• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe

Where is the seat of awareness?

The human being has an energy system, thats reflected in fucken everything. Christian mystics, egyptian methology, eastern religions and probably every other majorly indepth spiritual study. Its as real as your arm and a leg and its probably what every spiritual prophet and saint has been talking about for millenia, only we seemed to have overlooked it in the fine print which is undestandable coz unless you experience something along those lines you have no reference point to understand it.

One thing that is a common description of it is that once activated, your state of mind/being changed, and your different in a most fundemental way. Connected to God, the spirit, and all that. Its all within everyone and it dispels all illusions, doubt, fear and confusion. These things are limited to the non-enlightened state of being. Thats really what I am getting at. Your seat of awarness is your consciousness, which is probably the deepest part of yourself, the root, core and soul. Its also adjustable. Its not limited to the physical eyes, if you dont believe me do some research, experimentation and then find out for yourself whats real.

Though even if its the path of a lifetime, its also bloody scary. People like the devil they know as the saying goes. To get up and experience reality in such a way is frightening. Thats the crux though, there's no key or password or magic dust. You just have to let go and peer beyond your limitations. Its hard, a persons limitations have always been there, and that creates some kind of comfort in their familiarity but of coarse they are also self generated, and a pale comparison to enlightment.
 
That was a very ambiguous set of statement. Care to make any of those points understandable?
 
BilZ0r said:
That was a very ambiguous set of statement. Care to make any of those points understandable?
Click to expand...

*sigh* Sure, I'll get back to basics.

People have an energy system that is connected to their physical body. It directly effects your perception, so too does whatever emotions, fears, issues etc your carrying around. The theory is that these are linked, as you work through your chakra to clense and enhance them, you also work through your emotions and fears n stuff. By going through the spiritual path, you not only gain a better understanding of the various aspects of self, you also enhance and control who you are at a higher level and realise more of the world around you.

These practices related to this stuff has a lot to do with what mystasism is about, and if you look at the spiritual practices of practically any religion and tradition you'll find heaps of similarities. The dogma and ideology may be different, but the actual activities and ways you address the self are similar seeing as everyone has practically the same energy system. The actual excersises and experience are the same between cultures that had no contact. One school of thought in all of these different religions is that you can get into a higher state of being where all illusions/ego is dispelled and you gain a union with yourself and God.

So, getting back to the seat of awarness, I am simply saying its adjustable. The more you develop your perception, the more clearer your world view will be. Its all rather linked, for instance if your behaviour and lifestyle is directed by anger, fear or insecurity then those things are reflected in everything in your life. Your relationships, your job, and even how you explain your world view, its all coloured by your inner characteristics.

The way the energy body fits into all this is technically complex, but basically if you get it all active and flowing correctly you get some dazzling effects. It will directly effects your seat of awarness, how you view the world, and your connection to all things. This idea of expanding your state of being inorder to expand your perception does work. Anyway, just saying there is more to it all then you can read about, so go out there and experiment.

I think that the fundemental idea of spiritually adjusting your state of being to reach higher states is most likely what all them religious leaders were on about, especially when you get such things as kundalini reflected in christian texts, the lives of saints, and as I mentioned, eastern religions and other sources.
 
No, still to ambiguous. What kind of energy system? And how do you know that it exists? What is the nature of this system?
 
BilZ0r said:
No, still to ambiguous. What kind of energy system? And how do you know that it exists? What is the nature of this system?
Click to expand...

What kind of energy system ? A subjective (personal) one.
How do you know it exists ? As evidenced historically by several thousand spiritual programs, and anecdotally on a subjective basis. It's not heterophenom, I grant, but even a placebo works. Perspective is key - if you lose it you get domgatic thought. That's an often ignored danger. Sure, dogma has built around some programs but the fact that the U.S. electorial system is a joke doesn't mean the U.S. constitution was the wrong track.
What is the nature of the system ? Subjective. You don't know until you are there. That's not trying to be elitist (it baffles me too) but it's there. Whether it's measurable or not is debatable (I think it can be eventually, otherwise it doesn't make sense).

What's the point ? If something dispels fear, anger, etc. that's a damn useful tool, whatever it is. Use outways lack of inner working knowledge. You don't need to know how the inside of a telephone works to get any joy or use out of it. Ask any woman. The question of science will be answered IMHO but that is open to debate. And yes, the nature too. Saying the nature of something is "subjective" seems elusive and vague but it is also insightful. At least until something better comes along. There is no need for hocus pocus religion either.

Void explained all this (twice) better than me, although I added my own opinions [TM]. Void - correct anything I have diverged on.
 
No, still to ambiguous. What kind of energy system? And how do you know that it exists? What is the nature of this system?
Click to expand...
I agree with Neural_Shock and Void, and Void has explained the concepts pretty damned well. What I believe you are looking for, BilZ0r, is an explination aligned more with science than spirituality (and may I make the comment that popular science is just as much of a religion as Christianity).

I may firstly direct you to Tom Bearden's Website. Here you will find a very significant, very scientific, and very mathamatical explinations for those very energy systems.

As for the nature of them? I personaly regard the physical body as more of an antenna than anything else. This includes the brain, which in my understanding picks up the energies of the mind which exsists outside of our physical system. It would actually be more accurate to say that as the mind intersects our physical system, our body manifests and is thus a direct reflection of the mind. The brain doesn't create the mind, the mind creates the brain. It is also my understanding that the brain really only reflects the thought aspects of the mind, with other energy centers reflecting other aspects. All the energy centers work directly with and are a part of the mind.

IMO, people identify the seat of conscienceness within the head because so many of the physical senses are in the area. Feel the ground with your feet and your seat of awareness is in your feet. See with your eyes, hear with your ears, taste with your mouth, smell with your nose, and you percieve your seat to be somewhere in your head. I really matters what your focusing on.

-Zoad
 
Oops: ...seat of conscienceness...seat of awareness...
Sorry for the mixup on that one. I meant "awareness" instead of "conscienceness". My definitions of these are very different so I didn't want any confusion, but I'm sure we all got the point.
-Zoad
 
Awesome thread.

I don't have much to add, but I really enjoyed Dennett's book - even though the title is kind of misleading. I usually try to get all the books that are loosely affiliated with Dawkins and the ideas of the new hotshot evolutionary psychologists.

But it seems I am better able to relate with the ideas that have been batted around in this forum.
 
You're very mistaken saying that science is a religion just like Christianity. Science is faith. Christianity is a myth/legend that require faith. You have to have faith in order to believe anything. But the difference is that 'science' is a way of thinking that using simple logic from a set of testable axioms, to build up a set of knowledge. Now while all scientific testing involves basic faith along the lines of the fact that we can trust what we perceive to be reality, or at least closely related to it, it's not asking much to have faith in that. And even if you can't trust it, it's still the best thing we've got.

Classical religions involve believing what is written in a book.

I'm sorry, I don't know what to make of Tom Beardens Web site. I'm not a physist, and I doubt you are. Untill I see anything he has written published in a peer reviewed journal, I will suspect he has lost touch with reality.
 
Last edited:
It is not subjective, its as tangible as a bodypart, you just need to experience it to gain familiarity with it. Without that awareness and practical experience you dont get what its about and how it effects you. You cant just read up on stuff like enlightment and expect to know the reality of being in such a state, or any other for that matter. Do a search on chakras.

If you want to know what this stuff is, then I suggest taking up some tradition based around it. Go out and see what is real, it does work. I didnt believe myself til I had a direct experience of it, then its undeniable.
 
I didnt believe myself til I had a direct experience of it, then its undeniable.

That's what I meant by subjective. Sorry about lack of clarity. By subjective I don't mean unreal or intangable. I should say "personal".
 
BilZ0r said:
You're very mistaken saying that science is a religion...
I'm sorry, I don't know what to make of Tom Beardens Web site. I'm not a physist, and I doubt you are. Untill I see anything he has written published in a peer reviewed journal, I will suspect he has lost touch with reality.
Click to expand...

A religion is a docrtine of beliefs which people use to interpret thier reality. It matters not whether that doctrine allows for itself to dynamicaly expand or remain static for centuries. You may view science as being a religion which has started from the opposite side of the pond. Instead of saying right away what "is" and then explaining everything with that framework(as with the bible or koran), science starts without an "is" and looks to make one eventually. Science is rather like a stuborn, self-centered, arrogant child that has no clue as to what it wants.

There are even areas within science that dont really agree with each other, but because its all given the label of "science" people take it all as what truely "is". Neuroscience and Psychology are a good example. They both supposedly deal with the same organ, but neither of them knows what to do with the other.
The psychologist tries to probe the mind (which is supposed to be a product of the brain) and all along the while comes across an infinite slew of subjective experiences, but only a small percentage of those experiences fit into thier framework. So they concentrait on that framework, ignore the rest of the information or write it off under a cover-all statement like, "...its just suggestion" and tell you that thier framework is what "is". Plus, a psychologist won't have anything to do with the brain and its biological functioning.
Neuroscientists probe the brain, looking around for this elucive mind, never actually finding any mind-stuff, but finding out that if they apply very very small voltages to certain areas, they can get certain effects. But the mind is nowhere to be found. They do all this, mapping out the brain of its seperate functions. Then someone comes along, gets injured on one side of the head, has one complete half of the brain removed, and the resulting person still has no problem with all thier body functions and mental capabilities. Even though half the brain was taken, the whole mind stayed intact. Yet they still dismiss it as phenomena.

Then something like alzheimers comes around and the scienctists in all thier knowledge of the mind and the brain go running in circles because they truely have no clue whats going on. They can use science to interpret what may be happening, but they just cant figure it out because they've restricted themselves too much and have turned thier science into a dogmatic religion which must be taken as absolute.

I'm not a physist, and I doubt you are.
Click to expand...

No I'm not a physicist but I still try to understand what information is presented to me instead of ignoring it when it doesn't match my personal view of reality and sluffing it off as insanity.

-Zoad
 
No I never said science was a religion, I said it involved faith. The difference between science and religion is reasoned steps from observations, hypothesis and back to observations.

Hmm, well what you said about psychology and neuroscience may have been true 80 or so years ago, but now it's just funny. Neuroscientists and psychologists work very closely, and many psychologists would consider themselves to be neuroscientists. In my university's psychology department a post grad psychology major must take biological papers.

" Then someone comes along, gets injured on one side of the head, has one complete half of the brain removed, and the resulting person still has no problem with all their body functions and mental capabilities. Even though half the brain was taken, the whole mind stayed intact. Yet they still dismiss it as phenomena." What are you talking about. Someone missing half there brain is going to have lots of problems, especially to start with. I mean, if you get the right half of your brain removed... well I mean for one, you're going to die. But if you mean the right cortex removed, then you're going to get things like left neglect, serious speech problems, at least initial numbness and ataxia on the left side. Blindness to the left field.

If you tell a neurologist what symptoms a stroke victim is suffering from, they can tell you where the lesion in the brain is with amazing certainty.
 
There are many reported cases of brain damage with relatively little damage to function. In the case that I'm talking about, the patient litterally has half of a head, ie one hemisphere is removed. Theres also a famous little chicken that got the majority of its head lobbed off, but it lived for several years afterward, appearing in circuses and freak shows. There was also a chinese ()And there is other "phenomena" such as in organ transplants where the accepting patient reports odd changes in personality that they later found to be common in the donor. Other odd things include twins that suddenly know when thier opposite is hurt yet they are in totally different areas, the same goes for many mothers with thier children. And how does science explain pre-cognition, or healings, or telekenisis. There is also so much mystical "phenomena" out there, exsistant for centuries, that people have developed their own mystical sciences. Rosicrutians and metaphysics comes to mind. As a matter of fact, there are even purely scientific studies out there that prove the brain's ability for many of its phenomena, but are they teaching those things in Universities? There are also many things that cannot be proven, such as an individual's connection to god, because it doesn't involve anything that is physical and provable. Many of these experiences are subjective when science is always looking for objective answers. As long as science maintains a restrictive perspective, only looking to make proofs with pure objective data, then it will constantly go in circles. In the end, mainsteam science will do no more than prove that 'a' equals 'a'.

Now, don't take me wrong, science can be usefull, but only if scientists are willing to look at ALL of the data avaliable, even data unrelated to thier feild or data that cannot be currently explained. And a word about studies and research: I could take a panel of ten individuals and run studies on them. Within those studies I can prove that most or all of them are insane, sane, depressed, happy, suicidal, or addicted in one way or another. Because science is constantly looking to prove itself, researches tend to structure thier studies (whether innocently or consciencly known) so that the outcomes "prove" what they are looking for.

The Ptolemaic approach to the solar system with its epicycles accuarately proved what data they had at the time, but now we accept the helio-centric view which gives just as accurate data. And yet if you look at both from a relatavistic viewpoint, they are both correct!

-Zoad
 
There was also a chinese ()
Click to expand...

Sorry, didn't get to finish that one:

There was also a chinese (maybe japanese) study that proved that biological organisms hold the ability to transmutate elements. In this peticular case, chickens where shown to transmutate calcium into potasium and vice-versa. This is unheard of in the physics world when looking as such stable elements.
 
How about you show me these studies. Because if someone lost half their cortex and wasn't blind in half their field of vision, it would be publish in several journals. So please, show me these studys.
 
zoad said:

Now, don't take me wrong, science can be usefull, but only if scientists are willing to look at ALL of the data avaliable, even data unrelated to thier feild or data that cannot be currently explained. And a word about studies and research: I could take a panel of ten individuals and run studies on them. Within those studies I can prove that most or all of them are insane, sane, depressed, happy, suicidal, or addicted in one way or another. Because science is constantly looking to prove itself, researches tend to structure thier studies (whether innocently or consciencly known) so that the outcomes "prove" what they are looking for.
Click to expand...

Ok, couple of things here. I disagree w/ your statement regarding the utility of science being necessarily hinged on all the data points. Maybe a better word would be "veracity" of science rather than usefulness. I agree that there is the problem of inductive reasoning with the pragmatic necessity to interpolate and to generalize into tractable, simple equations from finite number of data points (not that science always work in this direction). However, bypassing a certain number of points certainly does not make the utility of science impossible. Moreover, it's prudent to REJECT some data point that one deem as being an experimental error. Another thing: there is some massive generalizations w/ your claim that researchers design their experiments to prove their own hypothesis. I'm not really sure whether or not your hypothetical study regarding a panel of ten individuals, which seems to be loaded w/ subjective criterions, can be a strong evidence for you to make the bold claim regarding science. Again, I'm not saying that the problem doesn't exist, but I don't think one can readily generalize to the extent that one can maintain some kind of a firm stance (especially from your point of view).
 
Well, there is the quantum physics experimentations that shows a researched expectations play a role in the outcome, and the fact is science is bound by human nature. You can do anything with statistics, and even science to some regard. The conditions and methology placed on an experiment can limit or effect the outcome. Whats more, as science advances to new perspectives, old concrete theories can become obsolete, or they only become relevant to specific situations.
 
I know that the statements I make are bold and can be seen as extrodinary, and yes I will admit to distortion in my wording, but I will also maintain that science has, in a way, created itself and what it has observed. I could go on and on giving full and complete explinations for my arguements, but that is outside of the topic area of this thread and I really don't want to fill up page after page trying to justify my statements to people who believe in one system of thought so strongly that they themselves will try thier hardest to justify thier own beliefs. I will go no further than to say that beliefs create observed reality, and the belief system of science has thusly created what it percieves, it has created what it proves. Science happens to be a huge, global belief system, surpassing any other religion at this time and it is widely accepted. Science at this moment is a fundamental part of our accepted reality because we have put so much trust into it. Even many who say they align with other religions still put more faith in science. What I'm saying is: before our sciences, when the classic religions had mainstay with the mass populace, people actually saw gods in the skies. They witnessed wars and dramas between the gods becuase this was thier accepted reality. These where thier beliefs and those beliefs were reflected physically before them. In a way, the atoms and electrons and quarks have become our gods now, and these too are reflected physically for us. It has only been within the last hundred years or so, with the advent of the general theory of relativity and quantum physics (a completely theoretical science), that science is starting to come around to realizing these ancient concepts.

-Zoad
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top