Reef's Changing Ontology

Reefs:
Abe used to say that if you only knew how much you wanted to be in these bodies, you wouldn't try to get out of it all the time.

If you use the mind as a tool of self-inquiry, you cannot go straight to the ultimate truth "There is only what you are". That will lead to a supersized spiritual ego that thinks it is God. That's why you have to start with neti-neti. So that you are not going to draw the wrong conclusion when you are introduced to the ultimate truth. That's why there's a certain step by step procedure in TAV which should not be altered (method of sublation).

Reefs:
When talking about the nature of the SVP, the usual talking points and metaphors Figgles and Enigma use all apply here: appearance with no real substance, doesn't actually exist, like dream stuff, a chimera, just a story, dream metaphor, screen metaphor etc.

Now, here it gets interesting. Because if you then would make the mistake of concluding that what you've realized about the SVP also applies to the entire phenomenal realm and declare the entire phenomenal realm an appearance only with no real substance etc. you'll end up with metaphysical solipsism instead of non-duality.

yesterday at 8:31am Shawn said:
Do you all still need the ban on new registrations? Someone emailed me about wanting to register.

Reefs:

I think we can go back to normal. The ban served its purpose. We don't need it anymore.

Reefs:


"The ultimate, final spiritual experience… is, of course, not an experience at all but instead an eternal state. The condition is its own authority. It speaks for itself; it presents itself as an actuality. There is no speaker. Truth is self-revealing. It stands on its own and is complete, total, profoundly obvious, and overwhelming by virtue of its innate magnificence."

— David Hawkins

Shawn Nevins: www.spiritualteachers.org/david-hawkins/

"David R. Hawkins believed he found a path to ultimate Truth. I think he is honest, but I do not feel his path will lead one to the stated goal. Using techniques derived from kinesiology, Doctor David Hawkins presented a method by which one gauges truth (or consciousness): on a scale of 1 to 1000, where 1 is simply being alive and 1000 is an advanced state of enlightenment.

I won’t go into the details of the actual test. Suffice it to say that it is simple. Read here for more on the origins of applied kinesiology.

The truth is that, as John Diamond discovered, there is one muscle in the left arm which corresponds with the entire biofield of a human being, and can be used to test the impact, on the entire system, of anything from a pair of shoes to finding the correct dosage of a particular supplement FOR THAT INDIVIDUAL. Dr. Diamond continually stressed that what might test healthy for one individual might significantly weaken another, and vice-versa.

Hawkins sidesteps Dr. Diamond’s emphasis on individual differences, and claims that anyone above the level of 200 (only 15% of humanity) will always give the same results if you follow his method. For those in the lucky minority, Hawkins offers a guaranteed way of determining the truth. Are you doubtful? Let me share with you some of my thoughts after reading Hawkins’ book Power Vs. Force, viewing a lecture video, and trying his method.

It did not take long to doubt Hawkins’ claim that “the truths reported in this book [Power Vs. Force] were scientifically derived and objectively organized.” David Hawkins cloaks Power Vs. Force in a veneer of mis-applied scientific jargon and presents highly speculative theories as facts. It is hard to imagine that a person, who once wrote journaled scientific papers, is now stating that subjects experienced “desynchronization of the cerebral hemispheres” as if this were a recognized medical condition. He references Karl Pribram as showing the brain acts “holographically,” while, in truth, Pribram’s is one of several theories. Hawkins makes vague references to nonlinear dynamics, chaos theory, and attractor patterns in support of his theory of consciousness. He displays a knack for obscuring the obvious by attempting to appear scientific: labeling an emotional upset as “turbulence that occurs in the attractor fields of consciousness.” Power Vs. Force is filled with attempts to be scientific that wind up worthy of ridicule rather than respect.

Dr. Hawkins refers to the “absolute replicability of test results,” yet makes no mention that kinesiology is not verified by double-blind studies, as evidenced by these reports from the National Institutes of Health website:
Double-blind Study on Materials Testing with Applied Kinesiology.

Test-retest-reliability and validity of the Kinesiology muscle test.

Applied kinesiology unreliable for assessing nutrient status.

A review of the research papers published by the International College of Applied Kinesiology from 1981 to 1987.

Unproven techniques in allergy diagnosis.

Applied kinesiology” in medicine and dentistry–a critical review

Unproved diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to food allergy and intolerance.

His book lists several variables that cause faulty test results: wearing synthetic clothing, metal jewelry, or simply the voice of the tester. If he is aware of the NIH studies, he probably dismisses them for these reasons. Considering he mentions his own tests sometimes occurring in informal settings such as lecture audiences of 1000 people, it becomes hard to imagine how he controlled these variables. I suspect he simply discarded any results that did not conform to his expectations.

Hawkins states that his diagnostic method cannot be used to make inquiries about the future, yet claims you can determine avenues of fruitful research and judge in advance the advisability of strategies. In fact, he says the method will revolutionize scientific inquiry, medical research, and product development by saving years of research and millions of dollars, yet does not list a single example where he or anyone else did so.

Occasionally, David Hawkins transcends his reliance on pseudo-scientific authority and seems to speak from a greater knowledge such as in this quote:

There is ultimately, neither duality nor nonduality; there’s only awareness. Only awareness itself can state that it’s beyond all concepts such as “is” or “is not.” That must be so, because “is” can be conceived only by consciousness itself…. Awareness itself is beyond even consciousness.

Typically though, Hawkins burdens such simple statements as “One’s range of choice is ordinarily limited only by one’s vision,” with unsupported references to his studies of “advanced theoretical physics, nonlinear dynamics, and the nature of nonlinear equations.” In Hawkins’ mind, “will” becomes “the chaos-theory principle of sensitive dependence on initial way of spiritual progress.”

As for the important question of how to become enlightened, Hawkins has only this to say:

The steps necessary to be taken to facilitate awareness of Self as consciousness have been well detailed historically. Numerous techniques and behaviors have been prescribed to facilitate the removal of obstacles to expanded awareness; these can be found in the practice of various spiritual disciplines. The one process common to all such teachings is the progressive elimination of the identification of self as finite."

If you back up a few posts in that same thread, ZD also had a very astute point re: the map/levels of consciousness idea;



What's interesting Reefs, is that if you take what ZD says there, it also applies perfectly to LOA/deliberate creation. Funny that he never pulls out that kind of challenge to your abundant posts in support of LOA/a deliberate creator and all the reflective, (s)elf judgments about feeling states and labellings of happenings as good/bad that comes along with that.