Questions about higher consciousness

[Cleric K]

> 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.

My apologies, IC. My example was not in the least addressed to you personally. I only later figured that it might be seen in that way because of your nick.

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

Let me put it differently, since peeking in another being's consciousness sounds not too right. What is your view on thoughts and feelings affecting another being 'wirelessly'? Or humans can only affect each other through physical interaction (that is anything that enters through the senses)?

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.

It would be dogma if it comes in such a way that things are presented as Divine revelations by authorities and others simply have to choose whether to believe them or not. Everything that is here spoken, even though not immediately provable, requires nothing but thinking which is willing to trace the threads of logic to their conclusions. My example from the other forum thread was fairly clear. If we assume for a moment that our subconscious world has certain living spiritual structure, would it be justifiable to believe that just any random combination of these unknown processes is equally conductive as any one else? If our physical body is so sensitive to the type of nutrition it receives (there's great difference between water and poison), what makes us so certain that just any random thoughts, feelings and actions will always lead to beneficial results for ourselves and everyone else. These things are not supposed to be believed but thought about.

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

This is gross misunderstanding. No one is telling what others have to believe in. As already said, these things are first and foremost to be thought about - from as many different angles as possible. Everything becomes clear if we think about all other menu options that we would like to be able to choose from (that is, the ones that we don't see presented in the menu provided). Progress is made when we understand the reasons why some things are absent in the menu.

If I'm to learn rock climbing and decide to do it in the safe way, I'll go to learn from somebody (or from books, videos, etc., although it wouldn't be as wise). He'll present me with some equipment - ropes, carabiners, harnesses and so on. In addition to that I'll be shown many types of knots and techniques. General fitness workouts will be suggested. Now I may say: "this begins to smell as dogma to me. You're practically telling me what to do, where's my freedom?". I think every reasonable person can spot the fallacy here. The most important thing is that there's no need to accept these things as dogma. Everything can be thought about. There are reasons for the existence of all these tools and techniques. These reasons can be understood by thinking. I can easily understand why I have to use the special ropes instead of sewing thread.

We can look at similar examples from any sphere of life. Yet quite interestingly, as soon as we approach the questions about the deeper strata of reality, all the methods and techniques that have been perfected by Initiates in the course of millennia, are seen as church dogma. We are actually very fortunate that we live in an epoch where all the Initiatic methods can be completely understood by sound thinking. This hasn't always been the case. In the past only those could approach the deeper secrets who because of Karma had the needed predisposition. So in these ages we can somewhat justifiably say that the disciple had to have some level of sacred trust in the authority of the Initiate. But in the exciting times we live in, things stand differently. We can now understand with thinking the reasons behind the methods and the recommendations of higher development.

It's not needed that everyone should pursue higher development (although it is vitally important that humanity at least thinks about what is being revealed in this way - if catastrophic downfall is to be prevented). But since you asked about it, I'm just telling you what kind of carabiners and ropes are needed for things to go in the proper way. If you're interested in freeclimbing, that's fine - I'm not trying to sell anyone my gear. That's why my very first response to you was about your deeper motivation. Now there's no need to accuse these disciplines of dogmatism, you just have to think for yourself and at least understand what higher cognition is about. It's thousand times better that one thinks things through deeply and realizes that he's simply not interested, that he imagined higher cognition to be something else, rather than convict the discipline in dogmatism.

[idlecuriosity]

There is no need to apologize, it's just that you are arming yourself with many presuppositions that I find difficult to disentangle from seeming exactly like the ones you're presupposing I shouldn't carry into it. Is the catastrophe something in our physical world? If so and if our physical desires do not matter a whole lot (such as making another happy or preventing catastrophe for their sake) why should it matter? What is this catastrophe, what does it constitute, what will cause it, etc.

This is steadily sounding like bargain bin Scientology. If it's about the human race there is no catastrophe to prevent, only the one that's incrementally stripping bare before us exuberantly and the question of where one might best get a view of the burning society and planet facilitating the livestreamed sexy time session it won't let us miss suffering through. It's not 2006 anymore and philosophy will not create an army of jesus' to subvert how screwed we are but only because nothing physically can. AI is hecked. Politics are hecked. International tensions make the surface of the sun look cold and soon enough so will our o-zone layer. I feel like I'm making an unfathomable leap in good faith expecting that you meant anything that straightforward when you implied a catastrophe but there is my response.

I am sorry. I'll probably just dabble in meditation, perhaps with the occasional aide of what you've all written across the board. I'm only really any good at telling it how it is on my mind and I think it's best I relieve myself from at least this topic since I don't feel my train of thought is congruent with the ideas being presented here.

Given the state of the world we are in, I'm going to leave this with what might seem like a phenomenal exercise in arrogance to a human sure of themselves since humans are like that about being told to do anything but it actually might not fall in deaf ears given that you *might be open minded. It's less of a philosophical statement and has little to do with philosophy on the whole but... Be careful about how you word things. I think the worst thing you can tell someone is to not focus on or value their own atomized existence on at least some level. That's a more dangerous idea than the merits of anything I've extolled. As much as one might have to approach a frame of cognition like the one you're talking about from the angle that there might be as many similarities as there are differences between us, I'd honestly say people grouping together and considering ill of their own individual importance is what led us here in the first place

Group politics, religion, country, ideology, no one's taught to look after themselves. You'd think now that we scarcely have a future left people wouldn't keep repeating the mistake of fighting other people's battles or trying to sell them on some greater cause that will stop their suffering, (it never does) but look where we are

Semantics, though. Peace, anyway, was fun talking here while it lasted.

[idlecuriosity]

Oh, yeah, I wanted to add. Bernardo mentioning alters within the same mind and their respective processes in his idealistic philosophy did have some relevance to my problem and your explanations have helped me with that. If I do ultimately seek higher cognition I will probably do it with a prospective blank slate and won't veer from cultivating it's strengths to my own needs, 'dark way' or not. I'll never yield my individuality to anything, even if a coalescence of different whirlpools in a greater ocean means I'd be enforcing my will over others

But you could say there was another part of me long ago that had it's own life before things split us apart and had fostered 'me' in turn and without seeing us as two parts of a whole, I wouldn't have been able to see the good in them and give them the goodbye they desired. Probably sounds very foolish but I wouldn't feel good if I didn't thank you for that. It set us at peace and the presence of our individuation sets a pretty reasonable precedent for a lot of the ideas you explain, e.g. extrapolating them to the differences between people at large

At any rate, au revoir for now

[Cleric K]

There is no need to apologize, it's just that you are arming yourself with many presuppositions that I find difficult to disentangle from seeming exactly like the ones you're presupposing I shouldn't carry into it. Is the catastrophe something in our physical world? If so and if our physical desires do not matter a whole lot (such as making another happy or preventing catastrophe for their sake) why should it matter? What is this catastrophe, what does it constitute, what will cause it, etc.

This is steadily sounding like bargain bin Scientology. If it's about the human race there is no catastrophe to prevent, only the one that's incrementally stripping bare before us exuberantly and the question of where one might best get a view of the burning society and planet facilitating the livestreamed sexy time session it won't let us miss suffering through. It's not 2006 anymore and philosophy will not create an army of jesus' to subvert how screwed we are but only because nothing physically can. AI is hecked. Politics are hecked. International tensions make the surface of the sun look cold and soon enough so will our o-zone layer. I feel like I'm making an unfathomable leap in good faith expecting that you meant anything that straightforward when you implied a catastrophe but there is my response.

I am sorry. I'll probably just dabble in meditation, perhaps with the occasional aide of what you've all written across the board. I'm only really any good at telling it how it is on my mind and I think it's best I relieve myself from at least this topic since I don't feel my train of thought is congruent with the ideas being presented here.

Given the state of the world we are in, I'm going to leave this with what might seem like a phenomenal exercise in arrogance to a human sure of themselves since humans are like that about being told to do anything but it actually might not fall in deaf ears given that you *might be open minded. It's less of a philosophical statement and has little to do with philosophy on the whole but... Be careful about how you word things. I think the worst thing you can tell someone is to not focus on or value their own atomized existence on at least some level. That's a more dangerous idea than the merits of anything I've extolled. As much as one might have to approach a frame of cognition like the one you're talking about from the angle that there might be as many similarities as there are differences between us, I'd honestly say people grouping together and considering ill of their own individual importance is what led us here in the first place

Group politics, religion, country, ideology, no one's taught to look after themselves. You'd think now that we scarcely have a future left people wouldn't keep repeating the mistake of fighting other people's battles or trying to sell them on some greater cause that will stop their suffering, (it never does) but look where we are

Semantics, though. Peace, anyway, was fun talking here while it lasted.

IC,

from the type of questions you ask it's clear that you're projecting on what is written, ideas very different from what are meant. And this is normal, it is the part of any process. It's an iterative process that alternatively goes back and forth, slowly converging towards the center.

Now I don't think you are interested in going through such a process, so I'm not going for it either. I'll just say few things for the sake of anyone else following the discussion.

Is the catastrophe something in our physical world? If so and if our physical desires do not matter a whole lot (such as making another happy or preventing catastrophe for their sake) why should it matter? What is this catastrophe, what does it constitute, what will cause it, etc.

I'm not sure how you got to 'if our physical desires do not matter a whole lot'. It's actually precisely our physical desires that have the most pronounced effect on what we observe all around. What is the human world around us if not the product of desires and ideas of humans?

Why is the state of the World the way it is? Is it not because of the ruling egoism in all spheres of life? Why are there wars, immoral competition, lies and so on? It's simply because human individuals, by themselves or gathered in groups, have certain interests which clash with the interests of other groups and individuals. These interests are not some carefully calculated truths, they are expressions of deeper impulses which are rarely conscious. More often than not, people are first drawn towards something and only then they seek the thoughts which justify the desire.

The catastrophe finds its expression in the physical world but is the consequence of our soul and spiritual conduct. In our age there should hardly be any thinking person who is not clear about this. As long as we always put the blame on something else - the Earthly conditions are harsh, God created the world to be evil, we're slaves to the Selfish Gene (re: Richard Dawkins) and so on, we're simply refusing to conceive that we have the possibility for freedom. Freedom is not to give unrestrained expression of our passions. This is precisely what we witness today. Nor it is to define some rigid rules that everyone must conform to. It's much rather about, first and foremost, facing the fact that humans as they are today, simply don't know what man is. And this is so obvious - only if we want to see it. Who today questions why they're drawn towards the things they like? Why they want to become a doctor instead or engineer? We don't understand these secrets of the soul. Yet this doesn't prevent us to use them. The philosophy is "I have no clue what this enigma of existence is all about but as long as I'm here, I'll try to get all the pleasure I can." Everything is being questioned except the authority of the ego. So is there any wonder that we see the World in the state it is today?

Humanity has always been growing slowly in consciousness and today we have the exciting opportunity to do this in a fully conscious way, in complete freedom. Not as set of religious dogmas or scientific superstition, but as clear cognitive penetration in the structure of reality. There we find all these hidden currents, storms, fogs, that rule human life and which humans don't dare to question.

The catastrophe is physical but resulting from the disorderly inner lives of humans - inner life torn apart by conflicting desires and confused ideas about reality (which primarily exist as a desperate attempt to justify the desires). This should be crystal clear to anyone today who hasn't been completely swept away by the vortex of superficiality.

If a growing child doesn't want to give up its favorite shoes, the feet will begin to deform as they have no room to grow. The shoes are our rigid ideas about reality. Whether we like it or not, consciousness is continually rising. The result will be that humans will be forced to invest all their energy into more and more absurd conceptions with the sole goal to justify the intellectual ego-mode of consciousness, where everyone feels as the king of his own hill and pursues the satisfaction of desires of unknown origins. The ego simply says "my desires" and this precludes any further questioning - as if the ego has chosen consciously these desires.

There's natural time when a child loses interest in playing in the sand. If it is to continue to do that in adult life, it will have to seek more and more ingenious ways of making this play satisfying. Because our nature is such that every repeated experience brings less satisfaction. There's good reason that the child plays in the sand. It is the way to develop perception, motor skills and so on. The developing "I" feels the greatest satisfaction in this process because it is exploring and perfecting its degrees of freedom. Once this process is over, playing in the sand no longer has the same value for the developing "I". It may only serve to seek satisfaction of sensual desires which no longer have anything to do with the development of the higher degrees of freedom of the spirit. Desires which were the most natural and healthy part of human development, when translated into another phase of life, become pathology.

Such is the nature of the catastrophe, for which the symptoms are everywhere, for those who have eyes to see them. It's enough to look at the insatiable thirst for ever new stimuli for the senses. With platforms like youtube is there anything left which human eyes haven't already seen? Yet the search continues, for something new, something not yet seen, which can give a spark of satisfaction. When the natural aspects of sexual life are exhausted, pornography explodes with all kinds of excesses and perversions, with the sole goal to give something new, unseen, which can agitate the satisfaction, which all other 'normal' scenes no longer seem to provide.

All of this results from the fact that humanity doesn't want to let go of the comfortable state of feeling as an self-sufficient "I" which simply seeks its satisfaction in the World, in whatever way possible. And spiritual degradation is inevitable if it's not understood that there's something here and now (not after death) which must be understood with greater and greater depth, leading to ever expanding consciousness, which crosses even the threshold of death.

You began your question with self-control and inner strength. These things can be used for various purposes. The assassin also needs them. He needs the inner strength not to become soft-hearted at the moment when he needs to pull the trigger. The father needs self-control not to give in to his gambling passion, which ruins him, his family and relations. So these qualities can not be the goal in themselves because the question still remains - what are they going to be used for. And in order to answer this question we need self-knowledge. We need to know what we are and how we're embedded in the Cosmos.

[findingblanks]

HI Idle,

There's something that I call "death-bed humor". We've probably all experienced somebody (either directly or via narratives) who is close to death and spontaneously 'realizes' how deeply they love all of those around them, how effortlessly they forgive those who have crossed them and ask for forgiveness for those they have harmed. True genuine joy pours forth, filled with the courage to speak honestly for the first in their lives. An endless gratitude for each breath they were granted.

The person hasn't downloaded a new conceptual system or figured out an enigma or set to slowly work on their soul. It's a grace, for sure. Yet we can see the degree to which such stories point directly so something we can each access at any moment.

Dwelling contemplatively on that always-present 'spot' might also be a suggestion. Wherever your attempts to mediate and open up higher seeing take you, this 'spot' will remain and a relationship can be formed with it. There need be no conflict between any other goals you set yourself and a growing curiosity about your own version of death-bed humor. The wonderful mystery is how much help there is along the way, mostly always unexpected. Never absent.

Thanks for all you've shared!