|
|
Post by zendancer on May 20, 2017 12:32:03 GMT -5
I first heard about Dionysius in the book "Cosmic Consciousness" by R.M Bucke. I don't have a copy of the book at my current location, but my memory is that Bucke describes him as a Christian mystic who had various CC experiences. I don't remember the time frame. He has some interesting quotes from the guy, but I'll have to look them up when I get back to my office library. Bucke erroneously speculated that CC experiences were evidence of a newly evolving human facility. His book describes various people--the Buddha, Jesus, Paul, Shakespeare, St. John of the Cross, Walt Whitman, etc.-- who supposedly had CC experiences and who attained various states of enlightenment as a result. Even though Bucke was wrong regarding his main thesis, his book is interesting because of the stories and quotes it contains. Many of the people he mentions, such as Jacob Boehm, another Christian mystic, apparently had numerous CC experiences, and they regarded them as brief glimpses of heaven. Boehm and other similar mystics tried to replicate the conditions that seemed associated with CC experiences so that they could repeatedly enter those non-dual states. They were unaware that Buddhist and Hindu masters put such experiences into an entirely different context, and advise leaving the desire for such states, behind. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 22, 2017 0:09:02 GMT -5
That squares with how the real deal was a levels/hierarchy guy. The summary read like any old modern day new age practice aficionado. Same conversation, different millenia. Sure, the existential questions people have are always the same and the answer the sages give is always the same as well. That's the only thing that's been consistent thru-out history. And I don't think that's ever going to change because the basic human condition isn't going to change. Different words and phrases, but in essence same same. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 22, 2017 0:11:00 GMT -5
Yes. Seems it was common at the time to give a false impression as to who the author was, to sort of beef up your resume. So later they found out DtA wasn't really DtA, so they called him P-DtA. Doesn't really matter if he was a disciple of so-n-so or not. The quality of the writing is what matters. It's the question, did Shakespeare write the works of Shakespeare? Who cares, they are what they are. Well, maybe we should call Tolle a pseudo-Eckhart, hehe. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 22, 2017 0:13:14 GMT -5
I first heard about Dionysius in the book "Cosmic Consciousness" by R.M Bucke. I don't have a copy of the book at my current location, but my memory is that Bucke describes him as a Christian mystic who had various CC experiences. I don't remember the time frame. He has some interesting quotes from the guy, but I'll have to look them up when I get back to my office library. Bucke erroneously speculated that CC experiences were evidence of a newly evolving human facility. His book describes various people--the Buddha, Jesus, Paul, Shakespeare, St. John of the Cross, Walt Whitman, etc.-- who supposedly had CC experiences and who attained various states of enlightenment as a result. Even though Bucke was wrong regarding his main thesis, his book is interesting because of the stories and quotes it contains. Many of the people he mentions, such as Jacob Boehm, another Christian mystic, apparently had numerous CC experiences, and they regarded them as brief glimpses of heaven. Boehm and other similar mystics tried to replicate the conditions that seemed associated with CC experiences so that they could repeatedly enter those non-dual states. They were unaware that Buddhist and Hindu masters put such experiences into an entirely different context, and advise leaving the desire for such states, behind. That's what I've noticed, too. ME seems to be more about CC than SR. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 22, 2017 7:36:18 GMT -5
Yes. Seems it was common at the time to give a false impression as to who the author was, to sort of beef up your resume. So later they found out DtA wasn't really DtA, so they called him P-DtA. Doesn't really matter if he was a disciple of so-n-so or not. The quality of the writing is what matters. It's the question, did Shakespeare write the works of Shakespeare? Who cares, they are what they are. Well, maybe we should call Tolle a pseudo-Eckhart, hehe.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 22, 2017 7:51:55 GMT -5
I first heard about Dionysius in the book "Cosmic Consciousness" by R.M Bucke. I don't have a copy of the book at my current location, but my memory is that Bucke describes him as a Christian mystic who had various CC experiences. I don't remember the time frame. He has some interesting quotes from the guy, but I'll have to look them up when I get back to my office library. Bucke erroneously speculated that CC experiences were evidence of a newly evolving human facility. His book describes various people--the Buddha, Jesus, Paul, Shakespeare, St. John of the Cross, Walt Whitman, etc.-- who supposedly had CC experiences and who attained various states of enlightenment as a result. Even though Bucke was wrong regarding his main thesis, his book is interesting because of the stories and quotes it contains. Many of the people he mentions, such as Jacob Boehm, another Christian mystic, apparently had numerous CC experiences, and they regarded them as brief glimpses of heaven. Boehm and other similar mystics tried to replicate the conditions that seemed associated with CC experiences so that they could repeatedly enter those non-dual states. They were unaware that Buddhist and Hindu masters put such experiences into an entirely different context, and advise leaving the desire for such states, behind. That's what I've noticed, too. ME seems to be more about CC than SR. Happened to come here first. Since it was mentioned here, I'll comment here but will post elsewhere also. I don't think SR would have even slightly occurred to ME. Why would I say this? Only just this morning have I understood the meaning of SR. It's seems to have been easy to be able to be explained, but I never got it until this morning. But I still disagree about many surrounding Iissues, probably even more-so. But at least I understand what you all are writing about now. (When I woke up this morning, it was just there. But now all the many questions I've kept asking, are answered). |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 22, 2017 8:13:50 GMT -5
That squares with how the real deal was a levels/hierarchy guy. The summary read like any old modern day new age practice aficionado. Same conversation, different millenia. Sure, the existential questions people have are always the same and the answer the sages give is always the same as well. That's the only thing that's been consistent thru-out history. And I don't think that's ever going to change because the basic human condition isn't going to change. Different words and phrases, but in essence same same. Sortta' spooky.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 26, 2017 1:49:52 GMT -5
Happened to come here first. Since it was mentioned here, I'll comment here but will post elsewhere also. I don't think SR would have even slightly occurred to ME. Why would I say this? Only just this morning have I understood the meaning of SR. It's seems to have been easy to be able to be explained, but I never got it until this morning. But I still disagree about many surrounding Iissues, probably even more-so. But at least I understand what you all are writing about now. (When I woke up this morning, it was just there. But now all the many questions I've kept asking, are answered). Does this mean you've finally seen the light?  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 26, 2017 1:52:20 GMT -5
Sure, the existential questions people have are always the same and the answer the sages give is always the same as well. That's the only thing that's been consistent thru-out history. And I don't think that's ever going to change because the basic human condition isn't going to change. Different words and phrases, but in essence same same. Sortta' spooky. Adopting the A-H perspective here, I'd say it's that way by design, not by accident. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 26, 2017 8:08:27 GMT -5
Happened to come here first. Since it was mentioned here, I'll comment here but will post elsewhere also. I don't think SR would have even slightly occurred to ME. Why would I say this? Only just this morning have I understood the meaning of SR. It's seems to have been easy to be able to be explained, but I never got it until this morning. But I still disagree about many surrounding Iissues, probably even more-so. But at least I understand what you all are writing about now. (When I woke up this morning, it was just there. But now all the many questions I've kept asking, are answered). Does this mean you've finally seen the light? No.I further explained on pg 106 Niz for dummies In reply to Bluey. It's that now I see (theoretically) how stuff can get done with there being an illusory self, previously that didn't make sense. I see how stuff got done previous to SR and how stuff still gets done after SR. But I still disagree that that's what's going on. I ~personally~ still see a ~localized~ false sense of self operating. I still see essence as a ~localized~ true self, under the false sense of self, being usurped, but potentially accessible...via conscious efforts via attention and awareness. IOW, not much has changed. Altered states (like CC) arise from a tipping point reached from accumulated energy (but can be either top-down or bottom up, that is, either possible). Everything centers around energy. SR is still not part of my vocabulary. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 27, 2017 6:13:10 GMT -5
Sortta' spooky. Adopting the A-H perspective here, I'd say it's that way by design, not by accident. The humanists come to the same conclusion by a different means. The profs that designed the Physics classes that I took made that clear. They posed problems in terms of certain physical constants (charge of an electron, speed of light, etc..), and these revealed that if you change any of them even out to like hundreds of decimal points the Universe as we know it collapses or blows apart. Philosophically this is known as the anthropic principle. In terms of a topic that's often of interest on this forum, it reveals root conditioning of mind that's common to atheists and deeply religious people alike. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 27, 2017 6:14:31 GMT -5
Does this mean you've finally seen the light? No.I further explained on pg 106 Niz for dummies In reply to Bluey. It's that now I see (theoretically) how stuff can get done with there being an illusory self, previously that didn't make sense. I see how stuff got done previous to SR and how stuff still gets done after SR. But I still disagree that that's what's going on. I ~personally~ still see a ~localized~ false sense of self operating. I still see essence as a ~localized~ true self, under the false sense of self, being usurped, but potentially accessible...via conscious efforts via attention and awareness. IOW, not much has changed. Altered states (like CC) arise from a tipping point reached from accumulated energy (but can be either top-down or bottom up, that is, either possible). Everything centers around energy. SR is still not part of my vocabulary.  |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 27, 2017 13:36:09 GMT -5
That's what I've noticed, too. ME seems to be more about CC than SR. Happened to come here first. Since it was mentioned here, I'll comment here but will post elsewhere also. I don't think SR would have even slightly occurred to ME. Why would I say this? Only just this morning have I understood the meaning of SR. It's seems to have been easy to be able to be explained, but I never got it until this morning. But I still disagree about many surrounding Iissues, probably even more-so. But at least I understand what you all are writing about now. (When I woke up this morning, it was just there. But now all the many questions I've kept asking, are answered). SDP: You once asked me if thought a CC experience was a higher state of consciousness. I didn't respond because I don't like the distinction "higher," but maybe that's a suitable distinction if we don't get too attached to it. I agree with you and Reefs that SR would probably not have occurred to ME. I suspect that he had had CC experiences which left him in awe of the Absolute, but did not result in the realization that he was one-with THAT. I suspect that he would have found such an idea blasphemous, but perhaps not. The guy was deep, but without knowing that such a thing as SR is possible, I suspect that he would have been satisfied with the understanding that resulted from one or more CC experiences. Two points. First, a CC experience ( in which the experiencer is not knowable) is usually limited to a very short period of time. Most accounts suggest that even deep experiences only last from 10 minutes to an hour or so. What follows a CC experience, however, is a period of time during which ordinary mental functioning and dualistic thought returns, but the sense of selfhood does not. One lives in what we might call a continuing cosmic-consciousness or Christ-consciousness state of mind. There is no fear whatsoever, and no interest in anything personal. The body/mind exists in an extraordinary state of psychological unity. I lived for two days in that state of mind following a CC experience, and it was unbelievable. It was as if I had been transported to a paradise beyond imagining. Tolle apparently lived for more than a year like that, and Flora Courtois lived for almost ten years like that. Whether it's possible to live like that forever I do not know, but SR does not result in that same state of mind. From my experience there is a huge difference between living life in the flow state that I think Ramana was pointing to with the words "sahaja samadhi" (which can only occur after SR) and the flow state that I would call "a Christ-consciousness" state of mind. I recently read something written by a ZM that implied that sahaja samadhi could eventually result in a permanent Christ-consciousness state of mind, but I haven't encountered many other writings on that particular subject. I can only say that during the two days following a big CC experience I wanted nothing for myself, was ready to give away everything I owned, was connected to the world in some deeply unified way that affected perception, and interacted with people in a psychic way that was almost unearthly. The well being of others was my only interest. I suspect that when Jesus talked about the kingdom of God as a present reality, he was referring to life lived in that state of mind. FWIW, in that state of mind non-locality is the rule rather than the exception. It's not woo-woo in the way that a short cosmic-consciousness experience is woo-woo, but it's certainly woo-woo as a continuing state of mind compared to what most people experience as daily life. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 27, 2017 15:23:54 GMT -5
No.I further explained on pg 106 Niz for dummies In reply to Bluey. It's that now I see (theoretically) how stuff can get done with there being an illusory self, previously that didn't make sense. I see how stuff got done previous to SR and how stuff still gets done after SR. But I still disagree that that's what's going on. I ~personally~ still see a ~localized~ false sense of self operating. I still see essence as a ~localized~ true self, under the false sense of self, being usurped, but potentially accessible...via conscious efforts via attention and awareness. IOW, not much has changed. Altered states (like CC) arise from a tipping point reached from accumulated energy (but can be either top-down or bottom up, that is, either possible). Everything centers around energy. SR is still not part of my vocabulary.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 27, 2017 22:09:41 GMT -5
Does this mean you've finally seen the light? No.I further explained on pg 106 Niz for dummies In reply to Bluey. It's that now I see (theoretically) how stuff can get done with there being an illusory self, previously that didn't make sense. I see how stuff got done previous to SR and how stuff still gets done after SR. But I still disagree that that's what's going on. I ~personally~ still see a ~localized~ false sense of self operating. I still see essence as a ~localized~ true self, under the false sense of self, being usurped, but potentially accessible...via conscious efforts via attention and awareness. IOW, not much has changed. Altered states (like CC) arise from a tipping point reached from accumulated energy (but can be either top-down or bottom up, that is, either possible). Everything centers around energy. SR is still not part of my vocabulary. Well, think about the mirage metaphor. Does this mean you are not going to ride out there anymore to fill your canteen? |
|
Interesting challenge. My 30 sec frontrunner is 
