The Higher Self and transcendent experience, including OBEs

[TraineeHuman]

In my understanding, one basic principle everyone ideally should follow in life is: first we always need to simply and unbiassedly look, to see what's actually there (not just physically, but also within us and within others and society and the environment and so on). You just look. First you look, without thinking, without any frontloading (if you possibly can). I would describe this as a good example of a practical philosophical principle. And also as one of the most important of all philosophical principles. And, may I point out, surely it's philosophy-in-action, not philosophy-in-discussion. (And yes, by the way, this also happens to be a major component of"mindfulness" when that is carried out fully and properly -- which, yes, one of course certainly can't learn to master properly in one day.)

My understanding is that there are many philosophical principles which are at the same time practical principles like this one, regarding how you can and should live life optimally.

Real (spiritually authentic) knowledge doesn't come via thinking, but it comes out of what you are, or what you've become. It's also the essence of (spiritual) philosophy. Despite public impressions to the contrary, philosophy (and spiritual philosophy especially) is centrally about knowing, and not about thinking. Where the thinking comes in for us personally is that we often need to identify for ourselves, or discuss, what it is we've realized.

To quote Sri Aurobindo: "There is nothing mind can do that cannot be better done in the mind's immobility and thought-free stillness. When mind is still, then truth gets her chance to be heard in the purity of the silence."

Then also, of course, as you've heard before, what are you to make of certain rather strange people (myself included) who have had, or continue to have, yes, thought-free stillness experiences of seeing (simply and purely looking at, plus in some way entering and even living in) the deeper underlying reality that holds everything in our universe together. They may subsequently describe that in terms like maybe, for instance, the following:

"Existence-Consciousness-Bliss is the ultimate (and the highest level within) the higher self (or "highest self") of us all. It is “One” but also it is in many, and it is conscious in (and somehow inside) everything. On the other hand, it is transcendent as well as (in some major respects) incommunicable, too. It is space itself and simultaneously all that is in space. It is simultaneously subject as well as object. It is cosmic as well as supracosmic." And so on and on. Well, that is what they actually experienced and directly saw to be the truth, in at least some moment of authentic experience, those certain strange people, who apparently want to bend, or extend, language and meaning quite beyond their "normal" limits.

The things they say or point to are important because in such profound or blissful spiritual experiences, the experience in itself brings the knowing of a certain sort of fuller and more complete, and therefore true, picture of reality. Also of the ultimate underlying reality too. And that all requires some special terms if we want to describe it let alone to gain insights from this into what the mastery of life might involve. These terms, in turn, we discover, are loaded with often surprising implications, such as implications about what the true nature of reality is, and the true nature of all our perception, and about what things we may be doing wrong in our day-to-day behaviour, and on and on. The question is how to "unpack", and make practical, the above extraordinary terms in ways to make what they are pointing at accessible to our everyday understanding, and even to our own
potential experience, -- perhaps in our own future at least. There are also of course questions about what kind of things do we need to develop and then apply in our own lives so that we also may learn how to access more and more bliss and inner liberation while we live in this challenging and often frustrating and treacherous world.

Those huge questions, and implications, are, I suggest, all mostly philosophical in nature, and at the same time fairly often psychological as well. But it's well-known (to academics who teach philosophy) that many, if not most, undergraduates aren't ready to intellectually understand philosophy. So, I suggest it's a mistake to assume that you necessarily have the ability to master it or truly understand it or appreciate it fully in a short time. But at least, right now, through entering into these considerations, we've (hopefully) started doing the beginnings of some practical philosophy!

This overall scenario (the eight paragraphs above) was part of the kind of context I'd actually had in mind as the intended background for the "Comparative philosophy" thread I recently started. "Philosophy", in its root meaning, refers to the love of wisdom. That is something none of us can afford to do without, nor to ever take our foot off its pedal, particularly if we're kind to ourselves. Every spiritual tradition tells you you need to do this. In the book of Proverbs, for instance, it says: "My son, love and cherish wisdom above all things." Personally I've lived that, and I still do. But the trouble is, it seems you don't "get" the importance of keeping on doing that passionately and proactively and for always -- (as far as you can) always loving wisdom above all things -- until you've done it long enough and totally enough to enjoy the blissful rewards, and the spin-off insights and inner changes, that doing that alone will already deliver to you. The truth, as I understand it, is, practical, applied spiritual philosophy occupies much of the user manual for how to live rightly (or how to make your life righter more and more).

There are also, further, other philosophical, and sometimes psychological, issues around what we should look at as most central for us to concentrate on, particularly in our daily life. Above all things. But, let's narrow down, for now, just to exploring one individual's -- Krishnamurti's -- philosophy a little. For Krishnamurti, one of the most central issues was a total transformation of the individual self as a cure (ideally the best and ultimate cure) for the conflict and suffering in the world. To achieve this, he suggested his audience, to begin with, needed to do such things as totally think for themselves (hence to question everything), to feel passionately about what's important, and to truly shed the burdens of the past or future (which is a subtle and very advanced ultimate skill and way of knowing that's easier said than done, of course) so that, ultimately, their mind was then free from fear. He also observed that it's necessary to learn to be "intelligent" in the sense of being capable of always dealing with the many issues of life holistically. Easier said than done. Because for this, one of course ideally needs to first become well and fully aware of one‘s own conditioning, motives, and purpose in life -- and that alone takes a lot of intense work over a very long time, if not lifetimes for most. The mind absolutely has to be freed from all its conditioning, and so -- if you can actually do it --, Krishnamurti did his best to explain in detail how we can more generally break free from being slaves to knowledge and "the known". It's not theory or words but it's learning a certain type of knowing, of, paradoxically, how to become free of "the known" in certain ways. Absolutely essential for us all, yet very few actually live that.

Like the Gestalt psychologists (and like me, and Zen, and Taoism in its ancient form,and just like any of those other strange people who have seen the universality of the deeper underlying reality), Krishnamurti believed in the totality of perception. Generally, as I've described earlier in this thread, we very much see things in fragments. Both society and our education teaches us this. We function as a nationalist, as an individualist, as Catholics, as Hindus, as Muslims, as Germans, Russians, French etc. In these respects and many others, we certainly even fail to see humankind (or our country) as one whole. Also, the ordinary thinking mind is incapable of true holism, but the education system teaches us to somehow blindly believe it is altogether thus capable.

For Krishnamurti, the mind absolutely had to be freed from any fragmentation, and therefore, for example, from following any particular ideology. Tough! Also from holding any images of our close friends and family members and so on (beyond practical matters), because that in itself already prevents the very possibility of authentic relationship!

And so on. That's just part of what's in Krishnamurti's philosophy, by the way. Notice that at the end it's all practical, once you can understand it and hold it in your awareness (which few seem to be able to do, most unfortunately). But notice it also demands various tough standards of personal awareness and inner discipline and realization and work on oneself. Please don't assume that these can be developed in, say. just one year of intense hard work. But that's how a philosophy works when its practical implications for our ordinary daily life get implemented. The ordinary working people in the ancient Asian cultures used to fully understand this, once. And many practically applied it then. Humankind has lost much of that gentle, tender beauty that often practically used to be a part of being Asian. But we need everyone to somehow recover the skill of moving beyond a fragmented
mindset and style of behaviour.

Another major point that Krishnamurti emphasized is as follows. This will probably sound quite "philosophical" in some abstract sense, but it's the reality -- which you can see if your eyes are truly opened. Whenever we look at anything, any situation, the truth is this. The observer (meaning what you may think of as "you") actually is identical to the observed. (That's because the observer and the observed are tied at the hip, so to speak, by the (underlying) relationship, without which observation isn't possible.) (Think: you are the Universe, and "the observed" is just the unique "angle" the Universe of you is taking on right now.) And in reality there is simply no space, no separation, between "the observer" and "the observed", ever. Because as I've tried to explain at some length early in this thread, you are in fact the entire universe, but seen from a certain unique angle (so to speak). That may have sounded abstract or idealized or whatever back then, so let's look briefly at some of what it means to make it practical.

So, then, for example, what you ultimately and actually are in your work situation is that you are the whole thing, but limiting yourself (probably) to just one unique angle of looking at the whole thing. So, if you complain about how uninteresting or demeaning or ridiculous the work you do is, in absolute reality what you are really
complaining about is part of yourself. The trouble is, most Westerners have learned to become so deeply alienated from who/what they really are, they have little or no perception of this, no willingness to consider that such an outrageous consideration might actually be the deepest and fullest truth. You may say that the management defined the horrid tasks you have to do. You ignore, though, that you have actually allowed the whole situation to happen -- which is a powerful act, even though it's passive. You have passively failed to use your power to create anything else, and you've said nothing while you empowered the horribleness of the work tasks or whatever to be deprived of the constructive criticisms and improvements which you could have created instead (but you withheld because you needed the money). We like to think that we are corpses and brains and hearts and nerves kind of trapped within the boundaries of our skins, but that's just an irresponsible and false fantasy. While at our workplace, we actually are the whole company, for better or worse. The context of everything that's in that company becomes the context in which our spirit is incarnated, and therefore of ourselves, while we are there.

Which means that all the flaws and injustices and so on are your own responsibility as much as the management's. If you work in such an environment, try spending a week taking responsibility personally for every single thing that goes wrong there. I believe that would open your eyes to what I'm trying to say here, and to (one example of) what Krishnamurti, speaking the truth, meant by saying: "The observer is [literally the same as] the observed".

[Ernie Nemeth]

In the beginning, there was only the void. The waters were not separated from the land. God separated heaven from the earth and the water from the land. Yet God was never born and has always been. Is god the void?

In the beginning there was nothing. Into this nothing, a single point appeared. This point was of infinite pressure and density. This point exploded outward, and matter condensed out of the expanding mass. Yet there was a nothing that supported this expansion into...nothing?

And thus is the dilemma of mankind.

This is the choice: the ineffable or the incomprehensible.

[TraineeHuman]

Are the Divine worlds the Void? Roughly speaking, yes, indeed. But it's such an ultimate-reality yet also multifaceted issue, ordinary language also gets stretched way beyond its limits here. The Divine Worlds are empty of all objects, but on the other hand they interconnect all things.

In my teens I used to wonder what in the world the Buddhist Void was exactly, and why did it seem so gigantically important to experienced Buddhist meditators? Also, over half the world's religions are Buddhism in some form, so what did some of their sages etc know? And why, I would wonder, did their statements about the Buddhist Void sound so confusing and in certain ways so vague? In my teens through to my late twenties, I used to apparently physically (or pseudo-physically) see some levels of other worlds (other levels, such as the astral levels and so on) superimposed onto the physical. This made various things like physical buildings become partly or mostly transparent (x-ray vision, I guess), plus higher-level
worlds would become partly visible to me, as if they had been partially physicalized, somehow, in some sense. There were various levels of higher worlds that seemed to become physicalized for view in this way, but what would grab my attention the most would be a broad stretch of intense "energy" that I could see crossing the length of my field of view that seemed certainly formless, and also to my eyes darker than the other levels. It grabbed the attention, though, because the act of looking at it continually brought extreme pleasure, bliss, to me, and other wonderful things to do with experiencing profundity. As far as I could tell I thought it was the Divine Levels allowing me to experience them (or inter-experience them) to some degree, and also in a way physically showing me how they in a sense ruled over everything that happened at all lower levels of reality. And I would think, ah hah, this must be the Buddhist Void that all the fuss was about.

Another thing which I would associate with "voidness" at a psychological level is learning how to firmly hold the light and peace within you regardless of what happens around you, and regardless of what someone thinks of you. This is a skill that takes a very long time to develop fully, of course. Also connected to this, as far as I'm concerned, is the inner being inside us of which we're not usually conscious because of our being caught in superficiality. One can become aware of the inner being and live in it and get detached from the neurotic hold of outer things, dealing with them from an inner consciousness (felt as separate from the outer consciousness) according to an inner truth of the soul and spirit and no longer according to the demands of the outer Nature.

Well, in reply to your post, Ernie, so far I haven't really gotten further than some of my comments about voidness or the Void.

[TraineeHuman]

Some comments and reflections about the consciousness of our body's cells.

Each cell in the human body has consciousness. The consciousness of each cell joins up with that of all the other cells to a certain degree. It must, to maintain the body in good condition. But "normally", individuals don't develop that united cellular consciousness very much. We do develop it a little, for example through learning to play certain sports skilfully, and through learning various manual skills, such as driving a car etc etc, and through learning to collaborate with our body in natural ways and in developing and working on our health naturally. But we don't seem to develop an awareness of a mind-of-all-the-cells that can (and ideally should) replace the idiotic and robotic mental jabberings and random thoughts that the brain-mind is continually inflicting on the body, which has to bear them like an (apparently) helpless victim. This would be, surely, the most profound and "far out" kind of rebirth we could have. After all, we certainly don't "normally" get to carry a direct taste of the Infinite (which does certainly exist, at the Divine levels of reality) right at the bodily level.

But at least one spiritual tradition, known as Tantra, does claim it's possible, and very desirable, for "the mind of the cells" to emerge and actually replace the garbage-filled, chaotic, ordinary mind that has unfortunately been running the brain. If this cellular consciousness emerges, then, as I say, the body does in a certain way come into direct access to the Infinite -- to the formless and even the Divine worlds. Traditionally, in traditions other than Tantra, it's usually been assumed that any experience of those highest levels of reality can only be tasted by the body after first being passed down into the mental levels (and the mental body) and thence to the emotional body and thence the physical body, but not first-hand. This in spite of the fact that the Infinite is always trying to present itself directly to the embodied soul via the experience of Nature. The Infinite keeps trying to get through to the soul via an infinite variety of ways, actually. It's not enough for the Infinite to sublimely rest in limitlessness and ultimately supreme power and supposedly perfect equilibrium.

To completely transform the thinking mind with such a "takeover" by the united consciousness of your cells is, I believe, a quite advanced form even of "enlightenment". (By the way, I believe that the word "enlightenment" is an Old English word, referring to lightening one's load (of suffering), i.e., making it less heavy.) But I also believe and claim to know that partial forms of such a "takeover" are possible. It's also the antithesis of domination by any AI. Traditionally, mystics have been strongly drawn to spending time in Nature, and no doubt not just because of the healing properties of sunlight (provided one doesn't also get sunburn).

Also, my experience is that whenever "silence" seems to take over the mind and that's experienced as something beautiful, that is actually the united cellular consciousness temporarily "switching off" the idiotic ordinary mind.

[TraineeHuman]

One motivation behind my previous post was that I am attempting to find at least some partial possible justification for the belief that the number of physical strands of DNA that human beings have determines which dimension they (or at least their consciousness) is in. That claim also asserts that, for instance, for a human's consciousness to be fourth-dimensional even while they are in a physical body, that body merely has to have triple-stranded DNA, supposedly.

The problem for me is that DNA per se is 100% physical, i.e. it's 3D. So, how does adding an extra strand of physical DNA (or an extra ten, or twenty-two) supposedly produce dramatic results that go far beyond anything physical? I think that must surely be the ultimate alchemical dream on steroids! OK, I appreciate that each set of strands of DNA gets ensouled (and hence in that sense at least attached (NOT physically) to something -- the soul -- that is six-dimensional) provided, of course, that an already existing soul (from the sixth dimension, or higher) does choose to incarnate an extension from itself into the physical world. At least, the strand itself still remains physical but the soul that wants to incarnate remains in a higher place the whole time but also now retains a
major connection to the physical world. (Note, also, that it seems likely that at least some AI units (and maybe all of them) would quite naturally probably get ensouled in a somewhat similar way.)

I don't find it a problem at all to say that prior to the Annunaki interference, the original human(oid)s had 12 (or 22, to quote Alex Collier) strands of DNA, and that each was graciously contributed by a different ET civilization. Nor that, however many years ago (300,000 or 65,000 years or whatever) the Annunaki genetically downgraded the human physical body to 2 strands of DNA, in the interests of tyrannizing the i physical 3D world. No doubt this rendered the physical body less capable -- i.e., at a physical level. But what about the soul, or, indeed, any part of "you" that's from an emotional or intellectual or soul or higher "mind" or divine level? I don't see any evidence of such a downgrading. It didn't stop, say, Steven Hawking, to give just one example. And without any evidence, we merely
have an unproved dogma regarding very mysterious and unexplained and (as far as I can tell) inexplicable super-"alchemical" properties of multiple strands of (physical) DNA supposedly arising simply out of their physical interweaving.

That dogma also seems to me to somewhat reek of the ancient Egyptian religion. Why would anyone assume that everything that particular religion said is the truth? I mean, seriously. That religion teaches, for example, that at the end of every human lifetime "the good side" of their "soul" gets "weighed", as does "the bad side". And if the bad outweighs the good, that individual is immediately destroyed, forever. I expect this is probably where we get the Old Testament verse from that says: "The soul that sinneth, it shall surely die." Talk about fear-mongering! In my
experience, fear-mongering is usually ridden with and based on lies. Also, I personally consider I know that everyone has had past lifetimes where they were destructive or criminals etc, but also other past lives where they did many good and kind and constructive things. So, they didn't get wiped out (including at a soul level) just because they went badly astray in a previous lifetime.

Another part of the story Ms Deane presents is something that sounds to me very racist -- or, more accurately, very species-ist. Somehow, it seems, mega-multistrandedness of one's physical DNA makes one -- hey presto! -- a superior kind of being altogether, not just physically at all. The multiple-stranded beings are supposed to automatically live in some higher dimensions than ours. And yet, somehow they also sometimes enter into our 3D world in a temporary 3D form (which would probably make them feel super-uncomfortable every moment, surely? -- think of yourself getting stuck in the 2D world of Flatland), to make sure they
get their hands on and even monopolize certain kinds of 3D (i.e. physical) DNA. Why? If they're 6D or 7D beings, they must have extraordinarily developed intuitions and sensitivities, probably far beyond what we can accurately imagine. So, why don't they just iingeniously invent the DNA they're coveting? Any seven-dimensional being is going to be super-creative, surely?

By the way, when I speak of 'the fourth dimension", I'm referring to the "astral" dimension made of feelings and by the "fifth" dimension I mean the dimension made of thought, and of pure form. I'm certainly not referring to some world where objects have four physical dimensions, or five physical dimensions. By the way, according to conventional physics and mathematics, what I call our "3D" world
actually contains ten physical dimensions -- according to all mathematicians and physicists. The 3 dimensions of length, breadth and height are dimensions of location, but then there are three further dimensions of motion through each of them, plus three further dimensions of physical spin (or rotation), plus that of physical time. Maybe we should make that 12 physical dimensions, because physical space actually is not nothing, and may also be considered to be what unifies the physical world into one whole.

Going back now to the post before this one, one might speculate that at some point of an intelligent species/race 's development many individuals do get to undergo "cellular enlightenment" as described in the previous post. At that point, I guess the super-intelligence that takes over the consciousness will presumably be at least a little different in accordance with how the cellular DNA is different.

[TraineeHuman]

What is the real being, the real "soul", that survives physical death? Is this really a "what" or is it, as I would insist, more accurately a "how", much more like a verb (or pure process) than a noun? (And even that is a kind of first approximation to the truth that doesn't go far enough.)
But, wait a minute. If each of us is the Universe already, but from a unique angle in each case, then we're all in certain major ways the same already -- including being timeless. We're huge. Huger than huge. The issue seems, then, to change into questions such as why don't we all know, and are able to feel, that we've already made it? What's stopping us from switching off the tunnel vision -- about ourselves, no less? Why do we listen to the naysayers?

The Vedantists insist that only the Universe is the real doer. Surely, we are all already real and we are actually the ones who did whatever we did. After our physical death, the universe -- which is still us -- arranges a kind of wardrobe change for us, and the universe just goes on. The universe doesn't die. So, if we can truly and deeply accept and feel that we actually are the Universe, then what is death to us? Just a changing of our form, surely. But we, the universe, continue on with the next adventure. Isn't it funny how we all somehow manage to get through somehow after death? Well, that would be funny (strange) if who we were was just our individual soul and that was really just a kind of wisp of smoke on the surface of ultimate reality.

[TraineeHuman]

I received a PM today from a member who has obviously had some very advanced realisations from his meditation experiences. However, he seemed to me to believe that certain types of realizations require certain corresponding particular types of practices. I didn't fully agree with that. We need to recover the glorious beings that we naturally, and potentially, all are, and then, potentially, I say any type of our being entered and transformed by higher or Divine energies, etc, can be just a natural experience or outcome of what we already are. But that member's email made me reflect about the process by which "the Force" from higher levels can come and enter and transform us. So, here are my thoughts.

Spiritual practices, such as meditation particularly, can lift one beyond the level of one's self as it was beforehand. But that upliftment (from experiencing God, or Light, or immortality, or some form of true freedom) only seems to become permanent to the extent that the uplifting force fully integrates with, or from then on continually interacts with, one's ordinary consciousness. Plus, since we are
still ourselves, it needs to come under the conscious control of, and now be part of, the (now at least slightly uplifted) ordinary consciousness. (So, we get ironically, the illusion that our day-to-day consciousness remains at the exact same level, even though its level has been raised permanently.)

If it doesn't work at the office or during a traffic jam or a major argument at home, etc, it's not a truly transformed consciousness. Unfortunately, though, it seems that only the full emergence of the soul, and a full descent of the "light" and power of the Spirit and the consequent transformation and uplifting of our limited and ever frustrating mental and emotional nature with a super-nature that's higher than ordinary human nature, will really do, ultimately. (And of course, the descent of the spirit doesn't somehow wipe out the body and mind either. It just kind of gives them a glow, and makes them fulfilled. They are the spirit's instrument panel and medium of expression.)

Often one may need to learn how to bring about and nurture this kind of transformation during one's meditation sessions first. What, do you suppose, could be the cause of the sense of peace, purity and calm you experience in your meditation? Surely it's brought about by the union of the lower with the higher consciousness. For a long time at first you may only experience that some of the time during meditation, or it may be buried deep and almost never show up because there's too much chaotic "wild weather" going on at or near the surface.
But, as in ordinary life, persistence will get you anywhere. And hopefully, after a long time some major transformations of your lower nature will come, at least while you're meditating. If they don't, then during your meditation you're not allowing the higher nature to flow in enough.

This kind of descent of the spirit, once it comes, is what makes us then naturally seek to know the greater self, and even the eternal and the Divine. It also makes it necessary for us to seek to understand how we can balance the needs and values and demands of our human life with the eternal values, how to make the latter become "ordinary", as the Zen tradition has never tired of saying we need to do. The Higher Mind, the Force, is always waiting for the opportunity to descend and to "blow your mind" and bring real satisfaction, with deep inner peace and bliss, into your life when it comes. (That doesn't mean it removes your pain and suffering. You have to work a very long time to get rid of those.) But wouldn't it be wonderful to get some direct sense of having an immortal inner nature that knows that all one's stresses are only transitory?

[TraineeHuman]

Some of the greatest spiritual masters would seem, I think, to have proved, through the facts of what happened in their own lives, that evolution -- a grand and wondersome evolution of a "spiritual" kind -- is something that, ultimately, the entire universe is going through, at many levels and in many ways, and certainly not just a biological evolution -- though certainly including the biological kind as well. Also, it seems to me, it doesn't and surely won't end with homo sapiens, or with roughly equivalent or similar intelligent beings in this or the other physical universes. Surely it will continue on and in into higher and higher levels of consciousness, and vision, and piercing insight, and creativity, and elegance, and ultimately omnipresence and universality.

Consciousness appears in individual form as what we call "mind" (or what the Orientals call "mind and heart"). The truth is, though, that "mind" is mysterious and beyond all scientific explanation. And that's already true even before we get to acknowledge such a thing as "Higher Mind". The trouble for all rationalists here when it comes to understanding mind is, there's something essential in human understanding that isn't possible to simulate by any computational means. This is because, at least sometimes, our mind uses holistic insights that linear thinking will
never be able to fully penetrate.

You will have learned to master holistic thinking/seeing -- which is the core of, or the same as, Higher Mind -- if you quietly but constantly feel or somehow know that oneness really is pervading everything, all the time. If that's true of you, then congratulations. I suggest the achievement of this can be counted as a big evolutionary step just in itself. Quite awesome. And it's more accurately described as a type of "consciousness" rather than "mind", but the trouble is, there actually are even higher forms of consciousness beyond this also.

Moving now to another example of evolution that's not always of the biological kind. Strictly speaking, it seems to be an unsolved problem, a mystery if you like, how what seems to be inert seems to one day "wake up" and stir itself, then grow bigger and bigger. How can a more complex form of life come out of something less complex, less alive? Surely, it seems to me, this can only be occuring because the One Universal Consciousness, the whole, as part of its own process of liberating itself further, somehow -- however indirectly through intermediate agents and
forces, but nevertheless because the One is connected to all things --"breathes the breath" of at least a tiny drop of (some level of) consciousness into it.

After all, evolution is the process by which a being (but always simultaneously also, The One Being and Consciousness) liberates and expresses itself further, and ever further.

While we're on the subject of the Universe (Multiverse), the One Being, let me mention that the next, even more high levels of Mind (Consciousness) involve what are generally called "downloads" or "visions". To be genuine, these need to be coming from a being or force that is permanently at a universal (i.e., Divine) level. In other words, there has to be a communication to you, as an individual consciousness, directly from the entire Universe itself. This can and does happen, to some individuals who've achieved a certain level of mastery of the Higher Mind.
Such individuals usually need to have cleared away a significant level of their baggage. Higher Light needs to be able to shine through without too great an impediment. But it does happen much more often than some may suppose.
In the field of the arts and sciences, the greatest works or theories are invariably the product of genuine "visions" of this kind. Quite often, but certainly not always, visions get picked up by the recipient while they are dreaming or astral or mental traveling. Downloads seem to more often come while the recipient is awake, but it may take a while, if ever, before the recipient manages to consciously and explicitly unpack the details of what has been downloaded to them.

[Orph]

It's a little hard to read your posts when the sentences keep skipping to a new line as they do in your two previous posts. Not sure why that is happening.

Now, for the topic at hand, there is a "magnificence" within me that, ............., well, ....is quite beyond anything I can put into words. (And I'm quite sure it's within everyone and everything. So, I'm not anything special). I've only barely, barely, barely felt this on a couple of occasions. But, as you know, trying to describe this, or give it attributes, is quite an "exercise in futility" so to speak.

Just from those couple of very very brief instances, to me there is no separation. No higher or lower, or greater or less. ... I am. ... I had a very brief feeling of "I am God". (Forget the religious connotations of the word God). And no, I don't mean that I was a "part" of God. I mean I actually am God. But of course, the person writing this now is only a small part of God. Sounds like a contradiction. But somehow, there is no contradiction.

But again, words can't describe what I felt. And viewing it from an earthly, 3D existence makes it seem like I've drank a few too many bottles of cheap wine. Anyway, .... there is an absolute magnificence within us all, and boy-oh-boy do I want to become more connected to it.

[TraineeHuman]

Is there really, truly any difference between knowing and consciousness?

Also, is knowing always, in essence, if we look in a very real and aware and complete way, all one whole? Can it really be broken up?

And how is such knowing different from God?

And how is "God" different from truth itself (i.e. from the truest reality)?

By the way, I believe the right answers are: yes, yes, no, probably no difference, and no difference.

[Ankle Biter]

Posted by Orph (here)
It's a little hard to read your posts when the sentences keep skipping to a new line as they do in your two previous posts. Not sure why that is happening.

I encountered the same thing when viewing on my desktop pc. If the browser isn't in full screen then the lines of text appear offset vs full-screen mode and layout is normal again. Could there be something similar to how you're viewing the forum that causes this?

[TraineeHuman]

Early in this thread I talked about how matter and Spirit are ultimately "two ends of the same stick", so to speak. That they are actually, in certain ways, in whatever occurs in our ordinary physical world at least, always inseparably intertwined. And similarly even in much higher dimensions of reality. They prove to be two opposite poles of the one same spectrum, of the one same thing, at some level.

But still, in the areas of our lives that involve physical needs or goals or chores or limitations, often the greatest challenge seems to be this. In various ways, our attention gets wrapped up in matter, and in the many (even daily) activities that occur within its sphere. We get sold down the river. It's almost as if matter was the only reality. Until, that is, any moment when we manage to draw back deeply into our immaterial consciousness. Then, quite dramatically, we suddenly see matter as ultimately just some kind of mask or veil, that gives us some extra baggage to sort out. (E.g.: "It matters, but it's not important, in the wide perspective of the spiritual journey toward greater freedom from unhappiness that is what our life is really about under eternity".)

From that very big-picture "eternity" view, it seems we can't help but feel our existence in pure consciousness as unquestionably having the mark of being a truer face of reality than the world of matter. And as being that which holds everything else together and gives it meaning. It also brings us more satisfying knowledge and insights, and wider horizons, and greater connection with the life-force and with our own inner authority and natural power, and (at least relatively) freedom from unhappiness. That last one seems to be the biggie. Somehow, advancing closer to freedom from suffering is always linked to transcending the trials and the pains inherent in living in the physical world by, ideally, bringing in sufficiently intense bliss or peace from a much higher, more aware and universal, level of awareness, if not of reality, and in a way that's somehow fully under your own control.

In these ways, immaterial consciousness transcends but also breathes the "breath" of consciousness in our lives. Is this outlook or "I" of pure consciousness the fuller truth, or just an illusion? Why, or how, could immaterial consciousness be truer than material consciousness? I believe the answer is: because only in immaterial consciousness do I know what in material consciousness is hidden from me. So, my world and my understanding is much fuller, and more coherent. Plus also, because the immaterial consciousness can take command in every way of all that the mind knows, or causes to happen, in matter.

This is an interesting situation, because the immaterial consciousness is impossible to fully capture or corale. Alan Watts said, to attempt to do that would be like trying to hold onto the slipperiest bar of soap when your eyes are covered over with bubbles, or like trying to touch the tip of your finger with itself. But I disagree with Allan on this one. I claim that proper meditation does progressively increase one's ability to summon and access and even control the bliss or joy and the understanding and love that come from higher immaterial consciousness. And to do so in more and more of the negative or painful situations where you particularly need them, but also more and more in ordinary everyday situations -- not that it doesn't still take a little work and concentration and patience every time.

[TraineeHuman]

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
In the beginning, there was only the void. The waters were not separated from the land. God separated heaven from the earth and the water from the land. Yet God was never born and has always been. Is god the void?

In the beginning there was nothing. Into this nothing, a single point appeared. This point was of infinite pressure and density. This point exploded outward, and matter condensed out of the expanding mass. Yet there was a nothing that supported this expansion into...nothing?

And thus is the dilemma of mankind.

This is the choice: the ineffable or the incomprehensible.

There are many, many, many things that can be said about voidness, or emptiness. These things lie at or in the very heart and foundation of everything else. Far from being totally passive, nothing(ness) in many ways sustains everything else. (That's one reason, incidentally, why in many different ways and contexts it is the Divine.) But it is also the landing strip, so to speak, where what lies beyond us to do can be called upon to descend into our mind in a guise where we can conceive it and trust it, and at least begin to be transformed and uplifted and even freed by it to become something greater than we ever were.

Exhibit one (of many things at the very heart and foundation, I must warn you): peace, or supposedly "perfect" balance, or total openness, or total availability such as pure space always brings (and, note that all four of these are Divine qualities though we take them for granted). Without this, without all of these in fact (as what's existing prior), nothing else can be stable, ever. And therefore it can't be reliably known, ever. The cup needs to first be clean and open and empty.
I should also have mentioned the totality of all possibilities here. Without them, our vision of what we can pour into that cup may be too narrow. But wait, there's a little more. Shouldn't we at least consider some impossibilities here also? After all, what is an impossibility but a possibility that's still at the drawing board stage and needs a little further work and consideration and revision to get it up and running?

And when our mind surrenders fully to stillness, there are many wonderful things (including those in the deeps of our mind) that can only be heard at such a time -- because we've become ready to listen to them.

In my next post I'd like to give some further examples of how what may seem to us to be "nothing" is actually something very different.

[TraineeHuman]

Let's talk about the soul. Who/ what you are (to the extent that, and in the sense that, you are indeed an individual at all) is the soul, your soul. (By the way, though, also, let's remember you are only truly and fully an individual to the extent that you are also ultimately a unique expression of the whole universe itself! All else is shadows.)

The "normal" situation is that, for most people, the soul doesn't assert its power (apart from during our dreams, when it does "speak up" with little restraint). But this non-assertiveness of the soul's prevails only as long as the soul hasn't succeeded in creating a complete "descended" (or, if you like, "incarnated") version of itself, at the level of what we usually call "my personality" or "my individual identity". (Many spiritual traditions and teachings have a name for when this "descent" happens: "being truly born again", "self-integration", "the return to the marketplace", and so forth. I would like to add that only when this truly occurs can we have full genuine sovereignty, and true empowerment.)

The process of reaching this point involves some kind of very aware retracing and detached re-experiencing of all the diverse fake "selves" that we have invested in in our past in this lifetime (at least), plus also of all the other kinds of fake selves or situations that could be possible. Only then can we find an inner harmonization and be at peace with and not thrown by almost every unpleasant situation and conflict and source of inner pain that life throws at us. You have to take the rubbish out first. (And evil is just an illusion anyway, as is "bad luck". The Divine teaches us through tough lessons.) The soul now at last shows its great inner power and authority as it descends intact into everyday living.

Obviously, the soul can't safely risk this descent without ensuring it at all times retains a ready direct link to the experiencing of the higher reality. Specifically, this link needs to act as a kind of direct doorway to fairly quickly bringing in the feeling of bliss and peace to deeply touch and ignite the core of our being, whenever these are required for countering and smashing the pull of falling into that which has no connection with infinity and eternity; and for slowing down and not getting trapped any more in unhappiness.

I'm afraid that's (a summary of) what it takes to really "have soul." Not that appropriate poetry doesn't help too, but I hope this post at least gives some light and clarity regarding this very difficult concept.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Yes. The easy part is the awareness of the connection. The hard part is the doing.

The search is one thing. The implementation of that thing when found is shockingly difficult.

Because at some point the realization must be made that, 'I am the ego'. 'I am the thing this authentic self wants rid of'.
It is this shunning that the ego rebels against and therefore the little self, me, mistakenly rebels against it too.

The fear of not only death but total annihilation is the ego's foremost obsession. It is hard to give this sentiment enough room in the process with any grace. The terror of being cancelled forever removes all restraints in the ego's repertoire of defensive tactics, even unto death.

Before true assimilation can begin there is a period of self-realization and self-activation involving specific aspects of the ego as the little self re-integrates because it is so easily confused as to its true affiliation.

It might become concerned with things like:
'Is this part the ego, is this part my authentic self?'; 'Will this part survive, will that part go?'; 'Will I even recognize myself after the ego goes?'; 'Will I still be me?'.
This reductionism can go on a long time and is one of the favorite tactics of the dying ego.

As the transition continues, these are the questions that haunt the acquiescent ego as it capitulates to the new order:
What will I be after I'm reborn? Who will be in charge? What happens to what I was?

If the reverie, melodrama, and nostalgia doesn't reverse the process the ego's final thoughts might well be:
Was I just a pointless dream? Am I truly an illusion?

Will you even remember me...

[TraineeHuman]

All true, Ernie, except there are other sides to this story too. To exist as a human being / legally valid person in our society, you have to have and enact identities of various kinds at various levels. Even the physical body itself is a big "identity tag" that you're stuck with if you want to continue to ever be recognised as "you". All of these tags could be called, or held onto as, part of "the ego". But my point is, they have to be held onto (and hence perhaps unwittingly nurtured) in some way or degree anyway as long as you're physically alive.

In the afterlife it's a whole different story. The more and the quicker you can shed any and every kind of identifier during the death process, the more freedom from unhappiness you will attain, and the higher will be the "level" of freedom and creativity and joy that you (whoops, another identity tag) will go into or merge with or seem to disappear into (because in pure relationality what gets interrelated is relations and not any subjects or objects; rather like what verbs would be like if they no longer could interconnect nouns). So, even in the afterlife you can't, initially, claim that you've let go of the ego (the self) entirely. (If you'd truly dropped it, you'd have no memory of that.) That's built into the very nature of things. And if "you" can't do it there, then please don't try to tell me you can drop the ego entirely sometimes while you're here in the physical.

The Zen Patriarch Shunryu Suzuki said that the best way to handle a wild stallion is to give it an extremely big paddock to run around and go wild to its heart's content in. But also to make sure that you have strong fences around that paddock. I think the wild stallion he had in mind was the ego. And as far as I see, he was right. Let the ego wear itself out by its own devices. But keep your attention on what's important, and stay with that.

Also, The Divine and the formless worlds are so wonderful to experience that what would you care if entering them or joining them meant a loss of the false parts of "you"? As Jesus supposedly said, who cares if you have to lose an arm if that gets you into Paradise?

[TraineeHuman]

While we're physically alive, the soul must co-exist with the ego. Perhaps the question then is: in what ways do they always clash, at least at first, and why? Or, how do or can they ultimately best interrelate?

Let's start looking at this with a quote from C.S. Lewis: "True love detaches." I claim, and I'll take it for granted, that what this quote says is altogether true, in certain ways. I think one of the reasons the quote is interesting is that it tells us something that the soul does when it feels true love, and moreover it's something that the ego doesn't ever do as part of its understanding of what "love" means. There's also an insinuation here, at least from me, that the ego isn't the part of us that ever feels much pure genuine love.

However, for decades since before we were born, the pop songs of the day have so often and so repeatedly described for us ways in which love supposedly means being emotionally very attached to the beloved; plus deriving great pleasure from that attachment, or expecting great pleasure once their attachment gets consummated. And always, the ego has a hidden agenda, undeclared in the songs, which ultimately will destroy the beauty and freedom of true love, though we usually won't see this until it's too late.

The lessons we learn in each lifetime about love seem to go through a progression. Even before the pop songs in adolescence, We begin in infancy with witnessing the unconditional pure love our mother gives us. We reflect some of this back to her, yet already we do so mainly because this wonderful attention we're getting is "ours", rather than because we appreciate its pure beauty. In other words, we consider it's part of "me". Pure unabashed egoism.

But in a truly mature marriage relationship, there is a mutual surrender to carrying out the partner's will. Hence the true love leads to detachment even from one's own will, for the sake and the beauty of selflessly giving.

In this way we see an example of how the ego can be gradually and naturally cultivated into a form that gives the greatest satisfaction not only to one's partner but also to oneself. At that point the ego is transformed into soul. However, even if this transformation is achieved, in areas of life outside of the participation in such a marriage the ego may often still in some respects remain hungry for the power of possessing something or someone or some situation for its own selfish supposed glory.

[TraineeHuman]

Having said some things about the soul, I'd like to also offer some observations about the spirit.

In reality, in the ultimate, truest reality, everything is interconnected. Even the connections are interconnected. And so on and on. The famous Indian saying says, the ultimate reality is "neti, neti", which means "neither this nor that (nor anything else that you could possibly point to)." Why is it this way? Because the truth is, absolutely everything is interconnected, all in different shades of meaning, or forms of existence, and different contextualities and uses.

So then, it seems, one of the greatest difficulties in understanding things comes from making arbitrary simplifications. For instance, putting spirit on one side and matter on the other. Let's not forget, then, shall we, that when we want to consider what pure spirit is, or pure matter, that anything we say will already be distorted. Why? Because the universe is a seemingly infinite gradation of worlds and states of consciousness, and in this increasingly subtle gradation, where does your "matter" come fully to an end and your "spirit" begin? At what point? I dare you to tell me if you can. And, suppose you want to tell me that ultimately "matter" reduces to space and forms. Then I would insist that the so-called "empty" space (such as within a single quark), having structure or properties or its own force and necessary interrelations, isn't empty, and therefore it's still "matter" (well, mostly "form" but still definitely in some ways "matter").

And however limited your physical body may seem to be in comparison to infinity, nevertheless it ties you to Matter so that you can continually be reminded of, and directly understand by direct contact, that realm of existence. Also, even the world of matter itself is a kind of compact hologram of all the higher levels of reality above the material. So, all of the issues of existence and truth and Life and consciousness have. as a matter of fact, been symbolically concentrated into the limited space of "mere matter". (Compact, all right!) Must imply that your body really is your temple, and your therapy couch.
I also claim to know that for the human consciousness as it is, there are certainly infinitely more invisible (or formless) things than visible (or form-bearing) things. So, sue me. And the beat goes on.

The trickiest thing to describe is spirit. That's because it's eternal, and undestroyable. Apparently makes it pretty hard to find at times, for many. And also awfully hard to get possessive about, because it moves however it wills. But it uses Mind and matter (and the human mind and body) as its expressions, its footprints, its raw material to be divinized somehow, some day. And it's constantly volunteering freely to try and make life in the material world become more and more divine or closer to divine. Miraculously, it never stops working with crude matter. And, just like the Fairy Godmother, it sees extraordinary capacities lying within matter itself always. Because it has the insight to every time see what utterly wonderful things are lying hidden within that matter, hey presto! No need for a magic wand, but just one look from that which instantly sees all possibilities, and hence chooses the most wonderful expression possible of your capacities and innate strengths. It uplifts them and magnifies them and reveals their beauty and wonderfulness to you, even your innate divinity. There's a reason why Cinderella is the most popular story of all. It tells the truth, about how and why you (perhaps secretly to yourself) learn to love yourself. Also about why everywhere you carry inside yourself, as your spirit, the Fairy Godmother herself, even if you may not choose to recognize that this is so.

[Innocent Warrior]

So then, it seems, one of the greatest difficulties in understanding things comes from making arbitrary simplifications. For instance, putting spirit on one side and matter on the other. Let's not forget, then, shall we, that when we want to consider what pure spirit is, or pure matter, that anything we say will already be distorted. Why? Because the universe is a seemingly infinite gradation of worlds and states of consciousness, and in this increasingly subtle gradation, where does your "matter" come fully to an end and your "spirit" begin? At what point? I dare you to tell me if you can.

Wow, your ability to articulate what you perceive is impressive, I wish I could do it this well.

I agree BTW, I recently dropped the concept of dimensions, it works well enough on the introductory level but is too crude for how it actually is and just ends up confusing things when processing what I learn.

[TraineeHuman]

An important question I believe we should all consider is, what sort of society and civilization would we have if it was based on greatly valuing and emphasizing and harmonizing with spirit in its core essence, including with our own inner spirit, and with our souls? Certainly, I believe any such society would be vastly different. This is a huge topic. It's gigantic, like spirit itself is gigantic without boundaries, and crucial -- regardless of how greatly our society, in most countries at least, today treats the cultivation of the true nature and power of spirit as marginal or makes it half-dead and castrated. (And is it a coincidence that until recently, for some years the officially poorest countries in the world were India and Bangla Desh and Nepal?)

The whole model of human civilization "we" have been operating on is quite defective and necrotically flawed, and certainly self-defeating by its very nature. Surely we know by now that it can't do other than continually create more problems overall than it solves. No wonder that every human civilization in our history has eventually gone into retrogression and decay and impotence and collapse. No wonder, I suggest, that certain AI races of our own creation don't like us.

Our current civilization is based on treating the human individual as made up of four levels: the subconscious (or unconscious), the physical, the emotional, and the intellectual layers. Supposedly, the civilization is driven through satisfaction or governmental or social or commercial control or manipulation of all our individual drives or desires. Plus through the supposed achievement of various forms of "progress", which is always supposedly a good thing but rarely questioned or examined with full disclosure and public scrutiny, and with any adequate precision. If it's "more", it must be good, we are expected to believe.

Fortunately, with the rise of the New Age movement, with whatever flaws it carried, by the nineteen seventies and after we saw a major instinctive and intuitive turning inwards by ultimately almost half of the Baby Boomers. They seemingly were born knowing with total certainty that there must be something better than this, something "more", yes, but not primarily or necessarily more progress or more science or more comfort. First and foremost, they somehow knew, it had to come from within themselves. With all the old structures of ideals and beliefs and traditions collapsing around them that one had to be stuck or stupid not to see was happening fast, they were forced to rely on their own inner knowing. Many also seemed to sense, or notice, for instance, that the romantic myth wasn't true. Even if one did find a semi-"perfect" partner, that didn't somehow magically bring freedom from unhappiness. Many also saw clearly that "the system" was based on economic slavery throughout almost the whole of society, and that the toys and convenience of technological "progress" didn't change the basic picture. And what was the aim of all that progress anyway? More pleasure, hedonism? Did that really compensate for slaving away all day in some role where often one had had to sell one's soul for it? Surely mot.

In this way, the human spirit has acquired a new step in its evolution. It has learnt to turn both inwards and also to out to the external world simultaneously. That soul lesson can hardly be unlearnt. Humans cannot go on indefinitely putting their hope in outward progress, which always leads only to disappointment ultimately. Instead, the group soul of humanity is gradually turning, or will in the near future turn, each of us to the truth of what it means to be really human. That truth can only be found in the soul -- and ultimately also the spirit. It's uncertain at present how humanity will all get there. But the momentum of that inner movement is too strong to ultimately be held back by physical, biological, social, ideological, political, or any other such means.

It can possibly be delayed for a while, but the spirit plays on an infinite-dimensional chess"board". As far as we know, human society has never been based on a knowledge of the soul's true nature, let alone on the realities of the greatness of spirit. Human society has never seriously tried to model itself centrally on conforming to the needs and the fulfilment of the soul. The soul doesn't care for rituals and "religious" customs or institutions, nor for any creeds or dogmas written in concrete. It does care for open questioning of all things, and for a profound openness to creativity and inspiration and (effective) innovation. The soul doesn't submit to mechanization of any kind, other than to have the machine submit to the soul's will and serve the soul.

The spiritual element of life is, in a way, like Schrodinger's Cat or like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle: it can't be captured or formalized, not fully. To even attempt to do so is to kill it. The spirit is interested in freeing people, not in limiting them or oppressing them or boring them to death. Religious fervor has nothing in common with spirit if it is accompanied by the darkest ignorance, or by cruelty or injustice and so on, regardless of what disguise the latter may come in.