Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Wednesday, November 21

Expand Messages
  • Jerry Katz
    JACK All there is is Consciousness.. if this is understood in depth there is nothing more to understand - Ramesh Balsekar. Surely to understand in its
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 22, 2001
    • 0 Attachment

      All there is is Consciousness.. if this is
      understood in depth there is nothing more to
      understand" - Ramesh Balsekar.

      Surely to understand in its totality and its
      fullness is going to require an absolute total
      meeting of everything that is held in the
      unconscious, both individual and collective.

      I would feel to recognise totally that 'all there
      is is consciousness' one would have to remain as
      fully conscious

      Carl Jung once said; "Meister Eckhart theology
      knows a "Godhead" of which no qualities, except
      unity and being, can be predicated, is "becoming",
      it is not yet lord of itself, and it represents an
      absolute coincidence of opposites ...... union of
      opposites is equivalent to unconsciousness as so
      far as human logic goes.

      For consciousness, pre-supposes a differentiation
      into subject and object in relationship between

      Where there is no "other" or it does not yet exist,

      all possibilities of consciousness cease.

      Only the father, the god welling out of the
      godhead, notices himself, becomes beknown to
      himself, and confronts himself as a person ......

      As the godhead is essentially

      so to is the man who lives in God.

      Carl Jung found this so appealing that God requires
      conscious man in order to come into existence.

      J. Campbell some believe to be the greatest western
      mythologist and enlightened being once said ` `we
      need poets and seers and who will render to us the
      experience of the transcendent through the world in
      which we live in'

      For a lot of us here in the west who have grown up
      with absentee fathers either physically,
      emotionally or psychologically, the idea of a
      Master not being here, gone beyond, becomes very

      Father's not here, the Master's not here and then
      sooner or later we start waking up to seeing that
      we are not here either.

      We are not here because there is a deep unconscious
      fear to really be here fully conscious aware. Most
      people that I discuss this with who are able to
      honesty are really frightened of what it means to
      be very very conscious always. It reeks of absolute
      and total responsibility for what I am and what I
      am doing saying and thinking.

      Joseph Campbell once said `eternity is in love with
      the `forms of time' but to comes into `time' it has
      to be dismembered

      Then you as a separate entity `me' in the form of
      time, in order to loss the commitment to this
      little `me' you must enter the process of

      This dismembering process as we all know is
      extremely painful and very frightening and sooner
      or later we come to realise that while we are going
      to spiritual gatherings to get enlightened and want
      to get enlightenment, all we're really doing is
      cultivating a spiritual ego that will do anything
      to avoid facing the process of inevitable

      The old story about the jug maker who finds a
      pumpkin vine with a pumpkin that has just start to
      develop. Just for fun of it, he slips the pumpkin
      inside one of his jugs and leaves it.

      When the harvest time comes, the pumpkin has grown
      only as large as the jug. The sides of the jug have
      limited the potential of, as well as shape, the

      I feel here in the West, people want to believe in
      these Eastern Masters i.e. Ramesh S. Balsekar and
      now this new wave of young spiritual teachers who
      hammer away at the fact that `all there is, is
      consciousness, and you can't do anything here.
      there is no I.

      It really fits in with `our' model of understanding
      that we don't know how to be here consciously and
      find with the smallest circumstance(s) how easily
      `we' become identified; lost in thoughts, feelings
      and emotions, screaming blame as we drown in a sea
      of unconsciousness.

      Many of our /my models that we / I operate in are
      the very jugs that we /I are trying to understand
      that all there is is, consciousness.

      In modern day Germany today, in the collective
      psyche in many of the young people, there is
      immense fear of their father's past. In many ways
      they are simply not prepared to be told that all is
      consciousness and that you can't do anything here.
      I feel anyone with any depth of intelligence and
      responsibility could not try and blanket this
      statement over so much feeling of shame and guilt.

      I'm not so sure when Ramesh S Balsekar does teach
      in Germany occasionally, his feelings and thoughts
      beliefs about God acting through Hitler and the
      Nazi's, that he is so open spoken in Germany. That
      concept openly spoken about will end a person in
      deep trouble in Germany.



      This article may be of interest here. Summarizing
      doesn't quite cover all the bases, but after it's
      read, there are some good questions it raises. His
      thesis, which he thinks proven by physics, shows
      that consciousness being primary, it has a
      causative relation to matter. What surprises me is
      how this leads him to the conclusion that there is
      free will, thru this downward causation of
      consciousness interacting with the more often
      assumed primacy of the upward causation exerted by
      matter.(He still asserts that matter, once created,
      is real and has properties or "attributes".) This
      excerpt is about that aspect of primacy:

      It was my good fortune to recognize it within
      quantum physics, to recognize that all the
      paradoxes of quantum physics can be solved if we
      accept consciousness as the ground of being. So
      that was my unique contribution and, of course,
      this has paradigm-shifting potential because now we
      can truly integrate science and spirituality. In
      other words, with Capra and Zukav—although their
      books are very good—because they held on to a
      fundamentally materialist paradigm, the paradigm is
      not shifting, nor is there any real reconciliation
      between spirituality and science. Because if
      everything is ultimately material, all causal
      efficacy must come from matter. So consciousness is
      recognized, spirituality is recognized, but only as
      causal epiphenomena, or secondary phenomena. And an
      epiphenomenal consciousness is not very good. I
      mean, it's not doing anything. So, although these
      books acknowledge our spirituality, the
      spirituality is ultimately coming from some sort of
      material interaction. But that's not the
      spirituality that Jesus talked about. That's not
      the spirituality that Eastern mystics were so
      ecstatic about. That's not the spirituality where a
      mystic recognizes and says, "I now know what
      reality is like, and this takes away all the
      unhappiness that one ever had. This is infinite,
      this is joy, this is consciousness." This kind of
      exuberant statement that mystics make could not be
      made on the basis of epiphenomenal consciousness.
      It can be made only when one recognizes the ground
      of being itself, when one cognizes directly that
      One is All. Now, an epiphenomenal human being would
      not have any such cognition. It would not make any
      sense to cognize that you are All.


      .....I'm fully aware of how contrary or just plain
      stupid I may seem in resurrecting this old free
      will issue. However, I do so because Goswami seems
      to me to be missing a point,by personalizing the
      impersonal consciousness to human beings. Thus he
      appears to make the very mistake he accuses other
      scientists of: making consciousness only secondary,
      an epiphenomenon of material existence, even while
      he claims to do otherwise. What I do like about his
      approach is that he restores an emphasis on
      consciousness being not only causative and primary,
      but creative, and how creativity not only implies,
      but requires freedom. To me, it seems the issue of
      some agency of will entering into this creativity
      is moot, creativity only requires the possibility
      of multiple possibilities. Otherwise, consciousness
      is limited and becomes itself subjected to some
      more primary agency of determinism.

      Well, it raises as many questions as it purports to
      answer, still it's nice that physics is even
      raising them.

      Articles regarding a (supposed?) relation between
      consciousness and matter sure are funny - as if one
      or the other could be known "objectively". I had to
      learn that electrons encircling nuclei, don't
      radiate despite the observation that otherwise,
      accelerated charges will radiate. But the axiom
      nicely illustrated the observation of emitted
      spectra - hence "no more questions asked". The
      physics professor refused to answer, how an
      electron could know wether in orbit or not, when i
      proposed an orbit the size of the universe...

      Because, statistically it would be almost absent,
      yet the "jump" to its "original" orbit would result
      in a predictable photon being emitted. I also
      wanted to ask, how long the "jump" would take as
      electrons, whether wave or particle, do have to
      travel through space. Unless of course, there are
      "extra" dimensions, only available in case of
      entanglement - something not known at that time.
      Which would make "nirvana without substratum
      remaining" a local all-entanglement feat - "normal"
      laws of nature no longer having their "former"
      sway. Something of that kind was remarked by the
      Buddha - at least a "rational" explanation for
      non-Patanjali (III) siddhis, the Buddha obviously
      was familiar with.

      A pleasant reading on (quantum) entanglement is at:
      http://www.qubit.org/intros/entang/ How that could
      translate into human life will show when there is a
      special relation with for instance, the mother.
      When in great danger, the mother will know that at
      the very same moment - irrespective of time or
      distance. No "ordinary" physics could explain that.

      The description of an atom as a bunch of electrons
      encircling a nucleus is a utilitarian explanation
      that "covers" quite a number of observations. But
      taken to the extreme, an orbit the size of the
      universe, that model will break down - hence it
      cannot be "the" description.

      Dependent arising means the universe arises with
      its observing and cannot be separated from it -
      this could be called local entanglement on a
      macroscopic scale - everything is correlated. But
      on that scale it escapes attention - it only shows
      in sub-microscopic scales.

      In Patanjali (III), the siddhis are described for
      the sole reason, that they can't be missed even
      when not wanting them. Patanjali doesn't explain
      them, only shows how to "attain" them and considers
      them obstacles to illumination when sought for.
      These siddhis often seem to lead a life of their
      own, known in the West as well - several saints did
      show signs of for instance unwanted levitation.

      For the sake of argument, the Buddha spoke of
      "nirvana with substratum remaining", which is the
      same as what for Patanjali (IV) is "liberation".
      Hence, the same warning applies and that goes too
      for samadhis. The term "nirvana without substratum
      remaining" describes the "state" of a mind-body, no
      longer subject to urges like breathing as they are
      no longer felt. According to the Buddha, then the
      mind body is like a microcosm where the laws of
      nature (as known) do not apply. That can only mean,
      observed entanglement on a macroscopic scale. It
      has to be as a statement like "matter is
      'crystallized' thought" would be a lie, unless
      somehow observable..


    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.