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.

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.

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

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.

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.    

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.

what he said^

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

At this point i agree with Shawn.

And I with Joe.
:

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.

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.  

8)

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.

 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.

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

8)

you also gotta love Dan, he moves like a convictioned bulldozer

beware of dogmatisms!

Dogmatism is only effective on the weak of mind.   We all have the responsibility to be honest with ourselves, do we not?

I saw that, Num  >:(

Beware of anti-dogmatism dogmatics! They don't think about things as soon as they appear like dogmas! Only the weak of minds!

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  

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?

beware Bad
seek Good

that
is
all

8)

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.

the singularity idea sounds like new-age 'ascension'

8)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

Shawn, I'm impressed by your drive about bettering the brain. I think I'm interested in the details. Is there any place where I can find the basics of your work? (I admit I haven't read anything except the forum yet, so perhaps my question is idle, but you could give me a hint were to begin. Expecially I'm interested in how to improve the activity of a single nerve, and how to improve the circuitry. Is your aim at constantly supplying the brain with transmitter-like substances, or do you want to influence the synapse growth?)

Then I want to remark that the brain can also be changed by intent. Free will is altering the circuitry if you place it steadfastly on a target. It would be interesting to what extent you consider this option.

And there's the question about how to raise the children. I suppose if they grow up in an ideal community with lots of stimulation, in a cyber-like transcendental surrounding they will get totally different brains which by themselves might work as you envision. (I should have used another word than 'transcentental', perhaps 'virtual', but that neither is correct. I meant something that is very evolved. like inside a spacehip or so.)

See ya.

Hello Joe, Dan, Numinoso,

Dan, thank you for your encouragement.    I'm curious though: what do you mean by creating cyber brains for nodes?  Maybe you could elaborate on this a bit more.  I remember your discussion about brain nodes in another thread, but wasn't sure how to interpret your statement about cyber brains.

Joe, the brain tweaking I have in mind has absolutely no relation to the changing of awareness that takes place in the process of meditation.   Modifications to the brain are relative, as are states of consciousness.  Meditative states of consciousness are not what I'm after since it's simple enough to attain these in the absence of any significant brain manipulation, at least not in the sense that I'm using the term 'manipulation'.  By 'manipulation', I mean that there will be a time, in the very near future, when we will know enough about the organization of the brain, that we can go in and physically, chemically, and biologically modify it's structure and function.   Indeed, we're already in the initial stages of having and employing the awesome capability to manipulate our brains in this way (via electrical/magnetic stimulation and neuropharmacology), though the current techniques are rather crude and, more often than not, underscore our ignorance of brain function and organization.  However, with more knowledge of brain function and organization will come more manipulative power; the power to control and modify our brains, and hence the power to control and modify our states of consciousness.  The power to attain states of God-consciousness such that have never been experienced before, by anyone.  We speak of the Self and God, and the experience of these.  But I tell you that even more intimate relations with God (or the Self) will be achieved by manipulating and controlling our brains.  

Our brains are the key that will unlock the doors unto higher realms of consciousness and Being such that are entirely beyond your, or anyone else's, comprehension or experience.  In the end, we will confront our Maker (God, the Self, whatever you choose to call It) in the most intimate and mystical way, and this will be achieved thru our ability to manipulate and control brain states.

Numinoso, you brought up some of the hardest questions.   I'm not quite sure how to best reply.  The answer to how to actually manipulate and control our brains will necessarily be multifaceted.  There are many ways currently to do this.  However, our current methods are rather crude and unsatisfactory, and do not offer the type of manipulation and control that I envision.    What we must do first, though, is obtain a better understanding of how the brain functions and is organized.  This is the necessary prerequisite before any serious attempts at brain manipulation and control can be realized (beyond the rather crude techniques and methods available to us today).

We must learn more about the organization and function of our brains.  When we have sufficient knowledge, only then will we harness the power to control and manipulate our brains in order to achieve transcendent states of God-consciousness such that have never been experienced by anyone before.

Imagine what a rat brain is to a human brain (if you're lucky, you'll know what each one looks like).  Well, the type of manipulation and control of our brains that I have in mind will make the human brain in relation to our modified brains like the rat brain is to the human brain.  And it won't stop there.  It'll just be the beginning.   There is no limit to the extent to which we'll be able to enhance, augment, expand, manipulate, and control our brains.    Hence, there will be no limit to the extent to which we'll be able to enhance, augment, expand, manipulate, and control our states of consciousness (particularly God-consciousness) and Being.  

You see, it's all relative; our brain structure/function, states of consciousness, everything.

There will be a time when I will expand the neuroscience section on this site to accommodate the direction I've outlined here.  I'm engaged in work now, and that sort of makes it hard for me to sit down and compose all my thoughts on the matter.   It's the dilemma of writing versus activity and experimentation.  That is, when one is engaged in activity, in research, experimentation, and the like, it makes it very hard to slow down and stop to write about what you're doing.  Conversely, when you make the time to sit down and write about what you're doing, you can no longer be engaged in what it is that you're writing about.

However, that being said, there will be a time, soon I hope, when I will be able to temporarily cease my activity and work, and be able to set down all of my thoughts on the matter onto paper to share will others.  In the interim, I'm afraid that unintentionally incomplete answers are all I can really give.

namaste,
Shawn

Shawn
 I wish you well in your endeavors. However I must also tell you that consciousness born of the infinite can extend into the infinite, your belief that it hasn't been done is still relative only to your own experiences. Manipulation of the brain to peak into the windows of the many facets of that will be something that I'm sure will be entertaining.
What you keep describing in the process of Meditation and the experiences that are gained by touching various states of awareness is not the same as the process Yoga or union with Consciousness. Niether is the multidimensional peeking into alternate realities by chemical or mechanical manipulation to step out of a familar concept or reality and then step into an unknown reality. This is already done with psychtropic drugs and although it has expanding effects it doesn't anchor the awareness into the familiarity of its Self. It would be more akin to taking a vacation and collecting memories than becoming aware of the Self.
I will still say that without Union of the Self and awareness the infinite is only an idea that holds too many limited concepts. This I know from personal experience. To limit the mind in its ability to naturally experience the self without external manipulation is one of the many ideas that humans dream of in rising above Gods flaw in creation to overcome their independant inability to realize God within. So the dream goes on to try and discover the flaw that God has created and to find the cure for that which they are disconnected from.
Any experience you have had that leaves you both in doubt of the validity of the experience or the inability to connect with the infinite was either less than what you are capable of, or misinterpreted by your own expectations which always always blind the sight to the many things that are in front of one who has a "vision" or expectation, of the infinite.
Infinite Bliss or the experience of God and all multidimensional realities is available to anyone, as is any drug that can be manufactured, all within the mind and bodies natural capabilities. It is very much possible to unite the unmanifest with the manifest. What you focus on grows, any disbelief is always a part of the whole that when left out in the realm of possibilities leaves the whole incomplete.
I am not saying your theories are incorrect but you will still need to stabilize the awareness within the infinite once the mind is altered. Those that will have already altered and stabilized their awareness naturally will probably be the ones to help lead the manipulated conscious clones into stability. To throw the awareness from the ego's singular reference point of its self in relationship to an external 3 dimensional reality into the awareness of itself as multidimensional without a stabilizing process will be a fascinating approach. I remember my best  trips with Laboratory grade LSD and my inability to integrate my normal way of thinking or orientation  into the new experience. I didn't want to include it. Rejecting any dimensional form is still duality, and prejudice an any form limits God in all its aspects whether mundane or supermundane God cannot be limited.
There is an interesting book written by a researcher of consciousness in Florida called The Pillar of Celestial Fire. His research is dedicated to a process of ancient alchemy that has been deciphered from Egyptian heiroglyphs and other historical translations. The process is the taking of certain herbs and precious metals like Gold and platinum and growing a particular element that when ingested while placing the body within a particular type of vibrational chamber causes the awareness to change permanently.
Instant enlightenment.
His theory is that combined with the ever increasing rate of knowledge the reawakening of these processes that were used in the past during the last Dwarpa Yuga cycle of the present universe will produce 3 levels of conscious beings. The ones that were able to do this naturally, ones that have assisted themselves with the chemical alteration combined with a focused process of inward reflection and the ones that have been altered chemically without any stabilization process or dipping into the experiences of higher awareness. The order of hierarchy being in order of what I have described.
God not being democratic, those that reside in a human body will naturally follow the direction of the one infinite consciousness and the clearest source or connection to that will be the order of priests that are seated in permanent union at the highest levels. Even though they, (the 3 different described levels) will experience union it would follow the idea that a Journeyman would have more experience than the apprentice.

Although there are similarities to what you are describing and what your fellow conscious researcher is describing I'm sure you have your own ideas about whether there will be any hierarchy or not based on your present experiences which are sure to evolve with time.

I'm sure God needs all the help he can get.  

QUOTE

Dan, thank you for your encouragement.     I'm curious though: what do you mean by creating cyber brains for nodes?

I say that most of our brain is substrate (wiring, pattern forming, etc...), while certain special units of matter are essential to 'bridging' to/from 'beyond'.  This 'bridge' matter is the only important matter, the rest can be replaced with more interface-friendly material.  This way, instead of using complex and limited chemicals or devices to alter consciousness we can literally 'program' novel patterns with software with no technological limitations.  We can either 'piggyback' electronics into our brain and replace biological connectivity, or we can figure out how to artificially induce 'bridging' directly with non-biological substrate.



8)

I have been listening to this conversation with interest.

I have some observational prejudices.

I am a bit of a pragmatist.  I have learned to cut to the quick.   I wasted a lot of time looking into areas that were supposed to contain the 'answer'.   It is nice to be nice, but, it also nice to have warm cocao on a cold day.  Meaning politeness at times, does get in the way.  Especially when someone is declaring their system superior over any other.

We are individuals.  Individuals born into a regimented society that make demands to conform.  This is the original sin.  Someone else's fingerprints on your soul.
If you are to grow in this world, then the stains  on your Tabla Rosa must be dealt with.  Some rearrange their psychic components to ignore this travesty of privacy.
They tweak their mind brain combination to flow around these injustices to individuality.  What I have observed, in the main, is these people have 'feelings', of transcendance.  I do not doubt these feelings are not genuine as reported.  My observation is there is no other manifestation of 'God' except these feelings, especially when touted by the practitioner.  No healing, no use of godly power to end suffering.  No stopping of despots mad with power.  No poor innocent child saved from being ravaged by hunger or worse.  Nothing I can put into my life as a good piece of useable experience.  These people continue to eat, evacuate and take up physical space.  What they say is different from what they do.  They are guru and superior to us poor mortals.  They hang out in the right hemispere, lopsidedly.
On the other hand, the bulk of the Western world's occupants serve the god of the left hemispere-reason.  The people in the United States for instance, are patriarchal driven extrovert, sensate thinking types.
Physicality is their realm.  Instruments, brain tweaking with probes and chemicals to experience the same intimations of something higher.  It is so familiar I won't proceed any further.
I have my own flavoring for the soup.  I am in touch with my version of a higher power on a daily basis.  My way is superior for me.  That is the point I wish to make.  My way is superior for me!  If someone else were to copy it, they would soon be discontent.  We each have our own path that is suitable for the individuals that we are.  We can pick and choose from what is available, crafting a system tha allows us to create our own personal religion, government and relationships.  That is freedom.  That is individuality.  There should be a joy in sharing this information.  
I condemn anyone that comes with an attitude that their way is superior and someone else is doing something wrong.  I know something else is speaking rather than the God that is the God for all of us.

I speak my truth and would be happy to take it elsewhere if it is not considered polite enough.
I do appreciate the forum and the opportunity to speak.  I want to be certain I am not overstepping some boundaries that are not equal to my zeal.

 ""I condemn anyone that comes with an attitude that their way is superior and someone else is doing something wrong.  I know something else is speaking rather than the God that is the God for all of us.""

This is where you fail to integrate God into your reality. Your "idea" of what God is creates prejudice from your own personal feelings. Sure it would be nice to have everyone speak in a way that is not interpreted as threatening but it is any individuals reactions due to the internal programming that makes the distinctions between good and bad, God and non God.
Everything you don't "like" you have demonstrated as the part of you that you don't like. You stated you were going to be blunt and what the best way for you was and how you don't like what some others do. So what now? Its ok for you to be blunt and speak your peace but it is not the same God that works for you that works for others?
Everyone here has the GOD given ability to make choices and freely act as they are driven to act. If you don't like this multifaceted Diamond then maybe you need to find a flat one that will fit your desires and your expectations of what God is.
1) you can preach from the airport podium the coming of the one true God that has certain aspects that are true for you but not the many other forms that seem to continue in the light of YOUR version.
2) there are plenty of caves left that are unihabited and leave room for escape into silence and personal sanitizing of the minds experiences
3) you can unite with all aspects of what you see as God and learn to get over yourself, Then and only then will you be both free to be who you are and see the other aspects of yourself as free to "be" as well, without any aversion or distraction and prejudice. Then and only then will the forms change into the divine rather than the demonic.

The mirror you look into always refelcts perfectly. Either you see perfection or you see something else. Any imperfection is your beliefs that color God  into God and non God.

God does not judge nor does God create opposites, only human interpretation sees duality. Although God is in all of creation God never forgets the divinity within. God creates as God is the idea and always stays objective to the idea. Only Ego dives into the ideas and makes them solid, makes them real.

Do you also go to the movies and yell and scream at the people you don't like or the scenes that make you feel something? Ever notice that others don't have the exact same feelings about things as you do? Imagine why others have different ways of looking at things. How would you find the solution and the easiest way to integrate the differences?
Change everyone and everything around you to agree with you?(This could take forever) or change your way of thinking to allow the diversity of the One to express in multidimensional forms and ideas and find the one common thing that ties them all together to realize the One God amonst the many? (This takes no time or effort, only the letting go of any ideas of what that is supposed to be or look like based on feelings and judgments)

Only if you can stay objective can you be free to be blunt without reacting to the continuing flow of the river around you. You can flow around and over the rocks or smash head on into them and grasp at the rocks and brambles along the rivers edge. All waters return to the same ocean, it would suit you well to be the water rather than something in it, separate from the rest, or percieve others as separate from you.

Joe,

This is how I know about you.  Every time you project upon me and tell me what I am and am not doing, what I think and am not thinking you have been mostly wrong.
I could answer you point by point, but I would have to copy your entire messages to do this.  It is your attitude.  You see, I know better who I am than you do.  You have no interest in who I am, since I believe you think you already know.
My system of comprehension is to realize we are extrodinary and complex beings.  I also view this life as a training ground to discover what my capabilities are.
If I transcend the obvious 'kit bag' that I have been issued, I decline the challenge.   What in the world do you think this hard-scrabble life is all about? If I go home to Daddy by disregarding his obvious design, I don't pass Go and I don't pick up the $200.  To accept the challenge is the path I have chosen.
Share your message, don't judge.  Judging is for the very opinionated and unconscious.  Not for the perceivers of this world.
My 'god' is a local one who whispers in my ear and gives me advice on how to best live the life issued to me.
That is my discovery that I am willing to share.   From what I can see he is very much preferable to me than yours.  But, that is the dictates of my individuality.
There are few that go through the eye of the needle and yes, they have to give up their  physical attachments, but they do not go through by etherial slippage, but by the dint of their hard work and advancement of consciousness in my estimation.

So, why not share your work with us as Shawn invited? (sans the posturing and pronouncements and projections).

I never judge.
I only play within the field of the game. It is you that percieve a me and sees someone judging you. Is this the lesson or kit bag that you wish to make real?

Joe,

Almost every time now.  It is so obvious.

Joe:  I never judge.
"I only play within the field of the game"

Me:  What does this mean?  I take it as an obfuscation, a fogging.

You:  " It is you that percieve a me and sees someone judging you."

me:  The turn around and projection.

You:  "Is this the lesson or kit bag that you wish to make real?"

me:  The obvious misquote and "misunderstanding".

To be very basic, Joe,  The kit bag comment that you misappropriated refers to the contents of our psyche.

The only lesson I wish that you would see is to be honest and forthright and stop acting like a 'master'.  You obviously have done a lot of meditation and are an expert in Patangili yoga practice.  Why not share that experience? Or not, as this is not my call but yours.
I would like to hear of your experiences, but not through the conveyance that I am doing something wrong and you right.  Let me decide that for myself.

Hey Synch

you said to Joe:

QUOTE

I would like to hear of your experiences, but not through the conveyance that I am doing something wrong and you right.

maybe this message is implicit in Joe's system, and to compromise the system is 'illogical' from the system perspective?

8)

Actually what Dan said is pretty close to the truth however who sets the standard for any system?
Once you get past the systems then what kind of system is left?

Synch: I can't make you feel one way or another, that is your choice.
I have been speaking from my experience, you just don't understand it. You speak about it but you have not yet stepped into it.
I quoted Patanjali because his descriptions of the progression of awareness through the different states of consciousness until there are no more states of consciousness or no more path describes the process and the symptoms.
After that its only an idea to the mind that still needs to anchor itself in some type of reality. One need not be of a reality to be in it.
As far as your interpretation of my acting superior. If  I asked you to be a chicken because I didn't like the appearance you presented would you be able to do it or would you do it?

QUOTE

who sets the standard for any system?

the originator. like buddha or jesus or Beavis and Butthead.....

QUOTE

Once you get past the systems then what kind of system is left?

the one you decide to invent


8)

Dan,

Yes, I see that you are right.

Joe,  Thanks, no hard feelings,  I am going to take your advice and go act like a chicken and depart.  Lay a couple of eggs and maybe get me a hen or two.  ( If androgeny permits).

Thanks for the teaching.
John

If you so choose to be a chicken I trust that you will be the best chicken that you can be, otherwise what would be the point.
In the face of diversity and the challenges to what your heart leads you towards, the rewards that follow the living of your truth and the commitment to your goals and ideals will far outweigh any compromise or capitulation.
I would hope that whatever you do that you are able to do it with your heart fully into it. It would suck to have to constantly look over your shoulder for the boogyman or even for approval by something or someone in regards to your choices.
Someone might call you arrogant or high and mighty for standing firm in your commitment when challenged by someone equally commited. True freedom will allow both to exist in equality. Finding that which can tie the two together within the same creative Love and support is what everyone wants God to be. Only habits formed from judgment or the learned concepts that make up the reality of judgment get in the way.
What drives the heart is not made up, as Dan might suggest. The force that drives all of creation is not a haphazard and random force. Only mindless interpretations of something or nothing gets in the way of the heart and its ability to stay united with that force that is within all things and is the center of your being. Whatever name it is given or not given is irrelevant. The fact that you are living to choose for it is why you are here, once you stop looking for a reason for that to exist or not to exist will be the moment you are truly free.

QUOTE

What drives the heart is not made up

Silly! heart IS the driver!(or, I am Heart)
forever driving through the garden/warzone of mind, seeking somewhere else.......

QUOTE

Silly! heart IS the driver!(or, I am Heart) forever driving through the garden/warzone of mind, seeking somewhere else.......

Exactly, That is also called Consciousness, Universal Mind, or God, only the names are changed to confuse the innocent.
However the heart does not seek anything but it does remain its self always and its Self is. It confuses the mind that thinks it is something else.

QUOTE

Exactly, That is also called Consciousness, Universal Mind, or God, only the names are changed to confuse the innocent.

no need to confuse the innocent  ???  

QUOTE

the heart does not seek anything but it does remain its self always and its Self is.

Heart seeks satisfaction!  Maybe you're just satisfied.....  

QUOTE

It confuses the mind that thinks it is something else. Â

mind is Heart's view.  Confusion would be Heart feeling lost   :'(


8)

D: no need to confuse the innocent.

J: Never was a need to confuse only a choice to be confused or believe in confusion.    


Quote:the heart does not seek anything but it does remain its self always and its Self is.  


D: Heart seeks satisfaction!  Maybe you're just satisfied.....  

J:  The Heart seeks nothing, The heart is never dissatisfied only the mind that has drifted, searches for the heart and returns. Once the mind returns to the infinite heart it is united in pure bliss.



D: mind is Heart's view.  Confusion would be Heart feeling lost  

J: No, confusion would be mind losing the heart thru the many filters that are created in beliefs. The heart feels no pain or confusion only infinite bliss and love. The mind creates all conflicts, suffering, and relative happiness.

QUOTE

Never was a need to confuse only a choice to be confused or believe in confusion.

well that's convenient  

QUOTE

The Heart seeks nothing, The heart is never dissatisfied only the mind that has drifted, searches for the heart and returns. Once the mind returns to the infinite heart it is united in pure bliss. Â

you sound satisfied allright  

QUOTE

confusion would be mind losing the heart thru the many filters that are created in beliefs.  The heart feels no pain or confusion only infinite bliss and love. The mind creates all conflicts, suffering, and relative happiness.

heart creates mind out of need.  Mind is simply Heart divided, confused.   ???

8)

heart creates mind out of need.  Mind is simply Heart divided, confused.    

God does not need, God does not need to create. That is the inherant nature of God, to move.The mind is at different levels part of that creation. Unltimately even the idea of confusion is not confusion but an idea. Ego gets lost in the ideas, and that is also an Idea.