Actually, I'm copying out certain people's posts above for use in a research project I've been working on, wc.

Oh and just for the record, my "Higher Power" was urging me back here for the last few weeks so I could practice being tolerant and non-judgmental. I flunked, as you may have noticed *sigh* ... so Jesus forced me over to His Left Side. And as soon as He finished His nightly rounds checking the Vatican for masturbaters, He up the the Pope and forced him to excommunicate me.

Now my immortal soul is damned to Hellfire forever.

OH well. At least the conversation will be more interesting. They probably won't be arguing about "global warming" down there.

Thanks bunches for the research material and blessings to all,

daylia

daylia, fwiw, you do not have my permission to quote anything I've written on this forum in your research report. You'll note that my name and picture appear next to every post, which means that they are definitely associated with me. I consider my posts to be intellectual property and de facto copyrighted. Beyond the usual fair use policy of a couple of sentences quoted, that's where I stand, and, considering the tone and content of your posts, I adamantly refuse to be contributing to any kind of research you are doing.

You might check with others before quoting them as well.

- - -

I have taken your participation here to be in good faith and have tried to dialogue with you all along. You might check that "Why Christianity?" thread to see my recent response to some of your criticisms of Christianity. It's kind of sickening to think you've just been using us for your project.

Phil St. Romain

P.S. Keep your "blessings." They ring hollow and I want no part of them.

Could this be the same daylia?

Is Religion a form of Mental Illness?

Organized religions are more like deadly flu bugs, specifically designed by any given cultures' "spiritual authorities" to distract, delude and devour the unwashed masses. Sometimes these "spiritual viruses" do contribute to full-blown cases of psychosis / neurosis in vulnerable individuals. More often, though, they manifest as sporadic but predictable - and usually quite calculated - epidemics of institutionalized, sanctified social illness - such as fundamentalism, intolerance, Inquisitions, tribal (rather than global) mentality propogating hatred and "holy wars" etc.

If so, talk about stepping into this forum with a chip on your shoulder.

You'll also find plenty of posts by Two Bears on that Mudcat Cafe Message board. Seems Two Bears and daylia were buddies, of sorts. Search around and have fun. Quite interesting. You'll know a little more about where daylia was "coming from" and why she didn't want to say anything about this.

I suppose this forum didn't exactly confirm Ms. daylia's convictions about Christianity and other organized religions. Now we know, too, why she got so upset about my banning Two Bears. Actually, I'm of a mind to do the same to daylia, considering the deceitfulness and lack of good faith in dialoguing with us. As she's already decided to leave, however, there's no point in doing so.

Whatever the case may be, Phil, it will require some effort on my part to not judge Hawkins' ideas and methods by the attitude of some of his proponents�just like it wouldn't be fair to judge Christianity by some of its more "out there" proponents. (Note that I made no mention of screws nor did I speculate on how unfastened they might be.)

"It's not the beliefs that are expressed that are the problem, but the lack of critical thinking that goes into gushing out such overarching generalizations. Frankly, daylia and I have clashed on many occasions, usually to do with her use of totally undifferentiated source material."


I found this post from the forum link you cite, Phil, to ring familiar with daylia's tirades here on Shalom.

"When the Gods wish to destroy a people they first currupt their language." - some wise person whose name eludes me at the moment

"World War III will be an information war." - perhaps the wise person's granddaughter

If you read the note on NewSpeak in the back of George Orwell's 1984, you find that they were in the eleventh edition of the Newspeak dictionary. It seems that the P.C. movement is about up to that by now. The language has become so currupted
that you have a difficult time conversing with the
unfortunate victims of the brainwashing.

The mind must be a blank slate before God can write his truth on it. New wine requires new wineskins. God can change anyone who is willing.

caritas,

mm <*)))))><

Check out the exchange here.

Just keep scrolling down. She quoted some of those replies word-for-word -- e.g. Polynesia and all. Note that my level of spiritual development is considered "adolescent." Hee hee. Maybe that's why I still like watching NFL football?

- - -

Brad, I do agree there is a serious problem with the way Hawkins is using AK and tried to discuss that above re. global warming, the scientific method, and even how he used it to determine if presence is communicated via audio/videotapes. What's going on with daylia, Two Bears and others of like mind, I believe, is they've already soured on Christianity and organized religion -- perhaps for understandable reasons. They've drifted into new-agey, ecclectic approaches to truth and spirituality, and Hawkins now provides the much-needed level of "objectivity" they've really be searching for. Then they come along to test their ideas (I don't believe that "research paper" line, btw -- a kind of desperate, face-saving rationale after an embarassing exchange) and it doesn't go so well for them. So then what? You're back to total subjectivity, ecclecticism and the post-modern swamp of relativity. Furthermore, since they can't completely discredit Christianity, this complicates matters even more. It's foundational to them that Christianity and other "organized religions" are only for dummies, or else rigid, controling, chauvinistic types. Some of the threads on that Mudcat forum boil it all down to "the South." Having their preconceptions about religion and believers shown to be little more than yet another subjective judgment--even a form of bigotry!--they can do nothing but lash out and spew ad hominems.

FWIW, I don't see pawbard and "I" in this group. Even TBiscuit has his moments of clarity and humility, but I won't say more as he'll get too much a big-head and we can't have that.

I don't feel good about this, however. Somewhere in all that ranting and defensiveness, there is a person searching for God. Perhaps we can continue the discussion more peacefully and civilly at some time in the future.

Two Bears -- no reversal of banning in sight. Reading through some of his posts on the Mudcat forum confirmed my perceptions of what's going on. (Like the post about God being hydrogen and the universe matter -- go figure!).

Baby Phil said: Note that my level of spiritual development is considered "adolescent."

But it's getting better all the time! (As is mine�just past post-adolescence.) But seriously, I'm quite sure that we're all stunted in certain areas and quite mature and developed in others. We tend to try to keep out weaker areas hidden or protected. We may do this, of course, by going on the attack (but not all or probably even most attacks are cover-ups for something else). And in the grand scheme of internet things, it's just people looking for reinforcement of themselves through the shear logic of words and arguments�and quite a lot of emotional venting. I was going to use that previous sentence in my signature but I thought it too long.

Brad, I do agree there is a serious problem with the way Hawkins is using AK and tried to discuss that above re. global warming, the scientific method, and even how he used it to determine if presence is communicated via audio/videotapes.

Oh, I very much agree. To me it's such obvious malarkey that it wasn't worth commenting on. But there does seem to be some sense to that whole line of inquiry in that some ideas which are good and ennobling give us a strength quite different from the energies generated by anger or hate. Perhaps what they are measuring is unconscious guilt levels (or absence of same), nothing more, but that may be a lot.

What's going on with daylia, Two Bears and others of like mind, I believe, is they've already soured on Christianity and organized religion -- perhaps for understandable reasons. They've drifted into new-agey, ecclectic approaches to truth and spirituality, and Hawkins now provides the much-needed level of "objectivity" they've really be searching for.

In this postmodern age of anti-Americanism, anti-Christianity, anti-Western-Culture-ism I'm not surprised. After all, spiritual pursuits are avenues to ennoble us and to take us beyond the normally confused and often soul-draining battlefield of everyday life. If one has been taught, for instance, that Christianity is a bad thing then other spiritual avenues will be pursued as sort of a "path of least resistance", so great is our need for such things. What I might recommend is that, in the short term at least, to view all the negative slander cast upon so much of what is good as anti-spiritual. A very powerful path to spiritual growth is to renew one's self with these time-tested truths and techniques. Going down obscure alleys one may indeed find some unique spiritual offerings but one will more often find spiritual cul-de-sacs. The brave nowadays will truly "question authority", particularly when that authority seems to have little more at its base than questioning and doubting something else. I think the even braver and more noble will resist these urges � and I recognize they are strong � and chart a path that is truly their own and that follows a positive path.

I don't feel good about this, however. Somewhere in all that ranting and defensiveness, there is a person searching for God. Perhaps we can continue the discussion more peacefully and civilly at some time in the future.

I agree�or at least searching for something, as are we all. A lot of shots taken at religious types, I believe, are of the "how dare you be so warm and peaceful in your faith when *I* can not find a way, no matter how hard I try, to find a seat at your party." Anger must be worked through until we eventually, slowly, begin to accept ourselves as we are. The more we do, I believe, the more we are able to connect to other things, spiritual or otherwise. So much of these side-tracks down spiritual lane can be nothing more than clever ways to fool ourselves that we are being spiritual, kind and good when all we're doing is wallowing further in our own egos. If I had a dime for every person who was "enlightened" on some subject or another. But until we all re-cross our own Rubicon's to the way to what I think of as a cagey humility, we're likely to do a lot of unproductive rowing in the sand�and mixing of metaphors�and bothering of spirituality forums. And I, for one, am thankful that here at Shalom Place it causes us to reflect instead of to mindlessly condemn.

It's not easy to hang with shalomplace. The level of consciousness is at least in the 400s, the level of reason, and most people are not there yet. If Hawkins is correct that half of Americans are below 200, along with most balarky on the internet, you cannot expect them to rise to a God of reason at 400
or a God of love at 500. They are working with a merciful, inspiring, hopeful, harmonious, acceptance
and willingness level (Hawkins words) in the 300s, and reason seems cruelty to folks at that level.

Anyway, it makes sense to me.

caritas,

mm <*)))))><

Michael, from this page:

pawbard: Phil and Mike, I calibrated this site at 520. I note this is one of the highest calibrating sites I have encountered. This calibration reflects a loving aspiration in Christ's name to teach and help on the part of this site. Just looking around, IMHO, this is self-evident.

I was actually beginning to think there was something to all this at that point!

Say some more about it not being easy to "hang with shalomplace." I'm listening.

MM said: It's not easy to hang with shalomplace. The level of consciousness is at least in the 400s

Pawbard said: Phil and Mike, I calibrated this site at 520.

Finally, Phil said: I was actually beginning to think there was something to all this at that point!

Well, it�s only normal to think we might have dropped a few points since JB�s latest hiatus. Or did we get a bounce.

Greeting all ..

I have not weighed into the Hawkins discussions as I have seen on other forums it just gets bogged down and lots of mud is thrown which get no one anywhere.

The main concern with Hawkins work is the kinesiology component which is the foundation for most of his material. If you have an issue with that your dead in the water right there��.and fair enough too ��

You cannot expect anyone to trust kinesiology on face value or just by reading about it. For that matter not even a demonstration of it.

I also know that many will never see it as scientific and will never trust it ..full stop!
Fair enough ..

I saw a kinesiology practitioner every 6 to 7 weeks for over a year and then spent a year doing kinesiology training with the same practitioner. I can self muscle test successfully and have done so for over seven years. When I first read Hawkins work a year and half ago it resonated with me.

I find his work fascinating and has illuminated many things for me. I can read or listen to him everyday and still get something from it. �but that�s me and if others find that as well ..that�s cool, if not that�s cool as well.

I�m happy to discuss his work but I�m no expert or authority and convincing people of the merits or otherwise of his work is not my job not would I want to even if I was.

If something resonates with me and I find it helpful and it ultimately raises my consciousness I follow it until it is time to move on or take it to another level.
Wisdom can be gained in many places. Does not mean I don�t use any discernment.
That�s critical. !
However taking a position and defending anything is �no where territory�

Phil said �
�.New Agey types, in particular, think they have a friend in Hawkins, especially with his emphasis on enlightenment.

Very true��.

Thanks

Michael

PS - For the record that kinesiology partitioner thinks Hawkins material is a load of nonsense and she is a full time practitioner and has been for over 10 years!

Michael, going back to my opening post on this thread, I do express a positive assessment in my first point:
1. Applied Kinesiology (AK) is one way to evaluate a person's unconscious attitude toward a topic provided the method is used properly (e.g., framing questions as yes/no, simple questions, no projections or contamination from the one doing the testing). As such, AK can be a useful tool for individuals evaluating options.

That's pretty significant, imo, and I can imagine that this application would be relevant to a whole variety of issues. So I haven't been totally close-minded about this.

Points 2-7 are much less positive, some moreso than others. I don't see how one can not take a position on some of them. As you know by now, I don't mind taking positions and see no problem with it so long as one is willing to change positions if a better explanation/understanding is presented. Otherwise, what we have is dogmatism, which isn't healthy, even in the religious realm. FWIW, I've seen more of this among Hawkins fans in these discussions than among the critics.

michael,

What do you think of Phil's seven point observation
of Hawkins' work? (thread one, first post of this discussion)

I'm great-full that I experienced Hawkins in a fairly open, receptive and uncritical state of mind,
reading all three books in two weeks last summer. If he were not interesting then we would not be running into thirteen threads on this topic.

I'm equaly great-full to Mr. Romain for helping me
see points 1-7 mentioned above, and deprogram from the cult mentality which I clung to for awhile. (blush)

I stepped into a centering prayer group about five years ago and they were into Hawkins, Wilber and Spiral Dynamics all at the same time and I found it very confusing since I had no backround in any of it. They were sure pumped about having the absolute "truth" about everything.

If I get like that, please hit me over the head with an iron skillet.

welcome,

mm <*))))))><

I'm all out of iron skillets. This is Bugs doing the A/K test with a mallet. Let's see how your head scores, MM.

Thank you, feel much better now. Freind good! Fire bad!

What do I think of the 7 points of concern?

Well they are all legitimate points of contention and indicates someone who does not accept something without some intellectual rigour first. Which is why I like this forum.

I�m not just being diplomatic here, that is just my observation It also does not really matter whether I agree with the points or not.

What I can say (and this will be a Hawkins type interpretation, so bear with me)

As regards to his model and peoples reactions to it --
Hawkins model and kinesiology calibrates over 600 on the Map of Consciousness

This puts it beyond current scientific rationality, which tops out at 499. This is beyond the rational mind. This is the reason for much of the reaction towards Hawkins work. It simply does not �fit in� with current thinking which is in the 400�s, the realm of the intellect.

This is further illuminated by a question given in the book I � Reality and Subjectivity.(page 105)

Q: What is the answer to the challenge of scientifically minded to prove spiritual �reality�


A: Spiritual reality is verifiable but not provable. The term �proof� is limited in application to the Newtonian paradigm of reality which is based on form and an implied process called causality. Proof is limited to content and form.

That which is �provable� is not Reality but perception or mentation only. Reality is subjective and knowable only by virtue of identity with the known. �Provables� belong to the classification and level of limitation and are arbitrary abstractions whose sole �reality� is merely the consequence of selection of identification. The phenomenal is not of the same dimension as the noumenal.


�verifiable but not provable� � that ones bakes the intellects noodle no end !!! and hence the reaction to Hawkins.

You can�t prove kinesiology, but can produce verifiable results. Now the mind(intellect) does not get that at all. In fact it may get a bit angry with that as well.

Believe me I�ve seen it. I watched an intellectual debate on Hawkins on the spiral dynamics integral yahoo forum for a whole month. I just watched it for the most part. Nothing was resolved.

I feel people who are exposed to Hawkins eventually fall into 4 camps
1/ Just not really interested and leave it be
2/ Join the New Age Hawkins fan club (the majority)
3/ Those opposed and/or what it proved before they will accept it furthur
4/ Those who get it and just absorb it on deeper levels

I entered at number 2, my ego ran with it for a little while and now I am pursuing number 4 (what does humility calibrate at ???)

Well back to absorbing and contemplating

Thanks

Michael

PS, the Integral and Spiral Dynamics people have all the answers you know, but it�s hard for them to admit it. But they will tell you they are in front of everyone else, whats that lovely term ���..oh yeah �Leading Edge�

But I do have all their books so call me a closet fan..

That's a thoughtful contribution, Michael. Thanks. Your four categories of response to Hawkins is a good way to sort through some of the responses. I'm definitely a #3 type, but am also bothered by aspects of it that have little to do with proofs as with the perspective on reality shed by Christian revelation. Granted, that in itself is a big topic, and I don't want to give the impression that there is a clear consensus in Christendom about reality, but there are some things we hold with strong convictions. Hawkins' model bumps up against them in the following areas:

1. A distinction between the human unconscious and the divine.
2. The idea of an impersonal Universal Mind, presented in a somewhat pantheistic, monistic manner.
3. Placing books like the Jesus Seminar (New Age Christianity) at a higher level than the Bible.

I've already noted several times that he's even using AK to determine answers that rightfully belong to scientific investigation (e.g., global warming), or with consulting one's experience (e.g., whether presence is communicated via AV media). You touch on some of the scientific implications above, but I don't follow this framing the issue in terms of proof, verification and knowledge. I do understand the distinction between knowledge-about and knowledge-of, the latter being subjective and experiential (not the concern of science). Some of what Hawkins (or his fans) are doing with this seems a mixing of apples and oranges. No one in the scientific community is confused about this, and neither are religious people, for the most part. At any rate, I don't follow the implications for AK.

Re. Spiral Dynamic/Interal-Wilberites, would you post a link to some of those discussions? I'm studying S.D. these days and think it has some merit--especially if it can be held in tension with Wilber so that one does not collapse into the other. We've had discussions on both topics on this board; the forum Search can help you find them.

Hi Phil and All,

I would like to throw in my two cents on Phil's response to Michael.

quote:

Hawkins' model bumps up against them in the following areas:

1. A distinction between the human unconscious and the divine.
2. The idea of an impersonal Universal Mind, presented in a somewhat pantheistic, monistic manner.
3. Placing books like the Jesus Seminar (New Age Christianity) at a higher level than the Bible.

1. I may not be interpreting your post correctly Phil but the distinction that I see in Hawkin's writings is of the unconscious mind, which we believe is the conscious mind, due to the illusion that our human mind say's "it is me". The true conscious mind/spirit is not allowed to take its rightful place in guiding our lives. The conscious mind/spirit which is one with God, but is not God only one with God, has all of God's knowledge and peace. The spirit/mind accepts things as they are and questions nothing, since all things are known, there are no questions. The human mind/brain simply becomes a tool for use when needed to preform task's. It no longer makes judgements since it is tainted by it's imperfect nature. This becomes more understandable when you consider thoughts that pop up, which a disciplined mind/brain instantly dismisses as improper but an undisciplined mind buys into. There can be much discussion on this one point(which is the most crucial understanding to Hawkin's writings)so I'll leave it for further response.

2. The impersonal mind is difficult to swallow for most and I think it is a very limiting view of our creator. What is your vision of God? That is a great first question to ask onesself. Is your view that of a human figure seated upon a throne judging good from bad. One making decisions on which move to make next in order to keep the universe in balance. Maybe a lightning bolt in one hand and an olive branch in the other. Any view we have is based on interpretation made by the mind/brain which is tainted(at least to some degree) by the flesh. Yes, the spirit/mind maybe able to get a word/thought in now and then but I hope you get the gist of what I'm saying here. The words pantheistic and monistic basically are a human judgement which can be placed as labels anywhere we see our God floating out of our private/religious domain by our knowing he is exclusive only to christian and jewish people(those other religions worship a false God). I know this opens a can of worms but lets go ahead and open them.

3. The Bible and writings that calibrate higher. As I said before I'm not sure and simply don't know about AK. That doesn't mean it is correct or incorrect to me. But, Hawkin's does ditinguish between original writings and current translations. He also say's that without Revelations, the calibration increases dramatically in the new testament. Again, I'm not sure of this and I'll have to say that it really doesn't matter to me. If we'll see the Bible as a wonderful tool, but realize that the teacher is still with us, we can continue to learn and grow, but even the learning and growing becomes unnecessary when you realize your oneness with our Creator. IMO, the greatest single thing we can do is to shed the guidance of the mind/brain and allow our spirit/mind to be one with the spirit of God, so it can be what it is in all of life, all-knowing.

You'll find me in the unmentioned catagory 5: Gateful .

Love you all.
I

quote:

You'll find me in the unmentioned catagory 5: Gateful .

Microsoft fan, eh?

I'll get back to you soon, "I". Busy afternoon ahead. Thanks for sharing your responses to those three points.

G R R R R R R A T E F U L!!!!!!

This shows how THIS fallable human mind/brain has definite built in errors. On Microsoft, I'm neutral.

Love,
I

Thanks Phil,

I would love to give an in depth reply to those 3 points, but at this stage my command and depth of Dr Hawkins work is not quite up to the task. However they are completely valid points worthy of further investigation.

I will print them out an if/when I come across something that answers or sheds light on any of them I�ll post it.

Category 2 people tend to just absorb without question and this is the case with many other modalities, theories and models.

Spiral Dynamics is great stuff, the original architect of that model Clare Graves was a brilliant man. Like so many people of genius he did not live to see the real fruits of his labours. (He died in 1986)

Like anything it can be misconstrued and misused but if used with intelligence and integrity can be a wonderful tool and give wise guidance to many pressing problems.

Thanks

Michael

Spiral Dynamic Links.

Don Beck�s site
www.spiraldynamics.net/

Chris Cowans site
http://www.spiraldynamics.org/

Nice one page graphic of SD and meme descriptions.
http://www.formlessmountain.com/waves.pdf

A brilliant page which integrates SD and Wilbers AQAL
http://www.formlessmountain.com/collage.html

About Don Beck and other links to SD � integral
http://www.wie.org/bios/don-beck.asp

Great overview of SD in slide format
http://www.swin.edu.au/corpora.../docs/adepresen1.pdf

Essays by Don Beck
http://www.coche.dk/essays.html

This link is to a work by Susan Cook Greuter � Nine Action Logics
Similar to SD ..worth a look.
http://www.harthillusa.com/the...0action%20logics.pdf

The best material I have found on the 2nd Tier.
http://www.naturaldesign.nl/Reflections_SDi.pdf

Wilber and SD integrated �
http://www.naturaldesign.nl/Reflectionsv3.pdf

Those are great links, Michael. Thank you! I'll be re-posting them on this thread, where we've been discussing Spiral Dynamics on and off for some time.

I recently attended a 3-day introductory workshop with Don Beck in Santa Barbara. Very interesting and enjoyable! Clare Graves' work and Beck's use of it in South Africa seem very credible.

I have some misgivings about some of Wilber's work. Our forum discussion of his work can be found on this thread, although he pops up in many others. I was privileged to dialogue with John Heron for awhile about Wilber and found that helpful. During our workshop in Santa Barbara, it was obvious that Beck was fond of his work and considered him a friend, but has some misgivings about where Wilber goes in his highest levels and his dependence on Eastern mystics as sort of the template for the race.

I see parallels between the works of Wilber, Beck and Hawkins. For the life of me, I have no idea how AK factors into any of this except to try to give things a kind of numerical, objective footing. That seems dubious to me, but, hey, I'm still writing and listening . . .

More on that 1-2-3 step from above in my next post.

Dr David R Hawkins � Calibrations of Christianity

As we are discussing the work of Dr Hawkins and Christianity I thought this may be helpful as an overview on what the Doc has come up with.

Most of it I would agree with from just as an observation, some of it I�m not sure. None of it pushes my �buttons as it were. I was slightly surprised at the Pope at 570. He is a decent guy for sure, I just did not think he would be in the high 500�s.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current Bible (St James) calibrates at 475 .
If all the Old Testament was excluded (except Genesis, Psalms and Proverbs) and if Revelations was excluded, then the Bible would calibrate at 740 .

The Koran calibrates at 700

CHRISTIANITY

1st Century 980
After Council of Nicea 485
College of Cardinals 490
Papacy 570
Coptic 475
Born Again 350
Gnostic 290
Modern Protestantism 510
Christian Science 410
Modern Catholicism 440
Jesuit Order 440
Catholic position on
Amish 375
Quakers 505
Unity 540
Pentecostal 310
Puritan 210
TV Evangelist 205
LDS (Mormon) 390
7th Day Adventist 190
Right Wing fundamentalist 95
Right wing fundamentalist TV evangelists . 90
Jehovah�s Witness 195
Pope John Paul 11 � 570

Christian Communion 700
Lord's Prayer 650
Jesus' Prayer 525
Rosary 515

Cursing (Lord's name in vain) 45
Damning people to hell 15


Tested as True

Jesus� Thirty three miracles
Jesus Fed multitudes
Apostles� miracles
John the Baptist � killed for revealing the truth
Jesus � killed for revealing the truth

I, a lot of what you share and the distinctions you've made between lower and higher levels of consciousness (body/mind vs. mind/spirit) I can relate to; in fact, these kinds of distinctions are very traditional, referring in the Biblical scheme to body-mind-spirit. I've written at length about the consciousness of mind/spirit in terms of realizing the True Self on this forum and other places, most notably my books, Here Now in Love; Kundalini Energy and Christian Spirituality; Caring for the Self, Caring for the Soul; and God, Self and Ego. In the Here Now in Love book, for example, I write:

quote:

There is never a time when we are without our True Self. It is always there, yet, sometimes it is �hidden under a bushel basket.� In truth, it is the only self we have: anything else we call a self is an illusion, a fabrication of the memory, or a construction of the intellect. The real, living person that God is creating, in each moment, is always there in every moment, and we can see this clearly every time someone reaches out in love, or lets his or her defenses down (be here now in love). You can even see it in people�s pain and selfishness if you look close enough, for it can be so distorted we can easily miss it.

The True Self is your experience when you can stand firmly planted in this moment with your mind more silent, your heart open to giving and receiving love, and your intuition discerning what is needed. It is such a simple experience that, even when we come to it, we think it�s �no big deal,� or, perhaps, even boring! Becoming acclimated to this state of being takes time, and it acts as an accompaniment to the falling away of our small self and its emotional roller coaster. It�s a journey, but the fruit can be tasted early on, gradually becoming sweeter and more nourishing as we learn how to live.

When I hear Hawkins and others speak of enlightenment, I think that is what they mean. I have known this for about 20 years now, and can tune into it readily. It's a good and wonderful experience, made more accessible to me, I believe, through the kundalini process, which activated around 84.

There are other religious/spiritual/mystical experiences of a relational kind, however, and I have those as well. For me, it seems to be a movement back and forth, from relational mysticism to true self enlightenment experiences. I've come to consider the latter as more on the natural level -- an awakening at the deep level where we receive our existence from God. This is not to diminish it in any way, but it is to differentiate it from relational/contemplative experiences. We reflect deeply on these two kinds of mystical experiences in a number of places on this board; in fact, it's an ongoing koan, of sorts. See this thread for an example of what I mean. There are quite a few similar discussions in the kundalini forum. This one on the kundalini forum is a good example of comparisons and similarities.

Now that I have you totally overwhelmed with links and the reading assignments , I might as well press on and share the "map of consciousness" (actually, the Universe) that I put together a few years ago. You'll find, there, some similarities with Hawkins and others, but my approach is more ontological than in terms of quality of consciousness. Still, I think you can see how these approaches complement.
- Human nature is the triangle in the image below; you can see how it incorporates several levels of being and how our experience of consciousness is related to these.
- Enlightenment would be the realization of the Spiritual Ego in this schema; as such, it is the consciousness that is actually present in all the others, albeit refracted in some manner by thought, emotions, desires, etc.