BrainMeta'   Connectomics'  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> "The Consciousness Singularity" by Shawn Mikula
Shawn
post Feb 20, 2003, 11:48 AM
Post #1


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1498
Joined: Jan 22, 2003
From: CA
Member No.: 9



from http://brainmeta.com/index.php?p=singularity

What is the Singularity? Different people mean different things by this term. For me, the Singularity refers to the point of time in the future when human consciousness, at both the personal and species level, experiences an abrupt transition, a phase transition of sorts, into a state of transcendence that is conceptually impossible for us to imagine "what it's like" with our current limited cognitive abilities.

My usage of the term "Singularity" is an analogy to the well-known singularity in physics, the black hole, where you cannot see beyond the event horizon because light cannot escape from it. In a similar manner, we cannot see (or imagine) what's beyond the consciousness Singularity because it's beyond our cognitive (or imaginative) capabilities.

Imagine, if you will, what a monkey would experience if suddenly it's consciousness became like that of a human. Before the transition, the monkey would be incapable of imagining what it's like to be human simply because it's beyond it's cognitive capabilities. In the same way, I believe our species will undergo such transitions in our consciousness of such magnitude that we cannot even begin to imagine what these new states of consciousness are like.

At the Singularity, history as we know it, will cease. The universe, as we experience it now, will cease. Consider the most transcendent and mystical states of consciousness that have yet been experienced by mankind: these will pale in comparison with what's to come! This is the Singularity. And there won't be just one Singularity, but many, as consciousness overcomes and transcends itself, over and over again.

Our consciousness will be expanded beyond the confines of an egocentric sense of self to include transpersonal experiences and transcendent self-identity. This new existence will be both a form of collective consciousness and a form of expanded individual consciousness. Though sounding like a contradiction, realize that these two descriptions of transcendent consciousness are really two sides of the same coin. The Singularity is so far beyond our experience and knowledge today that we cannot even begin to comprehend it, unless we ourselves experience transcendent states of consciousness.

How do we realize the Singularity? How do we experience transcendent states of consciousness? See http://brainmeta.com/index.php?p=expandconsciousness for an answer.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
joe
post May 11, 2003, 03:21 PM
Post #2


Unregistered









Your speculative approach is a nice idea. The cumulative reflections of drug induced and otherwise "experiences," still create an imaginative approach to consciousness.
The experiences are multidimensional but singular consciousness is always seated in the one absolute stillness.
If you wish to follow the idea of multidimensional consciousness you are only pointing the way towards the experiential progression of consciousness beyond and including the physical body as it roams the cosmos in its unlimited ability to create as many ideas and realities as can be created within the idea of realities of infinity. The fun never stops for the unlimited cosmic mind.
If you like to entertain your mind with these notions rather than spend your time actually dropping into it and stabilizing it I recommend you read the Urantia Book for more entertaining ideas about the descriptions of the many levels of reality and multidimensional experiences that will point the way to actually becoming it.
Not to seem sarcastic but there is a straight line approach to singular consciousness or Union and there is also, as my friend John Wayne used to say, "The long way around the Barn"

This statement:

"Unfortunately, many people seem to be of the opinion that there exists only one type of transcendent consciousness, and that it can be reached thru meditation. However, this view is naive because it disregards the multi-dimensional aspects of consciousness, which may be expanded (or transcended) along many different dimensions to result in myriad different transcendent states of consciousness. The tendency to label such transcendent states as simply 'samadhi', 'nirvana', 'Buddha-consciousness', 'cosmic-consciousness', or 'satori' just reinforces the mistaken notion that there exists only one type of transcendent consciousness."

Is not only misleading but full of misunderstanding.
To say that it is naive to claim that you can reach the Transcendant state of consciousness or which ever name you wish to give it by meditation, is subject to confirmation and interpretation. To say possibly within your understanding that you might not have been able to discipline yourself to reach it with any meditative technique that you know or understand might be more accurate, especially if you have been on the independant road to self enlightenment. The many names given to the different states of consciousness are the differing experiences, dimensional which includes physical, are only strands of the one rope that is called Brahman.
Consciousness is omnipresent and so there are many ways to touch it and experience it but of the many ways to enjoy the water and the many names it may be given, the single one transcendant, unchanging aspect of all ideas and states of awareness is always present, in all dimensional realities. This is what any true teaching points towards. It is only the egos misunderstandings and independance that wishes to make claim to its own gods and realities, based on individual experience in duality or separation from Consciousness.
All ideas must be surrendered to know the one infinite source. All experiences must be surrendered to the one infinite source to unite in the one singular consciousness that has many forms. There are not many Consciousnesses, that is only another illusion. A dream such as your life.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shawn
post May 11, 2003, 06:06 PM
Post #3


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1498
Joined: Jan 22, 2003
From: CA
Member No.: 9



hello Joe,

As with your other posts, your above post is thoughtful and sincere, and I appreciate that, though it's clear to me now that our thoughts diverge.  I cannot accept what I gather to be one of your main arguments, that the one singular consciousness is elevated above others.   The most transcendent experiences that Mankind has experienced throughout history are as if nothing beside the transcendent states that he may realize in the future.  Neither you, nor anyone else, can elevate a particular form of consciousness, call it 'singular consciousness', above all others.   I mean, you can verbalize such notions, but it's impossible for me to be swayed by such argumentation, impossible given what I've experienced, and what I extrapolate and predict may be experienced by Mankind in the future.    

Meditation is great for 'stilling the mind', and in fact, there have been brain imaging studies of people in deep states of meditation, so we have an idea of what brain areas are involved in meditation.   But why should this state of consciousness, which is produced by particular activity in a particular set of brain areas, be elevated above other, more transcendent states of consciousness.  I mean, do you deny the existence of states of consciousness that are more transcendent than 'singular consciousness', or whatever it is that you've experienced thru meditation or other?  

You say, " The many names given to the different states of consciousness are the differing experiences, dimensional which includes physical, are only strands of the one rope that is called Brahman. "  - and I think this is a beautiful metaphor, but the logic is very misleading.   This 'singular consciousness', presumably, this is the quality or thing that's present in all states of consciousness, right?  The problem I have with that is that it's blatantly reductionist.  States of consciousness are characterized by 'emergent properties', properties that cannot be explained via recourse to a 'singular consciousness'.  In fact, perhaps a more truthful metaphor for me would be that 'singular consciousness' is just the seed that has the potential to flower into something truly beautiful, into higher, more beautiful, more transcendent states of consciousness, far beyond what could be realized solely within a state of 'singular consciousness'.

You say, "All experiences must be surrendered to the one infinite source to unite in the one singular consciousness that has many forms." - and from this I gather that you attribute great significance to 'singular consciousness' because  it unites you to the infinite source, whereas any deviations from this constitutes forms that are nothing more than illusion.  But isn't this overly simplistic?  For starters, such statements say nothing about the intensity of states of 'singular consciousness', and do not address the relation (or equivalence) of consciousness with Being.  What happened to Being in all of this discussion?  If, while in a state of 'singular consciousness', we possess little Being, then for me, such a state would not be desirable in the least.  Expanding consciousness is about increasing one's Being, and is not necessarily about stilling or clearing the mind to reach a state of singular consciousness.  To base one's spirituality and meaning on a single state of 'singular consciousness' appears to me a form of delusion.  

I'm honestly not trying to misrepresent your thoughts or attack straw men.   These are just my thoughts, once private, now public.  We are both interested in the truth, I think, and so, such discussion as this is good and hopefully will be fruitful, if not for us, then maybe for others.

namaste,
Shawn
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
joe
post May 12, 2003, 02:17 AM
Post #4


Unregistered









Your ideas although thoughtful as you put it, (full of thought)are still based in the Ego's interpretations of the minds enjoyment of the many aspects of the subtler experiences.
I don't elevate one over another because they are all connected, however every experience, every creation and dimensional reality is created from the same foundation.
This simple approach is the root of all of creation and all experiences.
Many confuse the goal of enlightenment with the miracles and abilities that lead to experiences, such as instant healing levitation or traversing the mudtidimensional worlds and levels of reality. These things the Self already does and is. Once the mind is stilled and anchored the awareness of these realities and the ability to experience them are enhanced as the attention of the brain is not divided by its activites or focus on activities.
When union occurs one petal of the thousand petaled lotus in the crown chakra opens and one stands in two worlds, the infinite and the manifest and life is lived 200%.
When the mind is established in Brahman the thousand petaled lotus opens and all one thousand petals are open with the awareness in 1000 places at once, and then there is Krishna, another state of pure God consciousness with the awareness established in all multidimensional realities everywhere, always, and yet the mind is still and the activity of the brain is still.
You are still equating physical properties in brain activity with relevance to active awareness. Once one transcends the one illusional physical reality all the others are available but as long as the experiencer believes in the reality of its self it will anchor its awareness in the experience and revolve the worlds around its experience of itself. Not unlike the beliefs of the past where the earth was the center of the galaxy with the suns and stars revolving around it. The Self creates but not from awareness of itself as an object in relationship to anything. It is everything. Once consciousness opens its eyes so to speak or as God awakens from pure stillness and inactivity it/he/whatever contains within, everything, is everything that can or will be or ever was.
Omniscience doesn't evolve. That is a human misconception.
To be is not to be anything but to be that. I am that is a shruti a statement of absolute truth. The Ego states I am and bases its being and awareness on itself and from itself. God does not think of itself as the experiencer only Ego does, it is separate from the activity and the experience. Union becomes or actually realises the seperation and interpretation was the illusion, an idea.
Simple is key. The mind caught up in its logic and complexity wants to find a reason for everything and all reasons will eventually lead back to the one source, the one being or the one isness. The rest are the waves upon the ocean.
You are also making assumptions based on brain activity as to what goes on within the mind and this can only be based on your own reference point of your experiences. Experiences are the product of the one, the one is not a product of the experiences.
The mind may be stilled, the breath stopped even and the mind, universal mind, the Self that is not bound by anything will be active while the physical mind will be perfectly still, in fact dormant. There is no physical machine that can measure this. The physical mind has only one purpose, not to be incharge of doing, but to be a reciever of the infinite mind. Only then can one be.
Science is still confused because it leaves the one important factor of the infinite out of the equation. Science keeps trying to do everything without God, or without extablishing a relationship in understanding God because no one can prove God exists within the confines of limited structures.
Your theories are still contained in the structures that are created from the one source and you will be forever lost if you make them as you say elevated from the simplest reality.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shawn
post May 12, 2003, 03:16 AM
Post #5


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1498
Joined: Jan 22, 2003
From: CA
Member No.: 9



There are a few points in your above post that I would like to take up now.  My responses below are not meant to be exhaustive, but are just a few thoughts that occurred to me while reading thru your post.

QUOTE

You are still equating physical properties in brain activity with relevance to active awareness. Once one transcends the one illusional physical reality all the others are available ....


It is true that I equate physical activity in the brain with many phenomenal properties of an individual's consciousness.  I strongly believe that mind = brain (or more precisely, mind = brain activity), and when I observe the workings of the brain in my work, I admittedly say to myself (with some excitement and awe), "You are that" ("tat tvam asi").  I understand completely that all 'representations' in consciousness of an 'outside world' are mere illusion, but from a pragmatic point of view, what's important is what's useful; even if our mental representation of the 'brain', or 'brain activity', is mere illusion, if we can control our states of consciousness by performing operations, manipulations, or actions on this mental representation, then this is the key, I think, to achieving more transcendent states of consciousness than have ever been achieved before.  

The brain (as well as our mental representation of it) is a complex system.  We play around with it, we learn to 'tweak' it, with the intent of expanding consciousness.   Precisely because you can expand consciousness by 'tweaking' the brain, it argues for a relation between mind and brain (or more precisely, our mental representation of the brain), and further underscores the importance of approaching transcendent states of consciousness thru study, and more importantly, the manipulation of the brain.

I cannot emphasize enough the importance of grasping the significance that the highest, most transcendent and mystical states of consciousness mankind has yet achieved will pale in comparison with what's to come.  The expansion of consciousness is inevitable.  When you say, "Omniscience doesn't evolve. That is a human misconception. "  -  that is all fine and good, but you don't personally experience 'omniscience'.  It may well be that the Universal Mind is omniscient, but unless such omniscience constitutes our consciousness, then it's really quite pointless to even postulate omniscience unless one has actually experienced it or is intent on experiencing it firsthand.  

The goal of many people's life is to become intoxicated with Being, to expand their consciousness, to self-transcend.   This goal is not absolute, but is rather relative.  If we've experienced self-transcendence in the past, that's all fine and good and will make for fond memories, but in all other respects this event is meaningless unless it helps us, or guides us, towards self-transcendence in the Present.  The simple desire to become more than what we are today, that is the noble goal of many.  To claim that this goal is reached by attaining 'singular consciousness' thru meditation seems to me rather insidious, overly-simplistic, and to be giving up far too early.  There is much work to be done for the purposes of expanding consciousness, and this work necessarily involves manipulating and 'tweaking' our brains.   We should not become so complacent that we've attained the highest state of consciousness, of 'singular consciousness', and leave it at that.  To do so would be to fall prey to a pleasant delusion, a mental opium of sorts.   There is still much work to be done, and we should not shrink back from this responsibility, but rather meet it head-on.    

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
joe
post May 12, 2003, 07:03 AM
Post #6


Unregistered









When you say, "Omniscience doesn't evolve. That is a human misconception. "  -  that is all fine and good, but you don't personally experience 'omniscience'.

Who doesn't? I don't or you don't? YOU can't as long as there is a you involved. What I have read in your previous theories of the ego less state is an interpretation of nothing, no thought no awareness no movement. That is the Transcendant one but consciousness is always active when aware or self aware, Consciousness has always been and the idea of it not being, or being inactive or active is just a concept of it. Consciousness can be both at the same time active and inactive.

The goal of many people's life is to become intoxicated with Being, to expand their consciousness, to self-transcend.   This goal is not absolute, but is rather relative.

It is from the waking state point of view,  the understanding of this evolves as one reaches higher states of consciousness. As one reaches union all ideas and goals lose their meaning as they existed in past impressions and forms.
You are still approaching this from the point of view of ego and the reality of experiences based in ego. The attachment to physical fulfillment of the senses.
Consciousness transcends the senses and the ability of the physical brain to maintain its function in higher states of consciousness. Consciousness does not die when the body dies. Uniting with that consciousness that does not die does not have to abandon the physical body or physical reality. Fear of annihilation deludes reality with the idea that higher states need be based or understood in physical properties of activity and brain activity, this is an attempt to control, self believes "it", the self needs to maintain control, to actively direct ideas and intent towards Bliss. This action is forever doomed to failure. It is what everyone does already. Humans try to concieve of the ultimate reality and experience to instill bliss when all it takes is to stop and bask in the bliss that is present. All active aggressive intention clouds that bliss of being and ends up in a state of doing rather than being. One need apply only efforet to stop what it has done in action to direct awareness inward not outward, this is natural and requires no effort. It takes effort to maintain the illusion not to be.
You don't and can't understand what you have not experienced. You have read Vasishta and yet you can't grasp the message outside of your own scientific concepts and the intellects anchor in facts and interpretation based on your experiences and your idea of the absolute.

Let me ask you this. Have you ever recieved any guidance from a master who has transcended mind? or have you just listened to the stories and within your own understandings formulated the answers to your own questions?

Anything is possible some people are self taught in many forms of mastery but the process is usually slow. Some stumbling around, finding what seems to work and what doesn't. possibly hitting on something that works. But it usually much quicker to surrender yourself to instruction, to set aside pride and give way to experience and greater knowledge. This is the way of most teachings. Once one learns to listen to Omniscience all can be known that can be known.
All else is theoretical and self absorbed. Ultimately all realities in all forms including ignorance is perfect and connected but the experience of sitting in an empty tub imagining yourself as taking a bath is definately different than sitting in a hot tub of water.
You point the way to concepts that the mind cannot put into form or understanding and at the same time try to enclose the infinite into single ideas or take the formless and categorize forms as parts that are necessary to make a whole.
The paradox is the whole has no parts. Each part is the whole because its form is not what it is.
Just as you can break any solid form into lesser particles such as atoms and molecules the multidimensional forms and realities are formed of the one absolute and each idea of its subparticles contains the entire knowledge and total essence of everything else. There is nothing too small or too big that cannot be altered into another idea. An atom is a universe and a universe is an atom but it is still born of consciousness as it draws forth from the one. Bliss does not come from creation, that is relative happiness. Bliss comes from the being of pure potential, all else is subject to interpretations of experience and experience can be liked or disliked and there is no fulfillment in separation of the one into the many.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
The_Raven
post May 12, 2003, 09:11 AM
Post #7


Unregistered









what he said^
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shawn
post May 12, 2003, 04:23 PM
Post #8


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1498
Joined: Jan 22, 2003
From: CA
Member No.: 9



Joe, we are both stubborn souls, you and I.  But this can be a good thing, can it not?

In your description of your experience of God on another thread, you say, 'There is nothing but pure unconditional Love in the presence of That.'  - that's very interesting.  In that same post, you seem to be making use of the form vs substance dichotomy by saying that the ego works with forms whereas it's the substance (i.e., energy, pure consciousness) that's God.   Am I understanding you correctly?   If so, then we should be wary of the validity of the form vs substance dichotomy.  Even Aristotle didn't buy into it, and held the view that substance is form.   But perhaps even more important is the fact that human perception doesn't confirm the form-substance dichotomy you appear to make use of.   If anything, our perception is characterized by Gestalts and by emergent perceptions that are irreducible to simpler forms.   In other words, I believe that such statements as yours that the Ego's existence is dependent on forms and that God is substance (I don't think you explicitly said this last statement, but rather I read between the lines) depend for their validity on the validity of the form vs substance dichotomy, and it's this (latter) validity that I dispute.   I do not accept the validity of the form vs. substance dichotomy,   As such, to downplay the role or importance of 'Ego' because it's existence depends on forms (which you consider illusion) seems to me to be incorrect.

What exactly is ego after all?  I mean, from our discussions, I'm sure most people would gather that 'ego' is a bad little monkey.  But let's be serious.  What exactly is ego?   When someone experiences 'I' as impersonal 'It', is that just ego, or something else?  Is the ego-less state simply defined by the utter lack of reflective consciousness and memory, or is there more to it?

I do not think 'ego' is synonymous with identity.  When most people speak of 'ego', they refer to something like their personal egos.   But if someone experiences 'I' as impersonal 'It', then it seems to me that this is not the ego, but something else.  

"We are the Universe conscious of Itself."  Anyone who experiences the truth of this firsthand will understand where I'm coming from.  It is an experience founded in a vastly expanded state of consciousness and Being that is utterly inconceivable "what it's like" in normal states of consciousness.  

QUOTE

Let me ask you this. Have you ever recieved any guidance from a master who has transcended mind? or have you just listened to the stories and within your own understandings formulated the answers to your own questions?


I have never received guidance from any 'living' masters.  I have merely read many things and have a slight obsession/compulsion to 'know my Self', and to avoid delusion and settling for 'easy answers'.    But such 'solitary' efforts should not be underestimated, particularly when they're guided by something higher (or deeper)

Now, please let me ask you a few questions for the sake of clarification:

1) Do you believe you're conscious of anything when you're in dreamless sleep?  Do you believe dreamless sleep is a state of blissful union with the Infinite Consciousness?

2) Do you possess an ego at this very moment?  Or rather, don't you need to possess something of an ego to work with forms, including reading and responding to this thread?

3) Are you touting ego-lessness as the road to bliss?  

4) What is ego-lessness, the destruction of ego or creation of a super-ego?

5) If you believe yourself to be omniscient, then what exactly do you mean by this?   Do you also believe yourself to be omnipresent?

6) Do you believe yourself and the Absolute Mind or Infinite Consciousness to be one and the same?  And if so, then why are you not conscious of more?  In particular, why aren't you conscious of everyone elses consciousness?

7) Does witness consciousness necessarily imply ego-lessness, and vice versa?

8) Are you familiar with the teachings of Nietzsche, and in particular, his 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra'?


The Yoga Vasistha is a fascinating work.  I do not accept everything it says, and I feel like I could learn a lot more from it.  Perhaps soon, I will undertake a more thoughtful reading of its contents, so that at the very least, I will realize a better, more faithful interpretation.

Have you ever thought of systematically laying out your entire belief system, to share with others?

namaste,
Shawn




User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RikaB
post May 12, 2003, 09:15 PM
Post #9


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 23
Joined: May 12, 2003
From: Houston
Member No.: 387



At this point i agree with Shawn.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
numinoso
post May 13, 2003, 03:01 AM
Post #10


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 129
Joined: Apr 30, 2003
From: Aachen, Germany
Member No.: 342



And I with Joe.
:smile.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
joe
post May 13, 2003, 05:51 AM
Post #11


Unregistered









I'm not sure how to respond to the scientific descriptions of your breakdown of the conversation.
But let me try.
In relationship to the form vs substance dichotmy if I am following you, the language is only a tool to point in a direction. The experience of God can be described but not given to another. What I say and how I put it into words would be unique to the situation. You want to turn a phillips screw you don't use a flat screwdriver. Anyway Ego is a name given to the awareness when it comes out of stillness and is in movement, it is awareness being aware. The negative connotations come into play when Ego is believed to be the true nature of consciousness when it is active and when I the experiencer becomes the master or center. When consciousness is in the knower and the known stage that limits itself to the experiences as the only known. OR as the eastern philosophies describe the knower the known and the "process" of knowing, when the Ego or as it is called the Jiva is separated from all, from all dimensional realities and locked into one.
One greek translation of ego is satan, I think that is where the interpretation of ego took on its negative aspects. But the Jiva is niether a good thing or a bad thing. The separation from multidimentsional realities is a point of reference that is not THE point of reference only A point of reference. From THE point of reference all dimensional realities and their connecting link of the transcndant energy that is its basic structure are forever connected, both in absolute stillness and in activity.
It is all one and can NEVEr be separated other than in the mind.
Universal mind Self is not the same as individual ego mind or self. The ego less state that has been described in all the books that follow the teachings can't be interpreted, it has to be experienced and it includes no thought as the basis of everything but does not preclude thought because all thoughts and ideas are within the stillness that lay in infinite potential and is activated by intent.

1) Do you believe you're conscious of anything when you're in dreamless sleep?  Do you believe dreamless sleep is a state of blissful union with the Infinite Consciousness?

Sleep when followed by waking consciousness that is unaware of the self does not transcend the waking consciousness. The presence of the infinite absolute is always present and if you can't recognise it while awake why would you recognize it while asleep?
There is a name given to the awareness of itself in non activity, when there are absolutely no thoughts, but awareness is aware  of itself and is akin to dreamless sleep, and is often mistaken for dreamless sleep and that is called the origin-less
 
2) Do you possess an ego at this very moment?  Or rather, don't you need to possess something of an ego to work with forms, including reading and responding to this thread?

I have a Jiva/ego which allows the recognition of movement but in an egoless state I see only the transcendant one.

3) Are you touting ego-lessness as the road to bliss?

I am not touting anything. Ego-lessness IS the state that leaves all ideas in stress and separation, that prevents the natural state of bliss that IS the pure awareness of Love, true unconditional love that is God, that is the Self.

4) What is ego-lessness, the destruction of ego or creation of a super-ego?

It is the dissolving of reason and identity with illusions that fragment the one

5) If you believe yourself to be omniscient, then what exactly do you mean by this?   Do you also believe yourself to be omnipresent?  

Belief comes from the 5-10% level of the thinking mind and associates itself with boundaries and rules. Omniscence is, and  available, and all one has to do is drop all beliefs and omniscience is available. Omniscisnce is omnipresent and I as That am present in ALL thought feeling and action.

6) Do you believe yourself and the Absolute Mind or Infinite Consciousness to be one and the same?  And if so, then why are you not conscious of more?  In particular, why aren't you conscious of everyone elses consciousness?

You assume I am not.

7) Does witness consciousness necessarily imply ego-lessness, and vice versa?

Witnessing can be an experience that exists with ego intact.

8) Are you familiar with the teachings of Nietzsche, and in particular, his 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra'?

I have read neither.


The Yoga Vasistha is a fascinating work.  I do not accept everything it says, and I feel like I could learn a lot more from it.  Perhaps soon, I will undertake a more thoughtful reading of its contents, so that at the very least, I will realize a better, more faithful interpretation.

I said in another post that one cannot understand the book without establishing the awareness of the absolute within themselves, all of his teaching is based on that one thing. Without the understanding of the language reading a book in a foreign language is a hit or miss interpretive venture

Have you ever thought of systematically laying out your entire belief system, to share with others?

It is not a belief system rather a teaching based on enlivening personal experience or enlivening one heart through another enlivened heart. Any teaching is a passing on from one master to a student until the student becomes master.
I had a teacher who was a brahman. I am a teacher and I also have students.
What I teach Jesus, Bhudda, Joeph Smith and Joseph Campbell spoke of, what I teach ties all beliefs and religions together in the one true religion. The recognition and enlivening of the force that drives all forces both physical and non-physical in all of infinite creation. Call it what you will.

Have you read a course in miracles? If you haven't I suggest you read that before trying to understand Vasishtas yoga.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post May 13, 2003, 06:16 AM
Post #12


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



shawn, are you getting the feeling that you are talking to a wall yet?  I think that one can apply a rule of thumb about religions here, that a good religion does not look like a religion from the inside.  Joe just wants to invite people in, but can only do so in ways that preserve his sense of logical understanding.  Its like, if you would only just come inside, sit down and shut up and follow the guru's lead, you will 'see' the truth manifest itself.  Then you will understand what Joe means when he expresses himself, where his expressions are just a manifestation of his continued practice of the logic that keeps him centered.  wink.gif

8)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shawn
post May 13, 2003, 10:43 AM
Post #13


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1498
Joined: Jan 22, 2003
From: CA
Member No.: 9



First, let me just say that I consider it a privelege to be having such interesting and worthwhile discussion with the people here.  And even though we may have our differences, it in no way lessens the value of this conversation.    Indeed, I believe this thread is a testament to the fact that sufficiently open-minded people can converse freely and feel secure in the face of opposing viewpoints.

Dan, I understand exactly what you're saying, and it's a good point.  Joe, I believe your sincerity and enlightened outlook on things has already gained you something of a following, and it's well deserved.

My post will not do justice to the issue at hand, but there are a few things I'd like to say in spite of this.  Joe, I believe I know where you're coming from because I think I've been there before (no doubt you doubt this, but I do sincerely believe this).  It's not a place where I'm at now.  Nor is it a place that I really want to go back to.  There's too much work for me to do and accomplish, and it's not possible for me to dismiss such goals and longings as illusions.  You see, my belief is that, whatever state of consciousness you happen to be in, however enlightened and transcendent it may be, it's only relative.   I am strongly drawn by the notion that much more transcendent states of consciousness exist, and that it's simply a matter of tweaking/modifying our brains in order to realize such states of consciousness.  I realize that when you speak, you're in a particular state of consciousness, but my belief is that there's nothing 'absolutely' transcendent or enlightening about this state because transcendence and enlightenment are all relative notions.  This is but one of the many important lessons I took from Nietzsche.  

What people refer to as God-consciousness or cosmic consciousness, I have experienced, and further, I fully understand that this state of consciousness is like nothing when compared to even more transcendent states of consciousness that are, for obvious reasons, inconceivable and beyond the imaginative capabilities of the states of consciousness currently available to us.  

I should note that the experience of God as Love which you mentioned in another thread, is this not but a powerful sentiment, and little more?  Why equate God as Love, or say that God is full of Love, when love is just a human sentiment.  Surely, the experience of God is beyond human sentiment.  Even the notion that the whole is contained in it's parts (i.e., the immanence of God) does not justify attaching rather ordinary human sentiments to the supra-ordinary experience of God.

Personally, I do not associate Love with God.  I have experienced overpowering feelings of a, for lack of a better work, Cosmic Love, but I know that this is not God, but rather just human sentiment that's directed towards everything (as opposed to being directed towards a particular object or person).

My experience of God is best understood as an overflowing intoxication with Being, and is characterized by an extraordinary mania.  If I was forced to associate human sentiments to God, it would not be Love, but would rather be Laughter, disembodied Laughter.  Have I been understood?  

The genius of the brahmans of ancient India resided in their formulation of concepts such as Atman = Brahman and the universality of the Self within each of us (which permits me to say that I am everyone who has ever lived).   They're great, ennobling ideas, I think, but let us now go beyond.   We can't remain satisfied with ancient teachings.  It's high time to go beyond the brahmans.   And the way to do this is by modifying our brains to enable higher, more transcendent states of consciousness than have ever been experienced before.   That is the road I'm on.  Or rather, that is the road that has me on it.   It was not my choice, but rather, it was what was chosen for me.   An inevitability of sorts.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
joe
post May 13, 2003, 12:08 PM
Post #14


Unregistered









 I'm glad you are pleased with your ability to have a conversation without prejudice. I always admire anyone who is not closed to possibilities.

Your reference to love as being sentiment is a normal reaction to learned programs and your interpretation is normal for one who has his reference points in what one has learned within physical concepts and experiences. These ideas are the only thing that make sense to relative conclusions. That is where humanity is at, a myriad of experience and understandings and none less real or more than another. Each one valid within the idea that what can be experienced is real.

Universal Love ior unconditional love is limitless energy that cannot be destroyed. IT can be manipulated and interpreted within the concepts of the ideas that cause manipulation. but in reality anything that can ever be created already exists so there is no manipulation rather a traveling of the awareness to the idea. Like a movie film strip the awareness just goes to the appropriate section in time and space and the particular frame for the picture and experience.

There are some interesting articles concerning physics and God if you wish to continue to explore the more scientific form.

I also have been where you are at and have gone too far to fall back into the analytical reasoning that goes with the ideas of fact and fiction.

I trust your endeavors will take you where you want to go. I see this and it is what needs to happen to create further understanding. Eventually you will go beyond understanding.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post May 13, 2003, 01:38 PM
Post #15


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



you gotta love Joe, he dances like a guru with conviction  wink.gif

8)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
numinoso
post May 13, 2003, 10:04 PM
Post #16


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 129
Joined: Apr 30, 2003
From: Aachen, Germany
Member No.: 342



you also gotta love Dan, he moves like a convictioned bulldozer
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
satan
post May 14, 2003, 12:34 AM
Post #17


Unregistered









beware of dogmatisms!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
satan
post May 14, 2003, 12:39 AM
Post #18


Unregistered









Dogmatism is only effective on the weak of mind.   We all have the responsibility to be honest with ourselves, do we not?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post May 14, 2003, 05:54 AM
Post #19


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



I saw that, Num  >:(

wink.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
numinoso
post May 14, 2003, 08:57 AM
Post #20


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 129
Joined: Apr 30, 2003
From: Aachen, Germany
Member No.: 342



Beware of anti-dogmatism dogmatics! They don't think about things as soon as they appear like dogmas! Only the weak of minds!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
satan
post May 14, 2003, 09:34 AM
Post #21


Unregistered









quote author=numinoso link=board=singularity;num=1045781333;start=15#19 date=05/14/03 at 14:57:58]Beware of anti-dogmatism dogmatics! [/quote]

that's some amusingly illogical advice   smile.gif

Here's some more:  Beware of anti-anti-dogmatism dogmatics!

or how about this?  Beware of anti-anti-anti-anti-dogmatism dogmatics!

Great advice, eh?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post May 14, 2003, 10:59 AM
Post #22


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



beware Bad
seek Good

that
is
all

8)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shawn
post May 14, 2003, 12:08 PM
Post #23


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1498
Joined: Jan 22, 2003
From: CA
Member No.: 9



I can't help observing that this thread has digressed considerably from it's original topic, the Consciousness Singularity.  

It's ok and all, but if anyone has anything else to say on this important topic, I'd be happy to hear it, whether you find the idea of a Consciousness Singularity credible or not.  From my perspective, this impending event, the Consciousness Singularity, is inevitable.   It's just a question of when.

It's important to understand the concept of the Consciousness Singularity, even though I think it will require a new way of thinking for a lot of people.    For people who've experienced cosmic-consciousness, can you imagine what it would be like if that experience were magnified a thousand-fold, or a million-fold, in intensity and Being?   For people who haven't experienced cosmic-consciousness, can you still try to imagine what this experience would be like?   Even though the Consciousness Singularity is currently beyond our comprehension and experience, nowadays we can at least approach it's 'event horizon', I think, if we're serious enough, motivated enough, honest enough with ourselves and sufficiently in touch with ourselves, fortunate enough to be graced with the potential, and intelligent- and wise-enough to know how to realize this potential.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post May 14, 2003, 01:27 PM
Post #24


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



the singularity idea sounds like new-age 'ascension'

8)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shawn
post May 14, 2003, 02:58 PM
Post #25


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1498
Joined: Jan 22, 2003
From: CA
Member No.: 9



hello Dan,

QUOTE
the singularity idea sounds like new-age 'ascension'


In a way, yes, they do sound alike.   But why attach new-age ideas to a concept that doesn't require them?  

I was quite happily surprised by your post.  Where did you learn about new-age ascension?    I had to research it on the internet to find out what new-age ascension is, but came across some relevant info at http://www.meta-religion.com/Spiritualism/...age/new_age.htm .  Here's an excerpt:

"But channelers also began to suggest the possibility of a global or planetary Ascension. Integrated through the many and variant offerings from the hundred or more channelers who contribute to the Sedona Journal, is a belief that a large group of people (though certainly a tiny minority of the world's population) are in the midst of a significant transformation of consciousness. The transformation is described variously, but essentially will lift them to a new way of seeing the world in its essential unifying and loving reality. As these people attain this new state they will be a magnet through which the whole world will ascend, eventually come to the truth of this higher consciousness."

"What is evident in this post-New Age message is the lack of a timetable by which the planetary ascension will occur, though everywhere there is the hint and hope that it will occur in this century. Second, there is the realization that for the presence only a relative few will be engaged in activity focused upon their ascension, though the work of this group will ultimately have planetary implications."



Honestly, I don't know enough about new-age ideas (I acquired an early aversion to many of their ideas, including the Age of Aquarius, astrology, and crystal magic) to say with certainty, but it seems like the Ascension, which is referred to above as a 'significant transformation of consciousness', can be interpreted to be very much like the Consciousness Singularity.   I'm fairly certain, however, that these new-agers (or post new-agers) underestimate just how dramatic the transformation in consciousness will be.  As such, I think the Ascension they speak of is a very much toned-down version of the Consciousness Singularity that I speak of.  

A lot more could be said about this, and hopefully more will.     I'm very glad you brought this Ascension idea to my attention, Dan.  Thank you.


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
numinoso
post May 14, 2003, 08:04 PM
Post #26


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 129
Joined: Apr 30, 2003
From: Aachen, Germany
Member No.: 342



Shawn, this idea of the consciousness singularity is truly fascinating, and the basis of it got you. However, let me put in some remarks:

This is a step in evolution, comparable to other steps in evolution homo sapiens made before. Meaning, the people who are able to reach this higher consciousness are genetically different from those who are too stupid for it. It the long run the fitter one of these two groups will survive and the others will pass away. (It's clear that the more intelligent ones are also the fitter ones, although the stupid asses sometimes have an advantage, when it comes to wars or so, but it's clear that humanity will get away from their violent past and into a civilized future.)

You are not the first one to conceive of a higher consciousness. And let me tell you in all humbleness, there have been people who already realized it, to an extent that is above what you can imagine presently. It might be true to say that this step is unparalelled in history regarding society, but it sounds as if you were the one who is more advanced than any others.

This is not the final step in human evolution. We have 4.000.000.000 more years to use this planet (after which we could even continue existing in space), and our evolution moves in steps of couples of millenia. (This speed is only an average, there is typostase and typogenese. In the typostase evolution stands still, and in typogenese it's very fast. Could be that humanity presently has a typogenese, which means in some centuries the gene pool will be very different, and that one day a typostase will come where we'll be like living fossiles, who don't change in millions of years.)

The approach to alter the brain artificially would be labelled by Zen Buddhists as 'putting legs on a snake'. That means, a snake can move very well without legs, and they would only disturb her. The brain is complex enough to produce all the transmitters it needs for any state of consciousness it wants. Go and meditate like Zen people all the time, and your brain will change and you'll be in enlightenment all around the clock. Dig into lucid dreaming and your brain will change in a way that makes it more and more easy to reach, until you have it every time you fall asleep. Do visualization and you'll grow synapses that make it occur any time you wish. And so on.

The problem with chemical stimulation is that the brain always counterreacts in order to reach a balance. That balance is determined by your experiences throughout the day, not by the drugs. That's why you can't take them regularily. At best, take them for triggering new perceptions and then try to get the perceptions without them. But in the end those who are able to reach the consciousness singularity without external stimulation will be fitter than those who are dependent on it, so you can figure out yourself which of these two groups will form the homo sapiens sapientissimus.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
joe
post May 14, 2003, 08:22 PM
Post #27


Unregistered









Ascension is the idea or name given to the process of what you call the singularity, but it is also applied to individual application of enlightenment to the singularity of the one universal mind.
What you describe as the goal of mass consciousness is a by product of what has been designed into the fabric of creation and time.
Of course the many interpretations are just a bud on the tree. what you call singularity the new agers would probably say has no heart in it, as you would say there is no logic in theirs. One left brained Idea in conflict with right brain; will they ever get along?
I'm sure when the bud blossoms there will be an end to all speculation but differing interpretations? Wouldn't that be interesting. If free will can not be taken then the will to see as many things within any single event will always be the choice won't it? Instead of the one there will still be the many? We shall see.

This singularity also has another historical aspect to it. It follows what is described as an astrological change of seasons.
The sciences that describe this might be a little woo woo for your tastes but here it is.

There are 7 universes, layered one on top of each other like rings around a core. The center universes central sun is the heart of the subsequent universes. It, like our sun has the energy that supports the solar system or the revolving layers.
The orbital pattern is eliptical rather than spherical. Our present universe is the outer layer. The orbital pattern creates seasons, like spring summer fall and winter only they are not seasons that are like our seasons where the temperature changes. They are seasonal changes in consciousness. Because the central sun is where the energy is most intense the consiousness is affected largely by the position of the solar system in relationship to the central sun.
One name given to this seasonal change is Yuga. where Dwarpa yuga is the Golden age where everyone becomes enlightened the consciousness of the planet crosses a threshold when it reaches a point close enough to break the darkness of ignorance and chaos. Kali yuga is the darkest age which is what we are coming out of at this time. The seasonal change is not an even change like a sine wave that has a smooth transition, rather like a gradual slope from the peak to its lowest point then and exponential rise that is almost straight up from its base. Its progress is more like summer spring fall and winter then summer again.
This change has been marked on egyptian and mayan calenders and depending on which form of astrological time table you follow has a predicted threshold. Western astrology is different than eastern astrology because the western astrology doesn't account for the 14 degree wobble the earth has in its rotation around the sun. The varying degree of wobble changes the positions of the solar system in relationship to certain predictions and also to universal alignment. Although the eastern and western calculations are close and also subject to logical debate and spiritual debate I'm sure the impending results or lack of, will eventually give way to the time spent on speculation.
Eastern astrological calenders put the threshold around 2012 where as western around 2030.

Those that patiently await some kind of speculative change like the second coming can only dream of the results where others are already waking to and observing its effects. Others who have been awake have been guiding humanity toward this threshold for millenia.

The relationship of the earths seasonal changes to its progressive evolution in all cultures and sciences always mirror the conscious progression that is happening within.
The documents that relate the history of this process are usually kept away from the fanatical disbelievers who invariably destroy the texts in order to protect their lesser ideas and beliefs. Its much easier to poo poo the ideas and sit back in safety by keeping anything that threates attached values from being destablized.
The more general texts are the ones that are usually tossed aside with as much respect as the national enquirer in favor of the more grounded logical approach to science that likes to create facts that one can believe in even if they keep finding the facts change and evolve as they do. Just think if they just followed the more spatial beliefs that don't change as much as the sciences and the facts of beliefs around science they might have settled into one reality rather than following the many that eventually end up back at the one. But then maybe it wouldn't be as entertaining. After all why take the straight road when you can take the scenic route.
So many interesting parallels and no one to give them much notice.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shawn
post May 15, 2003, 03:21 PM
Post #28


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1498
Joined: Jan 22, 2003
From: CA
Member No.: 9



Hello Numinoso,

I appreciate the thoughtfulness and sincerity of your remarks and agree with most of what you said.   However, there are a few replies I'd like to make on some points where we may (or may not) disagree:

QUOTE

You are not the first one to conceive of a higher consciousness.


Agreed.  I take no credit for being the first to conceive of a higher consciousness, or for that matter, being the first to conceive of a consciousness singularity.   Perhaps what I may claim some credit for is the emphasis I place on the importance of manipulating, enhancing, and transforming our brains to achieve transcendent states of consciousness, and ultimately, to bring about a consciousness singularity.

I do not believe the consciousness singularity will be the result of evolution, the type of evolution that created homo sapiens, for example.   Rather, it will be the result of our own efforts.  Without our own efforts at manipulating and transforming our brains, we will not realize the consciousness singularity.  

The consciousness singularity I have in mind is not some Zen awakening.  It will be the result of a dramatic transformation in the structure and function of our brains.  It's that simple.  No-one, to the best of my knowledge, has placed the emphasis on brain structure and function, that I do, that will be required to bring about the consciousness singularity.

If we understand a thing, we can control a thing.  Our brains are complicated things, but they can be understood and controlled, and since our consciousness is simply brain activity, by dramatically altering our brain structure and function, so too will we dramatically alter our consciousness.  

Those who are successful in this endeaver will experience such states of God-consciousness as have never been experienced before, by anyone.    

And they will be the harbingers to the upcoming consciousness singularity.   Of course, I do not believe there will be just 'one' consciousness singularity, but many, since states of consciousness are all relative.  Nonetheless, I do not regard the consciousness singularity as simply evolution, at least not as Darwin understood the term.   For him, evolution was the result of random variation and natural selection.   But this is not how the consciousness singularity will come about.  Rather, it will be the result of our deliberate efforts.   Our will and intent will shoot us like arrows into the sun of the consciousness singularity.   Neither random variation nor natural selection will be at work here.  Only our wills, our desire to realize our own divinity and push it beyond the limits.

There are many fools in the world.  Many who sit around and do nothing but delude themselves into believing that they're one with God.  They do not understand that one must take action in this world, that one cannot remain just a perceiver.  Lazy is what I call them, those pure perceivers.  Lazy, weak, and unworthy of true transcendence.  Let them believe what they will.  I, for one, know better.  

Please note that I am not directing this at you Numinoso, or to anyone else here at this forum.  They are simply my thoughts on the matter, directed at no-one in particular.

Ah, but it grows late, and I wish to go outside now to catch sight of the lunar eclipse.

Good night for now.


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
joe
post May 15, 2003, 03:46 PM
Post #29


Unregistered









Your brain tweaking sounds alot like the changing of awarness that takes place in the process of meditation and placing the awareness in a point of reference that is greater than the limited points of reference.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dan
post May 15, 2003, 04:05 PM
Post #30


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96



bravo Shawn, for declaring war on premature satisfaction

my take on the brain thing is that we will discover the 'nodes' and create 'cyber'brains for them.  Transcend reliance on Homo Sapiens Sapiens substrate. This will vastly enable the ability to funk wid stuff

8)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th November 2017 - 08:08 PM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog
 · Connectomics · Connectomics  ·  shawn mikula  ·  shawn mikula  ·  articles