Reference: The Creation Hymn of Rig Veda
- There was neither non-existence nor existence then.
- There was uniform awareness that appeared as undisturbed space.
- There was no name, shape, form or even consciousness.
- There was mere continuity without any distinguishing features.
The fundamental principle is continuity and harmony. This principle underlies the universe.
.
- Disturbance arose in awareness and space.
- It was the seed of desire that appeared as time.
- Disturbed awareness appeared as consciousness.
- Disturbed space appeared as electromagnetism.
It seems that the earliest consciousness appeared as electromagnetism. Desire was buried in it as time.
.
- Consciousness then propagated throughout awareness.
- It appeared as electromagnetic wave propagating through space.
- The field of consciousness appeared as the electromagnetic field.
- Disturbance of all different frequencies played in that field.
The fundamental consciousness seems to arise when uniform awareness is disturbed. However, our view of consciousness is human-centric.
.
- The characteristic of discreteness came about with frequency.
- Frequency gradients then provided the distinguishing features.
- A universe was now taking form and could be so identified.
- That primary beingness was simple, continuous and harmonious.
The universe started out very simple and then grew to be increasingly complex. Human characteristics are very complex that grew out of much simpler characteristics.
.
- The universe was initially one continuous and harmonious form.
- But complexity soon brought about fundamental dichotomies.
- Outward concrete appearance came to be known as “physical”.
- The internal abstract essence came to be known as “spiritual”.
In Christianity, the outward appearance was broadly identified as the “world”; and the internal essence was idealized as “God”. In Scientology, the outward appearance became MEST, and the internal essence became THETA.
.
- Increasing complexity introduced complex forms.
- These forms were endowed with complex functions.
- These functions provided a gradient of life and aliveness.
- Complex nature of individual forms came to be known as “self”.
Physical forms with their spiritual essence range from simple to complex. The form and essence are deeply integrated. They are two sides of the same coin. It is an error to think that the essence creates the form, or that the form traps the essence as believed in Scientology.
.
- The physicality ultimately becomes fixed as discreteness of matter.
- But the physicality of electromagnetic field remains fluid.
- Similarly, the spirituality ultimately becomes fixed as discreteness of “self”.
- But the spirituality of consciousness remains fluid as well.
There are dynamic and fluid fields underlying matter and self. Ghosts may be a phenomenon of fluid fields that are immaterial and interact with human consciousness.
.
- Death makes body disintegrate into molecules, atoms and fields of forms.
- It makes “self” disintegrate into “molecules”,”atoms” and “fields” of essence.
- The idea of a fixed and eternal identity, like “soul” or “thetan”, is a myth.
- Only thing eternal is the uniform awareness of undisturbed space.
Humans are most concerned with the phenomenon of death. This phenomenon lies at the core of all religions. Lots of myths have built themselves around the subject of death.
.
- A new body starts with elements of previous bodies coming together.
- A new “self” starts with elements of previous “selves” coming together.
- It is not the same “self” or body that passes from one life to the next.
- The reincarnation modifies the “self”, just as it modifies the body.
On the other hand the phenomenon of birth attracts similar human concerns. Each birth is a reincarnation, but the “self” is a recombination of spiritual elements, just as the “body” is a recombination of physical elements.
.
- It is not agreement that restores continuity and harmony.
- It is the reduction of inconsistencies that restores them.
- All the rest may just be speculations.
- But this last conclusion is not.
Spiritual growth lies in the direction of gradual reduction of inconsistencies as one comes across them. This would ultimately lead to continuity and harmony on a universal scale.
.
Comments
I love these metaphors and explorations. These only have to be brought into consistency with reality.
LikeLike
What inconsistency with reality do you see?
LikeLike
Hi Vinaire
Nice picture! I see your first line is identical to “The Creation Hymn of Rig Veda”. To even make this statement begs the question “What/who is making this statement” and to use the word God is as good as any. So that makes the first line read “There was GOD then” or the Hindu acknowledgment “There was Brahma” or the Buddhist starting point of NO-THING.
Even for us as man to make these statements we must share some common bond with this that was “neither non-existence nor existence” and that which we have in common is PERSONHOOD and personhood precedes BEING. In Biblical terminology we might say “before anything existed personhood already was”. In Hinduism there is a relationship between Brahma and Atman which I see portrayed in your picture.
Love
Pip
LikeLike
I know you carry a human-centric viewpoint, whereas I carry an objectively broad and scientific viewpoint. If you are looking for “nouns”, my answer is given in the second line.
“There was uniform awareness that appeared as undisturbed space.”
This is just as abstract as your human-centric “personhood” is.
.
LikeLike
And there is me thinking I was “carrying” a God-centred viewpoint. My point remains, who or what is saying “There was uniform awareness”? I agree with Mr Hubbard’s definition of SPACE “viewpoint of dimension” In line with this definition there has to be a view point and something to view for space to exist.
Love
Pip
LikeLike
IS-NESS.
LikeLike
Pip: ” My point remains, who or what is saying “There was uniform awareness”?”
Vinaire: “IS-NESS”
Vinay, this exchange seems like it may be a semantics issue. Didn’t that IS-NESS come to assume the many points of view that exist – aside from whether or not they are permanent?
LikeLike
Hello Vinaire
If you are going to use Scientology terms it is important to use them within their Scientology definitions. IS-NESS is defined as – “an apparency of existence brought about by the continuous alteration of an as-isness”. This is called, when agreed upon, reality since somebody or thing has to agree for IS-NESS to be a reality.
When I speak of God I am not speaking of an IS-NESS but an AS-ISNESS. You see “God does not exist” He is EXISTANCE. In other words He does not exist in space and time because He precedes all created things, so He is the ultimate AS-ISNESS.
This statement is way NORTH for any Scientologist to comprehend and so where God is concerned they practice NOT-ISNESS, which is defined as “the effort to handle isness by reducing its condition through the use of force”. It is an apparency and cannot entirely vanquish an isness. But well done for protesting the existence of God. At least that is a point of view.
Love
Pip
LikeLike
Pip, you asking me to think only in the context of Scientology is not fair. That simply amounts to succumbing to Scientology conditioning. In my view, Scientology and Semitic religions employ a human-centric viewpoint. A human-centric viewpoint is subjective. So the understanding of is-ness is corrupted when one is looking at it from a narrow human-centric viewpoint.
Is-ness simply means, “what is”. The correct understanding of “is-ness” comes from a totally objective viewpoint. If you disagree with it then we need to be discussing something else.
.
LikeLike
Hi Vinaire
I couldn’t agree with you more. What we need to be discussing is THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. If we cannot agree on the IS-NESS of God we have come to the end of the line. The Bible says “Only fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.” …..” Psalm 53:1
Love
Pip
LikeLike
Marildi, the uniform awareness is a limiting condition similar to the “velocity of light”. There are no points of views that exist just like there exist no reference points for the velocity of light. Please see,
Velocity of Light versus Mass
Is-ness goes beyond viewpoint.
.
LikeLike
Vin, that’s out gradient for me. I heard you’re a good teacher, so please give me an answer that isn’t in physics terms and would be at my level of understanding.
Let’s keep it in the context of humans, each of whom has a different point of view. It seems to me that “isness” – or God, or spirit, or whatever other term one might prefer – isness views from all these different points of view. Right?
LikeLike
Marildi, the issue here is one of conditioning. Humans are conditioned to think and speak from a human-centric viewpoint. All religions take a human-centric viewpoint. The concept of God in Semitic religions, and to a lesser degree the higher power in other religions, is derived from a human-centric viewpoint. The obsession on “who/what” has a human-centric flavor.
Does one really need a “Who/what” to state the isness? Will there be no isness if it is not stated by a “Who/what”?
Objectivity comes from a universal viewpoint and not from a human-centric viewpoint. Science is much more objective than any human-centric and religious viewpoint. A Western viewpoint of God is human-centric, whereas, the Eastern viewpoint of Brahma is not. Yet a person from the West, like Pip, interprets Brahma from a human-centric viewpoint.
Isness is a noun just like God, but isness is much more abstract than God. But this is not satisfactory to somebody like Pip because he wants a human-centric “Who/what”.
As you can see from the number of times I have used the phrase “human-centric” that I find it to be narrow-minded and subjective compared to a universal view. So, I am not quite sure that Pip would be able to understand my viewpoint.
It is more than a semantic issue. It is an issue of human-centric conditioning. The very fact that you want to keep it in the context of humans rather than in the context of universe, expresses that bias and conditioning.
.
LikeLike
Again there seems to be a semantics issue – either that or presumption on your part about “all Westerners.” 😉 I was only using “humans” as an example to frame a question – it could be any aware entity through which “isness” is able to view existence.
And in addition to “God,” I gave the example of spirit and added “or whatever other term one might prefer.” You apparently prefer “isness,” which I have no problem with.
The point is that perception does exist or “you” – the entity who calls himself Vinaire – wouldn’t even be perceiving this communication from me. And where there is perception, Pip’s basic question of “who or what is perceiving?” is an entirely fair one.
Personally, I have no particular argument with the non-dualists who have no God or Brahma but use the word “spirit” to mean all of existence – and who consider even the physical world to be manifestations of spirit through which spirit can perceive and experience itself.
Btw, Vinnie, what exactly is a “universal view” (as long as we are clarifying our terms)?
LikeLike
I am sure there are exceptions among Westerners. “All Westerners” is a good approximation in my view to which I shall add “most Easterners” as well, who think from a human-centric viewpoint.
The point is that there are two viewpoints identified as “Eastern” and “Western”. One viewpoint is universal and the other is human-centric. The viewpoint of western science approaches the universal viewpoint, but it is very matter-centric.
I draw a distinction between awareness and consciousness. Awareness is the fundamental base like the undisturbed surface of the lake. Consciousness is like the disturbed surface after a stone is dropped into the lake. Perception results from consciousness. In awareness there is neither perception nor non-perception. That duality is not there.
A viewpoint is a product of consciousness because it is used for perceiving. There is no viewpoint in awareness the way it is defined above. The is-ness of awareness is very different from the is-ness of consciousness.
So, the question of “Who/what” may apply to consciousness, but it is irrelevant where awareness is concerned. Awareness underlies consciousness.
Dualists deal with duality made up of dichotomies. The moment one dreams up of something, it creates the duality of “something-nothing”. So, it is very difficult to comprehend what could be beyond duality.
The universal view is the view of the whole and not of parts. By definition, universe is “one” because it includes everything. It will include both dualists and non-dualists. 🙂
.
LikeLike
Vin: “I draw a distinction between awareness and consciousness. Awareness is the fundamental base like the undisturbed surface of the lake. Consciousness is like the disturbed surface after a stone is dropped into the lake. Perception results from consciousness. In awareness there is neither perception nor non-perception. That duality is not there.”
That’s the essence of what I was saying where I wrote that “I have no particular argument with the non-dualists who have no God or Brahma but use the word “spirit” to mean all of existence – and who consider even the physical world to be manifestations of spirit through which spirit can perceive and experience itself.”
In other words, the physical world is that very same “surface of the lake.” It is the “disturbance” of the lake – or of spirit – or, to use your word of choice, the disturbance of awareness. Both words – spirit and awareness – give a name to what is considered physical as well as to the non-physical, since spirit/awareness underlies even the physical.
Your analogy to a lake is another way of saying that spirit, or awareness, can assume a viewpoint or viewpoints – since viewpoint is necessary for perception – and thus it (awareness) manifests as consciousness when “disturbed” by a “stone.” As you say, awareness (or spirit) remains as the fundamental base of the disturbance that creates consciousness.
You also wrote: “So, the question of ‘Who/what’ may apply to consciousness, but it is irrelevant where awareness is concerned. Awareness underlies consciousness.”
Yes, it certainly is irrelevant where pure (undisturbed) awareness is concerned, but the question of who/what relates to consciousness and the viewpoint that has been assumed in order to be conscious OF anything, i.e. to be able to perceive. So I think the answer you’ve given, if only indirectly, is that the who/what that is perceiving is consciousness having a particular viewpoint. This is good.
LikeLike
I am glad what I wrote made sense to you, because it exactly parallels physics.
awareness = undisturbed space
consciousness = disturbed space = electromagnetism
.
LikeLike
Yes, Vinnie I got it. And it aligns with what my understanding of certain spiritual teachings that I happen to favor.
Another current view of mine that you might appreciate is also related to consciousness. It’s the idea that all psi/paranormal phenomena – generally assumed to be “non-physical” – are in fact energy phenomena produced by thought/theta as LRH defined it: “a static containing an image of motion.”
In your terminology, that would be stated as “awareness containing a disturbance,” the disturbance being what you and many others refer to as consciousness.
The best evidence that all the so-called non-physical phenomena (other than pure awareness, or spirit/theta) is actually explained by physics – quantum physics, that is. That evidence is described in this video, a talk by Edgar Mitchell, the former astronaut. I think you might find it helpful in your work.
LikeLike
Thanks for this video. It makes a lot of sense.
(1) The theory of relativity is basically applicable to the electromagnetic field in space that exists beyond the atom.
(2) The theory of quantum mechanics is basically applicable to the electronic field that exists around the nucleus of the atom.
(3) The theory of classical mechanics is basically applicable to the matter field that exists inside the nucleus of the atom.
(4) These are three different areas with three different theories. We have to find out how they interface with each other.
.
LikeLike
Vinaire I love you. I completely agree with you when you say “Humans are conditioned to think and speak from a human-centric viewpoint” and yes I agree that “All religions take a human-centric viewpoint”. That is the wonder of The Lord Jesus’ teaching. You see he did not come to start a new religion, he came to reconcile a broken relationship – between MAN and GOD.
As you have rightly observed for human beings either God is an IS-NESS or a NOT-ISNESS, but to actually meet with “The Living God” one must move from IS-NESS to ALTER-ISNESS and finally to AS-ISNESS but to do that involves letting go of all our valances or in Hindu terms NETE NETE or in Zen “What did you look like before you had a face”.
I find Hinduism probably closer to the teachings of Jesus than any other religion, in fact if I was not a ChristianScientologist I might investigate being a Christian Hinduist.
I had observed how often you used the phrase “human-centric” and the thought occurs to me “Me thinks he doth protest too much”!
Still love you
Pip
LikeLike
Pip, first and foremost I like to be an objective thinker because I believe that truth lies in objectivity.
Hinduism, Christianity, Scientology, etc. are just some reference points of knowledge, which are understood differently by different people.
.
LikeLike
Same
LikeLike
Hi Vinaire
With regard to point 3 of Velocity of Light versus Mass – Why can’t “a reference point” be ABSOLUTELY static?
LikeLike
Pip asked, “With regard to point 3 of Velocity of Light versus Mass – Why can’t “a reference point” be ABSOLUTELY static?”
“A reference point, by definition, must be relatively static.”
For a point in space to be absolutely static, it would require infinite mass at that point.
.
LikeLike
If God is the creator of MASS then it would also be true to say that HE IS INFINITE MASS. In scripture He is referred to as “THE ROCK”
LikeLike
Spirituality is an abstraction of physicality.
LikeLike
Dear Vinaire
When someone says or writes something that I disagree with, although my first reaction is to negate it, I endeavour to check myself and ask the question “Why would they say or write that”.
This happened when I read your statement “Spirituality is an abstraction of physicality”. It is the word “Spirituality” that I have a difference of meaning over. SPIRIT and SOUL are not the same thing. If you are saying SOUL is an abstraction of physicality I agree, on the other hand if you are saying SPIRIT is an abstraction of physicality I would have to say definitely not.
Love
Pip
LikeLike
Well Pip, that is your prerogative.
.
LikeLike
Thank You
LikeLike
Theta of Scientology is disturbance of uniform awareness (undisturbed space). Theta is a spectrum of a whole range of frequencies.
A thetan is a particular configuration of frequencies.
.
LikeLike
I saw the super human institute Quantum Hologram video today and was mighty impressed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Vinaire
Marildi sent me through this marvellous teaching which I am sharing with all my friends. What particularly excites me about it is his use of the term “CONSCIOUS SPIRIT” that seems to me quite close to AWARENESS OF AWARENESS – a term that has always “floated my boat”. It divides between SOUL and SPIRIT – THETAN and THETA – ISNESS and ASISNESS.
As the Bible puts it “For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.” Hebrews 4:12.
Anyway have a look/listen to this teaching and let me know what you think http://www.adyashanti.org/cafedharma/index.php?file=video
Love
Pip
LikeLike
Please refer to my previous post.
LikeLike
That’s why God embraces all these you mention for “HE IS NO RESPECT-ER OF PERSONS”
LikeLike