Levels of Consciousness

[Nahm]

On 11/30/2020 at 7:11 PM, Arzola said:

Forget the Ramaji, Ken Wilber, and David Hawkins nonsense regarding levels:

What’s the harm in it (if any)?

[UnbornTao]

@Nahm

Perceiving reality through models can become a trap. Our experience may get filtered through our beliefs and the model's premises. It's a self-validating process.

Given that reality doesn't fit the model, what is inconsistent with the model is conveniently ignored or explained away.

Besides, you can easily get stuck in concepts and confuse intellect and conclusions with direct consciousness.

When adopting a model or taking it too seriously, our experience gets crammed into the model. It might then become another doctrine that you subscribe to. Lastly, you may also start to confuse familiarity with the model with actual understanding.

Edited November 7, 2022 by UnbornTao

[Nahm]

@UnbornTao

Well said sir. I got nuthin. 

Edited June 18 by UnbornTao

[Forestluv]

@Arzola One can watch a movie, enjoy it and see value in it - without believing it is the only movie in existence. 

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was an awesome movie, yet imagine someone believing that was the only movie and everything in life went through an Indiana Jones filter. . . 

The movie isn’t the problem, the limited filter is the problem. 

[UnbornTao]

@Nahm

1. Gets over-intellectual, abstract
2. Actuality becomes secondary in favor of validating the model
3. Becomes a belief system

@Forestluv 

However, some people seem to take these models too seriously, much more than in your movie analogy.

People acknowledge their value while taking for granted the potential traps. That’s what I’m trying to point out here.

Edited November 7, 2022 by UnbornTao

[Forestluv]

12 minutes ago, Arzola said:

 

@Forestluv Good analogy. But people do really start to take these models seriously, much more than in your movie analogy. People acknowledge the value while taking the traps for granted. That’s what I’m trying to point out here.

I don't see anything wrong with taking a something seriously. To become an expert in anything and be able to apply expertise, there needs to be a serious element. This is true for SD, basketball, playing the piano, molecular biology, running marathons etc. Developing expertise in any field involves some serious effort, study and practice. 

Yet, contracting oneself into SD will lead to errors in the bigger picture - and dismissing the value of SD also leads to errors. I would make distinctions between SD theory itself and the expertise of understanding SD theory and it's application. 

[UnbornTao]

@Forestluv It's inadequate when it comes to becoming conscious.

Models are guideposts which can cloud anyone’s investigations. Granted, studying models can be useful in other ways. It can be entertaining and intellectually stimulating.

On 12/2/2020 at 5:18 PM, Forestluv said:

yet dismissing the value of SD also leads to errors.

Not necessarily. Models aren't needed for becoming conscious, the only real requirement is consciousness.

Reality, whatever it is, must exist regardless of our thoughts (models, assumptions, conclusions, interpretation) about it.

On 12/2/2020 at 5:18 PM, Forestluv said:

To me, you seem to be pointing more at SD theory than pointing at a mindset contracted within SD.

Could you clarify?

The reality that the work is about is not limited to the form!

Edited November 7, 2022 by UnbornTao

[Forestluv]

1 minute ago, Arzola said:

@Forestluv It is wrong when what you want is Consciousness. Taking models as something beyond guideposts clouds anyone’s investigations. Imagine if you took a ball with two sticks as an atom’s model and though it real. You take the form for real and forget about the reality — that it is a model.

Models are Consciousness! If I learn SD or apply SD to life situations, that IS Consciousness arising. Just as when I eat an apple it is Consciousness.

7 minutes ago, Arzola said:

Not necessarily. Models have not been necessary for individuals to become deeply conscious, reality kept being the same regardless of what a human invented. Why would they? The only real requirement is consciousness.

In the context of your "deeply conscious" models have little value. If we define "deeply conscious" as mindstates in which models have no value, then of course models will have no value!

And who even said SD is about "deep consciousness". SD is great for understanding cognitive development of the mind, social dynamics and social evolution.SD expands awareness of mind structure at both individual and social levels - and in that context expands consciousness (awareness).

Yet if the goal is to access "no-self" states of consciousness, SD isn't very useful. Just as calculus isn't useful if I want to experience scuba diving. 

12 minutes ago, Arzola said:

 

Forget what I said: what type of errors?

Dismissing relative value will lead to errors in areas of that relative value.

If I say math is just a construct and has no value, that is true in some contexts - yet if I fully dismiss it, I will make errors in areas where math has value. If I try to create a modern building without math, there will be errors in the context of what math could have offered.

16 minutes ago, Arzola said:

Can you clarify?

The reality that the work is about is not limited to the form!

In that context, I would agree. If our goal is deconstruction to formless, than constructing form is not helpful. If our goal is to deconstruct a building - repairing the building and adding new construction to it isn't helpful. 

It's context-dependent. If I want to experience training for a marathon, pulling weeds in my garden won't help. Yet if I want to have an awesome garden, running all day won't help.

[Leo Gura]

Degrees of consciousness are not an intellectualization.

Models of consciousness are of course conceptual constructions. But that does not mean consciousness doesn't have degrees in the same way light has degrees of brightness.

Dim light and bright light are NOT concepts. Good look at the sun.

[Conscious life]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

As this degree is increased you will recognize more and more of yourself as God, until your consciousness reaches a total singularity, something akin to what The Big Bang was before it exploded.

 

this is good guess towards the degree of consciousness. I think consciousness ultimate will dissolve to its root, like a salt is dissolved in water. my identity as human gradually change everytime, human - god - godhead - the one. now I am already aware this identifying and dis-identification process goes to infinity, and will melt forever by infinity of consciousness. 

[The0Self]

Funny thing about levels of consciousness. Once you’ve experienced quite a lot of them, you kind of just progressively ease on back into utter ordinariness. And yet even the ordinariness is absolutely breathtaking, because now you’re at a truly ascended state of consciousness — the state where absolutely nothing is recognized as anything other than the absolute miracle that it is.

[Gesundheit]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Degrees of consciousness are not an intellectualization.

Models of consciousness are of course conceptual constructions. But that does not mean consciousness doesn't have degrees in the same way light has degrees of brightness.

Dim light and bright light are NOT concepts. Good look at the sun.

I like the light analogy.

Considering the distance between the light source and the observer: Does humans' perception of dim light feel the same way from an ant's pov?

Let's assume similar hardware, i.e. Let's assume the human eyes and ant eyes are similar. Would an ant standing on the top of a light bulb perceive light in the same way as a human?

Do you realize the relativity of all this?

[LfcCharlie4]

13 hours ago, Arzola said:

 

Not necessarily. Models have not been necessary for individuals to become deeply conscious, reality kept being the same regardless of what a human invented. Why would they? The only real requirement is consciousness.

Neither have Psychedelics, forms of inquiry or certain spiritual teachers or books, doesn’t mean they didn’t then help other people. Doesn’t mean we can’t develop to help make even more beings conscious, and aid them in the process. 
 

If people take them too seriously, yes there’s a problem, as absolutely you’re right they are irrelevant & must be let go of, in fact Ramaji makes that clear in his teachings, it’s simply a tool to help people, not a perfect structure of reality.

 

Reality is always this, no matter what anyone does. It doesn’t mean we can’t strive to find ways to help make the path less confusing & help find ways to awaken more beings. 

 

[LfcCharlie4]

Also, just wanted to add, why does it matter relatively speaking of people find value in this model & it helps them on their journey? 
 

I know it certainly helped me, especially indirectly me as it led me to Ananda. 
 

I used to be the same with psyches and would make out they weren’t as valuable etc, but they clearly help a lot of people & I was wrong.

Different strokes for different folks. 
 

If it helps people genuinely awaken, that’s all that really matters. 
 

Of course we should discuss the limitations of such models, and the drawbacks, but to disregard them completely seems to me the other end of the spectrum as taking them as absolute, which not only no model is, but no words, book, pointer etc, because as soon as you speak, the truth is modulated. The absolute can only be truly discovered in silence.

[UnbornTao]

On 12/2/2020 at 6:06 PM, Leo Gura said:

Dim light and bright light are NOT concepts

Aren’t they? How would you cognize, or know about, "light", "dim" and "bright" other than by constructing and applying those distinctions to whatever is perceived?

A new-born baby hasn’t invented "light", "dim" nor "bright" until these distinctions are created in his experience. Before that, the only things that are there in this regard perhaps is perception and awareness.

Edited November 7, 2022 by UnbornTao

[LfcCharlie4]

@Arzola I know I'm one of the people who took this model too seriously. It was actually Ananda (Ramaji's partner) who forced me to drop it, along with all other concepts during our sessions haha, and she explained how it is simply a model to help students & teachers on their journeys, and certainly isn't perfect. 

I used to be quite dogmatic about Psyches, but what I realized was I was just worried about the potential for abuse, at the end of the days, these substances have helped a lot of people, and it is down to each individual to know the risks associated & the (potential) benefits from each. So, it is certainly valid to raise objections / questions against anything to find the truth. And, I realized Psyches have helped 1000s of people, and to stop being dogmatic! Just because it wasn't 'my' path, doesn't mean it won't be someone else's!

[LfcCharlie4]

@Arzola My initiation that spearheaded me to take the path seriously was several MDMA experiences, I've also tried LSD a few times after several 'Awakenings', they were fun but didn't really get much from them in terms of spiritual growth, I probably did something wrong! 

I just mean people like Martin Ball, energy issues, psychological issues, essentially frying your brain & energy. And, especially since I am under 25, I take great caution using any substance excessively due to brain development not being 'completed' until at least 25. 

I also just have little desire / reason to try them right now, maybe it's just not for me! 

It's not the same, but I'm a huge fan of naturally being 'high' 24/7, just feeling good by existing. Eating well, exercising, doing work you enjoy, great friendships and most importantly, awakening & abidance as one's true nature. 

If I'm honest with you, I used to LOVE smoking weed, drinking, partying & raving a little too much a few years ago, and I realized I was attempting to fill that lack with those things. Now, I have no 'need' to indulge in these things, and the funniest part is when I do drink or party now, I enjoy it 100x more without any guilt & it comes from a place of celebration. 

But, we're always growing until we die, maybe I'll need some more MDMA to overcome relationship difficulties in the future, or some LSD to help with X, Y, Z that studies show it does. Never say never, just have no need, desire, or curiosity right now, and I'm not one for forcing things, 

[UnbornTao]

@LfcCharlie4  Interesting, thank you for your honesty!

Love your signature's quotes.

Edited November 7, 2022 by UnbornTao

[Nahm]

On 12/1/2020 at 8:50 AM, LfcCharlie4 said:

Shall we also disregard other models such as the 10 Ox Herding Pictures in your opinion? 

That is quite literally the same thing, just in picture form. 

 

Just another perspective floating down the stream lol...the ox pics depict deconstructing to actuality, or ‘center’ around you, not an outside measurer.

[LfcCharlie4]

@Nahm  Yeah, that is the idea of 1000, that's what I've been trying to say all along  

It's literally a reconfiguration of the Ox pictures, but just goes into more detail than a picture & uses Numbers, which I think is where most of the issues come from, which I understand.