Science's Spirituality: Mysticism

I'm sorry if my posts conveyed a sense of antagonism. When someone takes issue with semantics and not with the content that those semantics are representing, as you have, I tend to lose interest in the conversation. Perhaps you interpreted this dismissive mentality as an adversarial tone. As far as your accusation that I have some issue with a set of words not matching up with my own goes, perhaps you forget that this interchange arose due to the fact that my lexicon failed to align with your own -- not the other way around.

The total embodiment of freewill. Actions sourced completely in conscious awareness.

Spontaneous realizations do not nullify free will -- they simply represent a different manifestation of it.

There is also that type of will, yes.

It must take the form of willingness. And more specifically, willingness to surrender one's personal desires and conform to the constraints imposed by Spirit.

Travis

 

Yes, like them. So if I claimed to have gone on a spiritual journey, and to have discovered the truth deep within myself, and then just told you my opinion, that would be bad.

I know what you're saying here, but I'm not claiming my opinion is some universal truth that I've had to meditate upon for many years - just that it's something I've noticed. I'm not saying people shouldn't have opinions - just that they should be aware that that is what they are.

 

The spirit brings freedom, not contstraint.

 

Spirit brings whatever is necessary for the evolution of the soul in question. Constraint must always be experienced prior to the attainment of freedom.

Travis

 

Opinions are derived from the separative identity and its dependency on the conceptual mind. When one begins to perceive the nature of reality unobscured by the mind's mental projections, opinions become obsolete. One is no longer required to believe or speculate -- one simply knows.

Travis

 

It's experienced automatically. True freedom is only to be found in the spirit. And only the spiritual consciousness can successfully restrain the other powers such as though, feeling, desire etc.

 

A lot of people might say yes, that's your opinion.

And really, they'd be right.

 

Anything perceived as "automatic" is simply a remnant of the subconscious mind. Freedom comes through the willingness to take over the controls manually. It is only then that egoic impulses such as thought and desire naturally subside -- the subconscious attachments that sustained their momentum have been purged from the individual's psyche by the conscious connection with Spirit.

Travis

 

Heartbeat?

 

Oh me? I'm just waiting for you to find something to do other than bashing your head against a wall.

Travis

 

Is that what I'm doing? I don't think so - unless you are comparing yourself to a wall - but even then, I'm only pointing out the obvious. You yourself criticise the word, and really it's all to do with the ways in which we define words and concepts - 'automatic' above being a good illustration.


The heartbeat is percieved as automatic - it requires no conscious effort form us to keep going.

But actually what I'd really be interested to hear your opinion about is this:

What exactly takes over the controls?

 

It's your primary motivating factor in this conversation, yes.

The difference of course being that you have demonstrated a fixation on differentiating between words that are essentially synonymous (especially within the context that they've been applied), and I have not.

It can also be stopped through the exertion of willpower. This has been scientifically demonstrated by observing yogic masters in deep meditative states. The heartbeat stops, but the lifeforce remains.

Universal consciousness.

Travis

 

Sounds like it'd get kinda boring pretty fast.

 

On the contrary -- knowledge that transcends the narrow boundaries of the conceptual mind is infinite in nature.

Travis

 

Exactly. It would render discovery impossible. Ever see that Voyager where Q was complaining about the stagnation of the Continuum? Where everything that could ever be said has been said, probably twice...

 

No, the realization of infinity is by definition incapable of rendering anything impossible.

I always thought Q was one of the less imaginative characters in the Star Trek universe -- an egoic conception of an omnipotent being. I enjoyed the portrayal, though.

Travis

 

Well, I think you must obviously be in the universal consciousness to know the motives of others whom you have never met.
Perhaps you could tell us about life forms on other planets, since that would be a sure sign of a consciousness that is truly universal. If you could even tell me what the weather is doing here that too would add credence to what you say regarding your own attainment.

Or perhaps our definitions and experience of 'universal consciousness' might not be quite the same.

 

So you answer the question of why life wouldn't be boring if we could know anything instantly by saying that we'll all be different then so it won't matter?

I don't think I want to change this much.

 

It's not about knowing anything instantly. It's about becoming a vessel for a higher power. Surrendering to this power enables one to do exactly what is required in the most optimal way. One knows exactly what one is doing intuitively, not conceptually. The knowledge required to address any given situation naturally becomes apparent.

Most people don't. They would prefer their agonizing, tedious, and oppressive separative existence simply due to familiarization. Sort of like the classic scenario of a woman in a physically abusive relationship with her husband who keeps rationalizing that "he really loves me deep down" or "I deserved to be hit -- it was my mistake". She stays because she lacks the courage to face the unknown.

Travis

 

Your motives didn't require attunement with universal consciousness to discern, just a little intuition. If you can honestly tell me that "bashing your head against a wall" wasn't a motivating factor for you during this conversation, then I will gladly retract my statement.

Or perhaps our definitions of what if means to bash one's head against a wall in a proverbial sense might not be quite the same.

Travis