The bonfire
Last night, reading some notes I wrote last year, I noticed one in which I jotted down the idea that information can exist only in consciousness - so if information is the essence of the cosmos, then the cosmos must exist in consciousness. In other words, the information "2 + 2 = 4" can exist only in some mind. If the physical universe is organized around information - such as the gravitational coupling constant, the strong nuclear force coupling constant, the weak nuclear force coupling constant, and the electromagnetic coupling constant, among many other relationships - then it seems logically inescapable that the universe exists in consciousness.
Of course, it might be argued that these various constants do not exist as information until they are observed by us. Thus, as information, they exist only in our own minds. But this argument overlooks the fact that these constants are not arbitrary, but rather appear to be very precisely fine-tuned to produce a functioning, stable, complex universe. They are like ground rules laid down with a great deal of care, much like the instructions in a recipe. As such, they really do constitute information, no less than a recipe or a formula or a set of blueprints.
Again, one might quibble that the universe is a product of consciousness, rather than being in consciousness, just as a meal is the product of a recipe or a house is the product of a blueprint. But in this case, I wonder if the distinction is even meaningful. For someone to build a table, the thought of the table must first exist in consciousness. Then the thought is translated into physical form. The resulting table could not have come into existence apart from consciousness, and it only has a function, meaning, and identity within consciousness. So basically, the table is conceived within consciousness and, in its capacity as a table, it exists and functions only within consciousness.
The physical universe seemingly begins as a conception -- a mental conception -- and it has meaning, function, and identity only when viewed from the perspective of consciousness. Without consciousness, then, there could be no universe because there would be no organizing ideas (such as the constants mentioned above) and no purpose (teleology). In Aristotelian terms, there would be no formal cause and no final cause.
The long and short of it is that it doesn't matter very much if the universe is seen as pure Idea or as the manifestation or implementation of Idea in physical terms. The distinction is largely academic, although it is the issue at the heart of the debate between idealism and dualism. Either way, the universe begins with and embodies an idea (or set of ideas), and can be understood and appreciated only in terms of that idea(s). What matters is that Idea as such logically precedes the universe, and consciousness logically precedes (or at least it is coeval with) Idea.
At this point, the million-dollar question becomes: What is the relationship between this cosmic consciousness and our own? Are they one and the same? Or are our own minds a small offshoot of a larger whole? Or is there no connection at all, and do we merely flatter ourselves in imagining that there is?
I don't pretend to really know, but consider the following image as one possible illustration. Picture a blazing bonfire lighting a dark night. A procession of people pass by, each one holding a candle to the bonfire and tapping its flame. Each candle now burns with a light of its own, a much dimmer light, of which the bonfire is the ultimate source.
Cosmic consciousness is the bonfire that illuminates the physical world. Each individual consciousness is a candle lit from that bonfire, tapping that flame.
A possible weakness of this image is that it seems to suggest that the bonfire and the candles are separate from each other, when mystics and others who have pondered these matters deeply will tell us that all consciousness is ultimately connected or even indivisible. But this difficulty may be more apparent than real.
Here it may be relevant to glance at the "problem of universals" (perhaps more accurately characterized as the "problem of properties"). This old philosophical conundrum asks whether the same property observed in two different places is really the same thing or two different things. For instance, if we observe the property of whiteness in a picket fence and in a sheet of typing paper, is the whiteness the same in each case, or different? It is possible to argue that the property is always the same. In this particular case, we could argue that the fire of the candle is logically indistinguishable from the fire of the bonfire. They are actually the same fire, merely observed in two different places (or in two different respects).
As a side note, the quantum physicists' idea of non-locality may be useful in suggesting how two properties can actually be one and the same, even when apparently separated by space; in a non-local universe, space and separation are an illusion (or at least they are not an aspect of fundamental reality).
We could say, then, that the property (or quality) of consciousness is always the same, and that its apparent dispersal among many separate entities is no more real than the apparent dispersal of whiteness among the various entities possessing that property.
So what are we left with? The universe is organized around information; information exists only within consciousness; so the universe is logically dependent on consciousness to exist. Our own consciousness may be thought of as a small flame lit from a larger fire, but just as the property of fire is the same in all cases, so the property of consciousness is always and everywhere the same.
"Properties" are a human construct; a creature with a different range of vision would see our "whiteness" as something very different. The idea of universe as information does appear to correspond with the reality of universe as energy interchange but leaves out the quantum mechanical effects of coherence and unexplained "psychic" phenomena. So can information exist without an information processor? If the universe is information what is the operating system?
Posted by: MarkL | May 10, 2008 at 08:53 AM
>"Properties" are a human construct
Well, this is the other way of addressing the problem of universals. The (philosophical) Realist says properties are real in themselves; the Nominalist says they are only human artifacts.
>a creature with a different range of vision would see our "whiteness" as something very different
Then use a different example - "twoness," for instance, or "roundness."
>So can information exist without an information processor?
I think consciousness is the information processor (if I am understanding the term correctly).
>If the universe is information what is the operating system?
Isn't an operating system just a set of instructions? That's what I mean by information.
Posted by: | May 10, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Talk about likely to explode some heads . . .
;-)
Posted by: Michael H | May 10, 2008 at 12:27 PM
“Our own consciousness may be thought of as a small flame lit from a larger fire, but just as the property of fire is the same in all cases, so the property of consciousness is always and everywhere the same.”
The property of the consciousness is the same but the quality of the consciousness i.e. flame is what separates us for having the pure awareness i.e. love and divine intelligence of God. We are a spark of that flame is a good analogy I think.
As we progress in love and divine intelligence that spark ignites and becomes a raging fire and we become as gods capable of creating planets, galaxies and universes. It may be these gods that are responsible for all of the creation we see in the universe with the absolute fire (God) providing the fuel for the fire.
Concerning the mind brain relationship an Alzheimer’s patient that had been ill 10 years and had not spoken a word for many years. While his sons (one a medical doctor) were visiting him their dad’s head dropped and the son said to his brother call 911 then the father lifted his head and said to his son the only words he had heard from his father in several years “do not call 911 son tell your mother that I love her and tell your mother that I am all right” and then the father dropped his head and died.
A later autopsy showed the brain was quite destroyed from the disease. This incident greatly challenges the belief that the brain being the center of consciousness.
Posted by: william | May 10, 2008 at 12:32 PM
| said: Then use a different example - "twoness," for instance, or "roundness."
I've got to agree with the Nominalists, then. A photon takes no notice of twoness, roundness or most of the other catagories we believe in. What affects what the universe is made of is real, what doesn't isn't.
I brought up the problems I have with the pure information theory because I belive it implies a "processing substrate", a computer that runs the universe as a program. This implies a "computer as God" which continuously calculates the information we see as the energy interchange that makes up the universe. This means that "psychic" or "spiritual" effects caused by objects in the program (us) which change the output are impossible, which I know from experience is wrong. Have I missed something?
Posted by: MarkL | May 10, 2008 at 02:14 PM
I tend to think of consciousness like a giant ball of light and coming off that ball of light are millions and millions of fiber optic cables. Now at the end of each of those fiber optic cables are little dots of light. Each one of those little dots of light thinks it's a separate, unique, individual dot of light, but in actuality each one of those dots of light owes its' existence to the ball of light it arises from, and in actuality each one of those little spots of light at the end of each fiber optic cable is connected to each other through the source of all light.
"I remember understanding the others here.. as if the others here were a part of me too. As if all of it was just a vast expression of me. But it wasn't just me, it was .. gosh this is so hard to explain.. it was as if we were all the same. As if consciousness were like a huge being. The easiest way to explain it would be like all things are all different parts of the same body." - excerpt from Michelle M's NDE, http://nderf.org/michelle_m's_nde.htm
Posted by: Art | May 10, 2008 at 02:58 PM
FYI, the second comment is mine.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | May 10, 2008 at 03:00 PM
I think the original idea of us all being sparks from the divine flame comes from Hildegard of Bingen. It is a beautifully graphic image, and I have always loved it.
"computer as god" = Ahriman = Demiurge = Satan. Undifferentiated Consciousness must first conceive of Differentiation - the Original Fall from Perfection. It is defined by some as a deliberate falling asleep, or turning away from the True Self to the dream illusion of Maya. Are our dreams the result of collusion by the differentiated sparks, or are we but the fractured dream of the First Flame?
At any rate, MP is right – the Universe of forms, whether an illusion or not, clearly has the appearance of order, whether that order is created in the mind of the beholder or is in some way separate from the beholder. It may well be that there are hierarchies of order (god, angels, devas) keeping the dream going.
I have noticed in my own dreams, that even when they are of minimal interest, my mind will do anything to keep them going – it is as if we are set up to keep the illusion in place. It would explain why it is so hard to escape it and why ever increasing numbers are willingly being born into it (witness population growth). But hey, the dream must end. It is finite!
Posted by: Ross W | May 10, 2008 at 03:01 PM
I thought it might be appropriate to share my code of life at this point in this conversation about consciousness. It's a little ditty I borrowed that's widely attributed as a variant of a quote from Soren Kierkegaard, but that attribution is still in debate.
"Life is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be lived."
Basically, I'm just saying we don't have a choice to be observers or non-observers of the universe. We do have a choice, however, to live wisely and fully, enjoying the "mystery" of it all.
Why do you want to know what the cosmos is all about? It's about wonder and awe, isn't it?
Posted by: Marcel Cairo | May 10, 2008 at 09:46 PM
For those who missed my post at Windbridge Reflux, its Mothers Day here in Oz so I guess its tomorrow in the US, dont forget the phonecalls and flowers guys, parents aren't around forever, so make the time if they are still around and for those with wives, here's my recommendation, a nice beauty & spa package will work a treat :-)
Posted by: Hope Rivers | May 10, 2008 at 10:18 PM
The implications of what MP said only really hit home overnight. So I got up at 5.40am this Sunday morning to write this down.
If the Universe is a dream of the Mind, then it ought to be possible to work out the architecture of the dream using the tools of the mind – contemplation, creative thinking and logic.
Instead of inductive logic, from the particular to the general, we could start with deductive, top-down logic. We could consider the Ultimate Attributes (Archetypes) of the Divine and deduce, assuming that the Divine must be dreaming WHAT HE IS NOT, what the nature of the dream must be, including, in the end, the so-called laws of physics and the laws of life (biology).
To start this process off, we could contemplate the synonyms for the Divine:
OMNIPRESENCE . Timeless in nature, by dreaming that we are not ALWAYS PRESENT, the dream would necessarily involve Time, ie the past and the future. And indeed, we find that we are never ‘present’ in our life-dream, only moving from the past into the future (there is never a moment of still presence in our finite minds). We also necessarily get the idea of the Beginning and the End from this. In other words, as soon as the dream starts, the eternal present is lost.
EXISTENCE – If we did not exist, what would non-existence be like? Can we turn our attention away from wakefulness and awareness, fall asleep and dream?
INFINITY – by falling short of Infinity in our dream, we necessarily give birth to the idea of boundaries – the expanding bubble of the Cosmos. What was a nondimensional singularity becomes 3D (or moreD!).
ETERNAL LIFE – gives us the contrary ideas of birth and death, growth and decay.
CONSCIOUSNESS/LIFE –give us the contrasting dream-idea of dead matter.
OMNISCIENCE – dream ignorance, innocence…leading to experience.
CHANGELESSNESS – its opposite change…leads to cause and effect.
Once the basic structures of the dream are in place, ie an initial understanding of WHAT GOD IS NOT (the dream being the opposite of or turning of attention away from full Waking Reality as revealed by the Archetypes/Attributes of God), then teleology comes into play, and The Anthropic principle MP linked to gives us many further clues about the evolving nature of the dream-universe .
By exposing the laws of nature, scientists are really exposing the nature of the dream, and thus helping God to discover Himself by the only means available to the ‘ONE WHO IS ALL REALITY’ –i.e. by exploring in as much detail as possible ‘what he is not’. It may be that an Idealist philosopher like Hegel has already explored these principles. But if so, they are not generally known.
Posted by: Ross W | May 10, 2008 at 11:34 PM
“Why do you want to know what the cosmos is all about? It's about wonder and awe, isn't it?”
It is the very nature of consciousness to “seek” its source. Discern rather than seek may be a more appropriate word or concept.
“Life is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be lived."
The very process of living the unknown will reveal the unknown. I.e. souls are finite spirit is infinite.
It is a perfect (karma) and absolute closed evolutionary system (Oneness) but to our unawareness of reality it appears to us as an open system. This is the fallacy of free will. One cannot escape the discovery of the essence of their Being. I.e. Infinite Oneness.
Asking why may not reveal the reasons for consciousness evolving to a level of seeking “what the cosmos is all about”. Asking, “what is the meaning of the Absolute revealing Itself” may allow us to discern the very qualities of the Infinite within us.
Awareness is/becomes dynamic (expresses its qualities) through consciousness.
Just some random thoughts. Happy mothers day.
Posted by: william | May 11, 2008 at 12:23 AM
Oops I just reread my mothers day comment, I wrote Reflux instead of Redux, not meant to be a joke this time round, just an innocent typo slip up :-)
Great list of books Prescott, I wish I could retain as much as you, sadly its a little like eating Chinese with me.
Posted by: Hope Rivers | May 11, 2008 at 12:45 AM
“We could consider the Ultimate Attributes (Archetypes) of the Divine and deduce, assuming that the Divine must be dreaming WHAT HE IS NOT”
There is no other way for oneness to express its oneness without expressing what it is not.
For infinite perfection to express what it is not, we who are the actors in the “dream” must be unaware of our true reality. That is the role of ignorance i.e. unawareness. The dream (consciousness) is impossible without this unawareness.
We only exist as personas because of our ignorance. Without ignorance there is no perceived us. Of course keep in mind the origin of that ignorance or unawareness is innocence.
The loveliness or grace of God is always with us, as we were created innocent of our true reality. It certainty does not usually appear that way but appearances are deceiving.
If we truly knew our exact reality we would never sin or miss the target. Our sins were born in innocence, which in our lack of awareness we call transgressions.
Ross W: I hesitate to use the word dream. It fails to fully express the perceived reality of life, as we know it.
Posted by: william | May 11, 2008 at 01:38 AM
I have tried to imagine being an individual at the same time as being undifferentiated from the whole. I guess the closest I have come is to imagine an ocean as the whole and myself as a little eddy - one those little whirlpools that are recognisable as individual entities but are nevertheless "ocean stuff". The real stuff is, of course, consciousness: God stuff, if you like.
I think that consciousness is trying to know itself and, because there is nothing outside of itself (something of a nonsense statement even to talk about an outside because that is relative and ... well, I'm not going there right now) the only option is to create form within. The Gnostics have described this process of creating a hierarchy of conscious demi-gods who, in turn, create other conscious entities, and so on. The material world is, therefore, just one avenue of exploration and self-discovery (although the Gnostics consider it to be a divine balls-up).
Posted by: Dave C | May 11, 2008 at 02:09 AM
"I think that consciousness is trying to know itself and, because there is nothing outside of itself"
Many enlightened Hindu’s also believe this to be so.
"The only option is to create form within"
Oneness can only become twoness or more through the creation of Beings that are unaware of their origin and perceive themselves as separate entities and do not have the love and divine intelligence of this Oneness.
As the Buddhist state we are like a goose in a bottle trying to break free of our limitations.
Will we succeed? I believe so. There appears to be an evolutionary law of progress that moves us forward on a spiral curve in love and intelligence. This blog and religion and science and all seeking for truths and “moral” development reveal this law of progress in action.
Posted by: william | May 11, 2008 at 09:37 AM
William: "I hesitate to use the word dream. It fails to fully express the perceived reality of life, as we know it."
But presumably God's dreams have a lot more power than human dreams (which are dreams within dreams). Another of God's attributes is LOVE, which means he dreams of fear. That is unfortunately a powerful influence in our lives...and I agree, often feels more than a dream. The worrying thing is that it may, by this reckoning, be an essential element of finite life. Hmmm.
Posted by: Ross W | May 11, 2008 at 10:03 AM
The physical universe seemingly begins as a conception -- a mental conception -- and it has meaning, function, and identity only when viewed from the perspective of consciousness.
What is the relationship between this cosmic consciousness and our own?
Truth may be the most misunderstood concept we have. And what may be most misunderstood is that realization of genuine truth involves the comprehension that it’s not subject to copyright, and it can’t ever be directly communicated. It can be pointed to, but it has to be realized by each individual.
I’m not sure whether this will be a helpful contribution to this discussion or not, because I’ve never been able to grasp it myself from a logical perspective. But I’ll try and explain what I understand, and if someone wants to try and fit into a rational framework, they’re more than welcome to try.
The fundamental realization that I had was that although it had always appeared to me that the cosmos existed as external information, the reality of it was that the cosmos actually originates from deep within consciousness itself. What’s hard to grasp is that we all share this consciousness, we’re connected to a greater whole, but it and consequently everything else, appears to be separate from the perspective we are accustomed to. So, MP is correct in suggesting that the physical universe has meaning, function and identity only when viewed from the perspective of consciousness, but what’s not widely understood is how the meaning, function and identity of the cosmos is altered spectacularly from various perspectives. From the highest perspective I have experienced, the cosmos is seen both as completely imbued with the divine life force, and understood to have its source in consciousness itself. Further, the greater consciousness itself is understood to have no actual form at all. The cosmos somehow emerges from a formless sea of energy that one is cognizant of only through the overwhelming feelings of unconditional love and gratitude that are inherent to it.
I began researching spiritual thought only after I had the experience, and it’s very clear to me that all of the religions and mystics are attempting to direct others to the same realization. What I think prevents people from understanding it is twofold. First, there is no full understanding of consciousness itself at this point, and consequently, there is very little grasp of the concept of ‘levels of consciousness’, and how an individual’s perspective is altered relative to whatever level they are experiencing in a given moment. I think that the greatest residual of my realization is that I understand that we’re all on a continuum. Our experience changes relative to what thoughts we choose to give life to. All anyone can do is to keep looking in the direction that makes sense to them – the paths to understanding are unlimited. To illustrate, consider the following quotes:
The first is from Thomas Hora, whom William has mentioned regularly. The second is from Sydney Banks whom I have mentioned regularly. Others will find it through Christianity. Others through Yogananda or Krishnamurti or Buddha or Richard Bucke.
There are many paths, but maybe the best advice in this thread comes from Marcel when he writes, “We do have a choice, however, to live wisely and fully, enjoying the "mystery" of it all.”
Posted by: Michael H | May 11, 2008 at 11:06 AM
For whatever it's worth, there's an interesting comment in Conversations with Yogananda, when he says, "Remember this. It takes very, very, VERY, good karma even to want to know God!"
Yogananda understood much more than I do, and this leads me to believe that anyone reading or contributing to this thread is much closer than they think they are.
Posted by: Michael H | May 11, 2008 at 11:23 AM
Nice thought, Michael H!
Posted by: Ross W | May 11, 2008 at 11:59 AM
From the highest perspective I have experienced, the cosmos is seen both as completely imbued with the divine life force, and understood to have its source in consciousness itself.
The problem I always have with this kind of report is, how can you know that your perspective was valid and not just hallucinatory or deluded? I think even if I had a peak experience like this, I would find myself questioning it later.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | May 11, 2008 at 12:52 PM
"I think even if I had a peak experience like this, I would find myself questioning it later."
Good point Michael. A Christian may have a peak experience that revealed to them that Jesus was only path to heaven.
A Muslim may have a peak experience that revealed to him he should be a martyr and kill those that do not believe as his does.
My approach has been to use a cross validation approach and with enough evidence one might get some insights into the validity of these peak experiences. Not a perfect system but maybe better than having no check and balance system. Wishful thinking, beliefs, and paradigms can overwhelm the rational mind.
I believe valid peak experiences have several things in common. One the person struggles to put into words what they experienced. Another if the peak experience is religious in nature it may be more about beliefs than reality. Another I think those that have these valid peak experiences feel a need to show greater than before love and compassion for all of humankind indeed all of life and these experiences are more spiritual in nature than religious.
Not sure my dream or visitation or whatever was a peak experience but it sure showed me something that I have not experienced on this earth. Later research revealed that this type of dream is called a visitation. As a materialist at the time I wanted to be shown the other side in materialistic ways not in a dream.
Do I have doubts sure? But those doubts have caused me to do 17 years of research into the mysteries of life. The most fascinating research and study I have ever done. How little is known by most people about the evidence that exists that highly suggests there is more to this world than meets the materialistic eye.
I still remember the first night at a motel room where someone at one of my seminars had loaned me Dr Hora’s book “beyond the dream” and on the very first page he stated, “if we don’t know that we do not know difficulties arise”.
Just by reading those words I knew I had found a book with much wisdom in it. After teaching hundreds of seminars on kaizen, Toyota production system, and six sigma I knew from first hand experience how true those words were.
Posted by: william | May 11, 2008 at 01:40 PM
Good point Michael. A Christian may have a peak experience that revealed to them that Jesus was only path to heaven.
What this really means is Jesus is the way to a most high heaven. We in our incomplete state wouldn't be able to achieve this "plane".
Posted by: Hope Rivers | May 11, 2008 at 04:55 PM
Also he demonstrated the way while he lived on the earth and spoke of how to attain it.
Posted by: Hope Rivers | May 11, 2008 at 04:57 PM
The problem I always have with this kind of report is, how can you know that your perspective was valid and not just hallucinatory or deluded? I think even if I had a peak experience like this, I would find myself questioning it later.
This is the question that can never be satisfactorily explained, Michael. The answer has to do with the overwhelming feelings that are associated with the experience, there's a 'knowing' to it. There is also a permanent change in outlook from that point forward. Even if I wanted to believe I was hallucinating, I’d find it impossible to do so. Still, I have questioned it, as many do. Bucke mentions in Cosmic Consciousness that many who have the experience question their very sanity when they look back on it. In my case, as I began to explore countless lines of mystical thought, I continually encountered parallels to what I had understood. I still do. Eckhart Tolle has alluded to the same thing in some of his writings. But even those parallels aren't as clear until someone has had the experience – I see clear parallels to Taoism in the parable of the mustard seed, for example. The idea of a ‘kingdom of God within’ has additional resonance for me as well.
I understand that it makes no sense from a rational standpoint – I had the experience, and I can’t make sense of it. If there is anything in the earlier post that I might suggest others consider, it’s not in the particular details of what I understood anyway. If there’s value in what I wrote above, it’s in the idea that we are all relating to existence at this moment from a particular level of consciousness, and that our perspective changes relative to wherever we are on the continuum. I think that what I experienced was simply how things look from a particular level of consciousness, and that everyone on earth has the potential to move to a higher level than they've experienced before at any given moment.
Posted by: Michael H | May 11, 2008 at 05:07 PM
Talking about peak experiences, I had one three nights back. I pray & meditate every night and often after prayer I find the "stillness" once my thoughts subside. It is in this time I receive messages, usually its the same source as I recognise a deep peace and a male energy that influence my thoughts and being. It's hard to explain but, you know its not your "head voice", the pace, tone and feel very different to my own thoughts.
Anyway first time ever I was doing my usual prayer, in deep conversation and totally absorbed by it when a spirit came through and interrupted with the words "I love you". The suprising part for me was the emotion behind it and the energy seemed female although not sure.
After much thinking about this situation I realised with all my practise I am now able to "hear" in noise and total distraction.
The unusual part for me is that this wasn't my "thoughts" taking on another tone, it was completely independent of me, maybe this is normal for more advanced sensitive's, again it just demonstrates the more you do it, the more receptive you become or at least thats what's happened to.
Hey Mark (Alexander) the other Mark:
I am interested to hear more about your OBE experiences, I have them also but mine tend to come about without inducement and occasionally :-)
Posted by: Hope Rivers | May 11, 2008 at 05:41 PM
“Eckhart Tolle has alluded to the same thing in some of his writings.”
Someone loaned me his tapes from his first book and I remember his saying something to the effect that we have fallen from the grace of God. Could not find that statement in his book but I played the tape several times to make sure what I heard was such a statement.
It appears that even a so-called enlightened person can bring their religious beliefs right into their enlighten teachings.
I also noticed several if not most so called enlightened Hindu masters doing the same thing. I think there is much variation of beliefs in enlightenment teachings. But there is also a great deal of similarities.
I suppose someone could state as an resemblance that we have fallen from perfection but without that fall there is no us. We only exist as self -perceived individual Beings due to and because of our imperfections. No imperfections no you and me, just Isness.
Posted by: william | May 11, 2008 at 11:21 PM
"We only exist as self -perceived individual Beings due to and because of our imperfections. No imperfections no you and me, just Isness."
Fair enough, William. But if you add in your ideas of evolution of the soul or Michael H's idea of levels of consciousness, we have hope of greater perfection or realisation of WHO WE REALLY ARE.
PS I always like typing "hope", Hope!
Posted by: Ross W | May 12, 2008 at 12:33 AM
“Fair enough, William. But if you add in your ideas of evolution of the soul or Michael H's idea of levels of consciousness, we have hope of greater perfection or realisation of WHO WE REALLY ARE.”
We not only have hope we may indeed have a guarantee of greater perfection. Many call this the law of progress, which is really an evolution of consciousness. I use the word may because some of my research indicates that our soul can digress so far into self hate that the soul consciousness (not the spirit) self-destructs into oblivion.
But a great deal more of my research indicates that all souls progress even if they have major setbacks. The suffering and the lack of joy in their physical and astral lives (karma) from the choices they have made due to their ignorance finally causes them to reevaluate their mode of being in the world (Astral or material) and they begin to change from self-hate to self-love.
Ross do you see my point that unawareness i.e. ignorance is mandatory for you to be a Ross and for me to be a William. Without this unawareness there is only Isness i.e. Oneness i.e. the Absolute i.e. Infinite i.e. well you get the picture.
Posted by: william | May 12, 2008 at 01:06 AM
William -yes. Clearly I am currently too ignorant to be see things from William’s perspective! ;-) If God is Awareness, we must be UNAWARENESS, if we are What God is Not.
And sometimes I wonder why people are so fond of retaining their current ignorant identity/personality that they don't want to drop that ignorance in favour of absorption into THE ONE. Such absorption must involve loss of current ignorant perspective, or at least the vast 'over-riding' of it! It probably wouldn’t mean loss of memory, though -I'd see it more in terms of Ross gaining William's memories, and William gaining Ross’ memories. But I hope I can edit them first…I wouldn’t want to bore you back into ‘Ignorant Incarnation’ again!
Posted by: Ross W | May 12, 2008 at 04:08 AM
Actually, William, thinking about that again to clarify my views– I mean we are only UNAWARENESS in terms of the limitations imposed by our perspective/ personality, as you say. AWARENESS is our true nature, though reduced to a spark in the divine flame by our blinkered perspectives.
Posted by: Ross W | May 12, 2008 at 04:21 AM
"I'd see it more in terms of Ross gaining William's memories, and William gaining Ross’ memories. But I hope I can edit them first…I wouldn’t want to bore you back into ‘Ignorant Incarnation’ again!"
Eeeeww! I could only imagine the type of memories you guy's have ;-0 Thats way too voyeuristic Ross!
Posted by: Hope Rivers | May 12, 2008 at 09:07 AM
I thought I’d add a couple of additional thoughts that occurred to me last night.
When someone describes an experience of a higher level of consciousness, as I did above, anyone who has yet to experience something similar will be interpreting it from their own level, and will find the description incomprehensible. If someone has experienced something similar, they will recognize the parallels to what they experienced. For the former, the tendency will be to see it as a description of a hallucination, or some sort of supernatural experience. It isn’t seen as ‘reasonable’ from a lower level. When I wrote that “I had the experience, and I can’t make sense of it”, I’m expressing how even I interpret it from the level that I’m currently at. It can’t be explained with logic built upon the same premises we use to construct our society.
What is important though, is this: As it was happening, it felt completely natural. As a matter of fact, it felt more natural than the level I’m currently at, and it also was completely reasonable from that perspective. The experience had a quality of, “Oh. So, this is what’s going on here.” No big deal, although the emotional component was extraordinary. It’s reasonable from my current perspective as well, if it’s interpreted within the context of levels of conscious experience. As I wrote in the response to MP – I think it’s simply how things appear from a significantly higher level than most of us spend our lives in.
As I wrote earlier, the residual from the experience is that I understand that we are all living on a continuum. I look around at the soon-to-be seven billion people on earth, and I see ‘levels of consciousness’. Here in the States, I see the prisons filled with those on the lowest levels. The depressed and despondent are at a lower level too, but inflicting their upset on themselves rather than others. The majority are getting along with varying levels of material success, but are also dealing with varying levels of stress, which manifests as straying spouses, substance abuse, food addictions and a host of other issues. A smaller group lives above the stress line, and they regularly access the higher consciousness, with the feelings of gratitude and compassion inherent to that level. It’s a continuum, and the very highest levels are the levels of Christ consciousness, or Buddha consciousness. These are the levels that have the exotic names: Samadhi, Nirvana, State of Grace, Mêtis.
I think most anyone can visualize this illustration, but where I think most are mistaken is in believing that people are static, or that the higher levels are accessible only after tremendous effort. As I see it, people are static to whatever degree they believe they are, and I think the higher levels are our natural state. All of the levels are perfectly natural levels, and we remain at a given level only until we recognize that there are levels. At which point we see ourselves as on a continuum. But I also think that realizing this goes beyond just accepting it intellectually. I think our chains are our beliefs, and breaking the chains involves seeing what is doing the believing, analyzing and intellectualizing.
Posted by: Michael H | May 12, 2008 at 10:25 AM
"Eeeeww! I could only imagine the type of memories you guy's have ;-0 Thats way too voyeuristic"
It's OK, Hope, William and I are not yet an item ;-)
(Care to make it a threesome?)
Posted by: Ross W | May 12, 2008 at 01:32 PM
MH: "compassion and gratitude" as a sign of a high level of consciousness.
This is interesting, when you think about it. I wonder if such feelings of compassion and gratitude would automatically catapault people out of nasty environments like prisons and crime-ridden estates?
It has been said that the great masters don't seem to be incarnating in the West! Explains why I'm still here, though!) :-(
Boddhisatva, where are you? Mr Obama perhaps?
Posted by: Ross W | May 12, 2008 at 01:53 PM
I wonder if such feelings of compassion and gratitude would automatically catapault people out of nasty environments like prisons and crime-ridden estates?
Obviously not in a physical sense. What is interesting though, is that learning to create some mental distance between thought and reality has had some powerful effects in community applications and prison populations, and discovering levels of consciousness has a direct relationship to understanding that. The entry on Health Realization at Wiki mentions some success stories.
If these are the results possible in dysfunctional communities, what is the potential for the understanding for the rest of the world?
And you're already the Bodhisattva, Ross. You just haven't realized it yet. ;-)
Posted by: Michael H | May 12, 2008 at 02:53 PM
Yeah Michael the same can be said for Christianity understood.
The church I go too is brimmed full with reformed drug addicts, ex criminals, prostitutes, adulterers and yes even converted homosexuals, now this is no exaggeration. The message of Christianity as a way of life (spiritual) and not as a religion misunderstood, has impacted many and reformed their lives to the point of incredible transformations.
The problem I see is when it's conveyed incorrectly it has the opposite effect. Also alot of damage over the centuries due to this has created a stigma and instant block for some people to even want to look into it further (I was one of them, it's only been the last 10yrs for me that I decided to change my attitude and be more open and approach it without the judgement). I had come out of a New Age background and had looked into Buddhism back then also and there's lots of good stuff in that too.
I agree with the levels of consciousness and I don't with what Ross pointed out, that it has been said that "it appears there are no Masters coming out of the West".
That's just a whole lot of baloney and lets not even put that "out there" to begin with. I mean how limiting is that. I don't see people sitting in mountain retreats isolating themselves from the world as the answer to superior enlightenment either. Think about it, does that make sense to you? If God had wanted us to be solitary and renounce our sexuality and live in a state of limited interaction with other human beings, he would never have designed man and woman or opposite sexes to begin with. The fact is that design came with a purpose and life is sporn from it, which we are therefore given the task to raise families and support other families, all as part of the education of growing in "love" they way Christ spoke of. This is our ticket to "Oneness and Completion". Going beyond oneself, merging with another and desolving one's ego, selfishness and as a consequence when love grows so does compassion simultaneousy.
Of course the majority are never in this state 24/7, some are in it in longer states than others, the jolt of ego/selfcentredness is what separates us from this state. But most are in fragmented, incompleted states of "love"who get "sparks" of it.
This is where "advice" and education is appropriate, because if you where raised in a dysfunctional enviroment, the concept seems so unreal and though it may resonate somewhere deep within, it sounds almost to good to be possible and almost impossible considering all the baggage one has to offload, as our minds tell us.
But we can begin our journeys in brokeness, we can form a relationship with "God" and through this alot of stuff starts to melt away, as though the haze before our eyes slowly starts to dissapate.
The problem I see is when this happens, a part of us begins to rebel and want to hold onto the ego and therefore we do ourselves a major diservice in reaching higher peaks of consciousness. Once maturity sets in and we see that there really is no loss, only gain and with that gain comes freedom from the things that clearly held us trapped and bound in this negative state, we will choose freedom over being enslaved to our negatives.
Posted by: Hope Rivers | May 12, 2008 at 06:25 PM
It's OK, Hope, William and I are not yet an item
;-)
(Care to make it a threesome?)
Hmmm, two guys and one gal, a fantasy for some a nightmare for others.
I don't think your wives would aprreciate this latent homosexual fantasy, now where's the "love" in that? ;-)
Posted by: Hope Rivers | May 12, 2008 at 06:36 PM
“I think our chains are our beliefs, and breaking the chains involves seeing what is doing the believing, analyzing and intellectualizing.”
I think it is more than just beliefs Michael. And it is more than just self-realization. A self realized person still has a very very long journey ahead of them. Self-realization is just one step on the way to becoming that that is or should I say returning home. I think as a human we are only at the beginning stages of conscious evolution. We are still in kindergarten so to speak.
We will become spiritual teachers, workers, and guides and literally become as gods and create planets, galaxies, and maybe even universes. On going gradual continuous improvement in love and divine intelligence demands that this be so. Consciousness continually expands its ability to love and create. Until of course we reach a level of pure awareness. I.e. God.
This has always been my discussion with the advaita types. They think their journey is at an end because intellectually they believe that all is oneness and they have figured it out and they are home free so to speak.
Check very close and for most of them they have little compassion for those that don’t believe as they do. Clear signs their beliefs are more about religion then having an advanced consciousness.
I have had advaita types use foul language towards me when I question their beliefs. Clear signs they are not even self realized little lone near the end of their journey. You see if they really knew that all was Oneness then if they use foul language against me they are literally using foul language against themselves.
I suspect that even a Jesus or a Buddha may have a long journey of conscious evolution to partake in before they return home. Or not.
Posted by: william | May 12, 2008 at 10:34 PM
“And sometimes I wonder why people are so fond of retaining their current ignorant identity/personality that they don't want to drop that ignorance in favour of absorption into THE ONE”
That is a very good question Ross. Please get back to me when you have an answer to that question.
My belief at this time: The answer lies in the process of the evolution of our consciousness. It must grow and attain and develop greater degrees of love, compassion, and divine intelligence. (I.e. old souls, new souls) Many spiritually intellectual seekers hate hearing such things as they would state there is nothing to attain we are already that that is. Well yes and no. Oh those paradoxes will fry your mind.
I see a progression of consciousness in the universe. It appears there are several levels or progressions of consciousness such as what appears to be the ability of these intelligent Beings we call aliens to develop several echelons of UFO technology that are observing our earth. They may also be tampering with our progression.
We may even be a master’s thesis of one or several (team think) of those intelligent Beings on one of those UFO’s. Or who knows even a high school lab project. During political years I lean towards the high school lab project scenario.
I suspect that consciousness evolves until we become that that is. Of course realizing we were always that that is. That is the paradox of life. The process of the evolution of consciousness allows absolute awareness to express Itself in an infinite variety of expressions. Like us.
God must like having “individualized” long journeys because we sure seem to resist loving our selves and our neighbors. 47 million without health care and a mega war machine and a greed is good Wall Street may be a clear indicator of the low level of consciousness in America. Lots of new souls perhaps?
In realty the very belief in capitalism and individualism suggests a new to medium human level soul scenario.
Posted by: william | May 12, 2008 at 10:49 PM
William remember this is just another belief when you said,
"We will become spiritual teachers, workers, and guides and literally become as gods and create planets, galaxies, and maybe even universes. On going gradual continuous improvement in love and divine intelligence demands that this be so. Consciousness continually expands its ability to love and create. Until of course we reach a level of pure awareness. I.e. God"
But is this belief true or is it someone's "hope", like the many other "hopes" swimming around out there.
Regardless we can waste time dreaming about this kind of superiority whilst forgetting the simplicity of the steps to reach beyond our current states. Less talk and more action is required otherwise we are just dreamers wasting a dream and don't wait till your dead, now that would be conscious ignorance and there's no innocence in that.
Posted by: Hope Rivers | May 12, 2008 at 10:52 PM
Very interesting, all. I am starting to realise that compassion is vital to realising a higher ‘level of consciousness’. I do try to cultivate this, as it doesn’t come naturally to me, although sympathy/empathy are often there. I recall that in the “Science of Spirituality”, compassion is stated to be the higher level of sympathy. Can anyone give examples of well-known people they believe exemplify ‘compassion’ who are currently living in the West?
Posted by: Ross W | May 13, 2008 at 01:01 AM
"Regardless we can waste time dreaming about this kind of superiority whilst forgetting the simplicity of the steps to reach beyond our current states. Less talk and more action is required otherwise we are just dreamers wasting a dream and don't wait till your dead, now that would be conscious ignorance and there's no innocence in that."
Hope you do realize you just stated your beliefs. What superiority?
"Now that would be conscious ignorance and there's no innocence in that."
All ignorance repeat all ignorance is based in innocence. Without that ignorance (i.e. unawareness) there is no you to make the statements you just made or me to make the statement I just made.
We are created innocent of our true reality, which is oneness. This innocence is mandatory for the perception of individual self’s to perceive others as different as self. Therefore all acts (conscious and unconscious) that lack love and compassion are based in this innocence that reveal their selves in what we refer to as ignorance.
Pure awareness sees innocence in every act but we (myself included) see ignorance. Ignorance sees ignorance innocence sees innocence.
We may have intellectual understanding of what is right and what is wrong but desire, attachment, craving, or grasping can overwhelm the rational mind. This desire, attachment, craving, and grasping for such things as power or wealth are all based in ignorance, which has its origin in innocence.
We may say we know right from wrong and then do something that lacks love and compassion but knowing right from wrong is not understanding our true nature. Two entirely different modes of being in the world.
I found that we must come to understand the difference between knowing and understanding. The Buddhists call this understanding a knowing beyond knowing. We humans want very much to blame others and ourselves. Overcoming this desire, which I suspect, is based in self hate is much of what the soul journey is about.
We say god is perfect than when a human “sins” we say well that human screwed up. We limit God indeed we condemn God when we blame and judge humans rather than seek understanding of the underlying reality of the “sin”.
Little do the Christians or anyone know or understand that every time they call anyone a sinner and blame that sinner they have just condemned and limited God. Once we see that the origin of ignorance is innocence this becomes very clear to the mind at least intellectually.
Posted by: william | May 13, 2008 at 01:35 AM
William has some excellent ideas for cultivating Compassion: not judging, and not seeing ‘guilt’ or ‘sin’, only ignorance or innocence (“Lord forgive them, for they know not what they do”). I assume this would imply political pacifism too.
But to be more positive, one idea is to mentally bless those you come into contact with. I find this helps to make a connection to them. Another way is of course to help out whenever asked – it’s an honour to be asked to help if you have the means and ability to do so (frustrating when you don’t, of course!).
Posted by: Ross W | May 13, 2008 at 03:47 AM
Hey William you obviously read incorrectly into what I said, go back and reread that paragraph of mine you highlighted, the second word is "WE" :-)
I dont have an issue with the word "sinner" all it does is explain our incompleteness, I don't associate condemnation or guilt with it as many do, and here lies the problem, people who do this, need to educate themselves better with the Bible, the culture of the times, and deeper meanings and then they would see that it's about "love" and the word "sinner" is just a word, like "brokenness" or Incompletness" or "Ignorance".
And another thing I don't know any Christians in "my life" who go around blaming and calling people sinners, with the intent to judge or condemn, I'm not saying this doesnt happen, I know there are many "out there" who do this but whoever does I would be the first to say they aren't living life as an authentic Christian at that time. Now this is not to say they won't evolve in the future, we can only "hope" they see the light soon.
Christianity is not meant to be about blaming and making people feel guilty, it sounds to me you may have experienced this at some point in your life if thats the case, I'm really sorry yo had to endure such ignorance but get past the people and maybe study it thoroughly with openness without the added emphasis on "other people's" interpretations, thats what I did :-)
All I can say is "patience" is a virtue and alot is needed with these people and by extending it, will be better than copying them, make "love" and not "war" should be our motto (not talking sex either Ross!)
And the last thing I want to say is no one is perfect, we all stuff up, no one is better than anyone else or more special or more worthy or more anything, neither are they less. I don't condemn your beliefs or anyone else's here, we all have a relationship with God in whatever form that is, and it's unique to each and everyone of us, it's not a competition to become senior "Yoda" on MP's blog either;-) Its probably a worthy goal to get beyond getting rattled by others beliefs and appreciate the beauty within everyone and be compassionate instead of holding grudges or being angry over anyone's "ignorance":-)
I think you sound like a swell guy William and whatever your beliefs, I like you as a person from the many things you have said about yourself, the efforts you put into sharing and giving to people, to the children and at the end of the day, that does matter:-)
Posted by: Hope Rivers | May 13, 2008 at 04:33 AM
Ross asks "Can anyone give examples of well-known people they believe exemplify ‘compassion’ who are currently living in the West"
If they are well known Ross that already would raise a question mark. The most giving and compassionate people do so without the fanfare, they don't need or seek it, they just live it. One must question "fame" for spiritual purposes and using it as a tool to market and make money but in saying this if the money is going to help the poor, save lives etc then it has a purpose, like Mother Theresa.
But Yogis or Christians or any self proclaimed spiritual leader living off the fruits of peoples donations and buying rolls royces and multi million dollar homes speaks volumes.
The pastor at my church (which makes millions a year) earns a basic income like any other staff member in the church, to me that represents living christianity authentically. This doesnt mean he can't go out and buy stuff like we all do and invest what he earns, that would be totally unfair to expect that.
Posted by: Hope Rivers | May 13, 2008 at 04:54 AM
"it's not a competition to become senior "Yoda" on MP's blog either;-)"
Brilliant, Hope! Of course it is! Prize goes to Michael H, of course ;-)
Posted by: Ross W | May 13, 2008 at 05:13 AM
"If they are well known that already would raise a question mark"
Yes, Hope, you may well be right...Go to the top of the class!
Posted by: Ross W | May 13, 2008 at 05:17 AM
Ross I couldn't resist a couple of Yoda quotes :-0
Remember, a Jedi's strength flows from the Force. But beware. Anger, fear, aggression. The dark side are they. Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.
Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm. And well you should not. For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes. Even between the land and the ship
Oh yeah......May the force be with you ;-)
Posted by: Hope Rivers | May 13, 2008 at 05:57 AM
Size matters not?
God was not big, he was not small,
He was not short, he was not tall,
He had no real size at all;
He couldn’t tackle, ruck or maul,
He couldn’t scream or shout or call,
He couldn’t talk or even drawl;
He felt no breeze or winter squall,
He saw no farm or urban sprawl,
He wore no suit or woolly shawl;
Hence the Big Bang, known as ‘The Fall’
Which expanded God into a ball
As fast as light, but overall,
I’d slow down God, down to a crawl,
I’d even risk a sudden stall,
-What if you hit a big black wall?
Posted by: Ross W | May 13, 2008 at 11:55 AM
So I pop into the New York Times today to see what David Brooks is reflecting on, and imagine my surprise to see him discussing what he’s calling ‘neural Buddhism’. After a brief discussion of the arguments put forth on by the militant materialists over the past decade or so, he goes on to discuss what neuroscience is heading.
The italics are mine. Two things occur to me here. First, note that he suggests that science and mysticism (not religion) are joining hands. Secondly, a God that can “best be conceived as the nature one experiences at those moments, the unknowable total of all there is”, is the God of the idealist.
I’d add that a signal that ”big cultural effects” may already be underway is evidenced by a column of this nature appearing in the New York Times. Those cultural effects will reach fruition when it’s completely understood that the genuine “mystics” are describing the real.
And Ross, I can’t be Yoda. MP assumed that title on Marcel’s radio show awhile back.
;-)
Posted by: Michael H | May 13, 2008 at 01:33 PM
That's quite a paradigm shift, we're heading for, Michael H, if it's widely shared. I always suspected that Mr Dawkins and co were fighting a rearguard action against forces that will one day overwhelm them.
Posted by: Ross W | May 13, 2008 at 01:50 PM
"Love is vital to brain development."
"The ways are but two: love and the want of love."
Chinese sage.
"Love is vital to soul development."
William
Desert dweller
and dessert dweller
Posted by: william | May 13, 2008 at 04:09 PM
Yoda can be anyone, I was refering more to the competitiveness of displaying oneself as superior in knowledge/thought regarding the spiritual, although the real Yoda from the show (not blog), was quite humble and strangely cute.
Yoda's got some interesting beliefs too especially this one;
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”
Is it so bad to suffer?
I get the feeling here Yoda would like to avoid suffering which would also equal avoiding to learn from that and maturing from whatever one is suffering. I think suffering can lead to the most positive outcomes in spiritual growth, therefore Yoda aint all he is cracked up to be and certainly in the case of this quote, hasnt really put much thought into it.
So there Yoda, you don't know it all after all ;-)
Posted by: Hope Rivers | May 13, 2008 at 05:15 PM
http://www.positivityblog.com/index.php/2008/05/09/gandhis-top-10-fundamentals-for-changing-the-world/
this is a link to a website I found that list ten rules for change by a pretty famous guy.
my personal favorites are one, seven, and ten.
Posted by: william | May 13, 2008 at 10:32 PM