Topic: original sin and the nature of consciousness

I have come to realize that the essential nature of consciousness is pure evil.. putting into contextual clarity for instance those ancient Vedic creation myths about evil as the original kindling agent of the universal waters. This essential truth is behind the exaggerated modern notion of 'original sin', and has to do with the spirit/consciousness dichotomy that so confounds Christianity (or that Christianity so confounds).

This is how it goes. Spirit and consciousness are two sides of the same coin that is Nothing, or that is Keter on the Qabalistic Tree of Life. At the absolute origin of Creation, before space-time was even manifest from Nothing, there was only the macrocosm, and similarly there was only one Sephirah, Keter. Nothing (Keter) is pure and undifferentiated Spirit, which is basically an ocean of non-sentient consciousness.

It doesn't matter how long it took for the first wave in this ocean to ever arise, because there was nothing to observe the wait in the first place. The first wave was indeed the arising of the first observer, which is to say the original fragmentation of Spirit, and the beginning of the eternal fractal chain reaction of creation that is universal procession. Individualized Spirit that is sentient of its own divinely unique existence in terms of simultaneous oneness and difference is what is known as consciousness.

Consciousness is always, therefore, finite insofar as the distinction between it and Spirit (Self and Other) is absolute, and infinite insofar as the distinction between it and Spirit is relative. No matter how much consciousness manifests there will always remain infinity of Spirit, per the undifferentiated and ineffable nature of infinity. Consciousness is essentially dual in nature, as opposed to spirit which is essentially non-dual in nature.

Before consciousness there was only Nothing, and neither good nor evil existed for nothing at all existed. Upon the original fragmentation of Spirit into consciousness, the concept of subjective virtue was born with the reality of variety of individuality of consciousness... and as consciousness, in all its individuality, was a "step down" from spirit in the sense of becoming relatively infinite as opposed to fully infinite, so the concept of evil arose.

Pure--that is, new and infantile--consciousness is thus pure evil, because as a blank slate without experience or knowledge, no redeeming qualities have yet been experienced for it to justify its conventional existence. Moreover, consciousness ever remains pure in the sense of new and infantile in essence, in the sense that the core of any individual agent of consciousness is always Spirit, Keter, Nothing. In this way is pure consciousness permanently pure evil, as opposed to only at the very beginning of Creation; similarly may Keter refer to the entire macrocosm of existence at large as well as to the context of any microcosmic individual agent of consciousness therein.

First, then, Nothing is 0; then evil is 1; and then, nextly, both good and evil are 2. From the first-hand perspective of Keter, this mathematical representation of universal creation translates into the following. Originally and moreover eternally is there Nothing, an ocean of non-local timelessness, infinite unmanifest potentiality; then there arises an infinitely small spec of light, individualized Spirit known as consciousness, pure evil; in simultaneous contrast to this light does an infinitely vast expanse of darkness arise, and this darkness is good.

This point of the macrocosmic and microcosmic evolution of consciousness thus represents the basic state of duality of light and dark, good and evil. It is the proverbial “one step back” of original sin that precedes the subsequent “two steps forward”. Here the sentient individual agent of consciousness has yet to overcome what may best be described as their innate inferiority complex. They are afraid of good because they are afraid of the dark, which is to say that they are afraid of their own potential to become good.

The juxtaposition here of good correlating with darkness and evil correlating with light is symbolic of the confusion that naturally and inevitably arises in the course of universal procession when consciousness attempts to come to terms with its innately sinful nature. One does not realize they suffer from fear of their own self, and rather does one externalize the problem and demonize the darkness, the unknown. Monotheistic or polytheistic creation myths and religions are developed in order to explain existence, and people come to believe they are the darkness as opposed to the light in the mistaken corollary sense that they are innately sinful--one should supposedly go towards the light.

As one looks upon the light of God, one is struck with the fear of God and--the existence of God and deities being essentially a product of ignorance—one’s inferiority complex is only reinforced as one continuously fails to realize salvation from the actually evil light. In other words, one tries to circumvent or otherwise run away from their innately sinful nature, which amounts to denying the very sentiency of their existence in the first place. What is rather needed is recognition of the true nature of light and darkness, leading to acceptance and embrace of innate sin, in turn allowing for transcendence of sin. This is the primordial process of birth--the acceptance of the one fundamental choice that is ever already made for one’s self, which is to arise into sentiency in the first place.

Now we have 0, 1, and 2, for as soon as there is 1 there is contrast and therefore there is 2. Thus we are now at the point of the trinity, for we have three things. This trinary stage in terms of macrocosmic universal evolution as well as in terms of microcosmic individual evolution is the stage that effectuates “the big shift”, of which the quaternity is the result. This is, simply put, the key of the Trinity, for everything being a matter of consciousness, everything has to do with the Trinity.

Basically, 0 becomes from the trinary perspective recognized as the step backwards, as “original sin”. Realization of the trinity is transcendence of duality, is transcendence of innate sin. It is realizing 3 from 2, by including 0 as something not negative but positive, as something as opposed to nothing. It is transcendental insight that synthesises the macro with the micro, it is absolute personal affirmation of the desire and goodness of existence as opposed to non-existence.

The key of the Trinity is a matter of decision, as it is the act of choice of the individual agent of consciousness between accepting or denying their innate condition of sentiency for which they had no original say in the matter. In other words, although one is forced into birth in the first place, one is not forced to carry out an existence they determine to be unwanted. Unlocking the key of the Trinity, then, involves regarding one’s innate spark of existence either in an existence-affirming or existence-denying way.

The key of the Trinity, put otherwise, is the realization that one’s original conception from Spirit into consciousness is represented by 0 or innate sin, and that it is this very “one step backwards” that is one’s blank slate for eternal individual existence in terms of simultaneous oneness and difference with the universal whole. In this sense is the spark inside every individual agent of consciousness Nothing, like a piece of infinity in that infinity plus or minus anything still equals infinity--in this sense is even the tiniest spark of Nothing just as potent as the one true Nothing Itself, and similarly in this vein is the whole of any hologram contained in every one of its parts.

This trinary shift in universal and/or individual evolution from a mechanistic to a dynamic mode is reflected, then, in the right knowledge of light and darkness--in truth may light be said to be “good” and darkness “evil”. One should never move towards the light for such is an affirmation of division of self, in that if one is the light and is good then one cannot move towards the light and towards goodness as if they were not so in the first place. This self-affirmative choice is the key of the trinity, and explains why in certain contexts only a 180 degree shift will do.

The quaternity arises from the trinity in that “0”, “1”, “2”, and “3” makes four. As the key of the trinity is the key to duality, so does it open the dual lock that every dimension in a sense possesses. Think of numbers as place holders, and that the symbolic value they represent is interchangeable between the preceding and proceeding number. When 0 is counted then it becomes the first and 1 becomes 2 and 2 becomes 3 and so on ad infinum, and vice-versa if 0 is not counted. This is precisely what happens to realize the trinity--0, 1, and 2 becomes three, but as soon as there is three there is also four (0, 1, 2, and 3).

More to come on this subject, but I think this is succinct enough to stand on its own for now..

nothing is sacred, the deconstructing and letting-be of all things, clarity of sight, the realization of no-thing(s), Nothing

Re: original sin and the nature of consciousness

Transcix wrote:

As one looks upon the light of God, one is struck with the fear of God and--the existence of God and deities being essentially a product of ignorance—one’s inferiority complex is only reinforced as one continuously fails to realize salvation from the actually evil light. In other words, one tries to circumvent or otherwise run away from their innately sinful nature, which amounts to denying the very sentiency of their existence in the first place. What is rather needed is recognition of the true nature of light and darkness, leading to acceptance and embrace of innate sin, in turn allowing for transcendence of sin. This is the primordial process of birth--the acceptance of the one fundamental choice that is ever already made for one’s self, which is to arise into sentiency in the first place.

Hmmm...

This wasn't my experience at all or even close to it. When I felt that I was in the presence of God, I felt radiantly overwhelming love, joy, understanding, humor, exaltation, and a bunch of other expressions that I really can't put into language. Even now I realize that my physical vehicle is/was completely incapable of translating ANYTHING without grossly distorting the experience, but even with the present limitations of language, I can safely say that there was nothing to feel inferior or sinful about at all.

Perhaps there might be another kind of truth out there other than the one you're pushing?

-3G

3 (edited by Transcix 2007-03-16 09:45:53)

Re: original sin and the nature of consciousness

How do you know you were not experiencing the enlightened illuminating presence of your own HigherSelf? It could very well take the feel/appearance of God if that's what you expect, at least initially as you open yourself up to the idea of something 'greater'..

nothing is sacred, the deconstructing and letting-be of all things, clarity of sight, the realization of no-thing(s), Nothing

Re: original sin and the nature of consciousness

In more recent years, looking back on my nothingness traces, I also came to a realization, similar to your Trinity model. I had figured out two of the keys, if you will, but I knew that one remained.  I've also pondered on some of the same concepts as well. Interesting...

"There cannot be progress without expression. There cannot be expression without separation. There cannot be separation without progress."-Ouroboros

Re: original sin and the nature of consciousness

Transcix wrote:

How do you know you were not experiencing the enlightened illuminating presence of your own HigherSelf? It could very well take the feel/appearance of God if that's what you expect, at least initially as you open yourself up to the idea of something 'greater'..

Possibly, but consider that at that stage, the enlightened HS and our concepts of the divine are one and the same, are they not?

-3G

6 (edited by nexus 2007-04-09 02:51:37)

Re: original sin and the nature of consciousness

. If you believe in good and evil transix then that doesn'tmean you are essentially evil. Simply acknowledging the relativity of relative good and relative evil does not make one essentially evil. We are each an individualisation of the creative Spirit. The scriptures of east and west affirm that our being was "made in the image of God" and that that "image of God" was "very good'. It was beheld by the creative Spirit as very good because it is a replica of that Spirit with the same creative powers. It gave us the gift of life...... of individual self conciousness. Our spiritual I AM Presence then projected a portion of itself [ our soul ] into the material plane to accomplish the creative intent. That "divine image" of the individualisation of God is each one's personal Higher Self.  It all began perfectly....... aaahh they were the good old days!

7 (edited by Ethereal 2007-04-08 08:56:40)

Re: original sin and the nature of consciousness

Don't really understand the arguments here, but here is my take on the matter (which was respectively taken from Dr. Hawkins):

God and Existence and Consciousness is all innately Divine, i.e. Infinite Love, Truth, Beauty, etc., like what you've experienced, GibbleTronic.

Within God's Creation, there was the evolution of animal sentience. This began with bacteria, with simplistic consciousness needing to differentiate between food molecules and crap. So the ego developed over billions of years, not just related to animals.

To survive, animals needed an ego with dualistic perception -- is this prey or predator? is this a potential mate or a rock? big_smile

And it also needed "evil" animal instincts -- fight or flight, alpha male dominance, territorial turf wars, hoarding food, etc.

Note that these are not innately "evil" -- those are just human judgments on an essentially neutral universe (but infinitely Divine!). To an animal, their behavior isn't evil at all -- they need to eat, they need to mate, they need to survive. Without an ego, animals wouldn't be able to survive at all. "Original Sin" is just the development of the animal ego.

Humans, as homo sapiens, is a recent development in animal evolution. They are essentially animals, with the exception of the addition of a prefrontal cortex to the animalistic brain. Otherwise, there is no difference whatsoever. The intelligence of modern man is now subsumed by the animal ego.

The downside of the ego is that it precludes experiencing the Presence of God as Infinite Love, Peace, etc., by virtue of dualistic perception. Those were needed when we were animals, but no longer -- so we transcend our animal instincts through spiritual work.

So why is there so much "evil" and so much "suffering", if everything is Infinite Love and Perfection? To God, everything is Love and Perfection -- and to an enlightened mystic, that is their experience as well. But to humans with an ego, with relative dualistic perception, there seems to be evil and suffering. This is all due to ignorance (of the ego), and not "evil", because we can easily see that all human beings innately choose what they perceive to be in their good. Consciousness is innately innocent.

That is why enlightened beings only see "evil" people with compassion, and never with judgment, because they're not evil in the first place -- just terribly misguided.

-------

As for things about HS and God and whatever...I have no clue, but I agree that the two are the same. Or you could say, HS is the Presense of God, as HS. God takes on innumerable Divine Forms and it is possible to experience God in many ways. However, all of them agree that experientially, the Presence of God is Infinite Love/Bliss/Peace/Joy. I've never heard of enlightened beings speak otherwise, hence my skepticism of this thread.

In regards to possible explanations of negative/fearful views of God, as in the Old Testament, they all calibrate below 200 on the Scale of Consciousness, and have been shown be to fearful projections of the collective unconscious of mankind that have been projected into the lower astral domains and given it reality. In the lower astrals, these negative gods do exist as a reality. But we are not in the lower astral realms, nor would we ever want to be, so the point is moot big_smile

Namaste