Consciousness Cannot Have Evolved

Originally Posted by 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

There's not much of an opportunity to discuss from that point of view, and to be honest you simply have not understand much of what I said. If we cannot agree on a framework for discussion, for instance actual non-dualism teachings, and the acceptable terms within the framework then discussion is pointless.

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

There's not much of an opportunity to discuss from that point of view, and to be honest you simply have not understand much of what I said. If we cannot agree on a framework for discussion, for instance actual non-dualism teachings, and the acceptable terms within the framework then discussion is pointless.

Not sure where the original post has gone to that which I have made this reply so I will post it here ..

Maya and illusion like said before have no fixed abode . It is only subjectively known / realised / concluded from a position of where they now stand in reflection of from where they once stood .

One minute self is realized to be real then not and then real again depending on how one has integrated what was understood to be realized or concluded thereafter .

From one perspective the mad axe man killing his brothers and sisters are redeemed to be unworthy of being pure awareness because they are not functioning or expressing through a higher / divine self but these expressions and levels of self awareness are not any more or less God on a fundamental level .

One has to Self realize, God-realize and integrate that within individuality to understand this and as said before beyond the individual I AM awareness there are no thoughts of what is real or not, what non duality and duality means or refers too.

Yet again this is the mind-trap, this is why beyond a dream doesn't equate to life being a dream, it's absolutely absurd for peeps to say in Truth that this world is dreamy and illusory . There is absolutely no realization had to that effect .

All there is at present, is an awareness of I AM making sense of a life experience had in reflection of the reality that governs and facilitates it .

Niz said that his real self wasn't addicted to nicotine and that is separating his real self from something else . This is not union and oneness . Another might say I am the mind, body and soul all the same . What is and is not seen here to be a true statement of fact? A true reflection of what actually is?

Who is to say what is true and correct? The one addicted to nicotine?


x daz x

Originally Posted by God-Like

Not sure where the original post has gone to that which I have made this reply so I will post it here ..

Maya and illusion like said before have no fixed abode . It is only subjectively known / realised / concluded from a position of where they now stand in reflection of from where they once stood .

One minute self is realized to be real then not and then real again depending on how one has integrated what was understood to be realized or concluded thereafter .

From one perspective the mad axe man killing his brothers and sisters are redeemed to be unworthy of being pure awareness because they are not functioning or expressing through a higher / divine self but these expressions and levels of self awareness are not any more or less God on a fundamental level .

One has to Self realize, God-realize and integrate that within individuality to understand this and as said before beyond the individual I AM awareness there are no thoughts of what is real or not, what non duality and duality means or refers too.

Yet again this is the mind-trap, this is why beyond a dream doesn't equate to life being a dream, it's absolutely absurd for peeps to say in Truth that this world is dreamy and illusory . There is absolutely no realization had to that effect .

All there is at present, is an awareness of I AM making sense of a life experience had in reflection of the reality that governs and facilitates it .

Niz said that his real self wasn't addicted to nicotine and that is separating his real self from something else . This is not union and oneness . Another might say I am the mind, body and soul all the same . What is and is not seen here to be a true statement of fact? A true reflection of what actually is?

Who is to say what is true and correct? The one addicted to nicotine?


x daz x

You're taking exception to metaphor (dream, unreal, etc...) when there is no other way to express the concept. Any concept other than that expressed in this type of metaphor isn't non-dualism. It might be qualified non-dualism but I don't fully understand that school of thought except to say it's the big debate between VishishtAdvaita (maya arises from) and Advaita (maya appears within).

But back to the topic at hand. If you are saying you subscribe to unqualified non-dualism, Advaita Vedanta, then the Absolute is beyond causality. That's a simple and undeniable fact of the doctrine. It cannot evolve or devolve. It just Is. There's no wiggle room and any other interpretation is not unqualified non-dualism.

You can't say you understand the reality of a spiritual tradition and then contradict the core teaching of that spiritual tradition.

Here's another metaphor and it concerns unmanifested and manifested consciousness/awareness.

The degree to which unmanifested consciousness/awareness is apparent in maya is the degree to which maya can manifest or reflect or be illumined by unmanifested consciousness/awareness. Vivekananda used the metaphor of polishing a mirror to describe one's spiritual practice. The more polished the mirror, the greater degree it manifests, reflects or is illumined by unmanifested consciousness/awareness.

So a rock is a dull mirror, a tree more polished, an animal still more polished and man much more polished.

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

You're taking exception to metaphor (dream, unreal, etc...) when there is no other way to express the concept. Any concept other than that expressed in this type of metaphor isn't non-dualism. It might be qualified non-dualism but I don't fully understand that school of thought except to say it's the big debate between VishishtAdvaita (maya arises from) and Advaita (maya appears within).

But back to the topic at hand. If you are saying you subscribe to unqualified non-dualism, Advaita Vedanta, then the Absolute is beyond causality. That's a simple and undeniable fact of the doctrine. It cannot evolve or devolve. It just Is. There's no wiggle room and any other interpretation is not unqualified non-dualism.

You can't say you understand the reality of a spiritual tradition and then contradict the core teaching of that spiritual tradition.

I don't subscribe or follow any spiritual traditions, I go on what I have concluded from my realizations, I simple make comment on what peeps post and then relate / apply my understandings to them . Therefore I do not contradict anything .

I don't have to be boxed into any traditions, scriptures or dogmas this is why at times what I say isn't digested to well or agreed with or answered at times .

All these traditions and terms relating to maya arises from or appears within are just concepts that reflects a specific way of seeing things .

I have had chats with hardcore non dualists who speak about everything arising in consciousness and yet find it hard to explain how they came to be of this world lol . The effort it takes for them to admit that there required a physical birth for their experience to be is tremendous, their reluctance to to try and explain how they arose in consciousness as consciousness has them totally baffled .

You ask them how can you prise apart the appearance of an elephant from an elephant or what you are and they are left totally frustrated and bewildered and then simply point back to the scriptures and recite certain passages of text lol ..

I have said to you before that God is the elephant manifest . You can't have one without the other for they are the same .

If what appears as the elephant evolves in some capacity then God evolves as that .

God or what we are as 7L mentions is not static .

Peeps think about God as clay as an analogy which is a worthy analogy but it's not to be taken literally because clay is made up of manifest properties and only reflects one side of the coin and it is extremely limited and misses lots of points .

As a starting point we can't say that God is anyone thing (not even pure awareness) because God is all things and as all things evolve so does God even if that means on an intellectual or an emotional level we cannot exclude this from an aspect of God .

We can't really apply God as a static property that is likened the properties of clay to then be moulded into various appearances .

The daftest thing I have pointed out a few times now is that beyond the I AM awareness and the mindful self, there is no thought about maya, or non duality or anything of the sort, I think you keep avoiding this.

So you need to understand the relevance of what I am saying because as already said a few times elsewhere, all it is, is the dream character trying to fool oneself that they are not dreaming ..

What is maya? What is illusory if not only what a peep say's it is based upon a realization of sorts, or an experience of sorts .

This is why you get 100's of different teaching saying different things and this I dare say is why niz said that there is only a favoured perspective had .. (it's not an absolute Truth attained) .


x daz x

Originally Posted by God-Like

I don't subscribe or follow any spiritual traditions, I go on what I have concluded from my realizations, I simple make comment on what peeps post and then relate / apply my understandings to them . Therefore I do not contradict anything .

I don't know how to proceed based on this - I can't get inside your head and experience the experience(s) that led to your realization(s) - except to ask if this video embodies what you mean. Can you watch the first 10 or 15 minutes and let me know what you think? Whether you concur or not?

https://youtu.be/p1S4aKCigi0

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by 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 .

Hey there Daz. Yes, we are only ever what we are, no matter "who", "where", or "when" we are. And it is ultimately up to us -- in any lifetime and across all lifetimes -- what we make of our character. Or what many refer to as our eternal soul, or, our individuated consciousness -- our "slice" of What Is.

I feel this is exactly the deeper meaning of what Hillel says: "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, who am I? (And) If not now, when?" (Pirkei Avot 1:14)

I think that this is one of the single most critical revelations of our existence, along with the revelation that we awaken (=become fully human, or launch our capacity to reach the fullness of our humanity) once we begin to live from the heart centre, with awakened mind in service to awakened heart. The third biggie is the concept of interbeing and the illusion of separation, which still bears mention.

Those three revelations are probably the 95%...and the last 5% (which can take aeons) are learning what these mean on the ground and how to live this way moment-by-moment.

Originally Posted by God-Like

Niz said that his real self wasn't addicted to nicotine and that is separating his real self from something else . This is not union and oneness . Another might say I am the mind, body and soul all the same . What is and is not seen here to be a true statement of fact? A true reflection of what actually is?

Who is to say what is true and correct? The one addicted to nicotine?

Agreed...all that Niz is 1) is real and 2) is God. There is no separation...that is an illusion Or, a delusion. But it is a convenient one, right? Until Niz passes on and finds that there were underlying reasons he was prone to addiction (aside from big business seeking blood profits)...and that in his next lifetime, he'll still have to deal with them in some way. If he smoked due to hunger or poverty or the stress of living in an unjust, caste-ridden, violent society (which in some fashion could almost be anywhere on earth), then ideally next go-round he will get another chance to address these same concerns more effectively and with greater personal, communal, & global support.

Originally Posted by God-Like

You ask them [hard-core non-dualists] how can you prise apart the appearance of an elephant from an elephant or what you are and they are left totally frustrated and bewildered and then simply point back to the scriptures and recite certain passages of text lol ..

I have said to you before that God is the elephant manifest . You can't have one without the other for they are the same .

If what appears as the elephant evolves in some capacity then God evolves as that .

God or what we are as 7L mentions is not static .

Yes...agreed. You're getting at a more complex level of what I was discussing more simply with Just..Guy. I kept it to manifest consciousness, which itself is outside spacetime. Manifest consciousness underpins the physical realm (multiverse) and gives rise to the Many from the One, all of which exist interbeing and evolve together.

But you're getting more at what the mystics have always described. For ease of discussion, I didn't include that but I almost thought to post separately on it, as you'd alluded to it many times here.

What you're also discussing is the notion of God as All and also as One, simultaneously. I.e., the emptiness brings forth the rest BUT is also connected to it and also exists in interbeing with the rest. The mystics also have discussed this and it's commonly how some already think of God, i.e as a totality of ALL, even if just very simply. The mystics speak of God as the "First Cause" or ultimate Creator...who then emanates into what we normally conceive of as "What Is" (all existence). The idea is that God works progressively from 1) emanation of God into intent and thought (consciousness), 2) down to agency and principles, 3) down to the emanation into (creation of) the physical realm (multiverse, etc). This is shown visually in the tree of life diagram with the 10 sephirot.

Here God as All really means ALL..including unmanifest "emptiness", including (manifest) consciousness, including manifest existence, etc. So...the mind-bender is always that if One and Many (includes us & physical realm) and All that This (includes emptiness + the 1st 2) are all God...then the question is this:

If One and Many evolve together, and All that Is contains One and Many...then does the emptiness evolve? Yes. Some part of it does, it seems...or at least, its relationship with its emanations (One and Many) would appear to evolve.

That's what the mystics have always known and apprehended. And that's also what all my mystical experiences confirm. Like us, God as One and as Many is NOT separate from All That Is. The emptiness -- and all it yields...i.e., the consciousness, and all of our manifest reality that emerges from consciousness...none of it is separate from God. It simply is God, just as you say. Put another way, God is not separate from (any part) of God...and neither are we separate from (any part) of ourselves...or of God/All that Is.

It's just, the emptiness or unmanifest part is very hard for us to speak to...and so by and large, I don't

Peace & blessings Teds
7L

[Shivani Devi]

I have been casually observing this thread since my last reply and I have wanted to contribute to the heated discussion between JASG and Daz, but I couldn't see the point of which semantics they have been actually disagreeing about. I know it was something, but I failed to understand just what that was. It is difficult for a discussion to fly over my head, but that did...so kudos guys, I am now totally confused and do not wish to be unconfused through any conditioned response requiring a dogmatic explanation.....I have enough of my own. =)

I have spent the past few hours re-studying the Isa Upanishad.

I regularly dust off all the Vedas and Upanishads and study them...The clay vs pot analogy originally comes from the Chhandogya Upanishad...the moral of that whole Upanishad is "through knowing the essence of one thing, the essence of all things will be known" and this applies from the gross down to the subtle.

Last week, I revisited the Kena Upanishad, where all the Devas and Demigods failed to have any impact on the immutable essence of the Divine Shakti (which is indistinguishable from Brahman through Shiva (Consciousness Unmanifest) and the moral of that Upanishad is that Duality and Non Duality are indifferent.

This week, it is the Isa Upanishad.

There is a preface to the Isa Upanishad which goes like this:

ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदं पूर्णात्पूर्णमुदच्यते ।
पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ॥
ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥

Om Puurnnam-Adah Puurnnam-Idam Puurnnaat-Puurnnam-Udacyate |
Puurnnasya Puurnnam-Aadaaya Puurnnam-Eva-Avashissyate ||
Om Shaantih Shaantih Shaantih ||

Meaning:
1: Om, That (Outer World) is Purna (Full with Divine Consciousness); This (Inner World) is also Purna (Full with Divine Consciousness); From Purna is manifested Purna (From the Fullness of Divine Consciousness the World is manifested),
2: Taking Purna from Purna, Purna indeed remains (Because Divine Consciousness is Non-Dual and Infinite),
3: Om, Peace, Peace, Peace.

This is the essence of Vshistadvaita... Qualified Non Duality...in that something must be "full" to subtract the "fullness" from while still remaining "full" isn't it?

Beyond the duality of separation and addition to something which cannot be added to or subtracted from.... ergo, evolution and DEVOlution (and now "WHIP IT" is playing in my head)...there exists Brahman Absolute...beyond any thoughts to do with "Brahman" or "Consciousness" in the way that myself and JASG each perceive Consciousness to BE.... according to two Advaitins (subscribers to Non Duality)....the only difference between us is that I also sport "Vedantin" at the end of my fancy "title"...I am an Advaita Vedantin AND a Shaivite.....yes, there's a definite "conflict of interest" there...tell me about it!

It is being slowly reconciled through Shakti.

So, I present what I have learned through my teachings, philosophy, belief and direct personal experience with them. I don't have an "opinion" on any of this, because the Truth is never up for question as far as I am concerned.

[Shivani Devi]

Oh why not..

Shivani's Reading List

Patanjali's Yoga Sutras - Patanjali
Soundarya Lahari & Ananda Lahari - Adi Shankaracharya
Svetasvatara Upanishad
Yoga Kundali Upanishad
Vigyan Bhairava Tantra
Mahanirvana Tantra
Shaiva Agama
Hatha Yoga Pradipika
Chhandogya Upanishad
Rig & Atharva Vedas
Ribhu Gita (Shiva Rahasya Stotram)
Kena & Katha Upanishads
Namakam, Chamakam & Purusha Shuktam
Surya Siddhanta
Isa Upanishad
Mandukya Upanishad with Gaudapada's Karika
Taittreya Upanishad (my favorite)
Sri Dakshinamurthy Stotram

.....and those are just all the Sanskrit ones..

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

I don't know how to proceed based on this - I can't get inside your head and experience the experience(s) that led to your realization(s) - except to ask if this video embodies what you mean. Can you watch the first 10 or 15 minutes and let me know what you think? Whether you concur or not?

https://youtu.be/p1S4aKCigi0

I listened to some of the video and generally speaking there was much agreement had based upon his perspective .. In regards to what he spoke of regarding the wood is wood and it’s experiencing itself is what I have said myself using different metaphors ..

The illusion or maya relates to the wood being in the appearance of the podium being a podium and not wood ..

Non duality in his reference is that there is only wood .

Again, I have said the same in regards to there is only what you are .

What I have been emphasising is that the elephant is God just as the podium is wood, but the podium is man made into something that fits a purpose whereas the elephant is an elephant lol . So in one respect the wood/podium is a poor example because the podium has never been a podium in it’s own right and cannot be experienced as that .

Another aspect to what I have been speaking about is that there is individuality within Oneness for whom is the guru in the video addressing if not other’s because he isn’t talking to himself is he . This is also why I asked another forum member if they created the moon or not . Individuality is undeniable . It really boils down to this being in effect as an actuality or an illusion . I see that individuality can allow duality be expressed based upon our individual uniqueness, similar to the uniqueness of the elements, the fruits, the flowers, our emotions etc etc . If we forget about the concepts that revolve around duality and non duality then one can simply realise what you are and continue to live life as you see it . This is what guru's do they carry on loving the uniqueness that is of their wives and children and see differences everywhere even though there is sameness realised . For some however preach the illusory nature of other's but succumb to Maya by marring them, getting cross with them regardless .

Mind entertains what you are, experiencing that .. Non duality and duality are just concepts that derive through the individual that is of it . I would say there are many strands of non duality and duality for some relate to duality as being differences and opposites in effect . I mean from one perspective if there is only One there cannot be an opposite or any differences but there clearly are because the mind allows diversity .

Diversity, individuality and opposites can be seen as part of maya’s influence but again that is just another speculation had that is subjective .

For myself, I have realised what I AM / what we are and I don't see the mind or individuality as being part of maya or as an illusion ..


x daz x