Ah! So God is peace instead of love! [scale of consciousness]

[arpee]

A while ago, I made a thread that was asking was God love or peace, which one is the highest vibration. I argued that maybe the stoics are right, and we shouldn't be emotional and we should just be peaceful about all things since flowers, rocks, and all things, non-living and living things have a neutral state of peacefulness.

According to the scale of consciousness, peace is higher than love and it's the closest human state of being to enlightenment.


Since Christianity teaches love (The main rule is "Love your neighbors") and Buddhism and Taoism teaches peace ("Give up desire/attachment), those religions would be of a higher vibration...

Interesting... Interesting, maybe someone should make a religion saying God is peace, and peace is the answer to all question...

[Luciddd]

And yet in Kabbalah Creator is Bestowal. And who made this graphic? Can you tell for certain it is correct?

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by arpee

A while ago, I made a thread that was asking was God love or peace, which one is the highest vibration. I argued that maybe the stoics are right, and we shouldn't be emotional and we should just be peaceful about all things since flowers, rocks, and all things, non-living and living things have a neutral state of peacefulness.

According to the scale of consciousness, peace is higher than love and it's the closest human state of being to enlightenment.



Since Christianity teaches love (The main rule is "Love your neighbors") and Buddhism and Taoism teaches peace ("Give up desire/attachment), those religions would be of a higher vibration...

Interesting... Interesting, maybe someone should make a religion saying God is peace, and peace is the answer to all question...

It seems to me you are getting caught up in the words, with particular attention to your definitions of those words.

You main issue then, may be your peculiar (may I say - common?) definition of 'love'. You appear to have a more specific grasp of the concept 'peace', however what is peace if not love?

[Apopohis Reject]

Also you refer to 'God', but to what in particular is this term about? I mean; other than your peculiar concepts (definitions) of 'love' and 'peace', how do you personally relate to your referenced 'God'?

Is 'God' an old grey-haired, bearded dude somewhere out there - in the sky perhaps? Maybe he is a superior elephant manifestation in another dimension?

I know these are all words, but in using them I'm trying to get a little insight into your internalised imaginings, as underpinning your words???

[arpee]

Let me explain what I mean when I say "God is peace".

When I say God, I mean it in a pantheist sense, the energy flowing through all things. By peace, I mean stillness, serenity, acceptance, detachment...

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by arpee

Let me explain what I mean when I say "God is peace".

When I say God, I mean it in a pantheist sense, the energy flowing through all things. By peace, I mean stillness, serenity, acceptance, detachment...

So from whence does your genetic ability come? How do you have the ability to be creative? After all, stillness, serenity, acceptance, detachment or anything that sounds like such qualities do not (as generally understood) produce/provide creativity as such. Yet the concept most have of 'God', is THE CREATOR - of everything! Yet your definition doesn't seem to include this essential connection to everything.

BTW, you still haven' defined your 'love'.

[Irisha]

So, you think this scale of consciousness is something that is true.
Is it you who is the author?
If not, why do you believe it's true?
If yes, what were your criteria to place every element in the scale in this order?

[alphamind]

That scale looks pretty accurate, but it's not taking many things into consideration. It's much more complex than how simple and straightforward it makes it out to be.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by alphamind

That scale looks pretty accurate, but it's not taking many things into consideration. It's much more complex than how simple and straightforward it makes it out to be.

I personally find the scale confusing.

Secondly, what in particular is "much more complex than how simple ... it makes it out to be"?

[arpee]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

So from whence does your genetic ability come? How do you have the ability to be creative? After all, stillness, serenity, acceptance, detachment or anything that sounds like such qualities do not (as generally understood) produce/provide creativity as such. Yet the concept most have of 'God', is THE CREATOR - of everything! Yet your definition doesn't seem to include this essential connection to everything.

BTW, you still haven' defined your 'love'.

If a seed is the basis then from whence do the leaves come? Or the wood of the tree? It's the same thing. Peace (God) is the basis, that is flowing through all. Sometimes, people can act out of balance and get happy or violent (unhappy)... Just the peace is still there at the basis, and to peace all shall return...

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by arpee

If a seed is the basis then from whence do the leaves come? Or the wood of the tree? It's the same thing. Sometimes, people can act out of balance and get happy or violent (unhappy)... Just the peace is still there at the basis, and to peace all shall return...

The short answer to your first two questions is; the seed is the physical container of the SPIRITUAL genetic code which in turn progressively organises the soil and water (into which the seed has been planted) - into the wood and leaves of the tree.

Whilst I don't have an argument as such with "Peace (God) is the basis, that is flowing through all etc.", I am nonetheless struggling to make a great deal of connection to a generally recognised universe/reality.

So please, do you think you can relate this again in a more revealing, less religious manner?

[arpee]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Whilst I don't have an argument as such with "Peace (God) is the basis, that is flowing through all etc.", I am nonetheless struggling to make a great deal of connection to a generally recognised universe/reality.

So please, do you think you can relate this again in a more revealing, less religious manner?

The connection is that all is peace until they leave that state of being to become sad, happy, etc. The flower is peaceful, the rock is peaceful. If you want to connect with nature/universe/God, subside your happiness or unhappiness and feel for that core of peace within you..

[Tanemon]

Here are some things to think about...

The universe is vast. Our human world (biological, familial, cultural, societal) is something we find ourselves born into. We've been born into planet Earth. Love among family, friends, neighbors - is all good.

The page that I recommended to you on the other thread was
Richard Maurice Bucke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you read his book (the book mentioned in the article) you see how his cosmic vison is a vision that could be described with words like love, peace, creativity. Part of what he tried to do in his book was to delineate how these different qualities relate to the inner principle of the universe.

I remember reading a story coming out of the history of Zen Buddhism. A European Catholic monk went to Japan, centuries ago, to start a Christian mission there. He met several Buddhist monks (masters and abbots of monasteries). He had real respect for them, and they liked him. He wrote back to his superiors in the Catholic church in Europe and praised one Zen master in particular, saying, "What a friend this man is to me!"

Mystical inner peace does not preclude human love.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by arpee

The connection is that all is peace until they leave that state of being to become sad, happy, etc. The flower is peaceful, the rock is peaceful. If you want to connect with nature/universe/God, subside your happiness or unhappiness and feel for that core of peace within you..

The problem I have with this, is that you seem to be connecting everything to a basic lacking in anything at all. As such it sounds a lot like the 'Big Bang', and also religion.

You state that peace is is (for instance) an emptiness of attachment, yet how can anything come into existence from detachment - even if it is previously existing?

Put another way; you seem to be saying that 'peace' exists as an energy that flows through everything, yet is detached and doesn't really exist at all.

For mine, this is highly contradictory in terms, at the very least.

[Irisha]

For peace to be the answer to all questions we need to stop acting completely. It is not realistic. But the less acting the better for peace is really true.
I don't know who has made that scale, and what the criteria were to put the elements of it in this order. But it seems to me that the criteria and the choice of the elements are highly subjective, and for different people they will work differently. If you use this scheme just to back up your belief about love/peace positioning I don't think the scheme is necessary.
Which vibrations are higher - of peace or of love? It depends on the aim you want to achieve. There is no scale with the absolute values unless you are living in the world of the absolute ideas. But if you achieve this stage you stop using any gradations, and you don't need to ask the question you ask. You don't need to compare religions, and you don't need anything like religion anymore.
If you think peace is a higher vibration than love, can you explain why? You refer to the rocks and flowers. Are you sure you know about rocks and flowers everything to be able to make your conclusion? Even an atom is the whole Universe. Rocks are as alive as flowers, because absolutely everything which is in this world (and not in the other side) - is alive with different degrees of manifesting it to us as beings with consciousness.
If you can answer the question why peace is a higher vibration than love, according to you, then you can probably see where you come from, who you are, and where you are currently going to. But I would say it's an artificially complicated method to reach your destination. Because the final destination is one for everybody, and you don't need to compare vibrations for it. What is it? You should see it yourself. When you are ready for understanding what it is, you will see it clearly, and without hesitating and doubting.

[ChristsLight]

Arpee, why are you getting caught up in these labels? God is nothing that you can point to and name. We can only attempt to describe these things.

When you get to this level, Love and peace are exactly the same. There is nothing above unconditional Love, if correctly understood.

Your logic is flawed, however. If peace is the closest emotion before enlightenment, then are humans beyond God when they are enlightened, because God is merely peace? This simply does not make sense.

[arpee]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

Arpee, why are you getting caught up in these labels? God is nothing that you can point to and name. We can only attempt to describe these things.

When you get to this level, Love and peace are exactly the same. There is nothing above unconditional Love, if correctly understood.

Your logic is flawed, however. If peace is the closest emotion before enlightenment, then are humans beyond God when they are enlightened, because God is merely peace? This simply does not make sense.

Maybe that , scale is not so good.

Peace is not an emotion, but the absense of it. It is detachment, calmness, stillness, serenity, acceptance (since peace lacks emotion it can't fight against)... All living things and non-living things start at peace, but as for humans and animals they allow circumstances to make them feel a certain way instead of just staying in peace, in their stillness. However, when there is no stimulation people usually go back to peace until something that they consider "good" or "bad" happens to them again.

Animals are generally more quick to come back to their natural state than humans, because humans can sit there and complain instead of letting go of the situation.

Rocks, trees, flowers, never leave it...

Love is still an emotion but it is also compassion, kindness

Peace is absense of it, detachment.

[Sekret Weapon]

Humans try and narrow things down to a definable singular point which is often results in cognitive mistakes

Is god Love or Peace.

Both, you simply used an "or" when you should have used and "and".

[Andrew Gubb]

I find the levels of consciousness interesting but it seems like a leap to unquestioningly accept it.

You can judge a concept on the positive or negative effects it has on your life. Will this really guide you?

Buddhism probably is wiser than christianity on the whole but I'm pretty sure that plenty of people have found raising their consciousness through love rather than peace has been a better fit for them. It all depends on the individual. Which is something that one-size-fits-all philosophies tend to miss.

If this isn't a one-size-fits-all philosophy, I'd like to know exactly how it has to be interpreted and applied, because the image and list in themselves don't really tell you anything in terms of practical understanding.

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by arpee

Maybe that , scale is not so good.

Peace is not an emotion, but the absense of it. It is detachment, calmness, stillness, serenity, acceptance (since peace lacks emotion it can't fight against)... All living things and non-living things start at peace, but as for humans and animals they allow circumstances to make them feel a certain way instead of just staying in peace, in their stillness. However, when there is no stimulation people usually go back to peace until something that they consider "good" or "bad" happens to them again.

Animals are generally more quick to come back to their natural state than humans, because humans can sit there and complain instead of letting go of the situation.

Rocks, trees, flowers, never leave it...

Love is still an emotion but it is also compassion, kindness

Peace is absense of it, detachment.

Unconditional Love is not an emotion; it also is beyond emotion. It is not an emotion because it is limitless, while emotions are limited. You cannot have unconditional Love for something; there can just be unconditional Love, without subjects or objects.

[Tanemon]

Originally Posted by arpee

Love is still an emotion but it is also compassion, kindness

Peace is absense of it, detachment.

Haven't you ever felt deep peace while being truly kind or compassionate?

We keep getting dragged back into concepts and theoretical schemes here... As several have pointed out in their own way, words and concepts can't fully say the truth.

[ChristsLight]

Arpee, didn't you have a thread a while ago that God was appreciation?

Do you see what I mean that the labels don't matter? They're just going to spin you in circles. One day God is love. Then god is appreciation. Then God is peace.

Why is labeling Truth/Being so important to you?

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

I find the levels of consciousness interesting but it seems like a leap to unquestioningly accept it.

No one's asking you to. It took me at least a year after I was first exposed to David Hawkins before I could accept all his calibrations as true.

You can judge a concept on the positive or negative effects it has on your life. Will this really guide you?

If your plan is to increase your consciousness, then yes. Things that test positively using muscle testing will increase your consciousness. You don't have to use muscle testing, but if you don't you should develop a keen eye for what's good for you and what isn't.

Buddhism probably is wiser than christianity on the whole but I'm pretty sure that plenty of people have found raising their consciousness through love rather than peace has been a better fit for them. It all depends on the individual. Which is something that one-size-fits-all philosophies tend to miss.

I haven't seen Hawkins calibrate "Buddhism" and "Christianity" as blanket terms overlooking the whole of teachings/practitioners. Like you say, it really depends on the individual and such a calibration would miss the point. Hawkins likes to calibrate the levels of consciousness of the religions throughout their history and show how levels of truth tend to decline slowly after the passing of the master.

If this isn't a one-size-fits-all philosophy, I'd like to know exactly how it has to be interpreted and applied, because the image and list in themselves don't really tell you anything in terms of practical understanding.

As a practical matter, the scale can be used as a rough guide to progress. You can read the books and compare yourself to the descriptions given. Doing this forces you to make sense of the confusing and conflicting nature of the statements. This is necessary, there's no shortcuts to truth.

It's best to look at Hawkins's materials as a valuable addition to one's spiritual bookshelf, but not the whole shelf. If you must have only one author's books on that shelf, Hawkins is a better choice than most, but if he's all you read then you'll get unavoidably locked in to his way of looking at things.

[Irisha]

So, it's Hawkins' scheme. What does he write about the order of the elements in his scheme, and what is his choice of elements based on?

[qwertyportne]

Yeah, can't completely embrace the hierarchy or the terms, and I'd have to find a book or a blog for ways to apply it down where the rubber meets the road of everyday life, ways to move from the bottom to the top. Reminds me of Sun Bear, who said, "If your philosophy doesn't grow corn, I don't want to hear about it."

And it does appear to be a One-Size-Fits-All Philosophy. Even if some truths are absolute, they still have an element of relativity as far as I'm concerned. We are not all at the same level of awareness, regardless of which chart is being used to measure or evaluate it.

My first impression is that it progresses from self-absorbed exclusiveneness to other-oriented inclusiveness. Perhaps a visual reminder that the evolution of consciousness is an individual process within a collective one? That spiritual growth is including more and more in our circle of awareness and behaving accordingly?

Love seems to do that, so I would place it at the top of the pyramid. Politicians, malaria, okra and artichokes are inside my circle of awareness but still outside my circle of love. According to the chart, then, I have not yet reached peace and enlightenment. Oh well, we're all a work in progress...

--Bill