>>6070026

At risk of doxxing, this brings up an original idea that I thought I would share. That said, maybe it's only a crumb on the shoulders of giants.

This image attempts to correlate various schemes across traditions into a integrated understanding about states of consciousness. What I noticed about a decade ago was that the states in the traditions and reflected in the image are structured as a sequence of concentric rings, I suppose to show the phenomenological sensation of ever-greater awareness. However, that structure is based on the phenomenological sequence of experience! Aka, all of our traditions to explain consciousness come up with the same parallel structure, BUT that structure is premised on the sequence of experience, NOT NECESSARILY the actual relative structure of the states to themselves. It causes a big dilemma because consciousness is trying to become conscious of itself, so experience seems like the only way to have any feedback. On a phenomenological level this is correct, but on an ontological level, all of humanity's traditions for coming up with an "objective" or a "relational" structure of the states may be wrong. We've jumped to that conclusion in the traditions based on the hermeneutical sequence of experience.

I'll use the HINDU terms because they're more neutral for me.

Sequence: Gross-Subtle-Causal-Turiya-Turiya Tita

OR

Sqeuence: Waking-Dreaming-Deep Sleep-Witness/Lucid-Non-dual

All the traditions seems to agree on this sequence.

Without getting into it, a more likely objective structure seems to be that Gross and Subtle are two sides of the Causal coin, like oil and water around a meniscus. Moreover, to us, the meniscus seems a secondary emergent, but that may be somewhat of an illusion because of our relative perspective within "consciousness". The Witness or Turiya then follows the phenomenological sequence suggestion as the fourth in line, a step away and giving perspective on this dual and emergent causal construct. Finally, non-dual moves beyond and/or into and all those other fluffy ways people like to talk about it to realize that the witness is the construct, etc.

I hope I haven't lost you at this point, but to bring it to your idea about the left hand path and dualism, even monism, etc., there is a lot of confusion in spirituality. Religion identify with either the gross or the subtle(exoteric vs esoteric, etc.), but miss the causal and the overall relationship between the 3. Alternatively, even within, another understanding is to value the witness over the observed gross/causal/subtle. This is partly to do with a bit of the gordian knot of extrapolating the state sequence of gross/subtle/causal into a map of spiritual liberation. People just go in circles.

I leave it at this for now, and see how the cookie crumbles…

>>6072794

To reiterate:

Thousands of years of human introspection across traditions have essentially agreed upon a structure of consciousness from gross(waking) to subtle(dreaming/magic/virtual/imagination/etc.) to causal to witness to non-dual.

I'm suggesting this is only a partial understanding which is only reflective of the phenomenological sequence of sensation/awareness of each state.

In reality like passing through a meniscus between oil and water, the causal may be the "2nd" state rather than the 3rd, or better said, the coin with 2 sides of gross and subtle. We only experience it third in the sequence because only from the 4th state (the Witness) does the causal become conscious. There is a coin and there is a witness, and then there is a nondual perspective about the coin and the witness. The gross and the subtle side of the coin are the lock and key keeping us in the game of hide and seek with ourselves.

This is potentially the principal error in all of the world's traditions: Sequence is not structure or the other limitless and myriad ways of saying it. This leads to most if not all of humanity's strife and incorrect ideologies…in my opinion. When we start preferring a state or reducing a state, we unconsciously activate an inherent divide and conquer mechanism against ourselves. Partial correctness leads to partial solutions, aka paths that lead astray.

>>6072907

>tala and raga

Not familiar with the terms, but I think I got the idea. It's basically that, structure and content, or form and function, etc.

The slight twist is that the function, the sequence, the content, etc. is like a double bind or a Chinese fingertrap for our consciousness. There's very little, if any, intuitive aspect of waking up from the sequence structure. For me, there was a certain aspect of divine revelation/samadhi or satori, but it also seems to be an emergent of massive amounts of interdisciplinary study, observance and experience in and of the world, and self-reflection.

>>6073263

>akashic record

I read some Lazlo 15-20 years ago and did some coding work for Ian Stephenson. While I'd like to think I am well studied on many of these ideas, I have a number of gaps, and I've been involved in other fields the last number of years. Plus, people come at this from different perspectives. Ken Wilber was a big influence for a while. Still is in some sense. To get a bit nit-picky, I might add a 3rd axis to his quadrants using the idea of polarity or duality or something. It's a bit of a theoretical hangup related to these subjects that I think might help break loose from the fingertrap. The community around Wilber suffers from a bad case of boomeritis, so I keep a healthy distance these days.

>>6073269

"I am a strange loop" by Douglas Hofstadter gets into a parallel with Godel's incompleteness theorem. A pretty long and complicated argument, even as Hofstadter does a decent job breaking it down, that book still wasn't for the layman. Suffice it to say that the proposed closed system to explain all of mathematics (Principia Mathematica by Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell) was so good that an unexpected thing happened. Godel proved that through symbolic abstraction, there is an inherent backdoor in the theory, which essentially suggest that there is a backdoor to reality or dualism itself, aka not monolithic.

At a minimum, Plato, Kant, and many others, understood that reality can't been reduced to the physical alone, e.g. good, true, beautiful OR intersubjective, objective, subjective OR we, it(s), I….however you want to slice it, those 3 domains are irreducible if perhaps only because they require different evidence for validity, i.e. truthfulness (or truthiness for fun) for the subjective, objective truth (physical measurement) for the objective, and goodness for the intersubjective. Even with all three through, the fingertrap still remains. Looking at reality correctly is only a better perspective from which to solve the problem…so they say…

Look into the systems theory archetype called "accidental adversaries", the archetype of archetypes. Think about polarities, male/female, etc. Look at the derivation of the trigrams in the iching. The 4-part step is usually overlooked. Plug that into the archetype. Marinate on it. There are two ways, it seems to solve the problem: read up on the systems solution…otherwise, allow the creation/destruction motif to run its course. Pros/Cons?

Interesting account

https://www.pinterest.com/regadvserv/

>>6091440

nice, some new names. thanks. yes, I spent about a decade of my life on this in an official academic capacity. it's not top priority at the moment, but I'll scan around and see if anything really jumps out. MOREOVER, these subjects are the cutting edge of understanding consciousness, humanity, etc. having more eyes, minds, and hearts on these subjects is key.