‘Raising Consciousness’ Question.

I’ve been aware of this ‘raising of consciousness’ thing for some years, as I would guess are most of us. But what does it really mean?

According to the people I follow, my consciousness is my awareness, the screen that the video of my life experience shows up on. For me, it has a sort of neutral vibe. It takes on board everything both good and bad without judgement. It doesn’t get annoyed or angry, emotions seem apart from it. My ego is the bit that gets animated by getting annoyed, happy, sad and so on. My consciousness just absorbs it all like an emotionless zombie.

So this is my question: How can something that is neutral be raised?




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ninshub]

I gather Raised Consciousness is possibly akin not to complete lack of emotion (the zombie state), but rather to absence of judgement and its accompaying emotions (fear, hatred, greed, etc.), and maybe emotion is there in RC but in a more refined way, and more specifically meaning a greater sense of acute aliveness and sensitivity to all energies. The difference between what an acutely aware Now practitioner/meditator experiences, for example, and an unthinking, low-level "vegetable" consciousness state. Or something like that.

I guess I'm closer to Sir Fred Hoyle on this one. At least, I seek to draw a parallel with his Steady State model, which he proposed as an alternative to the "Big Bang" (a term he also coined).

Lest we get sidetracked, I am indeed referring to the ‘raising of consciousness’ thing. I'm suggesting that whatever it may mean, it isn't specific to our own particular time, the present. I suppose it came into popular awareness with the "Dawning of the Age of Aquarius". That particular astrological connection I believe was the origin of the term "New Age". which I'm willing to consider a positive description, though to some it has become a pejorative, similar to the misused term "pseudoscience" (both may be used to sneeringly dismiss ideas one doesn't like).

Of course the 1960s were a time of great change, accompanied by the mantra, "Turn on, tune in, drop out". That bubble subsided, not least by the banning of some of the drugs which accompanied it. Since then, things have been intermittent. I recall in the early 1980s reading of imminent Earth changes and in particular the advice to move away from the coast, since large areas of the continents were to be flooded. (Ironically at that time I gained a place to study at a college - located on the coast). If one follows some sources, these promised 'Earth changes' are always just a few months ahead, whether at the turning of the millennium, or the Mayan calendar of 2012, you name it, these things are always cited.

However, I'm reminded now of a book I have, entitled "The Thinning of the Veil". This talks of:

We are trying to get the earth-folk to realize that it is possible to lift the veil now, or to see through it; but the whole world is so immersed in outside thoughts that it must learn to deepen its consciousness before we can give it all the light possible.

Do try to attain a calm attitude of mind, and to feel the deeper things more constantly. Keep rising out of the earth-mists lightly like a bird, without strain, into your native atmosphere. The veil is thinning fast now, and will thin still faster for the souls who are conscious of what we are seeking to do.

Much of the content of this book seems timeless, though it is also keyed very deeply to the time it was written (published 1919) and makes many references to the period of war which was then current or just ending.

So, I'm in no doubt that there is merit to these ideas, but it does seem to be an ongoing and never-ending process, one which requires renewed effort in every era.

I'm sorry that this doesn't really answer the original question asked. Another train of thought I had was that we are all on our own individual journey, and perhaps the only measure we have is not by looking at the individual, but at the world as a whole. The Twentieth Century, among other things was one of warfare. How will this century be regarded from a future perspective? Perhaps if we want a positive assessment we collectively have to make it so.

I’ve been aware of this ‘raising of consciousness’ thing for some years, as I would guess are most of us. But what does it really mean?

According to the people I follow, my consciousness is my awareness, the screen that the video of my life experience shows up on. For me, it has a sort of neutral vibe. It takes on board everything both good and bad without judgement. It doesn’t get annoyed or angry, emotions seem apart from it. My ego is the bit that gets animated by getting annoyed, happy, sad and so on. My consciousness just absorbs it all like an emotionless zombie.

So this is my question: How can something that is neutral be raised?




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't think that it's so much a question of consciousness being raised as of ego being lowered. Thus one's awareness (I prefer the word to consciousness since I believe it's really consciousness of consciousness we're talking about) becomes less obfuscated.

I've had a few experiences (please don't ask me how or why -- I've no idea) where the degree of my ego's obfuscation has been lowered, and found that my awareness has become not "neutral" so much as blissful, imperturbable. At these times, I've become not so much a passive observer as something that experiences in a certain way: call it a joyful way, a compassionate and forgiving way that can inform my actions.

I believe this is a natural way to be, a way we all have the potential to be all of the time. Ego blocks it, so that most of the time I'm not joyful, not compassionate, and not forgiving. If I am sufficiently self-aware, albeit not in this state, the best I can do is to fake it: make a conscious effort to act as if it were so. It's a kind of act of faith based on memory. Most of the time, I'm not even that self-aware: have become faithless and ego-driven.

Maybe some people manage to permanently exist in this state, have possibly even gone beyond it into states I know nothing about. Maybe there is more "neutrality" there, and what I've experienced is the near the bottom rung of a long ladder. I can't say. At any rate, it's my personal experience, and I offer it for whatever it might be worth to you.

I don't think that it's so much a question of consciousness being raised as of ego being lowered. Thus one's awareness (I prefer the word to consciousness since I believe it's really consciousness of consciousness we're talking about) becomes less obfuscated.

I've had a few experiences (please don't ask me how or why -- I've no idea) where the degree of my ego's obfuscation has been lowered, and found that my awareness has become not "neutral" so much as blissful, imperturbable. At these times, I've become not so much a passive observer as something that experiences in a certain way: call it a joyful way, a compassionate and forgiving way that can inform my actions.

I believe this is a natural way to be, a way we all have the potential to be all of the time. Ego blocks it, so that most of the time I'm not joyful, not compassionate, and not forgiving. If I am sufficiently self-aware, albeit not in this state, the best I can do is to fake it: make a conscious effort to act as if it were so. It's a kind of act of faith based on memory. Most of the time, I'm not even that self-aware: have become faithless and ego-driven.

Maybe some people manage to permanently exist in this state, have possibly even gone beyond it into states I know nothing about. Maybe there is more "neutrality" there, and what I've experienced is the near the bottom rung of a long ladder. I can't say. At any rate, it's my personal experience, and I offer it for whatever it might be worth to you.

What a great post Michael.
It appears to me that you have may have experienced ‘enlightenment’, if only for transitory periods. 

Eckhart Tolle is the one person that I can listen to and consistently ‘get’ what he says. Informed people on this subject often confirm the importance of being ‘authentic’, being who you are. So I suppose there’s little to be gained by any acting, as those who might be taken in by such japes, including ourselves, are not fooling those who care. 

I wonder what triggers the magic switch?

I’ve been aware of this ‘raising of consciousness’ thing for some years, as I would guess are most of us. But what does it really mean?

According to the people I follow, my consciousness is my awareness, the screen that the video of my life experience shows up on. For me, it has a sort of neutral vibe. It takes on board everything both good and bad without judgement. It doesn’t get annoyed or angry, emotions seem apart from it. My ego is the bit that gets animated by getting annoyed, happy, sad and so on. My consciousness just absorbs it all like an emotionless zombie.

So this is my question: How can something that is neutral be raised?




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think it is a figure of speech that is not very specific and is used to cover a variety of experiences that happen when engaged in personal growth and spiritual type practices.

To physically go upwards in altitude is to get a broader view of things, to see the big picture, to experience transcendence, to get closer to the lights in the sky, to experience solitude, to avoid the problems in the crowded plains and valleys.

Higher pitched sound vibrations are associated with things that are non-threatening: birds, children, small animals, rain, etc.
Lower pitched sound vibrations are associated with things that are threatening: large beasts, thunder, earthquakes, etc.

So when people say they are raising their consciousness or raising their vibration, I don't think it is literal even if they imagine that it is so. I think it is symbolic of having a state of mind that is more peaceful and aware and less disrupted by the day to day things.

I know that in the past when I have meditated or spent long periods of time in prayer, that afterwards the clarity of thought and awareness is greatly increased. Putting the "default mode" thinking to rest allows a million details that are normally ignored to pop out, so in some way I feel more conscious.

If someone is walking along a trail and they are focused only on where to place their next step so as to avoid tripping, and they never look up to see where they are going, they aren't really in control of their destiny. So to "raise consciousness" might mean to lift your eyes up to look around or look at a map, to get your eyes off the immediate problems and maintain a broader perspective that guides you where you would like to go.

[Ninshub]

So when people say they are raising their consciousness or raising their vibration, I don't think it is literal even if they imagine that it is so.

I'm not so sure this is so, though, when one refers to OBE practitioners, and even accounts of NDEs where similar distinct "vibrational states" are described. (This is possibly a distinct concept or experience from the "raised" or "awakened consciousness" that the OP is talking about though.)

I'm not so sure this is so, though, when one refers to OBE practitioners, and even accounts of NDEs where similar distinct "vibrational states" are described. (This is possibly a distinct concept or experience from the "raised" or "awakened consciousness" that the OP is talking about though.)

It's an interesting topic. From my own experience of OOBEs, which is something I focussed on in the past, I did not experience any such vibrational state. I don't know what it means.

As an aside, I'm always wary of physics terminology such as vibration, frequency, energy and so on used in esoteric topics. To me its use can only be metaphorical.

[Ninshub]

I'm just going on the testimony of people I've read, where their experiences seem to involve something like "vibrations" as a spiritual reality of some sort, and not just a metaphor.

Here's just one example, Paul Elder, an NDEr who then got quite involved in OBEs at the Monroe Institute (from his book Eyes of an Angel).

Here's a description of his having one of his early out-of-body experiences (quite similar to those recounted by Monroe and many others).

Excited by this development, I knew I had to be careful. I didn't want to risk losing the vibrational state and ruining the experience. With effort I tried to calm my mind and maintain control. The shuddering intensity of the vibrations surprised me. I didn't recall them being as choppy and strong in my previous experience. The sensations became so jarring and uncomfortable I concentrated on mentally speeding them up as a possible solution. It worked! Within moments the vibrations smoothed into a delightfully energizing wave. In my head, a high-pitched sound began to slowly intensify into a sharp oscillating tone. (p. 29) (my bold)

So at that level vibrations are akin to sensations. Later on in his narrative, as he encounters other beings and guides while astral travelling, they seem to connect to a spiritual reality as distinct types or degrees of "energies". For example, as when a guide explains to him about "soul groups":

The life experience of every member of the group contributes immeasurably to the strength of the whole. This is a very important aspect of the soul group. As the entire cluster of souls vibrates as one, the individual life experience of any single members becomes an experience shared by the rest of the group. This is of tremendous benefit to the advancement of the entire group. With several members of the group incarnated at the same time, the process of learning and accumulating experience is significantly improved. As the combined experience of a cluster grows, do does the power of its overall spiritual vibration. This acceleration of the developmental process allows the group to move more quickly to higher levels of understanding and vibration. (p. 157-158). (my bold)

I'm raising this point just because I seem to have run into these things quite repeatedly, enough so that I don't want to dismiss them out of hand as all metaphors.

I don't remember whether it was Monroe or Muldoon or maybe Buhlman who I read. From my perspective I was fascinated but totally sceptical. It was only when following ideas from the book, I started to have my own out-of-body experiences that - bang - I started to take it seriously. As such of course I can't deny anyone else's experiences, but I trust my own experiences most.

As for the use of physics terminology, it's just that in my opinion there are too many websites out there that are crammed with references to orbs, vibrations and so on, which do a disservice to legitimate research, that I think it's important to go back to first principles, and not just use terminology because others have used it. I suppose my interest, is primarily to address these matters from a scientific perspective, and as such I feel a need for great caution when using terms which already have an established scientific meaning. However, as I said, I don't seek to deny actual experiences reported by others.

I'll leave it at that, we may have to agree to disagree.