Inner Empiricism

[Nick_A]

Hello All

I thought best to post this thread here so as to invite discussion and not be limited to debate.

I've learned that trying to understand the meaning and purpose of the essence of religion requires more than the intellect but requires the whole of ourselves as well as a degree of conscious attention. As we are, we are as the old story of the four blind men having touched different parts of a camel, trying to argue over what it looks like. This is what is normally called debate. It tries to understand a higher whole through examining its parts by the associative mind. It cannot be done.

So for those that need more than mental stimulation but the ability to nourish the heart that is a natural calling for man, what do we do? We know there is a lot of self deceptin out there but is there truth at the bottom of it. Is Rumi right when he says:

Fool’s gold exists because there is real gold. –Rumi.

Perhaps the reason that there is so much BS is because there is actually something genuine and of great value for humanity we've become blind to.

Jacob Needleman is one of these rare men that are able to unite religion and science. He shows that science tries to understand the external world but for us to come to understand human meaning and purpose that the great teachings like Christianity seek to serve, requires our knowledge of the inner man: ourselves. This knowledge he calls here inner empiricism. I invite anyone with the need for the "heart" of philosophy in contrast to the joy of argument to read the following article so that we can discuss it in a more satisfying manner than debate?

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Needleman_93.html

For example: does this make sense to you?

As it happens, I believe there is a growing number of younger philosophers who are interested in getting to the heart of the matter--about what we mean by "reality" and the central role of experience. What draws them, and what originally drew me, to the whole area of philosophy is a quest for meaning. I discovered that the mind by itself cannot complete the philosophic quest. As Kant decisively argued, the mind can ask questions the mind alone cannot answer. For me, this is where the juice of real philosophical investigation begins to flow. I believe it is precisely where intellect hits its limits that the important questions of philosophy start to come alive.

Mainstream academic philosophy has for a long time tried to answer these fundamental questions with that part of the mind we call intellect. Frequently the difficulties encountered were so great, the logical tangles so confusing, that many philosophers decided such questions were meaningless, and some even began to ridicule anyone who dared ask "What is reality?" "What is the meaning of life?" "Is there life after death?" "What is the soul?" "Does God exist?" Yet these are the questions of the heart. These are the questions that matter most to people--not whether the syntax and deep structures of our language can ever truly represent real knowledge. The meaningful questions, these " questions of the heart", rise up in human beings because of something intrinsic to our nature, an innate striving which Plato called Eros.

One aspect of this is the striving to participate in a reality greater than ourselves. It is a yearning, a hunger, a force we may recognize as love. This drive is as much, if not more, a part of our nature as the sexual, physical and animal desires which psychoanalysis and mainstream psychiatry have identified as parts of our essential nature. Our drive for understanding, for participation in a higher reality, shapes our psyche as much as anything else.

But what can the mind do with this deep participatory urge? Even at its most brilliant, the intellect alone can only ask questions that skim the surface of Eros; it cannot answer these questions. Yet such questions--the meaning of life, the nature of the soul--need to be answered. If intellect is not up to the job, how can we penetrate these mysteries? The solution, I'm proposing, is that we can only extend the reach of intellect through experience. There is a certain type of experience that opens up the mind, expands our consciousness, and allows us to approach answers to many of these fundamental questions.

[bernee51]

I was in a bit of a rush and though a clarification (i.e. translation) of sections of my previous post might be appropriate

This negation that you describe IMO will only leave you with your ego's ego without first having come to "Know thyself."

The 'negation' of which I spoke was undertaken by its proponents in order to 'know' god. When I go through the exercise I come up with 'no' god.

When Simone says not to believe in false God's it doesn't mean to ignore them but rather to see them for what they are. This requires an impartial detachment that takes a long time to acquire. It is the basis of karma yoga well defined here:

Karma yoga is the science of action with non-identifying. It must not be changed into "the science of action without identifying." The essence of the idea of Karma Yoga is to meet with unpleasant things equally with pleasant things. That is, in practicing Karma Yoga, one does not seek always to avoid unpleasant things as people ordinarily do. Life is to be met with non-identifying. When this is possible life becomes one's teacher; in no other sense can life become a teacher, for life taken as itself is meaningless, but taken as an exercise it becomes a teacher. It is not life that is a teacher, but ones relation through non-identifying makes it become a teacher.............................

The topic of selfless service or unatatched action is covered beautifully in the Bhagavad Gita.

Meeting the unpleasant equally with the pleasent requires equanimity.

Life can become our teacher when we can remain consciously impartial to it.

Impartial yes but not detached. Rather unattached.

But relishing in debate for the joy of argument, ridiculing others, and expressing ones partiality denies acquiring this impartiality necessary to acquire the understanding that leads to the experience of the quality of "meaning" a person searches for at the depth of their being.

It can - but debate can also lead to jnana. Ridicule, however, is not ahimsa and is the result of aversion.

My experiences can only have meaning for me.

Ultiamtely yes. However decribing techniques and results of a seeking of 'inner empiriciism' can benefit the search of others.

In order to do it one must begin to "Know Thyself" so as to discover how we lose our conscious awareness.

Thus the seeking of an answer to "Who am I?"

The aim, I believe is to see through the 'contents of consciousness' and become fully aware of consciousness.[/quote]

[Nick_A]

Bernee

The 'negation' of which I spoke was undertaken by its proponents in order to 'know' god. When I go through the exercise I come up with 'no' god.

This is your experience. I've experienced grace. I know at one time the music business turned me into an alcoholic. Coming to grips with some ancient sacred concepts including cosmology allowed me to open up and all of a sudden I was no longer an alcoholic. I didn't do it. I was in awe that such depth could actually exist that allowed me to realize that as good as I thought my understanding was, it was all imagination. This humility opened me in a way that allowed grace to enter.

Meeting the unpleasant equally with the pleasent requires equanimity.

Equanimity can be obtained through escapism or through becoming conscious in a way that allows for presence or inner balance. Escapism is described in the karma yoga quote as:"the science of action without identifying." This is escapism that doesn't allow one to consciously experience inner resistance. This does no good so equanimity soon vanishes. However "Karma yoga is the science of action with non-identifying." This is a conscious experience of denial itself rather than denying coming to experience the source of denial within our being. Usually this denial is related to a form of misguided pride and/or vanity that corrupts our ego. It can only be seen for what it is by the conscious part in us that is not controlled by our corrupt ego.

There is a lot of foot washing in the New Testament. People take this superficially since it has a deeper meaning than pure custom. The esoteric meaning of "feet" refers to the external part of our common presence that touches the external world. Jesus explains to Peter that it is only the feet, his outer ego, that needs to be cleansed. He has not become dirty on the inside.

You ask later why I don't speak of techniques and it is because of just this. Many New Age techniques can change a person but not in the intended way. They just become dirty on the inside since these techniques only strengthen their corrupt ego.

If you know the story of Millarepa, you can see how difficult it was for him to unlearn so as to obtain the Dharma. Without the right foundation to begin with, a person does more harm then good when they experiment with what they do not understand. This is why the student begins with the knowledge their nothingness. In this day and age it is the most insulting thing to suggest which is why so much of these New Age teachings are so popular and do so much damage. Simone writes the following and would be cursed out or thought insane for seeing the truth. But this attitude is what freed her from imagination:

"We can only know one thing about God - that he is what we are not. Our wretchedness alone is an image of this. The more we contemplate it, the more we contemplate him." Simone Weil

If one insists on flowery lies to bolster self esteem, avoid Simone Weil at all cost. She's seen and admits the human condition in herself. It is an honest revelation of who "I am" in relation to human potential.

How many threads on all websites have you seen with the question "Does God Exist? "Where is the proof of the existence of God?" There are so many of these threads in one form or another. Yet how many have you read that ask: "How can I change so as to be able to know God?" The Bible speaks of metanoia or the change of psychological direction which looks inside: (inner empricism) Yet even the people who speak of faith in Jesus here do not refer to change which is why it is only blind faith that quickly becomes dominated by imagination and self justification..

It can - but debate can also lead to jnana. Ridicule, however, is not ahimsa and is the result of aversion.

As was well put by Father Sylvan, there are no esoteric thoughts but only esoteric thinking. Esoteric thinking is denied in the presence of skepticism or other forms of negativity enter debate. Qualitative debate is only possible with what the stoics and Christians understood as "apatheia" which is freedom from emotion. It is very rare to find those capable of such a quality of debate that can lead to any higher understanding.

The aim, I believe is to see through the 'contents of consciousness' and become fully aware of consciousness.

You are describing your ego becoming aware of consciousness which it can only use to strengthen itself to your disadvantage. It is precisely this "I" that you speak of that must give way but as Simone asserts, because it is created by imagination, it cannot survive in the light of consciousness of grace so must die. As we know, this imaginary part is so strong in us that it has no intentions of dying for the sake of the real within us.

"Grace fills empty spaces, but it can only enter where there is a void to receive it We must continually suspend the work of the imagination in filling the void within ourselves."
"In no matter what circumstances, if the imagination is stopped from pouring itself out, we have a void (the poor in spirit). In no matter what circumstances... imagination can fill the void. This is why the average human beings can become prisoners, slaves, prostitutes, and pass thru no matter what suffering without being purified."

"That is why we fly from the inner void, since God might steal into it. It is not the pursuit of pleasure and the aversion for effort which causes sin, but fear of God. We know that we cannot see him face to face without dying, and we do not want to die." -- Gravity and Grace

[bernee51]

Bernee

The 'negation' of which I spoke was undertaken by its proponents in order to 'know' god. When I go through the exercise I come up with 'no' god.

This is your experience. I've experienced grace. I know at one time the music business turned me into an alcoholic. Coming to grips with some ancient sacred concepts including cosmology allowed me to open up and all of a sudden I was no longer an alcoholic. ]

I'm sure we could go on and on about our respective 'dark nights of the soul'. Let me just say I have an inkling of what you speak.

I didn't do it.

Yes you did. Your view of yourself as an alcoholic and the pre-conditions in your life that lead you down that path were of your own making - contents of consciousness. Just as that which leads you down the path you are on now are of your own making.

I was in awe that such depth could actually exist that allowed me to realize that as good as I thought my understanding was, it was all imagination. This humility opened me in a way that allowed grace to enter.

What you call grace I call awareness of being.

Meeting the unpleasant equally with the pleasent requires equanimity.

Equanimity can be obtained through escapism or through becoming conscious in a way that allows for presence or inner balance.

Equanimity, as I understand it, is more than 'presence or inner balance' - it is an unselfish, unattached state of mind which also prevents one from doing negative actions. It is not to be confused with indifference.

Escapism is described in the karma yoga quote as:"the science of action without identifying." This is escapism that doesn't allow one to consciously experience inner resistance.

Agreed - to the point where the 'inner resistance' is not so much experienced but noticed.

This does no good so equanimity soon vanishes. However "Karma yoga is the science of action with non-identifying." This is a conscious experience of denial itself rather than denying coming to experience the source of denial within our being.

In karma yoga the denial will not arise - it is not a factor as denial can only result from attachment.

There is a lot of foot washing in the New Testament. People take this superficially since it has a deeper meaning than pure custom. The esoteric meaning of "feet" refers to the external part of our common presence that touches the external world. Jesus explains to Peter that it is only the feet, his outer ego, that needs to be cleansed. He has not become dirty on the inside.

You ask later why I don't speak of techniques and it is because of just this. Many New Age techniques can change a person but not in the intended way. They just become dirty on the inside since these techniques only strengthen their corrupt ego.

I was not referring to techniques specific to any age 'New' or 'Old'.

Do you have an expectation that the realization of this truth of 'inner empiricism' is all the is required in order to see the world through this new found knowledge? Has not the mind had a life time to train itself in believing the delusion that the 'contents of consciousness' are the self. It is one thing to 'know' it is another to live according to that knowledge. The mind requires retraining to overcome the conditions that hold it in delusion.

How do you propose to achieve that?

If you know the story of Millarepa, you can see how difficult it was for him to unlearn so as to obtain the Dharma.

His story is not uncommon in those who seek.

He (Milarepa) said: "All worldly pursuits have but the one unavoidable end, which is sorrow: acquisitions end in dispersion; buildings in destruction; meetings in separation; births, in death. Knowing this, one should, from the very first, renounce acquisition and heaping up, and building, and meeting; and faithful to the commands of an eminent guru, set about realizing the Truth (which has no birth or death)."

The renunciation of which he speaks is non-attachment.

Without the right foundation to begin with, a person does more harm then good when they experiment with what they do not understand.

And so we end up with crusades and jihad.

This is why the student begins with the knowledge their nothingness. In this day and age it is the most insulting thing to suggest which is why so much of these New Age teachings are so popular and do so much damage.

Is it the teachings at fault, the teachers or their interpretation? Or a combination of all three?

Is it the expectations of the teachers? The students?

There is an old saying...before enlightenment, the laundry, after enlightenment, the laundry.

"We can only know one thing about God - that he is what we are not. Our wretchedness alone is an image of this. The more we contemplate it, the more we contemplate him." Simone Weil

Indeed...the characteristics attributed to the god concept is built on the opposites of what is observed of our existence.

We are mortal, god is immortal. We are ignorant, god is all knowing. We are weak, god is all powerful. You name a human characteristic - god is the converse of that.

Why do you think that is?

If one insists on flowery lies to bolster self esteem, avoid Simone Weil at all cost. She's seen and admits the human condition in herself. It is an honest revelation of who "I am" in relation to human potential.

For the same reason I avoid the "flowery lies to bolster self esteem" inherent in the monotheisms.

How many threads on all websites have you seen with the question "Does God Exist? "Where is the proof of the existence of God?" There are so many of these threads in one form or another. Yet how many have you read that ask: "How can I change so as to be able to know God?"

Because this first assumes a belief in or a need for belief in god. I would ask theists - 'how could you change to know the truth about god'? The first step is to begin the experiment of self knowledge.

The Bible speaks of metanoia or the change of psychological direction which looks inside: (inner empiricism) Yet even the people who speak of faith in Jesus here do not refer to change which is why it is only blind faith that quickly becomes dominated by imagination and self justification..

Fine - cut to the chase.

How do you propose that this 'inner empiricism' be achieved given a lifetime dominated by 'imagination and self justification'.

It can - but debate can also lead to jnana. Ridicule, however, is not ahimsa and is the result of aversion.

As was well put by Father Sylvan, there are no esoteric thoughts but only esoteric thinking. Esoteric thinking is denied in the presence of skepticism or other forms of negativity enter debate. Qualitative debate is only possible with what the stoics and Christians understood as "apatheia" which is freedom from emotion.

AKA - non-attachment.

It is very rare to find those capable of such a quality of debate that can lead to any higher understanding.

True - it is rare - but fortunately not impossible.

The aim, I believe is to see through the 'contents of consciousness' and become fully aware of consciousness.

You are describing your ego becoming aware of consciousness which it can only use to strengthen itself to your disadvantage.

The exact opposite my friend.

It is a realization that the ego is a result of the contents of consciousness and as such is not real. Ego itself is not the problem - attachment to ego as something that is 'real' and having a discrete existence is the cause of suffering.

It is precisely this "I" that you speak of that must give way but as Simone asserts, because it is created by imagination, it cannot survive in the light of consciousness of grace so must die. As we know, this imaginary part is so strong in us that it has no intentions of dying for the sake of the real within us....

If this is what you take me to be saying then I have been misunderstood entirely.

It leads me to the suspicion that either it is the case that I am perhaps not explaining my position with clarity or you are perhaps more interested in writing (and quoting your current favorite) than actually reading with understanding what it is I have to say.

"Grace fills empty spaces, but it can only enter where there is a void to receive it We must continually suspend the work of the imagination in filling the void within ourselves."
"In no matter what circumstances, if the imagination is stopped from pouring itself out, we have a void (the poor in spirit). In no matter what circumstances... imagination can fill the void. This is why the average human beings can become prisoners, slaves, prostitutes, and pass thru no matter what suffering without being purified."

"That is why we fly from the inner void, since God might steal into it. It is not the pursuit of pleasure and the aversion for effort which causes sin, but fear of God. We know that we cannot see him face to face without dying, and we do not want to die." -- Gravity and Grace

I hold no fear of god or death. What is there to fear?

When asked of his biography the great 20th century advaitist Nisargadatta wrote "" I was never born"

[Nick_A]

Bernee

Yes you did. Your view of yourself as an alcoholic and the pre-conditions in your life that lead you down that path were of your own making - contents of consciousness. Just as that which leads you down the path you are on now are of your own making.

You don't understand the relationship between grace and human perspective. Grace is not contents of consciousness but rather the energy of the Spirit that manifests as consciousness and the attractive power of love. There are no contents to this.

What you call grace I call awareness of being.

Being is relative. A person can become aware of differing levels of being.

Man on earth has access to two basic qualities of energy: instinctive and emotional. When life is advanced enough to use emotional energy, it is called "sentient" in Buddhism. Sentient life is a higher level of being then life without emotional energy.. These qualities of energy originate with the earth. Quoting from the Journal of Father sylvan:

"Christianity does not work with either mechanical or psychic energy, but with a different level of force to which the name "spirit" or "spiritual energy" is given. The same is true of all god given teachings. Christianity becomes Christendom when it begins to revolve around psychic, biological and mechanical energies, no matter how much it retains the language and forms which were originally created to channel spiritual energy.

Emotional energy produces imagination that feels good and often seems profound. But until one experiences spiritual energy and the affects of the Spirit, it is impossible to appreciate it. This experience is direct and has nothing to do with contents of consciousness.

Equanimity, as I understand it, is more than 'presence or inner balance' - it is an unselfish, unattached state of mind which also prevents one from doing negative actions. It is not to be confused with indifference.

It is not a matter of doing subjectively defined negative things but our being dominated by negative emotion which denies consciousness. A person can do positive things for appearance but under the influence of negative emotion. This is the inner hypocrisy Jesus was forever trying to explain to the Pharisees.

In karma yoga the denial will not arise - it is not a factor as denial can only result from attachment.

If it doesn't arise it only means you are practicing escapism.

"There is no detachment where there is no pain. And there is no pain endured without hatred or lying unless detachment is present too." Simone Weil

Like it or not we have attachments. They are necessary for conscious ,human evolution. There would be no need to acquire freedom from the earth without attachment. It is this struggle between consciousness and attachment that allows for its reconciliation through a higher level of being.

Do you have an expectation that the realization of this truth of 'inner empiricism' is all the is required in order to see the world through this new found knowledge? Has not the mind had a life time to train itself in believing the delusion that the 'contents of consciousness' are the self. It is one thing to 'know' it is another to live according to that knowledge. The mind requires retraining to overcome the conditions that hold it in delusion.

You are asleep in Plato's Cave. What conscious knowledge does a sleeping man have? Dogs can be trained and computers can be programmed. Christianity requires consciousness. Without it, all that is there is Christendom in the cave.

How do you propose to achieve that?

Efforts towards acquiring and sustaining consciousness.

Is it the teachings at fault, the teachers or their interpretation? Or a combination of all three?

It depends on a person's goal. I'm assuming here the goal of awakening. In this case these teachings teach imagination, their exponents express imagination and their students learn how to increase their imagination. Imagination is what denies awakening so what good is the whole teaching if the goal is awakening?

Why do you think that is?

The objective universe consists of six dimensions reflecting different qualities of time and space. God is outside time and space. We can reason in three dimensions. How can we answer that question with our limitations. To try and do so is only idolatry.

The simplest proof of God's existence is relative vibratory frequency. Without the initial force that sustains existence, what allows vibrations in matter to begin and increase in frequency? Newton's law of motion asserts matter to be at rest until acted on by another force. What then is this initial force within creation that increases vibration?

For the same reason I avoid the "flowery lies to bolster self esteem" inherent in the monotheisms.

So we are both wary of the BS manifesting in the span between religion and atheism.

Fine - cut to the chase.

How do you propose that this 'inner empiricism' be achieved given a lifetime dominated by 'imagination and self justification'.

Efforts towards presence. Plato describes it well later in book IV of the Republic

”…But in reality justice was such as we were describing, being
concerned however, not with the outward man, but with the inward, which
is the true self and concernment of man: for the just man does not permit
the several elements within him to interfere with one another, or any of
them to do the work of others, --he sets in order his own inner life, and is
his own master and his own law, and at peace with himself; and when he
has bound together the three principles within him, which may be
compared to the higher, lower, and middle notes of the scale, and the
intermediate intervals --when he has bound all these together, and is no
longer many, but has become one entirely temperate and perfectly
adjusted nature, then he proceeds to act, if he has to act, whether in a
matter of property, or in the treatment of the body, or in some affair of
politics or private business; always thinking and calling that which
preserves and co-operates with this harmonious condition, just and good
action, and the knowledge which presides over it, wisdom, and that which
at any time impairs this condition, he will call unjust action, and the opinion which presides over it ignorance.”

The conscious practice of balancing precludes imagination. When we lose it, we become unbalanced and once again dominated by imagination. The idea is to increase the length of these periods of conscious presence.

It is a realization that the ego is a result of the contents of consciousness and as such is not real. Ego itself is not the problem - attachment to ego as something that is 'real' and having a discrete existence is the cause of suffering.

To deny ego is to deny your life. The corrupt ego is only the result of imagination having replaced consciousness. Efforts towards consciousness are healing for the corrupt ego that could eventually serve its necessary purpose of unifying our inner reality with external reality which Socrates hoped for:

"May the outward and inward man be at one." Socrates

If this is what you take me to be saying then I have been misunderstood entirely.

It leads me to the suspicion that either it is the case that I am perhaps not explaining my position with clarity or you are perhaps more interested in writing (and quoting your current favorite) than actually reading with understanding what it is I have to say.

Maybe so. Describe then what you mean by this: "The aim, I believe is to see through the 'contents of consciousness' and become fully aware of consciousness." What is this "I" that believes in this way that you assume is not an expression of your egotism?

I hold no fear of god or death. What is there to fear?

Proverbs 9: 10
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,
and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom. - Bertrand Russell

I'll stick with proverbs as it pertains to wisdom.

When asked of his biography the great 20th century advaitist Nisargadatta wrote "" I was never born"

Quite true. Re-birth, "I" is the potential for Man.

[bernee51]

Hi Nick…I’m sure if we keep circling each other we will find points of commonality…

Yes you did. Your view of yourself as an alcoholic and the pre-conditions in your life that lead you down that path were of your own making - contents of consciousness. Just as that which leads you down the path you are on now are of your own making.

You don't understand the relationship between grace and human perspective.

Obviously I am of the opinion that grace is a matter of human perspective. You would seem to see grace as somehow independent of human existence.

Grace is not contents of consciousness but rather the energy of the Spirit that manifests as consciousness and the attractive power of love. There are no contents to this.

My understanding of spirit is different. I don’t use a definite article or a capitalization. I do agree though that spirit exists. You are taking a ‘top down’ approach to existence, I take a bottom up.

What you call grace I call awareness of being.

Being is relative. A person can become aware of differing levels of being.

Relative to what? Non-being? Being either is or isn’t.

Man on earth has access to two basic qualities of energy: instinctive and emotional. When life is advanced enough to use emotional energy, it is called "sentient" in Buddhism. Sentient life is a higher level of being then life without emotional energy.

This would seem to be a concept. Concepts are a product of the contents of consciousness.

These qualities of energy originate with the earth. Quoting from the Journal of Father sylvan:

"Christianity does not work with either mechanical or psychic energy, but with a different level of force to which the name "spirit" or "spiritual energy" is given. The same is true of all god given teachings. Christianity becomes Christendom when it begins to revolve around psychic, biological and mechanical energies, no matter how much it retains the language and forms which were originally created to channel spiritual energy.

Emotional energy produces imagination that feels good and often seems profound. But until one experiences spiritual energy and the affects of the Spirit, it is impossible to appreciate it. This experience is direct and has nothing to do with contents of consciousness.

And this ‘spiritual energy’ is not a product of imagination because….?

Equanimity, as I understand it, is more than 'presence or inner balance' - it is an unselfish, unattached state of mind which also prevents one from doing negative actions. It is not to be confused with indifference.

It is not a matter of doing subjectively defined negative things but our being dominated by negative emotion which denies consciousness. A person can do positive things for appearance but under the influence of negative emotion. This is the inner hypocrisy Jesus was forever trying to explain to the Pharisees.

And as such they are not practicing equanimity. In any action intent is all important. I’m not sure I see the point you are trying to make here.

In karma yoga the denial will not arise - it is not a factor as denial can only result from attachment.

"There is no detachment where there is no pain. And there is no pain endured without hatred or lying unless detachment is present too." Simone Weil

If it doesn't arise it only means you are practicing escapism.

Denial may be noted as an object but not acted upon. If it arises as a feeling then this would signal an attachment. The action is not then ‘karma yoga'. Detachment is aversion – it is not non-attachment.

Like it or not we have attachments. They are necessary for conscious ,human evolution. There would be no need to acquire freedom from the earth without attachment. It is this struggle between consciousness and attachment that allows for its reconciliation through a higher level of being.

Indeed we do. The aim however is to notice attachments as they arise and not to act out of them. This is freedom. This aids the evolution of consciousness.

You are asleep in Plato's Cave.

Yet another bold statement – on what is it based.

What conscious knowledge does a sleeping man have?

It is said there are three states – waking, dreaming and deep sleep. That which is present in all three is the only thing that is real. What is present in all three?

How do you propose to achieve that?

Efforts towards acquiring and sustaining consciousness.

Such as…?

Is it the teachings at fault, the teachers or their interpretation? Or a combination of all three?

It depends on a person's goal. I'm assuming here the goal of awakening. In this case these teachings teach imagination, their exponents express imagination and their students learn how to increase their imagination. Imagination is what denies awakening so what good is the whole teaching if the goal is awakening?

I take it that you have investigated these 'teachings' in order to make this judgement. This has aided your ‘awakening’. The teachings then were helpful.

When the student is ready the teacher will come.

Why do you think that is?

The objective universe consists of six dimensions reflecting different qualities of time and space.

Time and space are concepts. Concepts are the result of an nalyis of the contents of consciousness.

God is outside time and space.

If you say so. I have noted elsewhere that this claim is a ‘special plead’.

We can reason in three dimensions. How can we answer that question with our limitations. .

‘Inner empiricism’? Intuitive knowledge?

The simplest proof of God's existence is relative vibratory frequency. Without the initial force that sustains existence, what allows vibrations in matter to begin and increase in frequency? Newton's law of motion asserts matter to be at rest until acted on by another force. What then is this initial force within creation that increases vibration?

Newton’s laws I believe end where quantum physics begin. Not knowing does not default to ‘goddidit’

For the same reason I avoid the "flowery lies to bolster self esteem" inherent in the monotheisms.

So we are both wary of the BS manifesting in the span between religion and atheism.

I would have said ‘theism and atheism’. Without theism there would be no atheism.

Fine - cut to the chase.
How do you propose that this 'inner empiricism' be achieved given a lifetime dominated by 'imagination and self justification'.

Efforts towards presence.

Some examples of these ‘efforts would aid understanding.

The conscious practice of balancing precludes imagination. When we lose it, we become unbalanced and once again dominated by imagination. The idea is to increase the length of these periods of conscious presence.

How is this increase in the length of periods of conscious presence achieved?

It is a realization that the ego is a result of the contents of consciousness and as such is not real. Ego itself is not the problem - attachment to ego as something that is 'real' and having a discrete existence is the cause of suffering.

To deny ego is to deny your life. The corrupt ego is only the result of imagination having replaced consciousness.

Indeed – ego is not denied. Ego is recognised for what it is – a concept – a product of the contents of consciousness.

Efforts towards consciousness are healing for the corrupt ego that could eventually serve its necessary purpose of unifying our inner reality with external reality which Socrates hoped for:

"May the outward and inward man be at one." Socrates

yes – the sound of one hand clapping.

If this is what you take me to be saying then I have been misunderstood entirely.

It leads me to the suspicion that either it is the case that I am perhaps not explaining my position with clarity or you are perhaps more interested in writing (and quoting your current favorite) than actually reading with understanding what it is I have to say.

Maybe so. Describe then what you mean by this: "The aim, I believe is to see through the 'contents of consciousness' and become fully aware of consciousness." What is this "I" that believes in this way that you assume is not an expression of your egotism?

This is the ‘I’ that is the answer to my original question “Who am I?’ It is all that is left once ‘who I am not’ is disposed of. When the delusion that the concepts of consciousness is not the self is realized – that is ‘I’

“I” am pure consciousness. Once this is realized “what you do to the least of my brethren you do to me” can be understood.

I hold no fear of god or death. What is there to fear?

Proverbs 9: 10
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,
and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom. - Bertrand Russell

I'll stick with proverbs as it pertains to wisdom.

That does not tell me much.

What is there to fear?

When asked of his biography the great 20th century advaitist Nisargadatta wrote "" I was never born"

Quite true. Re-birth, "I" is the potential for Man.

Not the potential – the only reality. All else is a construct, a delusion.

[Nick_A]

Bernee

Hi Nick…I’m sure if we keep circling each other we will find points of commonality…

True. It would be hopeless if men couldn't come to agree even as to the ideal female behind or at least respect differences of opinion.

Obviously I am of the opinion that grace is a matter of human perspective. You would seem to see grace as somehow independent of human existence.

Yes. I believe that grace originates with God and permeates the universe. It the earth were destroyed by an asteroid, grace would still permeate the universe.

My understanding of spirit is different. I don’t use a definite article or a capitalization. I do agree though that spirit exists. You are taking a ‘top down’ approach to existence, I take a bottom up.

True. I begin with top down or "involution." This approach makes it easy for me to incorporate the scientific method with my understanding.

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

1. The universe and me in it appears to be doing something so serving a purpose. What is it?

2. My research has introduced me to the hypothesis of levels of reality and a skeleton of the universe itself that is consistent with what I've observed.

3. If true and I am a microcosm, the proof of this can be experienced through efforts at inner empiricism.

4. So I look inside and learn of inner resistance explaining why we do not function as a conscious microcosm.

5. Repeat experiments to reveal consistency or contradiction.

All this initiates from the top down.

Relative to what? Non-being? Being either is or isn’t.

IMO a misconception that brings understanding to a standstill. Universal cosmology and its scale of energies all relate to levels of being. It is like saying that something is either hot or not hot. It denies the whole temperature scale between hot and cold. Reality or a thing in itself is actually a "middle" and its existence is defined by what is directly above and below it in relation to its being.

This would seem to be a concept. Concepts are a product of the contents of consciousness.

There is nothing wrong with concepts. It is the food of contemplation and pondering. Concepts are only harmful when we are attached to them in a way that denies conscious impartiality in their contemplation.

And this ‘spiritual energy’ is not a product of imagination because….?

It is an attribute of objective vibratory frequency and vibrations exist within all matter.

And as such they are not practicing equanimity. In any action intent is all important. I’m not sure I see the point you are trying to make here.

Just clarifying that the appearance of equanimity doesn't guarantee the presence of equanimity.

Denial may be noted as an object but not acted upon. If it arises as a feeling then this would signal an attachment. The action is not then ‘karma yoga'. Detachment is aversion – it is not non-attachment.

karma yoga clears karma because experiencing attachment with the light of conscious attention clears karma. Avoiding the attachment just increases its karmic strength.

Yet another bold statement – on what is it based.

Inner empiricism. A person has to come to it by being open to the experience of the human condition within themselves. It is the most insulting thing to say but those that become aware of it at the level of a Simone must express it regardless of ridicule. It is precisely this objection that explains why the world hates Christianity. Jacob Needleman ads some food for thought:

http://www.conversations.org/issue.php?id=0&st=jerry_n

What does he mean by a "numinous experience"? In Plato's Republic there is the famous Allegory of The Cave. Socrates says that the person who finally comes out of the cave and sees the Truth-the reality of the sun-is obliged to go back down into the cave and try to help the cave dwellers. He is obliged. That doesn't mean it's nice to do that, it means it's part of the law. You don't keep it for yourself, you must share it. Then that touches on the question of skillful means, which is another root of this question-a big root out there, having to do with the transmission from one person more attained to one less attained. This is matter of communicating in a way that actually helps you feel something, touch something, glimpse something in your heart and your intuition. It troubles you in a right way, intentionally. So skillful means. I'm just trying to expose the roots of this question.

RW: Yes. It is helpful.

JN: The Buddha goes to help people who are suffering in hell, and in order to communicate to those who are living in hell, he has to speak in the form of a lie. He speaks the truth in the form of a lie because they would never understand the truth as it is. A famous example of that is called "the lie of kama" which is love. "The Kamatic lie" which is how you communicate the truth. People are asleep. People are deluded. If you tell them really straight out what the situation is... He likens it to a house being on fire where there are children in the house on the second or third floor. You've got to get them out but they don't know the house is burning. You might try to scare them, you could try to plead with them, but they might not listen to you. You have to say something that will really make them listen. You tell them there are toys in the street. Jump! They would be afraid to jump, that you might not catch them. There are many toys down here! And so they jump and you catch them. They see then that there are no toys, but their lives have been saved. So you have to communicate knowing the levers that you have to press. Skillful means could be called, aesthetic communication. That could be part of the roots of this whole big question. Do you know Kierkegaard's thought at all?

Very insulting but suppose he is right? Further along he describes his experience with talented kids:

JN: Some years ago I had a chance to teach a course in philosophy in high school. I got ten or twelve very gifted kids at this wonderful school, San Francisco University High School. In that first class I said, "Now just imagine, as if this was a fairy tale, imagine you are in front of the wisest person in the world, not me, but the wisest person there is and you can only ask one question. What would you ask?" At first they giggled and then they saw that I was very serious. So then they started writing. What came back was astonishing to me. I couldn't understand it at first. About half of the things that came back had little handwriting at the bottom or the sides of the paper in the margin. Questions like, Why do we live? Why do we die? What is the brain for? Questions of the heart. But they were written in the margins as though they were saying, do we really have permission to express these questions? We're not going to be laughed at? It was as though this was something that had been repressed.

RW: Fascinating.

In this day and age with atheism, secularism, psychology, fundamentalism, New Age, and charlatans of all types waiting to take advantage of the slightest human weakness, a bright child has little chance of developing any understanding. He is too busy defending himself from the lunacy of all sides natural for cave life. I am very appreciative of Dr. Needleman's exceptional efforts towards confronting this problem and helping these kids to develop as human beings.

I cannot prove these things to you. I can only suggest that for those who care, read Plato's cave analogy, and impartially try to experience if you are in it or not.

It is said there are three states – waking, dreaming and deep sleep. That which is present in all three is the only thing that is real. What is present in all three?

They are relative levels of consciousness.

I take it that you have investigated these 'teachings' in order to make this judgement. This has aided your ‘awakening’. The teachings then were helpful.

When the student is ready the teacher will come.

Any teaching that doesn't begin with man's nothingness is based IMO on imagination which only leads to imagination.

Time and space are concepts. Concepts are the result of analysis of the contents of consciousness.

Some result from analysis and others from direct experience. Their value is that they can move us from associative thought into pondering and contemplation which is a higher quality of thought.. A Zen koan seeks to do just this.

Newton’s laws I believe end where quantum physics begin. Not knowing does not default to ‘goddidit’

Either way there must be a source of this motivating force.

How is this increase in the length of periods of conscious presence achieved?

Practice. A muscle is strengthened through exercise. It is the same with mental strength. The attention necessary for conscious presence is developed by being more impartially attentive: self awareness. All during the day we are aware of this and aware of that. Only rarely are we aware that we are aware. Attention can increase the quality not only of our basic animal awareness but the conscious awareness of our animal awareness.

Indeed – ego is not denied. Ego is recognized for what it is – a concept – a product of the contents of consciousness.

Yes it is isolated in its imagination. It no longer can connect the higher with the lower within our collective presence.

“I” am pure consciousness. Once this is realized “what you do to the least of my brethren you do to me” can be understood.

This will always be our disagreement. Man's evolution that leads to I is similar but different from Pure consciousness in the same way that high C on the piano is different from low C. They're both "C" but differ in vibratory quality. Man as an inner unity is a trinity but exists as a lower level of being within the great Trinity.

What is there to fear?

When a person comes to see that they need help from above it is natural to fear its absence from our own stupidity.

Not the potential – the only reality. All else is a construct, a delusion.

Is this what you have verified through impartial inner empiricism or something your ego tries to convince you of? Does a jigsaw puzzle still exist if it is in a box as a mass of pieces? Is it only real when it is assembled or does it have a different level of reality when in pieces?

[bernee51]

Yes. I believe that grace originates with God and permeates the universe. It the earth were destroyed by an asteroid, grace would still permeate the universe.

Leaving god aside for a moment - 'grace' is what exactly? Is it related to 'spirit'? My understanding of spirit as 'structure and process' allows for an existence independent of the existence of our human recognition of the concept.

My understanding of spirit is different. I don’t use a definite article or a capitalization. I do agree though that spirit exists. You are taking a ‘top down’ approach to existence, I take a bottom up.

1. The universe and me in it appears to be doing something so serving a purpose. What is it?

2. My research has introduced me to the hypothesis of levels of reality and a skeleton of the universe itself that is consistent with what I've observed.

3. If true and I am a microcosm, the proof of this can be experienced through efforts at inner empiricism.

4. So I look inside and learn of inner resistance explaining why we do not function as a conscious microcosm.

5. Repeat experiments to reveal consistency or contradiction.

All this initiates from the top down.

Funny - I use the same approach to arrive at a bottom up view.

And this ‘spiritual energy’ is not a product of imagination because….?

It is an attribute of objective vibratory frequency and vibrations exist within all matter.

Have we gone from concept to conjecture? Certainly 'vibrations' exist as an attribute of all matter - as does 'spin'. What can justify the extrapolation of this toa numinous term like 'spiritual energy'?

JN: Some years ago I had a chance to teach a course in philosophy in high school. I got ten or twelve very gifted kids at this wonderful school, San Francisco University High School. In that first class I said, "Now just imagine, as if this was a fairy tale, imagine you are in front of the wisest person in the world, not me, but the wisest person there is and you can only ask one question. What would you ask?" At first they giggled and then they saw that I was very serious. So then they started writing. What came back was astonishing to me. I couldn't understand it at first. About half of the things that came back had little handwriting at the bottom or the sides of the paper in the margin. Questions like, Why do we live? Why do we die? What is the brain for? Questions of the heart. But they were written in the margins as though they were saying, do we really have permission to express these questions? We're not going to be laughed at? It was as though this was something that had been repressed.

RW: Fascinating.

Yes it is fascinating. My experience of a similar similar situation is entirely different. As part of my son's senior high class he is doing a course called "Theory of Knowledge". The 'marginal' questions noted above seem to have been front and centre for he and his cohort.

As an aside the very first class in this course was a discussion of Plato's cave.

In this day and age with atheism, secularism, psychology, fundamentalism, New Age, and charlatans of all types waiting to take advantage of the slightest human weakness, a bright child has little chance of developing any understanding.

Indeed - caveat emptor applies to all human experience.

I cannot prove these things to you. I can only suggest that for those who care, read Plato's cave analogy, and impartially try to experience if you are in it or not.

I have rad Plato's Cave. I bought and ploughed through a good deal of Republic when I was my son's age.

I take it that you have investigated these 'teachings' in order to make this judgment. This has aided your ‘awakening’. The teachings then were helpful.

When the student is ready the teacher will come.

Any teaching that doesn't begin with man's nothingness is based IMO on imagination which only leads to imagination.

I agree wholeheartedly. No good telling that to the {insert myth believer} next door.

Newton’s laws I believe end where quantum physics begin. Not knowing does not default to ‘goddidit’

Either way there must be a source of this motivating force.

A prior motivating source. You choose to call that 'god' because, given knowledge acquired through seeking and contemplation, no other explanation is forth coming.

A cause holds within itself all possible effects. An effect is a cause that has been changed in some way.

How is this increase in the length of periods of conscious presence achieved?

Practice. A muscle is strengthened through exercise. It is the same with mental strength. The attention necessary for conscious presence is developed by being more impartially attentive: self awareness. All during the day we are aware of this and aware of that. Only rarely are we aware that we are aware. Attention can increase the quality not only of our basic animal awareness but the conscious awareness of our animal awareness.

On this we are one....do I have to twist your arm to get it out of you....

What constitutes your 'practice' in developing awareness. How do you go about this 'muscle building''.

“I” am pure consciousness. Once this is realized “what you do to the least of my brethren you do to me” can be understood.

This will always be our disagreement. Man's evolution that leads to I is similar but different from Pure consciousness in the same way that high C on the piano is different from low C. They're both "C" but differ in vibratory quality. Man as an inner unity is a trinity but exists as a lower level of being within the great Trinity.

Can you expand on the bolded section above?

I will reflect on your piano analogy.

What is there to fear?

When a person comes to see that they need help from above it is natural to fear its absence from our own stupidity.

Help from above to do what?

Not the potential – the only reality. All else is a construct, a delusion.

Is this what you have verified through impartial inner empiricism or something your ego tries to convince you of?

This is my understanding of the nature of being. It has arisen through the practice of the four yogas (although I have only recently recognized it in this light) over a period of forty plus years.

Despite my certainty, the 'feeling in my heart', the joy that comes with the knowledge (sat-chit-ananda), I am quite willing, however, to admit the possibility it is as every bit a construct as I believe is - "Man as an inner unity is a trinity but exists as a lower level of being within the great Trinity".

[Nick_A]

Bernee

Leaving god aside for a moment - 'grace' is what exactly? Is it related to 'spirit'? My understanding of spirit as 'structure and process' allows for an existence independent of the existence of our human recognition of the concept.

This is hard to explain if you are not familiar with cosmology as levels of reality within levels of reality. The best I can do now is assert that grace is a quality of materiality that corresponds with the functioning of higher consciousness and love that originates with God. When for whatever reason grace enters us, it allows us the experience of a quality of consciousness and the experience of love unlike and above what is able to be produced by the level of earth. This is why it is depicted as light itself.

Funny - I use the same approach to arrive at a bottom up view.

The trouble I find with your diagram is that it doesn't distinguish the difference between mechanical and conscious evolution. One could assume through looking at it that mechanical evolution mechanically produces conscious evolution. IMO it cannot happen. Mechanical evolution can only evolve so far and then begins descending again through the process of involution back into the earth. This is the normal cycle of life and death. For mechanical evolution to continue on into conscious evolution, it requires conscious help from higher consciousness in the form of the spirit.

Have we gone from concept to conjecture? Certainly 'vibrations' exist as an attribute of all matter - as does 'spin'. What can justify the extrapolation of this toa numinous term like 'spiritual energy'?

I see you don't know what I mean by vibration and how matter can be so fine as to be considered energy or "spirit" If interested, read this short explanation. You may not agree but at least you will understand my position.

http://altreligion.about.com/library/te ... alion9.htm

When the object reaches a certain rate of vibration its molecules disintegrate, and resolve themselves into the original elements or atoms. Then the atoms, following the Principle of Vibration, are separated into the countless corpuscles of which they are composed. And finally, even the corpuscles disappear and the object may be said to Be composed of The Ethereal Substance. Science does not dare to follow the illustration further, but the Hermetists teach that if the vibrations be continually increased the object would mount up the successive states of manifestation and would in turn manifest the various mental stages, and then on Spiritward, until it would finally re-enter The All, which is Absolute Spirit. The "object," however, would have ceased to be an "object" long before the stage of Ethereal Substance was reached, but otherwise the illustration is correct inasmuch as it shows the effect of constantly increased rates and modes of vibration. It must be remembered, in the above illustration, that at the stages at which the "object" throws off vibrations of light, heat, etc., it is not actually "resolved" into those forms of energy (which are much higher in the scale), but simply that it reaches a degree of vibration in which those forms of energy are liberated, in a degree, from the confining influences of its molecules, atoms and corpuscles, as the case may be. These forms of energy, although much higher in the scale than matter, are imprisoned and confined in the material combinations, by reason of the energies manifesting through, and using material forms, but thus becoming entangled and confined in their creations of material forms, which, to an extent, is true of all creations, the creating force becoming involved in its creation.

We cannot appreciate the fine materiality of pure consciousness. Yet it can slow down to produce the matter that creates the infinity of our universe. Once again I marvel how Simone Weil expresses this profound explanation which I believe will eventually explain what we call the 'Big Bang" which is actually the beginning of an exhalation of the "Breath of Brahma"

For her part, Simone Weil, in one of her last essays, wrote:

"Toujours le même infiniment petit, qui est infiniment plus que tout."

[Always the same infinitely small, which is infinitely more than all.]

Yes it is fascinating. My experience of a similar similar situation is entirely different. As part of my son's senior high class he is doing a course called "Theory of Knowledge". The 'marginal' questions noted above seem to have been front and centre for he and his cohort.

How the questions are presented to the students make all the difference. My guess is that it was presented in the usual BS fashion which provoked the usual rationalisms

A prior motivating source. You choose to call that 'god' because, given knowledge acquired through seeking and contemplation, no other explanation is forth coming.

I don't see any other explanation that makes any sense.

A cause holds within itself all possible effects. An effect is a cause that has been changed in some way.

For me "cause" must be initiated by conscious intent. Effects cannot become causes. Effects produce effects and so on in accordance with universal laws designed to produce these interactions of mechanical effects. God is the initial consciousness that initiates the laws that produce what we see as effects.

What constitutes your 'practice' in developing awareness. How do you go about this 'muscle building''.

As I said, I don't like to speak of these things to protect against ideas being abused to the detriment of the abuser. When taken wrongly they do more harm than good.

Can you expand on the bolded section above?

The concept of the Holy Trinity asserts three forces that exist as unity outside of time and space. These three forces are known by many names. In the Tao for example they are Yin, Yang, and Qi. How ever it is depicted, the idea is that their is a positive force, that which affirms, a negative force or what denies, and the force of reconciliation that allows them to unite. For the purposes of creation the Trinity divides into three

Man on earth has evolved to the level that he is capable of conducting these three forces, The head is affirmation. The body is denial. The heart or emotion is what reconciles the struggle between the mind and body. The fallen heart is so fractured that it no longer can serve its purpose. Christianity seeks to allow the Spirit to heal the heart and compensate for its fractured nature allowing it to honor the seed of the soul within it. Of course the head, heart, and body do not exist in us as "ONE" so we have only the potential for inner unity but as we are, we are nothing. but reactions in opposition to one another.

Help from above to do what?

Consciously experience meaning, purpose, and love that guides us to Consciously evolve back to our origin.

Despite my certainty, the 'feeling in my heart', the joy that comes with the knowledge (sat-chit-ananda), I am quite willing, however, to admit the possibility it is as every bit a construct as I believe is - "Man as an inner unity is a trinity but exists as a lower level of being within the great Trinity".

Is it satisfying for you to believe that this experience is the purpose of your existence? I find it more reasonable to consider that the purpose of the soul is to act as a middle that unites above and below. In Christianity it is expressed as "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." Without the middle that connects levels of reality, the effects of nature's laws cuts humanity off from conscious help from above. I see Man's purpose as a function of being a connecting middle.

[bernee51]

Bernee

Leaving god aside for a moment - 'grace' is what exactly? Is it related to 'spirit'? My understanding of spirit as 'structure and process' allows for an existence independent of the existence of our human recognition of the concept.

This is hard to explain if you are not familiar with cosmology as levels of reality within levels of reality. The best I can do now is assert that grace is a quality of materiality that corresponds with the functioning of higher consciousness and love that originates with God. When for whatever reason grace enters us, it allows us the experience of a quality of consciousness and the experience of love unlike and above what is able to be produced by the level of earth. This is why it is depicted as light itself.

As I said previously I am aware, both through jnana and experience, of satchidananda and metta. This brings with it what you appear to be describing as the experience of grace. I do not believe this is a ‘higher consciousness’ as in non-human. It is, I believe, our natural state, a state, however to which we are usually blind due to the delusion of self that manifests due to identification with and attachment to the contents of consciousness.

Funny - I use the same approach to arrive at a bottom up view.

The trouble I find with your diagram is that it doesn't distinguish the difference between mechanical and conscious evolution. One could assume through looking at it that mechanical evolution mechanically produces conscious evolution. IMO it cannot happen. Mechanical evolution can only evolve so far and then begins descending again through the process of involution back into the earth. This is the normal cycle of life and death. For mechanical evolution to continue on into conscious evolution, it requires conscious help from higher consciousness in the form of the spirit.

Consciousness is an evolutionary development based in the nervous system. An examination of the human brain shows its clear evolutionary pathway from irritable cells through brainstem, reptilian brain and on to the complex neocortex. Is it coincidental that an increasing complexity of the nervous system seems to go hand in hand with a ‘higher’ level of consciousness? Consciousness is not a static state but a continuum. I heartily suggest Nicholas Humphrey’s Seeing Red.

Have we gone from concept to conjecture? Certainly 'vibrations' exist as an attribute of all matter - as does 'spin'. What can justify the extrapolation of this to a numinous term like 'spiritual energy'?

I see you don't know what I mean by vibration and how matter can be so fine as to be considered energy or "spirit" If interested, read this short explanation. You may not agree but at least you will understand my position.

Is your position to take the 100-year-old musings on sub-atomic particles of ‘three’ unknown mystics as ‘fact’?

Once again I marvel how Simone Weil expresses this profound explanation which I believe will eventually explain what we call the 'Big Bang" which is actually the beginning of an exhalation of the "Breath of Brahma"

Just as I find fascinating the ancient rishis who ‘sensed’ the specific ‘vibrations’ of the various chakras as sound and came up with Sanskrit.

For her part, Simone Weil, in one of her last essays, wrote:

"Toujours le même infiniment petit, qui est infiniment plus que tout."

[Always the same infinitely small, which is infinitely more than all.]

I prefer Blake:

"To see a world in a grain of sand
And heaven in a wild flower
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.”

and

“If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thru chinks of his cavern.”

A prior motivating source. You choose to call that 'god' because, given knowledge acquired through seeking and contemplation, no other explanation is forth coming.

I don't see any other explanation that makes any sense.

That doesn’t make you right. It makes you believe.

A cause holds within itself all possible effects. An effect is a cause that has been changed in some way.

For me "cause" must be initiated by conscious intent. Effects cannot become causes.

What is a cause in one moment is an effect in the next, and a cause of the next effect.

What constitutes your 'practice' in developing awareness. How do you go about this 'muscle building''.

As I said, I don't like to speak of these things to protect against ideas being abused to the detriment of the abuser. When taken wrongly they do more harm than good.

As you wish.

Not that it should matter but what appears to be your caginess gives the interested reader the impression that you have read widely, have an inkling of what must be done but are unsure of how to go about it.

Can you expand on the bolded section above?

The concept of the Holy Trinity asserts three forces that exist as unity outside of time and space. These three forces are known by many names. In the Tao for example they are Yin, Yang, and Qi. How ever it is depicted, the idea is that there is a positive force, that which affirms, a negative force or what denies, and the force of reconciliation that allows them to unite. For the purposes of creation the Trinity divides into three

Man on earth has evolved to the level that he is capable of conducting these three forces, The head is affirmation. The body is denial. The heart or emotion is what reconciles the struggle between the mind and body. The fallen heart is so fractured that it no longer can serve its purpose. Christianity seeks to allow the Spirit to heal the heart and compensate for its fractured nature allowing it to honor the seed of the soul within it. Of course the head, heart, and body do not exist in us as "ONE" so we have only the potential for inner unity but as we are, we are nothing. but reactions in opposition to one another.

The concept of ‘trinity’ is a constant in human experience.

Hindu: Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva – the creator, sustainer, destroyer.
Plato: Beautiful, good, true
Buddhism; Buddha, dharma, sanga,
Popper’s 3 worlds; subjective, cultural, objective
Habermas’ validity claims: subjective sincerity, intersubjective justice, objective truth
I, We, It.
Arts, morals, science.

Isn’t imagination a wonderful thing! What are those shadows on your wall?

Help from above to do what?

Consciously experience meaning, purpose, and love that guides us to Consciously evolve back to our origin.

That can only come from where it originated – within.

Despite my certainty, the 'feeling in my heart', the joy that comes with the knowledge (sat-chit-ananda), I am quite willing, however, to admit the possibility it is as every bit a construct as I believe is - "Man as an inner unity is a trinity but exists as a lower level of being within the great Trinity".

Is it satisfying for you to believe that this experience is the purpose of your existence?

Where have I claimed it is the purpose of my existence?

I find it more reasonable to consider that the purpose of the soul is to act as a middle that unites above and below.

Indeed – the soul, as I understand it, is the conduit between mind and spirit. The soul evolves with experience aiding the evolution of spirit.

In Christianity it is expressed as "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

The only comment I make on this is that I am the container for both heaven and earth.

[bernee51]

Bernee

Leaving god aside for a moment - 'grace' is what exactly? Is it related to 'spirit'? My understanding of spirit as 'structure and process' allows for an existence independent of the existence of our human recognition of the concept.

This is hard to explain if you are not familiar with cosmology as levels of reality within levels of reality. The best I can do now is assert that grace is a quality of materiality that corresponds with the functioning of higher consciousness and love that originates with God. When for whatever reason grace enters us, it allows us the experience of a quality of consciousness and the experience of love unlike and above what is able to be produced by the level of earth. This is why it is depicted as light itself.

As I said previously I am aware, both through jnana and experience, of satchidananda and metta. This brings with it what you appear to be describing as the experience of grace. I do not believe this is a ‘higher consciousness’ as in non-human. It is, I believe, our natural state, a state, however to which we are usually blind due to the delusion of self that manifests due to identification with and attachment to the contents of consciousness.

Funny - I use the same approach to arrive at a bottom up view.

The trouble I find with your diagram is that it doesn't distinguish the difference between mechanical and conscious evolution. One could assume through looking at it that mechanical evolution mechanically produces conscious evolution. IMO it cannot happen. Mechanical evolution can only evolve so far and then begins descending again through the process of involution back into the earth. This is the normal cycle of life and death. For mechanical evolution to continue on into conscious evolution, it requires conscious help from higher consciousness in the form of the spirit.

Consciousness is an evolutionary development based in the nervous system. An examination of the human brain shows its clear evolutionary pathway from irritable cells through brainstem, reptilian brain and on to the complex neocortex. Is it coincidental that an increasing complexity of the nervous system seems to go hand in hand with a ‘higher’ level of consciousness?
Consciousness is not a static state but a continuum. I heartily suggest Nicholas Humphrey’s Seeing Red.

Have we gone from concept to conjecture? Certainly 'vibrations' exist as an attribute of all matter - as does 'spin'. What can justify the extrapolation of this to a numinous term like 'spiritual energy'?

I see you don't know what I mean by vibration and how matter can be so fine as to be considered energy or "spirit" If interested, read this short explanation. You may not agree but at least you will understand my position.

Is your position to take the 100-year-old musings on sub-atomic particles of ‘three’ unknown mystics as ‘fact’?

Once again I marvel how Simone Weil expresses this profound explanation which I believe will eventually explain what we call the 'Big Bang" which is actually the beginning of an exhalation of the "Breath of Brahma"

Just as I find fascinating the ancient rishis who ‘sensed’ the specific ‘vibrations’ of the various chakras as sound and came up with Sanskrit.

For her part, Simone Weil, in one of her last essays, wrote:

"Toujours le même infiniment petit, qui est infiniment plus que tout."

[Always the same infinitely small, which is infinitely more than all.]

I prefer Blake:

"To see a world in a grain of sand
And heaven in a wild flower
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.”

and

“If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thru chinks of his cavern.”

A prior motivating source. You choose to call that 'god' because, given knowledge acquired through seeking and contemplation, no other explanation is forth coming.

I don't see any other explanation that makes any sense.

That doesn’t make you right. It makes you believe.

A cause holds within itself all possible effects. An effect is a cause that has been changed in some way.

For me "cause" must be initiated by conscious intent. Effects cannot become causes.

What is a cause in one moment is an effect in the next, and a cause of the next effect.

What constitutes your 'practice' in developing awareness. How do you go about this 'muscle building''.

As I said, I don't like to speak of these things to protect against ideas being abused to the detriment of the abuser. When taken wrongly they do more harm than good.

As you wish.

Not that it should matter but what appears to be your caginess gives the interested reader the impression that you have read widely, have an inkling of what must be done but are unsure of how to go about it.

Can you expand on the bolded section above?

The concept of the Holy Trinity asserts three forces that exist as unity outside of time and space. These three forces are known by many names. In the Tao for example they are Yin, Yang, and Qi. How ever it is depicted, the idea is that there is a positive force, that which affirms, a negative force or what denies, and the force of reconciliation that allows them to unite. For the purposes of creation the Trinity divides into three

Man on earth has evolved to the level that he is capable of conducting these three forces, The head is affirmation. The body is denial. The heart or emotion is what reconciles the struggle between the mind and body. The fallen heart is so fractured that it no longer can serve its purpose. Christianity seeks to allow the Spirit to heal the heart and compensate for its fractured nature allowing it to honor the seed of the soul within it. Of course the head, heart, and body do not exist in us as "ONE" so we have only the potential for inner unity but as we are, we are nothing. but reactions in opposition to one another.

The concept of ‘trinity’ is a constant in human experience.

Hindu: Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva – the creator, sustainer, destroyer.
Plato: Beautiful, good, true
Buddhism; Buddha, dharma, sanga,
Popper’s 3 worlds; subjective, cultural, objective
Hamermas’ validity claims: subjective sincerity, intersubjective justice, objective truth
I, We, It.
Arts, morals, science.

Furthermore, if you go back to the diagram of the chain of being you will note how, for example these three can interact with the realms (physical, mental, spiritual)

Isn’t imagination a wonderful thing! What are those shadows on the wall?

Help from above to do what?

Consciously experience meaning, purpose, and love that guides us to Consciously evolve back to our origin.

That can only come from where it originated – within.

Despite my certainty, the 'feeling in my heart', the joy that comes with the knowledge (sat-chit-ananda), I am quite willing, however, to admit the possibility it is as every bit a construct as I believe is - "Man as an inner unity is a trinity but exists as a lower level of being within the great Trinity".

Is it satisfying for you to believe that this experience is the purpose of your existence?

Where have I claimed it is the purpose of my existence?

I find it more reasonable to consider that the purpose of the soul is to act as a middle that unites above and below.

Indeed – the soul, as I understand it, is the conduit between mind and spirit. The soul evolves with experience aiding the evolution of spirit.