Spiritual Contexts
 

After thinking about it, I actually do want to discuss contexts more.


Further, if contexts are really complete within themselves, then the attempt to take concepts from one context and place them in another does not invalidate anything, but it merely creates a new context. There does not just have to be three contexts mentioned, there are also many contexts in between those three, as they're just definitions using words anyway.

In one of those contexts, you have the curious case of the volitional God. I think this context was explored thoroughly in the ancient times, particularly with the Greeks. Sure, the people there were operating at a much lower level, but then people never operate on the same level as their gods.

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.



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?
BTW, just to be transparent about it, I checked the Veritas list of publications, and Hawky did publish 2 or 3 more books after I lost interest, so I did not read those.




Smaller contexts are contained within larger contexts, like those Russian dolls where one doll is opened up to reveal another doll inside. Each doll is complete within itself, but the smaller one is contained within, and is therefore a part of, the larger one. The fact that each context has it's own content as reference doesn't prevent a given conceptual content (i.e. God) from showing up in multiple contexts.

As such, the realizations gleaned from the larger context does indeed reference all concepts common to both, altering how the truth of those concepts is seen, regardless of the context in which one is speaking.




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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Oneness doesn't require that appearances stop appearing. The fact that you don't realize the truth of oneness doesn't make separation and volition true. Context won't make sense until you realize the truth of the larger contexts and see that this truth doesn't become untrue by virtue of the way you talk about it or look at it in different contexts.

There's a delicious irony in the fact that Hawkins got you to believe in God when he doesn't believe in God himself, because you don't understand what he's saying about context.

I would suggest that this may happen simply because he uses the term, 'God' at all. I'll have to admit that Hawkins got me to question my own understanding of the term.

What I got from Hawkins is an understanding of the simple process of recontextualization, which includes the recontextualization of 'God', as content (i.e., what 'God' means) is surrendered for a greater awareness of context (i.e., what 'God' really is).

I've read three of Hawkins' books (one I've read twice, and still munch on a bit). I've also read both Tolle books several times, Nissargadata, ACIM, and all sorts of stuff in between all that, not to mention my translation of the Latin Vulgate, and that now, I'm into Adyashanti. You could easily say I'm self-educated in this stuff, but I will insist that I haven't really learned a damned thing.

It's not about "learning" anything, but about unlearning everything. It's about allowing the layers upon layers of beliefs to be peeled away, and allowing for the release the emotions that those beliefs have led to. This is what I understand Hawkins to mean by recontextualization.

I would go back and dig up Hawkins' quotes concerning God, but I really don't think the effort would be worth it. Suffice it to say, I find it intriguing that you managed to get away from Hawkins not only preserving your atheism, but further, creating the belief that Hawkins was an atheist too!

At any rate, I think we've exhausted the possibilities of this conversation.

Hmm, why was I thinking Arcanum was quite the opposite of atheism?

Okay, you had a set of beliefs before you read a book, a style of thinking. If that set of beliefs, that style of thinking did not change as a result of reading a book, any book, from Huckleberry Finn to the Bhagavad Gita, then you could rightly say that all you got from that book was entertainment. Whether it was learning or unlearning, you should still be able to trace out what you learned or unlearned.

You can't do this if you go out and buy six of an authors books, read all of them, and move on to someone else like you're done. You didn't read them at all, you just memorized their contents.

In fact, I'll go you one further. Just reading a book once doesn't really accomplish anything, either. I've referred back to the two Hawkins books I still own many times when I have to answer questions regarding him or his teachings. I don't just assume I know and answer based off of my memory of the first time I read it.

This is not because I have a weak mind but because I know intimately the failings of mind. What you can trust them to do and what they do when you're not watching them. When you're not paying close attention to your mind, you won't really read for edification. You'll read for validation. And the only way to keep track is to keep a very careful record of what you knew before you began and what you know when you finish. Because mind can play a lot of funky tricks in the interrim, like transform a very clear belief in God into a self-similar atheism.

Opposite of atheism is theism, and he's anything but a theist.

Why such effort to label him, or anyone else as either?

A label is nothing more than a statement made in fewer words. The labels are equivalent to the statements, they just save time typing.

Actually, they also do the interesting work of making it easy to connect certain ideas with other ideas. Saying Hawkins doesn't believe in God is the same as saying he was an atheist, but the latter does the useful work of helping you recall his statements concerning atheists.

Sounds like you got pretty much the same thing I did out of Hawky. Not that he wasn't enjoyable, and I likely had some insights from his books, (can't recall) but his treatment of context was what stayed with me.

Zackly.

No 'enlightened' teacher holds any belief or 'ism' to be ultimately true, which is really the point of talking about context.

From "I" p.163
"God is the ultimate context in which the universe and all existence is the content."
"God is the radical Subjectivity of Self Realization"

Ok I’ve not thought about it much but as I read the definitions of theist/atheist it seem that I’m neither an atheist nor a theist simply because the belief in God is not something which I see as being of any relevance at all. There is something which can be called divine/absolute but it has nothing to do with ones ideas, beliefs and philosophies. To try and understand it through the mind is just like trying to force the whole ocean into the boundaries of a small cup or trying to grasp the vastness of space into ones fist. The mind is not capable of anything else except an interpretation of things through the senses and all of one’s ideas of the divine are born of the mind they are the projections of thought, make any sense? i.e. the atheist is one extreme, and the theist is another extreme, one has been clinging to the idea of God the other has been clinging to the idea of No-God, and in both cases, one fails to see into the matter that the Truth is inexpressible.

This is the long and short of pretty much everything I'm involved in, discussion-wise.

Yeah. Believing or not believing in God is quite irrelevant.