Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

Unless it isn't a clay pot, of course.

...but can the pot exist without the potter?

The clay and the potter are one in the same as is the pot, however the pot is a transient manifestation.

Wave and water. Necklace and gold. Maya and Absolute.

[God-Like]

The thing about consciousness is that it's just a made up word that peeps use as being the truth about what we are .

So lets just put 'consciousness' to the side for a moment and relate to their is only what you are .

So with that in mind can what you are evolve?

Of course for nothing stays the same but within change there is sameness because there is only what you are that changes .

The experience of the rock, the plant, the animal, the human reflects diversity does it not, and the rock is what we are as is the plant the animal and the human ..

If peeps want to say what we are doesn't evolve but there is simply the appearance of evolving then one is separating that which we are with that which we are that appears as this and that .

Many will say that the whole point to life experience is so that God experiences itself as all things in order to learn about itself through the eyes of many ..

Pure consciousness and all that jazz is simply some grand poetry in motion and may look good and sound good on paper but the problems always arise when we look a little deeper into what is suggested ..


x daz x

[Ewwerrin]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

The clay and the potter are one in the same as is the pot, however the pot is a transient manifestation.

Wave and water. Necklace and gold. Maya and Absolute.

Yeah and so to really appreciate the reflection, for it is always a perfect match to who and what we are being and becoming evermore here and now. And let it thus inspire you evermore to evermore greater allowed realisation of all that is of that which is of your preference, which is of your greater allowed realisation. That one does not need to get the pot done. And if it is done, then it also is evermore in being and becoming. As it is the joy of the journey that is the whole point.

It doesn't require anything to change for joy to be in the moment. It is the ever change, that is the joy of the journey. Of the new here and now, unlike any that has ever been before it or will ever be like it ever again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again...


To really appreciate the uniqueness of this moment. That is the infinite nature of who we truely are as all that is being and becoming evermore here and now. To come thus then to effortless greater allowed realisation, and appreciation, of who and what we truely are being and becoming evermore here and now. As this evermore awe inspiring ever uniqueness of value of our personal experience of who we are and who we are not both together as one whole functioning unit of a total being of a full witted consciousness fully blending and evolving naturally and effortlessly along the lines of our highest light that is of our ever expanding consciousness. That is always pure positive energy. And to thus then always catch up with that, and yield to the never ending ever expanding calling of our infinitely ever expanding light of our consciousness, that is of our greatest awareness and joy and love, and enjoy it so much evermore so and thus then so too it shall be enjoyed upon you evermore expandingly and unfoldingly.

To always enjoy every single here and now moment to the fullest. Under any and all conditions, regardless of any and all conditions, unconditionally. BEING as existence itself. As the purity of our soul fully flowed through our physical vessel in unconditional love. To yield to the pain that is our indication that we have expanded and not yet fully are in that moment up to speed to all that we've become. And to close that gap, so effortlessly and naturally, that one cannot even do it. As it is truely an act of non-action. To let go and allow. As is the greatest power of the energy which creates worlds, through which all things are being and becoming evermore effortlessly and naturally and joyfully here and now. To let go and allow. And become natural evermore. And feel better evermore. And allow the relief that is of our true eternal nature of being and becoming evermore here and now, evermore, effortlessly and naturally. That is of our unconditional worthiness, to be do or have anything we so desire, as we are always yielded all of that which we so desire. And all is well, as all is unfolding perfectly along this evermore ongoing ever expanding path of least resistance that is of all true natural being and becoming evermore here and now. Into everlasting, evermore expanding, extacy, of all the fullness of all the evermore greater allowed realisations of all that we truely are being and becoming evermore here and now. Evermpre ongoingly evermore expandingly evermore effortlessly and naturally and joyfully and freely, lucidly, vididly, consciously, evermore awakeningly and wakefully, evermore replenishingly and refreshingly, and renewingly and stably and naturally being and becoming evermore here and now.

Originally Posted by God-Like

Pure consciousness and all that jazz is simply some grand poetry in motion and may look good and sound good on paper but the problems always arise when we look a little deeper into what is suggested ..

It's already proven what seems like two is in reality one with electroweak unification. It's further hypothesized GUT would fold the nuclear strong force in and TOE would fold gravity in. So instead of four fundamental forces building reality there would only be one unifying field. Problem is the level of energy to experimentally test GUT would require a particle accelerator 10,000 light years in diameter and gravity presents an even bigger problem as it hasn't yet been quantized.

Then there's the double slit experiment and collapse of the wave function. One school of thought exemplified by the Copenhagen Interpretation is the act of observation collapses the wave function, and some would say conscious observation though that's not generally accepted.

Then there's Sir Roger Penrose's interpretation, basically Objective Reduction, where he posits it's not observation that collapses the wave function but collapse is objective and results in an instance of consciousness. Roger Penrose is a recognized expert, if not the recognized expert, on the fine scale structure of spacetime.

So no, it's not really that far-fetched to begin to contemplate consciousness being fundamental, at the basement level of reality. Perhaps it's one and the same as the unified field of TOE.

So it's not only a few select spiritual traditions that posit this, but some avenues of actual science at least entertain the possibility, and that's looking about as deep as one can.

EDIT: And then there's the actual experience of consciousness at its deepest level, for instance in a deep meditative state. For anyone who has enough practice it can be experienced beyond mind and even outside of formal sitting. Science also has a problem identifying what consciousness exactly is, as David Chalmers coined "The Hard Problem" of consciousness.

Is it possible the ancients, the Rishis, are right about the nature of consciousness?

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

It's already proven what seems like two is in reality one with electroweak unification. It's further hypothesized GUT would fold the nuclear strong force in and TOE would fold gravity in. So instead of four fundamental forces building reality there would only be one unifying field. Problem is the level of energy to experimentally test GUT would require a particle accelerator 10,000 light years in diameter and gravity presents an even bigger problem as it hasn't yet been quantized.

Then there's the double slit experiment and collapse of the wave function. One school of thought exemplified by the Copenhagen Interpretation is the act of observation collapses the wave function, and some would say conscious observation though that's not generally accepted.

Then there's Sir Roger Penrose's interpretation, basically Objective Reduction, where he posits it's not observation that collapses the wave function but collapse is objective and results in an instance of consciousness. Roger Penrose is a recognized expert, if not the recognized expert, on the fine scale structure of spacetime.

So no, it's not really that far-fetched to begin to contemplate consciousness being fundamental, at the basement level of reality. Perhaps it's one and the same as the unified field of TOE.

So it's not only a few select spiritual traditions that posit this, but some avenues of actual science at least entertain the possibility, and that's looking about as deep as one can.

EDIT: And then there's the actual experience of consciousness at its deepest level, for instance in a deep meditative state. For anyone who has enough practice it can be experienced beyond mind and even outside of formal sitting. Science also has a problem identifying what consciousness exactly is, as David Chalmers coined "The Hard Problem" of consciousness.

Is it possible the ancients, the Rishis, are right about the nature of consciousness?

Consciousness is a made up word that then gets used in a manner of all ways to bolster one's conceptual understanding ..

What you are is fundamental and is not separate from that which experiences and that which appears to experience .

For there to be any suggestion that what you are does not evolve would be silly based upon there is only what you are .

If consciousness is fundamental and consciousness is experiencing a human life then consciousness evolves through the experience of itself.

What becomes problematic here as always is that peeps divide consciousness up into little pieces and start separating aspects .

If we use the word God, then there is only God .

To experience life in an infinite amount of ways is God experiencing God and with every moment that transpires God learns something about God because of these experiences .

To suggest that God does not evolve in some shape or form would be silly wouldn't it, what is even more silly is to relate to God as consciousness / pure consciousness and then imply that consciousness doesn't evolve it always stays the same .

You can't separate God from God or consciousness from consciousness or awareness from awareness ..

So why is there the notion to separate consciousness in the ways that peeps have?

This is the problem isn't it because peeps conceptualise what we are into being consciousness and then create and associate their own rules around it .

If we relate Consciousness to water then water always remains water, but if you follow the teachings of how water can hold different frequencies as do I then one can fundamentally stay the same i.e. water is water, but water has evolved into different conscious levels of itself .

To suggest that water doesn't evolve in some way would be incorrect because there is change and diversity within sameness .

You can't separate the water from the frequency it holds and then changes into .


x daz x

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Ewwerrin

Yeah so really coming to appreciate that which I am not, which allows me to be who I am, and thus also come to a greater appreciation of myself. So thank you for everything, basically...

You are very welcome and I am so happy.

I have been watching the lead up to this moment over the past week and the outcome has been better than I imagined.

You are a beautiful soul and glad I could be part of this facilitation.

Originally Posted by God-Like

Consciousness is a made up word that then gets used in a manner of all ways to bolster one's conceptual understanding ..

What you are is fundamental and is not separate from that which experiences and that which appears to experience .

All words are made up with the purpose of bolstering not only one's understanding but sharing said understanding. It can be no other way. LOL!

If I say a table is made out of wood is that separating wood from the table or is it just looking at a more fundamental reality of the table?

EDIT: One step further. Can the wood exist without the table? Can the table exist without wood?

"How can the mindless microscopic particles that compose our brains 'experience' the setting sun, the Mozart Requiem, and romantic love? How can sparks of brain electricity and flows of brain chemicals literally be these felt experiences or be 'about' things that have external meaning?"

https://youtu.be/hTIk9MN3T6w?list=PL...ywQvhBzzdrQ A

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

All words are made up with the purpose of bolstering not only one's understanding but sharing said understanding. It can be no other way. LOL!

If I say a table is made out of wood is that separating wood from the table or is it just looking at a more fundamental reality of the table?

EDIT: One step further. Can the wood exist without the table? Can the table exist without wood?

But what is wood?

Table is just a descriptor of what wood is shaped into as an appearance .

If wood is what you are fundamentally for examples sake then you can't separate what you are and what you are that appears as ..

Did you understand what I said about the water being water but the frequency of the water changes and therefore evolves somewhat .

What you are doing is labelling the foundational unified field as consciousness and then implying that cannot evolve .

You are separating what you are as consciousness from what you are and it doesn't work ..

There is only what you are means just that .

It is extremely difficult for peeps to understand that God/Self is all there is and there are no exceptions .

This is why the grain of sand, the rock the fly, the rose, the peanut, the sun and the moon are all what you are ..

To say what you are does not evolve would be incorrect because you cannot separate what you are from anything .

Do you understand what I am saying?


x daz x

Originally Posted by God-Like

You are separating what you are as consciousness from what you are and it doesn't work ..

Actually, no, I'm not. I'm saying I'm existence, consciousness, bliss and all of reality is of and within me.

Originally Posted by God-Like

To say what you are does not evolve would be incorrect because you cannot separate what you are from anything.

Can the Omnipotent become more Omnipotent? Can the Omnisentient become more Omnisentient? Can the Omnipresent become more Omnipresent? If it can evolve in any one of these respects then it's none of them and therefore not the One, not the Source. It's merely a manifestation of the Source. I'm drilling down to the pillars of existence, and I can take wood all the way down, at least as far as my understanding allows me.

Just because of limitations of science and mind doesn't mean it's not valid to have a philosophical understanding and discussion and relate the concepts to others.