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: 6
32
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Michael Cecil
 


Alright! Gsheessh! It's as if every time you reply to one of my posts you are merely setting me up to tell me off!




posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Michael Cecil
 



Hi,

Some more questions,

When you say…

“you are already, for that period of time, operating in that dimension of consciousness beyond the "self" and the 'thinker'.”.

Does this mean that we are constantly unconsciously moving between and operating in/from these different dimensions?
Do these dimensions some how overlap, or are they sharply defined?
How can we become more aware of this consciously, and see it somehow in our everyday relationship with ourselves and the world?

When you say…

“I have received two very specific Revelations: The Vision of the "Son of man" (or the "Vision of Knowledge") and the Revelation of the "resurrection",”

What led you to these revelations?
How was this knowledge revealed, i.e. in what form did it reveal itself?
What sort of impact did this have on you and your life?
Why you?

These religious texts that you have understood through this revelation, why are they ‘couched’ in such obscure language/metaphor and symbolic imagery?

I think I am more open to attempting to understand, or accept what you are conveying because I really have no hard and fast established beliefs about anything.
Or even indeed because I can relate this to my own experience and this makes it more real and viable?
I have no particular beliefs about god reincarnation etc, in fact both these concepts have had no particular relevance to me…in so much as…I have always thought such things would take care of themselves and it is this life that is important.
Don’t you think that you are ‘beating a dead horse’ in trying to convey your understanding to religious believers?
Have you had much success?
Would it not be more productive to bring this knowledge to the open minded…and in a sense…leave out the religious text interpretation?

Lastly, what questions do you think I should ask?
What questions will lead to a greater understanding when answered?
Do I already have all the knowledge required now?
Is it enough just to understand this three dimensional revelation?
If so, then where does one go from where I am right now?

Thanks Midicon.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Michael Cecil
 


You have mentioned the gospel of Thomas and Mary. I have never read these texts.

Should I read this sort of literature and try and see the three dimensional revelation contained within them?
Would there be any value in reading them if I have through you, access to the revelation contained within them?
Is there any further understanding to be gained and would it somehow help facilitate observation from/in or movement to the two dimensional conscious state?

Is 'fear' and 'desire' necessary for relationship to the world?
edit on 24-11-2010 by midicon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy Alright! Gsheessh! It's as if every time you reply to one of my posts you are merely setting me up to tell me off!


Well, I am certainly glad that you can see the humor in all of this, Sir.

That is already an indication that you are escaping from the confines of the consciousness of the "self" and the 'thinker'.

What that indicates is that you understand that we are not enemies because I am challenging the thoughts of the "self" or the 'thinker'. Rather, it is the thoughts of the "self" and the 'thinker' which are enemies to all of humanity, having originated, fundamentally, in the "death instinct".

Oh, by the way, are you aware that the whole concept of satire is an aspect of the "observing consciousness"?

When one stands back and merely LOOKS at the nonsensicalities that the "self" and the 'thinker' become involved in, it all begins to be perceived as OBVIOUSLY ridiculous and hilarious.

But that is merely a temporary respite from the warfare.

Mi cha el



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by midicon When you say…

“you are already, for that period of time, operating in that dimension of consciousness beyond the "self" and the 'thinker'.”.

Does this mean that we are constantly unconsciously moving between and operating in/from these different dimensions?


BINGO.

But, to hear the consciousness of the 'thinker' tell the story, it is ALL 'thinker':

What falls in love? The 'thinker'. What appeciates music and art and poetry? The 'thinker'. What appreciates a sunrise? The 'thinker'. Etc. etc. etc.The 'thinker' claims to be the source of all human experience.

So, the very first thing to understand is that the 'thinker' is LYING about precisely how important it is.

Many of the things that the 'thinker' claims responsibility for do not at all pertain to the 'thinker'. Rather, they pertain to the "self".

And, once it is understood that consciousness can shift imperceptibly from the 'thinker' to the "self", it is then easier to understand how it could also shift imperceptibly from the "self" to an "observing consciousness".


Do these dimensions some how overlap, or are they sharply defined?


Have you ever seen a graph of the "butterfly strange attractor"? It is something like that.

There are certain things which are very sharply defined, but others which are less so.


How can we become more aware of this consciously, and see it somehow in our everyday relationship with ourselves and the world?


It all comes down to first of all, observation; secondly, knowledge of the different dimensions of consciousness; and, thirdly, merely the realization that there actually is a dimension of consciousness beyond the "self" and the 'thinker'.


When you say… “I have received two very specific Revelations: The Vision of the "Son of man" (or the "Vision of Knowledge") and the Revelation of the "resurrection",” What led you to these revelations?


There is no explanation for why certain people receive these Revelations and others do not. Neither is there any explanation for why most people reject the Knowledge Revealed through such Revelations as utterly Satanic; while very few respond to that very same information as being obviously the Truth.


How was this knowledge revealed, i.e. in what form did it reveal itself?


The Vision is the Vision. It is represented in the "Stargate Sequence" of 2001--A Space Odyssey. The sound track of that sequence very closely mimics certain aspects of the Vision; only certain aspects of the video track mimic different aspects of the Vision; most of that being understood as representations of the Knowledge Revealed through that Vision--the 2-dimensional 'flat' space of most of that sequence then differentiating into a 3-dimensional 'curved' space with what appears to be a spinning Mercator projection of the globe a few minutes into the sequence.

But what is important is the Knowledge conveyed by that Vision about consciousness.

The revelation of the memories of previous lives--and, especially, previous deaths--is a very intensely traumatic experience; for which reason the Quran states: "And may Peace be upon him when he is raised from the dead"--the last seven words of that statement most often being dropped as being insignificant. Many years ago, I met a Jewish scholar who had received memories of having been crucified (thousands of Jews were crucified when the Romans attacked Jerusalem); and, in a subsequent life as a Jew, having been tortured by the Inquisition. These were very traumatizing experiences--something that could easily be diagnosed as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. But Western psychiatry, as a rule, denies the reality of such experiences.


What sort of impact did this have on you and your life?


Of more importance is the Knowledge that is Revealed through that Vision.


Why you?


Don't know if there is any other answer to that question than the Prophecy of the Book of Daniel 12:1 and that the name on my birth certificate--this is not anything that I had control over--is Michael.


These religious texts that you have understood through this revelation, why are they ‘couched’ in such obscure language/metaphor and symbolic imagery?


First of all, because those who received the Revelations were ordered to keep them secret or to talk about them in such a way that most people would ignore them as being nonsense, and only the few would seriously pursue the Truth.

Yet, at the same time, there are many, many clues about the secrecy of the Revelation: Hosea wrote "My people perish for lack of Knowledge." (not belief, but knowledge) Isaiah wrote "I seal this Revelation in the heart of my disciples." Isaiah wrote "As high as the heavens are above the earth are My thoughts above your thoughts". Daniel wrote "These words will remain secret and sealed until the time of the End." Jesus said "He who has ears, let him listen." Jesus said "John, IFyou will believe me, is the Elijah who was to come."

But, when I merely place all of these Revelations together, saying that the "resurrection" is a Doctrine of 'Rebirth', what response do I get from the vast majority of people who claim to believe these Revelations--many of whom are PAID to believe these Revelations?

Liar, 'Gnostic', lunatic, seeker of publicity, arrogant, self-appointed messiah...

And, on at least two Muslim discussion groups, anti-Christ or "dajjal". (Seriously).


Don’t you think that you are ‘beating a dead horse’ in trying to convey your understanding to religious believers?


Do I really have a choice in the matter? The statement of Hosea is quite clear: "My people PERISH for lack of Knowledge." Because I have been given that Knowledge, it is my responsibility to do everything I possibly can to get that information out to as many people as possible absolutely irrespective of the personal consequences.


Have you had much success?


The only success I have had is in doing what it is my responsibility to do. I am not responsible for the fact that people do not believe me.


Would it not be more productive to bring this knowledge to the open minded…and in a sense…leave out the religious text interpretation?


But it is the RELIGIONISTS who are pushing this civilization into the horrors of the "time of trouble".

They are RESPONSIBLE for this horrific state of affairs.

And, in any case, I do have a completely secular explanation of much of this having to do with consciousness; the only problem being that the "scientists of consciousness" are no less protective of their paradigm as the theologians are of their paradigm.


Lastly, what questions do you think I should ask?


Questions emerge out of context. Go with the context.


Is it enough just to understand this three dimensional revelation?


I received the Revelations beginning almost exactly 36 years ago. And, in an attempt to understand the Knowledge that was Revealed through those Revelations, I have had to read thousands upon thousands of books to put together the right kind of vocabulary for conveying that Knowledge. For most of that time, I focused on the Knowledge from the point of view of its relevance to theology. It has only been within the last 4 years or so that I began to focus on a description of this Knowledge in the terminology of the dimensions of consciousness.


If so, then where does one go from where I am right now?


Neo's training does not even begin until he is taken out of "the matrix".

The Revelations merely take a person out of The Matrix--the "prison for the 'mind'".

Understanding exactly what that means will take the rest of my life...

And the next life and the next life. Etc.

Mi cha el



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by midicon You have mentioned the gospel of Thomas and Mary. I have never read these texts. Should I read this sort of literature and try and see the three dimensional revelation contained within them?


In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus says "Where there are three gods, they are gods. Where there are two or one, I am with him." The "three" refers to the three dimensions of consciousness in the symbolic terminology in which they were then understood. The "two" refers to the "observing consciousness" and the 'fallen' consciousness. The "one" refers to the "observing consciousness".

If you have specific questions about specific statements in these Gospels, you might want to ask.


Would there be any value in reading them if I have through you, access to the revelation contained within them?


Don't really understand the circumlocution here.

I am giving you information. Assume, just for the moment, that this information is accurate. See what the implications of that information are. Maybe you will have a completely different understanding or explanation of what I am talking about.


Is there any further understanding to be gained and would it somehow help facilitate observation from/in or movement to the two dimensional conscious state?


Don't try so hard. These things are not nearly as difficult as the consciousness of the 'thinker' makes them out to be.

And try not to go too fast. These things do take time, regardless of what Krishnamurti says.

This is not anything which is separate from the living of one's life. One does not have to go off to be in a monastery or out in some cave some place. One does not have to sever all personal relationships, or meditate for hours each day, or pursue one technique or another.

One just has to bring certain different knowledge--originating in a different dimension of consciousness--into one's life.


Is 'fear' and 'desire' necessary for relationship to the world?


Fear and desire are of the very structure of the "self" and the 'thinker'. There is good and bad to this.

The problem becomes when it is very intensely believed that there is simply no escape from fear and desire.

Once it is understood, not merely intellectually or theoretically, that there is an actual dimension of consciousness beyond the consciousness of the "self" and the 'thinker', one's desires and fears are observed within a much larger context; both their intensity and tenaciousness are diminished.

Mi cha el



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by RRokkyy

Just a few problems with the video:

1) I had to stop a few minutes into the video. I could only take so much. I was being bored to tears.

2) He is using words to describe the experiences of a "self". Those words are like poetry or the lyrics of songs. What he is doing is lulling people to sleep with words which convey images of understanding; but which, fundamentally, do nothing more than provide pleasure to the "self". Of what importance are such experiences and words as to the understanding of reality?

3) It is a one-sided communication in which the audience has neither any opportunity nor any responsibility to engage in conversation. Their only responsibility and opportunity is merely to listen, like little children rather than adults, to those words and to be pleasured by those words; and, of course, to provide the required monies for that pleasure. The political parallel to this kind of relationship is a totalitarian fascism of one kind or another.

4) The point of this thread is to engage in an actual conversation or discussion about consciousness and reality; rather than merely to sit in rapt attention to what someone has to say, or to interact with others who have seen the video, but with no opportunity to interact with the person on the video itself. So, what is the point of placing a video of such a monologue on this thread of someone who is not involved in the discussion at all, but who is merely dictating his thoughts on the subject; and, more importantly, is not in any position to be challenged? That, in and of itself, is a manifestation of what kind of "teaching" is being provided: a 'teaching' which is merely dictated by a 'teacher' to a 'student'; something not to be questioned but merely to be believed unquestioningly because it is so obviously the 'truth'.

We don't need ATS for that.

And is thisconditioning towards totatalitarianism really something that the people on ATS want to be involved in?

Mi cha el



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Michael Cecil
 


Hi Michael,

You have certainly fried my brain, with this information, and I’m not sure what impact it has had on me. I have no more questions right at this moment, how could I have?

If I assume for the moment that this information is accurate, then it would be a revelation…the implications in a way are frightening...

And then there are these words, revelation, prophecy and memories of past lives, none of which sit comfortably with me.

I am now continuously thinking about the three dimensions of consciousness and how the reality of them affects/effects me, not only that, but how this reality is revealed in the world around me.

I had an experience two years ago of moving from the dimension of thought to the dimension of self. I could not explain it to myself, although I sometimes thought of the phrase ‘shift in consciousness’ but they were only words really, they didn’t explain anything. Because of this experience I may be more open to the information you are providing, than perhaps others would be.

Let me get back to you, I’m still thinking about this.

Midicon



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by midicon If I assume for the moment that this information is accurate, then it would be a revelation…the implications in a way are frightening...And then there are these words, revelation, prophecy and memories of past lives, none of which sit comfortably with me.


Understood. Completely.

So, you can imagine my chagrin when I received my first memory from a previous life.

I was terrified because that memory gave me information about who I was and about who a certain woman was in one of our previous lives together. At the time I had no belief whatsoever in previous lives. This was in 1972. I tried as best I could to simply ignore that information for years. Then, in 1975, it happened again. But this time I could not escape that knowledge.


I am now continuously thinking about the three dimensions of consciousness and how the reality of them affects/effects me, not only that, but how this reality is revealed in the world around me.


This is what is so different about this information. No 'worship' of a guru as a "Divine Self" is required. There is certain information which, by its very nature, completely re-structures the consciousness of those who acknowledge that such information can be the truth.

In the Gospels, there are three orientations to the Truth as represented by Judas, Peter and Thomas.

Judas contradicted the Truth--that was the basis of the betrayal--which represents the consciousness of the 'thinker'; and, subsequently, committed suicide.

Peter denied the Truth--three times, not coincidentally--which represents the consciousness of the "self".

And Thomas doubted the Truth, which is the best that can be done by the 'fallen' consciousness in the relationship to the Truth.

But the "observing consciousness" recognizes immediately when something is the Truth.

So, the best that can be expected when one once hears the Teaching is doubt of the Truth alternating with recognizing the Truth. This was the first kind of reaction I had to the teaching of Krishnamurti.


I had an experience two years ago of moving from the dimension of thought to the dimension of self. I could not explain it to myself, although I sometimes thought of the phrase ‘shift in consciousness’ but they were only words really, they didn’t explain anything.


Sometimes all you get is the words. Hold on to those words. It may take you 20 years to completely understand what those words mean; but don't let them go.


I’m still thinking about this.


But less and less, I hope.

Mi cha el



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
reply to post by RRokkyy

Just a few problems with the video:

1) I had to stop a few minutes into the video. I could only take so much. I was being bored to tears.

2) He is using words to describe the experiences of a "self". Those words are like poetry or the lyrics of songs. What he is doing is lulling people to sleep with words which convey images of understanding; but which, fundamentally, do nothing more than provide pleasure to the "self". Of what importance are such experiences and words as to the understanding of reality?

3) It is a one-sided communication in which the audience has neither any opportunity nor any responsibility to engage in conversation. Their only responsibility and opportunity is merely to listen, like little children rather than adults, to those words and to be pleasured by those words; and, of course, to provide the required monies for that pleasure. The political parallel to this kind of relationship is a totalitarian fascism of one kind or another.

4) The point of this thread is to engage in an actual conversation or discussion about consciousness and reality; rather than merely to sit in rapt attention to what someone has to say, or to interact with others who have seen the video, but with no opportunity to interact with the person on the video itself. So, what is the point of placing a video of such a monologue on this thread of someone who is not involved in the discussion at all, but who is merely dictating his thoughts on the subject; and, more importantly, is not in any position to be challenged? That, in and of itself, is a manifestation of what kind of "teaching" is being provided: a 'teaching' which is merely dictated by a 'teacher' to a 'student'; something not to be questioned but merely to be believed unquestioningly because it is so obviously the 'truth'.

We don't need ATS for that.

And is thisconditioning towards totatalitarianism really something that the people on ATS want to be involved in?

Mi cha el



They refused Jesus too.
Krishna taught the sacrifice of the body.
Buddha taught the sacrifice of the mind.
Jesus taught the sacrifice of the heart.
Adi Da the Fourth Great Teacher has taught us the sacrifice of the Ego Self in Totality by the Radical Understanding of the Fruitlessness of Seeking.

You havent read any of His Teaching. You havent watched all His videos and there are many on Youtube. You havent even watched one completely. You dont even believe in a state of permanent Enlightenment. You understanding consists of the Thinker,The Self(Ego prior to thoughts) and The Observing Consciousness. Well that is simply a primitive description of reality that is a lot more than Joe six pack understands but just basic non duality or Eastern religion,or even the teaching of Jesus at its core.

When Alan Watts, the author of many books on Eastern Philosophy/Religion saw a video of Da he wasnt bored to tears,
but he did weep and said He (Da) was the One he had been waiting for all his life. You are Narcissus,the EgoSelf who has created a hedge around his little pond,into which he gazes upon himself in his delusion. (Well we all are that.)

The closer one gets to the Truth the fewer people there are willing to accept it. Jesus had only 13 Disciples.

You are not the first to cast a stone at the truth.

The First Public Discourse

Understanding
On April 25, 1972, the date of this talk, Franklin invited devotees, disciples, students and seekers to approach him for the first time at his Ashram(1) in Los Angeles. Agroup of about 30 people assembled in a newly renovated storefront at 6913 Melrose Avenue, in a Hollywood business district. As they arrived, they were ushered into a modestly sized hall, passing through the small bookstore that faced the street. There they sat quietly, waiting for the evening's event to begin. It was on this date that his public work truly began. Before this time, prior to the creation of his Ashram, he taught only a few intimates. But since that time he has been involved in a progressive and open communication and demonstration of the way of Truth, the way of the Siddhas or "Completed Ones," who come in the forms and activities of God. Once seated, Avatar Adi Da began to gaze silently around the room. He Radiated simplicity and ease. As He continued to sit, the room became thick with the feeling of Fullness characteristic of His physical Company. After a few minutes, He closed His eyes and sat quite still. Some of the people in the room also closed their eyes, while others continued gazing at Avatar Adi Da. Everyone showed their respect by remaining silent and attentive. After about an hour, Avatar Adi Da stretched His body from side to side, left to right, signaling the end of the silence. Then he spoke in an undertone barely audible to anyone but Himself, "Who will cast the first stone?" Then, addressing everyone in the room in a clear voice, He asked, "Everyone has understood?" As Avatar Adi Da spoke these words, the room was silent in response. Then a man near the back of the room stood up and declared that he had not understood. FRANKLIN: Are there any questions? (the people who were in attendance say the first statement of Adi Da was "Who will cast the first stone?" No one replied, so Franklin spoke again. FRANKLIN: Everyone has understood? QUESTION: I haven't understood. Explain it to me.2 FRANKLIN: Very good. What haven't you understood? QUESTION: Well, you said "Did everybody understand?" and everyone seemed to understand but me. Would you explain it to me? FRANKLIN: Explain what? QUESTION: Well, you could start with the word "understanding." FRANKLIN: Yes. There is a disturbance, dissatisfaction, some sensation that motivates a man to go to a teacher, read a book about philosophy, believe something, or do yoga.3 What we ordinarily think of as spirituality or religion is a way to get free of that sensation, that suffering that motivates us. So all paths, yogic methods, forms of seeking, beliefs, religion, grow out of this sensation, this subtle suffering. Ultimately, all these paths are attempting to get free of that sensation. That is the traditional goal. So all men are seeking, whether or not they are very sophisticated about it, using very specific methods, yoga, philosophy, religion, whatever. When that whole process of seeking begins to break down, the man no longer quite has the edge of his search left. He begins to suspect himself. He begins to doubt the whole process of his search. Then he is no longer fascinated with his search, his method, his yoga, his religion, his ordinary teacher. His attention begins to turn to this sensation that motivates his entire search. When a man begins to re cognizee, consciously to know again that subtle motivation, this is what I call "understanding." When he begins to see again the subtle forms of his own action, which are his suffering, that recognition is understanding. When this becomes absolute, perfect, when there is utterly, absolutely no dilemma, no form in consciousness interpreting the nature of existence to the individual, when there is no contraction, no fundamental suffering, no thing prior to consciousness, this is what I call "radical" understanding. It is only enjoyment. The traditions call this enjoyment the Self, the Heart,4 God Union, Satire,5 Nirvana,6 Heaven. But it is simply consciousness. There is no thing prior to consciousness. We are not some piece of Divinity seated inside the body, that somehow must get released from the body and go back to its spiritual Home and Source. There is no such entity. The Home and Source is also the very Nature of the "entity." There is consciousness, and the apparent entity is within consciousness. So that when consciousness begins to enjoy its own state or real nature, even in the midst of conditions, even where there is life, that is true understanding. When, no matter what event appears, there is only the enjoyment of consciousness itself, not transformed or modified by events, when no implication arises on the basis of events to change the nature of consciousness, that is "meditation." When there is fundamental enjoyment of consciousness, that is called "liberation." All of that is simply "understanding." There is a subtle contraction in the process of man, and it constantly changes the quality of consciousness. It creates the identification of consciousness with the contracted sense. That form, that body, that mentality. And in that act of identification, it differentiates itself from other forms, other beings. Then the rest of life is spent, through exploitation of the movement of desire, to overcome that creation. Through the movement that is desire we seek constantly to create a connection, a flow of force between the contracted identity and everything from which it has differentiated itself. Yoga, religion, spirituality, philosophy, all our strategies, even our simple psychological strategies, our lifestyles, have this same form. They are all attempts to release energy between this contracted, separated one and all from which it is differentiated. Thus, all ordinary activity is founded in this dilemma, this self created contraction. Traditional spiritual life is a search in this same form. There is dilemma, and there is the spiritual method, which is an attempt to overcome this dilemma. When the individual begins to see again the dilemma that motivates his method, that seeing is understanding. As long as he is simply seeking and has all kinds of motivation, fascination with his search, this is not understanding. This is dilemma itself. But where this dilemma is understood, there is the re cognition of a structure in consciousness, a separation. And when that separation is observed more and more directly, the person begins to see that what he is suffering is not something happening to him, but it is his own action. It is as if he is pinching himself without being aware of it. He is creating a subtle pain, and, worse than the pain, a continuous modification, which is "mind," which consciousness identifies as itself. The more he observes this, the more his search is abandoned, spontaneously, intelligently. He simply sees his motivation, his actual suffering. He can only live that suffering. It does not move, until conscious life becomes a crisis. Then he sees the entire motivation of life is based on a subtle activity in consciousness. That activity is avoidance, separation, a contraction at the root, the origin, the "place" of consciousness. In the beginning of this crisis a man only observes the contraction as a sensation, as a sense of dilemma, as a search. But the more directly he observes it, the more clearly he recognizes the action itself. At first he sees the avoidance, the strategy, the life technique. Then he begins to observe this activity in terms of what it is excluding, what it prevents, what is always being eliminated from consciousness and conscious life. That which is always excluded is the condition of relationship. Ordinarily, a man is unaware of relationship, as relationship. He only lives the drama of separation. But when he becomes directly aware of this contraction, this separation, this subtle form, he observes or enjoys relationship as that condition which is always already the case. Relationship is always already the condition of living consciousness. When this contraction is observed perfectly, radically, there is only relationship, and no obstruction. Then, spontaneously, it is also perfect awareness. That perfect awareness is called the Heart, the Real, what always already is the case. The Heart is always active, always accomplishing the thing that desire always seeks but never finally realizes. The Heart 15 always unqualified relationship, always force, conscious force without obstruction. But the life of desire is always already based on separation. Separation has already occurred in the usual man, so desire tries to heal the sense that arises as a consequence of that separation. But there is no ultimate success by the means of desire, even "spiritual" forms of desire. There may be temporary releases, fascinations, but desire never radically escapes its own dilemma. This is because it does not deal with the dilemma. The search is concerned only with desire and the objects of desire. But beneath that is this subtle contraction. Therefore, the Heart is always, already the absolute continuum, the flow of power, without obstructions. It is always already like desire fully satisfied, because the flow is always already accomplished. Always already accomplished, not the result of any motivated action. The great Siddhas,7 men of radical understanding, are those who live consciously as the Heart. They function as the Heart for living beings. And that function is simply relation ship, unobstructed flow. The pressure of the presence of such a one stimulates and intensifies the flow of force in living beings. All obstructions tend to fall away in the presence of this force. Where it moves there is either surrender or flight in its path. The Siddhas communicate the living Force of Reality. They live it to living beings. They simply live the natural state of enjoyment with other beings. And those who stay to live in friendship with the man of understanding tend also to understand. QUESTION: Franklin, I have to go, but I have one more question. You said the Siddhas live as the heart. What about the mind? Do they live as the mind also? FRANKLIN: What is it? QUESTION: Do they live as the mind as well? It is connected with the heart. FRANKLIN: What mind? QUESTION: What mind? The mind that they exist in. There is only one mind. FRANKLIN: There is? Which? QUESTION: Of course their brains are functioning too. Right? FRANKLIN: And? QUESTION: And? FRANKLIN: What is the point you are trying to make? QUESTION Well, I asked you the question about the mind. FRANKLIN: Yes. What mind? QUESTION: What mind? FRANKLIN: The brain? QUESTION: Yes, the brain. FRANKLIN: Ah, well that is something very specific. You are talking about the brain, or the "One Mind"? QUESTION: Well, there is only one mind, of course. FRANKLIN: You are talking about the mind now, and not about the brain? QUESTION: Well, I was asking you what is the relationship between the two. Between the mind, the brain and the heart. FRANKLIN: You are talking about the physical heart? QUESTION: Not necessarily. FRANKLIN: Well, which? QUESTION: You can answer whichever way you like. FRANKLIN: I do not have need for the answer. What specifically are you asking? QUESTION: Well, actually you answered me, because I wanted to see what you wanted to say. FRANKLIN: No, that is not what you wanted to see. Don't play games. I am not here to entertain. All these little dramas you are playing have no place. I have no interest in them, and neither have you. I am not here to "lay something on" to you. I am not concerned with that. If you want to discuss something with me for a real purpose, that is something else. But if you want to play at polemics, and idle cleverness QUESTION: That's not what I want. FRANKLIN: No, no. That is what you want. QUESTION: Do you think that is what I am trying to do? FRANKLIN: Yes. QUESTION: Why do you think that? FRANKLIN: What is all of that? (pointing to his expression) QUESTION: What is what? FRANKLIN: What has all of that (pointing to his expression) got to do with anything, hm? You are very upset. What are you upset about? QUESTION: I'm not upset at all. FRANKLIN: Yes you are, my friend. (to another) Does he look upset to you? ANOTHER: Yes. I recognize that. (to the questioner) You know what that is? It is fear stone cold fear.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by RayTheWizardLiotta
 


Forget our origins, I think the question is, just who and what are we catching up to.. what is our destiny.. what are we becoming..

Seems the closer we get to that, the more that time and materialism fall away and the closer we get to apprehending our true identity.

Or, maybe in our seeking, we are preventing that.. because we are afraid of it.
edit on 25-11-2010 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by RRokkyy You dont even believe in a state of permanent Enlightenment.


BINGO.

"Enlightenment" is nothing more than a thought; and the minute you hold to that thought you create duality and conflict and comparison between the image and the reality.

If you cannot understand that all of that is merely the perpetuation of the duality, nothing I say will help you.

In any case, "permanent" implies time; time implies thought; thought perpetuates duality; duality results in conflict and violence; violence results in blood-shed, warfare and genocide. And it is evidence that there has been no realization of the origin of the duality in the 'movement' of self-reflection ("serpent") which creates the "self" (the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil").


...or even the teaching of Jesus at its core.


BET ME.

Pick up ANY statement of Jesus from the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Mary and explain to me what Jesus was talking about.

You do not even have a clue. Because you have no Knowledge. All you have has been conveyed to you by word of mouth or book or video tape from someone who also has no Knowledge.

Mi cha el



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan Forget our origins...


This is precisely the problem, Sir.

We have forgotten our origins.

That is why this civilization is on the very brink of self-annihilation.

We have forgotten that there is a non-dualistic consciousness prior to the "self" and the 'thinker' which does not perpetuate duality, conflict and violence.

Or, in the terms of the Revelations of the monotheistic religions, we have forgotten that we were Created 'by and in the image of God' (Genesis 1:27)--a consciousness which is NOT, however, the consciousness of either the "self" or the 'thinker'.

Mi cha el



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by YouAreDreaming
 


Nice one. Interesting ideas, I wish I had joined in the debate earlier.

As is always the case, by the time I find an interesting thread there are so many replies that have been posted that I rarely have the time to read them all. I know I should take the time to read everything before I post anything, however I lack both the patience and the time. I try to get a general idea of the thread before I post, but most of the time my efforts seem to be for naught as it seems that by the time I post a reply most people have lost interest in the thread and my reply is the last one to get posted, or goes by unnoticed.

Anyways, I think that Mr. YouAreDreaming has hit on a number of interesting points. The idea that Reality is based more on thought and consciousness than matter is an idea that is irrefutable for one who has awoken to his true self and to the true nature of the universe. Take a good look at what science calls "matter" or "reality". All the supposedly concrete objects of objective reality are nothing more than "thoughts" of concreteness. When you touch, see, hear, taste, or smell anything, it is nothing more than a neurological state of mind that tells you "I see, I hear, etc". What you see and what actually is does not have to correlate.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by YouAreDreaming
 

Starred and flagged, friend, you postulated this very well. Consciousness and Reality are caused and maintained by Thought Forms. Thought Forms are Energy, plain and simple. Energy can create Matter. Everything is composed of Atoms. It is only the vibrations of the Atoms that decide for you whether your computer is really there or not. Solid matter has a very slow vibration. Look around you. Everything you can see, hear, or touch, save for sentient beings and animals, is made up of atoms and energy.

So is Reality Real? Are we real, or are we simply a dream in the sub-concious mind of a vastly superior being? Or are we that dream, and then the dream is but another dream in another being?

I used to like to walk the straight and narrow line.
I used to think everything was fine.
Sometimes I'd sit and gaze for days through sleepless dreams,
All alone and trapped in time.
All alone and trapped in time.
I wonder what tomorrow has in mind for me?
Or am I even in it's mind at all?
Perhaps I'll get a chance to look ahead and see.
Soon as I find myself a crystal ball.
Soon as I find myself a crystal ball.
But tell me, tell me where I'm going,
I don't know where I've been,
Tell me, tell me, wont you tell me
And then tell me again.
My heart is breaking,
My body's aching,
And I don't know where to go.
So tell me, tell me, wont you tell me
I just gotta know.
Crystal Ball
There's so many things I need to know
Crystal Ball
There's so many things I've gotta know
Crystal Ball
Wont you tell me please before I go.
Crystal Ball - Tommy Shaw and Styx



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   
I disagree with the philosophy of Adi Da, there is another level beyond where he stops and formulates his understanding.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Most Infamous
reply to post by YouAreDreaming
 


Nice one. Interesting ideas, I wish I had joined in the debate earlier.


Even at the beginning the amount of intellectual and deep thought going on in the thread is very hard to engage for the time it must take to contribute as much as some have. I've been reading the thread daily enjoying the discussions however, not really seeing an opportunity to really add anything of further merit to the discussion. It's doing so well on it's own.


Originally posted by Most Infamous
Anyways, I think that Mr. YouAreDreaming has hit on a number of interesting points. The idea that Reality is based more on thought and consciousness than matter is an idea that is irrefutable for one who has awoken to his true self and to the true nature of the universe. Take a good look at what science calls "matter" or "reality". All the supposedly concrete objects of objective reality are nothing more than "thoughts" of concreteness. When you touch, see, hear, taste, or smell anything, it is nothing more than a neurological state of mind that tells you "I see, I hear, etc". What you see and what actually is does not have to correlate.


The problem is our Scientific Paradigm simply rejects consciousness as having any relevance to reality and our understanding of consciousness is quite primitive at best. The other real challenge is the fact we do exist in more then one type of "Reality" or "Dimension" as consciousness and this duality is observed through dreams and meditation to exist.

The reality of the mind, and the reality of the body are two entirely different systems of reality all together. I am very confident that the human brain simply tunes in consciousness from a frequency-band or datastream and interprets it, but may not be the origin of consciousness.

It's this other non-physical, non-temporal dimension or reality that really captures the eye once you realize it exists and dreams are largely composed of what that dimension is. One of pure thought. I don't doubt that there could be an even deeper layered realty past that.

I'm just aware of the physical and non-physical dualism and how consciousness is the bridge between the two. Quite fascinating to say the least.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by autowrench
So is Reality Real? Are we real, or are we simply a dream in the sub-concious mind of a vastly superior being? Or are we that dream, and then the dream is but another dream in another being?


I like to think that all that exists is "Reality" and there is nothing but reality out there. As to being the dream of another being, again this comes back to an interconnected Universe stemming from a singularity of Oneness that has evolved itself into a many-parts system. The back-bone of our existence is based on this original state of awareness and how it organized itself into an array of experiences. I think strongly based again on personal experience that there is this central-self of which we are all parts of.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by YouAreDreaming The problem is our Scientific Paradigm simply rejects consciousness as having any relevance to reality...


Well, not precisely.

What is happening is that the "scientists of consciousness" categorically exclude any other dimension of consciousness than the consciousness of the 'thinker'. This is a very specific error.

They simply disregard the observations of Jung and the other archetypal psychologists.

They simply disregard the Eastern esoteric traditions about a non-dualistic "observing consciousness".

For the most part, they simply ignore the observations of the parapsychologists.

And they categorically DENY that the Revelations of the monotheistic religions have ANYTHING whatsoever to do with the 3 different dimensions of consciousness.

This is a very specific and well-defined error.

It is not at all amorphous or indefinite.

The battle lines have been drawn with regards to a basic understanding of what human consciousness is.

And it is something which CANNOT be completely or adequately explained from exclusively within the paradigm of the scientific method and/or theology.

Mi cha el
edit on 26-11-2010 by Michael Cecil because: spelling



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join