This site is supported by Nobility Studios.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Self Realization: 24 steps

22 posts in this topic

Posted

Here is something I have worked on last year, stuck it to the side, showed it to one person @ TGL and then did nothing after that with it. It is probably not presented correctly, probably has tons of flaws, and I did not divulge through all sorts of previous philosophical theories to check and cross check the ideas. I am sure my friends here will recognize this because I have not written corresponding definitions and explanations for the words involved. Have fun, but please practice charity.

1. Existence exists without beginning or end.

2. Existence is eternal.

3. Existence is undifferentiated consciousness.

4. Undifferentiated consciousness is the identity/ontology of existence.

5. Appearing forms of consciousness (thus, perceived only through a ‘point of view’ – such as a human, and of which the human is Also a modification) are modifications of the one and only consciousness of existence.

6. Consciousness is the substance of existence.

7. Existence (undifferentiated consciousness) exists transcendent/beyond of all modifications of the substance of existence.

8. All forms (points of view) of consciousness are modifications of undifferentiated consciousness.

9. Humans exist.

10. Consciousness is the substance of human existence.

11. Humans demonstrate consciousness.

12. Human consciousness is not separate, by substance, from transcendent undifferentiated consciousness.

13. Human consciousness is simultaneously transcendent of all modifications of existence, and human (bodily) consciousness is a modification of existence.

14. Humans have an inherent conscious nexus/connection with modificational consciousness and undifferentiated consciousness.

15. Eternal (without beginning or end) Existence is/has one identity.

16. Consciousness (of transcendent existence) is identity (ontology).

17. Humans are modifications of identity.

18. Identity is self realization.

19. Individual humans consciously identify as modifications of existence.

20. Humans can realize (true) identity through the human’s inherent transcendent conscious nexus/connection with the identity of existence.

21. Ego is the conscious manifestation of separate (false) identity.

22. Human consciousness can accept a separate (pseudo or false) identity (of ego) or human consciousness can accept the one transcendent identity of existence and consciousness.

23. There is a conscious, thus, bodily (because the human is made of consciousness), process involved with self realization of identity.

24. This process purges (totally and completely) the individual of the conscious identity of ego.

I do welcome an in depth deconstruction of this. It will help me when I add this to a future book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I question points 1 to 3. What is your reasoning behind them?

I'll look at the rest when you've replied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 says that existence does not have a beginning or end. Existence itself, beyond the appearances within the context of existence, is beyond beginning or end, that the ideas of beginning or end (or space and time) are not applicable in reference to the concept of existence itself. Existence is necessary for existence to exist (forever and in every possible context). This leads me to 3, which says that consciousness is existence itself, and that every where existence exists undifferentiated/unbroken (omni-present as existence is - omni-present every where existence exists) consciousness is present. It is saying that consciousness and existence are the same and inseparable.

The reasoning here is to connect identity to existence itself, both individual and existence itself share the Same identity, and one cannot separate the individual identity from the universal/whole. That any sort of 'personal' identity is simply a fragmented appearance of the whole. But, more like "To see the world in a grain of sand, and to see heaven in a wild flower, hold infinity in the palm of your hands, and eternity in an hour." - William Blake"

Hope this helps you see what I'm saying, but the following verses or numbers all interlock with each other, and some questions are answered later on in the sequence.

Edited by Da Fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So to break it down:

P1) If there is no existence, there is no existence.

P2) Existence cannot have had a beginning, because if requires itself to create itself.

C1) Existence is eternal.

C2) Existence is consciousness.

Still not able to see the link between C2 and the rest of the argument. Are you suggesting that when we dream, our dreams exist, but the rest of the world doesn't? When a man dies, does existence cease to be, or is it just his existence that ceases to be? Is existence material or abstract? If everything that had was conscious died tomorrow, or got knocked unconscious tomorrow, what would that do to existence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Existence exists with or without bodily conscious beings because existence itself Is consciousness, the source of all conditional/temporal forms of consciousness.

Are you suggesting that when we dream, our dreams exist, but the rest of the world doesn't?

No

When a man dies, does existence cease to be, or is it just his existence that ceases to be?

He does not exist, existence exists. 'He' is a modification of existence.

Is existence material or abstract?

Material, if that ensures it is not a mental construct.

If everything that had was conscious died tomorrow, or got knocked unconscious tomorrow, what would that do to existence?

Undifferentiated consciousness (existence itself) is not dependent upon any condition for existence, rather, existence is the (supreme) context/condition of all conditions (which are in constant flux or change).

Edited by Da Fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Consciousness, identity, and existence are one. You can't have two of the three or just one of the three, all are necessary or rather, all are inherent in mere existence or merely existing. Consciousness must first exist in the substance or nature of existence before it can exist or manifest later. I am saying that (for example) because consciousness exists today, demonstrably in humans, it must be inherent in the very substance of existence itself; that consciousness cannot just somehow begin to exist without being inherent in existence itself. The universal undifferentiated consciousness of existence is why existence exists with or without conscious beings (like us). It is the primal form of consciousness that continues to 'make' (up hold - continue to exist moment to moment) existence exist.

Edited by Da Fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Before we continue, you're going to have to provide me with your definition of consciousness, because so far you seem to be saying that existence (which is material) is nothing but a very simple self-awareness (which is abstract).

Is this your usual the-universe-is-merely-the-mind-or-thoughts/dreams-of-God theory, or whatever you wish to call it, but in different words, or have you abandoned that one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This thread is a random, speculative exercise of metaphysics that has nothing to do with existentialism - neither the history of existentialism nor its philosophical conception.

:noidea:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Basically yes, but without the use of the word God. Awareness is not abstract, awareness is point of view based and requires a body/mind in order to manifest. A point of view is aware of such and such. Consciousness is simply existence, That which is Real; and while all sorts of things come and go within the context of existence, existence (primordial bodiless consciousness) itself remains. You can't remove existence from a vacuum. Consciousness is that which is Real about existence, it is that which outlasts everything, and from which all is formed. What does it mean to exist? It means to be that which is Real, that which is tangible, and that which is lasting (not vanishing in the blink of an eye). Consider virtual particles, they come and go faster than the blink of an eye, science considers them Real. But, what are they made of? In the two slit experiment observing the electron(s) literally changes their physics. Are electrons separate from consciousness? If we say reality is made of consciousness, if we say existence is made of consciousness we answer more questions than asking. Furthermore, in relation to Ockham's Razor this is a very parsimonious way to describe reality or existence.

Consciousness does not require a body of any form to exist. Consciousness is the material that a body/mind is made from and not the other way around. Just for a side example - [people that have died and came back to life somehow continue to experience consciousness even though the doctors have found all signs of life to be extinct.] Consciousness exists prior to the existence or appearance of the individual body/mind, thus, the Very Reason or source that makes the appearance of a conscious body/mind possible. The body/mind is not responsible for the appearance consciousness, it is made from consciousness in a universe of consciousness, like whirlpools in water. Whirlpools are not responsible for the appearance or existence of water (and energy/motion) they are made from. Consciousness is what existence is made from, more precisely, the universe is simply a modification of the consciousness of existence, like a whirlpool is a modification of water.

Existence and consciousness are the same. Can you tell me what 'existence' Is? You will have the same difficulty trying to define it. I am using existence and consciousness in the same way. So, to give more here; consciousness Is the transcendent light/brightness of existence, of reality itself. This is where you will probably find some kind of issue. Albeit, my assertion that there exists an eternal light of consciousness within the context of existence has been confirmed more than any scientific experiment in history, it has given birth to all the religions, it has appeared (itself) as humans in our history, it can be indirectly pointed at for measurable changes that occur in an individual who has realized the light of existence. This is not abstract 'awareness' this is something very tangible and has manifested enormous evidence in human history of its eternal existence and humanity's inherent unity with it. But, this language belongs to the number 25 spot and beyond relative to the 24 listed above.

another example to consider in relation to the idea of consciousness

Consider an individual and that individual is in a coma. Would you say that person is still conscious? I do, because the body is made of consciousness itself, and even though an ego personality may not be aware, the body/mind is still alive and existing. If the person is blessed by science or prayer (yes prayer works - that is another topic) and wakes up from the coma, it is because the body/mind was still conscious, and the individual's existence returns to a fully functioning (hopefully) conscious existence.

This thread is a random, speculative exercise of metaphysics that has nothing to do with existentialism - neither the history of existentialism nor its philosophical conception.

:noidea:

Then move it to proper place. :sorry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

"The Heretic" remember this?

The traditional proves for the existence of God and the arguments against the affirmation of God do have a place. And I'll indicate that place later; but it's strictly subservient to what is basic, and what is basic is the existential question. And we can formulate the question in many ways here are ways to formulate the existential question.

Will I achieve my being? My realness, will I achieve the full measure of my being?

Or, is life in the end a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

Is fulfillment or consummation possible? Or is our passionate striving to be just a cruel joke of the universe.

Can we reach our self, our self hood? A person who we already are, but always not yet?

Or is my quest to be necessarily fulfilled?

How does my OP not fall in line with this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Well, a statement like this

Consciousness exists prior to the existence or appearance of the individual body/mind, thus, the Very Reason or source that makes the appearance of a conscious body/mind possible. The body/mind is not responsible for the appearance consciousness, it is made from consciousness in a universe of consciousness, like whirlpools in water.

runs counter to one of the cornerstone assumptions of Existentialism that "existence precedes essence". As this quote above seems itself a cornerstone assumption of your own philosophy, I think The Heretic is correct in saying it probably doesn't belong in this subforum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

"The Heretic" remember this?

How does my OP not fall in line with this?

Sorry. I don't see any connection, beyond this juxtaposition.

You do have interesting ideas, but they do not really hang together in a systematic or philosophical manner, and nor do they have much to do with the insights of existential thinkers like Kierkegaard, Dostoyevsky, Heidegger, Camus, Tillich, or Sartre.

Where are the critiques of those aforementioned thinkers?

Where are ontological modes of being like human emotions of joy, despair, anxiety, etc.?

How does any of this deal with the problem of meaning, of nihilism, of death, of the Absurd?

As far as I can tell, your writings are much closer to Cartesian reification of consciousness, with a flavor of Hegelian synthesis of everything and God and consciousness, which is pretty much as far away from existentialism as you can get.

Edited by The Heretic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Where are the critiques of those aforementioned thinkers?

Where are ontological modes of being like human emotions of joy, despair, anxiety, etc.?

How does any of this deal with the problem of meaning, of nihilism, of death, of the Absurd?

As far as I can tell, your writings are much closer to Cartesian reification of consciousness, with a flavor of Hegelian synthesis of everything and God and consciousness, which is pretty much as far away from existentialism as you can get.

I did not critique them. Nor do I plan on it. The way I'm going to work out the kinks is by letting my TGL friends have at it. I don't plan on taking the 24 steps into every corner of philosophy and doing the grind work to work out ALL the issues. If the OP turns out to be so nonsensical that it makes no sense, then I will toss it and move along. No sweat off my back. Philosophy is not my primary focus, rather, I see philosophy for its limitations and use some of the practices to help clarify my spiritual message or teachings (however one wants to term it). My OP is one of those attempts, and I feel confident that I can work out enough issues here to publish this later, with many of the philosophical questions addressed, but probably not all, nor do I feel that is necessary anyways.

The emotion quality is there, but the emotions are not properly understood until there is self realization. Thus, beyond number 24 one can begin to see that emotions are not far off in consideration.

Meaning for what? Meaning of life? Self realization opens these doors and makes them clear. Nihilism is an emotional response to one's assertions of life, or one's emotional reaction to their own (apparently dismal) world-view. Death? Realize Real self and then one will clearly see death for what it is. The absurd? Well, nihilism is absurd, atheism is absurd, thinking that individual existence precedes existence itself is absurd, which is what I got from

tobarstep

one of the cornerstone assumptions of Existentialism that "existence precedes essence"

I think the word essence needs clarification. But, ultimately, if Heretic does not feel this is the place for the thread, please move it, and lets get on with the smiting of the OP. :becky:

p.s. I am sure my comment that 'atheism is absurd' will draw some return fire. But, I think that can be addressed in another topic, although I am totally prepared to clarify that comment (with some participation from my atheist friends).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I am curious as to why you think atheism is absurd.

I understand why a lot of people would think such a thing, but when such a statement is made by an individual, I like to discover what that person's particular gripe with atheism is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Atheism?: a person who lacks belief in God or gods. Is this correct? It seems unnecessary to formulate one's world-view on the basis that one lacks a belief (seem absurd?), but that does not mean one has to be open to something that has already been proven absurd. Instead, all that is necessary is a simple rejection of such and such belief(s). However, to adhere to atheism as an end to one's philosophical openness (edit: or spiritual openness) to the chance that God is Real is absurd. Furthermore, atheism leans on the crutch of science to disprove certain claims by religions and so on, and so would any reasonable person, however, it does not justify atheism itself. For atheists to point to science to justify their position is absurd. The absurdity with atheism takes on many forms, not to exclude theism (as if it gets a free ride from me), and another form of this absurdity is the seeking of all knowledge from science only (positivism), which is absurd in itself.

(popular) Atheism claims its position is true because science has proven that most of the claims about God or gods from history have turned out to be false, if not at least really questionable. Now, after spending time here and doing my own research on atheism, it is clear that there are smart atheists that do not get caught up in every absurdity I mentioned above, yet, there is still this air of arrogance to being open to being vulnerable to discarding atheism as something of antiquity, and something that was born out of a pressure to be religious. And, atheism lacks a belief in truth or even reality itself, atheist seem to believe in that which is objective, something that can be measured in a lab. But, even science cannot remove itself from every measurement. Instead, the atheist continues to say hand over the evidence or you are delusional. But, a lack of evidence for one idea does not mean all ideas concerning it (God) are wrong. Just because one has only experienced brown horses in their life does not mean all horses are brown. My main objection to atheism is that it seems to be treated as an end to one's philosophical consideration of God, atheism holds to the arrogance that they are going to be right somehow in the future, and that anyone devoted to God or in some kind of relationship with God, whether that relationship is genuine or delusional, is somehow practicing some ridiculous ideology that does not even deserve consideration and is something that was born from a history that no longer has a right to be practiced today (because it is absurd - like stoning 'sinners').

If anything, the agnostic has not believed in the absurdity of atheism, but still is open to the chance that God is Real, and/or that the way to understand or realize God has either sneaked by without notice, or that that knowledge/realization may be understood or known at some time in the future. But, an outright assertion/claim that God is not real and then saying prove it through science is absurd. Atheism is caught in this delusion, and both atheism and theism are to be overcome or transcended with the practice of self honesty, which is simply allowing oneself to be open to God or the opportunity to realize God edit: (for the theist the opportunity to realize one's self As God).

Finally, one could use this same argument for theist, and I do, but when a person has discovered Real evidence, subjectively verified God in their own way or through a way that has been passed down through a lineage then there is no turning back from saying God is not Real. Belief in God for those with personal evidence or evidence that has been passed down like shaktipat:

Shaktipat (Saktipata) is a Sanskrit word from the Hindu/Yoga spiritual tradition that refers to the spiritual energy that creates, sustains and directs all life. Shaktipat is used to define “Spirit” or “Kundalini” as an awareness within us that is also all around us, in everything, everywhere, all the time. It is the spiritual force that is guiding all people to enlightenment, and its expression through a human being brings indescribable bliss (Nivakalpa Samadhi). Sakti translates as spiritual energy (spirit) and Pata means to descend or transmit, thus Shaktipat is typically conveyed by a guru or teacher to a chela or student through various means, including: Thought, sight, word/sound or touch. Like picking up a signal from a satellite or radio tower, as the student tunes into the transmission from the teacher they acclimate to the level of consciousness being transmitted and become accustomed to ever higher states of consciousness.

Shaktipat facilitates the awakening of consciousness by drawing out the spiritual energy and awareness of the student. The more open the student is to receive, the more they will receive until there is no receiver or transmitter. Shaktipat is an act of Divine Grace (Anugraha), represented by the Hindu deity Shiva or Siva - the destroyer of illusion, delusion and error - to attain God Realization.

is undeniable, edit: and now something more than simple belief, rather Realization Is the knowledge of God (As God ItSelf) beyond belief. Thus, when such a person Realizes God there is an end to the consideration of theism or atheism, both are transcended with Realization.

Edited by Da Fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Here is another way to think about consciousness. Consciousness is communication/relationship in the realm of space/time. This would explain why everything is both appearing in one reality/existence/universe and able to interact. All matter and energy can be defined as something in reality that has the ability to communicate with other matter and energy directly. IOW, electrons can interact/relate/communicate with other electrons, and more importantly, electrons can, so to speak, communicate/relate/interact with other things in the universe (such as protons and humans, or with the things that make up a human). As we see more and more complex edit: gatherings of matter and energy, not necessarily bigger gatherings, we notice more and more complex forms of consciousness (communication/interaction/relationship). Why do we see this? Because existence itself, the very substance of reality itself, is consciousness, and existence communicates it's existence everywhere existence exists edit: and because existence is fundamentally consciousness we would expect to see all kinds of consciousness appearing in existence, with the expectancy of seeing variations of simple to very complex forms of consciousness.

:bolt:

Edited by Da Fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

DaFire's assertion that atheism is absurd, because it relies on positivism, which is absurd in itself, is a circular argument. It is not even a reductio ad absurdum.

However, this assertion can be salvaged with a proper knowledge of existentialism, or more properly, Absurdism as envisioned by Soren Kierkegaard, a bonafide existentialist.

Faith, for Kierkegaard is not mere memorization or recitation of dogma. It is actually the individual's renewal of his or her subjective relationship to an object that cannot truly be known, but only believed in. This belief runs counter to reason, because it revels in the absurd: the paradox of an immortal and infinite entity like God being incarnated in time as a finite mortal.

Therefore, by choosing faith the believer suspends his or her reason in order to believe in something beyond reason. This is the belief by the absurd.

  • Job believed in the absurd and regained everything.
  • Abraham hoped to get a break from having to sacrifice his son, by the absurd.
  • Kierkegaard wrote as Climacus, who tried to deceive his readers the truth of Christianity by an absurd representation of the ineffability of Christianity.
  • The Christian God is represented as absolutely transcendent of all human categories, yet is presented as a personal God with human feelings like love, judgment, forgiveness, and so forth.

Kierkegaard's notion of the absurd in turn became a foundation of existentialism in the 20th century.

OTOH, reason is not justified in itself - that would be as question-begging as DaFire's circular assertions - but instead tested in practice: either it works (when applied in performatively consistently ways) or it fails. If it works, then it is either more adaptive than any alternative (such as faith, magic, gambling, mysticism, intuition) or it isn't.

When reason fails, or when an alternative practice is more adaptive, the reasonable or pragmatic decision is to drop reason for what works better. Therefore, reason is just a reflexive tool in which we (communities) persistently re-orient ourselves in the chaos that is reality, like Sisyphus, and as such is an aptitude (tho obviously not a disciplined competence) shared by all intelligent agents. Reasoning must be taught, and reasonableness must be cultivated by shared practices.

Faith, for what it is worth, starts where reason stops; reason, however, begins with assumptions and goes on from the working assumption that reasoning is effective in ways listed above. Whereas, reason cannot satisfy our wishes or hopes, where it confuses or frustrates our intuitions, where truths exposed by reason causes more suffering than less, then faith temporarily replaces perplexity, limits, faults, despair, independence (such as pride) and seeks dependence on some Mystery imagined to be greater or infinitely more Providential than self or solidarity or reason.

Edited by The Heretic
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Atheism is still absurd. Thanks for the clarification. My comments on absurdity were not in line with your question earlier. :becky:

Oh, what I was really saying is that any atheist(s) that claim positivism is double absurdity. Not that All atheist make that claim.

Edited by Da Fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Thank you for not reading my posts.

I'm done here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Atheism is still absurd. Thanks for the clarification. My comments on absurdity were not in line with your question earlier. :becky:

Oh, what I was really saying is that any atheist(s) that claim positivism is double absurdity. Not that All atheist make that claim.

So, your attempted explanation for why atheism is absurd was that atheists that claim positivism are extra absurd.

Which implies you find atheism per se absurd.

So now can you explain why, even without positivism, atheism is absurd?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So, here are quotes from my post on the absurdity of atheism that does not talk about positivism:

It seems unnecessary to formulate one's world-view on the basis that one lacks a belief (seem absurd?)

there is still this air of arrogance to being open to being vulnerable to discarding atheism as something of antiquity, and something that was born out of a pressure to be religious.

an outright assertion/claim that God is not real and then saying prove it through science is absurd

Heretic, I read your comments on absurdity, and I am not discarding reason for faith here or absurdity. Maybe that is how you feel about my post. But, I feel I have given enough (reasoning) on consciousness to back up the number 3 in the series. So, can we move forward, or are you just done because you can't undermine the OP or that my OP is just more of the same old spiritual bs I have talked about before? Or maybe I'm a crackpot and do not deserve the time of day from this prestigious forum - that has been most of my experience here. ??My ideas and comments appear so out of touch with reason or logic that it is clear I'm a fool, and I'm not noticing this? :tape:

Edited by Da Fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Don't even bother answering Heretic. I'm done with my participation in this forum.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0