Hello Amarynth: Thanks for proposing this subject. Consciousness is a term that has been mauled by billions of people. Can we ever iron out a working understanding? I also propose that this discussion will underlie everything on the Chronicle Page, with all its current events.

You say: “I’ve never really discussed this work with anyone, so, if you want to discuss, let’s keep it to this thread.”  (By the way, so many people {here on the forum also}, have spent years, or even decades pondering life.)

There is a point of view that the human being cannot really see nor understand anything in an abstract form, (tossing it around in their own head). That the way of seeing is our reflection in relationship. Yes, we see who the other seems to be, and what pay-back they may be attempting. But if we change our focus, we also see our own reaction to everything around us, our own thought processes and foundations, in the people, in the events that we are related to, ideologies, religions; life is always in relationship.  So we can gain self-understanding.

So, discussion is a way to understand this body of ideas, this book.

First of all, you can’t discuss 1,000 pages, unless you agree with everything. But in agreement there is no discussion. So then how to approach it? How about you select one chapter, and we each analyze the meaning that if gives us. (Or we can comment on how it mystifies life, to keep us mesmerized.)

Or we could go on the Kevin Carmody essay, one page at a time. There is so much to say about every one of those quotes. Yes, we can acknowledge the truths, and question the assumptions.  I think discussion breaks down after enumerating 6 or 8 points.  So let’s take little bits.

In the long book, already in the second paragraph he gives us the “purpose of life”. WOW.

“The real purpose of life, the purpose that will satisfy both sense and reason, is this: that each one of us will be progressively conscious in ever higher degrees in being conscious; that is, conscious of nature, and in and through, and beyond nature.”

Right away we are assured that this purpose is an incremental, evolutionary, and time-bound process. That both the tools of the senses, (the now), and of the reason, (conditioned as yesterday’s thought process), are blended into an ever more satisfied (according to our conditioned judgement), life experience.  We are to being convinced that, YES, all our conditioning was useful and not a waste of time, and now we can add to it, a little at a time, to make a greater whole.   What about taking away some of it, (or all of it)?  All of conditioning is fragmented, can’t approach the whole.

In fact, Carmody has practiced TM for 49 years, and has been “levitating” in meditation for 45 years. Sounds like a delightful addiction to process. I also know people practicing TM daily for maybe 40 years. Are they becoming progressively conscious in ever higher degrees? Or are they just relieving the stress that their lifestyle recreates every day? Why not stop creating stress, instead of relieving it? The TM’ers I know are blind to so many obvious litanies, but that is only anecdotal.

LET’S DISCUS THIS BOOK, one slice at a time.

.

Hello Amarynth, many of us know you’re “burning the candle at both ends”. We hope you do well with it. There are priorities and goals, and they can change. Assistants are somewhere in this world, and delegation is an acquired skill.

I do not hold that I know anything about the mystery of consciousness, except that I can say, I perceive ideas and things. Within that simple perception it is hard for me to feature that it takes 1,000 dense pages to delve into it. (maybe 400,000 words, Wow, packed). If I approach this neither with belief nor disbelief, how can it impact me?

I don’t know the composition of our membership. I would guess that at least a dozen or more have engaged with spiritual exploration. I have seen only 4 people write about it, (including me, and 3 others). I am afraid if I lead off with this discussion, people will be focused on answering what I ask. I would prefer the others lead, and tell what this teaching means to them, and how their life has shifted from it.

Then I can say what makes sense to me, (with my background conceptions), and what part is perplexing.

.

Hello Amarynth. No takers in over a week.

Let me ask, (maybe the obvious), you presented this book, and said you read it in one year and worked on it thereafter, but never discussed it. Perhaps you wish to see other points of view about it? Could this get you back into contemplating it and internalizing it? Would that be a further doorway into being “conscious of consciousness”, a goal in this?

I think discussing (anything), will be a process of growth. May I suggest that if you are tethered to a belief or a preferred scenario, you cannot freely enquire. If you can unhook from that preference, you WILL grow, but not necessarily in the way that you preconceive.

So after that it is up to you. Would a change in outlook be defined as subversion? Or would it be a refreshing breath of fresh air?

I have read the Preface and the Forward, as you suggested. Should I post my first impressions? (I have not read further at this moment.) So do I have only a partial reading?

.

Hello Amarynth; I have said in several posts that my objective is to find use of this forum as a tool to discovery in dialog.  It doesn’t always take hold, but my knowing is that this is an ideal format for discussion.  Perhaps the people have to be of a “certain temperament”? Someone here might come around to it.  It doesn’t take vast numbers.

You had left a psychological link by Mark Walter, which focused on David Bohm, and Krishnamurti. I don’t remember if there were any comments on that, but I did follow it, and it changed my life.  Now you have presented this Percival book, which has produced no interest.  (As I said, I am interested in starting discussions, more than over what material to talk about.)  If you would like to discuss more philosophical subjects, which are the foundation of what is being done in the world, (the chronical page), then don’t give up.  I have made 13 philosophical posts, (except #4, which was on Russian attitudes), all of which are adapted to discussion, and most of them have not taken hold.

I have come upon my general attitude about the world. In science we develop a model which can be manipulated, (also through experiments), and it can facilitate a body of advancing scientific knowledge. This has allowed great technological advancement.  (It works.)  In man’s psychological development, we have made many models, all the religions and philosophies of the world, and paths to “salvation”.  Yet, right now, today and every day, 1,000 Slavic men have been ruthlessly slaughtered by western produced bombs and munitions in their sponsored war. We applaud that. (We’re killing you so you can have justice.) It is the only way toward your freedom!

PSYCHOLOGICAL MODELS, (religions and other systems), HAVE NEVER WORKED FOR A RESULT.  Oh, they give plenty of results, each worse than the last.  I have discussed this on my post #6, Quotes from Huxley.  The rhythms of planet earth and the rhythms of life on planet earth are what we call REAL. It takes no human involvement for that reality to exist. I think that we want to approach it, be more directly aware of it. To do so we have created symbolic models of how we conceive it must be. The symbolic-systems are linguistic, mathematical, pictorial, musical, ritualistic and other.

How close can these made-up symbols approach our real life?  Do they get closer the more complex the symbolic system is, or closer the more simple and straight-forward it is?  Why doesn’t mankind change psychologically?  WAR 5,000 years ago and WAR today, at half past 12:00.

The Percival book is a mass of symbols.  THAT’S NICE.  Should we talk more about it?

.

Hello Amarynth, and thanks for your reflections on the introductory chapter. (I’ll read it next.) I actually did do my homework on the Preface and Forward, but didn’t post it yet.  They’re puzzling.

I think it will become clear, that I approach life on earth from a completely opposite pole than Percival.  I say life-on-earth because who gives two pins about the universe?  I live here; it is the same.  I believe that you can find a doorway to simplification, with no contradiction, where everything is clear by itself.  I am not saying that I am living in that, or that anyone can.  But you can sure glimpse it.  From that you know where not to go, toward further complication.

Mostly, I believe that to master the mind entails knowing when to use it, and knowing when it is useless.  The mind’s playground through speech, through thought and memory IS THE KNOWN. (Not any “cosmic-known”, just the known in your repertoire of past experiences.)  Working with that “known”, it is inconceivable that you arrive at the unknown.  You have to add into the model an epistle from the nether-world.  Why would you do it without any direct evidence?

On to the Preface:

First of all, I will acknowledge that salesmanship 80 and 100 years ago was very different from now.  There was no subtlety, and people simply declared, this is the very best widget the world has ever seen.  Same with the descriptions of this book in the Preface, (and in other reviews).  I won’t waste space copying all, but:

At first we encountered Difficulties comprehending
Read on, one page at a time
Unique system of conveying knowledge
Awakening faculties long dormant within us
Understanding coming along with repeated readings
Such a long time we’ve been alive without this vital knowledge
Complete exposition of the origin of the universe
The Source, purpose, and ultimate destination of humanity

WOWEE, should we just give these declarations a “pass”, and say they were only the sign of a less sophisticated readership?

Then it is stated that: “Thinking and Destiny is NOT a revelation from Deity, is NOT the result of ecstatic states and visions, is NOT received while in trance, under control or other spiritistic influence, nor have they been received and given as coming from some Master of Wisdom.”

But then immediately we have this opposite statement in Percival’s own words:

“While stepping up to the northeast corner curbstone, a Light, greater than that of myriads of suns opened in the center of my head. (He must have fell down immediately to the sidewalk swooning, right?) In that instant or point; eternities were apprehended. There was no time. Distance and dimensions were not in evidence. Nature was composed of “units”. I was conscious of the units of nature and of units as Intelligences. Within and beyond, so to say, there were greater and lesser Lights; the greater pervading the lesser Lights, which revealed the different kinds of units. The Lights were not of nature; they were Lights as Intelligences, Conscious Lights. Compared with the brightness or lightness of those Lights, the surrounding sunlight was a dense fog. And in and through all Lights and all units and all objects I was conscious of the Presence of Consciousness. I was conscious of Consciousness as the Ultimate and Absolute Reality, and I was conscious of the relation of things. I experienced no thrills, emotions, or ecstasy. Words fail utterly to describe or explain CONSCIOUSNESS.”

“Twice during the next fourteen years, for a longer time on each occasion, I was conscious of Consciousness.  Being conscious of Consciousness is the set of related words I have chosen as a phrase to speak of that most potent and remarkable moment of my life.”

__________________

I am not denying strange experiences, or spiritual experiences, and I acknowledge there are many mysteries.  Helen Schucman wrote the Course in Miracles in the back seat of a car, on a three day cross country drive.  (Dictated by Jesus, and maybe not edited from there.)  Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, with or without golden plates?   Much from Judaism with tribes of Israel and such. But why does he tell us his story?

Is it for an authentication?  Is it to spark our desire, which it surely does?  Any desire to arrive somewhere is an equal and opposite desire to leave somewhere, LEAVE HERE.  So he is preparing the ground for us to deny our real life, and search for his thought created image.  At least it is only a thought created image when it is received by us.  So then we are honoring “Longing”, which I won’t speak to directly until read Chapter one.

For me, (I’ll call it), Yearning as the most destructive ego-centered activity imaginable.  I yearn to get away from my life.  Dozens of spiritual teachers I have known have sworn that only through limitless desire and yearning, can you achieve enlightenment.  You have to twist yourself into a pretzel of desire. I desire to go there, so I desire to leave here, until I grow to hate my life and hate life on earth.  (I have seen it in 100’s of their disciples, – in spades.)

Desire is born out of your definition of insufficiency, insecurity and fear.  It is the ancient fear of survival and safety.  It is the root of World War three.  But you can never go far unless you start from near.  You must start from your meager life as you now see it, and as you now interpret it.  Yearning blows you out of the water, and attempts to go from there, (the pattern of the teacher, already a big jump), and arrive at there-there, the divine fulfillment.  It is certainly a life-work, with many fantasies along the way.  Why do you want to devote all of your many years to such a non-fulfilling scheme?

Repeat: desire is merely your insecurities, reinforced by conditioning, (the inherited memory of repeated failure).

OK, LET’S LET ALL THIS DOUBT GO, AND DIG INTO HIS FORWARD.

He says: How should things be made that will last, (time-bound, when he just said the opposite about consciousness, timeless), and made without waste and disorder?  First, know what you want; see and steadily hold in mind the form in which you would have what you want. Then think it, and will it, and speak it into appearance, and what you think will be gathered from the invisible atmosphere and fixed into and around that form. (This is “Think and Grow Rich” isn’t it.) I wanted to know the secrets of life and of death, and I wanted to live forever.

Here we have the admission that his mundane human desire to be secure and have a permanent, lasting truth can be willed into being.  Then you will live forever.  This is the original human challenge of sustenance and safety, probably residing in the reptilian brain?

Then he says: (the presence of) Consciousness makes every unit conscious.  This is a very confusing and contradictory statement.  The concept of Consciousness is presented as not doing anything, just being, (right here, everywhere, even that is wrong, because there is no space; so it’s NOWHERE).  But now it “makes”, or engenders every unit conscious.  Why do you need something behind, if not physically behind, then verbally behind, every unit?  Isn’t it a needless separation?  (Evidentially it is not needless, because if you scan deep into these pages, fragmentation is everywhere.)  More about that later.

Here’s a beauty: “The great worth in being conscious of Consciousness is that it enables one to know about any subject, by thinking.”  So under these circumstances “thinking” is elevated to the key to the universe.

“Thinking is the steady holding (concentration) of the Conscious Light within, on the subject of which you’re thinking. Briefly stated, thinking is of four stages: ✓selecting the subject; ✓holding the Conscious Light on that subject; ✓focusing the Light; and, ✓the (resultant) focus of the Light. When the Light is focused, the subject is known.” Who selects the subject?  It’s the Thinker, right?

What does “Known” mean?  It is the past participle of Know.  So known” means from the past, from my collection of past experiences stored in memory.  Obviously, we are not using the English here.  “KNOWN” must have been redefined as the COSMIC KNOWN.  That’s nice, we’re back to bald assertion.

[Then he first mentions the Triune Self, which I want to handle later.]

Our conscious selves have failed a {crucial test}, so we are exiled from the REALM OF PERMANENCE into temporal man in the world of birth, death, and re-existence.  Wow, I’m stunned!

Self-hypnotic sleep
Continue to dream
De-hypnotize ourselves, (probably by reading his book)
However long it takes
Regenerate our bodies
Return to everlasting Realm of Permanence
It permeates this world but not seen by mortal eyes.

THAT’S HIS FORWARD.

Is that coming towards clarity, or is that the epitome of confusion, bewilderment and obfuscation?

I’ll read chapter one next, and address your post.

.

Hello Amarynth,

Now I have read the introductory chapter one of Thinking and Destiny.  It seems to require a prudent reply, since I want to respect what you may have found to be an addition to your life.  I don’t know if you are just investigating, or if you count on it for your values. Let’s try to be objective, and see what the possible benefits could be. The difficulty with this book is not the 1,000 pages, but the content on those 1,000 pages.  The book purports to unmask the mysteries of the universe, and the mysteries of life on earth.

So, these “mysteries” are dealing with the unseen, enigma, or perhaps the unknowable, and the author claims to put these mysteries into perspective.  The introductory chapter is 27 pages, and more than 100 paragraphs.  These mysteries are presented as assertions, because they don’t follow anything we see, they come from nowhere we know, and are not directly sensed by you and me.  So chapter one contains about 100 assertions to sort through, determine their ramifications, or make heads or tails out of them.  (Does it all clear up in chapter two, or chapter 20?)  It tries to make a system out of these assertions, but the unifying links are of course also assertions, so they do not really clear up anything.  I can comment on only a small fraction of what was said.  (I CAN comment on all of it), but why write a book, to review a book?  If the 1,000 pages of the book are anything like the first chapter in the density of assertions, then the book might contain up to 3,500 assertions that you must give your attention to.

And where could that attention come from?  It has to be peeled off of your attention on this physical life, your consideration of what is really here through the senses, or on attention assuring sustenance and safety for yourself and your family.  So first of all, those interested already have sustenance handled.  This book is the playground for the rich and prosperous that believe they can ignore some of life on earth, and delve into the presumed non-physical realms.  They’re realms of assertion, supposition, and made-up spiritual ideology.

There are people that are undernourished or starving, and they are not looking into this.  But this is a book for people that love the abstract, and disdain or are tired of their concrete life.  Actually, the reaching out for anything, and the escape from life as it now is, (the coming and going), are in exact balance.  The book coaches you to further hate the present life, and dwell only in the future, where what should-be will happen, (if you’re diligent).

Basically, this is a book for people that have run into a block of how to unfold their life any further.  Nobody is teaching the development of this life, but only a development through leaving it.  Leaving it with your attention, which is the same thing. They are stuck in their ways and their beliefs, and refuse to look beyond (or before) them, to enquire about what’s in the present.  If your only solution is the destruction of what-is, well, I suppose WAR is not out of consideration.  We see many people like that.  Some call this the “anti-system”, those people that are anti-life.

Later I will consider further aspects of some of his key points, (in chapter one).  I’ll probably do it on a new post, since this one is rather dead. One can’t really determine the truth of an assertion.  Can one try to approach it with neither belief nor disbelief?  If it is so extensive, (100’s) what is the point of consuming that much time and attention?  Just for fun I guess, or to better understand someone who wants to believe in it.

____________

There is another standard of acceptance.  Every belief contains rewards when you follow it and cautions and obstructions if you don’t follow it. You go to heaven or hell. Therefore, all ideologies are trying to lead you down their particular path with the carrot and the stick.  What is the trajectory of this path?  Does in influence you to be positive and constructive, and build on the life and the relationships that you have, or is it negative and causing you to only fend for yourself at the expense of all others.

Those are the negative teachings that presently dominate in the world, and they are destroying whatever they touch.  I am not saying Percival is preaching hate or violence.  But he is leading your attention away from your life, and setting up a dense web of thought that obscures all else.  That is a danger right there.

.

I started on Percival’s book and made some notes during reading:

Comments Nico on Thinking and Destiny by Harold W Percival

Preface

Notes Percival, page xviii

“Then why, and on what authority, do I say they are true? The authority is in the reader. He should judge as to the truth of the statements herein by the truth that is in him.”

Nico: Truth is that which your consciousness is ready for in that moment.

Author’s forword

The special purpose of this book, page xxvi

“we failed a crucial test”

Nico: This is human thought and in consciousness there is not such thing as tests.

Nico: The problem is that humans put themselves at the center of evolution and the universe. This often creates a skewed view and presents us with half-truths. Consciousness is somewhat understood, but then it must fit into a worldview where humans play the main role in the fantastic play.

Introduction

The book explains, page 1

“The real purpose of life, the purpose that will satisfy both sense and reason, is this: that each one of us will be progressively conscious in ever higher degrees in being conscious; that is, conscious of nature, and in and through and beyond nature. By nature is meant all that one can be made conscious of through the senses.”

Nico: Agree, but this is not only about the life of humans but ALL life.

You are not your body, page 2

“You know how your body came into this world; but how you came into your body you do not know. You did not come into it until some time after it was born; a year, perhaps, or several years; but of this fact you know little or nothing, because your memory of your body began only after you had come into your body.”

Nico: Perhaps? Would there be differences between people? If consciousness is connected to the material world why would it enter a body after birth and not at conception or during pregnancy? The question is where consciousness materialize in the body and for me that’s in our DNA. Where DNA has it’s quantum component which links the material world to the universal consciousness. The personal DNA is formed at conception so for me that’s where consciousness materialize in the body and the person get’s it ‘soul’.

Then I came back to my first comment about truth. We all have our own truths and, moreover, they are always only temporarily valid until we have discovered and embraced new truths. Reading a book can help in that discovery of new truths through which we grow in consciousness. We read things that we recognize because we ourselves had discovered them before. We read new things that we explore and adopt. We read things that don’t fit us and thus disown us. It is a lifelong process and we are never done with it. Truth is always in flux for us. Hazrat Inayat Khan also said let us explore everything and be mindful not to get stuck when it no longer fits. I think it can be very useful to discuss issues with like-minded people because it can be enjoyable and bring awareness. The form in which we can do that depends on our personal preferences. My preference is a personal one-on-one conversation to really get to know each other and have fun together. On a forum and in writing it is very difficult to get to the core. Discussing an entire book is well nigh impossible. My preference then would be to take a topic and attach a question or statement to it. And even then it is very difficult because so many things are related and we literally and figuratively use different languages with our own definitions and background thoughts.

Hello Amarynth, if there are pitfalls in this book would you want to consider them?  Discussing the possible pitfalls IS discussing this book, and it’s not about someone else’s philosophy. Of course, I have opinions generated from what works in my life. Some of those opinions are my own discoveries, (which many others have also discovered before and after me). And some are hints from outside sources, but not just adopted. Those hints suggest where to look in my own life, to see if they are operating within me too. I see my comments here as perfectly valid.

You say that consciousness does not move, does not act, and does not do. The Triune self is doing the evolution.  What is your view on why the triune self is not more aware now.  Is awareness a learned trait? Are animals also in this learning process? What is the hold on awareness?  What then, is the process to overcome that hold, and what is the path through which more awareness trickles in?  (I have a simple explanation, but what do you say?)

There are at least three ways to consider a philosophy:

✓What is the evidence that convinces us it is true? Without evidence, what is the logic behind it. Without a direct experience, should we consider other people’s written testimony?  If it is handed down for 1,000’s of years, doesn’t that make it sacred?  NO, another thought from wherever, is just a bio-chemical movement and it is only of the material world.

✓Or we can notice that every philosophy or ideology, or proposed truth sets up a pattern to follow.  That pattern has both enticements and cautions, (the carrot and the stick), and it leads you by the nose.  What is the probable trajectory of that path?  Is it constructive to this life, then choose it provisionally without any evidence. Or is it destructive and life-denying?  Don’t choose it.

✓Finally, who are the followers and disciples of this teaching?  Are they still reactive people?  Are they full of contradiction, struggle and conflict?  Or have they overcome most of destructive human conditioning?  Where is their adopted philosophy leading them?

____________

Hello Nico:  You say, it can be useful to discuss issues with like-minded people because it can be enjoyable and bring awareness.  Why do they have to be “like-minded”, to ensure more agreement?  I think it would be better to have differing opinions.  As long as discussion is NOT defined as Asserting an unsubstantiated position louder and louder.

You say writing on a forum is very difficult to get to the core, because our languaging, background and definitions are different.  I think we can state our definitions, maybe in a mini-dictionary.  We can also each use different ones, but knowing how each other is interpreting it.

I thought this above was really good: “We all have our own truths and, moreover, they are always only temporarily valid until we have discovered and embraced new truths.”  OPTIMUM

I would reserve the word “truth” for what-is in the moment, but substitute belief, or I use the word “definition” instead of belief, because there is more responsibility in it.

The meaning, to me, of what you said, is that we are all working on our own process of understanding.  My wish is that everyone would be encouraged to stick with THEIR process, and not try to jump around for shortcuts. If some shortcut robs your attention from what you are discovering and knowing yourself, that is destructive.

In another place I was impressed with your comment when you asked, “why is “God” talking to the other guy, but not talking directly to me?”  Isn’t it because God talks to you through your own process, and not if you are imitating some wise man?  When your attention is drained away from your personal findings, God goes mute.

.

Hi D Unknown, by like-minded I mean people who are open to discussion, willing to listen and share, but of course can also stand by their own opinions or beliefs. If the gap is too wide, I tend to put less energy into it. Putting no or less energy into something also happens when I or the other person have no questions or the other person is not open to my suggestions and reflections.

Yes, we are all going through our own process and have to be very careful not to upset someone else’s process. And indeed we all have a very personal connection with God (nature, one consciousness or whatever) that cannot be disturbed by anyone (not even a prophet, let alone anyone from any church).

Religion is not invented by God. Discussing such a comment with someone who is very religious is possible if we are like minded. We do not have to agree with each other, but create satisfaction in meaningfully further shaping our own process and allow the other to do the same. At this moment in time, that is the best we can do.

And D Unknown, I forget to mention that I really appreciate your efforts and energy as well. You are as I perceive a thinker but speak from your good heart. You come across to me as respectful, sincere and interested and I find that very good qualities. Hug.

Beautiful Amarynth, thank you.

D. Unknown, when a child learns to ride a bike then he has to learn what balance is. A parent or supervisor helps the child, but cannot actually explain what balance is. The child has to learn to feel it himself, he cannot reason or think of balance. The same is the case with all those spiritual things that touch the unseen.

Indeed, what makes it difficult is that when we feel “something”, we then try to explain it with our thinking. It must then fit into our worldview, otherwise we are left with nothing but to ignore or reject it. We have trouble with “knowing something approximately”, but that is exactly the path we are allowed to take in order to become more conscious anyway. More and more allowing the feeling, thinking about it (because, after all, we live in a material world) and not being afraid to ‘let something just be, without a clear explanation’. It will come, when the time is right.