GENIUS FORUMS

Skipair,

Maybe it is true that you haven't received any data. Data in this case meaning an object of perception. So you have perceived nothing that indicates God to you. Perception is the name of the game. We all argue and argue, about our differing perceptions.

Iolaus,

Ok, say Skip receives some "data". How can he be sure that the data came from God, and not the Devil?

On the perception issue - you aren't very clear. Are you saying that it is invalid, or valid, to have "different" perceptions?

Skipair wrote:

I have experienced data regarding fences and seagulls, and therefore I can make reasonable assumptions about their effects today and in the future. The data I've received is different for each, and they are distinguishable for that reason.

What I can't do is make the distinction between a "Creator" and a fence, or a "Creator" and a seagull, because I have no idea what a "Creator" is. I've never received any data about it, just as I've never received any data about pink elephants.

It sounds like you've had a horrible life growing up with rational minded parents, teachers, and friends - for look at you now! Look what they have helped to create. A man who doesn't need imaginary friends, or imaginary pets in his life. You surely are a sight!

- for sore eyes.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:It sounds like you've had a horrible life growing up with rational minded parents, teachers, and friends - for look at you now! Look what they have helped to create. A man who doesn't need imaginary friends, or imaginary pets in his life. You surely are a sight!

- for sore eyes.

A sight for sore eyes? Isn't Skippy the guy who lives in a tent and eats broccoli and peanut butter sandwiches...?

Sue, your sneering is repellent. I have had rational-minded parents (both physicians), teachers (private academy and Ivy League University) and friends (professional colleagues). I have real friends and no pets. Yet it would be disingenuous (and a lie) of me to say that I have had no perceptions of a Creator. I suspect the same could be said of anyone who takes the trouble to examine life and the world around him.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Iolaus,

Ok, say Skip receives some "data". How can he be sure that the data came from God, and not the Devil?

On the perception issue - you aren't very clear. Are you saying that it is invalid, or valid, to have "different" perceptions?

That is your problem, Sue. You have no internal compass and no internal rudder. You keep holding up what you call "the truth" like it were a Wimbledom trophy, yet you never say what it is, only that you have it and that what others have isn't it.

If you had a compass or a rudder, you would know where the "data" comes from. In this case, you are being spurious by trotting out the "Devil," as if such a term had any meaning for you.

Sue,

Ok, say Skip receives some "data". How can he be sure that the data came from God, and not the Devil?

Oh, that's easy. The difference between good and evil is in the fruit. Yes, it is quite odd that despite this clear teaching, people are confused all the time. Although I think most of the Old Testament is actually quite literally inspired by the devil, nonetheless it has a few gems, one of which (Isaiah) says that: Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who mistake sweet for bitter and bitter for sweet.

The more I look at that the more I see that this is a primary impairment of mankind.

On the perception issue - you aren't very clear. Are you saying that it is invalid, or valid, to have "different" perceptions?

What I am saying is that perception is very important, and different sentient beings have different capacities for perception. It can be as simple as a honeybee having more accurate eyes for seeing color, so that we see a flower as white while they see lavender. It can be us having good color vision while another animal sees mostly dull shades.

When it comes to spiritual vision, some people have their senses honed and others don't, while most people are in between. But some people, like you, also have a block or prejudice that I think is a decision to filter out and discount that still small voice within.

For whatever reason, our perceptual abilities beyond the crude 5 senses are subtle, or atrophied from lack of use, and so perceiving things on a deeper level is not all that easy, and it tends to be sporadic. Because it is sporadic and subject to influences of many sorts, it is not readily reproducible in laboratory conditions (although not impossible). The way that a person tends to think about God, for example, tends to go along with a certain view of life and self.

Author David Hawkins has a map of the scale of consciousness that is quite accurate, I think.

Please go here http://www.globalvoicesradio.com/map.html

Note that the line across the scale denotes a cutoff point of integrity versus nonintegrity. Hawkins thinks the majority of mankind is below 200, but that it has recently shifted a lot toward the more positive.

Note that many people at the level of 400, such as some scientists and rationalists, are simply not perceiving the spiritual realm, and quite often they have consciously left the negativity of religion behind. If you look at the scale below 200, you will see that many of the attitudes toward God (interpretations of God's motives and where he's coming from) are very similar to fundamentalist and oppressive religious teachings.
Having left this negativity behind, they take refuge in reason but are unable to perceive the spiritual world. So there isn't a point to blaming people. If and when they want to move on, they will do so as they are ready.

I was quite amazed when I found this chart. Most of my life I hovered between 200 and 350, with of course my bad moments below 200. Hawkins says the big breakthroughs are the levels of 500, 540, and 600 which is enlightenment.

When I sometimes refer to my awakening (in 1994) it was exactly the level of 500, followed somewhat later by 540.

I think this scale is most useful to meditate upon.

Other people refer to an awakening and they mean the enlightenment level of 600, which is the attainment of going beyond ego, so they are not really talking about the same thing I am.

All I can tell you is that at the level of 500, the world looks different, and you see deeper and fuller into things.

Iolaus, that scale is very interesting. It roughly corresponds to the process of opening the chakras. We are hard-wired for the capacity for spirituality. This is what I keep trying to get across. The spiritual realms exist, quite apart of what one might do or say.

Iolaus wrote:So there isn't a point to blaming people. If and when they want to move on, they will do so as they are ready.

A fundamental truth.

what does make sense to me is the 'levels' that are mapped out and it also states that those who function on different levels make other issues irrelevent.. This therefore indicates the significant 'clashing' of understanding within a forum such as this..

"Moralism, a by-product of duality, becomes insignificant as the consciousness level rises through the 500’s, and is irrelevant at the level of 600."


Those who function on a lower level.. simply cannot perceive what another is saying regarding an issue on a higher level.. This is also supported by the fact that as matter is energy vibrating.. the slower or denser matter will always clash with that whose particles are vibrating at a higher frequency... or more positive 'love and light' energy... spiritual energy.. I mentioned this with regards to a lot of my writing on another thread.. that it forms my own journey as i raised my vibration and thus my writing changed.. leading to some perceiving it as a platitude of new ageism... or marmalade.. The advantage i had was that i had a glimpse of consciousness... and then understood how to get there... answers unfolded before me.. Of couse i acknowlege that everyones journey of understanding and awareness is their own.. and i raised my understanding by commiting to one principle through compassion for ALL..

"An individual’s level of consciousness is determined by the principles to which one is committed. To maintain progress in consciousness there can be no wavering from principle, or the individual will fall back to a lower level"

I experience this 'falling back' sometimes particularly when i am 'eaten alive' here and it is a case of looking at where a certain individual is 'coming' from.. and also i know this is perhaps why i continually mention egos rampaging in the lower levels..

This chart does make a lot of sense and ones perceptions will always be within there energy density/vibration.. It does statisticaly show that only 15% are above 200.. and i feel that until we can reach above this vibration many issues and discussions will swim around below it. (trapped within ‘illusion’) and trapped within the 'ego' of course through no fault of their own.

amandaxxx

Hello Amanda,

what does make sense to me is the 'levels' that are mapped out and it also states that those who function on different levels make other issues irrelevant.. This therefore indicates the significant 'clashing' of understanding within a forum such as this..

Why....yes. (Scratches head)

"Moralism, a by-product of duality, becomes insignificant as the consciousness level rises through the 500’s, and is irrelevant at the level of 600."

Where's Sam when you need him?

[I hope nobody minds that when I quote them I do them the kindness of correcting their spelling. And that goes for you, too, Alex.]

the slower or denser matter will always clash with that whose particles are vibrating at a higher frequency..

Or, more likely, will neither see it nor interfere with it.

"An individual’s level of consciousness is determined by the principles to which one is committed. To maintain progress in consciousness there can be no wavering from principle, or the individual will fall back to a lower level"

Is David Hawkins supposed to have said that? I have read two of his books and that doesn't quite sound like him.

Iolaus wrote:Quote:
"An individual’s level of consciousness is determined by the principles to which one is committed. To maintain progress in consciousness there can be no wavering from principle, or the individual will fall back to a lower level"


Is David Hawkins supposed to have said that? I have read two of his books and that doesn't quite sound like him

I'm not sure I just quoted what I read at the bottom of the chart... but through experience if one focuses the mind on negativity or for example resentment then it stands to reason that one will become narrow minded in their focusing.. yet if one were to focus on the principle of e.g 'conscious' clarification and vision then that is what they will receive...laws of attraction dictate this.. one begets what thoughts they send out...one creates what one desires or needs for conscious growth..likened to for example karma..ie lessons that a soul needs to go through to learn within this 3d physical paradigm...

amandaxxx

amandaxxx

Yes, I think that largely you are right, in fact for this reason I would like to see humanity as a whole begin to understand the responsibility we all have to maintain our inner worlds in a less negative state. Negativity of all sorts is an indulgence that pulls humanity down.

But that isn't quite what that quote was saying. So it bears thinking about.

Iolaus wrote:Yes, I think that largely you are right, in fact for this reason I would like to see humanity as a whole begin to understand the responsibility we all have to maintain our inner worlds in a less negative state. Negativity of all sorts is an indulgence that pulls humanity down.

But that isn't quite what that quote was saying. So it bears thinking about.

Indeed the quote refered to those staying focused in clarity or being 'pulled' back down, with so much negativity within the world many cannot and do not understand themselves in relation to compassionate awareness of any kind. The fact that you would like to see humanity as a whole begin to understand this, means that you are focussed on 'wanting' this to occur so therefore raising your own energy into a more positive out look for the whole, and so fueling the whole as part of it ;-)

Seek Understanding and a way to allow others to understand this for themselves and one will be focussed entirely upon the goal of world peace and harmony in unity. Energy of conscious awareness will be vast. I do this every day ;-) and my writing grows, along with clarity and vision. Through a 'selfless' desire for all, one fuels the whole and is also 'fueled' by the whole. Creation, creating itself with new understanding and knowing.
amandaxxx

No, Hawkins speaks a lot about positivity and negativity, but in this case he is saying that progress hinges upon maintaining one's principles.

For example, I may have the principle of being nonjudgemental, of accepting all people as of equal worth. If I waver from that, my level of consciousness may fall.

Iolaus wrote:No, Hawkins speaks a lot about positivity and negativity, but in this case he is saying that progress hinges upon maintaining one's principles.

For example, I may have the principle of being nonjudgemental, of accepting all people as of equal worth. If I waver from that, my level of consciousness may fall.

This Is obvious. and I did just say that progress is maintained within adehrence to principles, I did not discuss which principles. without adehrence, then of course people will fall back into confusion. narrow mindedness and negativity.

It Is exactly what I have just said, I was expanding on it also. When one examines the upper chart, and the accompanying text it also states that this can help pull the rest of 'consciousness' up. The UNIVERSAL collective.

Amandaxxx