Working Together: Can We Restore the World?

Setanta wrote:

In fact, there are already several threads on the subject of consciousness which you could have burdened with your mind-numbing assertions on that topic. There was one recently started, i believe on the same date that this thread was started.

Are you hinting that I should go to some other thread? (Or, to put it bluntly, I should get lost? *LOL*) As long as I can engage in some interesting discussion that doesn't degrade to name-calling or vitriol, I'll stay here a bit longer. I think my comments have some relevance.

Quote:

Now you assert "Until we can see our basic mis-perceptions about ourselves, we cannot restore the world."

What mis-perceptions? Upon what basis, other than an overweening ego on your part, do you assert that "we" misperceive ourselves? How do you assert that this would prevent us from ameliorating the living conditions on this planet? "Restore" the world to what? Do you assert that the world was once a haven of peace and plenty, but now no longer is? If so, upon what basis do you make such an assertion?

It seems apparent to me that much of humanity operates on the basis of collectively conditioned mental processes that perpetuate a relatively unawakened state of consciousness. This is why we see much of the problems that exist in the world today, and is really the point of this topic. As for "restoring" the world, that was the wording used in this forum topic. It would not be the word I would have chosen. I would say that we need to develop a new consciousness, a new earth, not a reversion to something old. I think most people would agree that there are serious problems in the world that need to be addressed. The question is how best to address them. I would argue that we need a radical transformation of individual and collective consciousness based on self-transcending spiritual awakening, beyond on the limitations of ego-based thinking. Do you have another suggestion?

Quote:

That's very sloppy work on your part, and almost all of it rests upon vaguely defined or undefined terms which you fling about (such as attempting to claim there is a distinction between self and Self) from which you have woven a set of unfounded assertions, as though from whole cloth.

It may be sloppy on my part, but we are dealing with the limitations of language and the ability of words to convey understanding. If I use words that are not clear, let me know and I will try to define them further. For example, the word self (small 's') I use as being equivalent to ego, or conditioned mind patterns, our identification with form. I use the word Self (big 'S') as indicating the state of being beyond thought, pure consciousness, unconditioned awareness, experienced as a blissful sense of freedom that forms the backdrop to conditional experience.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

Are you hinting that I should go to some other thread? (Or, to put it bluntly, I should get lost? *LOL*) As long as I can engage in some interesting discussion that doesn't degrade to name-calling or vitriol, I'll stay here a bit longer. I think my comments have some relevance.

No, although i am suggesting that your vague remarks about consciousness, which are essentially idle speculation, are not germane to the topic of this thread. It seems that the only suggestion you have for the topic of this thread is that no amelioration of the human condition is possible unless and until the world chooses to see "consciousness" in the terms you prescribe, from when they are to take somes steps, you don't specify what steps, which will make everything peachy keen.

Allow me to observe that you are unconvincing, and that in a forest of words, most needless, none enlightening about anything but your own ego focused on itself--this is all you have contributed to this topic. All you have to offer is a claim that nothing can be done because we "misperceive" (with the inescapable inference that you don't, even if you have used the first person plural).

Quote:

It seems apparent to me . . .

Wait a moment--you don't know if what will follow is apparent to you? You're off to a shaky start at the outset.

Quote:

. . . that much of humanity operates on the basis of collectively conditioned mental processes that perpetuate a relatively unawakened state of consciousness.

Upon what basis to you allege that this is a plausible contention? You could at the least offer some examples in order to clarify what is, otherwise, yet another vague assertion. What are those "collectively conditioned mental processes?" What do you mean by relatively "unawakened" states of consciousness? Relative to what standard? How do you intend to distinguish between a "wakened" and an "unawakened" consciousness? You call for debate, and then litter the ground with vague and undefined terms--you virtually make debate impossible.

Quote:

This is why we see much of the problems that exist in the world today, and is really the point of this topic.

This is either an incomplete thought--or it is an almost hilarious claim. I suggest that it is an incomplete thought, because otherwise, it seems to claim that we see problems because "much of humanity operates on the basis of collectively conditioned mental processes that perpetuate a relatively unawakened state of consciousness." You're really not making much sense here--people can see problems whether or not you deign to judge their individual or collective consciousnesses as "relatively unawakened."

*******************************************

It would actually be simple to pick apart everything you are writing, but rather than waste all this space, and in an attempt to cut down the hedge of verbiage with which you just further obscure the topic, let's reduce this to some simple questions, and to proceed to them one at a time.

First question: How does a "consciousness" become "awakened?"

0 Replies

Ponderous pleonasms of plebeian poppycock, you say?

Oh wherever is Waldo, that wonderful whittler of words?

0 Replies

I read the sermon (text Here) which was given during the one-year memorial service for 9/11 on 9/16/02. It was also used in context of the Jewish High Holy Days, which coincided with this sermon.

Quote:

It is a coincidence that September 11th fell in the middle of the Jewish High Holy days this year. But it is a blessing as well. This sacred time of year for Jews can help us put the tragedy in perspective.

The purpose of the Days of Awe, the ten days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, is to prepare for the new year by cleansing our spirits. We cleanse our spirits by seeking forgiveness for the wrongs we committed during the past year. This is not a passive, reflective approach, but one in which we encounter the person we have wronged face to face, name how we have hurt that person, and genuinely seek forgiveness. By doing so, we enter into the new year fresh and with a clear conscience. And then and only then are we ready to renew and restore the world.

I suggest this can be a purifying ritual for all of us. And it could be especially helpful for our nation. Wouldn't it be useful if in the future our nation could combine the September 11th memoriam with the Days of Awe, so that as a people we may reflect not only on how we've been hurt but on how we have harmed other nations and cultures and our planet as well. And then we can ask for forgiveness and seek restoration.

I'm not overly fond of the use of the word 'restore' in this context, but the idea is to reflect on one's own actions (personal and political/national) to see where mistakes may have been made, learn from those mistakes, and try to undo the effects of them.

Is it possible? Sure, anything is possible, but it's highly unlikely.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

First question: How does a "consciousness" become "awakened?"

First, an individual has to recognize that his is trapped in an incessant stream of compulsive thinking. He is limited by mind structures that form the basis for his sense of self. Most people don't recognize this. When a person becomes sensitive to his persistent thought processes, the "voice in his head", he senses that he is more than that. That is the beginning of an awakening -- the intuition that I am more than mind. At some point, a person may take up real spiritual practice, such as meditation, which enables the thought process to be quieted so that one's true identity begins to be revealed. In some individuals, this happens spontaneously, but most people need some type of practice for this to occur. Over time, the ego structure begins to break down. The person finds that they are less and less identifying with the externals of their life that used to completely define who the are. In some cases, there is a sudden, radical breakdown of the ego, but that is much less common. As the ego structure begins to break down, an awareness a new identity begins to emerge. An inner silence, or inner space, or blissful awareness dawns. (Here I'm struggling with the limitations of language to express an internal experience.) Over time, this new awareness begins to strengthen and spill over into one's daily activity. There is a restful alertness that forms the background of all activity. There is a reduction in the thought process. Less compulsive thinking, and more quiet awareness. A sense of freedom and lightness that permeates one's awareness. As this experience matures, there is a sense that one has "awakened", at least partially, from the conditioned mind. I cannot claim that this process has been completed in me, but there has been enough of a shift that it obvious to me that there is something profound taking place. I have come into contact with others who share a similar experience. When I read the spiritual literature, the words resonate with my own experience. All of this leads me to believe that a radical transformation of consciousness is the key to liberation from suffering. If a new earth is to evolve, it will require a higher consciousness on the part of a significant fraction of humanity. That is why I think it is important to talk about these matters. People need to know about the potentialities of human consciousness. They need an alternative to religious provincialism and scientific materialism.

0 Replies

JPB wrote:

I read the sermon (text Here) which was given during the one-year memorial service for 9/11 on 9/16/02. It was also used in context of the Jewish High Holy Days, which coincided with this sermon.

Quote:
It is a coincidence that September 11th fell in the middle of the Jewish High Holy days this year. But it is a blessing as well. This sacred time of year for Jews can help us put the tragedy in perspective.

The purpose of the Days of Awe, the ten days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, is to prepare for the new year by cleansing our spirits. We cleanse our spirits by seeking forgiveness for the wrongs we committed during the past year. This is not a passive, reflective approach, but one in which we encounter the person we have wronged face to face, name how we have hurt that person, and genuinely seek forgiveness. By doing so, we enter into the new year fresh and with a clear conscience. And then and only then are we ready to renew and restore the world.

I suggest this can be a purifying ritual for all of us. And it could be especially helpful for our nation. Wouldn't it be useful if in the future our nation could combine the September 11th memoriam with the Days of Awe, so that as a people we may reflect not only on how we've been hurt but on how we have harmed other nations and cultures and our planet as well. And then we can ask for forgiveness and seek restoration.

I'm not overly fond of the use of the word 'restore' in this context, but the idea is to reflect on one's own actions (personal and political/national) to see where mistakes may have been made, learn from those mistakes, and try to undo the effects of them.

Is it possible? Sure, anything is possible, but it's highly unlikely.

Thanks for posting the link, JP. I should have at the beginning, I suppose, but I wanted to sort of neutralize the question. Then again, as Set pointed out, the word 'restore' gave the whole thing away. . . What I hoped to start was a discussion on the solution to such problems as terrorism racism, etc.

0 Replies

Well, I think the points I quoted apply. First we have to be able to look at ourselves from the perspective of the other person.

Did wedo anything that brought things to where they are? Sure we did.

Can we see how our actions were perceived by others as wrong and unjust? Not so many of us.

Once conscious of our own actions, can we seek out those we have harmed and ask forgiveness? Doubtful.

If forgiveness is sought, will there be trust in the request for forgiveness and a bilateral approach to change the situation? This is where I get stuck on highly unlikely.

0 Replies

JPB wrote:

Well, I think the points I quoted apply. First we have to be able to look at ourselves from the perspective of the other person.

Did wedo anything that brought things to where they are? Sure we did.

Can we see how our actions were perceived by others as wrong and unjust? Not so many of us.

Once conscious of our own actions, can we seek out those we have harmed and ask forgiveness? Doubtful.

If forgiveness is sought, will there be trust in the request for forgiveness and a bilateral approach to change the situation? This is where I get stuck on highly unlikely.

We all have a burden of subconscious (and quite possibly conscious) guilt. It is part of the human condition. We may seek out those we feel we have harmed and ask their forgiveness, and in some cases that might lead to healing, but the most direct way of healing our guilt is to forgive others. In this act we are both healed. We all carry grievances or memories of past wrongs we feel were done to us. By letting go of those grievances we can be freed of the past and find peace. By developing the habit of forgiveness we can be purified of the motive to harm, and begin to see others as innocent. In that way, we can become aware of our own innocence.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

... We may seek out those we feel we have harmed and ask their forgiveness, and in some cases that might lead to healing, but the most direct way of healing our guilt is to forgive others. In this act we are both healed. We all carry grievances or memories of past wrongs we feel were done to us. By letting go of those grievances we can be freed of the past and find peace. By developing the habit of forgiveness we can be purified of the motive to harm, and begin to see others as innocent. In that way, we can become aware of our own innocence.

Forgive me for being blunt, but that is horsesh!t. To focus on your own perceived hurts and not allow for the reality that your own actions are equally culpable in the injury to others borders on narcissism. You may well achieve a healing of your own guilt by forgiving others, but I think I would be best served of healing my guilt by be forgiven by those who I have wronged.

0 Replies

JPB wrote:

IFeelFree wrote:
... We may seek out those we feel we have harmed and ask their forgiveness, and in some cases that might lead to healing, but the most direct way of healing our guilt is to forgive others. In this act we are both healed. We all carry grievances or memories of past wrongs we feel were done to us. By letting go of those grievances we can be freed of the past and find peace. By developing the habit of forgiveness we can be purified of the motive to harm, and begin to see others as innocent. In that way, we can become aware of our own innocence.

Forgive me for being blunt, but that is horsesh!t. To focus on your own perceived hurts and not allow for the reality that your own actions are equally culpable in the injury to others borders on narcissism. You may well achieve a healing of your own guilt by forgiving others, but I think I would be best served of healing my guilt by be forgiven by those who I have wronged.

If you seek the forgiveness of someone you've wronged, aren't you really thinking of yourself? You want them to forgive you, whether you've earned it or not, because it makes you feel better. You're asking that person to have a change of heart for your benefit. What gives you the right to ask them that? Forgiving others for perceived wrongs is a different matter. It requires a change of heart on your part. It is not saying, "You wronged me but I'm going to forgive you", but rather, "I've been carrying around this idea that I was wronged by you but now I see that I was mistaken, so there is nothing to forgive. You are blameless." The kind of forgiveness I'm talking about is not condescending. It's realizing that the injury never really happened. There is no reason to hold a grudge. That is true forgiveness.

0 Replies

Not at all. The concept of seeking out those you have wronged and asking for forgiveness is the acknowledgment that you were in the wrong. There is no request for a change of heart on their part -- you may have no idea what's in that person's heart.

Regardless...

Let's get back on-topic, shall we? Neo asks a specific question about a solution to terrorism. The sermon he referenced spoke specifically about acknowledging one's own participation in the events that lead up to a heinous act and accepting that there are two sides to every situation.

In Oct 2004, OBL released a tape which included the following:

Quote:

Contrary to what [President George W.] Bush says and claims -- that we hate freedom --let him tell us then, "Why did we not attack Sweden?" It is known that those who hate freedom don't have souls with integrity, like the souls of those 19. May the mercy of God be upon them.

<snip>

And I will talk to you about the reason for those events, and I will be honest with you about the moments the decision was made so that you can ponder. And I tell you, God only knows, that we never had the intentions to destroy the towers.

But after the injustice was so much and we saw transgressions and the coalition between Americans and the Israelis against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it occurred to my mind that we deal with the towers. And these special events that directly and personally affected me go back to 1982 and what happened when America gave permission for Israel to invade Lebanon. And assistance was given by the American sixth fleet.

During those crucial moments, my mind was thinking about many things that are hard to describe. But they produced a feeling to refuse and reject injustice, and I had determination to punish the transgressors.

And as I was looking at those towers that were destroyed in Lebanon, it occurred to me that we have to punish the transgressor with the same -- and that we had to destroy the towers in America so that they taste what we tasted, and they stop killing our women and children.
Source

Why did they not attack Sweden?

To answer Neo's original question -- mankind will only ever find it's ways out of the world's problems if it can accept that there is more than one side of the story.

0 Replies

JPB wrote:

Not at all. The concept of seeking out those you have wronged and asking for forgiveness is the acknowledgment that you were in the wrong. There is no request for a change of heart on their part -- you may have no idea what's in that person's heart.

You're talking more about confession, or being honest -- acknowledging that you've wronged the other person. That's fine. However, asking them to forgive you places the burden on them. Suppose they still hold hurt feelings about the what you did to them, and you ask them to forgive you. Isn't that a bit unfair? They may not be ready to forgive. They may need more time to heal. You place them in an awkward position. Their forgiveness is not something you have the right to ask for.

0 Replies

JPB wrote:

To answer Neo's original question -- mankind will only ever find it's ways out of the world's problems if it can accept that there is more than one side of the story.

Quite true. We need to understand that there is another side to any issue. I'm even willing to concede that the U.S. may have acted in ways that created animosity in the Middle East towards us, and so contributed to the 911 attacks. However, vengeance is never justified. Unfortunately, vengeance seems to be what Bin Laden is calling for when he speaks of "punishing transgressors". We should act to protect ourselves and, when necessary, disarm those who've attacked us or threaten us, but we shouldn't fall into the same trap of seeking to punish those responsible. If we each seek to punish the other side, the fighting will never stop.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

JPB wrote:
Not at all. The concept of seeking out those you have wronged and asking for forgiveness is the acknowledgment that you were in the wrong. There is no request for a change of heart on their part -- you may have no idea what's in that person's heart.

You're talking more about confession, or being honest -- acknowledging that you've wronged the other person. That's fine. However, asking them to forgive you places the burden on them. Suppose they still hold hurt feelings about the what you did to them, and you ask them to forgive you. Isn't that a bit unfair? They may not be ready to forgive. They may need more time to heal. You place them in an awkward position. Their forgiveness is not something you have the right to ask for.

Keep in mind that this was a Unitarian sermon given during the Jewish High Holy days. Yom Kippur does indeed expect a role from the other party. It is the time to reflect, repent, and renew. Granting forgiveness is not always easy, but it is part of the ritual. I'm not Jewish and am not an expert on the particulars of Yom Kippur, but the point of the sermon is to take the concept of atonement and apply it to those areas that cause world strife. Perhaps some of our Jewish members can elaborate more.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

Setanta wrote:
First question: How does a "consciousness" become "awakened?"

First, an individual has to recognize that his is trapped in an incessant stream of compulsive thinking.

Off to a horrible start. You assert that individuals are "trapped in an incessant stream of compulsive thinking." This goes to the heart of the "meaninglessness" of what you post. You don't even offer a plausible reason to believe that individuals are trapped in a stream of compulsive thinking. Why should anyone wish to debate you when all you offer are a series of statements from authority, and to which authority no one has any good reason to assume you are entitled?

Quote:

He is limited by mind structures that form the basis for his sense of self. Most people don't recognize this.

This is another example of statements from authority for which you don't even offer a plausible reason to agree. Your use of a phrase such as "limited by mind structure" is meaningless. What do you propose that "mind structure" means? Are you referring to the physical structure of the organ which we call the brain? Or are you, as i suspect, making yet another vague pronouncement which actually refers to the cultural and linguistic antecedents which produce the language and ethos with which the individual thinks?

You also pronounce, ex cathedra that people are unaware of their cultural antecedants. However, in this modern age, there may only be a handful of people in the world, if there are any at all, who are unaware that there are other languages and cultures than their own. For however imperfect one's understanding of other languages and cultures many, it is nonetheless true that exposure to other languages and cultures forever alters one's world view. In fact, the history of human cultural development is a history of the constant and growing modification of language and culture due to exposure to languages and cultures which are not only different, but often divergent.

We are using English. That language is a product of the imposition of Anglo-Saxon, a Germanic language, on the British islands. That Anglo-Saxon adopted the syntax of Friesan. To it were added a few words borrowed from the Brythonic of the conquered peoples, and Norse and Danish conquerors overlaid their own languages, especially Danish (for example, counting by dozens). This was in turn overlaid with the French spoken by the Normans. Throughout the period from the late 4th century, you have monastic establishments which introduced Latin and Greek to the language, and that influence was accelerated by the establishment of universities beginning in the 14th century. All of this happened because the Belgic people who first inhabited the islands were taken over by a central European beaker culture (probably Keltic, although that is not certain), so that the Romans found a more or less unitary Brythonic culture upon their arrival. The Friesans were the tradesmen of the region for almost a thousand years, loaning both words, and more crucially, syntax. The Anglo-Saxons, Jutes, Norge, Danes and Norman French followed. We are able to express ourselves in this language because the languages of all those people, and the scholastic introduction of classical Greek helped to create this language, and the language has continued to borrow from French, German, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, some Slavic languages and even Turkic and Arabic. The evidence is overwhelming that the history of human cultures, especially that which produced the English language, has been a constant process of expansion of language an culture due to the awareness of other language and culture impinging without consent or resistance.

Quote:

When a person becomes sensitive to his persistent thought processes, the "voice in his head", he senses that he is more than that. That is the beginning of an awakening -- the intuition that I am more than mind. At some point, a person may take up real spiritual practice, such as meditation, which enables the thought process to be quieted so that one's true identity begins to be revealed. In some individuals, this happens spontaneously, but most people need some type of practice for this to occur. Over time, the ego structure begins to break down.

Now we get down to the meat of your assertions. You do not in fact intend to provide any evidence for what you say, you just intend to continue in a didactic manner to make authoritative pronouncements for which you don't intend to adduce any authority. Rather, your goal is to lead this discussion in a the terms of your personal and idiosyncratic notion of "spirituality."

Quote:

The person finds that they are less and less identifying with the externals of their life that used to completely define who the are. In some cases, there is a sudden, radical breakdown of the ego, but that is much less common. As the ego structure begins to break down, an awareness a new identity begins to emerge. An inner silence, or inner space, or blissful awareness dawns. (Here I'm struggling with the limitations of language to express an internal experience.) Over time, this new awareness begins to strengthen and spill over into one's daily activity. There is a restful alertness that forms the background of all activity. There is a reduction in the thought process. Less compulsive thinking, and more quiet awareness. A sense of freedom and lightness that permeates one's awareness. As this experience matures, there is a sense that one has "awakened", at least partially, from the conditioned mind.

Absolutely none of this has any relationship to a reality upon which everyone can agree based on evidence--you present no evidence, you just ramble along spewing your personal psycho-babble. Not even a hint of a plausible reason to agree with you.

Quote:

I cannot claim that this process has been completed in me, but there has been enough of a shift that it obvious to me that there is something profound taking place. I have come into contact with others who share a similar experience. When I read the spiritual literature, the words resonate with my own experience. All of this leads me to believe that a radical transformation of consciousness is the key to liberation from suffering.

That you meet other people who as willing as you to convince themselves (without evidence, and against all experiential odds) that you all think alike, and "enjoy" the same "spiritual" experiences does not surprise me, and it certainly offers me nothing convincing upon which to form a basis for further discussion of this blather.

Quote:

If a new earth is to evolve, it will require a higher consciousness on the part of a significant fraction of humanity. That is why I think it is important to talk about these matters. People need to know about the potentialities of human consciousness. They need an alternative to religious provincialism and scientific materialism.

Absent "scientific materialism," you will never have any basis upon which to determine that you and your other spiritual hippy friends are even discussing the same experiences. So far, all we have for evidence is the principle of: "Oh Wow, Man! I know just what you mean--the cosmic spirit fills us with higher understanding!" Now you have introduced evolve into the equation, without having ever reasonably answered my question about what it means for "consciousness" to "awaken." Your comments about "higher consciousness" clearly indicates that you are an spiritual elitists, a spiritual snob. You directly imply that you are on a path to understanding which will lead you to greater insights than the common ruck of human detritus through which you daintily pick your way in your quotidian rounds. You have offered not one single concrete suggestion for ameliorating the human condition.

0 Replies

You know, IFF, you babble on about losing the ego to attain a "higher consciousness." I have never met a single one of you spiritual mumbo-jumbo artists who is not a complete ego-centric elitist. There was absolutely nothing in that stream of drivel you posted which refers for a moment to the squalid conditions in which so much of the world is obliged to live, nor how to change that.

Suppose you get all six billion people to squat down on prayer rugs and begin contemplating their navels in order to reach a "higher consciousness." Who is going to raise the food we need to sustain ourselves? Who is going to produce the materials we need to build shelter, and who is to build that shelter, without which an indifferent planet can quickly kill us, with earthquake, volcano, fire, flood, storm and tsunami? Who is to care for the children, for the lame, the halt and the blind?

You have nothing to offer other than a description of the excellence of being your hyper-aware self.

0 Replies

Feel Free to tell me if I have misread your thesis:

I am aware of myself - I am aware of others - Others must also exist.

I feel love, joy, pain, etc. - Others must also feel love, joy, pain, etc

I live accordingly.

0 Replies

Setanta,

I understand your misgivings with IFF's statements about being "trapped" etc. by conditioned thought habits. However, this same message is clearly articulated by many respected philosophers and spiritual leaders.

Krishnamurti for example wrote:

Quote:

We are conditioned and that conditioning is our consciousness.

This consciousness which is conditioning itself through it's own volitional activities, this ''I''-process of ignorance, wants, fear, illusion-is the centre of action. This centre is continually reforming itself, and creating anew it's own limitations through it's own volitional activities and so there is always conflict, pain, sorrow. There must be a fundamental change in consciousness, in this very centre of action..., you have to discern that the "I" process, with it's fear and illusion is transient, and so can be dissolved

This message is familiar to all who have toyed with meditational practices
and many celebrated "thinkers" have applauded K's position which is totally opposed to organized religion. For this reason, I also think it should be taken seriously. "Self-observation" contrary to common belief, is not easy, and we are of course reluctant to investigate what we assume we already "know".

So I find no fault in IFF's intentions other than he does not appear to be aware of the warnings of esotericists who say that it is futile trying to transmit the "message" to those who are unreceptive. Receptivity comes from the actual experience of "self", not from the urgings of others.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

IFeelFree wrote:
Setanta wrote:
First question: How does a "consciousness" become "awakened?"

When a person becomes sensitive to his persistent thought processes, the "voice in his head", he senses that he is more than that. That is the beginning of an awakening -- the intuition that I am more than mind. At some point, a person may take up real spiritual practice, such as meditation, which enables the thought process to be quieted so that one's true identity begins to be revealed. In some individuals, this happens spontaneously, but most people need some type of practice for this to occur. Over time, the ego structure begins to break down.

Now we get down to the meat of your assertions. You do not in fact intend to provide any evidence for what you say, you just intend to continue in a didactic manner to make authoritative pronouncements for which you don't intend to adduce any authority. Rather, your goal is to lead this discussion in a the terms of your personal and idiosyncratic notion of "spirituality."

My goal is to share my experiences and insight and see if others have had similar experiences. These are not "authoritative pronouncements", but rather simply stating a point of view. Here's what I think, based on my experience and learning. What do you think?

Quote:

Quote:
The person finds that they are less and less identifying with the externals of their life that used to completely define who the are. In some cases, there is a sudden, radical breakdown of the ego, but that is much less common. As the ego structure begins to break down, an awareness a new identity begins to emerge. An inner silence, or inner space, or blissful awareness dawns. (Here I'm struggling with the limitations of language to express an internal experience.) Over time, this new awareness begins to strengthen and spill over into one's daily activity. There is a restful alertness that forms the background of all activity. There is a reduction in the thought process. Less compulsive thinking, and more quiet awareness. A sense of freedom and lightness that permeates one's awareness. As this experience matures, there is a sense that one has "awakened", at least partially, from the conditioned mind.

Absolutely none of this has any relationship to a reality upon which everyone can agree based on evidence--you present no evidence, you just ramble along spewing your personal psycho-babble. Not even a hint of a plausible reason to agree with you.

If a person has had no such experience, then I suppose it would make little sense. However, in the area of spirituality, I think it is a mistake to look only for a consensus. Agreement is not what I seek. It is more instructive to examine the range of experiences that individuals have had and look for a common thread, a way to understand these experiences in terms of the spiritual dimension, or other psychological factors. It is simplistic to say, "I've never had that experience and I don't understand it, therefore the person is either nuts or a liar."

Quote:

Quote:
I cannot claim that this process has been completed in me, but there has been enough of a shift that it obvious to me that there is something profound taking place. I have come into contact with others who share a similar experience. When I read the spiritual literature, the words resonate with my own experience. All of this leads me to believe that a radical transformation of consciousness is the key to liberation from suffering.

That you meet other people who as willing as you to convince themselves (without evidence, and against all experiential odds) that you all think alike, and "enjoy" the same "spiritual" experiences does not surprise me, and it certainly offers me nothing convincing upon which to form a basis for further discussion of this blather.

You find these experiences implausible and my posts incomprehensible. Fine. Perhaps this discussion is not for you. However, I've received feedback from others here (including private messages) that they've found this discussion useful. Some here have apparently felt that what I have to say is of interest and may resonate with their own experience.

Quote:

Quote:
If a new earth is to evolve, it will require a higher consciousness on the part of a significant fraction of humanity. That is why I think it is important to talk about these matters. People need to know about the potentialities of human consciousness. They need an alternative to religious provincialism and scientific materialism.

Absent "scientific materialism," you will never have any basis upon which to determine that you and your other spiritual hippy friends are even discussing the same experiences. So far, all we have for evidence is the principle of: "Oh Wow, Man! I know just what you mean--the cosmic spirit fills us with higher understanding!"

The scientific method is appropriate for doing science. (I should know. I'm a scientist.) It is of limited use in the spiritual realm. Spiritual experiences are, by their very nature, subjective. That doesn't mean they are beyond comprehension or discussion. Emotions and dreams are also subjective experiences, yet we are capable of discussing these rationally. Even though you cannot observe another persons emotions or dreams, you don't doubt their existence, because you've had similar experiences. The difference here is that we are discussing experiences that are not as common, so that it is easier to doubt their reality.

Quote:

Now you have introduced evolve into the equation, without having ever reasonably answered my question about what it means for "consciousness" to "awaken." Your comments about "higher consciousness" clearly indicates that you are an spiritual elitists, a spiritual snob. You directly imply that you are on a path to understanding which will lead you to greater insights than the common ruck of human detritus through which you daintily pick your way in your quotidian rounds. You have offered not one single concrete suggestion for ameliorating the human condition.

My experience is no different than that of many others. It is available to anyone who seriously pursues direct spiritual experience (as opposed to comforting religious dogma). I am no better or worse than anyone else. I've simply had certain experiences that I choose to share with others, with hopes that we might find a commonality in our understanding. My suggestion for "ameliorating the human condition" is to start with yourself. Find your own peace. Look at the way you interact with the world. Observe your reactivity and conditioning. Observe the constant stream of mental activity. Observe how you tend to identify with your mental processes. Even the criticisms you present here are a form of reactivity. You believe that you are right, and that your criticisms are valid. You can't see beyond your own mental position. You're missing the beauty and creativity of your own Self.

I offer you a parable:

A beggar had been sitting by the side of a road for over thirty years. One day a stranger walked by. "Spare some change?" mumbled the beggar, mechanically holding out his old baseball cap. "I have nothing to give you," said the stranger. Then he asked: "What's that you are sitting on?" "Nothing," replied the beggar. "Just an old box. I have been sitting on it for as long as I can remember." "Ever looked inside?" asked the stranger. "No," said the beggar. "What's the point? There's nothing in there." "Have a look inside," insisted the stranger. The beggar managed to pry open the lid. With astonishment, disbelief, and elation, he saw that the box was filled with gold.

I am that stranger who has nothing to give you and who is telling you to look inside. Not inside any box, as in the parable, but somewhere even closer: inside yourself.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Setanta,
...So I find no fault in IFF's intentions other than he does not appear to be aware of the warnings of esotericists who say that it is futile trying to transmit the "message" to those who are unreceptive. Receptivity comes from the actual experience of "self", not from the urgings of others.

Thank you for your supportive words. I am sharing my experiences and insights in hopes that there are others here that have had similar experiences. I expect that some will think I'm crazy, but that doesn't offend me. On the other hand, if there are others here who've had experiences of the inner Self, however fleeting or uncertain, they may find that my words ring true. If I can inspire anyone to seek direct spiritual experience, then perhaps my posts have not been a waste of time.

0 Replies

Working Together: Can We Restore the World?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know