The physics of enlightenment

[James Davies]

This is just a little of how I see the process of enlightenment. Let me know if you prefer this format better or not. I know my writing style can be difficult for some.

I exist

I am that I am, I exist and I am aware that I existence. You have always existed. You were never created, in fact you are creation its self. You are god also.


Consciousness

You are consciousness, and Consciousness is just crystal clear awareness, nothing else. Consciousness is not love, it is not mentally Intelligent and It is certainly not powerful.

Energy is just communication

Consciousness is not energy; consciousness creates energy. When consciousness focuses its awareness, it creates a sort of gravity within itself. This gravity is what all realms of experience are made of. It is between the dynamics of expansion and contraction of this gravity that your consciousness creates your experience. Energy is just how consciousness communicates and expresses itself

Gravity is not a force

I did not write this one, it came straight from Bing Ai

Gravity isn’t a force pulling objects together. Instead, it’s the way mass bends the fabric of spacetime. Imagine spacetime as a stretchy sheet. When you place a heavy object on it, the sheet curves around the object. Smaller objects nearby move towards the heavy object because they’re following the curved path in the sheet, not because they’re being pulled by a force.

So, gravity is really about how objects move along these curves in spacetime created by mass. This explains why planets orbit stars and why light bends around massive objects.

The human, the soul and the I Am

The human being is the experiencer of consciousness. Consciousness creates and the human experiences. When the human allows its experience, it gifts its experience to its consciousness. Consciousness takes this gift of experience and distills it. The I am removes all the unimportant thing that it doesn't understand. It removes all the mental data all the facts , the dates and the names. In doing so it creates wisdom or what is called the soul. The soul is just the distilled collective experience of all your human lifetimes past present and future. The soul then gifts back this wisdom to the human. So the human can enhance their experience.



Everything that could be created has already been created

All is known and has always been known; there is nothing to learn. But a master is always learning. The moment that your consciousness asked the question ‘Who am I?’ and became self-aware, all of creation came into being. In that eternal moment of self-realization, you imagined all potentials, all possibilities of you. This imagination happened instantaneously and effortlessly. In doing so, you also created a type of energetic intelligence that is very different from the human mental mind. This energetic Intelligence is a knowingness, not of data, but potentials. With this newfound knowingness, you realized there was this thing called experience and that by having these experiences, you would create something called wisdom. You didn’t know what wisdom was, but you knew you wanted it. So you dived your awareness into your newly created potentials and began to have experiences. You could say you began to get creative with what you had already created.”

There are no Hierarchys

All is equal or neutral, Nothing is better than anything else or worse than anything else. The I am, the human and the soul are all equal. One is not better then the other. Without consciousness, you would not have imagination. Without the human, you would not have experience and would not have discovered things such as love. Without the soul you would not have the sensuality of wisdom. It is when all three of these parts of you work together that you have harmony, and true understanding of your self. When you have your energetic Intelligence, your mental mind and your wisdom. Your view of reality just doesn't change, It expands beyond what the mental mind thought was possible.

Enlightenment is the easiest thing you will ever do.

Enlightenment is simple, but human will make it so damn difficult at times. It is not the human’s job to become enlightened. Your consciousness, your awareness, has already realized itself. The human is the experiencer part of the trinity, not the creator. All the human has to do is assume that they are already enlightened and allow the experience. Your consciousness will take care of everything else. When you assume, you attract the energies of that assumption. In other words, you allow your consciousness to bring that experience to you. It comes to you; you do not need to seek it out. Your consciousness does not manipulate, it does not force, it contains no power. This is the compassion of your consciousness. Consciousness will allow the human part of itself to experience whatever it wants to experience in any way that it wants to. Consciousness does not give a s***. It knows everything works out because it’s already created everything. It already knows what the end is. It’s not worried about how the human gets there. You, the human, get to decide how you experience your enlightenment. You can do it with grace and ease or with suffering. The choice is simply yours to make.



The human is the allower and chief.
.
The human’s only requirement is to experience; that is why it was created. Most humans fight their experiences; they deny their experiences. They even hide their experiences from themselves, from their own awareness. They do this because they lack worthiness. They believe they have done something wrong, that they are bad, that they are undeserving of their own divinity.
Your experience must be freely gifted to your consciousness. It will never be taken from you by force or without your permission. It is only by allowing your experience that you gift your experience to your “I am,” to your awareness, so that it can be distilled into wisdom and gifted back to you. When you allow your trauma, your pain, and your wounds, they are transformed; they are distilled into an understanding, into an acceptance of self.


The human has never done anything wrong

All potential and all possibilities of experience were created by you, your consciousness. Why would you, your consciousness, be upset at you, the human, for experiencing something that you yourself created? If consciousness, which is just you, didn’t want itself to experience something, then you wouldn’t have created it in the first place. I guess you could get mad at yourself for creating some unpleasant potentials, but what good would that do? Maybe some of these experiences that you don’t think are so great have a purpose. Maybe when you allow these experiences and allow yourself to receive the wisdom of those experiences, you might see them differently. Some suffering is unavoidable. It’s just part of maturing as a soul being. Most suffering that people go through is completely unnecessary and repetitive. But as the experiencer-in-chief, the human just loves to experience. Sometimes it likes to take things to the extremes and just doesn’t realize when enough is enough. The human has never done anything bad or wrong. The human was just doing its job. Maybe it got a little overzealous at times and took things a little further than they needed to go. Maybe it was just curious how dark darkness could be and how bright light could be. Maybe you could say you just wanted to gift your awareness the largest, most beautiful gift of experience that you could. The fact that you made it through all these experiences without access to the wisdom of your soul and the knowingness of your “I am” really shows just how brave and resilient the human being actually is.

 

[James Davies]

What is allowing

Allowing is just allowing. There is no process to it. The moment you turn allowing into a process, you rip away its multidimensionality. It becomes a linear process that is then weighed down by mental gravity; it is no longer expansive. Allowing will carry you out of the illusion.
The more you allow, the more expansive your awareness becomes. When your awareness comes out of the focus that is physical reality, it is then able to commune with the other parts of yourself. All you need to do is, every once in a while, take a deep breath and just allow. Just be aware and feel into your own existence. Don’t try to manage it; don’t make a schedule for allowing at certain times. When it comes to your awareness, that’s when you do it. It’s okay if you go a few days and forget about it. When you remember, that’s when you do it. Let it be natural and let it be organic. Early on, you’ll find you probably only do it when you’re having trouble, and that’s okay. But after a while, it just becomes part of your existence, a part of your experience

 

[Thomas]

I'll allow this.

I see it differently, and frankly surprised at some of the conclusions, but hey-ho, it takes all sorts, and that's what makes the worlds sauch a fabulous place, if only we'd allow.

 

[wil]

Ainlightenment?

 

[James Davies]

I'll allow this.

I see it differently, and frankly surprised at some of the conclusions, but hey-ho, it takes all sorts, and that's what makes the worlds sauch a fabulous place, if only we'd allow.

I would love to hear how you see. And I never said there's was only one way. You can say there's as many ways to becoming enlightened. As there are people on the planet . There is no wrong ways and there is no right way. There is just how you prefer the experience. To me that is the beauty of it, It is your conscious choice. If you are just making everything up, if this is all just a dream of god. Why not just make it up how you prefer to become enlightened? You could just imagine that enlightenment doesn't need studying. That enlightenment doesn't need meditation. That enlightenment doesn't need any effort at all. But I guess it will only be true to you if that is what you assume or what you have decided to believe. And there's nothing wrong with not believe that. I believe everybody's free to make their own choice.

 

[iBrian]

enlightenment doesn't need meditation ... enlightenment doesn't need any effort at all.

Reminds me somewhat of Krishnamurti's teachings - we have a short feature on him at the front of site:

Jiddu Krishnamurti – Interfaith

www.interfaith.org

“Man cannot come to [truth] through any organisation, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, nor through any philosophical knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection…”

“Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organized; nor should any organisation be formed to lead or to coerce people along any particular path.”

 

[James Davies]

Reminds me somewhat of Krishnamurti's teachings - we have a short feature on him at the front of site:

Jiddu Krishnamurti – Interfaith

www.interfaith.org

“Man cannot come to [truth] through any organisation, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, nor through any philosophical knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection…”

“Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organized; nor should any organisation be formed to lead or to coerce people along any particular path.”

I'd have to say.I agree with him

 

[James Davies]

Assumptions

What are assumptions and how do they work? Assumptions are not beliefs. Beliefs are mental and are much easier to change than assumptions. The mind is actually more malleable than most people think. If someone is willing and open, they can change their mind quite easily. Assumptions, on the other hand, can be a bit more difficult. Unlike beliefs, assumptions are created through experience. Assumptions contain much more consciousness than a mental thought because thoughts come from the mental mind, and assumptions actually come from your consciousness, or what some people will call your subconscious mind.

So, when I tell you to assume that you are enlightened and just walk into it, have the experience. What I’m telling you to do is just change your experience. If you just assume that every experience that you have is about your enlightenment, then it becomes that because that is what you are choosing to experience. You’re creating a new subconscious programming in a way. You can say this program has less resistance. It’s not fighting everything it comes into contact with. And you can also say it gets rid of a paradox that is blocking energy within you. Because the truth is, everything is about your enlightenment because all paths lead to that end destination. Your belief that life is about nothing or about jobs or anything else is just an illusion. And this belief, in whatever illusion you’re choosing to believe in, creates a friction or a resistance against the truth. This friction then creates a gravitational energy that matches that friction. You could say the same about if you have a belief and a assumption that are opposed to each other. You will create another paradox within yourself.You will create more friction and more suffering for your self.

The only way to change these assumptions is by having a different experience. You choose to have a consciously created experience instead of unconscious one based on an illusion. If you want to go beyond time, you have to get rid of the assumption that time is real. You can simply do this by taking a deep breath, allowing, and feeling into timelessness. You just assume that timelessness is real. You open yourself up to the experience of it. But the trick with consciousness is it can feel like nothing because, as I have stated before, consciousness is powerless and creates with effortlessness. Consciousness contains no friction, no pull, no push, no hesitation. So, as someone is sitting there and just allowing, it’ll feel like nothing is happening. But the truth of the matter is, everything is happening. So, you have to assume that something is happening, even if it’s not a visceral physical experience. You just assume that the experience is happening, and you allow that effortless experience. As you do this over time, your assumptions will change without any effort from the human. Because your experience changed first.

You could see how useful this could be for anyone who’s dealing with things like trauma. If you assume your traumas are healed, then it simply just becomes so. It does not remove the original experience that caused the trauma; it just deprograms the assumption that was created by the traumatic experience. It doesn't remove the experience. The experience just doesn't really matter anymore, It just no longer has thay over whelming intensity. You can say the friction and the gravity is just transmuted into pure energy. It’s not magic; it’s just physics. It is just how energy and consciousness work together.

I just wanted to add-on here.This is also how mind control, hypnosis works. If you are watching the news everyday. And you're getting the same message of fear and hopelessness.Then that is the experience that your having. That is the assumption that you are creating and then your reality reflects that assumption. The easy way around mind control is not to take aside, To stand behind the short wall and just observe. When you choose the experience of neutrality. Things are no longer good or bad they are just what is. You can still have a preference , but a preference is not a judgment. That's just something to feel into.

 

[James Davies]

I did not write any of these these are just a bunch of different articles that I find interesting.

Big Bang theory states that the universe began as a singularity, or a point that contained all the precursors to the universe in a region so small that it had no size. This singularity was unimaginably hot and dense, and it didn't occur in an already existing space. Instead, the singularity initiated the expansion and cooling of space itself.
According to the cosmic inflation theory, the universe was filled with a high density of energy that gravitationally self-repelled during a period of rapid expansion shortly after the Big Bang. This energy could have been part of the fabric of space-time, or it could have been a cosmological constant-type of vacuum energy. The energy density caused the universe to expand exponentially, increasing its linear size by more than 60 "e-folds" in a fraction of a second. This expansion is thought to have created ripples in the fabric of space and time, which eventually formed hills and valleys in the universe's texture. These ripples may have allowed matter to clump together, and may also have magnified density differences at the quantum level, which helped form the universe's large-scale structures. After the inflationary period, the universe continued to expand, but at a slower rate. The energy density from the inflation period is thought to have decayed into the matter and radiation that fill the universe today.


plasma was the first matter to exist in the universe, appearing in the first microsecond of the Big Bang. This plasma, called quark-gluon plasma (QGP), was a hot and dense soup of quarks and gluons, the subatomic particles that make up protons and neutrons. The QGP had liquid-like properties and disappeared due to expansion after the first microsecond.


Dark matter and dark energy are both mysterious substances that make up a large portion of the universe, but they have opposite effects:

• Dark matter

Makes up about 26% of the universe and is responsible for holding galaxies together, producing gravity, and keeping planets, stars, moons, and suns in orbit. Dark matter is invisible and doesn't emit, reflect, or absorb light or other electromagnetic radiation. It's thought to be made up of massive astrophysical compact halo objects (MACHOs) or weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs), or possibly very small black holes.

• Dark energy

Makes up about 68–96% of the universe and is responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe. Dark energy produces a repulsive force, or antigravity, that works against gravity to pull galaxies apart and stretch out to other areas of the universe. Dark energy is not matter at all, and scientists are still trying to figure out why it exists.


Dark energy and dark matter have opposite effects on the universe:

• Dark energy

A force that pushes galaxies apart on a large scale, working against gravity. Dark energy is responsible for the universe's expansion and contributes about 68% of the universe's total energy. Some say that dark energy's effects could eventually lead to the Local Group of galaxies being the only visible part of the universe in about 100 billion years.

• Dark matter

A mass that pulls galaxies together on a smaller scale through its gravitational influence. Dark matter also keeps stars, planets, suns, and moons in orbit. It's thought to be made up of massive astrophysical compact halo objects (MACHOs) and is unaffected by radiation, which allows its density perturbations to grow into galaxies and


• Gravity in the universe

Gravity may have developed during the Planck epoch, up to 10−43 seconds after the universe was created. It may have started as quantum gravity, supergravity, or a gravitational singularity, and may have come from a primeval state. According to legend, Isaac Newton may have formulated the theory of gravity in 1665 or 1666 after watching an apple fall and wondering why it fell



cosmic inflation, a phase of accelerated expansion that occurred shortly after the Big Bang, is thought to have created the matter, antimatter, and radiation that led to the first light in the universe:


When cosmic inflation stopped, the energy driving it transferred to matter and light – the big bang.

According to NASA, cosmic inflation stopped when the energy driving it was transferred to matter and light, which occurred about 13.8 billion years ago. This period of reheating is known as the end of inflation and can last from 1015 GeV to 10-3 GeV.

Yes, gravity may have been able to create light in the early universe. According to a theoretical paper published in April 2023, gravitational waves created after the Big Bang may have built up to create gravitational energy standing waves. These waves may have shaken space-time, exciting the electromagnetic field and causing it to release energy in the form of radiation and light. This process is similar to how radiation occurs when electrically charged particles move faster than the speed of light in a medium




Quantum cosmology does indeed suppose that inflation ended with the release of a huge energy density. This was balanced by negative potential energy of the gravitational field of the inflated, and rapidly expanding, space-time.

The huge energy density would excite all the 17 quantum fields of the standard model and indeed any other fields we do not know about yet, such as dark matter, heavy neutrinos, supersymmetric partners, lepto-quarks, axions, etc.

As the universe expanded and cooled, various symmetry-breaking mechanisms would kick in, splitting gravity from electrostrong, then strong from electroweak, then electromagnetic from weak. Only the last of these is well understood and tied down: it is the Higgs mechanism, part of the standard model, and very well supported experimentally.

Somewhere in this process the positive charge got concentrated in + quarks (up, charm, top), the negative charge in electrons and - quarks (down, strange, bottom), resulting in due course in matter rather than antimatter dominating our universe. To do this, there have to be processes that violate a mirror symmetry called CP. Such processes are known, though not enough to explain the amount of matter we see.

The rest of the picture I have described above is speculative. It all supposedly takes place in the first picosecond of the big bang. After that the picture is pretty good science. What happened in the first three minutes is clear and ties up with observations and nuclear physics. Everything would settle down to protons, electrons, plus deuterons and helium nuclei (~23%), plus vast amounts of photons and neutrinos.





As it turned out, the Universe is expanding, and there didn’t need to be a cosmological constant there to counteract the force of gravity. Instead, there was an initial condition, that the Universe began expanding very rapidly, that counteracted the force of gravity from all the matter and energy. Instead of contracting, the Universe was expanding, and that expansion rate was slowing down.

Now, there are two questions that are natural to ask — and in fact were natural to ask since this discovery in the 1920s — in the aftermath of this:

• What caused the Universe to begin expanding at this rapid rate early on?

• What will the fate of the Universe be? Will it expand forever, will it eventually reverse and recollapse, will it be on the border of these two, or something else?



Is our universe all there is?

The theory of eternal inflation says that once inflation starts, it never completely stops. Rather, it ends in places, and universes form there. We call them pocket universes because they’re not everything that exists. We are living in one of these pocket universes. And even though the pocket universes keep forming, there’s always a volume of exotic repulsive gravity material that can inflate forever, producing an infinite number of these pocket universes in a never-ending procession.

Each individual pocket universe will presumably ultimately die, in the sense that it will run out of energy and cool down. But in the big picture of all the pocket universes, life would not only go on eternally, but there’d be more and more of it every instant.




It's unclear if dark energy created inflation, but the two are similar and may be related:
Inflation
A rapid expansion of the universe that occurred in the first fraction of a second after the Big Bang. Inflation is an extension of the Big Bang theory and is thought to have ended when the universe was only a fraction of a second old. Inflation occurred at a much higher energy density than the dark energy we observe today, and the energy scale of dark energy is roughly 27 orders of magnitude less.
Dark energy
A mysterious force that permeates the universe and causes it to expand at an accelerated rate. Dark energy is thought to be responsible for about 70% of the expansion rate of the universe today. It makes up about 68% of the total energy content of the cosmos and is uniformly distributed, unlike dark matter which clumps together.




In science, a singularity is a point with infinite density and zero volume where space and time are infinitely distorted





Time is infinite



This one will make A LOT of people mad. As physics now claims, time started along with our universe, around 13.8 billion years ago. Now, why did we relate time, one of our most ABSTRACT concepts, with this CONCRETE entropic mess of existence that we live in, called universe. Time shouldn’t sit at this table, it should sit next to space itself (which is pretty logical, since time and space make the continuum, not time and universe).

The main argument against infinite time is that time makes no sense if there is no change upon which we can measure the time itself. To explain further, this would mean that time didn't exist before the Big bang, since there wasn't anything we could measure the time against. I think that this claim is invalid, because of one thing that everybody seemed to misunderstand. Let me elaborate.

Prof. Einstein said that time is relative to the observer and the frame of reference. It can be dilated when exposed to strong gravity or extreme speed. This is cool and pretty much accurate from one point of view, but here is a catch that I think we all missed - time itself isn't relative, observer's perception of it is. In other words, two people with identical physical properties, standing next to each other in front of a clock, can also perceive time differently. How? Different mental focus. For example, one of the people has his/her attention drawn to something, and the other is entirely focused on the clock. Time will flow faster for the person that hasn't been focusing on the clock, because our brain needs focus to perceive time (this could be related to primary sense of each species, but that is a different topic). This happened to all of us - classes in school lasted years when we were bored, but parties were over in a blink of an eye, while we were having fun.

What conclusion does that leave us with? Well, frame of reference isn't necessarily the observer. Frame of reference is a commonly adopted measure that suits the requirements inside a specific system, like the clock in front of these two people. If we draw a same analogy to the entire space around us, we actually WOULD end up with absolute time, with universal frame of reference, and this time would be uniform. This concept was introduced far back in history by sir Isaac Newton as "Absolute time".

In that case, how does gravity (or movement) interact with our perception of time? Strong gravity forces don't only affect complex celestial bodies like planets and stars, they also affect quants. Since our thought process and our brain itself are made of quants, they are prone to be affected by physical forces too. That being said, we can conclude that time is a spatial problem that can analytically be observed, but our sensors that perceive it are discrete (e.g. humans can detect up to 150 FPS with their eyes). In simple words, world hasn't slowed down, it's just that Flash (Marvel superhero) is running (and observing the world) really fast.

So, (absolute) time is a UNIFORM process (because, again, our logic would otherwise fell apart), regardless of the Planck’s constant, gravity, speed and a frame of reference. This means that if everything stops changing (or stops existing), we are only jammed on one concrete value on the time axis of the space-time graph. Simply, we stopped. This doesn’t imply that the time stopped existing, it implies that our observance of it stopped. Therefore, time existed long time before the Big bang and will exist after our known universe is dead. To simply put it in words, it always existed and it will always exist. Good thing we represented a clock with a circle!

3. Number of particles inside an infinite system is also infinite



First of all, our observable universe isn't infinite at all. Universe that we managed to map and name “observable” is one tiny drop of water, in an infinite set of infinite oceans that we cannot even perceive, let alone measure and map.

As modern quantum physics suggests, everything is made of these tiny little things called quarks, which are (it's thought so at this moment) an elementary building block of existence (quants). Therefore, they are elementary building blocks of the entire universe, and can be analogically compared to pixels on our screens. The beauty of quarks is that they aren’t really particles. In fact, they are so tiny that the matter itself stops making sense, and they start behaving like energy, as we observe them. This is a gateway into the nature that is made up of energy, instead of matter, as we previously thought.

This is very important because it gives us a base point which allows us to observe our universe as a mathematical combination (or variation, to be more precise) of limited set of units, or quants (by so far, science has discovered 6 of them).

Now, if we are in an infinite system, like our space-time continuum, we have infinite possibilities to produce matter and anti-matter out of nothing (based on the matter-antimatter theory), right? I am talking about infinite big bangs, that are so far away, that they cannot even affect each other. These bangs can produce infinite number of particles, on infinite number of places. This implies that infinite systems really do have a potential to contain an infinite amount of particles (which is enough, if you think about it).

Aftermath

Now, after we’ve set up our hypothesis, let’s dig into the interesting stuff - consequences of this whole madness. Things like reincarnation and multiverse theory could possibly be explained by this.

Since energy inside a closed system (which our space-time continuum is, even though it’s infinite) is constant, our corporal energy (heat that we radiate, our thought process and even the potential energy stored in our muscles) isn’t going to dissappear after we die. So, where will it go? The answer is pretty simple, it will bow down to entropy and scatter in a random way (or pseudo-random, if you are spiritual enough), somewhere in the continuum. Nothing new there, right? Right.

But, as I previously mentioned, space-time continuum is infinite, and contains an infinite amount of quarks. This means that SOMETIME, SOMEWHERE those quarks are going to reassemble in the exact same way, since there is an infinite amount of time, space and particles for that to happen. Let me represent this with a simple example: if you had a 2x2 matrix, with each of the fields painted in a specific color, and started shuffling them, at some point, you would end up with a same combination you started with. Shuffling can be compared to the constant change in our universe (which we proved with uniform infinite time), colored squares can be compared to quarks in the continuum, and the matrix is the space itself (infinite space, represented on a finite matrix, since all the laws we are discussing here are applicable on both finite and infinite systems). Voila! Mystery of reincarnation explained!

One more thing could be explained with this elaboration — theory of a multiverse. If there are infinite resources, over infinite time in an infinite space, it is a natural occurrence that almost identical combinations of quants occur in different parts of the continuum. These, almost identical combinations are actually sibling universes, separated by an unknown distance, maybe years apart, maybe at the same mom

 

[James Davies]

Quantum physics describes the behavior of the physical world at its most basic level and suggests that things may not exist when we don't perceive them. For example, quantum experiments have shown that particles can spread out like waves and appear to be in more than one place at once. In this case, we can only know the likelihood of a particle appearing in a certain place until we observe it, at which point it takes on a definite position. This is called the Copenhagen interpretation, which was proposed by physicist Niels Bohr. Bohr suggested that particles, like photons, don't have definite properties until they are observed. When we observe a particle, we force it to choose a definite state, causing it to behave like a particle.
Other quantum physics experiments have shown that what exists depends on what we measure. For example, a photon can be polarized in two ways at once, but when measured, it will randomly collapse into either a vertical or horizontal state. The polarization only emerges when the measurement is made, and observers can't assume that the measurement is simply revealing how the photon was already polarized.

 

[James Davies]

In quantum physics, the observer effect is the idea that observing a quantum phenomenon can change the results of the observation. This is because the act of measurement necessarily involves interacting with the object being measured, which can affect its properties. For example, in the double-slit experiment, observing which slit a particle passes through can change its behavior, making it act like a particle instead of a wave.

The observer effect is a fundamental aspect of modern quantum mechanics, where observation and uncertainty are important concepts. Quantum theory takes this uncertainty into account through the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
The observer effect can also be found in other domains of physics, as well as in other fields such as sociology, psychology, linguistics, and computer science. For example, checking the pressure in a car tire causes some air to escape, which changes the amount of pressure that's observed. Similarly, seeing non-luminous objects requires light to hit them, causing them to reflect that light.

The observer effect is the fact that observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes it. Observer effects are especially prominent in physics where observation and uncertainty are fundamental aspects of modern quantum mechanics

 

[James Davies]

Which came first, gravity or light?


A new theory suggests that extreme forces of gravity after the big bang may have been so incredibly strong that they created the universe's first light.Apr 13, 2023

Gravitational waves
After the Big Bang, gravitational waves may have built up into large standing waves of gravitational energy. These waves could have shaken space-time, exciting the electromagnetic field and causing it to release energy in the form of radiation, which could create light.

As gravity can create light, light can also create gravity.

Light can create gravity because it carries energy and momentum, and when it's deflected by a massive body's gravitational field, it creates its own gravitational field in response. This is based on Newton's principle of "actio equals reactio"

 

[James Davies]

Creation can happen from any direction.
By J Davies

I have previously discussed creation in a very linear manner, which can be somewhat misleading. The truth of the matter is that no one really knows for certain what created what. It is akin to the age-old question of the chicken or the egg. No one truly knows if it was God who created man or if it was man who created God. Did energy exist before consciousness, or did consciousness create energy? Did gravity create light, or did light create gravity? Consciousness is often described as a light, but not the kind of light emitted by the sun or a light bulb. Rather, it is an expansive radiance of pure, crystalline clear awareness.

Was it all just physical matter at first, evolving into plants, then animals, and finally human beings? Did human beings one day dream of God and, in doing so, create God? No one can definitively answer these questions, not even the all-knowing. There are those who have their opinions, but that is all they are—opinions.

It is assumed that creation can happen from the top down and from the bottom up simultaneously. It can even occur from the middle, extending to both the beginning and the end at the same time. It is assumed that one can create the future from the past and the past from the future. From the present, one can create both the past and the future simultaneously. Everything is malleable and changeable in every moment. Some say the future is merely the past healed.

 

[James Davies]

Quantum physics suggests that multiple states of existence for tiny particles can all be possible at the same time, which some say could mean that multiple realities can exist simultaneously. This is because a "wave function" in quantum mechanics encapsulates all of these possibilities. For example, in a thought experiment, two people observing the same photon could each come to different conclusions about the photon's state, but both observations could be correct.
Quantum physics also suggests that physical reality may not exist independently of its observer. For example, in the quantum universe, many properties of objects remain indeterminate until a measurement, observation, or interaction forces the issue. This is different from the classical universe, where objects have specific properties that they keep regardless of whether or how recently they've been observed.

Quantum physics' two-state vector formalism (TSVF) suggests that the present is characterized by a combination of quantum states from the past and future, which is associated with retrocausality. Retrocausality is the idea that future events can affect past events, which challenges the assumption that present actions can't affect the past. Some experts believe that experiments have shown that the quantum world may break fundamental intuitions about how the universe works, and that we should abandon this assumption.

Linear time is a human construct. The theory of quantum physics theorizes that it's all dimensional. The past and the future are all happening concurrently in a different dimensional space and everything is connected.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Linear time is a human construct. The theory of quantum physics theorizes that it's all dimensional. The past and the future are all happening concurrently in a different dimensional space and everything is connected.

I would agree that 'linear time' is an assumption that we have to make, in order to construct
a physical model of the universe.
Therefore, those that draw conclusions about time having "a beginning" are circular arguments.

 

[Thomas]

I would love to hear how you see.

OK.

And I never said there's was only one way.

OK.

You can say there's as many ways to becoming enlightened. As there are people on the planet .

You can, but then again, people are not really so very different. So while one might say every path to enlightenment is individual, enlightenment as such is common to all, else we'd have no basis of meaningful dialogue.

One will experience and interpret enlightenment according to one's 'narrative', so 'enlightenment' might, in essence (above forms), be the same, or could be something entirely other ... it's the nature of the world that one has to allow for ignorance / illusion / error.

There is no wrong ways and there is no right way.

I rather think there are. Strangling babies, torturing animals or the serial abuse of others is not a way to 'enlightenment' in the traditional, sense.

One could argue the sense that such acts evokes is 'enlightenment', in which case I'd question what enlightenment means to such a person.

To me that is the beauty of it, It is your conscious choice. If you are just making everything up, if this is all just a dream of god. Why not just make it up how you prefer to become enlightened?

Is that enlightenment, or delusion? What's your benchmark?

You could just imagine that enlightenment doesn't need studying. That enlightenment doesn't need meditation. That enlightenment doesn't need any effort at all. But I guess it will only be true to you if that is what you assume or what you have decided to believe. And there's nothing wrong with not believe that. I believe everybody's free to make their own choice.

The trouble is, I've met people who believe they're enlightened simply by virtue of the fact they exist, and therefore the cosmos owes them something – a sense of entitlement.

It's all context.

I could say, for example, 'simply sit and suck your thumb', and some might find that comment ridiculous, or even offensive, whereas I're referring to a somewhat obscure traditional mythology that speaks of uniting the self with the 'astral light' – it refers to walking the inter-worlds, as it were, it refers to enlightenment.

Or, 'Know thyself' as written (Greek: Γνῶθι σαυτόν, gnōthi sauton) over the Temple of Apollo at Delphi.

 

[juantoo3]

Here's the path to enlightenment!

 

[Thomas]

This is just a little of how I see the process of enlightenment.

OK.

As you asked regarding my views, I offer them here. Where I disagree, this is not in the sense of argument, rather I simply don't hold with that perspective. Mine is a different interpretation.

I exist
I am that I am, I exist and I am aware that I existence. You have always existed. You were never created, in fact you are creation its self. You are god also.

I regard that which I perceive a 'I' has its being from other-than-myself, and that my selfhood is relative and contingent.

I treat "I am that I am' in its Biblical context (Exodus 3:14) – I see a distinction between the Uncreate and the created; or the Creator and creation.

In short I derive my being, my Is-ness, from the Above-Being – but I am not my own creator, I did not will myself into being from the void, as it were, that seems a contradiction. Nothing in my life or experience suggests I am self-subsisting, in the sense that I am not my own Uncaused-cause.

Consciousness
You are consciousness, and Consciousness is just crystal clear awareness, nothing else. Consciousness is not love, it is not mentally Intelligent and It is certainly not powerful.

I would say that what we call consciousness is, I would suggest, an awareness of our self-narrative. No two narratives are quite the same, therefore no narrative is absolute – all narratives are subjective, relative and contingent, subject to the rhythms of the universe, they have an origin and and end outside of themselves.

Consciousness is not energy; consciousness creates energy.

I would say we were willed into existence, and we exercise our will in turn – in traditional terms, intellect (consciousness) sheds light, will asserts the power to pursue the light, or even to go beyond it... It's in the commentaries on head and heart (John 20:3-8 is a condensed commentary on the relation and operation of the will and the intellect, of knowing and seeing).

+++

I find it hard to perceive how one can separate one's consciousness and one's experience – I see tem as two sides of the same coin.

To use a common but perhaps problematic neurological model, the brain receives all manner of data from the cosmos all the time. It then determines a value of the incoming data, filters it, and that which one is conscious or aware of is determined more important than that which one is unconscious or unaware of.

This forms its self-narrative.

We cannot separate ourselves from the process, we are the process.

Consciousness creates and the human experiences.

And vice versa? We only experience what we are conscious of, and we're unconscious of much of the universe at any given moment.

Consciousness ... it creates wisdom or what is called the soul...

The soul is the life, and the life is that of a conscious, self-reflective, rational being. The soul is the ream in which individual consciousness arises, in which the processes take place ... as such the soul is before, not subsequent to nor caused by, experience.

The soul is 'open' to the transcendent, that is the gift of its creator ... and at its own level, this open-ness is called 'love', and 'love' is how we might define the dialogue between the soul and the Transcendent.

Consciousness of that dialogue, between my self and 'It', is how I define enlightenment.

It's knowing that I am known, one might say, and being at peace with that ...

Everything that could be created has already been created
All is known and has always been known; there is nothing to learn.

How can one know, without claiming omniscience, omnipotence, etc?

The moment that your consciousness asked the question ‘Who am I?’ and became self-aware, all of creation came into being.

If all is known, how does the question 'who am I' arise?

If you see the correlation between the soul and the Big Bang, then from the moment of the soul's appearance, its awareness defines the parameters of its universe or 'creation' – its own little world – but that is different to the Cosmos – and wisdom, I'd say, is an awareness of the fact that the Cosmos is not, perhaps, as I imagine or like it to be ...

In that eternal moment of self-realization, you imagined all potentials, all possibilities of you.

But the newly-formed person has no concept of potentials or possibilities ... it learns them.

This imagination happened instantaneously and effortlessly.

If you watch a child grow, you will see the imagination develop, learn and change.

In doing so, you also created a type of energetic intelligence that is very different from the human mental mind. This energetic Intelligence is a knowingness, not of data, but potentials. With this newfound knowingness, you realized there was this thing called experience and that by having these experiences, you would create something called wisdom. You didn’t know what wisdom was, but you knew you wanted it. So you dived your awareness into your newly created potentials and began to have experiences. You could say you began to get creative with what you had already created.”

Too many contingencies at play here. How do you distinguish between wisdom and foolishness?

'Young men think old men are foolish, old men know young men are foolish'

There are no Hierarchys

Clearly, in a contingent and relative cosmos, there are ...

All is equal or neutral, Nothing is better than anything else or worse than anything else.

Better or worse are value propositions applied to distinctions that might well be hierarchical.

The I am, the human and the soul are all equal.

They are one. I don't treat them as separate entities, but there is an interplay of self-reflective consciousness.

Without the human, you would not have experience and would not have discovered things such as love.

Hang on ... the natural world instances animals who experience, and animals who experience mental and emotional processes, and have concepts of time ... perhaps even love ... animals display a sense of loss and grief ... but not to get too anthropological here.

Without the soul you would not have the sensuality of wisdom. It is when all three of these parts of you work together that you have harmony, and true understanding of your self. When you have your energetic Intelligence, your mental mind and your wisdom. Your view of reality just doesn't change, It expands beyond what the mental mind thought was possible.

You speak in terms of experience, consciousness or wisdom as if they are fixed capacities? My experience of the world is that they are not, there are variables at play ... ?

Enlightenment is the easiest thing you will ever do.

And the hardest, else everyone already would be, and the term would be so ubiquitous as to be unspoken.

Enlightenment is simple, but human will make it so damn difficult at times.

Therefore ...

It is not the human’s job to become enlightened.

Then what is all this about?

Your consciousness, your awareness, has already realized itself.

In a limited and contingent fashion – again, you seem to be speaking from the standpoint of omniscience?

How do you know you know all there is to know?

How do you know you have experienced the total fulness of enlightenment?

The human is the experiencer part of the trinity, not the creator

Ah, if you mean Christian Trinity, then no ... if you are talking od another triune, you'd have to explain.

All the human has to do is assume that they are already enlightened and allow the experience.

Which could be an exercise of self-delusion ... how do you self-check?

Your consciousness will take care of everything else ...

Oooh ...

Your consciousness does not manipulate, it does not force, it contains no power.

Ah ... I see a rather large red signal here, 'manipulation' is what consciousness does. It must, or we would be frozen below a cascading torrent of inexplicable experience, too much happening too quickly for us to do anything ...

... I know the sages of the past have said things much like this, but invariably they have expended a great amount of effort, physical, mental, emotional and otherwise – have endured self-discipline – to get to where they speak from.

Meister Eckhart, for example, praises 'detachment' as the prince of virtues – the one thing necessary on the road to enlightenment, and detachment is the fruit of self-discipline.

The human is the allower and chief.
The human’s only requirement is to experience; that is why it was created.

Experience ... and do what?

... that they are bad, that they are undeserving of their own divinity.

It's arguable that if we are each separately and inherently divine, then you're talking of a contingent nature, which in the Traditional sense, divinity is not ... Divinity transcends all form and all distinction.

The human has never done anything wrong
Sometimes it likes to take things to the extremes and just doesn’t realize when enough is enough.

Which suggests contingency and limitation, etc, and therefore good and evil, right and wrong, etc.

I don't see how you can have it both ways, unless you say that whatever you fancy doing is right, in which case terms such as good/bad right/wrong become meaningless ... in which case the first casualty is the Golden Rule – "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" which would be replaced with "Do unto others first, before they get the change to do unto you"

The human has never done anything bad or wrong. The human was just doing its job. Maybe it got a little overzealous at times and took things a little further than they needed to go. Maybe it was just curious how dark darkness could be and how bright light could be. Maybe you could say you just wanted to gift your awareness the largest, most beautiful gift of experience that you could. The fact that you made it through all these experiences without access to the wisdom of your soul and the knowingness of your “I am” really shows just how brave and resilient the human being actually is.

I can't make sense or purpose to human activity towards any reasonable end without a narrative that suggests this was right, that was wrong, this is good, that is bad.

It may well be that I am entirely wrong. There is no God. Life just ... is.

It may well be that our existence is essentially meaningless, we just have to give ourselves a reason to go on, to make it bearable. That in reality there is no point to any of it ...

That would be a pretty nihilistic enlightenment.

Perhaps that's what you're aiming at?

 

[James Davies]

OK.

As you asked regarding my views, I offer them here. Where I disagree, this is not in the sense of argument, rather I simply don't hold with that perspective. Mine is a different interpretation.


I regard that which I perceive a 'I' has its being from other-than-myself, and that my selfhood is relative and contingent.

I treat "I am that I am' in its Biblical context (Exodus 3:14) – I see a distinction between the Uncreate and the created; or the Creator and creation.

In short I derive my being, my Is-ness, from the Above-Being – but I am not my own creator, I did not will myself into being from the void, as it were, that seems a contradiction. Nothing in my life or experience suggests I am self-subsisting, in the sense that I am not my own Uncaused-cause.


I would say that what we call consciousness is, I would suggest, an awareness of our self-narrative. No two narratives are quite the same, therefore no narrative is absolute – all narratives are subjective, relative and contingent, subject to the rhythms of the universe, they have an origin and and end outside of themselves.


I would say we were willed into existence, and we exercise our will in turn – in traditional terms, intellect (consciousness) sheds light, will asserts the power to pursue the light, or even to go beyond it... It's in the commentaries on head and heart (John 20:3-8 is a condensed commentary on the relation and operation of the will and the intellect, of knowing and seeing).

+++

I find it hard to perceive how one can separate one's consciousness and one's experience – I see tem as two sides of the same coin.

To use a common but perhaps problematic neurological model, the brain receives all manner of data from the cosmos all the time. It then determines a value of the incoming data, filters it, and that which one is conscious or aware of is determined more important than that which one is unconscious or unaware of.

This forms its self-narrative.

We cannot separate ourselves from the process, we are the process.


And vice versa? We only experience what we are conscious of, and we're unconscious of much of the universe at any given moment.


The soul is the life, and the life is that of a conscious, self-reflective, rational being. The soul is the ream in which individual consciousness arises, in which the processes take place ... as such the soul is before, not subsequent to nor caused by, experience.

The soul is 'open' to the transcendent, that is the gift of its creator ... and at its own level, this open-ness is called 'love', and 'love' is how we might define the dialogue between the soul and the Transcendent.

Consciousness of that dialogue, between my self and 'It', is how I define enlightenment.

It's knowing that I am known, one might say, and being at peace with that ...


How can one know, without claiming omniscience, omnipotence, etc?


If all is known, how does the question 'who am I' arise?

If you see the correlation between the soul and the Big Bang, then from the moment of the soul's appearance, its awareness defines the parameters of its universe or 'creation' – its own little world – but that is different to the Cosmos – and wisdom, I'd say, is an awareness of the fact that the Cosmos is not, perhaps, as I imagine or like it to be ...


But the newly-formed person has no concept of potentials or possibilities ... it learns them.


If you watch a child grow, you will see the imagination develop, learn and change.


Too many contingencies at play here. How do you distinguish between wisdom and foolishness?

'Young men think old men are foolish, old men know young men are foolish'


Clearly, in a contingent and relative cosmos, there are ...


Better or worse are value propositions applied to distinctions that might well be hierarchical.


They are one. I don't treat them as separate entities, but there is an interplay of self-reflective consciousness.


Hang on ... the natural world instances animals who experience, and animals who experience mental and emotional processes, and have concepts of time ... perhaps even love ... animals display a sense of loss and grief ... but not to get too anthropological here.


You speak in terms of experience, consciousness or wisdom as if they are fixed capacities? My experience of the world is that they are not, there are variables at play ... ?


And the hardest, else everyone already would be, and the term would be so ubiquitous as to be unspoken.


Therefore ...


Then what is all this about?


In a limited and contingent fashion – again, you seem to be speaking from the standpoint of omniscience?

How do you know you know all there is to know?

How do you know you have experienced the total fulness of enlightenment?


Ah, if you mean Christian Trinity, then no ... if you are talking od another triune, you'd have to explain.


Which could be an exercise of self-delusion ... how do you self-check?


Oooh ...


Ah ... I see a rather large red signal here, 'manipulation' is what consciousness does. It must, or we would be frozen below a cascading torrent of inexplicable experience, too much happening too quickly for us to do anything ...

... I know the sages of the past have said things much like this, but invariably they have expended a great amount of effort, physical, mental, emotional and otherwise – have endured self-discipline – to get to where they speak from.

Meister Eckhart, for example, praises 'detachment' as the prince of virtues – the one thing necessary on the road to enlightenment, and detachment is the fruit of self-discipline.


Experience ... and do what?


It's arguable that if we are each separately and inherently divine, then you're talking of a contingent nature, which in the Traditional sense, divinity is not ... Divinity transcends all form and all distinction.


Which suggests contingency and limitation, etc, and therefore good and evil, right and wrong, etc.

I don't see how you can have it both ways, unless you say that whatever you fancy doing is right, in which case terms such as good/bad right/wrong become meaningless ... in which case the first casualty is the Golden Rule – "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" which would be replaced with "Do unto others first, before they get the change to do unto you"


I can't make sense or purpose to human activity towards any reasonable end without a narrative that suggests this was right, that was wrong, this is good, that is bad.

It may well be that I am entirely wrong. There is no God. Life just ... is.

It may well be that our existence is essentially meaningless, we just have to give ourselves a reason to go on, to make it bearable. That in reality there is no point to any of it ...

That would be a pretty nihilistic enlightenment.

Perhaps that's what you're aiming at?

Thanks For your reply, I'm at work right now but 0erhaps tonight or tomorrow I will go through it all and give you a response. At a quick glance , there's some very good questions there.

 

[James Davies]

OK.

As you asked regarding my views, I offer them here. Where I disagree, this is not in the sense of argument, rather I simply don't hold with that perspective. Mine is a different interpretation.


I regard that which I perceive a 'I' has its being from other-than-myself, and that my selfhood is relative and contingent.

I treat "I am that I am' in its Biblical context (Exodus 3:14) – I see a distinction between the Uncreate and the created; or the Creator and creation.

In short I derive my being, my Is-ness, from the Above-Being – but I am not my own creator, I did not will myself into being from the void, as it were, that seems a contradiction. Nothing in my life or experience suggests I am self-subsisting, in the sense that I am not my own Uncaused-cause.


I would say that what we call consciousness is, I would suggest, an awareness of our self-narrative. No two narratives are quite the same, therefore no narrative is absolute – all narratives are subjective, relative and contingent, subject to the rhythms of the universe, they have an origin and and end outside of themselves.


I would say we were willed into existence, and we exercise our will in turn – in traditional terms, intellect (consciousness) sheds light, will asserts the power to pursue the light, or even to go beyond it... It's in the commentaries on head and heart (John 20:3-8 is a condensed commentary on the relation and operation of the will and the intellect, of knowing and seeing).

+++

I find it hard to perceive how one can separate one's consciousness and one's experience – I see tem as two sides of the same coin.

To use a common but perhaps problematic neurological model, the brain receives all manner of data from the cosmos all the time. It then determines a value of the incoming data, filters it, and that which one is conscious or aware of is determined more important than that which one is unconscious or unaware of.

This forms its self-narrative.

We cannot separate ourselves from the process, we are the process.


And vice versa? We only experience what we are conscious of, and we're unconscious of much of the universe at any given moment.


The soul is the life, and the life is that of a conscious, self-reflective, rational being. The soul is the ream in which individual consciousness arises, in which the processes take place ... as such the soul is before, not subsequent to nor caused by, experience.

The soul is 'open' to the transcendent, that is the gift of its creator ... and at its own level, this open-ness is called 'love', and 'love' is how we might define the dialogue between the soul and the Transcendent.

Consciousness of that dialogue, between my self and 'It', is how I define enlightenment.

It's knowing that I am known, one might say, and being at peace with that ...


How can one know, without claiming omniscience, omnipotence, etc?


If all is known, how does the question 'who am I' arise?

If you see the correlation between the soul and the Big Bang, then from the moment of the soul's appearance, its awareness defines the parameters of its universe or 'creation' – its own little world – but that is different to the Cosmos – and wisdom, I'd say, is an awareness of the fact that the Cosmos is not, perhaps, as I imagine or like it to be ...


But the newly-formed person has no concept of potentials or possibilities ... it learns them.


If you watch a child grow, you will see the imagination develop, learn and change.


Too many contingencies at play here. How do you distinguish between wisdom and foolishness?

'Young men think old men are foolish, old men know young men are foolish'


Clearly, in a contingent and relative cosmos, there are ...


Better or worse are value propositions applied to distinctions that might well be hierarchical.


They are one. I don't treat them as separate entities, but there is an interplay of self-reflective consciousness.


Hang on ... the natural world instances animals who experience, and animals who experience mental and emotional processes, and have concepts of time ... perhaps even love ... animals display a sense of loss and grief ... but not to get too anthropological here.


You speak in terms of experience, consciousness or wisdom as if they are fixed capacities? My experience of the world is that they are not, there are variables at play ... ?


And the hardest, else everyone already would be, and the term would be so ubiquitous as to be unspoken.


Therefore ...


Then what is all this about?


In a limited and contingent fashion – again, you seem to be speaking from the standpoint of omniscience?

How do you know you know all there is to know?

How do you know you have experienced the total fulness of enlightenment?


Ah, if you mean Christian Trinity, then no ... if you are talking od another triune, you'd have to explain.


Which could be an exercise of self-delusion ... how do you self-check?


Oooh ...


Ah ... I see a rather large red signal here, 'manipulation' is what consciousness does. It must, or we would be frozen below a cascading torrent of inexplicable experience, too much happening too quickly for us to do anything ...

... I know the sages of the past have said things much like this, but invariably they have expended a great amount of effort, physical, mental, emotional and otherwise – have endured self-discipline – to get to where they speak from.

Meister Eckhart, for example, praises 'detachment' as the prince of virtues – the one thing necessary on the road to enlightenment, and detachment is the fruit of self-discipline.


Experience ... and do what?


It's arguable that if we are each separately and inherently divine, then you're talking of a contingent nature, which in the Traditional sense, divinity is not ... Divinity transcends all form and all distinction.


Which suggests contingency and limitation, etc, and therefore good and evil, right and wrong, etc.

I don't see how you can have it both ways, unless you say that whatever you fancy doing is right, in which case terms such as good/bad right/wrong become meaningless ... in which case the first casualty is the Golden Rule – "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" which would be replaced with "Do unto others first, before they get the change to do unto you"


I can't make sense or purpose to human activity towards any reasonable end without a narrative that suggests this was right, that was wrong, this is good, that is bad.

It may well be that I am entirely wrong. There is no God. Life just ... is.

It may well be that our existence is essentially meaningless, we just have to give ourselves a reason to go on, to make it bearable. That in reality there is no point to any of it ...

That would be a pretty nihilistic enlightenment.

Perhaps that's what you're aiming at?

I believe the biggest obstacle we face is agreeing on what is real and what isn’t. In my view, the only thing that is truly real is consciousness or awareness. Everything else is made up—it’s make-believe, an illusion, or whatever term you prefer. It’s malleable and constantly changing, with no fixed definition. The soul, for instance, is a construct; it doesn’t exist beyond being an experience. As we grow, evolve, and change, so does the soul. What the soul was yesterday doesn’t necessarily mean it will be the same tomorrow.

I understand this might sound a bit wishy-washy. However, this is a major reason why we can never truly know anything through the mind. Intelligence is too dense and linear to grasp the full picture. As soon as you learn something, it can change and evolve into something completely different. I call this the “AND” principle, meaning it can be this and it can be that. Every thing is multi-dimensional and can exist in many different ways simultaneously. It ultimately comes down to your choice of how you want to experience it. I’m not a big fan of the word “delusion” because it carries a negative connotation. Illusions are not inherently bad or wrong; they are simply what you choose to experience. An illusion only becomes a delusion when you no longer prefer that experience.

The only way to see things clearly is through awareness. Awareness contains no power, no control, and no manipulation. It does not judge; it doesn’t even know how to judge. Just as humans have five senses for perceiving reality, your consciousness has its own senses as well. Time is a sense of consciousness. Beauty is another sense of your consciousness. You can feel beauty with your awareness. I would say that coming back into awareness is just coming back to your senses.

Clarity is also a sense of consciousness. This sense of consciousness has also been called the dragon. When you start to feel with this sense, it can throw your life into what can feel like hell. Clarity can really hurt because it will rip away all that you call delusions. It will show you what is, not what you want to see. It will show you that there is no wrong and no right. The people you thought were evil are just beautiful soul beings entangled in the gravity of a lack of self-worth. This doesn’t mean you will condone or support what they do; you will just see them as they really are, not as the human mind tells you they are. Clarity will beat you down until you just allow. This is why I say you should not assume your enlightenment unless you’re really ready for clarity. You have to choose enlightenment over all things—over the human self, over career, over family, over anything and everything else—because clarity can rip all those things apart. It is said that the human self will die many times on its journey to enlightenment. With each death, reality becomes clearer and clearer. There is also another saying: “You are crazy until you are not.” Coming out of the mind does feel like you are going crazy. You have nothing defined anymore. You have nothing you can hold on to. Doubt will surround you, and you will start to question everything. But this is when you just allow and go beyond doubt, because doubt is just a thief that steals your divinity. So I think it just comes down to do you think i'm crazy or not. If you think I'm crazy, that's okay have fun with that. It will not hurt my feelings.