Spiritual Forums

Spiritual Forums (https://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/index.php)
-   Science & Spirituality (https://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   Is our version of god mostly in-house? (https://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=114235)

organic born 11-06-2017 04:07 PM

Is our version of god mostly in-house?
 
I was responding to a post in another thread and was finally able to put into words something that I've been mulling over for some time. I wanted to make a separate thread specifically on this since it's a possibility that's not normally considered. :)


Quote:

Originally Posted by Kathrin
I say both. To me they are on one "string". Before entering the Spirit/God realm, I have to cross the Self realm. Through Self I come to God. I see me as the person, as a farthest out extreme of God... like opposing God but holding its capabilities in a way, since I'm just a copy of God. So, Self is just an area, which I have to walk through when walking from God to me, the person (on a plain consciousness level).

I suspect that this is only a part of the story while much of what is actually occurring is really much closer to home.

We tend to take this leap, we say "us here" (referring to the sense of normality that daily defines our experience) and then god "there" or "within" or "beyond ego". It's assumed that when we enter a bliss state that somehow this is relevant to a god (which incidentally is a god of our own making and expectation).

So, there is our experience, and then there is god. What if, perhaps, that this isn't the case?

Our conscious self is incredibly limited, by design, in order to track and maintain our moving connection with our environment. Our conscious self has evolved as a navigator, of sorts, in order help us survive within a continually shifting set of complex variables. Much of the processing that goes on in our brain is done as a background operation. We are not consciously aware of the intensity that's maintained by our bodies awareness of itself. This is intentional. It would be essentially impossible for us to move even an inch if we were privy to the feedback from every nerve in our body, if every smell were to dominate our attention, if to move every muscle was a product of conscious thought, we would be swamped if all of what our body was exposed to was prominent to our immediate attention.

And yet there's an aspect of our body that is still monitoring these details. Billions of streams of data is being processed by highly complex censoring throughout our overall biological system. If all is well then none of this is brought to our attention, but should there be an issue we'll be specifically and consciously informed. It's too hot, it's too cold, our body just got cut in this one place, the ground is uneven we need to be consciously involved so we can navigate this successfully, there was a rustle in the woods could this be a lion?

But unless there's a good reason for attuning our attention this process of monitoring remains a background operation.

By comparison, the mind that is monitoring our overall condition is incredibly intense, by a massive degree, in relation to the amount of resources that are dedicated to our conscious ability to think. The numbers are staggering. In computer terms, we consciously process only about 4 megs a second while our unconscious self is trucking along as high as 400 billion bits of info a second (the number keeps going up as our research improves). So this means, that just outside of our conscious ability to perceive is a roaring set of activity that's far beyond our conscious ability to imagine.

So what would happen should we tap into this process? If our conscious self was able to shift just a little and tune-into this processor of almost infinitely more complex operation. It would feel like we'd just stepped into a most intense house of god. Consciously we'd be lost to the complexity. We'd be overwhelmed by the manor in which everything combined, we'd be humbled by how much we don't know or could keep up with. We would feel we're in the presence of "god".

So what if, what if all these thoughts about a deity is not really "out there" at all, but Right Here? What if we've projected a bodily internal process onto an image of godliness while all along it's "in-house".

Wouldn't that be a hoot. What if we've been worshiping upon far, and projecting way out there, an actual internal process that's right at our own door?

organic born 12-06-2017 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gem
Well, there are different sorts of narratives through which people understand their place in the universe... but some people think their own 'version' is truer or 'more superior' to other people's, which actually brings about misunderstandings in the sense that we can mathematically determine cause and effect and accurately predict outcomes, but tend to implement this knowledge in a destructive way. We have strayed too far into the symbolic space and taken up residence in it, taken it to be true, and lost connectivity with life in the natural world and personal connectivity with our selves; choosing, apparently, to remain conscious only on a personal level, which is a construct of conditioning and thought, and because that is 'all we know' - that's how we 'take ourselves to be' - we strive to survive in the sense of preserving symbolic structures which reflectively indicate a false identity. It's a huge problem, but it's ultimately self destructive, and it will sort itself out through a sort of self annihilation. This a very frightening to a majority of folk, because there is a imagined ghost like figure who pretends to be 'who we are', without which one would have no knowledge, nor definition, nor narrative, to describe their living being.


I moved your response to me from another thread to this one because it fits-in so perfectly with what I'm pointing to in this thread. Our understanding of this process of (almost absolute) self-identification via our own definitions, via practiced assumptions, forms a container around our perceptions that we rarely, if ever, leave. If we attempt to adapt to something "new" we will do so as an extension of what we're already assuming. This holds true for our dreaming self as well as our wakeful-navigator interpretations.

Each of us perceive independently, but we do so based on the imagery that floats by us while being raised, educated, and cajoled by parents and culture. Anything we deem "new" will actually be a retrofit, and will generally serve as an expansion of our already established assumptions.

These interpretations may be challenged to some degree were we to involve ourselves with the natural world, by having to adapt to it's needs and not ours. We will have to go outside ourselves to some degree if we're raising plants or adapting to a new infant (neither plants or infants will adjust to our programming since they are locked into a rhythm of their own exclusive needs).

So generally we inhabit a self contained fantasy. This, in itself, isn't bad, it's perhaps necessary for the purpose of navigating among others, but it's highly informative if we keep this in mind. This illuminates that much of what we do involves projection, self-contained expectation, and a persistent catering to our internal dialogue.

We form religions in this way, we set-off on spiritual inquires from a programed perspective, we will interpret dreams and encounters based on pre-contained assertions, much of which was culturally inspired.

I do see the 'realization' of this as good news! A great deal of our thinking is dedicated toward adapting to a seesawing between our own inner expectation and with how we perceive the nagging expectations of others. And since we are now mostly defining ourselves in relation to cultural-mentally-created-components (and yet somehow we survive :) we may loosen our binding toward taking it all serious. We may fully drop the pretense of assuming that our interpretations are based on the natural-real and fully realize that we're floating, perceptually, on artificially created clouds.

Baile 12-06-2017 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by organic born
Is our version of god...

Yes, very much so. There is a reason why nobody asks if burning witches is still a viable option. Neither do I see threads with people discussing our flat earth, the sun orbiting our planet, or the topic of sacrificing goats to appease the heavens. The reason for that has much to do with human consciousness having evolved in the past many thousands of years.
Quote:

Originally Posted by organic born
So generally we inhabit a self contained fantasy... we're floating, perceptually, on artificially created clouds.

If I understand what you're suggesting here as it applies to spiritual-beliefs, I'd say it's more this way: When people come to understand that Dark Age-era belief structures and consciousness forms are no longer relevant, the first response is a kind of nihilistic distancing from all things of a tenet/doctrine nature. It's like someone who's been burned in a relationship and then claims love stinks. No, there are in fact expressions of love that are quite healthy and very real. Love isn't the problem; the problem is the way one goes about forming a relationship to questions about love.

Baile 12-06-2017 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by organic born
Billions of streams of data is being processed by highly complex censoring throughout our overall biological system.

What is this exactly, some kind of organic matrix theory? I've come across similar statements in many of your posts but never got clear on what you were saying exactly. So you're saying we should focus on the human being as a biological system, rather than as a soul-spirit being? Is that correct? If so, I'd say the baby is dangling out the window right now after throwing out the religious-belief bathwater.

MARDAV70 12-06-2017 03:48 PM

I kinda wonder if there's a kind of consciousness that's developed in our DNA. I've wondered about this for some time. This seems to be what you're saying, organic born, without saying it...if I'm understanding you correctly.

Baile 12-06-2017 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MARDAV70
I kinda wonder if there's a kind of consciousness that's developed in our DNA.

And from whence did that consciousness impulse arise? Likewise this DNA, where did that originate? When we die, what happens to this DNA? How does a physical-material substance and manifestation like DNA, affect the soul in spirit?

When the bathwater requires changing between consciousness paradigms, let's do that yes, just watch out for little Trixie and place her off to the side before you lift the tub and heave.

organic born 12-06-2017 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baile
If I understand what you're suggesting here as it applies to spiritual-beliefs,

I mentioned the word "god" in the heading but I'm actually referring to every thought and most every impulse that daily crosses our minds. There is essentially nothing that occurs to us (thought-wise) which isn't domestically inspired or conditionally entwined among our growing host of exposures since we stepped-in as young and influence-predisposed infants. I'm currently reading the book "Paleofantasy: What evolution really tells us about Sex, Diet, and how we live" by Marlene Zuk. She concurs with many of the other investigators that I've read which are focused on the way that we've oriented to our planet as a species. There is no truly set format to draw on since humans have been fluidly adjusting to geographical variables with the rolls of females and males all drifting among differing cultures. While within each culture the habits are rather consistent. It's all in how we were trained. And yes, DNA does play a part in a lot of this but with even that the expressions are variable.

When we look toward the past and attempt to draw direction from past cultures we'll likely never get what they were experiencing directly. You would have to have been raised within that culture in order to view through their eyes. There is more to orienting as a human than just adhering to a list of beliefs. There are emotional templates that are culturally ingrained which become burned into our responsive tendencies and unconscious assumptions through direct and indirect exposure.

Beliefs are the surface representation of inner assumptions, the "witch" thing was a result of cultural conditioning for that period among those whose imagination was contained in that way. In other parts of the world, and at the very same time period, no such witch hunts occurred.

The overall intellectual aspects of this I got when I was around 12 years old. And yet over time I keep revisiting this insight and am continually impressed by how deep this all goes. We are indeed shaped in a potent unconscious way from the moment we're born, which tends to color most everything we view through those lenses. This easily blows over into our spiritual beliefs and religious attachments. All this is part of the same mix.

organic born 12-06-2017 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MARDAV70
I kinda wonder if there's a kind of consciousness that's developed in our DNA. I've wondered about this for some time. This seems to be what you're saying, organic born, without saying it...if I'm understanding you correctly.

Yes, this is indeed the case among each and every species, and there's no chance that we'd be free of such influence. More on that later, I gotta get back to work. :)

MARDAV70 13-06-2017 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baile
And from whence did that consciousness impulse arise? Likewise this DNA, where did that originate? When we die, what happens to this DNA? How does a physical-material substance and manifestation like DNA, affect the soul in spirit?

When the bathwater requires changing between consciousness paradigms, let's do that yes, just watch out for little Trixie and place her off to the side before you lift the tub and heave.

Possibly whence whatever causes DNA to develop whatever genes that make up the DNA of different species as life diversifies (?). We still have the gene to develop a tail...it's merely "turned off"...for the most part. Chickens still have the gene to develop teeth (so I've read). Maybe "a type of consciousness" is the wrong wording because those genes are identified. Yet, have we really learned all there is to know about DNA? Whence commeth the ability of DNA to switch it's own genes on or off or to even produce new ones? Lol...I'm no geneticist, so I don't know if we have or haven't, though I can't imagine we'll never hear any new developments in genetic research.

MARDAV70 13-06-2017 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by organic born
Yes, this is indeed the case among each and every species, and there's no chance that we'd be free of such influence. More on that later, I gotta get back to work. :)

Looking forward to learning more...!

Baile 13-06-2017 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by organic born
Beliefs are the surface representation of inner assumptions

You speak of beliefs, and I agree. You never seem to mention eternal truth, and I keep pointing that out. Two different things.

God is a belief-specific concept.
Heaven and hell are belief-specific concepts.
Spirit is eternal truth.
The soul is eternal truth.

Human descriptions commonly associated with the concept "God" can be likened to describing the ocean as a puddle of liquid. Why? Because the human being stands on the seashore and looks out. That's what beliefs are: standing on the outside and apart from while looking at. No real tactile relationship to the thing. And from that perspective s/he sees a body of water or something that looks like it might be water (that's the assumption given that's what s/he has been taught about oceans). And it appears smallish... same as a large puddle would appear up-close.

But now get in a boat and start motoring or sailing for days and weeks until you've maybe reached mid-ocean. Now it's no longer a puddle. Rather, it has become the thing that is everything. It has become that which is all-encompassing, and absolute; the one singular reality. Ocean and ocean and ocean. It exists this way, and that way, and in every direction you turn. That is Spirit. Much different from human beings' descriptions of God.

It is said God is unknowable. Most interpret that as, "Yes, I understand God is indeed that immense. But I can still know God." No, what that's really saying is whenever the human being imagines God, they are only ever conjuring up in their minds a puddle-sized perspective-distortion of the thing. What it actually means is this: Everything Exists. In bolded text because it's that important an understanding. There is nothing in this Existing Thing that can be separated out from it. Human understanding that imagines something as being separate from this Everything -- a God that created all this, as one example -- is puddle-perspective and puddle-understanding.

The reason many are stuck in this puddle-perspective is because they cannot grasp the idea of something Existing, in and of itself. Just. Existing. Having no beginning. And no end. Nothing that created it, because it always was. Nothing that can or will ever destroy it, because it cannot not be. The unknowable is Everything That Is, and that awaits creative expression via the conscious impulse. And here's a mighty question: Why would that which is Everything, require creative expression? What's to create if it's already Everything? The answer has to do with relative truth versus absolute truth. But if one doesn't believe in relative truth and absolute truth and/or eternal truths of any kind, then that's a question that will probably go unanswered for them.

Baile 13-06-2017 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MARDAV70
Yet, have we really learned all there is to know about DNA?

One truth about DNA we know for sure: It's a manifestation of physical-material reality. I suppose it comes down to how much credence one gives to the phenomena of the temporal physical-material realm in relation to the eternal soul-spiritual. Given that physical-material reality ceases to exist from time to time -- it is temporal after all -- that indicates, to me anyway, that the relevant truth is in that which is eternal. The soul-spiritual in other words, and not the physical-material.

That's not to say there is nothing of value in the question of DNA. But for me it's never a physical-material oriented question that I seek to answer. I ask my questions from a soul-spiritual perspective, in order to recognize and understand how the eternal soul-spiritual finds its expression the temporal physical-material. In other words, it's not about DNA; it's about what DNA is reflecting as pertinent truth regarding eternal spirit and the soul's evolution. Every expression of physical-material reality can be seen and understood as eternal spirit manifesting in this or that particular form, specifically and exclusively for the purpose and benefit of our collective human soul-evolution journey.

Baile 13-06-2017 11:58 AM

There is one stream of Aquarian Age investigation that has to do with a complete rejection of anything that remotely reeks of -- not just religious -- but spiritual as well. It's intellectual-based thinking, taken to one particular conceptualization-extreme... like a pendulum that has swung all the way over, away from the other extreme of emotion-based religious belief. It's science essentially; the yang to religion's yin. Breaking down the physical-material into sub-atomic patterns, in the exact same way the other belief-extreme looks heavenward to create its hierarchical blueprint. And many bow to science as the new guru just like people kiss the ring on the church father's hand.

I'm a middle path person. I look beyond the illusion that is both emotion-based belief and intellect-based knowledge. Both serve a purpose, and they're not bad or inappropriate certainly. But following one or the other exclusively is illusion, and is not the path to wisdom. As with all things in life, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. And in the middle is the reality of Spirit. Spirit is the source of every truth the human being investigates. Everything emanates from that Spirit center; are merely manifestations and reflections of eternal Spirit truth. Emotional belief and intellectual knowing are truth-shadows so to speak. Half-truths at best.

Someone in another thread has been discussing chemical reaction as it relates to how life began. An innocuous observation. But then he added, "And next comes the question of how the human being then arose from all this." I replied and pointed out he was essentially identifying that nails are pounded into wood by the hammer (an innocuous observation). But that he was forgetting someone or something had to swing the hammer first, in order to pound those nails. He didn't understand what I was getting at. :smile: Hammers and nails do not suddenly appear out of thin air and start interacting with each other. Examine the reality of hammers and nails, sure. But not as the cause of life. Rather, as the effect and result of whatever the Spirit impulse was that willed them into physical-material being.

davidsun 13-06-2017 02:22 PM

Some conceptual 'tools' for (more) conscious living:

- We, you and I and everyone and everything else, is a locally living time-space-body 'finger' on the everywhere-n-everywhen present 'hand' of God, or God's 'Life'.

- our personal consciousnesses and beings are peep-holes and fire-hoses :biggrin: through which 'God' ex-peer-iences and ex-press-es aspects of the Flow said Life's Creation.

- the only choice we personally have as far as I can see, is whether to consciously think, feel, believe and respond to what we ex-peer-ience as though we are really separate or separately autonomous beings or consciously think, feel, believe and respond to what we ex-peer-ience as though we are connected/interwoven aspects of said (hand of) Life.

Either way, our thoughts, feelings, beliefs and (so) our responses will only focus on and what we are (at that point) 'geared' (by said Life) to think, feel, believe and respond to. ("I am the vine, ye are the branches: ... without me ye can do nothing." John 15:5; "I am the Seed of all being, ... No creature moving or unmoving can live without Me." The Bhagavad Gita, Ch.10)

'Revelations' in this regard are bound to keep on 'expanding' as we grow (learn? and develop greater capabilities in terms of knowledge, love and power) from our ex-peer-iences.

All one's 'theories' (beliefs) are therefore mere evolutionary 'stages' on the 'path' of consciousness's 'evolution' - I dare say, the Consciousness of All That Is (the hand!) is bound to evolve as well as It too 'learns' though us (fingers). I can't see how this 'theory' can change - it strikes me as being so 'complete' - but it well may of course.

Vive la Mystere!

MARDAV70 14-06-2017 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baile
One truth about DNA we know for sure: It's a manifestation of physical-material reality. I suppose it comes down to how much credence one gives to the phenomena of the temporal physical-material realm in relation to the eternal soul-spiritual. Given that physical-material reality ceases to exist from time to time -- it is temporal after all -- that indicates, to me anyway, that the relevant truth is in that which is eternal. The soul-spiritual in other words, and not the physical-material.

That's not to say there is nothing of value in the question of DNA. But for me it's never a physical-material oriented question that I seek to answer. I ask my questions from a soul-spiritual perspective, in order to recognize and understand how the eternal soul-spiritual finds its expression the temporal physical-material. In other words, it's not about DNA; it's about what DNA is reflecting as pertinent truth regarding eternal spirit and the soul's evolution. Every expression of physical-material reality can be seen and understood as eternal spirit manifesting in this or that particular form, specifically and exclusively for the purpose and benefit of our collective human soul-evolution journey.


Well, that's ultimately me, too. Yet while I'm here in this plane I can't help but wonder what the purpose of it all really is. Science is reliable in this "physical" universe, but this universe isn't the reality of existence (as per my personal view)...so after all, does it really even matter? I suppose so, in this "physical world"...but (perhaps?) not in that place where consciousness exists without the ego.

davidsun 14-06-2017 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MARDAV70
Well, that's ultimately me, too. Yet while I'm here in this plane I can't help but wonder what the purpose of it all really is. Science is reliable in this "physical" universe, but this universe isn't the reality of existence (as per my personal view)...so after all, does it really even matter? I suppose so, in this "physical world"...but (perhaps?) not in that place where consciousness exists without the ego.

From Ch.2 of the book I wrote, answering your question, among many others, I think (click http://davidsundom.weebly.com/upload...godspeak2k.pdf for a free pdf copy):

Quote:

Electromagnetic and nuclear interactions, where repulsion occurs as well, are additionally revealing. Ongoing scientific investigation has led us to understand the fact that sense perceptions are basically ‘gross’ acknowledgments, and that everything is fundamentally a wave-form and nothing is actually solid at core. So, besides there being no substantive means to constitutionally link those bodies which form conglomerates, there is no real ‘boundary’ that so-called objects bump into when they apparently bounce off one another. The only inference this permits, if one has enough courage and faith in Life not to invent extrinsic agency as a false postulate, is that the movements that bodies make and the stations they take result from the impulses and choices of discerning, autogenic ‘interiors’.

The direction and purpose of such inherent power and intentionality can be deduced from the cumulation and trend of results which have so far occurred. Progressively, the creative essence of Being has conspired to form an array of what, because of our material orientation, we’ve called ‘sub-atomic particles’; these have interacted and engaged in such ways as to produce ‘electrons’, ‘protons’ and ‘neutrons’ which, in turn, have combined to create the various ‘atoms’ and ‘molecules’ we have become familiar with; and these, through more concerted effort, have coalesced into cellular and multi-cellular units, in stages, generating ever more complex aggregations of body,a mind and spirit—the whole hierarchy and procession we know as Life.

In ascending sequence, with prior developments integrated and built upon, ‘bodies’ have become more coordinated, ‘spirits’ more potent, ‘minds’ more perceptive, resident Intelligence more designful and adept. Even what some call ‘simple’ single-celled organisms are architectural masters capable of cognizing, culling and compiling environ*mental ingredients so as to reproduce themselves and further their particular line of development. Each succeeding level of integration further demonstrates the aim of the impetus inherent within all being—that is, to seek and establish cooperative affiliation with suitable others in order to enhance creativity and increase the degree of intelligent actualization.

Life’s evolutionary accomplishments in such pursuit are extremely varied in range and infinitely diverse; and, because of the involuted nature of their interconnectedness and interdependence, the ways in which its many forms and levels are related cannot be simply stated. Generally speaking, however, one might say that ‘lesser’ combinations of body, mind and spirit tend to be incorporated by, and serve to sustain, those more comprehensively developed. With their more energized spirits, more mobile bodies and more dimensional minds, for example, animals prevail over vegetation for the most part; and the more capable among them prevail over the rest.

Members of our species stand at the peak of a fantastic living pyramid, borne by the earth and sustained by energy continually streaming from the sun. Cresting a progression that has taken place over aeons and ages, we have emerged ascendant, capable of much more than great physical dexterity and coordination. Our laughter and our tears demonstrate, in dimensions of Mind and Spirit, how far beyond its other earthly manifestations Intelligence has developed in the process of becoming human.


MARDAV70 15-06-2017 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidsun
From Ch.2 of the book I wrote, answering your question, among many others, I think (click http://davidsundom.weebly.com/upload...godspeak2k.pdf for a free pdf copy):

Thank you, davidsun. Well written, and I totally agree. Where our paths may divide is that this is all observance of our physical universe. Not than I'm pooh-poohing science. On the contrary...I love science and the gifts of knowledge those who observe and study all in our universe have given us, but what about that other place where consciousness exists beyond the physical? That, which can't be observed? I only wondered this after having a near death experience, until that time believing when we die, it's the end of us...what's left eventually becomes star dust. And in the observable universe, yes, that's unquestionably true.
The atom is 99.999999 percent "nothing" (so I've read). Is it really? Is there even such a thing as "nothing"? Simply, it makes sense to me we just don't understand the "nothingness" of the atom yet. When/if we do (and I think some day we will) discover what it is, then we'll be getting somewhere.

So, davidsun, you may not agree with me, and that's okay. If I understand you correctly you believe the physical and ethereal are in the same space/existence. I respect that, but I don't believe it...simply because of my NDE. That doesn't make me wiser or smarter (especially not in physics or biology or any other science), it only has caused me to question and/or give my side in hopes of hearing from others who've also had such experience.

Shivani Devi 15-06-2017 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by organic born
I was responding to a post in another thread and was finally able to put into words something that I've been mulling over for some time. I wanted to make a separate thread specifically on this since it's a possibility that's not normally considered. :)



I suspect that this is only a part of the story while much of what is actually occurring is really much closer to home.

We tend to take this leap, we say "us here" (referring to the sense of normality that daily defines our experience) and then god "there" or "within" or "beyond ego". It's assumed that when we enter a bliss state that somehow this is relevant to a god (which incidentally is a god of our own making and expectation).

So, there is our experience, and then there is god. What if, perhaps, that this isn't the case?

Our conscious self is incredibly limited, by design, in order to track and maintain our moving connection with our environment. Our conscious self has evolved as a navigator, of sorts, in order help us survive within a continually shifting set of complex variables. Much of the processing that goes on in our brain is done as a background operation. We are not consciously aware of the intensity that's maintained by our bodies awareness of itself. This is intentional. It would be essentially impossible for us to move even an inch if we were privy to the feedback from every nerve in our body, if every smell were to dominate our attention, if to move every muscle was a product of conscious thought, we would be swamped if all of what our body was exposed to was prominent to our immediate attention.

And yet there's an aspect of our body that is still monitoring these details. Billions of streams of data is being processed by highly complex censoring throughout our overall biological system. If all is well then none of this is brought to our attention, but should there be an issue we'll be specifically and consciously informed. It's too hot, it's too cold, our body just got cut in this one place, the ground is uneven we need to be consciously involved so we can navigate this successfully, there was a rustle in the woods could this be a lion?

But unless there's a good reason for attuning our attention this process of monitoring remains a background operation.

By comparison, the mind that is monitoring our overall condition is incredibly intense, by a massive degree, in relation to the amount of resources that are dedicated to our conscious ability to think. The numbers are staggering. In computer terms, we consciously process only about 4 megs a second while our unconscious self is trucking along as high as 400 billion bits of info a second (the number keeps going up as our research improves). So this means, that just outside of our conscious ability to perceive is a roaring set of activity that's far beyond our conscious ability to imagine.

So what would happen should we tap into this process? If our conscious self was able to shift just a little and tune-into this processor of almost infinitely more complex operation. It would feel like we'd just stepped into a most intense house of god. Consciously we'd be lost to the complexity. We'd be overwhelmed by the manor in which everything combined, we'd be humbled by how much we don't know or could keep up with. We would feel we're in the presence of "god".

So what if, what if all these thoughts about a deity is not really "out there" at all, but Right Here? What if we've projected a bodily internal process onto an image of godliness while all along it's "in-house".

Wouldn't that be a hoot. What if we've been worshiping upon far, and projecting way out there, an actual internal process that's right at our own door?

Very wise insight.

I asked "God" the same questions the other day, because everybody seemed content and blissful within their own little private "I AM" experiences, while that was just way too confining for me in my whole "Everything IS" experiences... I sought to understand the difference between these two perspectives, so I decided to ask the Universe, of course.

The answer:

"I AM" is the whole association between the mind and thought processes - known as the Manomaya Kosha with the individual, embodied soul, known as the Jivatman.

Bliss is experienced as a result, but it's still within limitation of the Self and that existential awareness.

"Everything IS" is the whole association between the heart, all the emotions of the "bliss sheath" known as the Anandamaya Kosha with the 'Oversoul' or 'Divine soul' or 'God consciousness' however you like to describe it...that Soul is known as Paramatman.

Jivatman or the embodied soul is only a shadow of Paramatman or the Oversoul.

In the awareness of Paramatman through the Anandamaya Kosha, bliss is also experienced, but it is whole and inclusive without any ego or any notion of Self...it becomes the process of 'No-Self' because ego is intrinsically individuised through the very nature of the "I AM" awareness.

This is why I had so many problems trying to understand those who would say to me "you are God" when I understood God to be everything I am NOT...it's the same principle but with totally different outcomes.

Koshas:
http://www.decodinghinduism.com/2014...man-being.html

http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/fund/fund-18a.gif

davidsun 15-06-2017 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MARDAV70
So, davidsun, you may not agree with me, and that's okay. If I understand you correctly you believe the physical and ethereal are in the same space/existence. I respect that, but I don't believe it...simply because of my NDE. That doesn't make me wiser or smarter (especially not in physics or biology or any other science), it only has caused me to question and/or give my side in hopes of hearing from others who've also had such experience.

It's all (multidimensionally) One. SPIRIT -- you, I, we -- is here, in this often confusing, frustrating setting, for a reason. THAT is what I was talking about. The 'good news' (for people who think here is awful or meaningless) is that there is something 'beyond' 'this' which 'this' learning opportunity for 'evolution' (i.e. change!) provides us with, which plain ol' 'immortality' just by itself doesn't. :biggrin:

P.S. I haven't personally experienced what is called an NDE. But I have no doubt whatsoever of the meaning-full-ness and wonder-full-ness of Life, both the kind (of Life) 'beyond' 'this' and the kind that 'this' is life ensconced (dreamed?) 'in'.

davidsun 15-06-2017 12:23 PM

I 'see' you are in full 'arrival' mode, Nec!

Yahoo!!!!! :D

organic born 18-06-2017 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baile
You speak of beliefs, and I agree. You never seem to mention eternal truth, and I keep pointing that out. Two different things.

God is a belief-specific concept.
Heaven and hell are belief-specific concepts.
Spirit is eternal truth.
The soul is eternal truth.


Do you not see the humor in this? Anything that we would assign-to or to think-about in relation to 'eternal 'truth' would also be based souly on beliefs. Just because we dress those beliefs in such a way that suggests otherwise, we are still stuck with applying beliefs none the less.

How can we then say there are two different things when we're still applying the same process to both? :)

organic born 18-06-2017 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MARDAV70
I kinda wonder if there's a kind of consciousness that's developed in our DNA. I've wondered about this for some time. This seems to be what you're saying, organic born, without saying it...if I'm understanding you correctly.

This has been a busy week on this end, starting a farm is no easy task, finally, I have a few moments to walk along with you a bit on this subject. :)

First we need to unravel the term 'consciousness' in this case. We tend to think that consciousness is the process of thought. That we think, therefore we are conscious. So when addressing consciousness within DNA we're mulling over the idea that DNA could think, plan, and selectively execute based on conscious observations and comparative thinking. I suspect that we humans are the only ones doing such a thing, and of course the results vary in creatively unique ways. So much so that if all of nature was doing the same thing what a mess natural selection would be! The human way of thinking is essentially unstable. In just one lifetime our thoughts about things can sway dramatically, and this based on conditional input. While nature is comparatively far more stable, so our DNA would likely reflect a more steady set of selective assumptions.

I was watching a program on mountain goats the other day and watched something that's truly quite interesting. There was a coyote in the background watching while a mother was giving birth to a baby mountain goat. The moment the baby hit ground the coyote started moving in. The baby goat took a moment to orient and then immediately responded to the threat that it was under. In less that 15 seconds or so the baby goat was navigating complex pathways among the rocks with the coyote hot on it's tail. The newborn exhibited incredible dexterity and an ability to plan it's next move. It found a spot in the rocks that it could reach and the coyote couldn't. It checkmated a grown coyote within a minute or so of being born.

So what part did DNA play in this? It clearly appears that there are variables in place that provided the newborn with an ability to selectively evaluate among a complexity of options. The baby goat seemed innately conscious of the immediate threat and then consciously chose the best options among what was available.

We humans, on the other hand, take 'far longer' than this to awaken to our environment in order to make these kinds of critical choices. It would almost seem that we're slow upstarts as to our ability to make use of any of the kinds of options that seem available almost instantly to those that we deem aren't as smart as we are.

Our DNA still has us programmed to suckle, to cry when we have needs, to look cute so our parents will allow us to live through the really tough developmental years. :) There are genetic predispositions that we have inclinations to act on in a notably compelling way. Our ability to talk is a genetic predisposition, while the language we chose to talk in would be more culturally inspired. Our drive to eat food, our drive to have sex, our whole host of fears from spiders and snakes to lions and drowning are all being demonstrated as predisposed inclinations that would conceivably be seen as a genetic propensity.

Does that mean that DNA has consciousness? Probably not in the way that we've interpreted consciousness to be, but perhaps it's a consciousness that's far more stable, and far more intelligent, than our opinion of what consciousness is.

MARDAV70 20-06-2017 10:37 PM

Thanks for the reply, organic born.
Yep. All of what you've said makes sense to me. The existence of consciousness is different than the "physical" world. We can examine our physical world. What we find can be tested and retested and solid research done to arrive at our findings. Not so with consciousness.

So, is there a gene in DNA that explains instinct?

organic born 21-06-2017 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MARDAV70
Thanks for the reply, organic born.
Yep. All of what you've said makes sense to me. The existence of consciousness is different than the "physical" world. We can examine our physical world. What we find can be tested and retested and solid research done to arrive at our findings. Not so with consciousness.


Genetics is replication
Consciousness is Presence

Consciousness is the I in relation to our continual awareness of simply being
while Genetics provides the physical vehicle of senses and base framework that our I is continually being entertained-by and channeled through

What genetics does is simply astounding. It not only replicates all the components that are essential for our bodies to work in the way that they do, they also provide the alignment for these components to coordinate in a functionally uniform manor. Our eyes see, our ears hear, our hand feels.. each are separate streams of massively complex information, of a notably different function, and yet they are processed as a composite, and they align as a unified experience.

This all works so well that our consciousness becomes engulfed in the base rhythm of this experience. Our consciousness is presence, Genetics is replication.

This is not at all a bad thing. It's actually quite remarkable.

As universal experiences go this one is pretty profound. Do we have tools that lay outside of our collection of physical senses,?, of course we do, we are spiritual beings living a physical experience. Should we long for those tools all along berating ourselves over the nature of our current entanglement? Not even a little bit!

If the experience of linear time exists only in this format then we're currently involved in something specifically unique. One, then, would have to be physical in order to experience ourselves in this manor. Same goes for everything else that constantly comes up as a limitation in some way. Our bodies and our senses are tuned to this wavelength while our consciousness has blended quite nicely with the process. There is nothing to run from, nothing to fix, and nothing to even remotely lament about in terms of the experience itself.

Our attention is best placed on interactive functionality while embedded within the rhythms of this paradigm. We are present within this context for a notably limited period. Lets look around and participate and perfect what we can, the curtain will close soon enough, so why not enjoy this version of time (and everything else) while we navigate the uniqueness of this stage. :)

davidsun 21-06-2017 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by organic born
Our attention is best placed on interactive functionality while embedded within the rhythms of this paradigm. We are present within this context for a notably limited period. Lets look around and participate and perfect what we can, the curtain will close soon enough, so why not enjoy this version of time (and everything else) while we navigate the uniqueness of this stage. :)

Well conceptualized and said, OB. This is what 'in'carnation offers as a possibility which would could not be played with otherwise.

Some find said circumstance to be unduly restricting', others find it unduly stressfull, i.e. spirit-overwhelming. Getting 'back' to a 'purely' spiritual state therefore appeals to them as a 'goal'. Reminds me of the proverbial kid who wants to "pick up his marbles and go 'home'."

MARDAV70 21-06-2017 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by organic born
Genetics is replication
Consciousness is Presence

Our attention is best placed on interactive functionality while embedded within the rhythms of this paradigm. We are present within this context for a notably limited period. Lets look around and participate and perfect what we can, the curtain will close soon enough, so why not enjoy this version of time (and everything else) while we navigate the uniqueness of this stage. :)


I'm in complete agreement...!

davidsun 21-06-2017 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MARDAV70
I'm in complete agreement...!

FYI, I wouldn't have 'guessed' that on the basis of what you verbalized in your posts.

What's 'up' with that, bro?

MARDAV70 22-06-2017 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidsun
FYI, I wouldn't have 'guessed' that on the basis of what you verbalized in your posts.

What's 'up' with that, bro?

I have no idea of why you feel I agree with OrganicBorn's statement might be contradictory to what I've verbalized without sighting at least one example. Please be more specific.

davidsun 22-06-2017 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MARDAV70
I have no idea of why you feel I agree with OrganicBorn's statement might be contradictory to what I've verbalized without sighting at least one example. Please be more specific.

On reviewing this thread, I see that was confused about who said what 'n when and can't figure out why. My apologies, MARDAV70.
:icon_scratch:

organic born 22-06-2017 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidsun
Well conceptualized and said, OB. This is what 'in'carnation offers as a possibility which would could not be played with otherwise.

Some find said circumstance to be unduly restricting', others find it unduly stressfull, i.e. spirit-overwhelming. Getting 'back' to a 'purely' spiritual state therefore appeals to them as a 'goal'. Reminds me of the proverbial kid who wants to "pick up his marbles and go 'home'."

I was reading one of Frank DeMarco's channeled books not long ago and it was mentioned that we each have roughly 30 or so guides/soul-based-influences working along with us at any given time. He wrote that some of these influences have experienced several lifetimes already while other influences haven't experienced a one. Upon reading this I purposefully went into a very quiet state-of-mind and politely requested that all influences that didn't already have a life-time experience be purposefully removed from my team. It's obvious to me that if they don't have the guts to do what all of us here are involved-in, on a day to day basis, then their influence would be choppy, at best.

We are here, we are present, we are engaged in what clearly feels real. The idea that we should be dreaming about elsewhere has never felt functionally viable in regards to our issues at hand. When it's time to go home we go home, while in terms of the present, there's an endless diversity of fascinating and riveting stuff within easy reach for being openly explored! :)

organic born 22-06-2017 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidsun
On reviewing this thread, I see that was confused about who said what 'n when and can't figure out why. My apologies, MARDAV70.
:icon_scratch:

I can easily relate! This forum is like a fun version of the Tower of Babel. :)

davidsun 22-06-2017 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by organic born
I was reading one of Frank DeMarco's channeled books not long ago and it was mentioned that we each have roughly 30 or so guides/soul-based-influences working along with us at any given time. He wrote that some of these influences have experienced several lifetimes already while other influences haven't experienced a one. Upon reading this I purposefully went into a very quiet state-of-mind and politely requested that all influences that didn't already have a life-time experience be purposefully removed from my team. It's obvious to me that if they don't have the guts to do what all of us here are involved-in, on a day to day basis, then their influence would be choppy, at best.


:thumbsup:


Quote:

Originally Posted by organic born
We are here, we are present, we are engaged in what clearly feels real. The idea that we should be dreaming about elsewhere has never felt functionally viable in regards to our issues at hand. When it's time to go home we go home, while in terms of the present, there's an endless diversity of fascinating and riveting stuff within easy reach for being openly explored! :)

:wav:

MARDAV70 22-06-2017 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidsun
On reviewing this thread, I see that was confused about who said what 'n when and can't figure out why. My apologies, MARDAV70.
:icon_scratch:

Apology hands down accepted, davidsun. Lol...I've been guilty of that, too.

ketzer 19-07-2017 12:38 PM

Fundamentally, I think we are just empty open awareness. We are aware of nothing (no thing) and therefore we are nothing. Everything we believe in we must first experience in some way and to experience it we must first create it within our awareness, even if we borrow the information to do so. We create it from nothing, become aware of it, experience it, and then come to believe in it.

davidsun 19-07-2017 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ketzer
Fundamentally, I think we are just empty open awareness. We are aware of nothing (no thing) and therefore we are nothing. Everything we believe in we must first experience in some way and to experience it we must first create it within our awareness, even if we borrow the information to do so. We create it from nothing, become aware of it, experience it, and then come to believe in it.

What you are saying, I think, is that you believe that the Essence of (all) Being has absolutely no qualitative 'nature'.

In my experience (you would say this is just an 'arbitrarily' chosen projection, creation, etc., yes?) IT (the Essence of Life) is Love (of 'Life', of being 'alive') and Joy (of 'living', at being 'alive').

I think IT is so and may be directly flow-experienced whether I or you or anyone else believes IT is so or not. On the other hand, I think, if one's Love and Joy flow gets caught in an 'eddy' wherein one experience such otherwise, maybe 'nothingness', starkly enough, then that is what one may believe to be the universal case -- till one's e-merges from said 'eddy' and rejoins the River-of-Life's flow, that is.

True or not, that's what makes the most sense to me, and so that's the 'story' I AM sticking to!:D

ketzer 20-07-2017 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidsun
What you are saying, I think, is that you believe that the Essence of (all) Being has absolutely no qualitative 'nature'.

In my experience (you would say this is just an 'arbitrarily' chosen projection, creation, etc., yes?) IT (the Essence of Life) is Love (of 'Life', of being 'alive') and Joy (of 'living', at being 'alive').

I think IT is so and may be directly flow-experienced whether I or you or anyone else believes IT is so or not. On the other hand, I think, if one's Love and Joy flow gets caught in an 'eddy' wherein one experience such otherwise, maybe 'nothingness', starkly enough, then that is what one may believe to be the universal case -- till one's e-merges from said 'eddy' and rejoins the River-of-Life's flow, that is.

True or not, that's what makes the most sense to me, and so that's the 'story' I AM sticking to!:D


What you are saying, I think, is that you believe that the Essence of (all) Being has absolutely no qualitative 'nature'.


Hmmm.... I seem to recognize your words but I am not sure we speak the same language. I think I might be saying the essence of all things that we say “Be” is only qualitative in nature. It is the qualities of the nouns that matter to us. Just exactly what it means for something to “Be” is not as important as the qualities it has once it is "being", the qualities that give me the experiences I desire. Though the nouns be illusory, the verbs need not be. After all, Cypher’s steak was juicy and delicious even though it existed only in the matrix (or did it exist elsewhere as well), and so he enjoyed eating it regardless of where it existed.
In my experience (you would say this is just an 'arbitrarily' chosen projection, creation, etc., yes?) IT (the Essence of Life) is Love (of 'Life', of being 'alive') and Joy (of 'living', at being 'alive').
No. While the words projection or creation sound fine to me, the word just sounds a bit too derogatory, and I think our creations need not be arbitrarily chosen. I would agree that Love and Joy are important parts of the Essence of life, yet so are hate, anger, and sorrow. They are all different hues of the color of life and depend upon each other for their existence.

I think IT is so and may be directly flow-experienced whether I or you or anyone else believes IT is so or not. On the other hand, I think, if one's Love and Joy flow gets caught in an 'eddy' wherein one experience such otherwise, maybe 'nothingness', starkly enough, then that is what one may believe to be the universal case -- till one's e-merges from said 'eddy' and rejoins the River-of-Life's flow, that is.


I am not sure I followed that, but I do like the sound of it. Anyway, I would say nothingness is just quietude in consciousness, the undisturbed state, in which there are no things..... which gives it a certain quality of no-thing-ness. And yet, in this state there is unlimited potentiality, for with nothing present, anything can be brought into being. Like the block of wood before the carver goes to work, it can be carved into almost anything the carver wishes. As soon as a bit is carved off, what can be carved becomes a bit more limited. This act of bringing things into being and experiencing them is what brings about the flow of life, with all its joys and sorrows. Sometimes it flows smooth and quiet, other times we run the rapids.

True or not, that's what makes the most sense to me, and so that's the 'story' I AM sticking to!


It’s your universe, you should have it the way you like it.

davidsun 20-07-2017 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ketzer
I would agree that Love and Joy are important parts of the Essence of life, yet so are hate, anger, and sorrow. They are all different hues of the color of life and depend upon each other for their existence.

I very much appreciate the quality of the spirit in which you engaged with my response to your postulating 'nothingness' as some kind of 'primal' pre-experiential condition. (Forgive me if I misread what you said, but that is what I think you said.

When I say that the Essence of Being is essentially :smile: Love and Joy, I mean that, in my view, there is no such thing (or state, per-existential or existential) as 'nothingness'. There is only Love and Joy.

This gets a bit convoluted in 'existential' environments, but, for instance (in my view) fear is just the experience/expression of 'insecure' Love, greed is just the experience/expression of 'dissatisfied' love, hate is just the experience/expression of 'disappointed' Love, sorrow is just the experience/expression of 'bereft' Love, depression is just the experience/expression of 'blocked' Joy, etc., etc., etc.

In other words, Love and Joy are features of the Essence of Being (i.e. of 'God') , and so are an ever present 'baseline' from which the entire 'rainbow' of 'colors of all experience-n-expression 'arise'. We don't create from a 'base' of 'nothingness' and so 'emerge' 'into' various kinds of expression-n-experience i.e. into 'being'. We are always Being Itself, sometimes referenced as Presence, never (ever!) 'nothing' (though we may falsely 'imagine' that to be case) in other words.

Again, all of the above, is 'in my view'.

Shivani Devi 20-07-2017 03:02 AM

For every experience, there is that which facilitates it, even if self-facilitation is its own reward.

To others, it is very difficult for them to understand why I worship Lord Siva in all glorious form, when He is, in essence, formless which is tantamount to Him not existing and yet, He still does, at least to me anyway and when I say that, I mean that I have directly realised it, where those who take me to task over it have not.

I had this fellow the other day telling me that God is just a word and all Gods are the same, so instead of worshiping Siva, why aren't you worshiping Yahweh? to which, I said that if I worshiped Yahweh, I would have another uninformed idiot come along and say "instead of worshiping Yahweh, why aren't you worshiping Allah?"

So, in my experiences Siva exists as both the personal and impersonal. To many, this is a total conundrum...it cannot be that way because "I AM" simply means that nothing else IS because the nature of my being negates it from existing...how silly and naive this is!

There are those who speak from knowledge, those who speak from wisdom and never the twain shall meet.

davidsun 20-07-2017 12:05 PM

Very erudite exposition, Nec. Except for the final 'kick' :D (IMO) Which reminded me of: "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." (Acts 9) 'Pricks' with many meanings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Necromancer
There are those who speak from knowledge, those who speak from wisdom and never the twain shall meet.


http://vedanta.org/yoga-spiritual-pr...ge-jnana-yoga/

ketzer 20-07-2017 12:06 PM

[quote=davidsun] QUOTE]

I very much appreciate the quality of the spirit in which you engaged with my response to your postulating 'nothingness' as some kind of 'primal' pre-experiential condition. (Forgive me if I misread what you said, but that is what I think you said.


I appreciate the spirit of your responses as well. Other parts of my universe have been a bit dark lately, so your lack of hostility is refreshing.

I do not see nothingness as primal nor pre, just without form, containing no things.

When I say that the Essence of Being is essentially Love and Joy, I mean that, in my view, there is no such thing (or state, per-existential or existential) as 'nothingness'. There is only Love and Joy.

This gets a bit convoluted in 'existential' environments, but, for instance (in my view) fear is just the experience/expression of 'insecure' Love, greed is just the experience/expression of 'dissatisfied' love, hate is just the experience/expression of 'disappointed' Love, sorrow is just the experience/expression of 'bereft' Love, depression is just the experience/expression of 'blocked' Joy, etc., etc., etc.

In other words, Love and Joy are features of the Essence of Being (i.e. of 'God') , and so are an ever present 'baseline' from which the entire 'rainbow' of 'colors of all experience-n-expression 'arise'. We don't create from a 'base' of 'nothingness' and so 'emerge' 'into' various kinds of expression-n-experience i.e. into 'being'. We are always Being Itself, sometimes referenced as Presence, never (ever!) 'nothing' (though we may falsely 'imagine' that to be case) in other words.


Yes, there does seem to be a bit of a language difference here. I did not mean to imply a state of nothingness as a state of no existence. Just because the container is empty of things, does not mean it does not exist, even if the container itself is without form. In fact the fewer things the container holds the greater it’s potential to hold them, with an empty container being filled with potential.

I do like your conceptualization of god as love with the other emotions as colors of the spectrum. I suppose it works better or worse depending on the meaning one holds for the word love (that language thing again). I suspect that ultimately all dualities are illusions.

Again, all of the above, is 'in my view'.


Of course, as it is with all of us.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:27 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) Spiritual Forums