Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved

[ThatMan]

Truth is what awakens the human consciousness from its deep sleep in ignorance, right now, the human consciousness dwells in ignorance, and as I said, the root cause of this is the little truth that the human consciousness knows.

Ignorance keeps people blind even when we say: We see; and because we say this, we keep tricking ourselves that we are awake..

Jesus talked about being a great family, where we all are brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers and so on... Deep inside we know this, this is why we help our fellow neighbour asking nothing in return, but we are not fully awake to this beautiful truth...

Truth is what awakens the human consciousness from its deep sleep.

Originally Posted by John32241

Hello 7L,

Nice to see your comment.

I follow the Kryon teachings. One of the things that gets talked about a lot is how a lower consciousness can not comprehend the wisdom presented by a higher consciousness. However if that were 100% true, all of the time, then none of us could evolve.

The key in my mind to evolving is having the humility to appreciate How Much you do not understand. Not many if any intellectual posters has that quality.

The more central key is being compassionate. That involves a great many things like kindness and respect for all ways of being and thinking. This is that heart centered way of being you speak about. Without it nothing can be learned. For the wisdom in the heart is core truth.

Our intellect will always see itself as well informed. That is a natural survival trait. Self preservation being the highest priority for all living creatures. Moving beyond that is not a consideration for many even when they know they are immortal spiritual beings. That is because personal change can indeed be hard.

So I do what I can to answer the questions being asked. I do not mind it when my replies are seemingly not helpful. I feel if I am inspired to respond to a question then it will have some value. The subconscious, which is 1 million times more aware that the intellect (that has been scientifically proven) then in many cases I am responding to a person's subconscious. What I speak about may be beyond their logical reasoning, however at deeper levels, they hear me.

Much of the time I do not get into discussions with others. I do not even read most of what others talk about. If a point of view can not be simply expressed then I would not be able to comprehend it.

John

I agree with you John.

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

From a strict non-dualist perspective, It's not only beyond the limit of space and time but also causality. That being the case it is not the effect of any cause therefore always was and cannot be changed.

What you call individuated consciousness I call manifested consciousness, and it's only a reflection of unmanifested consciousness and limited to the mirror doing the reflecting.

Can a wave change the nature of water? Can a cloud change the nature of space? Both appear, linger for a time and then subside and water is still water and space is still space.

Can your reflection in a mirror change you?

Hello Just,
With respect, I largely disagree...kinda sorta. Not in any one individual strand of truth to which you may be speaking. But more in the totality that you present.

I find strict anything, including non-dualism, to generally be a non-starter, as Daz, Shivani, and others have outlined or spoken to.
I disagree that anyone can say that there is no interbeing and (as we would describe it) causal feedback or engagement.
There is no way we can speak to it with certainty...except to say what we feel is right and (if applicable) what is most cohesive based on our experience and apprehension of what is/all that is.

You feel there is strict separation of One, Many, and (all or the rest of) What Is, is that correct? Or is it you feel that Many/All that Is are really just One?
I say that separation is an illusion and that this is not the same thing as having distinction within a state of interbeing.
I say interbeing will necessarily imply change and growth in each moment, all round. And that interbeing and distinction are 1) not separate, 2) not sameness, and 3) not amorphous unity.

The ocean of one drop is different than the ocean of a thousand drops. And the ocean of a thousand drops in this moment is different to the next moment...it changes as the drops change. It grows as the drops grow.
They exist in interbeing with one another, in whatever fashion we may choose to conceive. And neither one exists without the other as it does with the other. If at all, but certain not "as is". And that is largely because each drop is individuated and unique and is not "the same" as any other. Thus the quality and substance of ocean is meaningfully different because of each unique drop.

If consciousness simply is, then that is simple fact. There is no differentiation, no "One", no "Unity", no "Many", and no manifest physical reality (All that Is) either. Just (( nothing )), which we cannot even speak about.

But that is wholly apart conceptually from our discussion of just what consciousness IS in our normal manifest understanding.
From our perspective (just to keep it simple), we may discuss distinctions in the interbeing of manifest consciousness, which we call "One" and "Many".
But these are not separate...meaning, they cannot be separated. Except by our artificial constructs, which typically go like this, and erroneously equate amorphous, undifferentiated consciousness with One or Unity, as follows:

-- Given undifferentiated consciousness [in the abstract], everything is "the same" [???] and that means there are no distinctions (then, erroneous assumption comes: undifferentiated consciousness is really Unity Consciousness or One)
-- the material realm is "fake" and only consciousness [in general, whether abstract or manifest] exists (then, erroneous assumption: both abstract AND manifest consciousness only really "exist" as Unity Consciousness or One, and the real distinctions that do exist in manifest consciousness are discounted or ignored)

These are IMO all attempts to artificially prise apart the reality of (manifest) interbeing and/or to gloss over the reality of One/Many/etc. distinctions in manifest consciousness.
This goes to our apparently natural tendency to like to separate and categorise for ease of understanding, or to collapse and roll things up to simplify -- but all these are simply artificial constructs we seek to overlay onto the reality of our existence.
In fact, Oneness is manifest in interbeing with Many and All that is. Prior to that we have no knowledge but can only speak of undifferentiated, abstract, amorphous consciousness.
And we have no idea what that really means, hahaha, outside our manifest experience of consciousness...

As to the nature of One and Many (just to keep it simple), the nature of One is qualitatively and substantively different with each new addition of the Many, which exist in interbeing with One and with one another. And certainly, One impacts Many, and we each (of the Many) impact one another.

Thus as I see it, it is incoherent to speak of One without Many. Nor of Many without One. We can only speak of :
1) consciousness in the abstract (which has no form whatsoever)...end of conversation. I think this is what God-Like has been saying as well...

2) OR Consciousness in the specific, based on our own experience within existence. In this case, it is a spectrum of interbeing which we experience as One, Many and (all [the rest of]) What Is.
And within this realm of interbeing, causal change is implicit in all directions, or at all "points" of interbeing.

Peace & blessings
7L

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by John32241

Hello 7L,

Nice to see your comment.

I follow the Kryon teachings. One of the things that gets talked about a lot is how a lower consciousness can not comprehend the wisdom presented by a higher consciousness. However if that were 100% true, all of the time, then none of us could evolve.

The key in my mind to evolving is having the humility to appreciate How Much you do not understand. Not many if any intellectual posters has that quality.

The more central key is being compassionate. That involves a great many things like kindness and respect for all ways of being and thinking. This is that heart centered way of being you speak about. Without it nothing can be learned. For the wisdom in the heart is core truth.

Our intellect will always see itself as well informed. That is a natural survival trait. Self preservation being the highest priority for all living creatures. Moving beyond that is not a consideration for many even when they know they are immortal spiritual beings. That is because personal change can indeed be hard.

So I do what I can to answer the questions being asked. I do not mind it when my replies are seemingly not helpful. I feel if I am inspired to respond to a question then it will have some value. The subconscious, which is 1 million times more aware that the intellect (that has been scientifically proven) then in many cases I am responding to a person's subconscious. What I speak about may be beyond their logical reasoning, however at deeper levels, they hear me.

Much of the time I do not get into discussions with others. I do not even read most of what others talk about. If a point of view can not be simply expressed then I would not be able to comprehend it.

John

Hey there John...nicely said.
I agree w/you about the compassion bit.
I also feel that the energy and intent within a message can go a long way toward helping some folks get the meaning you are trying to convey.

I like what you said about ingrained human arrogance and over-reliance on the intellect. We use it as a shield perhaps more so than as a sword. Particularly when folks are cruel or thoughtless, I fall back to the intellect and to cold equanimity, to keep on going and sort the feelings later. I am working on that, but like many of us, it seems that if we are emotionally honest, it is seen as something to despise or take for granted.
Change is indeed hard, as you say...and likewise so is humility, particularly for those who use the intellect primarily as a sword.

Like you, I do feel that some things will not fully gel until we move into the heart-centred way. Do what you can and maintain the good intention...

I try very hard to express myself simply, BTW. So I hope you can follow most of my stuff even if occasionally it goes on a bit ;)

Peace & blessings
7L

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Hello Just,
With respect, I largely disagree...kinda sorta. Not in any one individual strand of truth to which you may be speaking. But more in the totality that you present.

I find strict anything, including non-dualism, to generally be a non-starter, as Daz, Shivani, and others have outlined or spoken to.
I disagree that anyone can say that there is no interbeing and (as we would describe it) causal feedback or engagement.
There is no way we can speak to it with certainty...except to say what we feel is right and (if applicable) what is most cohesive based on our experience and apprehension of what is/all that is.

You feel there is strict separation of One, Many, and (all or the rest of) What Is, is that correct? Or is it you feel that Many/All that Is are really just One?
I say that separation is an illusion and that this is not the same thing as having distinction within a state of interbeing.
I say interbeing will necessarily imply change and growth in each moment, all round. And that interbeing and distinction are 1) not separate, 2) not sameness, and 3) not amorphous unity.

The ocean of one drop is different than the ocean of a thousand drops. And the ocean of a thousand drops in this moment is different to the next moment...it changes as the drops change. It grows as the drops grow.
They exist in interbeing with one another, in whatever fashion we may choose to conceive. And neither one exists without the other as it does with the other. If at all, but certain not "as is". And that is largely because each drop is individuated and unique and is not "the same" as any other. Thus the quality and substance of ocean is meaningfully different because of each unique drop.

If consciousness simply is, then that is simple fact. There is no differentiation, no "One", no "Unity", no "Many", and no manifest physical reality (All that Is) either. Just (( nothing )), which we cannot even speak about.

But that is wholly apart conceptually from our discussion of just what consciousness IS in our normal manifest understanding.
From our perspective (just to keep it simple), we may discuss distinctions in the interbeing of manifest consciousness, which we call "One" and "Many".
But these are not separate...meaning, they cannot be separated. Except by our artificial constructs, which typically go like this, and erroneously equate amorphous, undifferentiated consciousness with One or Unity, as follows:

-- Given undifferentiated consciousness [in the abstract], everything is "the same" [???] and that means there are no distinctions (then, erroneous assumption comes: undifferentiated consciousness is really Unity Consciousness or One)
-- the material realm is "fake" and only consciousness [in general, whether abstract or manifest] exists (then, erroneous assumption: both abstract AND manifest consciousness only really "exist" as Unity Consciousness or One, and the real distinctions that do exist in manifest consciousness are discounted or ignored)

These are IMO all attempts to artificially prise apart the reality of (manifest) interbeing and/or to gloss over the reality of One/Many/etc. distinctions in manifest consciousness.
This goes to our apparently natural tendency to like to separate and categorise for ease of understanding, or to collapse and roll things up to simplify -- but all these are simply artificial constructs we seek to overlay onto the reality of our existence.
In fact, Oneness is manifest in interbeing with Many and All that is. Prior to that we have no knowledge but can only speak of undifferentiated, abstract, amorphous consciousness.
And we have no idea what that really means, hahaha, outside our manifest experience of consciousness...

As to the nature of One and Many (just to keep it simple), the nature of One is qualitatively and substantively different with each new addition of the Many, which exist in interbeing with One and with one another. And certainly, One impacts Many, and we each (of the Many) impact one another.

Thus as I see it, it is incoherent to speak of One without Many. Nor of Many without One. We can only speak of :
1) consciousness in the abstract (which has no form whatsoever)...end of conversation. I think this is what God-Like has been saying as well...

2) OR Consciousness in the specific, based on our own experience within existence. In this case, it is a spectrum of interbeing which we experience as One, Many and (all [the rest of]) What Is.
And within this realm of interbeing, causal change is implicit in all directions, or at all "points" of interbeing.

Peace & blessings
7L

What's real, electricity, magnetism, electromagnetism, the nuclear weak force, the electroweak force (electromagnetism + nuclear weak force) or all of them simultaneously? Or GUT (electroweak + strong nuclear force) or TOE (GUT + gravity) when/if those hypothesis are fleshed out and experimentally observed?

I'm just relating an unqualified non-dualist perspective. Then there's the qualified non-dualist perspective and then the dualist perspective.

Take your pick and enjoy. We're all going to end up in the same place, not that we're not there already.

EDIT: By the way, in the water analogy it's not an ocean but water unqualified. All water everywhere across all space and time. Infinite water. Any drops added had to first come from water. Subtracting drops from or adding drops back to water doesn't change the nature of water. Not one iota. All the water is still all the water and the drops are still water.

Ultimate Reality, Pure Consciousness, Unified Field, Brahman, God has to be unchanging, else it would be subject to causality and wouldn't be ultimate. Something would have had to cause it. It's Infinity. Absolute. Perfect. It can't be subtracted from or added to else it wouldn't be Absolute. It's omnipotent, omnescient and omnipresent. That doesn't leave much room for change to the absolute else it wouldn't be any of those things. It would be a mere lesser god and we'd just have to start looking deeper for the initial and only cause that wasn't the effect of any cause. Outside of time, space and causality.

[ThatMan]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

What's real, electricity, magnetism, electromagnetism, the nuclear weak force, the electroweak force (electromagnetism + nuclear weak force) or all of them simultaneously? Or GUT (electroweak + strong nuclear force) or TOE (GUT + gravity) when/if those hypothesis are fleshed out and experimentally observed?

I'm just relating an unqualified non-dualist perspective. Then there's the qualified non-dualist perspective and then the dualist perspective.

Take your pick and enjoy. We're all going to end up in the same place, not that we're not there already.

EDIT: By the way, in the water analogy it's not an ocean but water unqualified. All water everywhere across all space and time. Infinite water. Any drops added had to first come from water. Subtracting drops from or adding drops back to water doesn't change the nature of water. Not one iota.

Ultimate Reality, Pure Consciousness, Unified Field, Brahman, God has to be unchanging, else it would be subject to causality and wouldn't be ultimate. Something would have had to cause it. It's Infinity. Absolute. Perfect. It can't be subtracted from or added to else it wouldn't be Absolute. It's omnipotent, omnescient and omnipresent. That doesn't leave much room for change to the absolute else it wouldn't be any of those things. It would be a mere lesser god and we'd just have to start looking deeper for the initial and only cause.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

Jesus telling us that once dualism is no more, the whole body becomes full of light.

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

What's real, electricity, magnetism, electromagnetism, the nuclear weak force, the electroweak force (electromagnetism + nuclear weak force) or all of them simultaneously? Or GUT (electroweak + strong nuclear force) or TOE (GUT + gravity) when/if those hypothesis are fleshed out and experimentally observed?

Just, hello -- As always, IMO it's an incomplete both/and.

Meaning, all of the above, and more.
But speaking to what we do (sorta kinda) know and can speak to...all are real. The temporality of our physical realm doesn't equal to fantasy or illusion, simply because it does not endure and is changeable. It is real but also temporal, or time-bound. Likewise, our individuated consciousness is not illusory or unreal. It is simply individuated, meaning, BOTH of the Many (directly) AND of the One (by extension or emanation of One into Many) and exists in interbeing with One, Many, and All that Is....

I'm just relating an unqualified non-dualist perspective. Then there's the qualified non-dualist perspective and then the dualist perspective.

Take your pick and enjoy. We're all going to end up in the same place, not that we're not there already.

Yup, we are agreed on that

EDIT: By the way, in the water analogy it's not an ocean but water unqualified. All water everywhere across all space and time. Infinite water. Any drops added had to first come from water. Subtracting drops from or adding drops back to water doesn't change the nature of water. Not one iota. All the water is still all the water and the drops are still water.

I do get you...and please do not take offense. But this is my problem with non-dualism...abstract to nearly the point of meaninglessness, LOL....

That statement IMO is not in any way meaningful regarding consciousness except to say All that Is, i.e., the multiverse and so forth, is made foundationally of STUFF at core that underpins the material realm, and we're going to call the most abstract concept of that stuff "consciousness". BTW I think that is a true statement. But there's not much else we can say about the abstract concept itself. Hahaha....as in, we could instead call it jellies and lollies but instead let's call it consciousness ;)

So, if the ocean is really "all water" as a purely abstract and infinite concept...that is not telling me much about what water IS. And I may not even agree that a "pure" state of water exists or ever has existed...because what does "pure" even mean when it's all put in the limited terms of what humanity can grasp?

Instead, what if I tell you that, no matter how infinite and unbounded the water is, all the drops and all the water crystals that comprise the drops (and so forth, fractally) are unique. Not replaceable. Not interchangeable. And with regard to consciousness, this is immutably so. And the irreplaceability and irreducibility of unique, individuated consciousness (or water droplets) is one of the very few practical uses of the word immutable.

And furthermore, each drop exists in interbeing with all other drops AND with the "Ocean" as One Water. And that the Many drops impact and in fact comprise the One Water...just as the One Water IS the Many drops.

Beyond all that, water (or consciousness) as an infinite, unbounded construct or thing may exist...perhaps even certainly exists...but what exactly that means is hard to say.

Ultimate Reality, Pure Consciousness, Unified Field, Brahman, God has to be unchanging, else it would be subject to causality and wouldn't be ultimate. Something would have had to cause it. It's Infinity. Absolute. Perfect. It can't be subtracted from or added to else it wouldn't be Absolute. It's omnipotent, omnescient and omnipresent. That doesn't leave much room for change to the absolute else it wouldn't be any of those things. It would be a mere lesser god and we'd just have to start looking deeper for the initial and only cause that wasn't the effect of any cause. Outside of time, space and causality.

A First Cause is beyond the causality of the multiverse, yes. So, beyond spacetime etc. A God or Creator is outside the scope of One/Many consciousness, of science, of philosophy, mostly ouside of mysticism even...though mystics do get quite a fair bit closer than all the rest (and we ignore their wisdom at our peril)...and outside of pretty much everything else as well.

AND who or whatever the First Cause is may bear NO similarity to an amorphous OR unchanging consciousness (BTW these are also 2 different things). None of these concepts may actually hang together "in reality". And why would they? Just because they seem symbolically representative of [STUFF we don't know]? Either as obscured (i.e., seems "amorphous" or "undifferentiated" to us humans) or eternal and perfected (which many see as "unchanging"-- though I feel that is a poor and obviously human concept of First Cause or whatever we think of as greater than us hahaha). Also seems boring AF, LOL...but that's my humanity speaking.

I apprehend "amorphous" and "unchanging" as mind-numbingly boring AF -- and I cannot for the life of me grasp how that is supposed to represent what is beyond us, hahaha!!!

Perhaps the First Cause is not amorphous, not unchanging, and not boring AF ??? My bet is whatever we think FC is...FC is not that at all. Suppose that could be First rule of FC...whatever you think FC is, FC is not what you think.

Perhaps one day we'll know more...your thoughts?

Peace & blessings
7L

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Perhaps the First Cause is not amorphous, not unchanging, and not boring AF ??? My bet is whatever we think FC is...FC is not that at all. Suppose that could be First rule of FC...whatever you think FC is, FC is not what you think.

Perhaps one day we'll know more...your thoughts?

Peace & blessings
7L

I had a thought about this, unqualified non-dualism, and had a great laugh. I wouldn't worry too much about it beyond the conceptual level.

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

I had a thought about this, unqualified non-dualism, and had a great laugh. I wouldn't worry too much about it beyond the conceptual level.

Hahaha...glad to hear it. For myself, I absolutely will NOT worry about it
Mainly b/c as humanity, our thought tend to devolve quickly into stuff like, oh well if FC is not what I think then heh ho I must be FC...suppose I'll go have at my divinity then, or toss back a pint or two, for sanctity's sake.

Yes, I recall my former lives as gents. There were several, LOL. And of course I've known many in this life. And I reckon we all know that my First Rule of FC will ALSO apply to this line of thinking...
Yup...anything we think FC is...FC most certainly is not Hahaha....

Peace & blessings
7L

[God-Like]

It doesn't matter if we speak of awareness, consciousness, water or clay as actuals or hypotheticals for there is only what we are .

Peeps get lost in that because there is a notion that derives from the point of our awareness had as we are and from where we stand .

This is the problem for many as I see it because they suggest for examples sake that the rock is not God nor is it conscious or aware because they are using that as a reflection based upon their current point of self awareness .

It's difficult to envisage that the speck of sand is God or the blade of grass is or the wind that blows is but once this is realized to be so there is no separating or dividing, there is no pure awareness this and impure awareness that .. These are are conclusions that derive through the ego self .

Manifest or unmanifest, it's all God, the Self realized peep and the unrealized monkey are all God .

Non duality is the biggest mind maze of intellectual misconceptions and wranglings I have ever come across which seems to illustrate more separation, confusion and divide than anything else .

Peeps need to understand the nature of what you are that is mindfully aware of I AM compared to not .


x daz x