Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

BrainMeta.com Forum _ General Consciousness Discussion _ On the Mental Representation of the Objective World

Posted by: lucid_dream Oct 28, 2007, 02:18 PM

Mostly everyone operates/navigates in this world as if their mental representation of it were synonymous with the objective world. Few stop to think about the fact that their 'objective world' is merely their mental representation and wonder over the nature of mental representation in general.

Pick an object in your environment, like a book or sculpture and examine it closely. What is that? I don't mean the object considered as thing-in-itself. I mean the object considered as your mental representation. What is that mental representation? And why do I perceive it as such an not otherwise?

Let's forget about ontologies and metaphysics for the moment; we don't care about the thing-in-itself if such a thing exists, at least for the purposes of answering the above questions. The concern here is the nature of the mental representation itself.

Thoughts?

Posted by: Joesus Oct 28, 2007, 08:05 PM

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Oct 28, 2007, 10:18 PM) *

Mostly everyone operates/navigates in this world as if their mental representation of it were synonymous with the objective world. Few stop to think about the fact that their 'objective world' is merely their mental representation and wonder over the nature of mental representation in general.

Pick an object in your environment, like a book or sculpture and examine it closely. What is that? I don't mean the object considered as thing-in-itself. I mean the object considered as your mental representation. What is that mental representation? And why do I perceive it as such an not otherwise?

Let's forget about ontologies and metaphysics for the moment; we don't care about the thing-in-itself if such a thing exists, at least for the purposes of answering the above questions. The concern here is the nature of the mental representation itself.

Thoughts?

If you remove metaphysics/ontology, then perception of any object is simply psychological predetermination. A separation of what is and isn't according to determination in quality and point of reference.
Ergo, ego.

Posted by: lucid_dream Oct 28, 2007, 08:21 PM

QUOTE(Dianah @ Oct 28, 2007, 08:18 PM) *
Mental representation is of that which is felt and unknown (unconscious) or not yet understood, thus through image all potential can be explored/ experienced and brought into understanding (consciousness)…through the experience/exploration/mental representation of it.

that sounds Freudian. I agree that speaking of an unconscious determining our conscious awareness is useful but would like to understand more about the unconscious, preferably not in terms of archetypes or similar devices.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Oct 28, 2007, 09:05 PM) *
If you remove metaphysics/ontology, then perception of any object is simply psychological predetermination.
psychological predetermination is just a word with no real meaning. It doesn't explain anything.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Oct 28, 2007, 09:05 PM) *
Ergo, ego.

are you saying ego is necessarily at work in the mental representation of objects?

To elaborate a bit more on the original post, it can be broken down into two parts: 1) answering the question, "what are mental representations?, and 2) examining the illusion of the external objective world.

1) is very difficult to approach, though it seems safe to say that unconscious processes play a role. Further details would be nice, though.

2) is interesting because it seems the designation of our percept of the world as "objective" and "external" to us is implicit knowledge that underlies our awareness, though we are not usually directly aware of this. It's also interesting to consider the consequences of switching this implicit knowledge off, so that our percept of the world is no longer external.


Posted by: Joesus Oct 28, 2007, 10:45 PM

QUOTE
psychological predetermination is just a word with no real meaning. It doesn't explain anything.

No it doesn't but if you narrow thoughts so that they are exclusive rather than inclusive your bound to run into dead ends.
QUOTE
are you saying ego is necessarily at work in the mental representation of objects?

What are objects but a collection of molecules. Their grouping and identity is relative to spontaneous recognition or association to the object through memory.
QUOTE
To elaborate a bit more on the original post, it can be broken down into two parts: 1) answering the question, "what are mental representations?, and 2) examining the illusion of the external objective world.

So 1) Are you particular about the answer to the question?
2) in examining any illusions you would have to be free from any conditioned reaction to an object. This would mean you would be able to multi-dimensionally perceive the object rather than through one avenue of interpretation, see it in different levels of being, or first recognize the difference between illusion and reality.
This is going to necessarily be divided in the mental constructs of perception based on levels of accepted awareness.

QUOTE

1) is very difficult to approach, though it seems safe to say that unconscious processes play a role. Further details would be nice, though.
Then one would have to be familiar with the unconscious to understand any underlying influence.

QUOTE
2) is interesting because it seems the designation of our percept of the world as "objective" and "external" to us is implicit knowledge that underlies our awareness, though we are not usually directly aware of this. It's also interesting to consider the consequences of switching this implicit knowledge off, so that our percept of the world is no longer external.

Find a way to do that and the door opens to greater awareness and experience, but then would you accept something that wasn't fitting into your habitual recognition patterns.
Wouldn't you have to be willing to leave your house to experience what is not confined within its walls?
If the walls are the illusion then everything you haven't experienced isn't hidden, just ignored.

Posted by: lucid_dream Oct 28, 2007, 11:09 PM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Oct 28, 2007, 11:45 PM) *

QUOTE
psychological predetermination is just a word with no real meaning. It doesn't explain anything.

No it doesn't but if you narrow thoughts so that they are exclusive rather than inclusive your bound to run into dead ends.

I'm seeking understanding and explanation without regard for exclusion or inclusion.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Oct 28, 2007, 11:45 PM) *

QUOTE
are you saying ego is necessarily at work in the mental representation of objects?

What are objects but a collection of molecules. Their grouping and identity is relative to spontaneous recognition or association to the object through memory.

So you don't think ego is necessariliy at work in the mental representation of objects?

QUOTE(Joesus @ Oct 28, 2007, 11:45 PM) *
1) Are you particular about the answer to the question?
like I mentioned, I'm just seeking understanding and explanation, without regard for much else.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Oct 28, 2007, 11:45 PM) *
2) in examining any illusions you would have to be free from any conditioned reaction to an object. This would mean you would be able to multi-dimensionally perceive the object rather than through one avenue of interpretation, see it in different levels of being

In this case, I don't agree that perceiving the world percept as "external" is a conditioned reaction (at least not in the typical meaning of conditioning). It seems rather a default mode of perception that's the issue, that involves implicit knowledge that the world percept is "external".

QUOTE(Joesus @ Oct 28, 2007, 11:45 PM) *
Then one would have to be familiar with the unconscious to understand any underlying influence.
And being familiar with the unconscious makes it conscious and thus is no longer the unconscious; kind of a dilemma. You don't recognize the unconscious, do you?

QUOTE(Joesus @ Oct 28, 2007, 11:45 PM) *
Find a way to do that and the door opens to greater awareness and experience
Ok

QUOTE(Joesus @ Oct 28, 2007, 11:45 PM) *
would you accept something that wasn't fitting into your habitual recognition patterns.
If it didn't fit into my recognition patterns, that is, if it wasn't recognized, I would be blind to it and would not have the opportunity to accept or deny it. If I had the opportunity, I would accept.

QUOTE(Joesus @ Oct 28, 2007, 11:45 PM) *
everything you haven't experienced isn't hidden, just ignored.
this hearkens back to your suggestion that conscious awareness is changing but not consciousness itself. Interesting idea.

Posted by: Wafa.. Oct 29, 2007, 01:11 AM

Did anyone knows about the claim that consciousness leads to the "Wave function collapse"!??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_causes_collapse


If you hear about the famous virtual experiment of Schrodinger, "the schrodinger's cat"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat

according to the consciousness claim, the cat will stay in a state not dead and not alive until you open the door and your consciousness collapses one option (alive or dead) over the other!


Is observability is a property of the observed item or the observing individual?

In a broader sense, does reason makes the sense or the sense makes the reason?????


Wafa

Posted by: Rick Oct 29, 2007, 10:58 AM

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Oct 28, 2007, 03:18 PM) *
Pick an object in your environment, like a book or sculpture and examine it closely. What is that? I don't mean the object considered as thing-in-itself. I mean the object considered as your mental representation. What is that mental representation? And why do I perceive it as such and not otherwise?

There are two distinct kinds of mental representations of objects. Consider the experience of holding a book, looking at it, hearing the sound of flipping through the pages, the feel of the paper. Then consider the memory of that experience. The second representation is more dream-like with much lower fidelity of representation, but with most experiences, we cannot repeat them in real-time at will, we must make do with memories.

Most people equate "reality" with the experience of the first type, real-time sensing. And they consider memories of experiences as a kind of abstraction for thinking about the world. However, real-time experience is also as distinct from the physical world of things in themselves as are memories.

A bat has a sonar-built model of the world it flies in. An intelligent robot will certainly have a different conscious experience of both the world and memories, and will certainly have vastly different mental representations.

Posted by: maximus242 Oct 29, 2007, 11:01 AM

mm this is dependent on a number of factors. Neurologically the brain does not distinguish the difference between real and imagined experiences. Instead it is the conscious mind which uses its intellect to deduce what is real and what is imagined.

This may also be the reason why we do not remember all of our dreams, perhaps it was an evolutionary trait designed to avoid confusing the conscious minds concepts of reality.

Posted by: Joesus Oct 30, 2007, 09:17 AM

QUOTE

I'm seeking understanding and explanation without regard for exclusion or inclusion.
Then you won't leave out what what you would label metaphysics/ontology.

QUOTE

So you don't think ego is necessarily at work in the mental representation of objects?
Of course it is, the refinement of the senses include taming the ego and its layered physical and psychological stresses that are habit, judgment, belief, projections based on belief, fear and expectations.
In responding to your first statement seeking explanation; what you really want is satisfaction. If you had the answers then you would take the answer and create more questions. One thing leading to another the endless supply of questions and answers engages the mind into the mechanical nature of reality but may distract you from actually experiencing why you are here and what you can do with what you have created.
The ego seeks mental explanations and representations of reality which is why it will accept and altered state such as an entheogen inspired hallucination as expanded awareness.
The ego in itself cannot contain consciousness but it can contain its conclusions and temporarily satisfy the mind with illusions. This is why we stay stuck in illusions, because the ego accepts them as reality.
The part of you that knows there is more is colored by the ego and by habit is seeking to add another answer or conclusion to the box you already have built. It will continue to distract you with questions and answers until the body grows old and dies.

QUOTE
like I mentioned, I'm just seeking understanding and explanation, without regard for much else.

If you had understanding would it have to be explained? If understanding could not be contained but experienced and expressed in words that would not contain it could you live with that?
An example would be love. If you are in love you can express your feelings about what you are experiencing but you could never express an explanation that could give the experience to someone who has never experienced it. Then there is the difference in emotional attached love and unattached, unconditional love. The second being the natural playground God creates so that all desires/thoughts are manifest, even the desires/thoughts of war, disease, and suffering.

QUOTE
In this case, I don't agree that perceiving the world percept as "external" is a conditioned reaction (at least not in the typical meaning of conditioning). It seems rather a default mode of perception that's the issue, that involves implicit knowledge that the world percept is "external".

To know about conditioning one has to have the direct experience of creating the external or experiencing the external manifest through thought.
This requires a discipline to turn the mind inward and to clear the nervous system of its attachment to beliefs or the mind and body of psychological and physical stresses.
QUOTE
And being familiar with the unconscious makes it conscious and thus is no longer the unconscious; kind of a dilemma. You don't recognize the unconscious, do you?

I recognize consciousness, whether it is experienced or not it is the same. There are certain impulses created by desire/belief that remain unfulfilled and they can be circumvented, such an impulse is physical death. Other conditions such as illness and separation from God are stress related and can be easily removed by removing stress.
QUOTE
If it didn't fit into my recognition patterns, that is, if it wasn't recognized, I would be blind to it and would not have the opportunity to accept or deny it. If I had the opportunity, I would accept.

You always have the opportunity but you do not always make the choices to pave the way for greater experience.

QUOTE
this hearkens back to your suggestion that conscious awareness is changing but not consciousness itself. Interesting idea.

Awareness is simply consciousness, but the ego is stuck in the relative world and conscious itself/you, are not limited to the relative.

Posted by: forgottenpresence Oct 30, 2007, 10:29 AM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:17 AM) *

The ego in itself cannot contain consciousness


The ego is the container of ego-consciousness, when it is transcended one enters the non-dual realm of unity-consciousness. All is consciousness, just differing layers.

Posted by: Joesus Oct 30, 2007, 07:08 PM

QUOTE(forgottenpresence @ Oct 30, 2007, 06:29 PM) *

QUOTE(Joesus @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:17 AM) *

The ego in itself cannot contain consciousness


The ego is the container of ego-consciousness, when it is transcended one enters the non-dual realm of unity-consciousness. All is consciousness, just differing layers.
The container is an illusion.
Unity still carries the remnants of the illusion and connects it to the one. This is called in sanskrit, leshavidya, one lives life with one foot in the manifest and the other in the absolute. When one transcends duality, duality still exists. The differing layers are duality.

Posted by: kortikal Oct 30, 2007, 07:12 PM

Joesus, do you call the manifest the objects of dual consciousness and the absolute a unitive state of consciousness? Is this all you recognize in consciousness, is dual and unitive? Don't you think infinite consciousness would have more than merely dual and what you call absolute?


Posted by: Joesus Oct 30, 2007, 08:00 PM

QUOTE

Joesus, do you call the manifest the objects of dual consciousness and the absolute a unitive state of consciousness?

The manifest is more than the objects of dual consciousness, it is active awareness, Also called God.
The absolute appears still in contrast to the movement of awareness and it supports all activity, because activity could not exist without it, yet they are, one.
The absolute is not a state of consciousness, unless it is the only state of consciousness, because it exists in all relative states of consciousness, whether one is cognisant of it or not.

QUOTE
Is this all you recognize in consciousness, is dual and unitive? Don't you think infinite consciousness would have more than merely dual and what you call absolute?

More, meaning extrapolations of God/the absolute? There are as many ways to experience it as there are thoughts about it but then if you follow experience or thought to its source, you end up at the same place.

To quote scripture

Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

So what I think, appears as movement of consciousness, and what supports the movement is an infinite field of stillness.
Some think thought precedes the infinite stillness and without thought the stillness could not exist, but one can transcend thought into stillness and then rise again into thought bringing with them the experience of having left thought and the awareness of stillness behind.
The fact that consciousness can do this means that it doesn't disappear or end in the lack of experience.

Stillness is a word, and the stillness is not completely still or empty, it often eludes the range of the relative senses and experience. In other words what it is cannot be brought into the subjective experience of awareness that is fixated on a level of reality that is rationed.

"I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained.
Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."


More could be, anything that means the same as God/the manifest or the absolute.

If one could elevate the senses beyond the relative as it appears in this world one would experience another world that is invisible to the physical eye of the waking state.
IF one could transcend the boundaries of relative awareness, the stillness would be full of manifestations of an even greater presence that is transcendental to the manifest at that level, and so on and so on.

Posted by: kortikal Oct 30, 2007, 08:25 PM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Oct 30, 2007, 09:00 PM) *
The absolute appears still in contrast to the movement of awareness and it supports all activity, because activity could not exist without it, yet they are, one.
The absolute is not a state of consciousness, unless it is the only state of consciousness, because it exists in all relative states of consciousness, whether one is cognisant of it or not.

You assume an absolute state of consciousness is still and lacks movement, but this is probably an illusion of your relative states of consciousness, is it not? Even in your mind-states of absolute stillness, you still have billions of neurons in your brain firing away with activity to maintain that state of consciousness, and so what you call a "still mind" is supported by billions of very active chattering neurons; hence your mind is not really still. It can never be at rest. What you call a still mind is an illusion. The nature of mind is activity; that is it's basis, and to deny this is to deny the foundation of mind and all conscious states that we can know.

Wouldn't you agree that if the basis of your mind-states is the activity of billions of neurons, then there is no mind-state that is truly at rest, since any mind-state requires billions of very active neurons? If so, then any experience of stillness of mind is founded on an illusion.


Posted by: Flex Oct 30, 2007, 09:04 PM

QUOTE(kortikal @ Oct 30, 2007, 09:25 PM) *

QUOTE(Joesus @ Oct 30, 2007, 09:00 PM) *
The absolute appears still in contrast to the movement of awareness and it supports all activity, because activity could not exist without it, yet they are, one.
The absolute is not a state of consciousness, unless it is the only state of consciousness, because it exists in all relative states of consciousness, whether one is cognisant of it or not.

You assume an absolute state of consciousness is still and lacks movement, but this is probably an illusion of your relative states of consciousness, is it not? Even in your mind-states of absolute stillness, you still have billions of neurons in your brain firing away with activity to maintain that state of consciousness, and so what you call a "still mind" is supported by billions of very active chattering neurons; hence your mind is not really still. It can never be at rest. What you call a still mind is an illusion. The nature of mind is activity; that is it's basis, and to deny this is to deny the foundation of mind and all conscious states that we can know.

Wouldn't you agree that if the basis of your mind-states is the activity of billions of neurons, then there is no mind-state that is truly at rest, since any mind-state requires billions of very active neurons? If so, then any experience of stillness of mind is founded on an illusion.


Ever study Zeno's arrow paradox? Maybe your perception of motion is false--ever consider that?

Posted by: kortikal Oct 30, 2007, 09:29 PM

I'm talking about activity, not motion, and this is not dependent on perception of motion as we can devise precise instruments to quantify and measure activity. Besides, Zeno's paradox is not a paradox if you take space to be discrete instead of continuous, which many physicists believe to be the case.

Posted by: Flex Oct 30, 2007, 09:35 PM

QUOTE(kortikal @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:29 PM) *

we're talking about activity, not motion, and this is not dependent on perception of motion as we can devise precise instruments to quantify and measure activity.


What is activity?

Posted by: kortikal Oct 30, 2007, 09:37 PM

QUOTE(Flex @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:35 PM) *

QUOTE(kortikal @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:29 PM) *

we're talking about activity, not motion, and this is not dependent on perception of motion as we can devise precise instruments to quantify and measure activity.


What is activity?

in this context, changing electrochemical gradients and energy potentials.

Posted by: Flex Oct 30, 2007, 09:39 PM

How can change exist independent of time?

Posted by: kortikal Oct 30, 2007, 09:43 PM

QUOTE(Flex @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:39 PM) *

How can change exist independent of time?

who ever said it did? Einstein believed that time was a measure of change.



Posted by: Flex Oct 30, 2007, 09:44 PM

QUOTE(kortikal @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:43 PM) *

QUOTE(Flex @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:39 PM) *

How can change exist independent of time?

who ever said it did? Einstein believed that time was a measure of change.


Then what is change?

Posted by: kortikal Oct 30, 2007, 09:46 PM

QUOTE(Flex @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:44 PM) *

QUOTE(kortikal @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:43 PM) *

QUOTE(Flex @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:39 PM) *

How can change exist independent of time?

who ever said it did? Einstein believed that time was a measure of change.


Then what is change?

change occurs when a cause produces an effect. It's intimately related to causality.

Posted by: Joesus Oct 30, 2007, 09:48 PM

QUOTE

You assume an absolute state of consciousness is still and lacks movement, but this is probably an illusion of your relative states of consciousness, is it not?

Probably an illusion? Some say everything is an illusion. But that is a relative determination.
QUOTE
Even in your mind-states of absolute stillness, you still have billions of neurons in your brain firing away with activity to maintain that state of consciousness, and so what you call a "still mind" is supported by billions of very active chattering neurons; hence your mind is not really still.

I take it you don't believe in a consciousness extending itself beyond the physical brain.
QUOTE
The nature of mind is activity; that is it's basis, and to deny this is to deny the foundation of mind and all conscious states that we can know.

Mind is the manifest and the manifest is consciousness in activity.
QUOTE

Wouldn't you agree that if the basis of your mind-states is the activity of billions of neurons, then there is no mind-state that is truly at rest, since any mind-state requires billions of very active neurons? If so, then any experience of stillness of mind is founded on an illusion.

Stillness and activity being relative, would then be subjective. Do you believe mind can be objective, without attachment to subjective points of reference?
QUOTE

Ever study Zeno's arrow paradox? Maybe your perception of motion is false--ever consider that?

Ever study Eastern philosophy which includes the idea that all manifestations of motion are illusion?

Posted by: Flex Oct 30, 2007, 09:57 PM

QUOTE(kortikal @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:46 PM) *

QUOTE(Flex @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:44 PM) *

QUOTE(kortikal @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:43 PM) *

QUOTE(Flex @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:39 PM) *

How can change exist independent of time?

who ever said it did? Einstein believed that time was a measure of change.


Then what is change?

change occurs when a cause produces an effect. It's intimately related to causality.


In order for there to be causality, there must be an action. In order for there to be am action, there must be a reaction. In order for there to be a reaction there must be time. In order for there to be time there must be motion. In order for there to be motion there must be change. In order for there to be change there must be a cause (energy). Ultimately causality from what I can observe is derivative from energy. This to me is the basis of most eastern philosophy. In order for there to be causality, there must be a cause, but where did the cause come from?

Posted by: kortikal Oct 30, 2007, 10:01 PM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:48 PM) *
Do you believe mind can be objective, without attachment to subjective points of reference?

Yes, if you're talking about non-dual consciousness since there are no subjective points of reference in that mind-state. But even in non-dual consciousness, there is activity. I can't accept the notion of an absolute still mind because every mind-state is dependent on activity, and is thus the embodiment of activity. So why bother stilling the mind if the experience of stillness belies the great activity underlying your mind-state? Instead of trying to still the mind, we should go in the other direction, not by inundating it with petty distractions that serve to fragment the mind and weaken it, but with creating great maelstroms of the mind to maximize its power of activity.


Posted by: kortikal Oct 30, 2007, 10:06 PM

QUOTE(Flex @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:57 PM) *
In order for there to be causality, there must be a cause, but where did the cause come from?
from a preceding cause

Posted by: forgottenpresence Oct 30, 2007, 10:11 PM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Oct 30, 2007, 08:08 PM) *

QUOTE(forgottenpresence @ Oct 30, 2007, 06:29 PM) *

QUOTE(Joesus @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:17 AM) *

The ego in itself cannot contain consciousness


The ego is the container of ego-consciousness, when it is transcended one enters the non-dual realm of unity-consciousness. All is consciousness, just differing layers.
The container is an illusion.
Unity still carries the remnants of the illusion and connects it to the one. This is called in sanskrit, leshavidya, one lives life with one foot in the manifest and the other in the absolute. When one transcends duality, duality still exists. The differing layers are duality.


The container is illusion, that is why I stated it is of ego-consciousness. When perceiving through unity-consciousness, illusion is that which is a manifestation of ego-consciousness. When one transcends duality, duality exists in the lower layer: ego-consciousness. This layer is fully realized and it is this realization that allows one to transcend illusion and attachment to manifestations of egoic projections.


Posted by: Flex Oct 30, 2007, 10:25 PM

QUOTE(kortikal @ Oct 30, 2007, 11:06 PM) *

QUOTE(Flex @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:57 PM) *
In order for there to be causality, there must be a cause, but where did the cause come from?
from a preceding cause


What was the first cause that triggered the Universe? This cause must always have existed no?

Posted by: Joesus Oct 30, 2007, 10:50 PM

QUOTE(kortikal @ Oct 31, 2007, 06:01 AM) *

QUOTE(Joesus @ Oct 30, 2007, 10:48 PM) *
Do you believe mind can be objective, without attachment to subjective points of reference?

Yes, if you're talking about non-dual consciousness since there are no subjective points of reference in that mind-state. But even in non-dual consciousness, there is activity. I can't accept the notion of an absolute still mind because every mind-state is dependent on activity, and is thus the embodiment of activity. So why bother stilling the mind if the experience of stillness belies the great activity underlying your mind-state? Instead of trying to still the mind, we should go in the other direction, not by inundating it with petty distractions that serve to fragment the mind and weaken it, but with creating great maelstroms of the mind to maximize its power of activity.

I prefer focusing it, rather than trying to pump it up with whirlwinds of delusions in interpretations of mind.

QUOTE
When perceiving through unity-consciousness, illusion is that which is a manifestation of ego-consciousness.

When perceiving reality through Unity consciousness there is only God, inside and outside.
QUOTE
When one transcends duality, duality exists in the lower layer

When one transcends duality, duality is God made manifest..Consciousness in action
QUOTE

What was the first cause that triggered the Universe? This cause must always have existed no?

Yes, that'd be God or the absolute, One, consciousness.

Posted by: forgottenpresence Oct 30, 2007, 11:46 PM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Oct 30, 2007, 11:50 PM) *

When perceiving reality through Unity consciousness there is only God, inside and outside.


God consciousness is all-knowing. This kind of knowledge includes knowledge of lower layers of consciousness - ego consciousness. When one perceives reality through God consciousness, there is everything.

QUOTE
When one transcends duality, duality is God made manifest..Consciousness in action


When one transcends duality, duality does not manifest, as unity-consciousness is transcendental of manifestations of duality.

Excellent discussion, by the way.


Posted by: Joesus Oct 31, 2007, 09:05 AM

QUOTE

When one transcends duality, duality does not manifest, as unity-consciousness is transcendental of manifestations of duality.

If you accept this:
God consciousness is all-knowing. This kind of knowledge includes knowledge of lower layers of consciousness - ego consciousness. When one perceives reality through God consciousness, there is everything.

That is duality. God manifests itself in duality, good and evil, God is both. layers of dimensional experience this is God too. Duality is the reflection of God. Duality is one with God.

Posted by: forgottenpresence Oct 31, 2007, 11:54 AM

This is duality, because I am thinking it and projecting it. Duality is a projection of mind. When there is no projecting there is no mind, therefore no duality. Although the dual mind is known through awareness or perception through God-consciousness. When in a state of unity-consciousness, duality exists in the state that has been transcended - mind.

God is all, good an evil, up and down, right and left, thought or no-thought, mind or no-mind. But we can see through God's eye or we can see through our own conditioning. This conditioning is a manifestation of God, but it is no direct awareness of God-consciousness and being.

Posted by: Rick Oct 31, 2007, 02:29 PM

Regarding causality:

1. I hold a rubber band in my hands. I stretch the rubber band; tension in the band increases (stretching the band causes the tension to increase).

2. I hold a rubber band in my hands. I increase the tension in the rubber band; the band gets longer (tensioning the band causes it to stretch).

Both are valid descriptions of cause-effect, yet both describe the same act. "Causality" can be a limited way of viewing things in some circumstances.

Posted by: Wafa.. Oct 31, 2007, 02:32 PM

I dunno if this might be considered out of this discussion stream -which is very interesting indeed- but I think not..

Can I define something without referral to a higher and abstract level than it.

Can I, define mind and consciousness by using the same mind and consciousness??? Or I have to access a higher level??

Posted by: lucid_dream Oct 31, 2007, 04:35 PM

QUOTE(Rick @ Oct 31, 2007, 03:29 PM) *

Regarding causality:

1. I hold a rubber band in my hands. I stretch the rubber band; tension in the band increases (stretching the band causes the tension to increase).

2. I hold a rubber band in my hands. I increase the tension in the rubber band; the band gets longer (tensioning the band causes it to stretch).

Both are valid descriptions of cause-effect, yet both describe the same act. "Causality" can be a limited way of viewing things in some circumstances.

if it's mathematical description of a process, and not just playing with semantics, then both of your descriptions above will amount to the same thing


QUOTE(forgottenpresence @ Oct 31, 2007, 12:54 PM) *
This is duality, because I am thinking it and projecting it. Duality is a projection of mind. When there is no projecting there is no mind, therefore no duality. Although the dual mind is known through awareness or perception through God-consciousness. When in a state of unity-consciousness, duality exists in the state that has been transcended - mind.

Mind projects things but duality is a state of mind, not a projection of mind. When in a state of unity-consciousness, duality does not exist. Unity consciousness is not a transcendence of dual consciousness, any more so than ice is a transcendence of liquid water. I think you're confusing states of mind with the projections of mind.


Posted by: forgottenpresence Oct 31, 2007, 06:13 PM

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Oct 31, 2007, 05:35 PM) *
Mind projects things but duality is a state of mind, not a projection of mind. When in a state of unity-consciousness, duality does not exist. Unity consciousness is not a transcendence of dual consciousness, any more so than ice is a transcendence of liquid water. I think you're confusing states of mind with the projections of mind.


When in a dual state of mind, all the mind does is project thought-forms. If it weren't projecting these thought-forms then there would be no duality as there would be no thought - no this and that, just here and now. No-thought is no-mind is unity-consciousness.

This understanding opens inconceivable possibilities for Medicine, Psychiatry, Psychology, Education and the rest of all human activities. If we see the Universe in Unitary Perception time becomes irrelevant. The future is now. The past is right now. The future is a projection of the past in a perception that we have to call “fragmentary.” In Unitary Perception there is only the now.

---

The mind is forever full with its own projection (words and thought, words and
thought, desire and fear, fear and desire) and so it can never be in true contact with anything or anybody.
Only a completely silent mind can have a relationship with someone. A good dialogue is impossible without a silent mind. We stuff our minds with ideologies, beliefs, information, rejections and predilections and in such a way we isolate ourselves. Men built cities not to be lonely and now they are lonely in the cities. Or else they gather in gangs to sell drugs and kill each other. We are so full of words, words, words, that nothing else can enter our mind.
We want to be somebody but we are not even aware of our body in space. This awareness or incarnation can happen only in Unitary Perception. This incarnation in Unitary Perception is the beginning of love but thought cannot recognize love. As long as the word “love” emerges to the mind, love ends.
The word “love” is not the reality of love.
And only this reality beyond words, call it Unitary Perception, or love or Christ . . . only that can solve the problems of mankind. But we want to solve problems created by words and thought (like war and hunger and overpopulation) with more words and thought. When the brain stops creating words and thought, only then it can be in complete touch with creation. That contact with creation is the beginning of a New Life without conflict.

Posted by: lucid_dream Oct 31, 2007, 08:10 PM

QUOTE(forgottenpresence @ Oct 31, 2007, 07:13 PM) *

When in a dual state of mind, all the mind does is project thought-forms. If it weren't projecting these thought-forms then there would be no duality as there would be no thought - no this and that, just here and now. No-thought is no-mind is unity-consciousness.

you define unity consciousness in terms of negation (i.e., as lack of thought), which means that for you, it's an impoverished form of typical dual consciousness, whereas for me, it is an expanded form of consciousness where there is no distinction between me and other, and where defining it in terms of lack of thought completely misses the mark. Discussions on consciousness always leave me somewhat disappointed because people invariably discuss it solely in terms of duality versus non-duality, and this is but a tiny glimpse into the myriad varieties of consciousness that are accessible to us. Consciousness is much more than dual versus non-dual.


Posted by: forgottenpresence Oct 31, 2007, 09:09 PM

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Oct 31, 2007, 09:10 PM) *

you define unity consciousness in terms of negation (i.e., as lack of thought), which means that for you, it's an impoverished form of typical dual consciousness, whereas for me, it is an expanded form of consciousness where there is no distinction between me and other, and where defining it in terms of lack of thought completely misses the mark.


everything we are saying here is of dual consciousness. there is a lack of thought when one is more conscious of his self. awareness is the flame that burns the process of thought, we are basically coming from different angles. you don't know what consciousness means to me, i don't even know what it means to me. but when it is experienced there is a different form of meaning that is transcendental of conceptualization, which can only be understood when in the reality of. to observe from a less conscious perspective is to dream - maya, that which we are doing now. sure i can realize that i am projecting, everybody should.

QUOTE
whereas for me, it is an expanded form of consciousness where there is no distinction between me and other, and where defining it in terms of lack of thought completely misses the mark.


i've had many obe's and know what it is like to observe through consciousness. any thought about consciousness misses the mark, it must be experienced. anything is possible in the astral realm, ime.


Posted by: Joesus Oct 31, 2007, 09:15 PM

When the mind is still there is the experience of no thought, but the nature of consciousness is not complete stillness. The Universe exists because of the nature of consciousness, which is activity.
Union is between creator and creation.
The creator is both still and active, and in reflection of that experience is both of the active part of consciousness and the still part of consciousness. Duality must exist to display the reflection but consciousness does not have to be hypnotized by creation, as so often happens in the waking state.

There really is no reality to no mind in stillness, just no recognizable thought for a period of expression.
Stillness is a thought too.
Universal mind is the essence of all of creation and it is in itself still, in expression and experience just before the experience of it both in activity and stillness.

When one expresses the experience of the stillness they are not still, and so it creates a sort of conundrum to express stillness, especially if the stillness is expressing itself through the experience.

In Union, the experience of Natures stillness, is greatest in activity.

QUOTE
anything is possible in the astral realm, ime.

The ego's explanation for not achieving in the relative; duality.
Exalted experiences through altered states of consciousness do not create a stable conscious experience.

Don't worry no one is going to deny your experience, but it would be an advantage to quit identifying with them, and defending them.

Posted by: forgottenpresence Nov 01, 2007, 11:00 AM

QUOTE
Duality must exist to display the reflection


Why must there be a reflection? Can one see without there being a reflection?

The unmanifest, that level of wholeness, the silent witness has no reflection, ime.


QUOTE
Don't worry no one is going to deny your experience, but it would be an advantage to quit identifying with them, and defending them.


Don't worry, we are all identified with something here. The advantage is to realize it...

Posted by: forgottenpresence Nov 01, 2007, 05:03 PM

I guess what I am trying to say is any reflection outside of ourself seems of the ego.

When Joesus says this - "Duality must exist to display the reflection" - "displaying the reflection" sounds like a mirror outside of oneself - the ego. We are the mirror, we can reflect on ourself and realize we are nothing/everything/consciousness, but when we are reflected that does not sound like the experience of unity consciousness to me. Maybe I am misunderstanding..

Posted by: Joesus Nov 01, 2007, 06:48 PM

QUOTE

When Joesus says this - "Duality must exist to display the reflection" - "displaying the reflection" sounds like a mirror outside of oneself - the ego. We are the mirror, we can reflect on ourself and realize we are nothing/everything/consciousness, but when we are reflected that does not sound like the experience of unity consciousness to me.

No it wouldn't sound like unity, if unity is a belief.
The ego can become very enlightened and cling to the identity of duality where it says I am that while standing outside of what it perceives.

Stillness or silence of the absolute are the reflection of consciousness and you are both consciousness and the absolute. The reflection is still you. You in any aspect of conscious experience are individual, and One, The Absolute. You are all, and none of it at all.

Jn 10:30 I and my Father are one.

Jn 8:18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

Jn 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.



Posted by: forgottenpresence Nov 03, 2007, 01:01 AM

Guess I just don't know what I'm talking about.

Anyways, wise words people, wise words.

Posted by: Joesus Nov 03, 2007, 08:01 AM

QUOTE(forgottenpresence @ Nov 03, 2007, 09:01 AM) *

Guess I just don't know what I'm talking about.



Would that mean you are now reconsidering your grouping of shroomic experiences as higher states of consciousness/OBE's/NDE's/egoless?

Posted by: forgottenpresence Nov 05, 2007, 02:50 AM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Nov 03, 2007, 08:01 AM) *

Would that mean you are now reconsidering your grouping of shroomic experiences as higher states of consciousness/OBE's/NDE's/egoless?


When I see my body from an outside perspective, that to me is an OBE. Are you trying to tell me otherwise?

Posted by: Joesus Nov 05, 2007, 08:21 AM

QUOTE(forgottenpresence @ Nov 05, 2007, 10:50 AM) *

QUOTE(Joesus @ Nov 03, 2007, 08:01 AM) *

Would that mean you are now reconsidering your grouping of shroomic experiences as higher states of consciousness/OBE's/NDE's/egoless?


When I see my body from an outside perspective, that to me is an OBE. Are you trying to tell me otherwise?

Are you still entertaining the idea that a shroomic out of body experience is a higher state of consciousness/ego death/NDE?

Posted by: forgottenpresence Nov 05, 2007, 06:16 PM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Nov 05, 2007, 08:21 AM) *

QUOTE(forgottenpresence @ Nov 05, 2007, 10:50 AM) *

QUOTE(Joesus @ Nov 03, 2007, 08:01 AM) *

Would that mean you are now reconsidering your grouping of shroomic experiences as higher states of consciousness/OBE's/NDE's/egoless?


When I see my body from an outside perspective, that to me is an OBE. Are you trying to tell me otherwise?

Are you still entertaining the idea that a shroomic out of body experience is a higher state of consciousness/ego death/NDE?


Would you say a non-shroom induced OBE a higher state of consciousness?

Posted by: Joesus Nov 05, 2007, 07:37 PM

QUOTE(forgottenpresence @ Nov 06, 2007, 02:16 AM) *

QUOTE(Joesus @ Nov 05, 2007, 08:21 AM) *

QUOTE(forgottenpresence @ Nov 05, 2007, 10:50 AM) *

QUOTE(Joesus @ Nov 03, 2007, 08:01 AM) *

Would that mean you are now reconsidering your grouping of shroomic experiences as higher states of consciousness/OBE's/NDE's/egoless?


When I see my body from an outside perspective, that to me is an OBE. Are you trying to tell me otherwise?

Are you still entertaining the idea that a shroomic out of body experience is a higher state of consciousness/ego death/NDE?


Would you say a non-shroom induced OBE a higher state of consciousness?

No, would you?

Posted by: forgottenpresence Nov 05, 2007, 09:50 PM

Well it obviously is a different state of consciousness being experienced, "higher" may not be the right word to use here, or any word for that matter. But it fits fine for me, maybe "expanded" would be more accurate. When experiencing an OBE (whether drug induced or not), I definitely feel more conscious and alive. As well as with astral projection.

Posted by: Joesus Nov 05, 2007, 10:51 PM

Altered state of consciousness are enticing. They offer an escape from the mundane, and a glimmer of hope to those who believe there is more and can't seem to find a stable experience.
With a little help from the outside one can rationalize what might lay dormant and unused on the inside.
For one to achieve a higher state of consciousness it must be permanent, not a drive by glimpse of the neighborhood.
There is usually a subjective as well as an objective experience of the mind and body in their functioning.
For instance the permanence of aligning the left and right hemispheres as demonstrated by Maslow in the peak experience.
One can achieve the affect with a meditative discipline that is in effect residual and present in the known states of consciousness, waking dreaming and sleeping.
Shrooms do not create the same measure of permanent stillness of mind and healing of the body. Maybe a long lasting memory and a nice random ride in some distant neighborhood of exalted experiences, but not higher states of consciousness.

Posted by: forgottenpresence Nov 06, 2007, 08:56 PM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Nov 05, 2007, 10:51 PM) *

For one to achieve a higher state of consciousness it must be permanent, not a drive by glimpse of the neighborhood.


Gotta keep up on that daily meditation!


QUOTE
Maybe a long lasting memory and a nice random ride in some distant neighborhood of exalted experiences, but not higher states of consciousness.


Is that your opinion or ultimate truth?

Posted by: Joesus Nov 06, 2007, 09:09 PM

QUOTE

Is that your opinion or ultimate truth?
Is a higher state of consciousness an opinion?

Posted by: Rick Nov 07, 2007, 08:39 AM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Nov 06, 2007, 09:09 PM) *

QUOTE

Is that your opinion or ultimate truth?
Is a higher state of consciousness an opinion?

Perhaps, or maybe it's more like an attitude.

Posted by: Joesus Nov 07, 2007, 08:51 AM

Cop an attitude/Cop a state of consciousness.... mellow.gif happy.gif ohmy.gif wink.gif tongue.gif biggrin.gif laugh.gif cool.gif rolleyes.gif dry.gif
Are we talking measurable activity of the body and mind, such as in waking, sleeping and dreaming, and whatever is beyond those familiar states?

Posted by: forgottenpresence Nov 07, 2007, 10:25 AM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Nov 07, 2007, 08:51 AM) *

Cop an attitude/Cop a state of consciousness.... mellow.gif happy.gif ohmy.gif wink.gif tongue.gif biggrin.gif laugh.gif cool.gif rolleyes.gif dry.gif
Are we talking measurable activity of the body and mind, such as in waking, sleeping and dreaming, and whatever is beyond those familiar states?


Are you saying one cannot become more conscious?

Posted by: Joesus Nov 07, 2007, 06:11 PM

huh.gif

Posted by: forgottenpresence Nov 09, 2007, 06:14 AM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Nov 06, 2007, 09:09 PM) *

QUOTE

Is that your opinion or ultimate truth?
Is a higher state of consciousness an opinion?


Is it an opinion when it is being experienced?

Posted by: Joesus Nov 09, 2007, 08:22 AM

Is it your experience if you assimilate yourself into the definitions and explanation of others rather than speaking directly from your own experience?


There's a story of a cowboy in a bar. A woman sits down next to him and says, "Hey, I bet you're a cowboy."
The man says, "Yep, I ride horses, rope and brand cows, eat dust and sleep outside."
The woman then replies,"I'm a lesbian, I ride and sleep with as many women as I can, eat as much pussy as I can, and I'm here now looking for another beautiful woman to sleep with."

About half an hour later a man walks into the bar and sits next to the cowboy and says,"Hey, I bet you're a cowboy."
The cowboy replies,"Nope, I'm a lesbian..."

You attach your experience to whatever sounds good even if you don't know what you're talking about.

Posted by: forgottenpresence Nov 09, 2007, 05:38 PM

Giving an example of another's perspective does not have to mean I am attaching myself and speaking through it. sleep.gif

Posted by: Joesus Nov 09, 2007, 08:54 PM

No? I 'm still waiting for you to speak of your experience without backing it up with a link,...and hearing something you identify with, resonate from any level of conscious understanding, rather than projection and belief.

Posted by: forgottenpresence Nov 10, 2007, 09:35 AM

You will find your answer if you read back a bit.. no need to be blind.

Your attacks are rather childish and egotistical, try pointing your finger at yourself to see your own identification. I dare you! We are both identifying with our projections, is it so hard to see this? Wipe the dust from your goggles.

Posted by: forgottenpresence Nov 10, 2007, 10:21 AM

BAHAH you are the biggest load of BS ego I've ever seen.

This proves my point -

http://brainmeta.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3183

Keep on preaching, know-it-all.

Socrates would smack you.

Posted by: Joesus Nov 10, 2007, 07:22 PM

QUOTE
You will find your answer if you read back a bit.. no need to be blind.

I made my statement in reference to your posts....all of them actually.
QUOTE

Your attacks are rather childish and egotistical, try pointing your finger at yourself to see your own identification. I dare you! We are both identifying with our projections, is it so hard to see this?

Rather than see it as an attack, and being a victim, try to see the conscious creation.
Instead of identifying with the creation/projection and a personality, seek the creator or point of creation.
QUOTE
Keep on preaching, know-it-all.

I never preach..
QUOTE

Socrates would smack you.

I wouldn't assume Socrates would take a side based on someone elses opinion or experience.

Posted by: forgottenpresence Nov 11, 2007, 09:22 AM

Love and light, Dark master!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YLwI3bslOS0

Posted by: forgottenpresence Nov 11, 2007, 10:55 AM

behind the conceptual framework of a dark master lies an aura that a self healed quartz could recognize any day, i know a dark aura when i see one.




Posted by: forgottenpresence Nov 11, 2007, 11:05 AM

people can seem so perfect on the outside, it is like a seemingly perfect relationship with absolutely no love. when i look at a couple who are together i can see if there is love or not. it resonates so clearly. this is clear, Joesus if you have realized unconditional love you would not be who you are now.

Posted by: Joesus Nov 11, 2007, 11:07 AM

QUOTE

behind the conceptual framework of a dark master lies an aura that a self healed quartz could recognize any day, i know a dark aura when i see one..... We are both identifying with our projections, is it so hard to see this?


I think what you recognize is what you believe is outside of you and separate from you. Which is why you seek to know yourself with the external senses.

Unconditional love has no conditions. I think you seek to qualify love with the projections of your limited scope of reference.

RODAN'S GREEK PHILOSOPHY




Early Monday morning, Rodan began a series of ten addresses to Nathaniel, Thomas, and a group of some two dozen believers who chanced to be at Magadan. These talks, condensed, combined, and restated in modern phraseology, present the following thoughts for consideration:
Human life consists in three great drives--urges, desires, and lures. Strong character, commanding personality, is only acquired by converting the natural urge of life into the social art of living, by transforming present desires into those higher longings which are capable of lasting attainment, while the commonplace lure of existence must be transferred from one's conventional and established ideas to the higher realms of unexplored ideas and undiscovered ideals.
The more complex civilization becomes, the more difficult will become the art of living. The more rapid the changes in social usage, the more complicated will become the task of character development. Every ten generations mankind must learn anew the art of living if progress is to continue. And if man becomes so ingenious that he more rapidly adds to the complexities of society, the art of living will need to be remastered in less time, perhaps every single generation. If the evolution of the art of living fails to keep pace with the technique of existence, humanity will quickly revert to the simple urge of living--the attainment of the satisfaction of present desires. Thus will humanity remain immature; society will fail in growing up to full maturity.
Social maturity is equivalent to the degree to which man is willing to surrender the gratification of mere transient and present desires for the entertainment of those superior longings the striving for whose attainment affords the more abundant satisfactions of progressive advancement toward permanent goals. But the true badge of social maturity is the willingness of a people to surrender the right to live peaceably and contentedly under the ease-promoting standards of the lure of established beliefs and conventional ideas for the disquieting and energy-requiring lure of the pursuit of the unexplored possibilities of the attainment of undiscovered goals of idealistic spiritual realities.
Animals respond nobly to the urge of life, but only man can attain the art of living, albeit the majority of mankind only experience the animal urge to live. Animals know only this blind and instinctive urge; man is capable of transcending this urge to natural function. Man may elect to live upon the high plane of intelligent art, even that of celestial joy and spiritual ecstasy. Animals make no inquiry into the purposes of life; therefore they never worry, neither do they commit suicide. Suicide among men testifies that such beings have emerged from the purely animal stage of existence, and to the further fact that the exploratory efforts of such human beings have failed to attain the artistic levels of mortal experience. Animals know not the meaning of life; man not only possesses capacity for the recognition of values and the comprehension of meanings, but he also is conscious of the meaning of meanings--he is self-conscious of insight.
When men dare to forsake a life of natural craving for one of adventurous art and uncertain logic, they must expect to suffer the consequent hazards of emotional casualties--conflicts, unhappiness, and uncertainties--at least until the time of their attainment of some degree of intellectual and emotional maturity. Discouragement, worry, and indolence are positive evidence of moral immaturity. Human society is confronted with two problems: attainment of the maturity of the individual and attainment of the maturity of the race. The mature human being soon begins to look upon all other mortals with feelings of tenderness and with emotions of tolerance. Mature men view immature folks with the love and consideration that parents bear their children.
Successful living is nothing more or less than the art of the mastery of dependable techniques for solving common problems. The first step in the solution of any problem is to locate the difficulty, to isolate the problem, and frankly to recognize its nature and gravity. The great mistake is that, when life problems excite our profound fears, we refuse to recognize them. Likewise, when the acknowledgment of our difficulties entails the reduction of our long-cherished conceit, the admission of envy, or the abandonment of deep-seated prejudices, the average person prefers to cling to the old illusions of safety and to the long-cherished false feelings of security. Only a brave person is willing honestly to admit, and fearlessly to face, what a sincere and logical mind discovers.
The wise and effective solution of any problem demands that the mind shall be free from bias, passion, and all other purely personal prejudices which might interfere with the disinterested survey of the actual factors that go to make up the problem presenting itself for solution. The solution of life problems requires courage and sincerity. Only honest and brave individuals are able to follow valiantly through the perplexing and confusing maze of living to where the logic of a fearless mind may lead. And this emancipation of the mind and soul can never be effected without the driving power of an intelligent enthusiasm which borders on religious zeal. It requires the lure of a great ideal to drive man on in the pursuit of a goal which is beset with difficult material problems and manifold intellectual hazards.
Even though you are effectively armed to meet the difficult situations of life, you can hardly expect success unless you are equipped with that wisdom of mind and charm of personality which enable you to win the hearty support and co-operation of your fellows. You cannot hope for a large measure of success in either secular or religious work unless you can learn how to persuade your fellows, to prevail with men. You simply must have tact and tolerance.
But the greatest of all methods of problem solving I have learned from Jesus, your Master. I refer to that which he so consistently practices, and which he has so faithfully taught you, the isolation of worshipful meditation. In this habit of Jesus' going off so frequently by himself to commune with the Father in heaven is to be found the technique, not only of gathering strength and wisdom for the ordinary conflicts of living, but also of appropriating the energy for the solution of the higher problems of a moral and spiritual nature. But even correct methods of solving problems will not compensate for inherent defects of personality or atone for the absence of the hunger and thirst for true righteousness.
I am deeply impressed with the custom of Jesus in going apart by himself to engage in these seasons of solitary survey of the problems of living; to seek for new stores of wisdom and energy for meeting the manifold demands of social service; to quicken and deepen the supreme purpose of living by actually subjecting the total personality to the consciousness of contacting with divinity; to grasp for possession of new and better methods of adjusting oneself to the ever-changing situations of living existence; to effect those vital reconstructions and readjustments of one's personal attitudes which are so essential to enhanced insight into everything worth while and real; and to do all of this with an eye single to the glory of God--to breathe in sincerity your Master's favorite prayer, "Not my will, but yours, be done."
This worshipful practice of your Master brings that relaxation which renews the mind; that illumination which inspires the soul; that courage which enables one bravely to face one's problems; that self-understanding which obliterates debilitating fear; and that consciousness of union with divinity which equips man with the assurance that enables him to dare to be Godlike. The relaxation of worship, or spiritual communion as practiced by the Master, relieves tension, removes conflicts, and mightily augments the total resources of the personality. And all this philosophy, plus the gospel of the kingdom, constitutes the new religion as I understand it.
Prejudice blinds the soul to the recognition of truth, and prejudice can be removed only by the sincere devotion of the soul to the adoration of a cause that is all-embracing and all-inclusive of one's fellow men. Prejudice is inseparably linked to selfishness. Prejudice can be eliminated only by the abandonment of self-seeking and by substituting therefor the quest of the satisfaction of the service of a cause that is not only greater than self, but one that is even greater than all humanity--the search for God, the attainment of divinity. The evidence of maturity of personality consists in the transformation of human desire so that it constantly seeks for the realization of those values which are highest and most divinely real.
In a continually changing world, in the midst of an evolving social order, it is impossible to maintain settled and established goals of destiny. Stability of personality
can be experienced only by those who have discovered and embraced the living God as the eternal goal of infinite attainment. And thus to transfer one's goal from time to eternity, from earth to Paradise, from the human to the divine, requires that man shall become regenerated, converted, be born again; that he shall become the re-created child of the divine spirit; that he shall gain entrance into the brotherhood of the kingdom of heaven. All philosophies and religions which fall short of these ideals are immature. The philosophy which I teach, linked with the gospel which you preach, represents the new religion of maturity, the ideal of all future generations. And this is true because our ideal is final, infallible, eternal, universal, absolute, and infinite.
My philosophy gave me the urge to search for the realities of true attainment, the goal of maturity. But my urge was impotent; my search lacked driving power; my quest suffered from the absence of certainty of directionization. And these deficiencies have been abundantly supplied by this new gospel of Jesus, with its enhancement of insights, elevation of ideals, and settledness of goals. Without doubts and misgivings I can now wholeheartedly enter upon the eternal venture.

Posted by: Joesus Nov 11, 2007, 12:00 PM

QUOTE
people can seem so perfect on the outside, it is like a seemingly perfect relationship with absolutely no love. when i look at a couple who are together i can see if there is love or not. it resonates so clearly. this is clear, Joesus if you have realized unconditional love you would not be who you are now.

The resonance of sensual love or love of the senses is an outward experience, however unconditional love is not necessarily apparent, for condition-less love (love without conditions) does not often make itself apparent until diversity of conditions draw it forward.
A couple who are experiencing attached love may not be so forgiving if one or the other steps over the line made in the conditions of co-dependence and attachment. For example, if the partner in a relationship happens to have feelings for the others older sister or brother, the first reaction to attached love or love with conditions is jealousy and a tendency to move away from the relationship to protect ones self from the feelings they are having in not wanting to share the love with anyone else.
The waking state sense of love is such that we as individuals seek to find completion or wholeness thru relationship. The essence of this reality is that we are incomplete in ourselves and seek to fill the hole or gap that keeps us from feeling complete.
Most relationships today are forms of attached love where lovers are unforgiving when their partner expresses their love to more than one person at a time. Mostly they are protective of ownership and aggressive in defining certain attributes and rules about what takes place in relationship.

Someone who has themselves risen to a state of being in which they are whole and without the need for co-dependent relationship and is not threatened by jealousies and judgments of the ego, will never try to own another, nor will they need to seek love from another. Instead they are willing to share the love they have, without a need to get anything in return, in order to expand it into their experience of creation.
This type of love is not a romantic love, or a feeling love but a condition-less love that expands conscious awareness. It is both a gentle and a ruthless love, that makes nothing special, and at the same time finds the essence of the divine in everything it experiences.

To the ego this love is threatening, it seeks to undermine everything the ego wants to make special, in feelings and attachment to the relative world, in relative addictions to sensory pleasure, and attachments to identity with what the personality makes real.

Posted by: Flex Nov 11, 2007, 12:07 PM

I agree. The more I identify with true love (agape) the less I seek romantic love (eros) and brotherly love (philia). Eros and philia have recently in my mind become no greater than desire, something to be attained, a posession, whereas the new love I have been harboring is universal--for all men, all of life, all that is and is not--but not necessarily apparent to others.

Posted by: forgottenpresence Nov 12, 2007, 10:01 AM

Tell me something I don't know, Joe. And you said you didn't preach... happy.gif

Posted by: Joesus Nov 15, 2007, 09:50 AM

QUOTE(forgottenpresence @ Nov 12, 2007, 06:01 PM) *

Tell me something I don't know, Joe. And you said you didn't preach... happy.gif

OK.
QUOTE
Joesus if you have realized unconditional love you would not be who you are now.

You would be projecting what I would be and how I should act from expectation only.

In the story of the Mahabharata, Krishna danced amongst the death and destruction to the horror of Arjuna, singing "God, God..everywhere God"

Perhaps you could extend your expectations as far as they will go and a bit further, and maybe you will find Unconditional love as the support for all reality rather than an experience to be labeled by the mind.

Posted by: forgottenpresence Nov 16, 2007, 02:19 AM

You dictate the way things are, and you speak from a authoritative point of view, like you know absolute truth and I don't. Unconditional love does not speak these things.

Posted by: trojan_libido Nov 16, 2007, 03:02 AM

QUOTE(Wafa)
Can I define something without referral to a higher and abstract level than it.

Can I, define mind and consciousness by using the same mind and consciousness??? Or I have to access a higher level??
I thought I'd try and get this train off these destructive rails for a moment. What Wafa said is exactly the kind of critical thinking I expected from this thread, instead its lost its direction a little.

How can the mind ever understand its nature from critical thinking? Isn't it similar to trying to define other peoples perceptions of yourself, without being able to ask them? What I find interesting is the lack of real world evidence and examples when people talk about duality, unity, enlightenment. Where is the research dealing with our perceptions. How does our brain store mental representations?

So many questions, so much old ground being covered...

Posted by: Joesus Nov 16, 2007, 08:34 AM

QUOTE(forgottenpresence @ Nov 16, 2007, 10:19 AM) *

You dictate the way things are, and you speak from a authoritative point of view, like you know absolute truth and I don't. Unconditional love does not speak these things.

So you've set conditions for unconditional love, in the way it looks and comes to you. A place where God doesn't exist.


Posted by: forgottenpresence Nov 17, 2007, 10:03 AM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Nov 16, 2007, 08:34 AM) *

QUOTE(forgottenpresence @ Nov 16, 2007, 10:19 AM) *

You dictate the way things are, and you speak from a authoritative point of view, like you know absolute truth and I don't. Unconditional love does not speak these things.

So you've set conditions for unconditional love, in the way it looks and comes to you. A place where God doesn't exist.


Actually I speak through personal experience, the people I observe in my day to day life who have these characteristics are very hard to connect with and they do not resonate with compassion and unconditional love. Nice way to manipulate your way out of that one.

Posted by: Joesus Nov 17, 2007, 07:32 PM

You mean the people you observe who do not meet your expectations are hard for you to accept and as such do not meet your standard for compassion and love. Under these conditions unconditional love doesn't exist.

How could it as long as there are conditions to be met?

Posted by: forgottenpresence Nov 18, 2007, 08:32 AM

QUOTE(Joesus @ Nov 17, 2007, 07:32 PM) *

You mean the people you observe who do not meet your expectations are hard for you to accept and as such do not meet your standard for compassion and love. Under these conditions unconditional love doesn't exist.

How could it as long as there are conditions to be met?


What is, is. Only the egoic mind could not identify an arrogant power-needing person from an open-minded compassionate person, or those in between. Take your standard american arrogant power-whore cop. It has nothing to do with my expectations, it is an observation.

You are just bringing ego into this - conceptualizing what is and using manipulation and psychology to work your way around this debate to make yourself appear on top. Compassion is compassion and arrogance is arrogance. Power whores are power whores, american cops are american cops... get my drift?

I don't expect much in people, but I know an egotistical power-whore when I see one.

Posted by: forgottenpresence Nov 18, 2007, 08:41 AM

QUOTE(trojan_libido @ Nov 16, 2007, 03:02 AM) *
I thought I'd try and get this train off these destructive rails for a moment.


Whats wrong with a little destruction? There can be a positive side to destruction too tongue.gif

A dark flower needs to die - somebody

Posted by: Joesus Nov 18, 2007, 10:36 AM

QUOTE
What is, is. Only the egoic mind could not identify an arrogant power-needing person from an open-minded compassionate person, or those in between. Take your standard american arrogant power-whore cop. It has nothing to do with my expectations, it is an observation.

Only an egoic mind would identify creation or what is, as anything other than God and ones own creation.
QUOTE
You are just bringing ego into this - conceptualizing what is and using manipulation and psychology to work your way around this debate to make yourself appear on top. Compassion is compassion and arrogance is arrogance. Power whores are power whores, american cops are american cops... get my drift?

Compassion is as you understand it, is from a place where you see something other than God and your own creation. Some place other than Unity, a place where power-whore companies exist that are not part of you.
A place where everything that comes to you is divided amongst rationalizations of what you accept and what you don't as part of your path and spirituality as you accept it, a place of and from, the self indulgence you identify with.
QUOTE

I don't expect much in people, but I know an egotistical power-whore when I see one.

That would be the reflection of self indulgence, expectation, and the aversion to what exists inside of you.

QUOTE
A dark flower needs to die

Who would seek to kill God, other than a dark force of self indulgence?

Powered by
© Invision Power Services