The final secret of the Illuminati, and of the O.T.O., and the Freemasons is that literally anything is possible in the universe. Now you know.
The superposed wave function that constitutes one's consciousness can not only be localized at the body, but can extend indefinitely beyond the body, and even in principle leave the body completely (potentially to return, or not) and remain intact.
In exclaiming that all that exists is the present moment, the philosophers and mystics and sages are not saying that time, for practical purposes, does not exist, but that existence in consciousness will never get truly better than it is right now. (As scary as that may be).
Perhaps what is happening is that consciousness at the atomic level is peeking through from its ground into the explicate, and that is why the Schrodinger equation can explain both the behavior of electrons and more generally the primary movement of human consciousness itself. The wave function's tie to human consciousness is still a mystery in scientific terms, however, but their interrelationship has been seen, experienced, felt by very many -- mostly Buddhist monks, psychonauts and devoted mystics of all stripes.
The mystical notion is that the universal mind, or oversoul, is all that exists at a fundamental level. I feel that the oversoul exists, and is the primary basic determinant overall, but is it not possible to be one with the oversoul and still be an individual, simultaneously?
When you start experiencing a lot of coincidences -- it's not a coincidence!
To me, the term "spirituality" refers to how one fits into the universe (or multiverse). A person or people with a higher degree of spirituality can be said to be more intimately tied to the workings of nature, or even to those beyond nature, potentially.
As far as I can tell, religion is to worship according to some authoritarian protocol. Spirituality, on the other hand, is to attempt continually to connect with the infinite. They are related, and sometimes overlap, but usually are distinct in terms of form and approach. The tools used for the spiritual apotheosis are quite varied, from religion to the occult to psychedelic substances and everything in between. The reason for the relative dissonance between definitions of "spirituality" is due, possibly, to the sheer variety of these approaches and the correspondingly different frames of mind these disparate methods generate. Furthermore, it is very difficult to put into words a lot of the interior states associated with spiritual experience, and so this lack of consensus, coupled with the variety of different experiences of the numinous, makes any kind of scientific assessment of "spirituality" quite impossible. Who knows -- knowledge in fifty years will probably incorporate a lot of ideas which are currently labeled as "mystical" and "spiritual" only.
Existence is one undivided, flowing movement. Any attempt to abstract one aspect of it and then say it is actually separate from another creates fragmentation, and therefore to say that there are two mutually exclusive realms -- one of matter, and one of spirit -- is to induce an artificial fragmentation where naturally there exists none. Clearly, the fragmentation was only put there by a human mind, and therefore need only be removed from such to ameliorate the problem.
Rumi says that mystics are experts in laziness. Perhaps that explains it.
For many thousands of years, man has been going through a dark night of the soul. He will very soon awaken to the light, in one way or another.
The "solid" world of color and other qualia is, of course, an illusion. The vibrating, empty realm of gray, of scientific and mathematical truth, is what the Buddhists call emptiness, suchness, No-thing -- that which is beyond the subjective human sensorium.
The Abrahamic religions -- Christianity, Islam and Judaism -- deal with a lot of spiritual truth -- there is no doubting that. But for me, they deal perhaps with too much human fallacy, also. I would add that the religions of the East are much more sophisticated psychologically and philosophically, but they themselves are colored by a lot of dogma and human corruption (of the truth). Therefore, I cannot very well be a religious person, despite the arguably legitimate merits that many religions embrace. The prophets inspiring these religions I'm fine with. It's what large swaths of acolytes have done with their teachings -- turning them into inflexible dogmas -- and the institutionalization and rigid religious practice that keep me away. I'm for independent spirituality more than dependent human hierarchy.
The Buddhists think of the body as a physical shell. I think that is quite appropriate.
Sunyata can be translated as "emptiness," as it is classically done in the English translations of Buddhist thought. But it can also be translated as "spaciousness" or "thusness," which to me are preferable as the quasi-nihilistic implications which might arise can be avoided.
Magick, defined succinctly, consists simply in executing one's will in order to cause Nature to conform to it. It's that simple.
Earth is a series of fields upon fields, active information being shared by all sentient beings. Becoming more attuned to it should be a major goal of our kind in this century.
It's not for nothing that many famous physicists delved deeply into Eastern thought and mysticism. Erwin Schrodinger, Werner Heisenberg, Robert Oppenheimer, David Bohm, Niels Bohr and many others were deeply interested in it. There must be something there in the equations of quantum mechanics that induces such behavior; perhaps both physics and mysticism share common ground in that they both exist in the province of a deep and close relationship with Nature. Whatever the parallels, there is no denying these physicists' interest in Eastern traditions.
It is useful to class humanity into two types: those who have been awakened, and those who have not. It's the difference between recognizing and working with one's robothood, and being essentially a robot. Sadly, the former group has always been a small minority.
The difference between dhyana and samadhi is a difference of degree, not kind.
There was and is so much controversy and mystery surrounding Aleister Crowley and his life and work. Mystery and notions of occultism surround his legacy. The truth of the matter, however, is that all he was doing was engaging in the exercise and discharge of what he called his "will," as in 'do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.' He was not sacrificing animals and brewing potions. He was merely fulfilling the essence of his humanity by facilitating the deepest manifestations of consciousness. And as such he was an admirable figure. He gets a bum rap.
Telepathy is a plain fact.
While I do not necessarily agree with his theory of formative causation, I must say I think Rupert Sheldrake is in morphic resonance with the truth.
As Alan Watts so beautifully pointed out, things just happen. Your free will, consciousness, death -- they just happen. Let them happen.
The Buddha was wrong. It is not that existence per se is suffering. Our existence is suffering.
When subject and object become one undivided reality, enlightenment is taking place. One witnesses the fundamental truth that Nature is constituted of consciousness.
The scene has been pretty rotten for most of us going back thousands of years. The question becomes: Can one raise one's consciousness and rise above it?
The attainment of not-self is the actualization of pure awareness, beyond the hardware and software of normal reality.
Science, understood properly, can proffer a deeply spiritual experience. It does not have to be the enemy of spirit it so typically seems to be.
Sioux shaman Lame Deer spoke of the fact that man, through nuclear weapons, had harnessed the fire of the sun -- but was never meant to come by this knowledge because this knowledge was reserved for the gods. I think he may have been right.
It is true that, ultimately, we are all one. But not in every respect. There are very real aspects of separation that stubbornly block the path.
One can likely never truly liberate another. One can only liberate oneself.
If we do live in a multiverse, there is no reason the wavefunction's upper limit on Psi has to equal unity. Its value can increase, meaning one no longer equals itself but a higher number or even infinity. Its value can decrease, meaning that a fraction of unity (say, an individual) can equal the whole (universe). If there are multiple universes, and we can interact with them, or even just prove their existence, there is no problem assigning a Psi value of greater than or less than one. The value of one implies one universe. If there are indeed many universes, all bets are off.
Many of the mystics mistake higher reality for God. God is god. Higher reality is higher reality.
All of the creatures possess all of the chakras.
In samadhi, there is both a supreme connection with, and total severance from, the body.
The soul need not be considered a mystical concept, or an implant of the divine. It is the quantum state of one's being, and it can travel anywhere.
If the proton nucleus of a hydrogen atom were the size of a golf ball, the "orbiting" electron would be almost a mile away. Why do we not observe the world as empty space? Because of the nature of interaction. The web of relationships in which we are involved determine our perceived reality. The Sanskrit word maya, found in Hinduism and Buddhism, seems to refer to this basic "emptiness." The word has multiple meanings in practice, but the most common definitions are as "illusion" or "magic." It is interesting that in the twentieth century, we in the West discovered through physics a basic truth that had been recognized in parts of Asia for thousands of years.
The teachings of Jesus were perfectly fine in and of themselves. Everything that has sprung up around them is human folly. St. Paul originated the concept "Body of Christ" to unify the early Church across the breadth of the Roman empire, making the faith one body. Somehow, Catholicism transmogrified this into consuming the flesh and blood of Jesus as a sacrament, which has never made sense to me. It seems repellent and cannibalistic. Nor have I ever understood why his allowing the Romans to execute him (he was an incarnation of God, hence "allow") is a way to forgive sins. The root ideas are exemplary; what has surrounded them is strictly the work of man -- work which, doubtless, has usually been done for ulterior purposes.
My situation thus far in life has been to chop wood and carry water, and I'm not unhappy with it.
I think the ego is directly controlled by the subconscious, and that the fundamental layer of the subconscious is an infinite consciousness, which is in a way a sort of higher power. It is definitely a higher dimension. And I feel that it goes higher than that.