow/etc but also archieving a goal like 1 mill $ doesn't seem so awesome at all or having every material object doesn't seem that great.

Ps. Its weird but this viewpoint does explain a lot of idea's/thoughts that didn't seem correct at first. Why would a spiritual person have to eat? If its a subjective reality he should be able to change it to a place where eating is obsolete. But if the rest of the 'tendrils' are creating a world where you need to eat than one spiritual person (although he should have a great effect because he is consciously changing his subconscious and his reality) will not change this. Which is why asking for a sign or prove is pointless, the rest of the tendrils changed the world in such a matter that sign's or prove are not available.

Edit, a moment ago I tried a different exercise, trying to clear my mind I tried to view the world the whole of reality and history future so to say. This is what I came up with, no idea if its usefull;

Objective reality
Subjective reality
Above all
Spiritual person
Trying to explain to others the process
Nobody gets it
Crazy
Why?
Desperation
Weird experience
People start to understand
World starts to change around you
Magic becomes possible
Things change
Happiness to all weirdly enough
Enlightment to many
Curiosity reigns the lifes of many
Enjoyment and fullfillement
Everything transcends back into the one big being
Everything is created new
Objective reality starts to form
Subjective reality
Above all
Spiritual person
Trying to explain to others the process
Etc
Etc
Etc
Etc
Etc

To the end of time we are tendrils that are send out and slowly find there way back, dieing and living is just part of growing towards the main being. There is no such thing as consciousness and subconscousness perhaps if we release this than we become one with the body, perhaps we can function like life lines to other tendrils helping them to get closer to the body. Eventually everything will return to the body and it creates new tendrils to send out and experience new things and new worlds. Our body’s/minds and reality are just a extenction of the main body.

Perhaps the story of a very objective person to a very spiritual person that is changing the world and helps other people is a good story for a sci-fi book (even though it might be reality).

Cantando · 03-26-2007, 09:53 AM

I think there is often a misconception that consciousness is the Self or All That Is. Consciousness is the state of awareness of something.
The essential "I" is a pulsating potentiality. As soon as you direct your light of perception onto something, whether it is yourself, something "apparently" external, or All that Is, or even oblivion, you become conscious of it, you become aware.
So consciousness is a function or attribute of the essentail "I"; it is not the "I".

ethereal · 03-26-2007, 10:38 AM

Wow, thanks for the clarification Cantando. I think I can actually understand that

So our true Identity is this Awareness that is continually changing its perception to include more and more, i.e. raising consciousness? And ultimately, Awareness of Awareness is the ultimate state of consciousness? Consciousness is an attribute of the essential "I" that allows parts of Manifest Awareness (i.e. life with self-awareness) to be aware of other parts of Awareness, including ultimately Awareness itself?

Thanks again, Cantando -- that was the clearest explanation I've heard for the difference between consciousness and awareness. Still digesting it, lol

edit: just wanted to add some insights I had while reading "Discovery of the Presence of God -- Devotional Nonduality" by Dr. Hawkins. An excerpt:

"The ego/mind is a dualistic construction that originated as animal consciousness which, eons later, evolved through primitive homonids and finally to Homo sapiens, in which a prefrontal cortex was added to the old animal brain, providing the capacit for linear conceptual thought. Thus, initially, the mind primarily became a new tool for the expression of animal instincts through what is now called the ego."

So through evolution on the physical plane, as well from the effects from the non-physical realms, animals began to evolve their consciousness. Dr. Hawkins calibrated that below 200, people can experience things and their mind can act, but they do not have self-awareness, the awareness that "I exist". This is correlated with how people below 200 have group karma and a group soul. But once the 200 level is passed, self-awareness becomes possible, the soul individualizes, individual karma begins to be kept, an etheric spiritual brain begins to develop in the etheric body. Once this self-awareness is possible, consciousness then begins to ramp up as the mind (as an instrument of consciousness) begins to seek its source, first by manifesting more proactivity, truth, intelligence, love -- the levels of consciousness, which are aspects/gradations of Divinity/Awareness -- in the material world / physical plane, and then finally on to spiritual knowledge and awareness. Gradually, it realizes that its source wasn't the ego-self with its animal instincts, but is something much greater. With the help of those Avatars and Masters who have advanced ahead of us and left behind their teachings, as well as spiritual energies from the non-physical realms, the mind purifies itself, begins to recognize the truth within itself and relinquish the animal instincts mankind has evolved from, and eventually lets go of the primary duality and remnant of the animal mind: "I exist".

2nd edit: realized I somewhat contradicted myself in saying that animals/people below 200 aren't aware of their existence, and that "I exist" is the primary duality of the ego. I think the answer (not sure if it's right) is that "I exist" is inherent within the ego, but animals/people are not aware of it and just act accordingly without knowing it.

Glass Joe · 03-26-2007, 03:55 PM

I've been thinking about all of this a lot over the weekend, and I still want to post more to this thread, but I don't have time to post all that much right now. I just want to say that I think there's still much further to go here, truth-realization-wise.

Intuition and synchronicity sure are double-edged swords... I'm very grateful, but good God man!

I mean, it's great when synchronicities come around that are the warm and fuzzy kind. But it's really becoming a drag when synchronicities show up to just knock you off your high horse. Even if that so-called "high horse" is just a couple inches off the ground. It's like you build up this tiny sand castle, only to have it washed away by the cold indifferent ocean 5 minutes later.

Earlier today I came across this passage in a book (Zen Flesh, Zen Bones) that involved a zen student saying similar things about "nothing happening" and "no subject" to his zen master. And pretty much the zen master just sat there, puffed on his pipe for a while, and then smacked the student across the head and threw him out.

Yeah, it could just be a coincidence. It could be totally meaningless. But I'm going to take that as a sign that there's still a long ways to go.

Bottom line, wherever each of us are at on the spiritual path, that's exactly where we need to be right at this moment. It's all good...

And no step on the path is better than any other step. And it's all a game anyway, right?

And you can't force the growth process of consciousness, anymore than you can force a 5-year-old to grow his body to the size/complexity of a 10-year-old. Growth occurs one step at a time.

Whether someone is (a) currently living in an "objective reality" and just beginning to master PD on that level, or (b) just getting his/her feet wet in "subjective reality" and beginning to develop some intuition/I-M muscles, or (c) just beginning to become aware that there is even something beyond any kind of labeled or conceptual reality, every step must be taken in turn and then fully integrated before any next step can be taken. You can't just jump to the top of the mountain in one giant leap.

And talking the talk is different from walking the walk. Only you can know intuitively where you're at on the ladder, and only you can know when it's time to move up to the next rung. There are no outside authorities. There are no shortcuts. And there is really no hurry. However, if you try to stay put for too long, or if you try to deceive yourself into believing you are further ahead/behind than you really are, that's when you suffer.

Anywho, those are some insights I've been having recently, and that's all I can say right now. Not sure if that's helpful to anyone or just makes people depressed.

Also, I'm still working on a decent analogy for describing how I think simultaneously, nothing is happening, but yet something still appears to be happening. But I think all analogies fail here.

ethereal · 03-26-2007, 07:03 PM

I think you're right, GJ -- I've been obsessed with trying to understand the Ultimate Truth and skipping all "lower" truths (since they're "untrue", lol!), but all it does is make me confused and depressed

And I think there's also a huge difference between understanding and experiencing/living a truth, which is where the true test lies -- though understanding does help, a lot. Perhaps different people have different paths, and people on this thread are drawn to the path of Mind moreso than most.

It isn't healthy, either -- I'm getting tons of headaches from overactive 6th chakra but blocked up 4th and others. Balance and taking it one step at a time is good, I think

Erock · 03-27-2007, 01:38 AM

This has been a top quality discussion. Let me throw in another tidbit from Maharaj:

"Consciousness does not shine by itself. It shines by a light
beyond it. Having seen the dreamlike quality of consciousness,
look for the light in which it appears, which gives it being. There
is the content of consciousness as well as the awareness of it."

cadmar · 05-21-2008, 08:30 PM

I look at this in a mechanical way. This is what I've found out: the brain does not have any senses of its own. So, everything is outside the brain. Outside the body: the five senses; inside the body: organ senses (stomach, heart, lungs, etc.).

The input into the brain through chemical/electrical impulses form patterns (excited neurons) in the brain. The amount of energy (impulses) will create patterns. Different amount of energy will create a different pattern. I look at this like a river/stream over flowing its bank. Depending on the amount of water and its force, it creates a different pattern in the sandy bank. Some time ago I read a book on this about Fractals in Nature and the author stated that the possibilities of patterns is in the billions of billions.

As I'm a school teacher, I taught my pupils how this can be put into practice to get higher grades: connecting patterns with other patterns. For example, the more neurons that are excited, the more knowledge one has. It's like drawing a picture with dots, the more dots the clearer and more defined is the picture.

So thoughts, thinking, is merely connecting these patterns with other patterns.

Now, this is another thing to remember. All physical actions are reactions. Everything that has happened is a reaction from something else. This principle is true in the brain. Your patterns of neurons is a reaction from inputs.

Now, your desires, wants, are all caused by chemical release in your brain. These chemical release are quite important. They are programmed by the user's experiences through one's own direct or from the environmental influences. These chemical releases also trigger neuron patterns. That is why thought can not change desires. I can't say stop smoking and it will stop. The chemical release is the gate keeper. Thoughts are the products, the children of chemical releases.

I'll stop here. I don't want to go on if this does not make sense or that this is too simple and you know it already.

Thanks for reading.

cadmar

pianoperformer · 05-21-2008, 09:51 PM

Quite interesting.

I don't think one necessarily has to separate subjective reality with this view, as you just take it a little farther and you get this idea.

I mean that, subjective reality says that the outside is created by the inside, so to speak, or by the subject. But if one realizes there is no subject, either, still there is, well, the whole, or nothing, in which all of this happens (or doesn't?) Then this whole, so to speak, is perceived as disparate entities in the world, one of which is what is perceived as oneself. So then, one's thoughts or intentions can be said to reflect through the whole and to change therefore the perceived reality since one is actually that whole.

That's how I think of it, anyway, but not promising it'll make sense.

Michael Chui · 05-22-2008, 02:17 AM

Actually, pianoperformer, you're describing subjective reality. The idea you had before was solipsism.

In SR, there is no outside.

pianoperformer · 05-22-2008, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Actually, pianoperformer, you're describing subjective reality. The idea you had before was solipsism.

In SR, there is no outside.

Really? Then I must have misunderstood it and fell unknowningly into the proper definition.

But when you say there is no outside, then that means there is only inside. Is that not basically what I said before? Would that not then be the belief that the outside is created from the inside?

Now I'm confused.

Michael Chui · 05-22-2008, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pianoperformer

But when you say there is no outside, then that means there is only inside. Is that not basically what I said before? Would that not then be the belief that the outside is created from the inside?

There is no outside. The inside creates the inside.

Cantando · 05-22-2008, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

There is no outside. The inside creates the inside.

If we suppose there is an inside, then there must also be an outside (in the world of duality). But these are just labels anyway. Do they really mean anything?

How about, "There is just what is, neither inside nor outside".

We, individually, appear to direct the flow of our consciousness, apparently inwards or outwards, and draw our own apparent boundaries around it, where we will.

Yes, we could argue that our perception of reality (whatever that is) must always be subjective, by definition, as it is always our personal perception or view which is present, and that is all we have, and there is nothing else ‘outside’ of that.

That may well be our experience, but it does not prove that it is the only valid model of reality; it may not be true for all conditions and circumstances. For example, what will our perception be (if any) when we die?

The bottom line is that we are still experiencing, learning, speculating and drawing conclusions on what reality might be and what consciousness might be.

But, that is part of the fun of living (and discussing it on this forum).

Michael Chui · 05-22-2008, 03:38 PM

Yep. But that doesn't convey the point that you are everything quite as well.

Joeschmoe · 05-22-2008, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

There is no outside. The inside creates the inside.

There is no inside or outside. The distinction might be useful, but it is not real. You can not negate one without negating the other. To say all is inside actually diminishes the meaning of the word "inside." It is no longer useful or meaningful. To say that in reality there is no distinction (outside of the mind) between outside and inside would be more accurate, in my opinion.

bellemeadows · 05-22-2008, 04:48 PM

ACIM would agree: there is no consciousness without a 'sense' of separation.

The first time I read I Am That, it was too hard for my ego; it just had conniptions (sp?).

Belle,

Mark Lapierre · 05-23-2008, 02:19 AM

Quote: