RevoCulture

@Ayham Your profile picture, Awakening from the Meaning Crisis series. Have you completed the series? Have you enjoyed what you watched? I think it is a beautiful piece of work.

@A Fellow Lighter I enjoyed our conversation and feel it is a nice place to conclude. I wish you the best in your journey.

@A Fellow Lighter Interesting, it appears that I initially spoke to the perspective you were after. You acknowledged that. Wasn't that perspective the root of what you are referring to as OneSelf? I could play that angle. I understand it. I could jump on the band wagon that says that is all there is, cause there is truth in it. But I believe that perspective is a stage in awakening, it isn't the final destination. Paradoxical to people who think "well if One is all there is how can it not be the final conclusion?" That is for each of us to figure out. No rush, no right or wrong.

Well, I'm glad I went ahead and sent what was typed. I appreciate your appreciation. I connected to your reciprocation of thought. There was one point I would revisit: From the perspective of the deepest expression, life is simply teaching itself, there is "no teaching between one person and another." Or you possibly mean that the other may bring something to the forefront but when we engage with it, the engagement exists between us, the thing, and reality. The other exists just outside that bubble. This would be up a couple layers of manifested form. I will totally buy in that the scenario you are suggesting is the way it truly is if you can undeniably convince me that a steel beam is either predominately empty space or solid. I mean it can't be both, right? It must be one way, two opposing polar aspects of reality can't be true, can they? One most be more true or "right" than the other? For me this encapsulates part of my tension with the "spiritual" community. I subscribe to the notion that it all exists, it is all valid, it is all real, it all needs to be spoken of with the same reverence and respect. It is all valid, it is all part of the process. Illusions are real, lies truthfully misrepresent. I do learn from people. That truth might be up the manifestation chain but that doesn't negate its value or truth. This is where we are, this is where we have been put to function. I exist in layers, I embrace this truth. I am unity and division. There is a reality where that steel beam is solid, I don't want to accelerate a car into it, I don't want to hit it with a ball up fist at max ability. Choosing to denounce, denigrate, dislocate, deny any aspect of reality because it isn't squarely rooted with the mystical magical unified field is trouble, tragic, and causes tons of complications. But, that desire to do so is a space or a stage through which we all must pass (reference spiral dynamics). Truth is if a person wants to be honest about anything they must include all the layers. Anybody who is trying to eliminate pieces, trying to cut out equations, trying to box reality in, distill it to A thing, One thing... Red Flag.. With that said, we must shun and deny in order to seek the One but when we meet the One we realize how and why and we no longer shun and deny.. All of a sudden it all snaps into place, the one is the many and the many is the one and we must learn how to talk about everything at once... but language doesn't allow for that.. so we begin to realize we are best expressing our truths within the silent presence of one another.. we nod and smile.. our eyes glimmer.. and we emanate.. we exchange immense amounts of data between one another without a word.. any attempt to speak will isolate.. but... we must speak.. but maybe we need to revise our relationship to language.. maybe we need to revise most things we know about humanity. what we are.. how we are.. whats next.. how we do whats next..

First, this is me thinking out loud. It may read like I'm telling you but I'm not, I'm sharing with you. Please hold that sense while reading. Part of me wants to erase this, but I feel like you might enjoy in some ways. I am not right or wrong, you are not right or wrong. Ours paths can be very different and be perfect, our language can be very different and still be in sync. I am speaking truthfully from where I am at this time. I speaking to my journey, how I am being asked to proceed. I don't truly know your angle, perspective, or intentions so my writing has less to do with you and more just me typing. What follows challenges or pushes back some, all in the spirit of awakening. no right, no wrong. Within my purview everything is spirit or spiritual, it isn't possible for something to not be spiritual. I also hold the tenant that there isn't a thing or an act that is more or less spiritual than another. Perspective is synonymous with spirit in my usage. I also extend that to the language others use, the language isn't the reality it is only a placeholder. Language doesn't define a person's intention. Although we try to define our intention with the language. Love for light has a ring. I like it but I, personally, have wrestled with phrases and language that have a long history tied to "spirituality" or "new age.' You say that it doesn't really have a human relation to it, I believe from your position or relation that is true. The average person, however, hears those words and it comes preloaded with lots of connections and content. Thus, my conflict. Perspective is loaded too, I would say from a psychological studies flavor but doesn't carry the metaphysical vagaries and the focus it brings can be wielded. Ultimately I think we need a new language. I owe plenty to the spiritual / new age community and at the same time I see an evolution of wisdom that stands on their shoulders, praises the effort, but expands beyond or is rebranded, or repackaged. We know that wisdom is an onion, all fields of human wisdom continue to peel. Yet, spirituality or religion tend to have a more rigid grip (host of reasons that make sense as to why). Combine that grip with the fact that humanity is psychologically designed to crave the familiar and certainty, a place within the tribe, and we have a situation. The majority of humans seek a place within what is present, they want to preserve what is, no peeling just preserving. They say they want growth and progress, they believe they want growth and progress, and they do want growth and progress but... There is power and status to be had in owning what everyone has agreed to be truth. There is comfort to be found certainty, to proclaim we have it. To exist within uncertainty takes skill and grit, and to expand requires letting go and embracing uncertainty. I believe the abundance of spiritual / new age is locked within duality, even the teachings that claim to be centered in non-dual or oneness are filled with good intentions but fall short. I'm not saying there isn't immense stores of valuable truth, obviously there is a treasure trove. However, there is a continual awakening underway. While the core kernel may have been touched and expounded upon many times, how that manifests into culture and society, even how it functions isnt so easily nailed down. Saying we are all one is broken into myriad expressions and interpretations, each of our interpretations both individually and collectively evolves. I have found the deeper I go the less I have a desire to associate language firmly rooted in the new age / spiritual community. The words used I believe are misleading, when considered from the position people are starting from and the path that must be walked, even the points of awakening along the way aren't honored by the coloring of the language. By language I mean how the words are interpreted by those setting off on the journey. People who have profound awakening can expand the content of the word to match their experience, but how they are reshaping the word is indicative of the problem. TBH I believe there are many people who have "awakenings" and the definition of the word doesn't really change, actually reinforces it. (not saying their "awakenings" are not "awakenings" every moment is an awakening, these discussions get tricky, linear language) What is the goal, to give people a sense of beauty or to awaken them to beauty? Do we want language and imagery that points to something or do we want to arrive, become, be? I guess I am tip toeing around the notion that the path to the "light" is through the "dark." Even though the dark is the light and the light is the dark, that isn't common knowledge, People who shun the dark don't truly know the light. There perception of the light is rooted in personal biases, they project inaccurate interpretations, and it could easily be seen as abusive. Just because something is false within a "positive" way doesn't mean it isn't abusive. A celebrity figure who is only known for the light, the sheen, the glitz, everyone fawning and marveling; the celebrity feeling hollow and unseen. The people projecting feel awe, wonder, joy and they are lost in their own "illusion" while the object of their attention is sorrowfully drowning in their "positive" projections. The light and dark must often "feel" this way, how humans project and engage from positions of duality, primal biology, limited perspective. Alas, it is the awakening process. Trying to bring people to new conscious landscapes with old language that is heavily laden with preconceived notions is compounding the challenge from my perspective. But, when we think of spirituality we think of what we know, not what we don't know. We think of what we have been shown, what has been stamped as spiritual. The chosen language and imagery, we submit. Again, not that it isn't true, or truthful. It is. There is a reason why things are cycled, reborn, re imagined. We need to cleanse, let the old go, be grateful, have gratitude, but be willing to start fresh when things have become saturated. Parents don't wish for children to live within their shadow, they want them to soar beyond. Yet when it comes to culture there is a sense that we must cling to it, it would be disrespectful to soar beyond. I believe their is a psychological trap that encourages the clinging. Again, this isn't about right or wrong. It is about efficiency and effectiveness, what brings us to where we want to be. What is effective, what delivers is paramount. Growth means change. Doing the same things expecting different results is insanity.. Problem is we know what we know and we don't know what has never been and discovering what has never been comes with a host of variables that make it challenging. Yes, it is for all of us, there is no choice in the matter. We are bound to the wheel, we play regardless of whether we swim with the current or fight against it. What I am saying is when a person chooses to fully engage the process it isn't the type of love, light, and rainbows people associate with the new age / spiritual community. Awakening is not a joyride, it isn't easy. Being broken open, burnt to the ground, and rising from the ashes isn't something most people are going to choose willingly. They are not seeking that out. If someone thinks they can bypass that process and awaken without being put through a "death process," they are mistaken. They are clinging to edge of the abyss, to everything they know, to their identity, the culture, all that is familiar and safe. A person must die to be reborn, and that is scary, painful, disorienting, and can potentially leave people in permanent psychosis. Most people are not willing to initiate that journey, they would rather focus on pleasantries and speak of unity and love, continue to do what we have always done but in a "better" way. The participation we typically see is one of being dragged through not marched into. Many who are marching, chanting unity and love, are being dragged from behind. They are marching away, not into. (which is marching into but.. again the tricky nature of reality) Again, all comments being made are ultimately from a position of no value, no better or worse. It simply is. And part of the game is for humanity to develop systems and methods for people to engage willingly while being supported through, not because it is right or wrong, or better or worse but because this is the game. "Awakening or being Actualized" to the degree that mirrors our active point in the game might not even be the hardest part. What to do with that awakening, how to integrate it, how to weave it into culture and society, how to stimulate true change might be the actual hard part, the bulk of the work. All the hoopla about awakening, all the glitz and glamor, I believe that kinda becomes like "ok, ya, i know.. yup." Like a new toy or new hobby or a new love, when it hasn't been attained it consumes us but once we move through it its like whats next. Whats next? Reshaping narratives, culture and society, to integrate those truths into working systems. That is exciting in my book. Why? Cause I haven't been there yet. (its happening, its always happening, the change the evolution. I talking about a radical shift.) Elements of history that are collectively held out as terrible, Nazi etc, don't hold the same weight with me. My perspective on most things don't align with dominant narrative. The terrible isn't terrible which also means the flowery beauty isn't flowery beauty either, don't get one without the other. Again, this was me thinking out loud. Not speaking at you, not educating you. My interpretations are not right or wrong, who knows what they are. Blessings to you, A Fellow Lighter..

@A Fellow Lighter Appears we are on the same page, many was to interpret & express. 100 painters staring at the subject producing unique interpretations. The evolution of perspective is what I would point towards, the thing we seek. I believe there is a perspective that leaves a person in total peace with all that has happened and will happen, while at the same time driving them to change and alter what is present. A desire to participate in changing something not because it should be, no value of better or worse, simply because it is the way, a humble submission to the order. A process, an evolution, an expression that unfolds and enfolds. A perspective that provides peace through knowing the broadest of brush strokes, a framework. In my opinion we can not choose to be compassionate, loving, or accepting. We can try to be. We can desire to be. Only a truthful experiential union with the components of reality that represent those expressions allow us to be those things, to become those things. To know thyself. The aspects of reality that must be engaged and known directly through personal approach, the willingness to become them, isn't for most. Alas, a reminder whispers to me that the grandest of truths are best expressed within silence. Two paragraphs of linear language, pointing, suggesting, completely incapable of holding or clearly representing what is present within the beating chest or fingers tapping keys. I have specific thoughts on this point, it feeds into something I am working on. I appreciate your words, thanks for sharing with me.

@A Fellow Lighter Thx. I do believe perspective is the holy grail, the thing we seek whether we realize it or not. Appreciate your acknowledgment, in my experience these types of posts don't get much engagement.

Is life full of patterns? Are there paths that are tread over and over again? Are there people who are raised within culture, no real focus on anything outside of its playful dance, that somehow someway come to question its boundaries? People who come to question, "is there more?" When they develop the sense of potential, what do they fit into that void? What pictures, stories, and potential do they create? Where do these creations come from, what fuels them? Do we not reference what we know when we project a sense of what might be? We don't know what we dont know, yet somehow we think that we develop a sense of the unknown in a way that is authentic to it. A model that represents it and is free of the realm we are so firmly rooted within. We believe we have a framework to project upon the "spiritual" that is free from the reality we inhabit. So many projections and claims, so many proclamations, oddly enough they hold an incredible resemblance to the model we physically exist within and have known deeply. (setting aside the fact that all life is "spiritual." Getting lost in the layers.) Is it interesting that people are so focused on transcending something, transcending a reality they view as inferior, delusion, or illusion? A person raised in a town who can't wait to escape it, the only thing they have ever known, everything out there is soooo much better. This place I have always known is inferior, a dump, a trap, the limit to all that I am. If only I could escape its gravitational pull, I could transcend this place. What happens when a person travels to distant lands? Who do they become? Are they no longer who they were, are they present in wherever they go? How does a person come to feel about the place from which they left, once sufficient time and distance has been achieved? Was there anything to physically run away from, to leave or was it an issue that existed existentially requiring growth? In order to stay do we need to leave? In order to appreciate do we need contrast? Is the awe, the illumination, the awakening more of subtle acceptance than it is a mighty raging stream of power to which others get giddy and shower praise? The animal kingdom, the primal nature, lives in awe of power that stands above others, has the ability to sustain itself against the pressure, to rise. Dominant position and authority, sure to succeed and be accepted and lifted up by others, the way of the primal mind. Unity is without division, there is only semblance. No highs and lows. No flash, no lust, no glitz, no shoulds, no musts, no sense of over there is better than here. Simply being and doing what is present, part of which is holding energies/feelings that are" restless and uncomfortable," creating motion.

Well no one here has actually awakened from the dream, so you're not going to get anything but speculation in answers here.. The sassy attitude of spiritual egotism mixed with people's immediate undermining of self-delivered hypocrisy is hilarious... Let me tell you that at best people's contribution to the death concept is speculation while I say with adamant certainty that this is all a dream. Hilarious..

@Siedah When playing a video game, does your character generate the other characters in the game or are they all a product of the program design? If the field of consciousness is the origin or root of manifestation then it generates all, same as the game program. People are attached to their illusory self to such a strong degree that even when they become intellectually able to grasp the concept of solipsism they still put themselves at the center, as the point of origin. I created all these other people and objects, even myself. What does that really mean? There is immense depth in that position. Each person is just as "real" as another, same as the video game. The larger, more direct, truth is that the program design is what all the characters are, their existence behind the mask. It isn't that the characters aren't "real," it's that their truthful origin lies in the program design not the image on the screen. "Real," is a complex idea that can take on many shapes and forms. "Real," exists of opposing ideas. "Real," depends on what aspect or layer of the game we are addressing. The program design and the image are both real. The whole, more real less real has truth to it, but the emphasis the newer seekers place on the less material plane being "more real," is just that, a newbie expression. It's a paradox, and our linear minds of duality believe one is more real than another. While there is an argument for this, there is another for why it is not. Why one is not more real or less real does require more time spent on the path, it is a much deeper understanding that requires piercing the veil of duality. The question of whether a person fully awakens at the end of a life cycle demands the person believe that they are actually the person to begin with, not eternal consciousness. This question comes from a mind that believes it is separated and thus has the opportunity to be reunited, as if it isn't awake to begin with. There is much more to this awakening question I would like to share but it isn't the time or place. Ultimately there is no right or wrong, only awakening, even when we are committing acts that are right or wrong. Embrace the paradox. The secret isn't in pinpointing an absolute based on duality, in breaking and slicing the totality of consciousness. Unity is unified, it is whole. A red flag should raise anytime you try to exclude anything, to break it, divide it. The secret is in learning how to include everything, to see everything, it all exists in everything at each moment. It is a paradox that doesn't make sense to our linear minds, to our lives locked within duality. We must learn to exist in duality while also experiencing the non-dual.

Absolute unity, to become whole, is lonely, or is being perceived as lonely? A space where no other exists, a nondual state, being perceived from a point of consciousness (you) that is still tied to the divided state, dualism, might have something to do with that sensation. A dualistic expression requires a divided state. Is it possible you began to taste a deeper expression of unity, nondual, and it was so vast and "empty" that the feelings we would associate with such states arose? A mixed bag..

Nicely done..

@Bufo Alvarius @Shambhu If the unified field, eternal consciousness, Tat, etc., was intended to be the only expression then there conceivably wouldn't be any division or manifested expression. There are expressions of divisions, what we are, and experience. Both exist at the same time. The idea that "only you," exists seems suspect unless it is referencing the eternal nature, the unified position. No doubt a person could make a strong narrative about everything and everyone be an expression of the eternal, therefore, there is only you. I find this position to be very black and white (a position that works well for people who desire complete authority, to know explicitly, that believe truth can be distilled into a very linear and singular answer. Free of any complexity that mirrors say the likes of modern physics and classical physics. They both form the reality we experience yet operate on aspects that can and do oppose one another.) Just because the unified field serves as the base doesn't negate the manifested expression. One is not necessarily more true than the other, they are both true. The absolute truth is an acknowledgment of the entire design, not the point of purest distillation. A lie truthfully misrepresents. A lie is a truth of a peculiar kind. We begin our seeker journey in a strong dualistic position, win / lose, right / wrong, truth / illusion. We naturally seek a definitive and absolute position, we aren't accustomed to making absolute truth a complex paradox. The obsession with unity and the unified field of consciousness is something to contemplate. The unified didn't remain unified, it manifested. We have this and that. This was the chosen path. The unified lies behind all and the manifested expression created distinction, two states existing at once. Question, when a person dies, the people who are saying that "only you" exist and that you are creating everything from your mind, is this camp saying that the world, that existence, ends with their death? It is the only mind that exists, it creates everything within reality, and when it dies it shuts off, everything is done, game over. That would be the course that would transpire according to the position. Again, this makes sense if a person continues to advocate for the fact that unified consciousness is the root of all expression, that all expression is this. I agree that this a truth, but not the whole truth. There is a division that exists at the same time that deserves to be acknowledged. I feel people equate division with negative connotations and being unified as "spiritual" or "advanced" or "positive.' If the design is intentionally dividing and allowing the parts to traverse the path back towards unity, then many minds or bubbles fit the design requirements. Yes they are still unified and that is a "deeper truth or absolute truth," but the division is equally true and it's true to the design. Unified is not preferable or better or more spiritual, or more righteous. Classical and modern physics coexist. One says the other isn't true but they are both true, a paradox of sorts.

@Leo Gura good stuff.. We arent truly connecting in the root of what is being intended, my inability to clearly communicate. Fun to kick around.. Example.of missed meaning: By collective awakening i mean the accepted cultural narratives at any given time. The individual awakenings that coalesce into culture standards.. Raping and pillaging, extreme forms of slavery were acceptable amongst people of a particular degree of awakening. Over time with continued awakening, new knowledge, new practices are established and some shunned.. A collective awakening comprised of individual awakenings.. im with you, individuals awaken, then they influence culture and society.. Words.. tricky..

Nice post.. Balanced.. Fair.. Honest..