Enlightenment

[Ninae]

This table is very clarifying, and you have to acknowledge it's generally how it works.

I seem to swing between Acceptance and Love at best, but get dragged down by the lower feelings some. As a child or growing up I was very joy/love or more of that quality. Not so much Reason, so I've spent my life working on that, but that's on a lower level and you have to sacrifice happiness.

As I understand it, you're not only limited to one level but have different energy fields in motion, and your level would be the average of those. So you might have one of willingness but also one of anger and guilt which pulls you down, etc. I think it would be hard for anyone not to have any active negative fields living in this world.

 

[Jabberwocky]

I once worked with a practitioner who used the bovis scale. You can measure the energy of things relative to one another. You take a pendulum and you measure the energy of the person before and after the session. The number you get is calibrated in ångström which I don't understand. After a good session you'd be vibrating and you'd get higher numbers. It didn't always match up with how I felt so I was sceptical, but might be an art to these things. Sessions were free so it was fun.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovis_scale

Maybe I'll make a thread about it one of these days about spiritual measurement techniques and whatnot. I've encountered some interesting ones here and there. Paul Levy has this four-valued logic that's kinda intriguing. Ninae introduced me to his work through one of her links and I really dig that guy. Might make for an interesting version of kinesiology.

 

[swilow]

. Not everything that tries to explain spiritual things in a scientific way has to be dismissed as pseudo-science.

No one has said what these numbers mean or what is meant by vibration. Applying a scale like that seems arbitrary. I don't understand how it means anything to you if you cant even say what is being measured. Using scientific language for unscientific matters is pseudoscience. Or, at least, not science.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Hawkins scale has no units. It is a relative scale, with Buddha The Absolute, Brahman, Christ consciousness, Krishna at 1000 and no consciousness (dead) at 0. There are numbers higher than 1000. It's measured with kinesiology. Muscle testing. He's wrote a book Power vs Force which goes in depth about his specific procedure. I didn't read it.

The bovis scale is probably meant to be more like wavelength. Calibrating it in ångström is how they did it. That's probably based on their model or something. Couldn't tell you.

You're not gonna find a precise definition that satisfies the criterion for scientific rigor. Pseudo-scientific is probably an accurate description. That word has a pejorative connotation which often means not worthy of consideration. In Hawkins case, I think he is one of the better spiritual authors. The number scale is a bit distracting to me and contentious, but that's my bias. Doesn't mean it is the wrong way to do it.

 

[swilow]

^Thanks for fleshing that out a bit for me.

I guess I am a tiresome sceptic but it is important to me that the quantification of ideas is not merely invention. I don't think every idea needs to be quantified- philosophy is largely unquantifiable, for example- but I feel like utilising numbers/wavelengths/trappings of science for something unscientific renders the whole concept deceptive. I consider myself spiritual but I distance myself from attempts to quantify spirituality in scientific terms. Spirituality is, by its very nature, unscientific. That doesn't mean it is better or worse, it just means they are different things. I find myself really resistant to ideas that try and 'force' spiritual truth by claiming some kind of objectivity to it. Anyone can apply a number to an emotion or state of being and than use formulae to derive other numbers from it. It comes across as scientific and objective, but at its base is a sort of untested and arbitrary assertion.

The bovis scale is probably meant to be more like wavelength.

The wavelength of radio waves?

I have read about radionics before. I don't know much about it, but it seems to be generally regarded as without any scientific merit whatsoever. I know this doesn't mean an idea itself is worthless, but these practitioners are claiming scientific backing. For me, that is a deception rendering the whole field questionable. If you need to "trick" people into thinking your idea is valid by inventing data, the idea is probably not valid.

If there are unseen energies that effect humans and other organisms, they must be detectable. If they are not detectable, they are probably not able to effect us.

 

[Ninae]

You can see that it corresponds with reality by introspection and working on yourself in the ways he suggests. It's more about psychology and spiritual development than science. This is not meant to be a scientific thread, so I don't know why people keep demanding scientific proof for everything, it's not in the nature of the topic.

My point of posting it wasn't to make a scientific case but to present something that could be very helpful to many people. In his book "Transcending the Levels of Consciousness" he has a chapter for each level which teaches you a lot about each emotional state and I think is worth reading just for the psychology.

I simply feel it could be useful for anyone looking for emotional healing or spiritual development and don't really see the problem with that. While if someone wants to reject it upfront because they don't think it seems scientifically valid then it's their right to do so, but I think that's missing the point.

 

[Jabberwocky]

The wavelength of radio waves?

Looked it up and it was based on red light which has a wavelength of about 6500 angstrom (650 nanometers). Radio waves are much longer. This is somewhat arbitrarily defined as the cutoff for something being healthy according to this scale. The scale doesn't actually measure something that is red however.

A number of 6,500 is considered "sufficient" (to keep the energetic balance), lower figures negatively affect human life and body functioning, higher numbers (as detected in fresh, ripe fruit and freshly pressed juices, seeds and sprouts, which score 8,000-10,000 on the Bovis scale) have positive effects aiding physiological functions.

nevermind that frequency is inversely proportional to wavelength so a reading of 10,000 angstrom has a lower frequency. Anyways, this scale would allow someone who claims "this water has a high level of life force" to be quantify it with a statement like "this water measures 10000 on the bovis scale." If it was reproducible that would be impressive, but haven't seen evidence on that

 

[Ninae]

"God is divided in play, in make-believe, but remains undivided in reality, so that when the play comes to an end, the individualized consciousness awakens to find itself divine."

- Nicholas Jouvanis

 

[swilow]

nevermind that frequency is inversely proportional to wavelength so a reading of 10,000 angstrom has a lower frequency. Anyways, this scale would allow someone who claims "this water has a high level of life force" to be quantify it with a statement like "this water measures 10000 on the bovis scale." If it was reproducible that would be impressive, but haven't seen evidence on that

I'm not sure I understand this. At least, my brain is just going WAH WAH WAH.

WAH.

I assumed radionics had a connection with radio waves, visible light is arbtitry in many ways.

You can see that it corresponds with reality by introspection and working on yourself in the ways he suggests. It's more about psychology and spiritual development than science. This is not meant to be a scientific thread, so I don't know why people keep demanding scientific proof for everything, it's not in the nature of the topic.

No, I understand. The topic is not scientific. As I said, that doesn't diminish the topic at all, its just a statement of fact. I certainly didn't demand any proof, you actually offered it up and I felt it was questionable.

Something does not to be scientific to be worthwhile of discussion. However, if scientific ideas are being introduced into a topic, these idea's should be discussed on their scientific merit. That's all I was doing. To be honest, the new age movement turns me off because it sometimes tries to create a scientific basis for its ideas. But, often if you examine the science behind it, its really scant and flimsy and rarely rigorous enough. In this context, the introduction of scientific data tries to deceptively validate certain claims. If an idea can only be considered valid by fudging data, the idea is either invalid or still unproven.

My point of posting it wasn't to make a scientific case but to present something that could be very helpful to many people. In his book "Transcending the Levels of Consciousness" he has a chapter for each level which teaches you a lot about each emotional state and I think is worth reading just for the psychology.

I get that, and I wasn't trying to bring you or your idea down. I wasn't trying to reduce it with any malice. I just hoped that these numbers would be explained. How were they obtained, etc. As you know, I am interested in science and felt like this scale of consciousness could be something I could understand. But, it seems like they are simply numbers being arbitrarily applied to ineffable states of consciousness.

I simply feel it could be useful for anyone looking for emotional healing or spiritual development and don't really see the problem with that. While if someone wants to reject it upfront because they don't think it seems scientifically valid then it's their right to do so, but I think that's missing the point.

I'm not going to reject the idea of enlightenment and its possibility. I just reject the data generated about it as unscientific. In truth, it does a disservice to the idea of spirituality because the invention of data usually comes when there's nothing else of substance that could be honestly introduced.

Only talking about that numerical scale, not the broader topic.

 

[Ninae]

I'm just not caught up in that part of it. For me it almost might as well be metaphorical, but I think it tries to explain something real.

But it's not really something that's possible to make up an opinion on just based on a few quotes. You would at least have to read one of his books with an open mind and really think about it and try to apply it to your life. I think it would be hard for anyone genuinely seeking self-improvement not to find any value in it, and that's what really matters.

It just seems hard to persuade people to do something constructive for themselves, as they'd often rather be right or not have to give up the position they hold to, but you can't force anyone to heal.

Hawkins wasn't really New Age. More like an academic with a focus on transpersonal psychiatry and consciousness-raising. But he actually did some real research and it's some of the most scientific stuff out there, especially as it was built on his own experience with therapy, which is the most interesting part.

I don't agree he was being deceptive, although you might not agree with his methods. He was someone trying to help people, not someone trying to do a big sell or con anyone.

 

[belligerent drunk]

No, I understand. The topic is not scientific. As I said, that doesn't diminish the topic at all, its just a statement of fact. I certainly didn't demand any proof, you actually offered it up and I felt it was questionable.

Something does not to be scientific to be worthwhile of discussion. However, if scientific ideas are being introduced into a topic, these idea's should be discussed on their scientific merit. That's all I was doing. To be honest, the new age movement turns me off because it sometimes tries to create a scientific basis for its ideas. But, often if you examine the science behind it, its really scant and flimsy and rarely rigorous enough. In this context, the introduction of scientific data tries to deceptively validate certain claims. If an idea can only be considered valid by fudging data, the idea is either invalid or still unproven.

I believe the tendency for new-age whatever movements to try to be scientific is because to the layman, science is something that speaks of certainty. If you say "it's been scientifically proven that X is this and that", then a large portion of people will see that as a strong confirmation/proof without questioning it. Few people will want to check the validity of the claim or the methodology used to arrive at it, especially if they want it to be true. That's how I see it anyway.

 

[Jabberwocky]

I'm not sure I understand this. At least, my brain is just going WAH WAH WAH.

WAH.

I assumed radionics had a connection with radio waves, visible light is arbtitry in many ways.

radionics has nothing to do with the bovis scale as far as I know. You might be right about radionics and radio waves. Bovis scale is calibrated to a reading on 6500 angstroms as healthy which is the wavelength of red light. Different traditions have different interpretations of the bovis scale. Some include two polarities of energy: positive and negative.

For example, the energy of the swastika can be measured on the bovis scale. Readings above 6500 are energizing to their respective polarity.

A good example of a symbol is the energy level of the swastika or the satya, as it is known in India. Drawn, printed, or used in sticker form, it has a formidable positive energy level of 1,000,000 Bovis. The swastika used by Hitler (at 45 degrees to the cardinal axis) has a terribly low energy level of 1,000 Bovis.

Read more here:
https://www.sivananda.org/publications/yogalife/fall2003/pdfs/page49-mysterious-energies.pdf

Sorry Ninae for derailing your thread. In conclusion it may be possible to translate measurements on the Hawkins scale to measurements on the bovis scale.

 

[Ninae]

Okay, I guess we should have some from Infinite Waters.

 

[Ninae]

The Purpose of Life:

"The purpose of life is to be free from suffering and to attain infinite bliss consciousness – and that is God.

The grandest purpose of life (contrary to the implications of novelists) is not to know human love or to produce children or to win men's fickle acclaim; man's sole worthwhile aim is to find his Self."

-- Read more at: http://www.yogananda.com.au/gurus/yoganandaquotes06.html#whyhere

 

[Nixiam]

I stopped watching infinite waters when I saw him commenting on his own videos talking about insightful it was and helped him and was thanking himself and shit like that.

Not to mention I don't buy into what he says. I prefer others.

 

[Ninae]

You're becoming quite discerning. I agree he teaches a very lightweight version of things. It's not exactly what you need if you're really serious.

What are your favourites so far, Nix? I think Maharishi is probably the best for teaching pure enlightenment. But Omraam Mikhael Aivanhov left a vast amount of information behind him. He was a real sage and also taught in a very entertaining way. Hawkins is great for the psychotherapy stuff, though.

 

[Ninae]

I'm very interested in this "Initiatic Science", but there are so few who have really spoken about it.

 

[Ninae]

Hermann Hesse - Siddharta

Hermann Hesse was my favourite writer when I was a teenager and is an interesting personality, and a very brilliant man. He wrote his most famous novel, Siddharta, as an auto-biography of his own enlightenment process. I read it when I was 18, but didn't really understand much of it, although it's a very beautiful book and I thought I'd give it another go.

If I remember corrctly, it's about the son of an Indian Brahman who's very ambitious and doesn't want to become like the other Brahmans, he wants to be the real deal. He leaves his ascetic life behind to go live in the world, where he gets involved in all kinds of things and experiences great suffering, before he lifts himself out of it and at last attains his goal.

I think the message is supposed to be that it takes wordly experience. Anyway, it's well worth a read, if only as a piece of literature.


"For a long time, Siddhartha had been partaking in the
discussions of the wise men, practising debate with Govinda, practising
with Govinda the art of reflection, the service of meditation. He already
knew how to speak the Om silently, the word of words, to speak it silently
into himself while inhaling, to speak it silently out of himself while exhaling,
with all the concentration of his soul, the forehead surrounded by
the glow of the clear-thinking spirit. He already knew to feel Atman in the
depths of his being, indestructible, one with the universe.

Joy leapt in his father’s heart for his son who was quick to learn, thirsty
for knowledge; he saw him growing up to become a great wise man and
priest, a prince among the Brahmans. Bliss leapt in his mother’s breast when
she saw him, when she saw him walking, when she saw him sit down and get
up, Siddhartha, strong, handsome, he who was walking on slender legs, greeting
her with perfect respect. Love touched the hearts of the Brahmans’ young
daughters when Siddhartha walked through the lanes of the town with the
luminous forehead, with the eye of a king, with his slim hips.

But more than all the others he was loved by Govinda, his friend, the son of
a Brahman. He loved Siddhartha’s eye and sweet voice, he loved his walk
and the perfect decency of his movements, he loved everything Siddhartha
did and said and what he loved most was his spirit, his transcendent, fiery
thoughts, his ardent will, his high calling. Govinda knew: he would not
become a common Brahman, not a lazy official in charge of offerings;
not a greedy merchant with magic spells; not a vain, vacuous speaker; not
a mean, deceitful priest; and also not a decent, stupid sheep in the herd
of the many. No, and he, Govinda, as well did not want to become one
of those, not one of those tens of thousands of Brahmans. He wanted to
follow Siddhartha, the beloved, the splendid. And in days to come, when
Siddhartha would become a god, when he would join the glorious, then
Govinda wanted to follow him as his friend, his companion, his servant,
his spear-carrier, his shadow."


http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/siddhartha.pdf

 

[Brendan12]

Enlightenment can change your life...its like going from owning a Bronze penny..to being dripped in Gold...all things are God blessed..and the moment a beautiful Miracle...even the moment can change your life..and you have to have enlightenment to be a Great Saint..you have Gold as one thing..and electromagnetic static and friction as another..even silver dripping(Satori Enlightenment) can change your life..and when I say Change..I really mean a huge wad of cash..everything you do become more romantic..and escalated to the point that the veritable eschaton is being over whelmed..with Prophet and true courage..which is the type of energy you need to sustain enlightenment...Which comes back in swings and phases...kind of like Bi-Polar disorder...except each time is a representation of break and smashing down idols..or bases so to speak..so that the effects of the next enlightenment happen Greater and Better..to increase faith you need to go on challenges in the wild..and to increase enlightenment you have to talk to more people!

 

[HypGnosis]

Zylok (an interdimensional being existing in a higher dimension alongside an advanced AI (UNICOM)) explains the hyper conscious singularity's 'need to forget'

Somewhat out there but nevertheless enjoyable, and pretty on point IMO



This channel has some cool content on a number of topics.