The Metaphysical Consciousness

[Limbo]

Hello old friends! I have a little too much time on my hands at the moment, so I thought I would swing by and spend some time in a thread.

In this thread I would like to present a model of consciousness to discuss.

First, there are three main 'usual' states of consciousness. Waking, dreaming, and deep dreamless sleep. In this thread, I would like to add and discuss a fourth state. The 'unusual' state of the meta-physical.

There isn't much that needs to be said about the three main 'ususal' states. We all know them. They are normal and easy to talk about, because we all have them all the time. Language can handle them easy.

The fourth state of consciousness, or metaphysical state, is harder to talk about. Not many people reach it so there is little frame of reference. But I'm going to try to talk about it, or perhaps only around it, because I've been there via meditation, yoga, and contemplative prayer. And maybe a little help from above.

Here's an illustration of what I mean.

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/wx52de9a4b.gif


The fourth state of consciousness is called turiya in Hinduism. The Mandukya Upanishad says, 'Turiya is not that which is conscious of the inner (subjective) world, nor that which is conscious of the outer (objective) world, nor that which is conscious of both, nor that which is a mass of consciousness. It is not simple consciousness nor is It unconsciousness. It is unperceived, unrelated, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable and indescribable. The essence of the Consciousness manifesting as the self in the three states, It is the cessation of all phenomena; It is all peace, all bliss and non—dual. This is what is known as the Fourth (Turiya). This is Atman and this has to be realized.'

And here is an illustration of cross-cultual equivilancies of Turiya.



http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/jq52e31b2e.gif

As a level of self-hood, Turiya or Atman, is equivalent to Buddha-nature existing in in a level of reality equivalent to the Godhead or Dao. The core of world religion and myth is the same. Underneath the surface phenomenology of the world, there is a metaphysical, transcendent mystery source that shines through all things, all religions. We just argue about our names for it.

'All religions
all this singing
is one song.

The differences are just
illusion and vanity.

The sun’s light looks a little different
on this wall than it does on that wall,
and a lot different on this other one,
but it’s still one light.

We have barrowed these clothes,
These time and place personalities
From a light, and when we praise,
we’re pouring them back in.' -Rumi

So, I invite questions or comments.

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited for Hotlinking

 

[Limbo]

OK I guess this isn't something you guys would care to discuss, eh? 75 views and not a single response. OK, sorry to have wasted your time!

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

OK I guess this isn't something you guys would care to discuss, eh? 75 views and not a single response. OK, sorry to have wasted your time!

Okay, I will bite.

I am a skeptic, so I have chosen not to try to explain reality using metaphysics, ontology, religion, the supernatural, mystical, spiritual and so on. So since I can do without religion, when I try to understand a post like yours, I look for something else.

"This is Atman and this has to be realized."
With what authority do you decide what I must do with my life? I mean, I don't doubt that you can make some sort of sense of your life, but how does it follow that I must do as you? How do you decide what I must do; i.e. "...this has to be realized"?
Again, how do you know how I ought to live? Can't we just reverse it and claim: "This is Skepticism and this has to be realized"? You have to become a Skeptic!!! This has to be realized!!!

In other words, I sincerely hope that you have a good enough life and that you cope, but don't tell me how I ought to live my life based solely on yours. If you want to play that game it works both ways. But if you can understand that you can't be me, you can maybe understand that I can't be you, so stop claiming the "Good Life" for everybody including me.

 

[Bikewer]

You have to love that chart... Somebody put a lot of work into that. Almost seems to indicate obsessive/compulsive behavior.

 

[poblob14]

I don't really see much to discuss there, because I don't really understand what you're talking about, but just let me jump on one factual assertion:

As a level of self-hood, Turiya or Atman, is equivalent to Buddha-nature existing in in a level of reality equivalent to the Godhead or Dao. The core of world religion and myth is the same. Underneath the surface phenomenology of the world, there is a metaphysical, transcendent mystery source that shines through all things, all religions. We just argue about our names for it.

I may be misunderstanding, but mainstream Christianity does not teach that godhead is something achievable by humans (Mormons do teach this, I believe). I think that goes rather beyond just "arguing about our names" for this state, or whatever it is.

 

[HighRiser]

I've never found anything metaphysical to be meaningful.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

<snip>

It is unperceived, unrelated, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable and indescribable.

So how can anyone discuss it?

<snip>

So, I invite questions or comments.

If it is "unperceived, unrelated, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable and indescribable", what possible questions or comments could anyone have?

Only too happy to help.

 

[Loss Leader]

Other than by mere assertion, how do we know that such a state of consciousness exists?

 

[tsig]

I've never found anything metaphysical to be meaningful.

It means that the one who used the word metaphysical is about to drive up the woo wagon and unload a ton of BS.

 

[bruto]

So what's to discuss?

We are told that few reach this level, whatever it is, and it appears that those who have cannot describe it in a way that means anything to those who have not. Or at least so it seems, since we see nothing but mystical hogwash. We could discuss that on points of style, but I don't think that will get us any where.

One can get stoned and go off into hypnagogic wah wah land, and call it this, or one can get super duper wise and spiritually at one with the universe and green and crunchy and call it this, and somehow it sounds the same. So what's to discuss?

Until the superduper wise and all-seeing learn to say what they mean in a useful way we're stuck right here, with nothing to discuss.

Though, on second thought, maybe we should start with wondering what the diagram means and whether there is any reason for it. What, for example, do we mean by "gross, subtle and causal" in this context? Why is the progression given from conscious to unconscious to subconscious? One might as easily put subconscious as the state between conscious and unconscious. What is the content of unconsciousness?

 

[Joe Random]

You have to love that chart... Somebody put a lot of work into that. Almost seems to indicate obsessive/compulsive behavior.

That, or a dedicated Dungeon Master ...

 

[Limbo]

I don't really see much to discuss there, because I don't really understand what you're talking about, but just let me jump on one factual assertion:I may be misunderstanding, but mainstream Christianity does not teach that godhead is something achievable by humans (Mormons do teach this, I believe). I think that goes rather beyond just "arguing about our names" for this state, or whatever it is.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. It's true that Meister Eckhart got in a lot of trouble with the Church orthodoxy of his day for his mysticism. He united with the Godhead, but then he didn't obscure his realizations quite well enough. He got into trouble for mystical heresy.

That illustrates the gap between the exoteric (outer) layer of Christianity and the esoteric (inner) layer. Both are Christian, but only one is mainstream. Every religion has those layers.

Eckhart functioned on the esoteric layer, because of his mystial experience in the Godhead. That's how he learned of God. As a result he practiced apophatic theology. Most Church folk function on the exoteric layer, because they learn of God from books. They practive cataphatic theology.

"One person who has mastered life is better than a thousand persons who have mastered only the contents of books, but no one can get anything out of life without God."

-Meister Eckhart

The term apophatic theology is also applicable to the Upanishad quote in my OP. There is an under-current of mystical esoteric apophatic theology flowing through Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and every other bit of world religion and myth. It unites them all, like a thread. The mystics of all religions and ages expereience the same Godhead, and so they come into a kind of harmony which transcends cultural borders and concepts.

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/fy52e3ce54.gif

 

[tsig]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. It's true that Meister Eckhart got in a lot of trouble with the Church orthodoxy of his day for his mysticism. He united with the Godhead, but then he didn't obscure his realizations quite well enough. He got into trouble for mystical heresy.

That illustrates the gap between the exoteric (outer) layer of Christianity and the esoteric (inner) layer. Both are Christian, but only one is mainstream. Every religion has those layers.

Eckhart functioned on the esoteric layer, because of his mystial experience in the Godhead. That's how he learned of God. As a result he practiced apophatic theology. Most Church folk function on the exoteric layer, because they learn of God from books. They practive cataphatic theology.
"One person who has mastered life is better than a thousand persons who have mastered only the contents of books, but no one can get anything out of life without God."

-Meister Eckhart

The term apophatic theology is also applicable to the Upanishad quote in my OP. There is an under-current of mystical esoteric apophatic theology flowing through Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and every other bit of world religion and myth. It unites them all, like a thread. The mystics of all religions and ages expereience the same Godhead, and so they come into a kind of harmony which transcends cultural borders and concepts.

[qimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/fy52e3ce54.gif[/qimg]

The most common form of theology I've seen is catatonic theology.

 

[Limbo]

Sorry to have offended you Tommy. When I posted that bit of the Upanishads, it wasn't my intent to tell you how you have to live your life. I believe everyone should decide that for themselves. I'm not trying to claim authority over you.

Having said that, I believe the world would be a better place if people were more in touch with the fourth state of consciousness, as they are with the dream state. Dreaming is normal and beneficial, and so to is contact with the fourth state.

 

[Loss Leader]

So, once again, any evidence that any of this, you know, exists?

 

[Limbo]

So, once again, any evidence that any of this, you know, exists?

There is scientific evidence that a set of experiences is behind the mystical literature of the world. That means we should acknowledge the obvious.

"Yet if we acknowledge what is to me obvious, that there is a mystical process or set of experiences ‘behind’ what we read, this makes our work as scholars considerably more difficult. If everything is merely “text,” well then we need only play with it or analyze it as text. A nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse. But it quickly becomes clear to those with eyes to see that when we look at the field of esotericism, we are dealing with very complex currents of thought and kinds of experiences that do not always conform at all to contemporary perspectives.

What are we to make of Böhme’s immensely complex and often circular expression of a visionary cosmology deeply indebted to alchemy and astrology? What are we to make of Pordage’s visionary journeys into spiritual realms, or of Fowler-Wolff’s accounts of absolute transcendence? Here I would answer: as much as possible, we should seek to avoid making much of their accounts, and instead concentrate on seeking to imaginatively understand them on their own terms.

Here I’m arguing that in the study of esotericism more generally, and specifically in the field of mysticism, it is essential for scholars to engage at minimum in a process of imaginative participation. Sympathetic empiricism represents a middle ground between historiographic objectification on the one hand, and phenomenological subjectification on the other.

Sympathetic empiricism means that one seeks, as much as possible, to enter into and understand the phenomenon one is studying from the inside out. The further removed historically that one is from such a religious phenomenon, the more valuable historiography is in recreating context, but without a sympathetic approach, in the field of esotericism, misunderstanding and reductionism become inevitable."

-Arthur Versluis

 

[Hokulele]

Good grief. Who ever made that chart clearly knows nothing about Taoism, and lumping everything under "The Chinese Tradition" makes about as much sense as lumping all of the US political parties into one group with a common philosophy. Do they even have a clue as to how Taoism started?

(Hint: It was a deliberate backlash against Confucianism, and the true traditional Chinese folk religions.)

 

[Dani]

Many years ago I read some books written by Ken Wilber with charts that looked very similar to this, including the concepts of esoteric vs exoteric, the former being a more advanced, less superficial, way of "being with God". Soon after that I became a skeptic.

Out of thin air, I'll assert that skepticism is the ultimate state of perfection. Sorry, no charts.

 

[Limbo]

Many years ago I read some books written by Ken Wilber with charts that looked very similar to this, including the concepts of esoteric vs exoteric, the former being a more advanced, less superficial, way of "being with God". Soon after that I became a skeptic.

Out of thin air, I'll assert that skepticism is the ultimate state of perfection. Sorry, no charts.

So by being skeptical of your assertion, I attain perfection?

If you are skeptical of my claim that the fourth state of consciousness is real and valuable, you could always test my empirical claim by duplicating my methods of meditation and yoga.

If I am skeptical of your claim about skepticism, how could I test it?

 

[Limbo]

Good grief. Who ever made that chart clearly knows nothing about Taoism, and lumping everything under "The Chinese Tradition" makes about as much sense as lumping all of the US political parties into one group with a common philosophy. Do they even have a clue as to how Taoism started?

(Hint: It was a deliberate backlash against Confucianism, and the true traditional Chinese folk religions.)

Are you suggesting that there is a fundamental disharmony between the esoterica of Taoism and that of the other major religions?