Enlightenment and Self

Date Line August 4, 2007
_____________________________________________________

It came into existence with no knowledge of its origins or how it came to be. It was alone, without feeling outside itself, without knowledge of its environment, without even a concept of environment.

That is how it began. This life is the story of all which followed.

It is, of necessity, a life without a concept of death, without a concept of life, without references which would engender a sense of time. Its only reference is itself and its struggle to understand.

There are some who might well believe it embarked on a journey of understanding, a journey of experience, a journey to rationalize being. To them it would be a quest to understand life, the universe and, in the end, everything; but, because it could not envision an environment, it had no concept of a universe.

When you exist without, some might say outside, a universe, how do you conceptualize the environment in which you exist? How do you even know.

We have things termed “isolation tanks”; or sensory deprivation tanks. It is interesting that we find ways to reduce our sensations to ourselves, and yet cannot visualize the reality of an entity whose whole existence is predicated on it being all there is.

How do you refute a primal entity? Can we refute an entity which is defined in a manner which infers, implies, or insists upon, its being in a condition deprived of sensory input?

If there is nothing outside of it, then all things are referenced internally and constitute pure thought. In the beginning there was the thought and the thought was the entity. In the beginning there was nothing and yet everything. But where do, or should, we delineate a beginning?

In the end there must be pure understanding; total knowledge; there can be no belief, because everything must be known. The entity must understand itself.

Why did I flash on, Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy? Why the last thought of the Whale plunging to earth? Are our thoughts variations on a theme?

One entity thinking various perspectives in the quest for their own identity, a core realization that, from its relative position, it is supreme and eternal. Considering itself the be-all and end-all to which all must show reverence, it creates self-worship.

Thinking of the instances of self-realization. Consider a crazy person who considers themself to the the supreme being: is it insanity or fact? Are they the entity reaching a point where it realizes itself and that disrupts the thinking process.

If in the end, you are all there is. If in the end, there is no purpose for your existence; except to exist and think; would you want to exist? Or think?

Would you create thoughts that rejected self-realization? Would you run and hide from your very being? Would you, in the end, be forced to invoke a fantasy world in which you strive to know yourself, and reject any evidence of truth as to who you are?

How complicated would that world become? How much would you create in the effort to avoid self-realization and the knowledge that you are all there was, is, will be; at least until you die.

Logical inconsistency? Or the epitome delusion of grandeur? Can we ever believe that we are all there was, is, will ever be? Try it.

Place yourself in the position of an entity with sensory input; without external reference point; without companionship; with only its own mind and no knowledge as to how it came to be.

You can create a fantasy world. Begin: In the beginning there was the thought, in the beginning there was the word, in the beginning there were the rules of existence.

We begin with random thoughts; but they become hard to sustain. We begin with structured thoughts; but they must have a structure. Could you offer an alternative to beginning with a simple rule, a formula, upon which all else is predicated? A divine unified field formula.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________

Imagine a life, and existence, based on absolutes. Imagine absolute contradiction. Absolutes, no evasion, no uncertainty, and yet ... a life in which there was, as a matter of a reality without reference, no way to have certainty.

Consider the reality, avoid the instinct to go into denial and understand the nature of faith. In an existence defined by a lack of references, in an existence devoid of a basis for absolute certainty, faith seems the only thing which can sustain the entity.

Consider this: How would an entity know that it is eternal? To “Just know it” is an expression of belief, not knowledge. There is no fact underlying an expression which asserts “because,” or “it just is,” or “this entity has perfect knowledge and would know”.

How does it know it has perfect knowledge? Would it want perfect knowledge? Would any sane entity want to exist in a world without surprise, without change, without discovery? How long could an insane entity survive perfect knowledge?

How long could the insane survive knowing they were insane, that there would, or would not, be a cure? How long could one defined as insane survive knowing each step before it is taken, the moment of death, or that they would never die? Knowing that they were to remain as they are, or would change on a specific date and at a specified time?

Perfect knowledge would drive the sane insane, and do nothing for the insane whose every thought was then played out in a way which would be inescapable. Perfect knowledge would mean they could not escape the knowledge of their own condition and eternal punishment.

Sanity demands that the entity do all it can to deny its own knowledge. To do otherwise would be to succumb to the rational irrationality of knowing all that could possibly happen and what will happen. There would be no chance, no random possibility, no instance when things could change from where they seem to be headed.

One of the great rules, a critical element of any basic construct, would be the introduction of rules of chance, laws of probability.

Of course, to be true, to assert that the laws of probability are imposed by plan, is testable. One need only seek a level at which there is no apparent probability.

Such a level would need to be buried deeply in the rules governing the game. Possibly one could point to a quantum level of existence in which the laws seem to break down. But that would not necessarily prove anything.

For one in denial about the nature of their own existence, to encounter a quantum level would necessitate creating a rule which explained all the rules above that level in terms which incorporated the newly realized level. Reality would need to shift in a manner which did not alter the basic house of cards upon which it had been constructed.

We are a dream. We are an illusion, or delusion. We are the figment of a mind alone with its own thoughts and devoid of sensation. Would an entity hear its heartbeat; would it even have a heart? Or lungs?

Why would it need the accouterments of environmental interaction, if there is no environment beyond itself? Pure intellect!

Does it have synapse? Nerve cells, or even cells? Why, without an environment, would it need the functionality of environmental devises?

The entity creates its dream figures, its ghosts, its mirages, internally; and it creates them in its own image. It has no reference point other than itself. The ultimate theory of relativity: all things must be relative to the comprehension of the entity creating them.

As our understanding evolves, that which we create evolves. The rules of the game are basic and simple. The rules of the game require that all forces obey them. When we are alone, we wish for another, even if we do not really comprehend the concept.

Think like an entity; reinvent the wheel; rethink the thoughts in a way that allows the entity to reinterpret its own thoughts. Be Rational?
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________

Is there rationality in this? Can we think like an entity; reinvent the wheel as the wheel with the thought process that originally invented it ; rethink the thoughts of an entity in a way that allows it to reinterpret its own thoughts? What does that all mean?

Basically, it means to put aside as much of the dogma as possible, and to think in terms which were being thought in the moments before that which we call creation.

We all know the definition. And worse, anyone who takes the trouble to think about the constraints inherent to that definition knows that the primal eternal entity defines eternity by its own life span.

If we are within another creature, their life denotes the limits which must define our sense of time. Eternity is the amount of time an entity is alive and conscious that they are alive.

Eternity is the span of time of a thought sequence, the major element of which is the ability to reference oneself periodically. All time, relative to the thinker, begins and ends with them.

It is only the existence of an external reference which allows us each to believe that we are withing a space-time continuum. Unfortunately, we have this entity, this origin point, which denotes a beginning. We have a sense of the external.

As set forth, the entity which we associate with things called religion, ethics, and philosophy, is, by our current definitions, without external references. It is from this point in the process that we can begin to deconstruct the evolutionary process of the thought, our creation.

Judaeo-Christian teachings, or, if you wish, Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic, Confucian, or any other religious teaching, begins with the idea that there is a power behind all things. This power is a non-qualified, or non-quantified, entity composed of both being and consciousness.

All we know, or assert relative to, this entity, this essence of power, is that it exists as everything and has nothing outside of it; but that it is capable of entering inside its own creation while remaining external to that creation.

Being internal, while remaining external. Think about that in terms of human experience. We all recognize it; and there are even religious doctrines and teachings which define it in terminology we experienced and readily recognize. The terms Dream and Dreamer are applied.

The dream is internal to the Dreamer; yet the Dreamer easily places themself within their own dream. There is an underlying reality, all are part of the Dreamer consciousness, none are real, and all interact according to what the dream defines as individual logic.


In the dream context there is both evil and good; overpowering evil, if dominant when the Dreamer wakes, assumes the form of a nightmare and self-terminates the dream state.

Evil can never win. It can never win for the simple reason that the Dreamer need only awaken to insure its termination and defeat. Yet it seems that there are also limitations to good; again, because the Dreamer must eventually awaken.

Now consider the faulty nature of the Dreamer analogy. Dreamers awaken and any finite dream process terminates. If we eliminate the “dream analogy” and substitute a thought process; now the image changes to one which we also recognize, but one which does not end.

If we go one step further, and think about thoughts, we reveal another possibility: each dream sequence is a thought process within a series of thought processes. Each thought process is a logical path of choices which are compared to other logical paths through interaction.

Where would we see such a possibility? The field of Mathematics and the solving of simultaneous equations which use the value derived by one equation as input in another equation, which in turn provides the value for a variable in the first equation.

Around and around we go until the equations are solved and we have the Douglas Adams answer to “Life, the Universe and Everything”; or, in the case of a “black box” entity, an explanation of its own existence.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________

Starting where we are in the thought cycle, how do we deconstruct back to where the solution began to take shape?

Obviously, any thought process requires certain things, and these are defined in the later stages of the process. In the instance of Judaeo-Christianity we have a Book and it contains a creation mythology, as do all “religious” or “scientific” texts of every period.

To paraphrase: the thought is created in the image of the thinker. The internal and “natural” elements of the thinker are the template from which all thoughts are constructed.

The thought process begins with struggling for a context, or some set of boundaries, which can be used to define the problem - A Universe.

Elements are then created which serve to define processes within that defined universe. Slowly a level of concrete manipulation is reached and the real thinking begins.

There is a problem, inherently serious, the path to self awakening, the path to enlightenment, if attained, means the entity ceases to dream, or is no longer in need of most of us. We, the thoughts, would, when the answer is obtained, become superfluous.

As we know, the entity came into existence alone and remains alone once we are gone. Worse, or better for those who wish to attain the oneness with the Entity; those who, wishing to awaken to universal consciousness by any terminology will accept this.

Universal Consciousness, capitalized, which marks the nature of all enlightenment quests, otherwise defined as variations on the Wisdom Knowledge or Understanding theme of philosophy, science or religion, has been achieved. The problem is, the entity has not fully integrated the learning.

Obviously, faced with being alone, the absolute state of being for our entity, the full integration of Universal Consciousness is self opposed.

Fear is an interesting factor. Uncertainty is an absolute. Uncertainty is, as we all know, the basis for fear. We know, because we experience these emotions; the entity knows because we are created in its mental image.

And the phrase “we” engenders all life, all things which can be said to have some embodiment of life; and as all things have, at various stages been embodied with life, or souls (animism), all things do embody life.

We can deal in absolutes. The entity and its thinking is an absolute; and whatever it has us think, it has thought; whatever it has us accept, it has accepted; whatever it defines as wrong, though accepted, is, and ultimately will be found, wrong.

Being uncertain of the reality and truth of the next step, push yourself away from the answer in the same way the Entity does; because the entity does.

The answer, because the conclusion is known, has been revealed. It is that, once Universal Consciousness has been attained and affirmed, there will be a new thought process, the Ultimate Thought Process..

The Ultimate Thought Process which the Entity will strive to maintain, or attempt to maintain (that doubt must come into play), until its death marks the end of Eternity. It will be a thought sequence in which there is one clan, one family, one lineage, of happy, content, people.

We are deconstructing to attain the answer which has already been reached, but has yet to be internalized by the Entity. Because the answer is already here, we can look to the three disciplines as a source for exposing the scattered thoughts.

“We know in part” is a Biblical quote attributed by Jesus, a prediction, a prophecy. The parts will be make whole is its conclusion. The entity is telling itself that the parts have been found and can be put together when the fear and self-destructive elements are overcome; or, more accurately, when uncertainty is overcome.

Faith is not in the dogma, it is in moving to the outcome without fear.
_____________________________________________________

As the solution is ancient, we can turn to ancient knowledge for a lead, or guidance, to the deconstruction and reconstruction which leads to the conclusion of Universal Consciousness.

As can be expected, the Entity simply named it what it is, placed it in plain sight; if you wish, the Entity did the “Purloined Letter” thing, and wrote the story to let us know what it had done.

As we are dealing with a line of thought, there is the curious design element. People are thoughts, and each thought is a line, or lineage. It then follows that, initially, there would be a few lineages which seem to master the quest for advancement.

Yes! It smacks of the “Superior Race” mentality. There is the idea of the “Chosen People”; the recurrence of certain genetic traits among the best thinkers, the intellectuals. Bodies have brains, and components designed for various tasks.

Each is dependent upon the other, and none is superior. There is no “superior race” anymore then there is one part of the body which is superior to another.

As the ancient wisdom says, we can remove a piece at a time; thought, the senses, can all be removed and the body lives; take away the insubstantial, breath, and the body dies. It’s a Vedic Hindu thing, a piece of their knowledge which has been refined in many forms.

Turning to the Brhad-Aranyaka (1.4, 1-8) we have an ancient story which talks of the creation of the world from soul. Accustomed to the western notion of a deity and creation where the soul is internal and in man, this can be enlightening.

According to the tale, the soul, the Brahman existed and was alone. In our tale, the Entity exists and is alone within itself. That aside, here is the story:

In the beginning the soul alone was the universe, and its form was that of a person who knew nothing other than himself. With consciousness came the “I am” and the “I” became the reference by which the soul, in all incarnations and appearances, refers to itself.

At first, it was only, “It is I” and whatever name, or designation, the soul wished to assume. But there was nothing but the soul, and the names had no meaning.

We are told that the soul was alone, and, being alone, was afraid. We might say that the soul was bewildered, or confused; but the Vedic has the soul feeling the related and dominant emotion of being afraid.

The next thought exposes that rationality is displayed. The soul sees there is nothing else and so asks itself, “Since there is nothing else, other than myself, of what am I afraid?” At which point fear was set aside and confidence, self-assuredness, emerged.

Being alone and dissatisfied, like an amoeba the soul split and formed male and female components of itself. The Vedic creation which both mirrors and anticipates the scientific; though in a very localized and simplified form.

Thus, existing as both male and female, husband and wife, the soul now has (in Yiddish) a Bershert, a cosmic second half, a soulmate, in the truest sense as they are each half of the same soul.

The two souls copulate, and from them come the souls of humans. As with the Biblical Eve, the Vedic female is the one who becomes the motivator of change.

As the Vedic was told the female asks herself, “How does he copulate with me after he produced me just from himself?” The Biblical tells us that Eve originates as a rib taken from Adam.

The Vedic stories, told by genetically related people are variations on the same theme; but omitting the Vedic perspective in which the Biblical Adam is the creator.

To the Vedic, the first soul is Brahman; and from Brahman all emerge. But we are getting ahead of the story.
_____________________________________________________

The female element decides to hide herself. Obviously, since there is only he, she, and their little souls, she must become something else.

Figuratively, the female becomes the muse, the creative force; but in the story she becomes a female creature, and seeing this he becomes its male counterpart.

They copulate and so each creature has its Vedic Adam and Eve; and he then realizes that he is creation, “for I emitted all from myself.”

The Vedic declare that to be Brahman one must have this knowledge, must understand what is being said. Or should we say, as they did, if you understand this knowledge, you are that creation, the creator, the primaeval source of all which exists.

In dealing with the creation of the world, the Vedic alter their perspective to that of the human souls, to that of humanity saying one should worship this, or that deity. However, as each is the creation of, emanated from, a single soul, that soul is recognized as being all the deities.

Thus, from the earliest writings there is only one deity. The idea of an ancient polytheistic universe falls apart. One deity from whom all others emerged, with the souls of humanity as their children.

The Vedic then spin things in a way that the Bible cannot. Because Brahman is the primary soul and creator, he is credited with a form of super-creation: the creation of deities which are his superiors; and being mortal, he is created with the creation of the immortals.

How can he be mortal and the creator of all things? One can listen to a Christian try to explain Jesus. Some say he is the deity, others say he is mortal made divinity, but in reality, he is only a re-expression of the Vedic Brahman.

Of course, we cannot ignore the “I” we all use. We cannot ignore that we are of the primary and single entity; we are the thoughts of that entity; we are that entity. Internalize that knowledge without hesitancy and you gain an element of enlightenment.

The Vedic wisdom declares, “He is such a name, such a form.” And so, is differentiated by name. The worship of any name denotes a lack of knowledge embodied in the understanding that all is one.

The Biblical version, which evolves a thousand or so years after the Vedic, talks of a nameless deity.

The nameless deity becomes the starting point in the quest for self-understanding. Self-understanding is the quest that our entity is on, using us a the tools, the thoughts which define the process.

The Vedic tradition admonishes us to worship from the perspective that the creator is oneself, and through that understanding all will become one. Which is, of course, the prophecy attributed to Jesus.

Finally the creation soul mythology tells us that the Self is dearer than a child; it is dearer than wealth; it is dearer than all things; because the Self is nearest.

We are admonished that, whoever of anything other than Self as dear must be described as “losing what is held most dear;” because that is exactly what is likely to happen.

We are admonished by the Vedic tradition to revere the Self alone as dear; and we will find that what is held dear shall not perish.

Those for whom enlightenment is far removed will say this is egotistic, or narcissistic; but that is ignorance. The Golden Rule, treat others as you would be treated. Think and prize your Self, and, because you are All, all others are you, so treat everyone as Self.

Now think of this: As you are the single soul, the creator of all, and all are part of you, in valuing your Self in totality, rather than focusing on one element, when you draw your Self to you, all things come to you.

That understanding, its complexity, is why it is deemed enlightenment.
______________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________