Questions about higher consciousness

[idlecuriosity]

I trust that however important my desires are to me I'm definitely not whole, so I'm perfectly in the green at least concerning that. As for the second comment, I'll mull over the existential query that poises me. I certainly think BK's model is sound and I also believe there is value in our atomized existences, just as there is in expunging those differences in the process of enlightenment and in learning more about what we each are, that almost seems like a fact as demonstrable as the existence of consciousness and matter (as separate but codependent things) or the existence of gravity. You are you and I am me, but we'd at least agree that this is still far from the whole story

[idlecuriosity]

lastly, when you say the 'spirit' within us, that does imply your spirit and mine are different, yes? Although both incomplete (mine more so, probably.)

[Cleric K]

However, to extrapolate from this that our consciousness follows from something that shares our values is not much different than abrahamic religion or what those historically did when they described a faultily assumed material reality with material terms.

IC, this post has something about the objectivity of moral life:
viewtopic.php?p=12165#p12165

lastly, when you say the 'spirit' within us, that does imply your spirit and mine are different, yes? Although both incomplete (mine more so, probably.)

What is you feeling about this image?
https://i.ibb.co/MhfLXk7/rend-deep.jpg

Try to feel the difference with the whirlpool metaphor - in the latter, self-knowledge means better and better understanding of our own whirlpool but no matter how deep we go towards the eye of the vortex, this point is just one in the ocean (even though of the same essence as the ocean). Compare this with the image above where the deeper we go in the subconscious layers, the more we find forces which we are all part of. And who isn't part of the nation he's born in, the language he speaks (and thinks in!), the dynamics of the epoch, the shared biological blueprint of the body, and so on. The only thing is that the materialistic view says that all of these are simply convoluted arrangements of particles. In the image above they are hierarchy of spiritual processes - which are independent be-ings. The deeper we go, the more universal and archetypal beings we encounter which act like the fractal moulds which persist as shared carrier waves as the perspectives differentiate further. Thus our individuality is like a slice of all this depth. Modern man is almost exclusively conscious at the bodily level. All his intellectual thoughts and related feelings, always have something to do with bodily life. If we think of a nation we don't feel anything real that runs as something living. For example, the ancients could still feel that language ran like living spiritual being, interpenetrating the souls, uniting them through the medium of shared thoughts. Today no consciousness of this has remained. We feel our thoughts as completely local and only impressing in between humans on basis of air pressure waves (sound, spoken word). And in a sense it is completely necessary for our evolution that we pass through this period of complete loneliness. This may seem strange to say, since we live in a world full of people, what loneliness? This is only because modern man doesn't have anything to compare his state with. In comparison to the consciousness in the deeper layers where we live with thoughts and feeling of beings, in our bodily consciousness we are utterly alone. It's not that there's hard boundary between the layers, it's just that our spiritual gaze is fixed in the inner etheric reflections as moulded by the bodily senses and nervous system. It's much like how today people stand to each other yet everyone is looking at their phone. They stand next to each other yet communicate by chatting on the phone. The reality of the World we know only through our personal symbols. The only reason the question of solipsism is such a heated one these days is because people are already living in solipsistic mode within their bodies. When we step outside the senses and brain, we find thoughts and feelings filling the Cosmos, just like air lives both within and in between us in the physical world. All talks about solipsism become meaningless. As Ashvin addressed in his recent essay - it is true that we always experience reality from unique perspective and we can never, even in principle, know about some supposed consciousness completely opaque to ours, but it's a simple prejudice of our epoch (based on the lonely period of our evolution) that we can't find the thoughts and feelings of other beings in the expanded field of our conscious perspective.

The key to notice in the above picture is that self-knowledge ultimately becomes the same as World-knowledge.

Also, you'll come across references to "Guardians at the Gate" and seeing particular colours - I haven't seen any colours and don't particularly care if I never do. And the "Guardians" might be metaphorical too, I don't know.

The Guardian on the Threshold is a metaphor but as every genuine metaphor it points to something real. It is true that we won't meet creature holding a sword, standing between us and the passage to the higher worlds, in the way we meet creatures in the sensory world. Yet this is effectively what happens. If we live through the metaphor deeply, then we strip away the sensory image (the creature with a sword) we're left only with the meaning of something preventing us from gaining higher consciousness.

I can give the following analogy (only an analogy). Most people can remember the first time they heard recording of their voice. For most the reaction is like "Do I really sound like that? Do everyone hear and know my voice as sounding like this?" To this people would answer "Of course, why would we know your voice in any other way?" It depends on the individual but for many people it is difficult to identify with their own voice sounding externally. They are used to hear their thinking and speaking in another voice and it feels creepy to hear themselves in another voice. Of course it's a matter of adaptation - singers, modern youtube content creators, hear their own voice all the time, so they get used to it.

Now imagine that we go through a similar process but we need to do it out of free choice. We need to hear the real voice with which we speak our thoughts, the real being that feels and wills. When we go deeper in ourselves, our Earthly persona becomes spread before us. The elemental spiritual processes that constitute what we are, our habits, patterned thoughts and speech, mechanical bodily gestures, grimaces, reflexive emotions, snap-judgments and so on, everything begins to become perceptible before the eye of the spirit. All these processes move a little further away from our spirit's eye, in the same way a mask can move away from our face and we then begin to see the inner side of what was hitherto indistinguishably merged with our conscious experience. Our Earthly persona is a patchwork of all these elements (very often quite tasteless, almost kitsch-styled). Then if we haven't done the preparatory work, all this may be too much to bear. We're like "Do I really sound, think, feel, will like that? Do I really move in the labyrinth of all these ideas and desires?" The more out-of-phase our patchworked personality is with the perspective of the spirit, the more disturbing any such premature glimpse in our soul and spiritual organism can be. This panorama is subconsciously felt by everyone. The instinctive unwillingness to see ourselves from the perspective of the spirit, is what the Guardian is. The Guardian is the subconscious part of our true being. On the surface we may say "Oh, I want to know all the secrets, I'm a curious person." But even though our deeper being is our true self, from the surface of our intellect it seems so alien that it stands as an independent being. To meet the Guardian means to align ourselves with its spiritual perspective, to see reality and ourselves from that perspective. As long as we want to increase our intellectual possessions but are not interested in hearing our true thinking voice, seeing our true passions and so on, the perspective of our higher being stands as an obstacle between our Earthly persona and higher consciousness. Higher knowledge passes through the perspective of what we are and continues deeper and deeper, gaining consciousness of the higher order layers of reality.

If we hope that we can gain knowledge of the depths of reality without passing through the perspective which reveals what we are, we're heading for the murky waters. Then we seek psychedelics, trances, hypnosis, mediumism and so on. All of these seek to squeeze some visions from the deeper strata but without us having to cross the threshold. We stay on our side. That's also the reason why visions never give us satisfaction. Ultimately, it's up to our Earthly intellect to decide how to interpret the visions and what to do with them. And even if by some chance these visions present something true (which in our age is almost an impossibility - instead the most varied illusions precipitate) we'll still be just a speculating intellect cut clean from the reality of the higher worlds from whence the visions come.

That's why any genuine path for spiritual development begins with 'ground school'. We must live through all these things in thoughts and feelings. When we think about them we very gradually accustom ourselves to see and think from the perspective of our higher being. When we think these things we also experience some of the disturbing feelings but in homeopathic doses, no more than we can handle. In this way we can gradually, bit by bit, adapt. This process of accustomization is not mere intellectual dribbling. Real changes in our thinking and feeling structures happen. Just as learning mathematics will have measurable effect on our brain as new connections are spun, so thinking livingly about the descriptions of higher experiences, as if we are going through them, already transforms our subtle organism, tectonic plates shift and rearrange, new rivers begin to flow, where previously were only deserts and so on. Then when the time is right, the panorama of our being will gradually emerge before us. When this is done in the proper way, it's not a shocking, earth-shattering experience but deserved fruit of our efforts. Everything that we have probed in thought gradually becomes more and more real, we practically begin to perceive what we have been moving and weaving through all this time.

[AshvinP]

I trust that however important my desires are to me I'm definitely not whole, so I'm perfectly in the green at least concerning that. As for the second comment, I'll mull over the existential query that poises me. I certainly think BK's model is sound and I also believe there is value in our atomized existences, just as there is in expunging those differences in the process of enlightenment and in learning more about what we each are, that almost seems like a fact as demonstrable as the existence of consciousness and matter (as separate but codependent things) or the existence of gravity. You are you and I am me, but we'd at least agree that this is still far from the whole story

Relevant to Cleric's great posts above addressing these issues, and my earlier posts about perceiving phenomena from spiritual perspective with patience, care, logic, etc., consider also this passage from Steiner:

The mode of observation that relies merely upon the facts of the physical senses cannot come to conclusions that have anything to do with this beginning of the earth. A certain point of view, which makes use of such final conclusions, decides that all earthly substance has been formed out of a primeval mist. It cannot be the task of this work to enter into these ideas because for spiritual research it is a question of not merely considering the material processes of the earth's evolution, but chiefly of taking into account the spiritual causes lying behind matter. If we have before us a man who raises his hand, this raising of the hand can suggest two different ways of considering the act. We may investigate the mechanism of the arm and the rest of the organism and describe the process as it takes place purely in the realm of the physical. On the other hand, we may turn our spiritual attention to what is taking place in the human soul, to what constitutes the inner impulse of raising the hand. In a similar way the researcher, schooled by means of spiritual perception, sees spiritual processes behind all processes of the physical sense-world.
...
Supersensible facts can be investigated only by means of supersensible perception; if, however, they have been investigated and are communicated through the science of the supersensible, they may then be comprehended by ordinary thinking, provided this thinking is really unprejudiced... If a person observes what he has actually before him in pure sense-perception, and then grasps what supersensible cognition has to say in regard to the way in which what exists at the present time has been evolving since time immemorial, he is then able to say, if he really thinks impartially: in the first place, the information imparted by this form of cognition is thoroughly logical; in the second place, I can understand that things have become what they now are, if I admit the truth of what has been communicated through supersensible research. Naturally, when we speak of logic in this connection, we do not infer thereby that it is impossible for errors in logic to be contained in some presentation of supersensible research. We shall here speak of logic only as that word is used in the ordinary life of the physical world. Just as logical presentation is demanded in the physical world, even though the individual person presenting a range of facts may fall into logical error, so it is also the case in supersensible research. It may even happen that a researcher who has the power of perception in supersensible realms may fall into error in his logical presentation, and that someone who has no supersensible perception, but who has the capacity for sound thinking, may correct him.
...
Moreover, it should be quite unnecessary to emphasize the fact that nothing can be charged against the facts themselves on purely logical grounds. Just as in the realm of the physical world it is never possible to prove logically the existence of a whale except by seeing one, so also the supersensible facts can be known only by means of spiritual perception. — It cannot, however, be sufficiently emphasized that it is necessary for the observer of supersensible realms first to acquire a view by means of the above-mentioned logic, before he tries to approach the spiritual world through his own perception. He must also recognize how comprehensible the manifest world of the senses appears when it is assumed that the communications of spiritual science are correct. All experience in the supersensible world remains an insecure, even dangerous, groping, if the above-mentioned preparatory path is ignored. Therefore in this work the supersensible facts of earth evolution are first communicated, before the path to supersensible knowledge itself is dealt with. — We must also consider the fact that anyone who finds his way purely through thinking into what supersensible cognition has to impart is not at all in the same position as someone who listens to the description of a physical process that he himself is unable to observe, since pure thinking is itself a supersensible activity. Thinking, as a sensory activity, cannot of itself lead to supersensible occurrences. If, however, this thinking be applied to the supersensible occurrences described by supersensible perception, it then grows through itself into the spiritual world. In fact, one of the best ways of acquiring one's own perception in the supersensible realm is to grow into the higher world by thinking about the communications of supersensible cognition, for, entrance into the higher realms in this way is accompanied by the greatest clarity of perception. For this reason a certain school of spiritual-scientific investigation considers this thinking the most excellent first stage of all spiritual-scientific training.

[idlecuriosity]

That seems to be a pseudo Buddhist relic of evaluating phenomena that existed before people like Kastrup were around to repudiate idealism from materialistic thinking's paradoxical absurdities as well as it's own unfalsifiable Pagan zen. You say 'danger' but what would it be a danger to? I'd get diseases from the astral realm or something? Afaik what we see in the 'supersensory' real world is the only realm in which we can evaluate 'danger' as there's something to lose.

I can see why BK struggled to play mop up if these were the minds at the forefront of idealism, none of it even follows it's own train of sense.

edit: I just woke up, apologies if I'm snappy. I missed Cleric's post and that seems to make a greater deal of sense to me on first glance. I should probably take my time with all of this

[idlecuriosity]

> On the surface we may say "Oh, I want to know all the secrets, I'm a curious person." But even though our deeper being is our true self, from the surface of our intellect it seems so alien that it stands as an independent being. To meet the Guardian means to align ourselves with its spiritual perspective, to see reality and ourselves from that perspective.

You are making a ton of assumptions about me. I'm half suicidal and only very meagerly cognizant of if my future and goals have to matter to me, a lot of it is done out of unwitting habit and any attempt to search inward affirms my subjective pursuits but I consciously could care less if I dropped everything. I do not really fear change, of myself and of my world

> Objectivity of morals

I like how you presume there could be such a framework when your ideology is predicated on the idea we're able to incur sneak peaks of sensations and feelings experienced by others by (Perhaps?) recreating a pseudo clairvoyant blueprint of what they might think or feel. (And you'd have a very small control sample if it's limited to those who have 'passed the gate,' I must say) If you actually had managed to serve as a conduit for anything remotely approximating an apotheosis of our emotional zeitgeist you'd probably end up like a Lovecraftian protagonist and hurl yourself from a balcony, we make Chimpanzees look like monks. Even if it turns out I'm not the only considerate exception among those who've had to forfeit the comforts of modern life and have miraculously found an ethical kindred in those who've transgressed this "Guardian's" base whims, there is very little to say that I'd extrapolate any ethically objective precipice for earth life from this

My issue with all of this is that this place is starting to sound a little too much like a church spinning dogma and although you might have came across a good deal you're sure of, it's difficult to assume you are not projecting your own earthly conceptions of morality upon whatever it is we actually are and that idealism wouldn't suffer pitfalls in eliminating control bias from it's aspirant practitioners because of (if nothing else, science/philosophy takes a lot of time) it's inherently idealistic nature. Perhaps more pressingly, in lieu of the haphazardous nature of experimentation and the amount of attempts it takes to falsify something, you're exhibiting monolithic arrogance to assume your interpretations so far are even 100% certain.

You do not need to tell someone any of this if they're going to approach their analysis on an objective step by step basis and go looking within proximity to wherever you have. You are not handing the menu and saying where to order; this is making the choice on the menu apropos of no input from me and telling me what to believe

[jrcarter]

I've heard of neuroscientists being absolutely sure that they know nothing is affecting the brain beyond matter and causing it diverge from expected cause/effect outcomes, what would this bode for the assertion that there is something to be made of higher domains or that any extra self control can be gleamed from it? Wouldn't those who can access it show up different readings in terms of brainwaves or whatever it is I'm erroneously recalling about their methodology?

The neuroscientists who make this claim are also discounting that mediumship, NDE, SDE, and many other "phenomena" as imaginary and generated by the brain. They don't even bother to look at the scientific data now being confirmed regarding consciousness. If you want to know more about that scientific data, check out "Soul Proof" by Mark Pitstick. Go to his website: http://soulproof.com/

[idlecuriosity]

Appreciated. I'll bookmark that

[jrcarter]

It's mostly so I'm able to make others happy,

You can't make anyone happy. They get happy on their own. You might trigger something in another that then evokes happiness in them, but you can't "MAKE" someone happy. So stop trying. Just be your authentic self. Be aware. Be responsible. Be proactive. Listen to your intuition/insight/gut, whatever it is that makes "sense" that doesn't bring harm to you or others and that isn't about making you feel good either (another ego trap). The rule of thumb is that the "reality" you experience is a mirror of your consciousness filtered by belief systems (B.S.). Get rid of the BS and reality starts looking a lot more "real."

You can't even "make" yourself to be happy. Happiness is a temporary state of mind that comes as a result of some kind of gratification. Joy on the other hand is a permanent state of mind that is simply grateful for being alive to experience the marvels of the Universe, being of service, and being yourself (not something you think you should be).

Meditation is for listening. Start your meditation with a question and then let it go. Don't try to force "meditation," because it is just for taking a moment to be silent to listen. Even if nothing "dramatic" happens, like you get a voice that gives you the answer, be assured that you have allowed your Consciousness to work on the answer and it will come in its own time - like when you are really open to receive that piece of insight or intuition.

[AshvinP]

edit: I just woke up, apologies if I'm snappy. I missed Cleric's post and that seems to make a greater deal of sense to me on first glance. I should probably take my time with all of this

Yeah, you really should. I also probably should not have indulged some of your comments so soon in your process, so that's my fault. I don't think any of us were trying to make our comments personal about you, but it seems you took it that way. So, yes, slowing down and starting with the basics of the phenomenology of Thinking is a good move. There are many other things to sort out before wondering about the intricate details of supersensible perception and cognition.