An enlightened theory about the higher civilizations in the past

**<8>** · 26th April 2012 18:04

Hi..

I would like to try to establish if the people from the ancient time really were enlightened.
And I am thinking about those we call the higher civilizations, as far as I understand, the names and stories about the egyptian kings.
Is that they were never the real pyramid builders and a similar theory applies in south america and so on.
But is there any clues if the calendars where from the builders and so on??

1. Real enlighten people would never have a king or a ruler of any sort.

2. Even if enlightened people could invent the calendar, they would only do so for practical reasons, it would always be secondary for an enlightened one.
Because enlightened people would know that time is just an illusion, as the sun sets and rise is just in the perspective of the beholder.
And it would only draw you further down into unconsciousness, if you lived your life by time as we do.

3. Predicting the future, (I suppose it has to do with time to) never the less predicting anything is NOT enlightenment in a nutshell.

4. Many pyramids seems to have been built after star constellations, in honor? or respect? an old home? communication? who knows!
An enlightened person doesn't have to honor or respect anyone, he/she only interest IS allowing all that IS to be.
Respect implies you have to respect one for something, even if you say I respect you for who you are implies that you are unconscious about that we are all one.
And they would know that the whole universe is a experience and there is no home here it's just a experience.
Or to honor something or someone by building it after some stars, (do I have to explaine?)

5. If I understand right, there is a theory about Aliens interfering and might even be the architect behind the pyramids.
I would have to agree that theory make a lot of sense if you looking for enlightened people.
Because even though they had the technology, I can see the lack of enlightenment.

6. I would suggest that enlightenment civilization would leave little clues behind them.

P.s..Feel free to express yourself, you might have thoughts or facts that you like to share.

..8..

**donk** · 26th April 2012 18:13

it is hard to imagine any enlightened civilizations, as we have never experienced one, even in our stories of ancient ones--it is within the context of what we have (definitely not enlightened).

What's the difference (ie what is I wanted to contribute)?

I believe the difference is that those in the top of the pyramidal heirarchy purposefully supressing real knowledge from (which necessitates their straight lying to) those below. We can never know what a true enightened civilization is because any knowledge/wisdom about them is kept from us. (please note--this is coming from a person with absolutely NO direct line to a higher dimensional being, so therefore takes everyone who does with a grain of salt).

I really like your ideas...especially on "letting sh!t be" aka accepting reality no matter how offensive it is to our programmed ego.

**markpierre** · 26th April 2012 19:01

Whoever said the ancients were necessarily enlightened? Well, someone must have said that because i didn't.

The 'ancients' were us, trying to get here. Guess what?

It doesn't matter that we forgot all that cool stuff. We have other cool stuff. We had to get down and dirty for a while.

It's all good.

I think you're right , an enlightened human is mostly just homesick.

**nearing** · 26th April 2012 19:06

Read up on the Yuga cycle (Satya, Treta, Dwapara, Kali) and Plato's Great Year (Golden age, Silver age, Bromze age, Iron age) and the Precession of the Equinoxes.

Then watch The Pyramid Code by Carmen Boulter and the documentary called The Grreat Year by Walter Cuttendun.

You will see that, indeed, they were enlightened in the past (Satya and Golden). In this age we are told that people 'understood God'.

**<8>** · 26th April 2012 19:14

Posted by markpierre (here)
Whoever said the ancients were necessarily enlightened? Well, someone must have said that because i didn't.

The 'ancients' were us, trying to get here. Guess what?

It doesn't matter that we forgot all that cool stuff. We have other cool stuff. We had to get down and dirty for a while.

It's all good.

I think you're right , an enlightened human is mostly just homesick.

Thanks MarkPierre..

I would have to agree with you.
But being enlightened is when you really start enjoying your experience, because you know who you really are.
Not in your mind, but you know it in your heart and that's shines through the form as in the body you are using and it affects people all around you.

..8..

**<8>** · 26th April 2012 19:21

Posted by nearing (here)
Read up on the Yuga cycle (Satya, Treta, Dwapara, Kali) and Plato's Great Year (Golden age, Silver age, Bromze age, Iron age) and the Precession of the Equinoxes.

Then watch The Pyramid Code by Carmen Boulter and the documentary called The Grreat Year by Walter Cuttendun.

You will see that, indeed, they were enlightened in the past (Satya and Golden). In this age we are told that people 'understood God'.

Hi and thanks Nearing..

Maybe you have a few examples you like to share, that make you think. that's why you feel they were enlightened.

P.s please feel free to enlighten me..

**nearing** · 26th April 2012 19:46

Satya Yuga: enlightenment and simple living

What we can conclude from the finds of the New Archeology is that the “footprint” left behind by the so-called stone-age hunter gatherers, now considered to be much more advanced than previously thought, could be the same as the “footprint” left behind by people living in descending Satya Yuga, as we can envision their lifestyle from the description given us by Sri Yukteswar. A small population of spiritually enlightened people, living simply and lightly on the earth, would leave behind the same evidence of their presence in the past — small settlements and simple artifacts — as we associate with early man.

Even if Satya Yuga man did have more advanced capabilities than the new archeologists ascribe to this era, such as metallurgy and the manufacture of textiles, no evidence of it would likely have survived. Items made of fabric, wood, metal, plastic, even concrete, will only last a few thousand years, leaving behind almost no trace of their existence. Even the artifacts of our “mighty” civilization, let alone the simple structures and artifacts of 10,000 B.C., will not withstand the natural forces of disintegration arrayed against them. About the only material that lasts through thousands of years is stone.

The absence of fabric or looms does not conclusively prove that early man wore ragged furs. It is possible that woven cloth and wooden looms did exist and have simply disintegrated with time. The fact that the earliest art works we know of are cave paintings, does not preclude other paintings having been done on materials that have long since turned to dust. The absence of jewelry, or metal tools, does not necessarily mean early man did not know how to work metal; it simply means that none has survived corrosion, oxidation and disintegration, or that they were simply handed down, reused, or re-formed for millennia, as things of value tend to be.
A disinterest in physical possessions

Even if it were the case that the only tools, artifacts, and structures made by Satya Yuga man were made of stone, we need not therefore assume that the people of that time were ignorant and primitive cavemen. During Satya Yuga, the capability to control the environment and to manipulate matter to satisfy simple needs, might have naturally led people to a disinterest in physical possessions and personal comfort; they might have been content to use the simplest of tools when and as they needed them.

It is difficult for us to imagine intelligent people choosing to live in Stone Age conditions – but ours is a time when technology = good and physical comfort = obviously good, and more technology and more comfort = even better. However, in Satya Yuga, peace of mind = good, relaxation = good, simple living = good. Why one would trade a transcendent joy-filled consciousness for stress and toil, so that one could have a big house with the latest conveniences, would be as difficult for the Satya Yuga man to imagine, as it is for Dwapara Yuga man to imagine he could find happiness without them.

Given our current fixation with material prosperity, it is ironic that when people in our day want to take a vacation, they often want to go somewhere well away from the hustle and bustle of our “modern” life, away from telephones and computers—somewhere they can swim, hike, lie in the sun, be in nature, and try to relax and revive their flagging energies and, they hope, find some peace of mind. To a greater or lesser degree, most people know, without always fully understanding why, that true happiness is a state of being, not a state of having.

At the very least, recent finds, and other accumulating evidence from the past, seriously call into question the commonly held view of primitive, stone-age cavemen roaming the world 10,000 years ago. Indeed, more and more evidence points to a far longer history of civilized man than is currently assumed, and to a picture of man in 10,000 B.C. far different from the caveman of popular conception.

Source

**<8>** · 26th April 2012 19:53

Posted by nearing (here)

Satya Yuga: enlightenment and simple living

What we can conclude from the finds of the New Archeology is that the “footprint” left behind by the so-called stone-age hunter gatherers, now considered to be much more advanced than previously thought, could be the same as the “footprint” left behind by people living in descending Satya Yuga, as we can envision their lifestyle from the description given us by Sri Yukteswar. A small population of spiritually enlightened people, living simply and lightly on the earth, would leave behind the same evidence of their presence in the past — small settlements and simple artifacts — as we associate with early man.

Even if Satya Yuga man did have more advanced capabilities than the new archeologists ascribe to this era, such as metallurgy and the manufacture of textiles, no evidence of it would likely have survived. Items made of fabric, wood, metal, plastic, even concrete, will only last a few thousand years, leaving behind almost no trace of their existence. Even the artifacts of our “mighty” civilization, let alone the simple structures and artifacts of 10,000 B.C., will not withstand the natural forces of disintegration arrayed against them. About the only material that lasts through thousands of years is stone.

The absence of fabric or looms does not conclusively prove that early man wore ragged furs. It is possible that woven cloth and wooden looms did exist and have simply disintegrated with time. The fact that the earliest art works we know of are cave paintings, does not preclude other paintings having been done on materials that have long since turned to dust. The absence of jewelry, or metal tools, does not necessarily mean early man did not know how to work metal; it simply means that none has survived corrosion, oxidation and disintegration, or that they were simply handed down, reused, or re-formed for millennia, as things of value tend to be.
A disinterest in physical possessions

Even if it were the case that the only tools, artifacts, and structures made by Satya Yuga man were made of stone, we need not therefore assume that the people of that time were ignorant and primitive cavemen. During Satya Yuga, the capability to control the environment and to manipulate matter to satisfy simple needs, might have naturally led people to a disinterest in physical possessions and personal comfort; they might have been content to use the simplest of tools when and as they needed them.

It is difficult for us to imagine intelligent people choosing to live in Stone Age conditions – but ours is a time when technology = good and physical comfort = obviously good, and more technology and more comfort = even better. However, in Satya Yuga, peace of mind = good, relaxation = good, simple living = good. Why one would trade a transcendent joy-filled consciousness for stress and toil, so that one could have a big house with the latest conveniences, would be as difficult for the Satya Yuga man to imagine, as it is for Dwapara Yuga man to imagine he could find happiness without them.

Given our current fixation with material prosperity, it is ironic that when people in our day want to take a vacation, they often want to go somewhere well away from the hustle and bustle of our “modern” life, away from telephones and computers—somewhere they can swim, hike, lie in the sun, be in nature, and try to relax and revive their flagging energies and, they hope, find some peace of mind. To a greater or lesser degree, most people know, without always fully understanding why, that true happiness is a state of being, not a state of having.

At the very least, recent finds, and other accumulating evidence from the past, seriously call into question the commonly held view of primitive, stone-age cavemen roaming the world 10,000 years ago. Indeed, more and more evidence points to a far longer history of civilized man than is currently assumed, and to a picture of man in 10,000 B.C. far different from the caveman of popular conception.

Source

Thanks Nearing..

That was what I suggested here:

6. I would suggest that enlightenment civilization would leave little clues behind them.

But my post was more about the pyramid builders..

..8..

**Cilka** · 26th April 2012 20:12

I have to agree with you <8>, the enlightened civilizations would leave very little clues behind. Last year I came across a story about Gobekli Tepe. I stumbled on the information just by chance after having a very vivid dream a few nights before. Check out what Gobekli Tepe is all about, this site is absolutely amazing. The site which is located in Turkey was started to be excavated in the early 1990's. The excavaters of this site found absolutely no tools or bodies at the site. It looked like the people, who left this area for whatever reason, burried it with sand first in such a way that none of the round structures or pillars were damaged in the process. After the area was completely covered up some kind of a major flood hit the area. What is so great about this civilization is that our former experts, who are studying this ancient civilization, have absolutely no clue who they were, where they moved to after the flood, or what the round structures were used for. Now that I call an extraordinary civilization. I think that after our civilization is gone the next experts who will be studying us will find many clues of our human stupidity all over the globe. Unfortunately, these experts will have very boring data to study and their findings will be published in a very short time; not a lot of thinking will be needed for this research.

**<8>** · 26th April 2012 20:18

Posted by Cilka (here)
I have to agree with you <8>, the enlightened civilizations would leave very little clues behind. Last year I came across a story about Gobekli Tepe. I stumbled on the information just by chance after having a very vivid dream a few nights before. Check out what Gobekli Tepe is all about, this site is absolutely amazing. The site which is located in Turkey was started to be excavated in the early 1990's. The excavaters of this site found absolutely no tools or bodies at the site. It looked like the people, who left this area for whatever reason, burried it with sand first in such a way that none of the round structures or pillars were damaged in the process. After the area was completely covered up some kind of a major flood hit the area. What is so great about this civilization is that our former experts, who are studying this ancient civilization, have absolutely no clue who they were, where they moved to after the flood, or what the round structures were used for. Now that I call an extraordinary civilization. I think that after our civilization is gone the next experts who will be studying us will find many clues of our human stupidity all over the globe. Unfortunately, these experts will have very boring data to study and their findings will be published in a very short time; not a lot of thinking will be needed for this research.

Thanks for reminding me Cilka..

That was a beautiful find indeed and if I recall right they had sculpted the forms of animals everywhere..

..8..

**Seikou-Kishi** · 26th April 2012 20:44

I think one thing we have to bear in mind is that enlightment is not a binary choice; we don't have "enlightened" 1 versus "unenlightened" 0. Enlightenment is probably more a spectrum, such that all or most beings are somewhere between completely unenlightened and completely enlightened. In that case, then, when we say that some species or some person is enlightened, all we might really be saying is "this person or species is more enlightened than I am or mine is". From the point of view of even more enlightened beings, that species we consider enlightened would be more akin to us than to them.

When it comes to enlightened species not having kings or rulers. Is that necessarily the case? However enlightened a species, the species needs mechanisms to deal with those individuals who do not meet up to the norm. In our societies, we have people who fall beneath our established threshhold of normality, such that people murder, steal, etc. We have suprapersonal mechanisms for dealing with those people and ensuring that their actions do not leak through to effect the lives of other people. Of course, our governments and law enforcement forces are almost entirely corrupt and not fit for purpose, but in a more enlightened society where such things were not accepted as the norm, governments and law enforcement agencies would well and truly serve the people. Neither would they seek to attack offenders, as one might say, but to defend the others.

As for kings and rulers? Such things are decorations; the form of government is much less important than the function of government. There are arguments for republics 'every man has his say'. There are arguments for monarchy 'the only one who should have power is the one has never sought it'. There are good arguments for timocracy 'the government by the honourable' — of course, in an enlightened society that would be the norm, and the question would devolve on other forms as a manner of deciding 'which honourable people?'

And calendars... well... I think most civilisations that have created calendars have done so on the understanding that it is a practical endeavour. For all primitive societies may have had superstitious beliefs about different times of the year, those superstitions almost certainly have their origin in the fertile cycle of the year, such that the origin of the calendar, as a map of the fertile cycle, arose for pragmatic reasons such as detailing when to plant different crops and when to harvest them. If superstitions arose around that time, such as 'the harvest of crops is like the harvest of human souls' = Halloween, they are based upon pragmatic and practical reasons, not the other way around.

But why would enlightened beings find a distinction in calendars that way? An enlightened being might know that time is a function of the incarnated world and as such of a lower level of spiritual ontology, but they would recognise that as a matter of the incarnated world, life in this world would require some knowledge of the passing of time. In fact, in a society where the passage of time becomes more fluid because it is less absolute or because the more enlightened species can exercise some degree of technological or psychospiritual control over it, that actually a manner of mapping its changes would be more important: people had no real need to learn how to use a compass or the stars to chart paths until they took the sea.

But no predicting the future? I don't understand why you say this. In a society which has a much greater degree of mastery over time than do we, the ability to see things occuring not in the present moment would be more readily available to them. As we can determine where an arrow will land if we know its trajectory, for a spiritually advanced society capable of stepping some way outside time, the ability to predict the future by understanding the trajectory of present events would be a simple matter. As for the past, well... humans, as unevolved as we are, have some degree of ability to judge the past based on its remnants in the present.

But I think you're right that prediction is not itself a hallmark of spiritual evolution or enlightenment; powerful computers in the modern age are capable of deducing outcomes given a sufficient foundation of actual or hypothetical data. We say that sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic; it would do us well, perhaps, to remember that technology which mimics higher spirituality not only is not indicative of the higher spirituality it mimics, but probably indicates the opposite – that if they need to make use of such technology to carry out primarily spiritual operations, they are not as advanced as they might wish to appear.

**markpierre** · 26th April 2012 20:53

Posted by <8> (here)

Posted by markpierre (here)
Whoever said the ancients were necessarily enlightened? Well, someone must have said that because i didn't.

The 'ancients' were us, trying to get here. Guess what?

It doesn't matter that we forgot all that cool stuff. We have other cool stuff. We had to get down and dirty for a while.

It's all good.

I think you're right , an enlightened human is mostly just homesick.

Thanks MarkPierre..

I would have to agree with you.
But being enlightened is when you really start enjoying your experience, because you know who you really are.
Not in your mind, but you know it in your heart and that's shines through the form as in the body you are using and it affects people all around you.

..8..

LOL. It doesn't always affect 'others' the way the you'd think. Or the way you'd like it to. Joy is, because it is. Tap in or not, it doesn't matter. The insects are communicating with each other too, and I largely ignore them.

The carrot is, having glimpsed the outcome. You don't sustain it because you can't. You're not meant to. Any 'suffering' that continues outside of you is still you.
You can get above the battleground enough to find safety in aloofness or even your own private bliss, but that doesn't end the battle. What are you going to do, tell everyone to get their butts into bliss? Huh?
The changes that continue to occur in you eventually end the battle. It's not a one-stop trip.
'Form' is an unnatural condition. When I still see things as separate, and I do a lot of the time, I can't BS myself that I'm not still a participant in suffering.
But you''ll have to admit, nothing you did as an identity caused you to end your personal suffering if indeed you have. You just suddenly saw a light that had always been on you. The totality of suffering
ends in the same way.

How you going to teach that? And why would you? 'Teaching' by other than example, is just a mind centered-male characteristic that interestingly a lot of unbalanced feminine has to use up as well.

For me 'joy' is very private, and includes a lot of irony that seems to linger from my character. I don't know where that comes from. It's okay, it's just a character, and I enjoy it.

'Life' is joy. Anything not that isn't life. Hmmmm. Lot's of references to that. What is 'dead'? is as reasonable a question as 'what is life?'.

Focus a magnifying glass on a beetle, and see what he does. He moves away because he doesn't like it. But he moves.

I don't find 'the work' particularly amusing. Throw the term 'enlightened' out the window. It's an embarrassing idea. The beetle moved, that's all that happened.

**seigiarchon** · 26th April 2012 21:25

even among enlightened civilizations, there are people with various degrees of enlightenment..

the leaders of enlightened civilizations will be the man who is the most enlightened being in the entire civilization

it is not the concept of leadership which brings about slavery..

it is the concept of putting unenlightened people in positions of leadership and power which bring about abuses of power..

if the US president is a monk for eg, who does not need sex, money, wealth, who does not have children, family, who does not have any material attachments of any kind, how wonderful a country the US will be for such a pure evolved president will bring about policies to accelerate the spiritual evolution of the human race and not just bring about policies which appeal to the greed of the corporates (republican) or the insecurities of the common citizen(democratic)..

In other words.. if dalai lama is the president of the us.. he will concentrate on transforming the us populace into gods instead of concentrating on low-level distractions like taxes, poverty and racial injustice and what-not..

why do i call them low-level distractions? cos the issues like taxes, healthcare, poverty, racial injustice, etc etc distract people from the real issues out there.. the concealment of extraterrestial spiritual power and occult techniques which give true super-powers to humanity which allow them to transcend petty issues like poverty and injustice..

**<8>** · 26th April 2012 22:56

Posted by Seikou-Kishi (here)
I think one thing we have to bear in mind is that enlightment is not a binary choice; we don't have "enlightened" 1 versus "unenlightened" 0. Enlightenment is probably more a spectrum, such that all or most beings are somewhere between completely unenlightened and completely enlightened. In that case, then, when we say that some species or some person is enlightened, all we might really be saying is "this person or species is more enlightened than I am or mine is". From the point of view of even more enlightened beings, that species we consider enlightened would be more akin to us than to them.

When it comes to enlightened species not having kings or rulers. Is that necessarily the case? However enlightened a species, the species needs mechanisms to deal with those individuals who do not meet up to the norm. In our societies, we have people who fall beneath our established threshhold of normality, such that people murder, steal, etc. We have suprapersonal mechanisms for dealing with those people and ensuring that their actions do not leak through to effect the lives of other people. Of course, our governments and law enforcement forces are almost entirely corrupt and not fit for purpose, but in a more enlightened society where such things were not accepted as the norm, governments and law enforcement agencies would well and truly serve the people. Neither would they seek to attack offenders, as one might say, but to defend the others.

As for kings and rulers? Such things are decorations; the form of government is much less important than the function of government. There are arguments for republics 'every man has his say'. There are arguments for monarchy 'the only one who should have power is the one has never sought it'. There are good arguments for timocracy 'the government by the honourable' — of course, in an enlightened society that would be the norm, and the question would devolve on other forms as a manner of deciding 'which honourable people?'

And calendars... well... I think most civilisations that have created calendars have done so on the understanding that it is a practical endeavour. For all primitive societies may have had superstitious beliefs about different times of the year, those superstitions almost certainly have their origin in the fertile cycle of the year, such that the origin of the calendar, as a map of the fertile cycle, arose for pragmatic reasons such as detailing when to plant different crops and when to harvest them. If superstitions arose around that time, such as 'the harvest of crops is like the harvest of human souls' = Halloween, they are based upon pragmatic and practical reasons, not the other way around.

But why would enlightened beings find a distinction in calendars that way? An enlightened being might know that time is a function of the incarnated world and as such of a lower level of spiritual ontology, but they would recognise that as a matter of the incarnated world, life in this world would require some knowledge of the passing of time. In fact, in a society where the passage of time becomes more fluid because it is less absolute or because the more enlightened species can exercise some degree of technological or psychospiritual control over it, that actually a manner of mapping its changes would be more important: people had no real need to learn how to use a compass or the stars to chart paths until they took the sea.

But no predicting the future? I don't understand why you say this. In a society which has a much greater degree of mastery over time than do we, the ability to see things occuring not in the present moment would be more readily available to them. As we can determine where an arrow will land if we know its trajectory, for a spiritually advanced society capable of stepping some way outside time, the ability to predict the future by understanding the trajectory of present events would be a simple matter. As for the past, well... humans, as unevolved as we are, have some degree of ability to judge the past based on its remnants in the present.

But I think you're right that prediction is not itself a hallmark of spiritual evolution or enlightenment; powerful computers in the modern age are capable of deducing outcomes given a sufficient foundation of actual or hypothetical data. We say that sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic; it would do us well, perhaps, to remember that technology which mimics higher spirituality not only is not indicative of the higher spirituality it mimics, but probably indicates the opposite – that if they need to make use of such technology to carry out primarily spiritual operations, they are not as advanced as they might wish to appear.

Hi Seikou-Kishi and thanks for your thoughts..

all we might really be saying is "this person or species is more enlightened than I am or mine is".

That would indicate that you are unconscious and I would agree with you. Now if you were conscious as in enlightened you would allow all that IS to be.

When it comes to enlightened species not having kings or rulers. Is that necessarily the case?

There would be no desire to be king if you are enlightened, we are all one.

but in a more enlightened society where such things were not accepted as the norm, governments and law enforcement agencies would well and truly serve the people. Neither would they seek to attack offenders, as one might say, but to defend the others.

In my view, it's hard to see a government of any kind and all what goes with that, if you are enlightened and you know your true self and that this is just a experience and we are all one.
why would you need protection if you know you are immortal?

and the question would devolve on other forms as a manner of deciding 'which honourable people?'

If you are enlightened you know you are all equal beings..

But no predicting the future? I don't understand why you say this

Because an enlightened person only lives in the moment of NOW, there is no past or future. It's only a man made thing where your unconscious mind keeps you trapt.
Ask yourself, have you ever done anything in the past or future, tasted,or felt anything. If you think about a memory from the past, you do that NOW.
You may plane a thing for the future but when you are there it's all so gonna be NOW, because there can only be NOW and it have always been NOW.

But no predicting the future?

An enlightened person allows all that IS to be.
Only an unconscious person's ego mind would want to predict anything.

..8..

**<8>** · 27th April 2012 06:12

Hi..

Mods please delete this!

I've been having issues and not being able to make my words stick as I try to answer a post, I just Ping out every time.

..8..

**<8>** · 28th April 2012 19:41

Posted by markpierre (here)

Posted by <8> (here)

Posted by markpierre (here)
Whoever said the ancients were necessarily enlightened? Well, someone must have said that because i didn't.

The 'ancients' were us, trying to get here. Guess what?

It doesn't matter that we forgot all that cool stuff. We have other cool stuff. We had to get down and dirty for a while.

It's all good.

I think you're right , an enlightened human is mostly just homesick.

Thanks MarkPierre..

I would have to agree with you.
But being enlightened is when you really start enjoying your experience, because you know who you really are.
Not in your mind, but you know it in your heart and that's shines through the form as in the body you are using and it affects people all around you.

..8..

LOL. It doesn't always affect 'others' the way the you'd think. Or the way you'd like it to. Joy is, because it is. Tap in or not, it doesn't matter. The insects are communicating with each other too, and I largely ignore them.

The carrot is, having glimpsed the outcome. You don't sustain it because you can't. You're not meant to. Any 'suffering' that continues outside of you is still you.
You can get above the battleground enough to find safety in aloofness or even your own private bliss, but that doesn't end the battle. What are you going to do, tell everyone to get their butts into bliss? Huh?
The changes that continue to occur in you eventually end the battle. It's not a one-stop trip.
'Form' is an unnatural condition. When I still see things as separate, and I do a lot of the time, I can't BS myself that I'm not still a participant in suffering.
But you''ll have to admit, nothing you did as an identity caused you to end your personal suffering if indeed you have. You just suddenly saw a light that had always been on you. The totality of suffering
ends in the same way.

How you going to teach that? And why would you? 'Teaching' by other than example, is just a mind centered-male characteristic that interestingly a lot of unbalanced feminine has to use up as well.

For me 'joy' is very private, and includes a lot of irony that seems to linger from my character. I don't know where that comes from. It's okay, it's just a character, and I enjoy it.

'Life' is joy. Anything not that isn't life. Hmmmm. Lot's of references to that. What is 'dead'? is as reasonable a question as 'what is life?'.

Focus a magnifying glass on a beetle, and see what he does. He moves away because he doesn't like it. But he moves.

I don't find 'the work' particularly amusing. Throw the term 'enlightened' out the window. It's an embarrassing idea. The beetle moved, that's all that happened.

Hi MarkPierre and thanks..

Perhaps i wasn't clear enough, please bare with me and i'll do my best.

The joy I'm referring to, is from the peace within yourself, the realisation that you are more then the physical form.
It's nothing your mind can even start to conceive, it's far beyond the unconscious mind.
It comes through the formless being inside, your true self.

You can get above the battleground enough to find safety in aloofness or even your own private bliss, but that doesn't end the battle. What are you going to do, tell everyone to get their butts into bliss? Huh?

Don't get me wrong, I am not telling anyone what to do.
In my view, the suffering and pain is a necessary experience in the expansion of your consciousness. (it's how you wake up)
when you consciously aware of this, you don't see the insanity as insanity any more, it's a beautiful symphony and you are an important part of it.

The carrot is, having glimpsed the outcome. You don't sustain it because you can't. You're not meant to. Any 'suffering' that continues outside of you is still you.

That's because you still think you are the body, you might have figured it out in your mind, but you are still unconscious.
Let me give you one example, when I get a really good headache. The first thing that goes through my head is, wow this I must feel and experience, no pain killers please, because I see it as an opportunity.
To experience that pain now, one time I went to bed hungry to quietly experience those sharp pain things that you feel when you are really hungry.

Now, I want to point out that I am not a healer, I have problems sorting out a bandage.
As I allow the pain to be as it IS and just observe in silence, I can physically feel how the pain dissolves.
I can understand how this sounds, believe me I did not believe in it for some time, and even if something big would hapend to me, it would be okay.

The changes that continue to occur in you eventually end the battle. It's not a one-stop trip.
'Form' is an unnatural condition. When I still see things as separate, and I do a lot of the time, I can't BS myself that I'm not still a participant in suffering.

Ok, let me put it this way, As long as you see life as a battle or a struggle, My guess is that you raise the chance of experience suffering.
But as I pointed out above, it might be a experience you need, to wake up more.
Keep one thing in mind, it's your true self, who is turning up the heat behind the mask. It's calling for you! slowly waking you up from GOD knows how many millenias of experience down here.
But the unconscious mind is so seductive, Like a siren in my head that always threatens to repeat, Like a blind man that is strapped into the speeding driver's seat, Like a face that learned to speak.
(Last line was from Metallica) I might have to listen to that one, because it sounded like that song was about the unconscious mind.

How you going to teach that? And why would you? 'Teaching' by other than example, is just a mind centered-male characteristic that interestingly a lot of unbalanced feminine has to use up as well.

I would have to agree that you can't teach by adding more knowledge, but if you are ready as in awake enough. It's very helpful to use the spiritual teachers as a guide.
And if you try it out and still don't understand, you're not ready yet, that's all.

'Life' is joy. Anything not that isn't life. Hmmmm. Lot's of references to that. What is 'dead'? is as reasonable a question as 'what is life?'.

Well nothing really dies, it just dissolves to the illusion it really IS here in the world of form.

'what is life?

Consciousness is life, as far as I can understand it now.

..8..

**markpierre** · 28th April 2012 20:23

Posted by <8> (here)
The joy I'm referring to, is from the peace within yourself, the realisation that you are more then the physical form.
It's nothing your mind can even start to conceive, it's far beyond the unconscious mind.
It comes through the formless being inside, your true self.

That's just what 'normal' really is . You'll integrate that really fast. I just don't want you to think that something has gone wrong if you don't feel that all the time.

Posted by <8> (here)
That's because you still think you are the body, you might have figured it out in your mind, but you are still unconscious.

Actually you're wrong. But don't worry about it. Too much interpreting going on here mate. Just use what you can. The 'pearl' is that we've discovered that we can use our minds in a completely different way, and get completely different results. From that vantage you can see everything around you that still needs to be cleaned up, and you just set about doing that. It's still personal, just happening in you, but it's nothing special or particularly 'spiritual'. It's just the way the 'newman' experiences himself. If it gets cloudy again, you'll know what to do.

'what is life?
Consciousness is life, as far as I can understand it now...8..

See, that's out of context. 'What is death' was the point. I'm guessing this is all a bit new for you. Use that extra bit of consciousness to listen as enthusiastically as you respond.

**<8>** · 28th April 2012 20:37

Posted by markpierre (here)

Posted by <8> (here)
The joy I'm referring to, is from the peace within yourself, the realisation that you are more then the physical form.
It's nothing your mind can even start to conceive, it's far beyond the unconscious mind.
It comes through the formless being inside, your true self.

That's just what 'normal' really is . You'll integrate that really fast. I just don't want you to think that something has gone wrong if you don't feel that all the time.

Posted by <8> (here)
That's because you still think you are the body, you might have figured it out in your mind, but you are still unconscious.

Actually you're wrong. But don't worry about it. Too much interpreting going on here mate. Just use what you can. The 'pearl' is that we've discovered that we can use our minds in a completely different way, and get completely different results. From that vantage you can see everything around you that still needs to be cleaned up, and you just set about doing that. It's still personal, just happening in you, but it's nothing special or particularly 'spiritual'. It's just the way the 'newman' experiences himself. If it gets cloudy again, you'll know what to do.

'what is life?
Consciousness is life, as far as I can understand it now...8..

See, that's out of context. 'What is death' was the point. I'm guessing this is all a bit new for you. Use that extra bit of consciousness to listen as enthusiastically as you respond.

Thanks MarkPierre..

We might have a different view right now and that's okay.
Always nice talking with you..

..8..

**markpierre** · 29th April 2012 10:30

Posted by <8> (here)

Posted by markpierre (here)

Posted by <8> (here)
The joy I'm referring to, is from the peace within yourself, the realisation that you are more then the physical form.
It's nothing your mind can even start to conceive, it's far beyond the unconscious mind.
It comes through the formless being inside, your true self.

That's just what 'normal' really is . You'll integrate that really fast. I just don't want you to think that something has gone wrong if you don't feel that all the time.

Posted by <8> (here)
That's because you still think you are the body, you might have figured it out in your mind, but you are still unconscious.

Actually you're wrong. But don't worry about it. Too much interpreting going on here mate. Just use what you can. The 'pearl' is that we've discovered that we can use our minds in a completely different way, and get completely different results. From that vantage you can see everything around you that still needs to be cleaned up, and you just set about doing that. It's still personal, just happening in you, but it's nothing special or particularly 'spiritual'. It's just the way the 'newman' experiences himself. If it gets cloudy again, you'll know what to do.

'what is life?
Consciousness is life, as far as I can understand it now...8..

See, that's out of context. 'What is death' was the point. I'm guessing this is all a bit new for you. Use that extra bit of consciousness to listen as enthusiastically as you respond.

Thanks MarkPierre..

We might have a different view right now and that's okay.
Always nice talking with you..

..8..

That's a sweet sentiment <8>, I enjoy you too. But we don't have different points of view, we just disagree that it's special. It's just a different use of mind.

Human conceptual thinking is pure comparison. It can't identify anything without comparing it to something from memory. That's how a human is rarely 'present'.

Conscious compared to unconscious. Seems straightforward and reasonable, unless you consider that what's hidden in the unconscious isn't hidden, it's denied. It's rejected.
It's an action of mind that doesn't allow it. An aspect of consciousness, is the ability to do that.
All the darkness, all the fear, the pallor of gloom that hangs like death over every conscious activity.

We work so we don't starve, we procreate so we don't feel alone. Life on planet earth in whatever frequency we've been functioning in isn't what life is. Bringing babies into limitation isn't the mandate.
Procreating is a mandate, but not for the reasons anyone suspects. Shoe factories make shoes. We make bodies and relationships to act out awakening.

Conscious is what you're aware of. That's it. It doesn't exclude the things you don't think are so great. Including being in limitation. Hidden secrets. Including anything that occurs in space/time. Nothing could be there without it.

So we've both experienced a different state of mind, one that isn't comparable because everything is included in it. Good and bad, up and down, all one thing. Is it acceptable or not is the issue, and the solution.
What you potentially discovered is that it was always only you excluding yourself from it.
Everything and everyone that you've ever (and now) believed wasn't in on the joke, is in on the joke. What anyone is thinking or positioning their identities around makes zero difference.
And everything going on in the world and everyone who you want to compare to 'conscious' by naming them unconscious, is you looking at the same smokescreen that you used to deny reality in the first place.
Maybe having a 'point of view' is looking at the smokescreen from the other side of it. But you made it. It's entirely made up. It was always just your own ideas.
Maybe some seem like they were borrowed, but you believed them. So now you don't? Was it that simple?

But that's okay. That doesn't matter. The question is; how do you want to represent that new way of thinking? With comparisons?
How are you going to exemplify something that has nothing to do with limitation, to what you believe is limited?
You have the knowing, you have all the tools that a human needs to communicate. What could most directly convey that information?
'Be' it?
Is 'it' a lot of information? Is 'it' anything mystical or difficult or special? Does 'it' need to be pointed out, or does it just reveal itself because it can't not?

!st. Decide who 'out there' needs to hear it. Who is that 'out there'? You?
2nd. Don't tell whoever is 'out there' that they don't know it. Again; who is that 'out there'? Who are you telling? You?

So here we are - knowing that there's only one thing going on - in relationship - acting out awakening. How cool is that?

Hey just to keep this somehow 'on-topic', I postulate that this is what the ancients never did. Not that we could notice by looking into the past. That's the only place anyone has ever looked, even if it's a nanosecond ago.
But we did do it, and we're still us experiencing the effects of it now.
Not an isolated idea sitting under a tree or passing out bread and fish. Absolutely everything that's contained in my mind is included.

**<8>** · 29th April 2012 13:45