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

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

"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").

Mi cha el

If I say I am Enlightened, that is a thought.
If I say Jesus was Enlightened or God Realized that is a description of His condition.

Jesus said,"I and the Father are One."
Do you believe Jesus was Enlightened or God Realized?

reply to post by Michael Cecil


I agree fully, they are constantly trying to define consciousness as a brain-generated product rather then looking at the brain as attenuator of consciousness. With regard to other dimensions, I agree that we have something that exists outside of physical reality when we deal with consciousness.

Science will not accept that currently, but I feel that paradigm is slowly shifting.

Originally posted by RRokkyyIf I say I am Enlightened, that is a thought.

Precisely.

If I say Jesus was Enlightened or God Realized that is a description of His condition.

No it isn't. That is like saying that a rooster speaks the words "cock-a-doodle-do".

It doesn't. It makes a unique sound which cannot be accurately represented in human language.

Jesus said,"I and the Father are One."

Can this be said without holding to the paradigm of metaphysical philosophy?

Not to my knowledge.

Was Jesus a pagan metaphysical philosopher or did he receive Revelations?

He received Revelations; which someone attempted to 'translate' into pagan metaphysical philosophy.

In other words: replacing "cock-a-doodle-do" for the sound that a rooster makes.

Do you believe Jesus was Enlightened or God Realized?

First of all, I don't believe in any such things. They are merely thought; while the second is also a blasphemy.

Secondly, it doesn't make any difference what I 'believe'.

Thirdly, even if I were to believe such a thought, that thought would not result in a transformation of my consciousness. I would merely be taking off one coat and putting on another coat. I am not at all interested in acquiring this or that thought for its own sake.

And my offer still stands.

If you have any knowledge as a result of what you have learned from your 'guru', go through the Gospel of Thomas and explain to me what Jesus was talking about. If you have any knowledge that was not received by read-say or hear-say--and if your 'guru' is like Jesus, as you seem to imply--this should be a 'piece of cake'.

Mi cha el

Originally posted by YouAreDreaming Science will not accept that currently, but I feel that paradigm is slowly shifting.

I'm not at all sure that a paradigm can 'slowly shift'. It appears to be an all-or-nothing kind of thing.

But, as Niels Bohr observed: "New scientific theories succeed not by convincing others of their truth, but merely because those who believe in the old scientific theories die."

This is what happened to the Copernican-Galilean explanation of the solar system.

The Ptolemaists just eventually died out.

The question is whether civilization has enough time remaining to be able to WAIT until the current crop of "scientists of consciousness" and religious 'authorities' die...

In order for a completely new understanding of consciousness to emerge.

Mi cha el

reply to post by LifeIsEnergy


The way you're describing consciousness is a very outdated way of looking at the world. We've evolved much further than this. Care to catch up?

Consciousness is variously defined as subjective experience, awareness, the ability to experience "feeling", wakefulness, the understanding of the concept "self", or the executive control system of the mind.[1] It is an umbrella term that may refer to a variety of mental phenomena.[2] Although humans realize what everyday experiences are, consciousness refuses to be defined, philosophers note (e.g. John Searle in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy):

Consciousness

Originally posted by YouAreDreaming
reply to post by Michael Cecil

 

I agree fully, they are constantly trying to define consciousness as a brain-generated product rather then looking at the brain as attenuator of consciousness. With regard to other dimensions, I agree that we have something that exists outside of physical reality when we deal with consciousness.

Science will not accept that currently, but I feel that paradigm is slowly shifting.

If my head gets chopped off, I'm not going to be having a sensory experience. If I don't have a sensory experience, what kind of experience am I going to have? It's unfathomable. The best we can say is we know not. Remember, YAD, I've had all sorts of out of body experiences, but I realize it's the product of a brain firing hay-wire. There is no reason whatsoever to intuit that consciousness exists outside of the mind of individuals. It's a leap in logic that only comes to be from a very strong wish. It's merely a belief, and for what reason I haven't a clue. Why must people have these beliefs? What purpose do they serve? I guess some people think too much, and find the need to think they live in a superhero universe or something. I'm perfectly okay with accepting what is, and leaving all the hoolah for the kiddos. That's just me, though. To each their own.

First let me say thank you Mr. YouAreDreaming, it's been a while since anyone has made a reply to one of my posts. I was sort of beginning to think that as soon as I posted a reply to join in a discussion that everyone decided to abandon that discussion.

Having said that I realize that I come off sounding some what, I don't know, like a know it all, when I don't (or can't ) prove any of the things I say or think.

One of the things that I notice about the posts in this thread is this tendency to try to relate to (or prove, or define) consciousness in terms of science or scientific thoughts. The problem as I see it is that consciousness is something that cannot be defined, or measured, hence it defies science. You can't see consciousness, or hear it, smell it, touch it, etc, it is something that you are. It's like trying to see your own eyes with your own eyes, it can't be done. You can look at a mirror or photograph and see an image of your eyes, but that's only seeing an image of your eyes, you can never point your eyes towards your eyes and see your actual eyes with your actual eyes. It's the same with consciousness, consciousness (well in so far as most people use it) is always directed towards something. The trick is to turn consciousness upon itself, that is to be come conscious of being conscious. How to make that happen is something that is at best unscientific. It's a sort of intuitive knowing or experience, sort of like the experience of being happy or sad. When you feel happy you can't really put a finger on the "happiness" but you know that it's there all the same. The same with a headache, or the deliciousness of a delicious whatever. All of these things are in one sense beyond science yet it is something that is accepted without question and used in science. All of so called 'scientific thought" relies on consciousness to give it it's very existance. It is as you mentioned, consciousness is the underlying basis for reality. For without our consciousness with which to be conscious of reality, how would, how could we relate to reality? Try seeing a car when you've been knocked unconscious. When one is in a state of deep sleep, unconscious to external stimuli, one can sleep through a storm as if nothing is happening. I would venture to say that without the consciousness being conscious of it, nothing could exist.

Think of it in terms of sight. In order for something to be seen there are several factors that need to be met. The obvious things are, 1. an object that can be seen, 2. a pair of eyes that sees said object. Above and beyond these two factors, there is the most important factor that needs to be present, something that is taken for granted, namely Light. You can't see a tree in pitch darkness (alright, let's not get in to the whole what if you halucinate a tree). Science takes it for granted that Light is always there.

I'll leave it off here for now.

Ciao

First let me say thank you Mr. YouAreDreaming, it's been a while since anyone has made a reply to one of my posts. I was sort of beginning to think that as soon as I posted a reply to join in a discussion that everyone decided to abandon that discussion.

Having said that I realize that I come off sounding some what, I don't know, like a know it all, when I don't (or can't ) prove any of the things I say or think.

One of the things that I notice about the posts in this thread is this tendency to try to relate to (or prove, or define) consciousness in terms of science or scientific thoughts. The problem as I see it is that consciousness is something that cannot be defined, or measured, hence it defies science. You can't see consciousness, or hear it, smell it, touch it, etc, it is something that you are. It's like trying to see your own eyes with your own eyes, it can't be done. You can look at a mirror or photograph and see an image of your eyes, but that's only seeing an image of your eyes, you can never point your eyes towards your eyes and see your actual eyes with your actual eyes. It's the same with consciousness, consciousness (well in so far as most people use it) is always directed towards something. The trick is to turn consciousness upon itself, that is to be come conscious of being conscious. How to make that happen is something that is at best unscientific. It's a sort of intuitive knowing or experience, sort of like the experience of being happy or sad. When you feel happy you can't really put a finger on the "happiness" but you know that it's there all the same. The same with a headache, or the deliciousness of a delicious whatever. All of these things are in one sense beyond science yet it is something that is accepted without question and used in science. All of so called 'scientific thought" relies on consciousness to give it it's very existance. It is as you mentioned, consciousness is the underlying basis for reality. For without our consciousness with which to be conscious of reality, how would, how could we relate to reality? Try seeing a car when you've been knocked unconscious. When one is in a state of deep sleep, unconscious to external stimuli, one can sleep through a storm as if nothing is happening. I would venture to say that without the consciousness being conscious of it, nothing could exist.

Think of it in terms of sight. In order for something to be seen there are several factors that need to be met. The obvious things are, 1. an object that can be seen, 2. a pair of eyes that sees said object. Above and beyond these two factors, there is the most important factor that needs to be present, something that is taken for granted, namely Light. You can't see a tree in pitch darkness (alright, let's not get in to the whole what if you halucinate a tree). Science takes it for granted that Light is always there.

I'll leave it off here for now.

Ciao

Originally posted by unityemissions If my head gets chopped off, I'm not going to be having a sensory experience.

Well, as a matter of fact, if you have the revelation of the memories of previous lives--including a memory of one of those lives in which your head was chopped off--yes, you will be having a sensory experience of that.

This is not merely a theory. I am talking about personal experience.

There is no reason whatsoever to intuit that consciousness exists outside of the mind of individuals.

The 'mind' itself is a construct of thought.

It has no more reality that the "ether" of classical physics or "phlogiston".

Mi cha el

Thoughts appear from nothing and are seen.
Life appears, manifests from nothing, is seen and disappears into nothing.
Sit and watch a waterfall, it flows and is never the same. Coming and going.

The TV is a flat screen with appearances coming and going.
You are the flat screen that all appearances/experiences appear on. This awareness, this receiver is constant. It is the still, empty space that you are. It receives all experience, it is all knowing and ever present always.

Patterns of energy appearing in awareness.
See the obvious.

It is all consciousness.
What 'things' are there in your dreams?? No things, no people, no time, no distance.
All there is is the dreamer.
You are the dreamer and there is nothing else.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain You are the flat screen that all appearances/experiences appear on.

The 'flat' space consciousness is not the consciousness of any "self" or 'thinker', which exist within a 3-dimensional 'curved' space.

The 'flat' space consciousness exists prior to the differentiation into any "selves".

This awareness, this receiver is constant.

The 2-dimensional 'flat' space consciousness is non-temporal and non-spatial.

The word "constant" has to do with time, which implies thought and the 'thinker' of thought.

It is the still, empty space that you are.

The 'space' that anyone is is the 'space' of the consciousness of the "self".

The 2-dimensional 'flat' space is not a "who". It is a "what".

It is all consciousness.

Until you actually specify what dimension of consciousness you are talking about here, the statement conveys no unambiguous meaning.

It is not helpful to the understanding of what dimensions the human consciousness consists.

Mi cha el

reply to post by Michael Cecil


The word 'all' in the sentence 'it is all consciousness', means all. All means inclusive of everything and nothing.
When are you not conscious? Try not to be. It is all happening in consciousness. Even when you make up stories about the past or future, it's happening in your awareness now.
The receiver of life, sensation, this is the only way to check if you exist. Are you receiving sensation, color, sound, heat in the body, now? You are now conscious of being conscious.
This that you are is the thing, the apparatus with which you measure the so called world around you. Calibration may be required. Is the measuring device seeing the obvious?

Originally posted by unityemissions
If my head gets chopped off, I'm not going to be having a sensory experience. If I don't have a sensory experience, what kind of experience am I going to have? It's unfathomable. The best we can say is we know not. Remember, YAD, I've had all sorts of out of body experiences, but I realize it's the product of a brain firing hay-wire. There is no reason whatsoever to intuit that consciousness exists outside of the mind of individuals. It's a leap in logic that only comes to be from a very strong wish. It's merely a belief, and for what reason I haven't a clue. Why must people have these beliefs? What purpose do they serve? I guess some people think too much, and find the need to think they live in a superhero universe or something. I'm perfectly okay with accepting what is, and leaving all the hoolah for the kiddos. That's just me, though. To each their own.

edit on 27-11-2010 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)

When you die, you will no longer exist in this physical world. That link will be cut, but since you do not originate from this world, rather just experience this world as a more sophisticated system of consciousness, you will awaken into your former state from post-mortem.

I remember that I existed before this life, even remember the process of incarnation so I have an overview that extends from this non-local reality that pre-dates the current physical reality I have today. Having such memories certainly gives me an advantage in being able to discern the two obvious dualisms that exist between a physical and non-physical reality system.

You are in the "black iron prison" of the Demigurge. A consciousness having a human experience. It may be only death that re-awakens your knowing of this continuity of consciousness. Someone such as myself having come into this life with the pre-life memory simply has the vehicle to entertain what you call belief, and I call knowledge and knowing.

Also there are some stellar documentaries and evidence in the historic record that gives strong arguments to reincarnation and the continuity of consciousness. When you look there you find evidence that many people do carry over with pre-life memory at a varying degree of awareness and recollection.

Originally posted by Most Infamous
First let me say thank you Mr. YouAreDreaming, it's been a while since anyone has made a reply to one of my posts. I was sort of beginning to think that as soon as I posted a reply to join in a discussion that everyone decided to abandon that discussion.

Happy to when I have the time.

Originally posted by Most Infamous
The problem as I see it is that consciousness is something that cannot be defined, or measured, hence it defies science.

This is why we have the "Hard Problem of Consciousness" and the "Subjective Argument". Science is currently trapped in Newtonian and Einsteinian Relativity, where we measure up to the atom and not much further as the qualification of what "Reality" is and how systems interact and are related.

It's only now that Quantum Mechanics is shifting the paradigm proving flaws in these theories as having contradictions across the board. "Spooky action from a distance" and strange physics are shifting the paradigm of thought because we are seeing subtle flaws in the old world view of science that now suggests more non-linear and non-localized events occur for the smallest particles or waves depending on how they are measured.

Digital Physics is simply moving right past the physical mechanics into information processing and cellular automata showing how the Universe and reality is computational and "simulated". The further science pushes past the old way of thinking, the closer it is getting to the nature of dualism between a physical and non-physical reality.

A reality founded on consciousness and not matter. Those who look at matter as the definitive of "Reality" has merely looked at the end product of a "rendered" experience and derived the rule-set of the game by extracting the laws of how the observable product renders out, not all the underlying mechanics of how this is possible through information processing and virtual reality. Digital Physics seems to correct that thinking and helps shift the paradigm greatly.

Consciousness may not be easy to explain, science can only measure how it flows and is tuned in by the brain, but once they disrupt the brain and stop the consciousness field, they assume it's the brain that is the source and origin of consciousness, rather then an antenna/receiver of consciousness (which is what the brain actually is).

Arguments will alway wage over belief and speculation and theories on this matter. More so when they reject the idea of a consciousness field outside of physical reality of which we all come from.

Originally posted by YouAreDreaming

Digital Physics is simply moving right past the physical mechanics into information processing and cellular automata showing how the Universe and reality is computational and "simulated". The further science pushes past the old way of thinking, the closer it is getting to the nature of dualism between a physical and non-physical reality.

A reality founded on consciousness and not matter. Those who look at matter as the definitive of "Reality" has merely looked at the end product of a "rendered" experience and derived the rule-set of the game by extracting the laws of how the observable product renders out, not all the underlying mechanics of how this is possible through information processing and virtual reality. Digital Physics seems to correct that thinking and helps shift the paradigm greatly.

Consciousness may not be easy to explain, science can only measure how it flows and is tuned in by the brain, but once they disrupt the brain and stop the consciousness field, they assume it's the brain that is the source and origin of consciousness, rather then an antenna/receiver of consciousness (which is what the brain actually is).

Arguments will alway wage over belief and speculation and theories on this matter. More so when they reject the idea of a consciousness field outside of physical reality of which we all come from.

Yes, a good point. This is why I say that science will never be able to understand consciousness. They make this erroneous assumption that the mind/brain is what is responsible for consciousness, a grave error on it's own which they compound by further assuming that only organisms with a mind/brain are capable of exhibiting consciousness. I believe that you mentioned in an earlier post the idea that all things, inanimate as well as the animate, posses consciousness. I would venture to say you are right. I think that every inch, every part of the universe, every little bit of reality is conscious. I brought up the idea about Light and how it is necessary for the experience of sight. In much the same way, I say that in order for anything to exist(that is, to be a part of the universe, to be an aspect of reality) consciousness must be present. Consciousness is the basic building block for reality. Oh boy, I can see that this gonna get kinda messy and complicated to explain. I can hear some people scratching their heads, trying to grasp the concept that some rock, or an expanse of space smaller than a pin head, some part of the universe which is obviously not alive is conscious.

OK, enough, Yes, I agree, I'm getting off topic.

I think most people never question the assumption that objects like spoons, cars, ashtrays, what have you are not or do not posses consciousness. It's something that we have been mislead into believing.

Sorry, somethings come up. I'll try and finish this post latter. That is if you're interested in hearing the rest. If these ideas are nothing new, let me know and I won't waste my energy doing a download

reply to post by Itisnowagain

Interesting. Nice post, I like the way you imagine, there's hope in that dream, something loving and playful in it somewhere I sense.

Thanks for posting that.

That was a great post, ever since i was little my father and I have discussed this paradox, and i have always found it absolutely mind blowing. I commend you for the abstract thinking and it seems to me that you posses a deeper sense of 'being', if you will, then most people. I find the thought of us living in a world where 'reality' is what we make it intriguing. I believe personally that we can far surpass the limitations set by what we think we know and don't know, will we someday find that this conscious reality has all been fake? Who knows. Hopefully one day we are all enlightened.

Most people don't realize that this is one of the most valuable threads on ATS. I appreciate how well you can describe the undecribable. How you can put the impliciet into such explicit meaning. How you can translate the informational unfolding of our universe in comprehending detail. This is what makes me sure that you know of the deeper levels of reality.