Relativity of Conscious States, Spiritual Relativism, Relativity of Consciousness, Relativity of Enlightenment

Related Links: What is Truth / Expanding Consciousness / The Singularity / The Aim of Life / Philosophy /

Relativity of Conscious States

I think conscious states are all relative. What I've elsewhere referred to as Cosmic or God Consciousness, I'm well aware would be laughed at and regarded as primitive by hypothetical beings who possessed truly godlike minds and conscious states, far above what I refer to as Cosmic Consciousness. It's all relative. What we regard as 'highest' or 'best' can always be surpassed.

To the extent that consciousness involves representation, it may be referred to as 'illusion', even in states of 'cosmic consciousness'.

I think expanding consciousness is a very worthy goal for all who truly understand thru experience what it's all about. That is, that our very Being is identical to our state of consciousness. By expanding our state of consciousness, we expand what we are, we expand our Being. It's a magnificent thing, I think. But all-too-many people don't pay close enough attention to their own thoughts and states of mind to really notice the value and worthiness of expanding one's consciousness.

I think eastern philosophy, with it's emphasis on introspection and mental states, has nontheless greatly overlooked the potential of the human mind. With their emphasis on enlightenment (samadhi, nirvana, buddha-consciousness), they missed the point that all conscious states are relative, that there is no absolute highest state of consciousness (since every state of consciousness can be transcended), and that what they refer to as 'god-consciousness' or the equivalent is but a rung on an infinitely high ladder.

Relativity of Enlightenment

I'm a relativist of sorts, and believe that 'enlightenment' is relative. That is, there is no 'absolute' state of enlightenment, but rather that enlightenment denotes a change in one's state of consciousness, and in particular, with regard to transcendent states of consciousness. So, for example, say a person experiences, for the first time in their life, a transcendent state, then we would say that the person is 'enlightened'. But 'enlightenment' is relative, which means that this person can then go on to experience an even more transcendent state than the first, and we would say the person has experienced 'enlightenment' again. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to speak of 'degrees of enlightenment', with individuals possessing different degrees of enlightenment, but I think this is misleading because 'degrees of enlightenment' suggests some 'absolute' state of enlightenment, which I deny. It's all relative.

For more on my views of enlightenment, please click HERE.