Realizing (The Oneness of) Pure Consciousness

[justlikeyou]

Questioner: "I do understand what you just said, but it seems to imply that Being, the ultimate transcendental reality, is not yet complete, that it is undergoing a process of development. Does God need time for personal growth?"

Tolle: "Yes, but only as seen from the limited perspective of the manifested universe. In the Bible, God declares: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, and I am the living One.” In the timeless realm where God dwells,which is also your home, the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega, are one, and the essence of everything that ever has been and ever will be is eternally present in an unmanifested state of oneness and perfection-totally beyond anything the human mind can ever imagine or comprehend. In our world of seemingly separate forms, however, timeless perfection is an inconceivable concept. Here even consciousness, which is the light emanating from the eternal Source, seems to be subject to a process of development, but this is due to our limited perception. It is not so in absolute terms.Nevertheless, let me continue to speak for a moment about the evolution of consciousness in this world.

Everything that exists has Being, has God-essence, has some degree of consciousness. Even a stone has rudimentary consciousness; otherwise, it would not be, and its atoms and molecules would disperse. Everything is alive. The sun, the earth, plants, animals, humans - all are expressions of consciousness in varying degrees, consciousness manifesting as form.

The world arises when consciousness takes on shapes and forms, thought forms and material forms. Look at the millions of life forms on this planet alone. In the sea, on land, in the air and then each life form is replicated millions of times. To what end? Is someone or something playing a game, a game with form? This is what the ancient seers of India asked themselves. They saw the world as lila, a kind of divine game that God is playing. The individual life forms are obviously not very important in this game. In the sea, most life forms don't survive for more than a few minutes after being born. The human form turns to dust pretty quickly too, and when it is gone it is as if it had never been. Is that tragic or cruel? Only if you create a separate identity for each form, if you forget that its consciousness is God- essence expressing itself in form. But you don't truly know that until you realize your own God-essence as pure consciousness.

If a fish is born in your aquarium and you call it John, write out a birth certificate, tell him about his family history, and two minutes later he gets eaten by another fish thats tragic. But its only tragic because you projected a separate self where there was none. You got hold of a fraction of a dynamic process, a molecular dance, and made a separate entity out of it.

Consciousness takes on the disguise of forms until they reach such complexity that it completely loses itself in them. In present-day humans, consciousness is completely identified with its disguise. It only knows itself as form and therefore lives in fear of the annihilation of its physical or psychological form. This is the egoic mind, and this is where considerable dysfunction sets in. It now looks as if something had gone very wrong somewhere along the line of evolution. But even this is part of lila, the divine game. Finally, the pressure of suffering created by this apparent dysfunction forces consciousness to disidentify from form and awakens it from its dream of form: It regains self- consciousness, but it is at a far deeper level than when it lost it.

This process is explained by Jesus in his parable of the lost son, who leaves his father's home, squanders his wealth, becomes destitute, and is then forced by his suffering to return home. When he does, his father loves him more than before. The son's state is the same as it was before, yet not the same. It has an added dimension of depth. The parable describes a journey from unconscious perfection, through apparent imperfection and “evil” to conscious perfection.

Can you now see the deeper and wider significance of becoming present as the watcher of your mind? Whenever you watch the mind, you withdraw consciousness from mind forms, which then becomes what we call the watcher or the witness. Consequently, the watcher pure consciousness beyond form becomes stronger, and the mental formations become weaker. When we talk about watching the mind we are personalizing an event that is truly of cosmic significance: through you, consciousness is awakening out of its dream of identification with form and withdrawing from form. This foreshadows, but is already part of, an event that is probably still in the distant future as far as chronological time is concerned. The event is called the end of the world."

[stardustpilgrim]

Mar 1, 2015 9:10:03 GMT -5 justlikeyou said:

Questioner: "I do understand what you just said, but it seems to imply that Being, the ultimate transcendental reality, is not yet complete, that it is undergoing a process of development. Does God need time for personal growth?"

Tolle: "Yes, but only as seen from the limited perspective of the manifested universe. In the Bible, God declares: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, and I am the living One.” In the timeless realm where God dwells,which is also your home, the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega, are one, and the essence of everything that ever has been and ever will be is eternally present in an unmanifested state of oneness and perfection-totally beyond anything the human mind can ever imagine or comprehend. In our world of seemingly separate forms, however, timeless perfection is an inconceivable concept. Here even consciousness, which is the light emanating from the eternal Source, seems to be subject to a process of development, but this is due to our limited perception. It is not so in absolute terms.Nevertheless, let me continue to speak for a moment about the evolution of consciousness in this world.

Everything that exists has Being, has God-essence, has some degree of consciousness. Even a stone has rudimentary consciousness; otherwise, it would not be, and its atoms and molecules would disperse. Everything is alive. The sun, the earth, plants, animals, humans - all are expressions of consciousness in varying degrees, consciousness manifesting as form.

The world arises when consciousness takes on shapes and forms, thought forms and material forms. Look at the millions of life forms on this planet alone. In the sea, on land, in the air and then each life form is replicated millions of times. To what end? Is someone or something playing a game, a game with form? This is what the ancient seers of India asked themselves. They saw the world as lila, a kind of divine game that God is playing. The individual life forms are obviously not very important in this game. In the sea, most life forms don't survive for more than a few minutes after being born. The human form turns to dust pretty quickly too, and when it is gone it is as if it had never been. Is that tragic or cruel? Only if you create a separate identity for each form, if you forget that its consciousness is God- essence expressing itself in form. But you don't truly know that until you realize your own God-essence as pure consciousness.

If a fish is born in your aquarium and you call it John, write out a birth certificate, tell him about his family history, and two minutes later he gets eaten by another fish thats tragic. But its only tragic because you projected a separate self where there was none. You got hold of a fraction of a dynamic process, a molecular dance, and made a separate entity out of it.

Consciousness takes on the disguise of forms until they reach such complexity that it completely loses itself in them. In present-day humans, consciousness is completely identified with its disguise. It only knows itself as form and therefore lives in fear of the annihilation of its physical or psychological form. This is the egoic mind, and this is where considerable dysfunction sets in. It now looks as if something had gone very wrong somewhere along the line of evolution. But even this is part of lila, the divine game. Finally, the pressure of suffering created by this apparent dysfunction forces consciousness to disidentify from form and awakens it from its dream of form: It regains self- consciousness, but it is at a far deeper level than when it lost it.

This process is explained by Jesus in his parable of the lost son, who leaves his father's home, squanders his wealth, becomes destitute, and is then forced by his suffering to return home. When he does, his father loves him more than before. The son's state is the same as it was before, yet not the same. It has an added dimension of depth. The parable describes a journey from unconscious perfection, through apparent imperfection and “evil” to conscious perfection.

Can you now see the deeper and wider significance of becoming present as the watcher of your mind? Whenever you watch the mind, you withdraw consciousness from mind forms, which then becomes what we call the watcher or the witness. Consequently, the watcher pure consciousness beyond form becomes stronger, and the mental formations become weaker. When we talk about watching the mind we are personalizing an event that is truly of cosmic significance: through you, consciousness is awakening out of its dream of identification with form and withdrawing from form. This foreshadows, but is already part of, an event that is probably still in the distant future as far as chronological time is concerned. The event is called the end of the world."

Indubitably. When the son came to be at the farthest arc away from the Father, it is said, and he came to himself. That could probably be said, and then he woke up.

And, "but it is at a far deeper level" is why I say duality has a purpose.

[someNOTHING!]

Mar 1, 2015 10:33:20 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

Mar 1, 2015 9:10:03 GMT -5 justlikeyou said:

Questioner: "I do understand what you just said, but it seems to imply that Being, the ultimate transcendental reality, is not yet complete, that it is undergoing a process of development. Does God need time for personal growth?"

Tolle: "Yes, but only as seen from the limited perspective of the manifested universe. In the Bible, God declares: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, and I am the living One.” In the timeless realm where God dwells,which is also your home, the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega, are one, and the essence of everything that ever has been and ever will be is eternally present in an unmanifested state of oneness and perfection-totally beyond anything the human mind can ever imagine or comprehend. In our world of seemingly separate forms, however, timeless perfection is an inconceivable concept. Here even consciousness, which is the light emanating from the eternal Source, seems to be subject to a process of development, but this is due to our limited perception. It is not so in absolute terms.Nevertheless, let me continue to speak for a moment about the evolution of consciousness in this world.

Everything that exists has Being, has God-essence, has some degree of consciousness. Even a stone has rudimentary consciousness; otherwise, it would not be, and its atoms and molecules would disperse. Everything is alive. The sun, the earth, plants, animals, humans - all are expressions of consciousness in varying degrees, consciousness manifesting as form.

The world arises when consciousness takes on shapes and forms, thought forms and material forms. Look at the millions of life forms on this planet alone. In the sea, on land, in the air and then each life form is replicated millions of times. To what end? Is someone or something playing a game, a game with form? This is what the ancient seers of India asked themselves. They saw the world as lila, a kind of divine game that God is playing. The individual life forms are obviously not very important in this game. In the sea, most life forms don't survive for more than a few minutes after being born. The human form turns to dust pretty quickly too, and when it is gone it is as if it had never been. Is that tragic or cruel? Only if you create a separate identity for each form, if you forget that its consciousness is God- essence expressing itself in form. But you don't truly know that until you realize your own God-essence as pure consciousness.

If a fish is born in your aquarium and you call it John, write out a birth certificate, tell him about his family history, and two minutes later he gets eaten by another fish thats tragic. But its only tragic because you projected a separate self where there was none. You got hold of a fraction of a dynamic process, a molecular dance, and made a separate entity out of it.

Consciousness takes on the disguise of forms until they reach such complexity that it completely loses itself in them. In present-day humans, consciousness is completely identified with its disguise. It only knows itself as form and therefore lives in fear of the annihilation of its physical or psychological form. This is the egoic mind, and this is where considerable dysfunction sets in. It now looks as if something had gone very wrong somewhere along the line of evolution. But even this is part of lila, the divine game. Finally, the pressure of suffering created by this apparent dysfunction forces consciousness to disidentify from form and awakens it from its dream of form: It regains self- consciousness, but it is at a far deeper level than when it lost it.

This process is explained by Jesus in his parable of the lost son, who leaves his father's home, squanders his wealth, becomes destitute, and is then forced by his suffering to return home. When he does, his father loves him more than before. The son's state is the same as it was before, yet not the same. It has an added dimension of depth. The parable describes a journey from unconscious perfection, through apparent imperfection and “evil” to conscious perfection.

Can you now see the deeper and wider significance of becoming present as the watcher of your mind? Whenever you watch the mind, you withdraw consciousness from mind forms, which then becomes what we call the watcher or the witness. Consequently, the watcher pure consciousness beyond form becomes stronger, and the mental formations become weaker. When we talk about watching the mind we are personalizing an event that is truly of cosmic significance: through you, consciousness is awakening out of its dream of identification with form and withdrawing from form. This foreshadows, but is already part of, an event that is probably still in the distant future as far as chronological time is concerned. The event is called the end of the world."

Indubitably. When the son came to be at the farthest arc away from the Father, it is said, and he came to himself. That could probably be said, and then he woke up.

And, "but it is at a far deeper level" is why I say duality has a purpose.

In your understanding, doesn't purpose require a fundamental belief in duality? As such, it would be conditional/dubitable.

[stardustpilgrim]

Mar 1, 2015 10:46:29 GMT -5 someNOTHING! said:

Mar 1, 2015 10:33:20 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

Indubitably. When the son came to be at the farthest arc away from the Father, it is said, and he came to himself. That could probably be said, and then he woke up.

And, "but it is at a far deeper level" is why I say duality has a purpose.

In your understanding, doesn't purpose require a fundamental belief in duality? As such, it would be conditional/dubitable.

I underlined the significant points of the OP. A few years ago there used to be a good magazine called What Is Enlightenment? I think it was an Alan Cohen project. There was usually a dialogue between Ken Wilber and Cohen. I think the magazine went from paper to electronic-only, but I don't know what happened after that. I think Alan Cohen sort of crashed and burned, so maybe that was the way of the magazine. Anyway, their last (paper) dialogues concerned the evolution of consciousness. This was something new to Cohen, as he had pretty-much been a cut-n-dried non-dualist, of the variety we have around here (ST's), so, what would that mean anyway, evolution?

But Cohen came to believe, simultaneously, in non-duality, and the evolution of consciousness, even wrote a book on this, I think his last book. So Wilber and Cohen both ~believed~ in the evolution of consciousness, likewise, Tolle, from this excerpt.

Now to answer your question, indubitably, except I'm a little concerned about your use of the word fundamental (hence, fundamental). Purpose means duality, means conditional. Absolutely. Reason #12 I am not a non-dualist, unqualified.

[someNOTHING!]

Mar 1, 2015 11:13:34 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

Mar 1, 2015 10:46:29 GMT -5 someNOTHING! said:

In your understanding, doesn't purpose require a fundamental belief in duality? As such, it would be conditional/dubitable.

I underlined the significant points of the OP. A few years ago there used to be a good magazine called What Is Enlightenment? I think it was an Alan Cohen project. There was usually a dialogue between Ken Wilber and Cohen. I think the magazine went from paper to electronic-only, but I don't know what happened after that. I think Alan Cohen sort of crashed and burned, so maybe that was the way of the magazine. Anyway, their last (paper) dialogues concerned the evolution of consciousness. This was something new to Cohen, as he had pretty-much been a cut-n-dried non-dualist, of the variety we have around here (ST's), so, what would that mean anyway, evolution?

But Cohen came to believe, simultaneously, in non-duality, and the evolution of consciousness, even wrote a book on this, I think his last book. So Wilber and Cohen both ~believed~ in the evolution of consciousness, likewise, Tolle, from this excerpt.

Now to answer your question, indubitably, except I'm a little concerned about your use of the word fundamental (hence, fundamental). Purpose means duality, means conditional. Absolutely. Reason #12 I am not a non-dualist, unqualified.

I read a Wilbur book while camping in the park after the great Taiwan earthquake of 1999. I cannot comment on Cohen and Wilber much, other than when I hear levels, evolution, or some other pithy pathy-like thingy, I tend to think "potential major source of distraction". At best, it would attempt to explain in hindsight how one's story to find truth unfolded, but more often it tries to rationalize "steps". Maybe reading that kind of stuff and giving credence to it for a period of time will be part of your story, maybe in won't, but in the end, it will be seen to have been a distraction. Perhaps it is the theory of evolution that is used as a carrot to keep people interested and doing the needed work. Perhaps it is just to help sell books. Dunno, don't care, all good. Truth is more immediate, and all you have to do is let it in. No effort is required.

As a way of talking about it, it could be said that all thought divides/distinguishes aspects of the whole. "I" and "the rest of the universe as it is known" is "other" is the fundamental belief from which all other assumed truths arise. It opens the door for a whole host of other mal-aligned ideas, based on that one fundamental, to move in and set up shop. It's the foundational structure of thoughts/beliefs you've mentioned, I reckon. It's the effort of glueing it all back together that sows the seeds of doubt. What those seeds reap, and how that harvest pales in comparison to realizing truth, are what is often being pointed out here. Realization can't be "believed" into existence, and what's left in its stead cannot be fathomed. If your true intent and purpose is to carry on making maps, creating levels, making connections between different fields of thought, and journeying, well OK then, so be it. But it is safe and honest to say that you are searching. If nothing else, you are searching for the best construct, however much it evolves. Doubt will indubitably be a part of that activity, however unconscious it may be. It's in the details.

[stardustpilgrim]

Mar 1, 2015 12:19:22 GMT -5 someNOTHING! said:

Mar 1, 2015 11:13:34 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

I underlined the significant points of the OP. A few years ago there used to be a good magazine called What Is Enlightenment? I think it was an Alan Cohen project. There was usually a dialogue between Ken Wilber and Cohen. I think the magazine went from paper to electronic-only, but I don't know what happened after that. I think Alan Cohen sort of crashed and burned, so maybe that was the way of the magazine. Anyway, their last (paper) dialogues concerned the evolution of consciousness. This was something new to Cohen, as he had pretty-much been a cut-n-dried non-dualist, of the variety we have around here (ST's), so, what would that mean anyway, evolution?

But Cohen came to believe, simultaneously, in non-duality, and the evolution of consciousness, even wrote a book on this, I think his last book. So Wilber and Cohen both ~believed~ in the evolution of consciousness, likewise, Tolle, from this excerpt.

Now to answer your question, indubitably, except I'm a little concerned about your use of the word fundamental (hence, fundamental). Purpose means duality, means conditional. Absolutely. Reason #12 I am not a non-dualist, unqualified.

I read a Wilbur book while camping in the park after the great Taiwan earthquake of 1999. I cannot comment on Cohen and Wilber much, other than when I hear levels, evolution, or some other pithy pathy-like thingy, I tend to think "potential major source of distraction". At best, it would attempt to explain in hindsight how one's story to find truth unfolded, but more often it tries to rationalize "steps". Maybe reading that kind of stuff and giving credence to it for a period of time will be part of your story, maybe in won't, but in the end, it will be seen to have been a distraction. Perhaps it is the theory of evolution that is used as a carrot to keep people interested and doing the needed work. Perhaps it is just to help sell books. Dunno, don't care, all good. Truth is more immediate, and all you have to do is let it in. No effort is required.

As a way of talking about it, it could be said that all thought divides/distinguishes aspects of the whole. "I" and "the rest of the universe as it is known" is "other" is the fundamental belief from which all other assumed truths arise. It opens the door for a whole host of other mal-aligned ideas, based on that one fundamental, to move in and set up shop. It's the foundational structure of thoughts/beliefs you've mentioned, I reckon. It's the effort of glueing it all back together that sows the seeds of doubt. What those seeds reap, and how that harvest pales in comparison to realizing truth, are what is often being pointed out here. Realization can't be "believed" into existence, and what's left in its stead cannot be fathomed. If your true intent and purpose is to carry on making maps, creating levels, making connections between different fields of thought, and journeying, well OK then, so be it. But it is safe and honest to say that you are searching. If nothing else, you are searching for the best construct, however much it evolves. Doubt will indubitably be a part of that activity, however unconscious it may be. It's in the details.

So Tolle is deluded when he says: but it is at a much deeper level than when it lost it? (from the OP)

[laughter]

Mar 1, 2015 13:54:59 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

Mar 1, 2015 12:19:22 GMT -5 someNOTHING! said:

I read a Wilbur book while camping in the park after the great Taiwan earthquake of 1999. I cannot comment on Cohen and Wilber much, other than when I hear levels, evolution, or some other pithy pathy-like thingy, I tend to think "potential major source of distraction". At best, it would attempt to explain in hindsight how one's story to find truth unfolded, but more often it tries to rationalize "steps". Maybe reading that kind of stuff and giving credence to it for a period of time will be part of your story, maybe in won't, but in the end, it will be seen to have been a distraction. Perhaps it is the theory of evolution that is used as a carrot to keep people interested and doing the needed work. Perhaps it is just to help sell books. Dunno, don't care, all good. Truth is more immediate, and all you have to do is let it in. No effort is required.

As a way of talking about it, it could be said that all thought divides/distinguishes aspects of the whole. "I" and "the rest of the universe as it is known" is "other" is the fundamental belief from which all other assumed truths arise. It opens the door for a whole host of other mal-aligned ideas, based on that one fundamental, to move in and set up shop. It's the foundational structure of thoughts/beliefs you've mentioned, I reckon. It's the effort of glueing it all back together that sows the seeds of doubt. What those seeds reap, and how that harvest pales in comparison to realizing truth, are what is often being pointed out here. Realization can't be "believed" into existence, and what's left in its stead cannot be fathomed. If your true intent and purpose is to carry on making maps, creating levels, making connections between different fields of thought, and journeying, well OK then, so be it. But it is safe and honest to say that you are searching. If nothing else, you are searching for the best construct, however much it evolves. Doubt will indubitably be a part of that activity, however unconscious it may be. It's in the details.

So Tolle is deluded when he says: but it is at a much deeper level than when it lost it? (from the OP)

What Tolle means by that is that appearances (the "dream of form") appear one way to you when you're identified with them, and another way when you're not.

"A New Earth" is about the appearance of the evolution of consciousness but read the 2nd paragraph of the OP for the context. Tolle, like Niz, is very comfortable talking in a way that will lead the mind to paradox and contradiction if you don't listen to his disclaimer up front that he's only pointing, and that the words aren't offered as fodder for analysis.

Chopping them up in a half-picture like that is just a special case of analysis.