Originally Posted by Arcanum
In the example I used, the idea of the volitional person does indeed get invalidated in the larger context of oneness. Oneness IS more true (it's not about better/worse) than the smaller context of separation. Once the truth of the larger context is realized, one cannot go back to the smaller context and imagine that he has volition within that context. Volition was never actually true. This is what the larger context reveals.
Nothing gets invalidated. It simply remains at the lower level. Separation doesn't go anywhere once you realize Oneness. It stays right there, at the same level it always has. The world doesn't change when you become enlightened. The only thing that changes is you. If you think the world changes, then you were the one trying to change it, and if you're trying to change the world by becoming enlightened, then you're not really enlightened and just trying to exercise volition.
Volition stays exactly put. It was only ever an idea before you became enlightened, it remains an idea after you become enlightened. Volition is true at one level, false at another, true again at the level which is all-inclusive. Volition doesn't change, you change.
Let me ask you this. There is an entire 150 points between the Void, 850, and the top of the scale, 1000. What do you suppose changes as you traverse those contexts, those worlds of philosophies and content?
I think Oneness is not the monolithic uber-reality you seem to think it is.
The only way you could know what I should have learned is if you know what I knew before reading them. How could you possibly know?
I don't. I'm not even sure you learned anything, this bit about contexts notwithstanding. I'm not even sure you can
learn anything. I just said, that if you read eight books, you either learned an awful lot, or you wasted a great deal of time. Even five books is a veritable education.
Personally, I don't read a whole lot. One book every month or so. Sometimes even less. I believe that less is more. There's a limit to how much information a brain can take in and work through. I've read three of Hawkins' books. I don't think I'll read any more because I'm not interested in any of the subject matters of any of the rest of his books.
There are virtually as many contexts as one can imagine, because they are no more than vague categories of related concepts. What we're usually talking about is one concept as seen at various arbitrary 'levels' of consciousness, as you say. If we form too many iterations of context, it will be difficult to distinguish the content of one from another.
And yet each context is fully complete with its own content and its own philosophies. Too much can be overwhelming, but too few iterations leads to dogmatism and stagnation. And nothing has to be vague. We can define each context and explain it and the differences between that context and the context above it. We choose not to, generally, but we can. That David Hawkins created his scale with its incremental gradations and its enduring utility shows that the effort is never completely wasted.
Yes, of course there are many here on this forum (possibly most, I dunno) who believe in this volitional God, and my guess is they're not really ancient.
I wouldn't say that. I think most people's ideas run towards either the blind watchmaker or as the Source. Personally, I believe in all possible aspects of God. I see no reason to pick one or the other. The scale and all contexts to me are simply that, contexts. Nothing more or less than collections of ideas. Pick whichever one works best for the situation you're in, then move on. The only thing that exists for me is the present.