It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Reality" is founded on Thought and Consciousness, not Matter.

page: 4
32
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy Are you saying you are the only one who understands this concept/observation?


No. I am not the only one who understands. But, as far as I have been able to determine, I am the only one who can explain it in the way that I explain it. Moses uses the term "serpent" to symbolize the 'movement' of self-reflection; the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" to symbolize the "self"; and the "fig leaves" to symbolize the thoughts of the 'thinker'. And, in the Revelation of John, the term for self-reflection is "the great dragon"; the "beast of the sea" is the consciousness of the "self", and the "beast of the earth" is the consciousness of the 'thinker'.

This is all precisely the same Knowledge. The words used are different.


And let us not get into twisting words, ie. concept vs. observation, as a concept is merely the 'way' of explaining an observation. Obviously these Buddhist philosophers have 'observed' what they are speaking of, the concept is just the 'way' to explain these observations.


I probably can't help you here. J. Krishnamurti understood much of what I am talking about here. You might want to read some of his books on how to differentiate thought from observation. The three dimensions of consciousness can actually be observed; this is not merely a concept or thought. If you do not observe them, then you don't. Then you are not standing in the train station; you are on the train and can only see one possible description of the path of the falling ball.


tic for tac, let us move beyond the ego and come to a common conclusion or cease conversation and agree to disagree.


This is not at the level of disagreement. This is at the level of see or do not see.

It reminds me of several years ago when I was being taught how to interpret chest X-rays. A chest X-ray was held up to be interpreted by the class; whereupon certain conclusions were drawn. And people would disagree with each other on the basis of what they observed. But, then, the teacher would point out all of the different aspects of the chest X-ray, some of which some students had focused on, and others which they had not paid too much attention to.

In the end, they all came to an agreement as to what was going on because of what they observed.

So, if we disagree, it is because you are not seeing what I am seeing.


Few things I am sure we agree on is that this realization cannot come from an outside source, only from within, and humans and their science's must embrace this line of thinking or humanity is bound to fall into more and more chaos.


Of course. Of course.

But the perceptions of the observer in the train station are an outside source. Everyone on the moving train is going to perceive the same thing. That does not mean that they are right, and that the only path of the falling ball is straight down. All it means is that they have the same frame of reference.

A person first has to acknowledge that there is another perspective on things from an outside source. That is the first step in being able to observe that information for oneself.

The first 'outside source' of this information for me was J. Krishnamurti more than 37 years ago. And, eventually, I became able to observe what he was observing.

Mi cha el




posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 04:01 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by midicon
reply to post by Michael Cecil
 


This male, female thing seems interesting. I see you have some observations to relate.


From my experience with such things, the consciousness of man is much more intensely and tenaciously attached to and identified with the thoughts of the 'thinker. The consciousness of woman, on the other hand, is much more tenuously and tentatively attached to the thoughts of the 'thinker'. Woman is much closer to the space-time reality than man is. Man is prone to flights of fantasy in opposition to the space-time reality. Woman is more concerned with relationship and society. Man is concerned with individuality and truth of one kind or another.

And the fundamental conflict between Revelation and human thought is, in essence, a conflict between the Feminine and the masculine.


And your 2 dimensional model is really only just a theory, and may only exist in abstract form.


This may be difficult for you; but not at all.

This is an actual experience. This is something that can be directly observed and is not merely any theory.

This is what is symbolized at the beginning of the Stargate Sequence from 2001--A Space Odyssey. There are first pictures showing the curved space reality: a sun, a moon and other round planets. Then lights begin to emerge out of a 2-dimensional 'space'.

How would I describe the experience of the 2-dimensional space?

You have been watching a movie all of your life.

Then, in one instant, you jump from watching the movie ONTO the movie screen. Your identity, the space within which you walk around, the people you know, and all the things that you do in your everyday life...

Are FLATTENED on the movie screen.

And then you realize that you have been watching a movie all of your life.

This is what the 2-dimensional 'flat' space is like.

It is an observation rather than a thought. It is not merely a theory. Its very roots are in an immediate experience which takes you outside of the 3-dimensional 'curved' space.


And not only that, it is created by subtracting one dimension from the third, as if this somehow justifies its integrity as a realistic proposition.


All of this is, quite simply, off the mark. It is the thought of someone who has not yet experienced what I am talking about.


Your wife sounds really smart!


She appears to have an advantage over the men that I have explained this to. Men typically have many, many thoughts to which they have become accustomed. They hold to those thoughts very tenaciously and identify with those thoughts and beliefs. Women simply do not pursue thoughts with the same intensity. They are always concerned about the ultimate implications of such thoughts on human relationships. They adopt a position of hesitancy and tenuousness with regards to those thoughts. They are much closer to accepting Knowledge rather than the thoughts of the 'thinker'.

In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus refers to women being 'made male' in order to enter the kingdom of heaven.

But there is something else which is not written: that men must become Feminine to enter the kingdom of heaven; by which is meant that men must be willing to set aside the thoughts of the 'thinker'--the doctrines of the theologians and the scientists of consciousness--in favor of either Revealed Knowledge, or the knowledge that comes from observation rather than thought; observation meaning the way Krishnamurti explains observation.

Mi cha el



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy The problem I see with the Guru/Disciple relationship is that the disciple can become dependent on the Guru's wisdom, constantly asking for the Guru's opinion of whether he/she is pointed in the "right" direction, never being able to move beyond and actualize that wisdom for him/herself.


It is not the responsibility of the guru to "fish" for the disciple.

It is his responsibility to teach the disciple "how to fish".

When the disciple learns "how to fish", there is no dependency at all. He or she then teaches other people "how to fish".

But, until the disciple learns how to fish, he or she is dependent upon the guru: to show that, in fact, there are fish in the river in the first place.

Can this be done?

Of course it can.

At first, I had no idea whatsoever what Krishnamurti was talking about when he said that thought can be "observed". It is a difficult thing to grasp because it is an actual experience. You do not see it until you actually see it. And, once you see it, you cannot "unsee" it.

Mi cha el



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 04:43 AM
link   
Nice Post, a very nice read and exercise for the mind... But a problem arises. So we can nudge and wink.
i don't really know if this is something, but i wanted to place it here as my reply (as this could also be a reply to about a million posts and threads). i hope you enjoy it.

"Words strain,
Crack and sometimes break, under the burden,
Under the tension, slip, slide, perish,
Decay with imprecision, will not stay in place,
Will not stay still. Shrieking voices
Scoling, mocking, or merely chattering,
Always assail them."
—T. S. Eliot, American poet and playwright, Burnt Norton, 1935




posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by trika3000

All of the things in the film clip demonstrate the duality of thought.

It is very comfortable for the dualistic consciousness of the 'thinker' always to 'think' in terms of duality.

All of those dualities are interpreted as evidence for the reality of the duality.

But all of those dualities are 'thought' by the person on the moving train, who observes the path of the falling ball as being ONLY perpendicular to the floor of the train.

The observer in the train station--who exists beyond the frame of reference of the duality--sees the path of the falling ball as a curved path.

There is a dimension of consciousness beyond the duality.

There is belief in "evolution" and belief in "creationism"--both of these things exist at the level of thought.

And, then, there is the Revelation of the Memory of Creation which is something else ENTIRELY.

It is something prior to and completely beyond human thought.

In any case, the source of the "infinite regress" is the 'movement' of self-reflection in which time goes both forwards and backwards.

In other words, the "infinite regress" is merely an expression in words of the mechanism, or the template, which gave rise to the dualistic consciousness of the "self" in the first place.

Mi cha el



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Michael Cecil
 


Hi, Michael

here's an old story i used to use when trying to talk about perspective, i mean perception, it is from my made up youth.

i was sitting on a train going from here to there, passing through the backyards of the heartland. With me on my journey were Copernicus, Ptolemy, Newton and Einstien. Usually my trips with these men were at the least entertaining, but on this day i was distracted. Copernicus and Ptolemy were arguing incessantly (as they always have done), about which spins around which, and who revolves around whom. Einstein was playing with a little metal ball and was continuously dropping it on the floor of the moving train as he bobbled it in his hands. Newton just kept on eyeing the ball as it fell to the floor. They all started discussing "things" and their conversation rose to a level of a quiet argument, each trying to politely talk over the other. i was bored with their continuous diatribe and began to daydream as i looked out the window and watched the houses and clotheslines pass by.

i don't know if that made much sense, but i always used it as an example

As ever
Mike



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by trika3000

This is what the train analogy I use--as explained previously--refers to.

All your people are 'thinkers' on the moving train of thought and time.

But there are observers in the train station. Let's call them Moses, Isaiah, the Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed.

In addition, however, Krishnamurti sometimes jumps off the train; but, then, sometimes jumps back on the train...

While 'thinking' that he is still off the train and in the train station.

It is the things he says while he is off the train which are the most important.

Mi cha el



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 05:53 AM
link   


Let's call them Moses, Isaiah, the Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed.
reply to post by Michael Cecil
 


Jesus was late. He wasn't at the last stop and there were a whole bunch of people waiting for him. i think he got hung up or somethin'. Maybe he'll be at the next one?

edit on 21-11-2010 by trika3000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by trika3000 Jesus was late.


The "observing consciousness" is never "late".

It is non-temporal, in a 2-dimensional 'flat' space.

In other words, since it exists over all time, it is always "on time".


He wasn't at the last stop and there were a whole bunch of people waiting for him.


People who, however, did not understand that it was not a "who" they were supposed to be 'waiting' for; but, rather, a "what" that they were supposed to be actively searching for.


i think he got hung up or somethin'. Maybe he'll be at the next one?


Well, if you understand the Teaching, it makes no difference whether he is or not.

The importance here is that the observer in the train station--observing from a frame of reference beyond duality--observes the path of the falling ball as a curved line; whereas those on the train, observing from the frame of reference of the dualistic consciousness of the 'thinker' and the "self", observe the path of the ball as being perpendicular to the floor of the train.

These observations are incommensurable.

With the people on the train typically concluding that the observations of those in the train station are simply impossible; and, for that reason, 'heretical, 'demonic', 'insane', etc.

Mi cha el



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 06:22 AM
link   


With the people on the train typically concluding that the observations of those in the train station are simply impossible; and, for that reason, 'heretical, 'demonic', 'insane', etc
reply to post by Michael Cecil
 


i assume the "etc." is - ignorant, superstitious, nonacademic, lacking evidence and illogical (at least that's what i've been told).
Also, it's not even necessarily those on the train but the people that are listening to the people on the train (usually ignoring their own thinking, but that's a whole other thread).

But it is past my bedtime and i must go and dream of dreaming dreams, i'll look for you later...

as ever
mike



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by trika3000



With the people on the train typically concluding that the observations of those in the train station are simply impossible; and, for that reason, 'heretical, 'demonic', 'insane', etc
reply to post by Michael Cecil
 


i assume the "etc." is - ignorant, superstitious, nonacademic, lacking evidence and illogical (at least that's what i've been told).


Well, more times than I can remember, I have been told to PROVE that the path of the ball is a curved path.

Or I have been told that I have no EVIDENCE that the path of the ball is a curved path...

By those who, however, are on the train; by those who insist on remaining on the train; by those who deny that there is anyone observing in the train station; by those who deny that any such observation is even possible.

The only evidence I have is the observations that I make.

And, in order for that evidence to be directly observed, the person must jump off of the train of duality, time and thought.

It is both infinitely more and infinitely less difficult and complicated than can be imagined or 'thought'.

Mi cha el



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by midicon
 



The "self" and the duality was created by a reflex 'movement' of self-reflection which instantaneously, and prior to the emergence of thought at all, creates the "self"/"not self" as a 'space' or 'container' within which the consciousness of the "self" exists.


The problem with this is it is only an after the fact observation and does not provide the knowledge necessary to get to the point before the duality.
That is why Adi Das' Teaching is Unique as he provides the Insight as to what is actually happening in the moment of the creation of duality, though few seem able to consider it.
Understanding Duality as Meditation


Chapter 19: Understanding as Meditation Meditation doesn't do anything for you. It has no purpose. When a person begins some form of seeking, he immediately turns to an effective, remedial technique that will get him quickly to his goal. Thus, when a man adapts to various kinds of religious and spiritual effort, he begins almost immediately to meditate in some way. The Christian and the devotee begin to pray and adapt to religious forms. The spiritual seeker begins to concentrate and internalize the mind. Others use drugs, study, critical thought, relaxation and poetry, pleasure, etc. But real life, the way of understanding, is not another form of seeking. For the man of understanding, meditation is not adopted for the sake of something else. He does not pursue understanding or reality or any kind of experience through meditation. Real meditation is already a radical activity. It is understanding. In the logic of Narcissus, the separative mentality, all things are seeking. But the man of understanding perceives the logic of reality and lives as it. Therefore, he is not concerned about meditation. His business is understanding, not ascent, vision, transformation, liberation, or any other goal. The way of understanding belongs to those who recognize the fruitlessness of seeking.





Questioner: J.Krishnamurti says, "No Guru is necessary."

Sri Ramana Maharshi: How would he know it?
One can say so after realizing but not before.
edit on 21-11-2010 by RRokkyy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Michael Cecil
 

You had me curious, so I looked up that J. Krishnamurti guy.

He has a Wikiquote page with a lot of interesting things to say, which I thought I'd share with the forum:

Jiddu Krishnamurti


edit on 21-11-2010 by NewlyAwakened because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRokkyy
reply to post by midicon
 



The "self" and the duality was created by a reflex 'movement' of self-reflection which instantaneously, and prior to the emergence of thought at all, creates the "self"/"not self" as a 'space' or 'container' within which the consciousness of the "self" exists.


The problem with this is it is only an after the fact observation and does not provide the knowledge necessary to get to the point before the duality.


Well, I could say precisely the same thing about the quotation that you cite.

But it cannot be any other way.

The 'movement' of self-reflection cannot be observed AS it is happening. It is a reflex.

It can only be observed as having happened after the fact.

(The obvious question, of course, is what is it that observes the 'movement' of self-reflection. It cannot be the consciousness of the 'thinker', because that does not yet exist. Neither can it be the consciousness of the "self" which does not exist until the instant of self-reflection. But neither is it any "observing consciousness" differentiatable from that 'movement' itself. In other words, any purported "observing consciousness" is, in fact, consumed in the knowledge of the origin of the duality in that 'movement'; which leads to the realization that, in the final resolution of the duality, the "observing consciousness" IS the knowledge that it observes.)

In any case, there is no knowledge that will take you to the point prior to the origin of the duality.

That point is the origin of that Knowledge; but there is no knowledge that can be used to get you to that point.

That final step is, in one way or another, a direct and immediate transition of consciousness.


That is why Adi Das' Teaching is Unique as he provides the Insight as to what is actually happening in the moment of the creation of duality, though few seem able to consider it.
Understanding Duality as Meditation


Chapter 19: Understanding as Meditation Meditation doesn't do anything for you. It has no purpose. When a person begins some form of seeking, he immediately turns to an effective, remedial technique that will get him quickly to his goal. Thus, when a man adapts to various kinds of religious and spiritual effort, he begins almost immediately to meditate in some way. The Christian and the devotee begin to pray and adapt to religious forms. The spiritual seeker begins to concentrate and internalize the mind. Others use drugs, study, critical thought, relaxation and poetry, pleasure, etc. But real life, the way of understanding, is not another form of seeking. For the man of understanding, meditation is not adopted for the sake of something else. He does not pursue understanding or reality or any kind of experience through meditation. Real meditation is already a radical activity. It is understanding. In the logic of Narcissus, the separative mentality, all things are seeking. But the man of understanding perceives the logic of reality and lives as it. Therefore, he is not concerned about meditation. His business is understanding, not ascent, vision, transformation, liberation, or any other goal. The way of understanding belongs to those who recognize the fruitlessness of seeking.


Well, of course. Of course. All of his is completely straight-forward.

I haven't meditated--whatever that means--for almost 40 years. Nor does any knowledge that I have received come through meditation--whatever that means.

I prefer the statements of Jesus in this regard in the Gospel of Thomas, however.


Questioner: J.Krishnamurti says, "No Guru is necessary."

Sri Ramana Maharshi: How would he know it? One can say so after realizing but not before.
edit on 21-11-2010 by RRokkyy because: (no reason given)


Precisely so.

Which is not particularly helpful, however, for those that have not yet realized it.

Mi cha el
edit on 21-11-2010 by Michael Cecil because: clarification



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Michael Cecil


Well, I could say precisely the same thing about the quotation that you cite.

But it cannot be any other way.

The 'movement' of self-reflection cannot be observed AS it is happening. It is a reflex.

It can only be observed as having happened after the fact.

(The obvious question, of course, is what is it that observes the 'movement' of self-reflection. It cannot be the consciousness of the 'thinker', because that does not yet exist. Neither can it be the consciousness of the "self" which does not exist until the instant of self-reflection. But neither is it any "observing consciousness" differentiatable from that 'movement' itself. In other words, any purported "observing consciousness" is, in fact, consumed in the knowledge of the origin of the duality in that 'movement'; which leads to the realization that, in the final resolution of the duality, the "observing consciousness" IS the knowledge that it observes.)

In any case, there is no knowledge that will take you to the point prior to the origin of the duality.

That point is the origin of that Knowledge; but there is no knowledge that can be used to get you to that point.

That final step is, in one way or another, a direct and immediate transition of consciousness.








Any self reflex movement observed after the fact is already too late as it is being observed by the ego,narcissus,the false self.
The movement must be observed and Understood as it is occurring. The one who observes it is God,Shiva,or the Divine Self. That is why Adi Da says God is the Supreme Meditator. God is not passive, but Active in this Radical Understanding.
God is Self Observation as NoSeeking or Radical Understanding.
This is all Intuited as opposed to being known.
Thus Real Meditation is simply Radical Self Observation and Intuition without Seeking. In other words you are doing from the beginning the very same thing God is doing:Intuiting its own Consciousness without Seeking.
God is Shiva,Pure Being out of which arises Shakti,the Creative Principle, which is not separate from Shiva but is actually the Reflection of Shiva,between the two is an Infinite Thread,the Amrita Nadi, within which everything Appears and Disappears.

What gets you to the point of realization is the opposite of what takes you away. Instead of seeking, one practices radical self observation of ones seeking until it all falls away as no seeking.

This is the Knowledge that gets you to the final step. This is what makes Adi Das' Teaching Unique.
1.Understanding One is Always Seeking
2.Radical Self Observation of Ones Seeking
3.Spontaneous Falling into NoSeeking or Satsang or Divine Communion. (otherwise known as rebirth,to be born again,little Satori,etc)
4.Ineffable ,the complete dissolution of the EgoSelf

But as you say the Final STep is a direct and immediate transition.
And it appears that very few people are able to make that final step
no matter what the circumstances are, how long they have meditated,who their guru is,etc.
Why is that?Biology,brain function?Why are most Enlightened beings Indian males?



Questioner: J.Krishnamurti says, "No Guru is necessary."

Sri Ramana Maharshi: How would he know it? One can say so after realizing but not before.



Ramana was saying J.Krishnamurti was not Realized.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by midicon
reply to post by NorEaster
 


That was an interesting video clip, which for a moment made me think.
However what is this really saying, other than what we already know?
We know that we are unconscious of certain predispositions we have.
We do so much unconsciously all of the time and it is no surprise that there is predisposition when one knows a choice is coming up.
Also the ‘me’ that we think we are, that makes the choice, has really no choice to make, we were always going to go a certain way.
Even spontaneous decisions made in a split second are in a sense predetermined, because we ourselves are not somehow ‘new’, and even if we surprise ourselves, we make the only choice available to us from our frame of reference.
In fact we should be talking about the illusion of choice!
Or is that what we are doing anyway?

The test would have been better done ‘blind’ where the subject does not know what the purpose of the test is and is asked to make a snap choice ruling out the six second delay.
Even then of course, the outcome will be the same.
It just may not be as obvious.

Does any of that make any sense?

Midicon.

edit on 21-11-2010 by midicon because: (no reason given)


What it indicates is that conscious thought (consciousness) is the result of the brain's activity, and that suggests that matter creates consciousness. This aligns with the notion that consciousness is a form of information, with information as the result of activity (something occurs and the fact emerges that it is occurring, occurred, once occurred), the brain's thinking, reacting, emoting being the activity that's being represented by the heavily textured information that we call consciousness.

The researcher sees one indication from this test result, but it also indicates other possibilities that have nothing to do with "free will" or whatever they were focusing on.
edit on 11/21/2010 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

What it indicates is that conscious thought (consciousness) is the result of the brain's activity, and that suggests that matter creates consciousness.


Between Shiva and His Consort or Reflection Shakti are an Infinite Number of Threads or STRINGS,the Amrita Nadi and these are manifesting all the Universes.
There is no such thing as "matter". Even a physicist couldnt define what matter IS only how it behaves.

AMRITA-NADI

Some schools of thought speak of Chakras beyond the Sushumna. There is also a concept called the "conduit of immortality" known as amrita–nadi and spoken of, for example, by the Enlightened sage Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi. It is said to manifest at the time of Full Enlightenment creating a link between the ascending Sushumna and the subtle center of Hridaya, the spritual heart. See also Nirvikalpa Samadhi.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by RRokkyy Ramana was saying J.Krishnamurti was not Realized.


OK, now.

This, to me, is PARTICULARLY offensive.

What DIFFERENCE does it make whether he was or not?

This is an immediate shifting of attention to a particular person, rather than attempting to understand the reality of what consciousness is. This is not keeping one's eyes on the ball. This is loss of attention and distraction from the fundamental issue.This is not about any particular teacher. This is about the reality of consciousness.

All of that strikes me as being little more than a marketing ploy: "My guru or teacher is better than yours. Nanana boo boo." What kind of childish nonsense this is. It indicates a slavish subserviance to one person's language.

So, this is the problem as I see it:

In Western civilization, we have several dozens or a few hundred researchers who are attempting to establish and prove the superiority of their particular version of a new "science of consciousness". They insist that the best description of consciousness must be in accordance with the fundamental assumptions of the scientific method. They focus almost completely on the consciousness of the 'thinker'. They largely disregard as 'unscientific' the observations of Freud, but especially, Jung about the 'unconscious' or the consciousness of the "self". (Of course those observations are 'unscientific'. But that does not mean that there is no reality to them.) And, in addition, they develop ad hoc 'explanations' for such things as telepathy, predictions and other 'psychic' abilities. And, more importantly, their official journals relentlessly censor and suppress any serious efforts to bridge the chasm between the Western perspective on consciousness and the Eastern perspective.

In Eastern civilization, on the other hand, we have a number of teachers, each insisting--or, more probably, their followers insisting--that he or she has attained "realization" while the others have not. And many of these teachers seem to have the words to suggest that they have a different understanding of consciousness....

Until they say something like "it is a permanent state of Realization"--any 'permanent' state being based upon a continuity of time; time being of thought and duality; and the origin of that duality being the 'movement' of self-reflection.

So, why can we not have the Western "scientists of consciousness" opening themselves to the reality of the three dimensions of consciousness in the first place by acknowledging the existence of the consciousness of the "self" and what is being experienced or observed by these Eastern teachers?

Why can we not have these Eastern teachers--rather than focusing on their own "self-realization" (not even sure that I believe in any such thing)--engaging in very serious discussions with the scientists of consciousness with regards to a new description (emphatically not a scientific description) of consciousness which is much more inclusive than merely the consciousness of the 'thinker' which is the subject of the scientific method?

But, meanwhile, there is a MUCH larger problem:

Meanwhile, the Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious 'authorities' and religionists are doing everything they can to perpetuate their particular version of the dualistic consciousness; a consciousness which, by means of different (and erroneous) theological doctrines are inciting conflict, violence, warfare and genocide in the Middle East. Judaism, Christianity and Islam, to them, are nothing more than different collections of thoughts and doctrines of the consciousness of the 'thinker'. And all of the Revelations which speak in rigorous detail, through metaphorical language and symbolism, about much more fundamental issues of a conflict between these three dimensions of consciousness are looked upon as 'heretical', as a product of simple error or delusion, or as incontrovertible evidence of a severe psychiatric 'imbalance'--all for the purpose, however, of preserving their pride, their wealth and their power.

In other words, while the Western scientists of consciousness are doing their best to claim that consciousness can be best understood ONLY from a scientific perspective; and, while the followers of the Eastern gurus are doing their best to 'prove' that their particular teacher has achieved 'realization' (which I DON'T believe in)...

This civilization itself is going to HELL in a hand-basket because of the conflicts originating in that dualistic consciousness.

Is this not fairly convincing evidence of a civilizational "death wish"?

Mi cha el



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by RRokkyy Any self reflex movement observed after the fact is already too late as it is being observed by the ego,narcissus,the false self.


The eye cannot see itself.

You cannot watch yourself being born.

The "self" cannot observe itself being created as it is being created.

That it has been created by the 'movement' of self-reflection consists of knowledge.


The movement must be observed and Understood as it is occurring. The one who observes it is God,Shiva,or the Divine Self.


That is THOUGHT and DUALITY.

It makes no difference who says it.

[Thoughts which would be termed blasphemy and idolatry from the perspective of the monotheistic Revelations deleted.]


But as you say the Final STep is a direct and immediate transition.


What difference does this make?

What if I am wrong?

The issue here is how many dimensions of consciousness are there?

Any individual details are a matter to be worked out later on an individual basis for those who are interested.

But, for right now, we have a much larger PROBLEM with regards to this entire civilization being threatened with annihilation because of, fundamentally, a misperception and disunderstanding of the reality of human consciousness.


Ramana was saying J.Krishnamurti was not Realized.


But this is a blanket condemnation. Something like calling a person a "heretic" or "possessed by demons".

Much of what Krishnamurti observed and taught was very helpful to me; and maybe it will be helpful to someone else as well.

On the other hand, there are very specific things that he said over which there is a disagreement; things which, to me, are obvious that he did not observe.

But, to get into some trivial, nonsensical argument over whether he was "Realized" or not strikes me as something that would be intensely pursued only by people like the teenagers on 90210 or Gossip Girl.

Mi cha el
edit on 22-11-2010 by Michael Cecil because: clarification



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join