Awakening

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Awakening

Post by Nick_A »

Uwot wrote previously: Not really with you. Are you saying that the only things that Christ and Buddha said in agreement were secular?
No. They both referred to awakening but what does that mean? When we are in bed asleep we have no idea what it means to wake up and start walking around. Suppose this walking around state is also a form of sleep compared to consciously awakening and we are as oblivious to it as we are oblivious of the walking around state we call awakened when we are asleep in bed?
When the Buddha wandered around India shortly after his enlightenment, he encountered several men who recognized him to be a very extraordinary being.

They asked him, "Are you a god?"

"No," he replied.

"Are you a reincarnation of god?"

"No," he replied.

"Are you a wizard, then?"

"No."

"Well, are you a man?"

"No."

"So what are you?" they asked, being very perplexed.

"I am awake."

Matthew 13:15-17New International Version (NIV)
15 For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.’[a]
16 But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17 For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.
If Jesus and Buddha were awake and Jesus was teaching the disciples that they had a quality of understanding that would allow for awakening, what did they mean by awakening? Have you ever considered that you may be asleep to reality and what it would mean to awaken or do you believe it is simply rubbish and you are awake?
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Awakening

Post by uwot »

Nick_A wrote:If Jesus and Buddha were awake...
It's a big if. There is no historical evidence for either character; it is an act of faith simply to believe they existed.
Nick_A wrote:Have you ever considered that you may be asleep to reality and what it would mean to awaken or do you believe it is simply rubbish and you are awake?
Well, the idea that our 'dream world' is in fact reality, and that this post is being written in my sleep, is the sort of idea I'm sure most people have considered. I have considered that the world might be an illusion, the deceit of an evil daemon, along with Descartes, or as Berkeley believed, ideas in the mind of god. I have considered that I might be a brain in a vat, that the universe might be holographic or a simulation. I have even considered the possibility that Jesus and Buddha really walked the Earth. I really don't know which, if any, of those is the case. What I do know is that there is nothing people who ask such questions can express or display that is remotely desirable. On the contrary, what they invariably ask is that I shut my eyes to all possibilities, save the one they are hog tied by.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Awakening

Post by Nick_A »

Uwot wrote: What I do know is that there is nothing people who ask such questions can express or display that is remotely desirable. On the contrary, what they invariably ask is that I shut my eyes to all possibilities, save the one they are hog tied by.
The trouble is as I see it is that if we don’t know what awakening means, how do we know, presuming those like Buddha and Jesus existed, if what they offer is remotely desirable? Being asleep, we don’t know what it means to be awake. Many are in a defensive position. They need but don’t know what they need. This invites not only unintentional but the worst kinds of intentional charlatans to take advantage of this weakness. That is why society seeks to eliminate in one way or another anyone who has even slightly awakened. If sleep is sustained through self deception, the last thing a society built on self deception wants to do is to tolerate an awakening influence. From Plato’s Cave allegory:
[Socrates] And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the cave, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.
I agree that there are a great many influences which increase slavery to sleep. But what if there are some which do not seek to shut our eyes but to open them for those who feel the need to open their eyes? What is our obligation to them and to ourselves? How do we recognize them?
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Awakening

Post by uwot »

Nick_A wrote:The trouble is as I see it is that if we don’t know what awakening means, how do we know, presuming those like Buddha and Jesus existed, if what they offer is remotely desirable?
The same way that we know the universe isn't a simulation, a deceit, an illusion or dream; or that it isn't the body of god, or ideas in its mind, or something it created from nothing: we don't.
Nick_A wrote:Being asleep, we don’t know what it means to be awake.
You are perfectly entitled to believe we are somehow asleep. Can you think of a reason that might persuade someone who disagrees with you?
Nick_A wrote:Many are in a defensive position.
Can you give an example of what someone has said, and justify your characterisation as 'defensive' in the current context?
Nick_A wrote:They need but don’t know what they need.
That's easily said. Can you give a specific example?
Nick_A wrote:This invites not only unintentional but the worst kinds of intentional charlatans to take advantage of this weakness.
This brings to mind psychics and spiritualists, but the idea of unintentional charlatans, I think, is an oxymoron. There are compassionate and sometimes beautiful people that sincerely believe their faith is a blessing and could help many others; I'm sure that is so, but there are still others who have no need.
Nick_A wrote:That is why society seeks to eliminate in one way or another anyone who has even slightly awakened.
Is there a particular case you would like to present as evidence, that we may discuss?
Nick_A wrote:If sleep is sustained through self deception, the last thing a society built on self deception wants to do is to tolerate an awakening influence.
Again, that's if. What society is built on what self deception?
Nick_A wrote:From Plato’s Cave allegory:
Socrates: And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the cave, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.
It would probably help if you could understand the allegory of the cave in the context of Socrates' cosmology. This was explained in the Phaedo, one of the dialogues set in the period of Socrates' imprisonment, awaiting execution. It is based on the hierarchy of 'Greek' elements, which become more rarefied and purer as they ascend from earth, to water, to air. Those are the things our world is made of, higher up still, in 'heaven', everything is made of something even purer, the aether, and if a man could but fly and stick his head above the air, like fish poking their heads above the water: "and if his nature were able to bear the sight, he would recognise that that is the true heaven and the true light and the true earth. For this earth and its stones and all the regions in which we live are marred and corroded, just as in the sea everything is corroded by the brine, and there is no vegetation worth mentioning, and scarcely any degree of perfect formation, but only caverns and sand and measureless mud, and tracts of slime wherever there is earth as well; and nothing is in the least worthy to be judged beautiful by our standards. But the things above excel those of our world to a degree far greater still." Also Socrates.
Nick_A wrote:I agree that there are a great many influences which increase slavery to sleep.
Who are you agreeing with, and what exactly have they said?
Nick_A wrote:But what if there are some which do not seek to shut our eyes but to open them for those who feel the need to open their eyes?
As I said above, religion is fine for those that need it and use it well, but for others, it is a hindrance, even a menace. One of the things attributed to Jesus was “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” (Matthew 4.19) Fine. Whoever wrote those words (I have a hunch the original 'gospel' was written by Flavius Josephus) can cast away, but some fish are too fast to be caught, or their mouths too big to be hooked.(That's a gift to all the knuckle draggers who will even now be thinking, 'Yuh, and look who's got a big mouth.')
Nick_A wrote:What is our obligation to them and to ourselves? How do we recognize them?
Well, as I have said elsewhere, the key to our recognising gods is the degree to which they look like us.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Awakening

Post by Nick_A »

Uwot wrote: The same way that we know the universe isn't a simulation, a deceit, an illusion or dream; or that it isn't the body of god, or ideas in its mind, or something it created from nothing: we don't.

Can you give an example of what someone has said, and justify your characterisation as 'defensive' in the current context?
We are discussing Meno’s Paradox. As Socrates suggests proof of what we don’t understand but are drawn to comes through inner empiricism (know thyself) But when outer empiricism or the scientific method is dominant it excludes the value of inner empiricism.

I was defensive when I was younger. The need is not something that can be talked about with adults. Teachers in secular education do not understand it and the normal exoteric secular expressions of religion don’t understand it. Pop psychology and New Age philosophy is lost in imagination so a person gets BS on all sides. If a kid is lucky, they survive it.
Meno's Paradox and the Immortality of Soul: how will you know what you are looking for if you first don't already know it (and thus have no reason to go looking for it)? But why look for something you already have? This is the paradox raised in Plato's dialogue called the Meno. In answer to "Meno's Paradox," Plato suggests that before we were born we existed in another realm of being (the realm of the Forms). The shock of being born makes us forget what we knew in that realm. But when we are asked the right questions or have certain experiences, we remember or "recollect" innate (inborn) truths. So if we existed before our births, there is every reason to think that we will continue to exist after our deaths.
You are perfectly entitled to believe we are somehow asleep. Can you think of a reason that might persuade someone who disagrees with you?
Would you agree that if we are incapable of self awareness and conscious attention we cannot be considered awake to reality? To begin with do you agree with the effect of imagination on the human psyche? If Simone Weil is right, the chaos of the world and the horrors it produces are the collective results of imagination, imagined human needs which deny authentic human needs. So if a person admits the power of imagination is it really a stretch to admit that humanity as a whole is asleep to reality?

“Imagination is always the fabric of social life and the dynamic of history. The influence of real needs and compulsions, of real interests and materials, is indirect because the crowd is never conscious of it.” ~ Simone Weil
It would probably help if you could understand the allegory of the cave in the context of Socrates' cosmology. This was explained in the Phaedo, one of the dialogues set in the period of Socrates' imprisonment, awaiting execution. It is based on the hierarchy of 'Greek' elements, which become more rarefied and purer as they ascend from earth, to water, to air. Those are the things our world is made of, higher up still, in 'heaven', everything is made of something even purer, the aether, and if a man could but fly and stick his head above the air, like fish poking their heads above the water: "and if his nature were able to bear the sight, he would recognise that that is the true heaven and the true light and the true earth. For this earth and its stones and all the regions in which we live are marred and corroded, just as in the sea everything is corroded by the brine, and there is no vegetation worth mentioning, and scarcely any degree of perfect formation, but only caverns and sand and measureless mud, and tracts of slime wherever there is earth as well; and nothing is in the least worthy to be judged beautiful by our standards. But the things above excel those of our world to a degree far greater still.
One of the best kept secrets is the relationship between Plato and esoteric Christianity. Consider 1 Corinthians:15 in the context of the above:
35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.
42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[f]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we[g] bear the image of the heavenly man.
Secularism is only concerned with one level of reality. Socrates and Paul are referring to levels of reality connected by densities of matter and the degree of the spiritual within the material producing the complimentary bodies. The first stage of awakening is the conscious awareness of levels of reality and qualities of being. Secularism will reject it as it must to preserve its dominance.
Nick_A wrote:What is our obligation to them and to ourselves? How do we recognize them?
Well, as I have said elsewhere, the key to our recognising gods is the degree to which they look like us.
I wasn’t referring to gods but rather to the need including ourselves of those feeling the attraction to awaken? It is silly for sleeping people to debate gods. An intelligent person will feel the need to awaken in order to experience the God/Man relationship or human consciousness in relation to higher consciousness. But how do they do it when dominant secularism is against them?
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Awakening

Post by uwot »

Nick_A wrote:Would you agree that if we are incapable of self awareness and conscious attention we cannot be considered awake to reality?
You and I have very different views of reality, but how I interpret your question is in terms of the rationalist/empiricist schism triggered by Descartes and, to some degree mended by Kant. By 'self awareness' I take you to mean able to reflect upon the images, sounds, ideas and so on, generated by our exposure to the environment; basically 'think', in the sense meant by Descartes' 'I think, therefore I am.' Where I suspect you (and Descartes) and I differ is how we respond to Avicenna's 'Flying man' thought experiment. Avicenna used the example of a soul coming to be in mid air, hence 'flying', away from any possible sensory input; no sights, sounds, smells, tastes or touch. His belief, and Descartes and I suspect yours, is that a mind or soul that has absolutely no external input, would still be capable of 'self awareness'. This was challenged by empiricists, David Hume in particular, who argued that whenever he had a thought, it could be deconstructed into the particular collection of sensory data it was made of. To Hume, 'self awareness' was nothing more than the processing of sensory input. A modern analogy is a computer that is switched on; you can stare at it until kingdom come, but until you give it some input, it doesn't do anything. That being so, 'conscious attention' to what?
Nick_A wrote:To begin with do you agree with the effect of imagination on the human psyche? If Simone Weil is right, the chaos of the world and the horrors it produces are the collective results of imagination, imagined human needs which deny authentic human needs. So if a person admits the power of imagination is it really a stretch to admit that humanity as a whole is asleep to reality?
“Imagination is always the fabric of social life and the dynamic of history. The influence of real needs and compulsions, of real interests and materials, is indirect because the crowd is never conscious of it.” ~ Simone Weil
I'm sure the crowd is conscious of it's own real needs. What they might be less familiar with is the needs of Simone Weil, which I have no reason to doubt she felt, but which I am inclined to think were imaginary.
Nick_A wrote:One of the best kept secrets is the relationship between Plato and esoteric Christianity.
It's not a secret to me. I have pointed out that Plato was believed by some to be the son of Apollo, that his mother was allegedly a virgin, that the Myth of Er is a resurrection story that includes the template of the medieval view of heaven and hell. Furthermore western philosophy, pretty much from St Augustine to the renaissance, was an attempt to shoehorn stubborn Aristotelianism into the thoroughly Platonist Christianity.
Nick_A wrote:Secularism is only concerned with one level of reality. Socrates and Paul are referring to levels of reality connected by densities of matter and the degree of the spiritual within the material producing the complimentary bodies.
Well, yes, both were writing in the context of ancient scientific thought. As I said, it was believed that the universe was constructed of four terrestrial elements, earth, water, air and fire, and that the heavens were made of a perfect, 'spiritual' substance called aether. Modern quantum field theories, QED, QCD and Higgs being examples, in essence argue that earth, water, air and fire, or more generally the particles and forces of which they are made, are condensations and disturbances in essentially aethereal quantum fields. For the purposes of science, it is irrelevant whether there is any 'spiritual' aspect to these fields, because the aim of science is to understand and manipulate the environment without being dependent on prayer.
Nick_A wrote:The first stage of awakening is the conscious awareness of levels of reality and qualities of being. Secularism will reject it as it must to preserve its dominance.
This is a conspiracy theory. There is no such body as 'secularism' that is rejecting anything to preserve its dominance. Everybody is jostling to get their voices heard. Among the mayhem are people who regardless of their personal metaphysical beliefs, stick to analysing and sharing information that can be observed and tested experimentally.
Nick_A wrote:An intelligent person will feel the need to awaken in order to experience the God/Man relationship or human consciousness in relation to higher consciousness. But how do they do it when dominant secularism is against them?
An intelligent person will try to find out exactly what science tells us about the world and either incorporate it into their metaphysical beliefs or amend their metaphysical beliefs. What an intelligent person will not do is reject any demonstrably true facts that contradict their metaphysics. This is what the Catholic church tried to do when Galileo showed quite clearly that the Earth was not the centre of the universe. Science and religion are only in conflict when religion makes an arse of itself, either by insisting that something is the case when it demonstrably isn't, or by claiming that there is any evidence of god which is immune to an alternative explanation.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Awakening

Post by Nick_A »

Uwot wrote: You and I have very different views of reality, but how I interpret your question is in terms of the rationalist/empiricist schism triggered by Descartes and, to some degree mended by Kant. By 'self awareness' I take you to mean able to reflect upon the images, sounds, ideas and so on,


No, I mean it as expressed in the two birds analogy: The Tree of Jiva and Atman. This is one interpretation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_Jiva_and_Atman
The first bird represents a Jiva, or individual self, or soul. She has a female nature, being a shakti, an energy of God. When the jiva becomes distracted by the fruits (signifying sensual pleasure), she momentarily forgets her lord and lover and tries to enjoy the fruit independently of him. This separating forgetfulness is maha-maya, or enthrallment, spiritual death, and constitutes the fall of the jiva into the world of material birth, death, disease and old age.
The second bird is the Paramatman, an aspect of God who accompanies every living being in the heart while she remains in the material world. He is the support of all beings and is beyond sensual pleasure.
The same idea is expressed in the Gospel of Thomas:
(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."
When the conscious higher can observe the animal reacting lower of our collective being, then a person is self aware and can become known by higher consciousness.
I'm sure the crowd is conscious of it's own real needs. What they might be less familiar with is the needs of Simone Weil, which I have no reason to doubt she felt, but which I am inclined to think were imaginary.
Actually it is an ancient idea expressed in the East as “maya.” I see it doesn’t interest you so we can leave it alone. I’ll just post a link for the sake of completeness.

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/maya.asp
For the purposes of science, it is irrelevant whether there is any 'spiritual' aspect to these fields, because the aim of science is to understand and manipulate the environment without being dependent on prayer.
Agreed.
An intelligent person will try to find out exactly what science tells us about the world and either incorporate it into their metaphysical beliefs or amend their metaphysical beliefs. What an intelligent person will not do is reject any demonstrably true facts that contradict their metaphysics.
Yes this is what Simone referred to as atheism as a purification
Science and religion are only in conflict when religion makes an arse of itself, either by insisting that something is the case when it demonstrably isn't, or by claiming that there is any evidence of god which is immune to an alternative explanation.
Science makes an arse of itself when it defines reality through its limitations. Science functions in linear time: before and after. The essence of religion is concerned with the quality of a moment. Moments in time vary in quality. Science appreciates chemical relations in linear time while the essence of religion appreciates alchemy, spirit in matter, and the meaning of vibrations in matter. The conscious quality of a moment is really the study of Teology. Science deals with the laws as they are revealed in linear time and the essence of religion deals with the great laws and how they create the quality of a moment connecting the higher with the lower in vertical time. When science and the essence of religion both devolve for the purpose of secular goals at the expense of the pursuit of truth, IMO they both make arses of themselves
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Awakening

Post by uwot »

Nick_A wrote:Science makes an arse of itself when it defines reality through its limitations.
Can you give an example?
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Awakening

Post by Nick_A »

uwot wrote: Nick_A wrote:
Science makes an arse of itself when it defines reality through its limitations.

Can you give an example?
Take the simple belief in man made global warming. Scientists assert all sorts of partial truths to further a political goal. They are making arses of themselves.

Do you believe in synergy? From Wiki:
Synergy is the creation of a whole that is greater than the simple sum of its parts. The term synergy comes from the Attic Greek word συνεργία synergia[1] from synergos, συνεργός, meaning "working together".
Aristotle — 'The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.'
Reality is wholeness. Science deals with the relationship of parts. If Aristotle is right science cannot produce wholeness.

I'm going to create a thread on "Beauty" on the Aesthetics board, It compares thoughts on beauty between a well known and admired atheist and Simone Weil. Read their two observations. Simone deals with wholeness and Feynman deals with parts. Tell me if you think they can be reconciled on the path to awakening? You have the intelligence to understand where they are coming from and I'd like to read how you appreciate these two observations from highly intelligent people
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Awakening

Post by Arising_uk »

Nick_A wrote:Take the simple belief in man made global warming. Scientists assert all sorts of partial truths to further a political goal. They are making arses of themselves. ...
This is bollocks, as whilst there might be a whole host of politically motivated tree-huggers and career politicians spreading partial truths the climate 'scientists' just report that the world is getting hotter and that it'll not be helped by us pumping known greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Awakening

Post by Nick_A »

Arising wrote:
This is bollocks, as whilst there might be a whole host of politically motivated tree-huggers and career politicians spreading partial truths the climate 'scientists' just report that the world is getting hotter and that it'll not be helped by us pumping known greenhouse gases into the atmosphere
I've read both that the earth is warming and also that it is entering the next mini ice age. I don't know. I do know however that a far bigger problem than man made pollution the paid scientists refer to is the man made destruction of coral reefs and the rain forests which add to the good our atmosphere produces. This destruction makes money so you won't hear about it from corrupt science.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Awakening

Post by Arising_uk »

Nick_A wrote:... I do know however that a far bigger problem than man made pollution the paid scientists refer to is the man made destruction of coral reefs and the rain forests which add to the good our atmosphere produces. This destruction makes money so you won't hear about it from corrupt science.
And how do you know about this? Oh Yeah, scientists. You want bigger problems take a look at land compaction or micro-plastics in the sea-food chain, etc, etc, all brought to you by those 'corrupt' scientists. Does your 'God' give you any clues about all this stuff, no, that'll be the scientists.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Awakening

Post by Nick_A »

Arising wrote:
And how do you know about this? Oh Yeah, scientists. You want bigger problems take a look at land compaction or micro-plastics in the sea-food chain, etc, etc, all brought to you by those 'corrupt' scientists. Does your 'God' give you any clues about all this stuff, no, that'll be the scientists.
Respect for life and the love of life itself is not an animal emotion. A dog may have unconditional love for its owner but not for other dogs. Respect for life is a higher emotional awareness that higher consciousness opens us to. It isn't the result of science but rather the result of higher consciousness influencing our psyche making it more human. Without awakening to respect for life, why would anyone care about the food chain?
sthitapragya
Posts: 1105
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 2:55 pm

Re: Awakening

Post by sthitapragya »

Nick_A wrote:Arising wrote:
And how do you know about this? Oh Yeah, scientists. You want bigger problems take a look at land compaction or micro-plastics in the sea-food chain, etc, etc, all brought to you by those 'corrupt' scientists. Does your 'God' give you any clues about all this stuff, no, that'll be the scientists.
Respect for life and the love of life itself is not an animal emotion. A dog may have unconditional love for its owner but not for other dogs. Respect for life is a higher emotional awareness that higher consciousness opens us to. It isn't the result of science but rather the result of higher consciousness influencing our psyche making it more human. Without awakening to respect for life, why would anyone care about the food chain?
But what happens after you become aware of the higher consciousness? Let us say that your consciousness reaches a higher level. What happens then. You become like Buddha or Christ. Okay. Great. Then what? Do you start a new religion? What changes? You become happier or content or blissful? But that is only going to last till you die which is a measly 100 or so years. Then anyway you die and become the higher consciousness again for billions of years. So what is the hurry? A few years here or there cannot be so important. So what is the big deal about reaching your higher consciousness or becoming aware of it?

I am not aware of my higher consciousness. I still care about animals. I have respect for life. So would that mean I am in touch with my higher consciousness?
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Awakening

Post by Nick_A »

Sthit wrote: But what happens after you become aware of the higher consciousness? Let us say that your consciousness reaches a higher level. What happens then. You become like Buddha or Christ. Okay. Great. Then what?
Being aware of a connection with higher consciousness doesn't make one like Buddha or Jesus. Only a charlatan will tell you this. No, you are not God. Becoming aware of the potential for awakening makes a person first aware of their nothingness. This is a big first step. Then the inner struggle begins between the parts that want to consciously awaken and the parts of our collective consciousness that want to remain asleep. Consider the following story. Most want to remain chickens unaware of their conscious potential to be eagles. So people die as chickens.
"A man found an eagle's egg and put it in a nest of a barnyard hen. The eaglet hatched with the brood of chicks and grew up with them. All his life the eagle did what the barnyard chicks did, thinking he was a barnyard chicken. He scratched the earth for worms and insects. He clucked and cackled. And he would thrash his wings and fly a few feet into the air.

Years passed and the eagle grew very old. One day he saw a magnificent bird above him in the cloudless sky. It glided in graceful majesty among the powerful wind currents, with scarcely a beat on his strong golden wings. The old eagle looked up in awe. "Who's that?" he asked. "That's the eagle, the king of the birds," said his neighbor. "He belongs to the sky. We belong to the earth - we're chickens." So the eagle lived and died a chicken, for that's what he thought he was."

Anthony de Mello
(1931-1987) Jesuit Priest
Post Reply