Post Edited (One Love) : 8/11/2010 11:27:37 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Tom) : 8/12/2010 9:41:56 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Tom) : 8/12/2010 9:36:58 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Tom) : 8/12/2010 9:47:16 AM (GMT-5)

**********************************

The belief in this was east AND west, dude.  Basically, all I'm saying is that this akashic/aetheric reality is an aspect of God the Son as "Adam Kadmon" as the primoridal "morphic field" for created consciousness.  It is THIS reality in which our mind/brain-bodies participate and from whence our ego centers emerge!

Soooo...if my mind/brain-body were to be totally atomized where nothing but the most minute dust particles remained, the universal consciousness (the akashic/aetheric reality, spirit) from whence my mind/brain-body emerged would be the best place to locate who I am"

I ain't crazy! 

Post Edited (One Love) : 8/13/2010 8:14:21 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Tom) : 8/13/2010 9:06:35 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (One Love) : 8/13/2010 12:07:13 PM (GMT-5)

Hesychasm: The Christian Practice of Transcendence

From the article...

Altered States of Consciousness
Practitioners of hesychasm, known as hesychasts, use Christian terminology to describe their experiences. If we permit ourselves the latitude of translating those descriptions into contemporary psychological terminology, we can glimpse the hesychast's inner world.

Hesychasts describe two types of consciousness: ego-centered and ego-transcendent. The former is a state dominated by attachments to the senses, emotions, intellect, and imagination. The latter involves detachment from those faculties.

The shift from ego-centered to ego-transcendent consciousness is called metanoia in Greek. The literal translation of this term is "transformation of the nous," but the English language contains no exact synonym for the word nous. Misleading translations are "intellect," "mind," or "reason." The nous bears no resemblance to the rational intellect (dianoia in Greek). Whereas the rational intellect uses deductive reasoning, the nous relies upon "immediate experience" or intuition. Therefore, the term metanoia is correctly understood as a shift from ego-centered to nous-centered, ego-transcendent, or, in hesychastic terminology, God-centered consciousness.

The ultimate goal for hesychasts is union with God (Greek theosis). Three steps are required to achieve this goal. The first is dispassion (Greek apatheia), which involves detachment from the senses and the emotions. The second is stillness (Greek hesychia), which requires detachment from the discursive intellect and the imagination. The final step is an abiding state of illumination called deification or perfect union with God (Greek theosis).

Hesychasts employ both physical and mental practices to achieve ego-transcendent consciousness. Although it is convenient to describe these practices separately, hesychasts view them as interwoven and inseparable.

...

The third level of prayer, known as pure prayer or prayer of the heart, is said to evolve out of mental prayer. Prayer of the heart has been described as follows (Kadloubovsky and Palmer, Writings 156–7):

The mind should be in the heart—a distinctive feature of the third method of prayer. It should guard the heart while it prays, revolve, remaining always within, and thence, from the depths of the heart, offer up prayers to God.

The final stage of the hesychastic journey is called theoria or contemplation. This stage involves the cessation of all mental activity, at which point one is able to "see God in everything" (Spidlik 327).

---------------------------

If this doesn't convince you I'm NOT tryin' to be some gnostic...I give up!

Post Edited (One Love) : 8/13/2010 12:53:20 PM (GMT-5)

Let’s try this.

“Person” and “nature.” “Who” and “what.”

We agree that ‘who’ we are transcends ‘what’ we are. I agree that ‘who’ we are cannot be reduced to any of the various thoughts or feelings generated by our interactions with any of the accoutrements that make of our present earthly context. ‘Who’ we are is not grounded in any created entity. In this sense I think ‘who’ we are transcends ‘what’ we are. I don't think 'who' we are transcends 'nature' in the sense that 'who' we are is available to experience apart from the exercise of thought and feeling, i.e., apart from the exercise of all 'natural' capacity.

So I don’t think we agree on what ‘transcends’ means in this context, for any so-called experience of conscious states void of all thought and feeling are also, in my book, void of meaning. I can’t and won’t judge the mystical experiences (Christian or otherwise) of those who say they’ve experienced pure consciousness as white light void of all thought and feeling, but I have no interest in such experience. I really do appreciate your passion for it, but strictly speaking, D, there’s nothing you can say to communicate it, not even to recommend it, for to recommend it is to offer a reason based in thought or feeling for why it is to be desired. You say this experience is a freedom of the mind from all categorical thought and feeling. What's free about a mind in that state?

I don’t know whether those who lose all thought and feeling in seeing nothing but white light truly experience God or not. For all I know such an experience could be the malfunction of a human psyche desperately trying to escape thought and feeling for whatever reason. That would account for its uniformity across religions and times. I don’t know. You can’t offer me any content to consider, so I can’t think or imagine what I’m possibly missing out on by not having this experience.

So, back to ‘person’ and ‘nature’. Let me ask you this, can 'person' instantiate itself apart from 'nature'? Can there be a ‘who’ without a ‘what’ which is that who’s what? See what I mean? I would say 'no'. But it sure looks to me as if you’re offering me ‘person’ (a personal experience) apart from ‘nature’. That is, you’re saying there’s an experience of 'who' you are that escapes 'what' you are—i.e., escapes the limitations and circumscription of nature—and rests transcendently (i.e., exclusively, for you) in ‘person’. So for you it seems that person transcends nature in the sense that person escapes nature, i.e., functions exclusively as 'person'. That’s what looks like gnosticism to me. When you say there is no thought, feeling, or volition you’re saying there’s no nature, for these three ARE our nature. But there’s no ‘person’ to be had apart from the exercise of these natural capacities.

I hope you see why any claim of entering a realm in which ‘who’ we are escapes all influence or participation of ‘nature’ looks like gnosticism.

So, in what way does human ‘nature’ participate in expressing ‘who’ you are when you’re experiencing white light pure uncreated consciousness?

Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 8/13/2010 6:57:57 PM (GMT-5)

Ecstasy: In general usage, a transcendent, "standing-outside-of" the ordinary limits of reality under the impetus of a benevolent spiritual presence. This usage is intended here, except where the term is combined with "mundane." Then it denotes a "standing-outside-of" simultaneous with a "standing-more-deeply-within" the everyday, or the two-dimensional reality. (ie Self and the Lived World) In mundane ecstasy, therefore, ordinary existence can be perceived four-dimensionally (ie Self, Lived World, Void, and the Holy)

...

Beyond vision, in the fourth and final phase of the journey of intensification, is the numinous, imageless passage into the absolute unity of all things. Here no-thingness (cf. Eckhart's Ohne bild) (Epiklesis' Note: Nondual view) is experienced as more real that than the reality of the ordinary state, even after self-consciousness returns to phase 1. Although imageless, its impact most often leaves the after-image of radiant white light, so vivid it cannot be described except perhaps by a kind of via negativa. For this phase there is no language, only silence--favete linguis (hold your tongue), says Kierkegaard. For this phase there is still differentiated self-consciousness, but beyond that only a reaction of awe as before the Holy who both fascinates and overpowers at the same time. This corresponds to the vision of God in Augustine, Hildegaard, Teresa (of Avila), Eckhart, and several others.

More later...

Post Edited (One Love) : 8/14/2010 9:23:27 AM (GMT-5)