The Morality of Consciousness

“Everything in the Universe, throughout all its kingdoms, is conscious: i.e., endowed with a consciousness of its own kind and on its own plane of perception…” ~ Helena Blavatsky

einstwein and rabindranath .jpg

Morality is one of those words that mean different things to different people. As Helena Blavatsky (of the Theosophical Society fame) stated above: We, as do all other things, have our own kind of consciousness, and that consciousness is based on our personal plane of perception.

So to some people, morality may mean nothing at all because it would be counter to that person’s self-interest. You needn’t look farther than the news shows to see that demonstrated daily.

But for mutual understanding, what exactly is MORALITY?

I’ll list Wikipedia’s more expansive version of what morality means:

“Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper. Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal. Morality may also be specifically synonymous with “goodness” or “rightness”.”

Talk about subjective interpretations of morality in those personal planes of perception.

Perhaps my concepts of ‘goodness’ and ‘rightness’ are quite different than others. I know as I listen to Evangelical preachers on television harping on Christian morals and righteousness that I often wonder how their own stated hypocrisy over supporting such corrupt and vile government leadership can so easily skew their personal sense of righteousness and godliness.

To me, that seems very strange indeed.  Morality clarkquotemorality67.jpgfor them must be more transitive and dependent on their personal desires that coincide with standing before large groups of gullible people willing to be led in the preacher’s desired direction.  Isn’t that called manipulation rather than salvation?

I personally like Einstein’s concept of religious morality: “My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance—but for us, not for God.”

Morality?  Universal standards of rightness and goodness?  How does this compare to our present state of national affairs?

Seems a little off to me but then, who am I to judge?

I’m just an American voter.

 

Advertisements

On Jiddu Krishnamurti

phototheosoph.jpg

In my previous post, Chopra mentioned how influenced he was by Jiddu Krishnamurti, who was quite an interesting character in early 20th century philosophy and religious circles. As an adolescent in India he was “discovered” by Annie Besant of the Theosophical Society who was searching for the group‘s “world teacher.”

While Krishnamurti’s greatest thought and influence extended far beyond the limits of the TheJiddu_Krishnamurti_01.jpgosophical Society, the society itself was pretty amazing for the time period that it influenced:

(From Wikipedia) “The Theosophical Society was officially formed in New York City, United States, on 17 November 1875 by blavatskipicHelena Petrovna Blavatsky, Colonel Henry Steel Olcott, William Quan Judge, and others. It was self-described as ‘an unsectarian body of seekers after Truth, who endeavour to promote Brotherhood and strive to serve humanity.’ Olcott was its first president, and remained president until his demise in 1907. In the early months of 1875, Olcott and Judge had come to realize that, if Blavatsky was a spiritualist, she was no ordinary one.[2] The society’s initial objective was the ‘study and elucidation of Occultism, the Cabala etc.’[3] After a few years Olcott and Blavatsky moved to India and established the International Headquarters at Adyar, in Madras (now Chennai). They were also interested in studying Eastern religions, and these were included in the Society’s agenda.[4] After several iterations the Society’s objectives evolved to be:

  1. To form a nucleus of the universal brotherhood of humanity without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste, or colour.
  2. To encourage the study of comparative religion, philosophy, and science.
  3. To investigate the unexplained laws of nature and the powers latent in man. …”

So back when Krishnamurti was still in his teens, these folks from this theology-philosophy cult adopted him to represent their beliefs and teachings about spirituality and life in general; and to share those thoughts—including his direct-connection abilities to Higher Truth—with the rest of the world. They helped him further cultivate his existing knowledgebase, and encouraged him to reach deeper to decipher the meaning and purpose to life; which he definitely did, and much of what he later wrote about or spoke about, was first encouraged and supported by the Theosophical Society itself.

Theosophical Society post card front 001.jpgNow my personal connection to all of this is as strange as it gets.

My grandmother grew up in a little town best known from Walt Disney’s early childhood: Marceline, Missouri.  And evidently Walt wasn’t the only artist or illustrator near that tiny town in the early 20th century.  Evidently an A. Theo Bondy also resided near my grandmother who was named Alice, or often called “Allie.” And she must have been early friends with Mr. Bondy because in 1949 he sent her a Christmas postcard that I found many years after my grandmother’s death. (See the front and back for details)

That little postcard that I found in my grandmother’s hidden-treasure drawer, began my quest to find out more about the Theosophical Society,  and during that research, I discovered Jiddu Krishnamurti for myself and read his extensive philosophical contributions at that time.Theosophical Society postcard back 001.jpg

So there you go.  How strange is life itself?

This must be like one of those ‘Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon’ things.

 

On the Nature of Consciousness

booknatofconsc.jpg

In this video Deepak Chopra, MD, and Jon Kabat-Zinn, PhD., were discussing “the Nature of Consciousness” in front of a large in-house audience. https://www.facebook.com/1975293189394717/videos/2006140909643278/

Kabat-Zinn was talking about his parents who, through their own careers and pursuits, kabatzinnport.jpgboth held very separate views of what reality meant to them, and how he, as a child and then a man, used his parents’ disparate reality views to steer his own late-adolescent life into the subjects that he pursued during his academic endeavors.

If you are into meditation or meditative philosophy, you are familiar with Jon Kabat-Zinn, whose first book that I read way-back-when was Wherever You Go, There You Are: Mindfulness Meditation in Everyday Life.

These two were talking about many of their early-academia influences such as quantum physicist David Bohm and religious scholar Huston Smith, and the Indian mystic/intellectual/philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti whose subject matter included psychological revolution, the nature of mind, meditation, and how the group psyche must evolve to meet the needs of this world now awakening. “I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. … The moment you follow someone you cease to follow Truth.” Jiddu Krishnamurti

So basically during this conversation between Chopra and Kabat-Zinn, I’m chopradialog.jpgcomprehending that all these previous influential thinkers mentioned by them provided the scaffolding from which each of them constructed their own personal views on life in general, and showed them how best to perceive and interpret this reality experience for themselves.  They each created their version of reality through the influence of others who had previously affected them in some way—a newly shared perspective perhaps—a new way of thinking or considering the world around us.

And while I’m writing this, I realize that I’m doing the very same thing in my blog posts—I’m charting the history of my early influences and how my personal philosophy now reflects those influences and the thoughts first expressed long ago by others. Perhaps most of us are mere synthesizers of other’s original thought.  Possible, I suppose.  Or there is NO original thought, just periods of time in which that thought surfaces for consideration from various humanpreceiverconscious.jpgreceptors of consciousness who interpret it in their own ways.

So back to the nature of reality and consciousness: Here you have two meditation masters discussing the process and benefits of meditation, but also how reality is a personal creationan intention of how you focus your consciousness.  Okay but…..

 So what is consciousness?  (I thought that’s what they were suppose to discuss but didn’t.)

What is consciousness?  Wow—that’s a tough one (which must be why they didn’t get into specifics), other than to say consciousness is awareness of self and the greater surroundings.

Awareness is simply sentience—the ability to feel, perceive, or experience.

But interpretation of that awareness is what shifts the perception to judgment or opinion, and makes for subjective reality, which is how each of us interprets the reality experience for ourselves.

the-nature-of-human-consciousness.jpgSo then does that mean that the nature of consciousness is simply the aware observer observing that whatever is, IS? 

Or is consciousness an infinite ocean of Allness from which our meager perceptive abilities can sample only droplets at a time without flooding our sensing mechanisms (blowing our minds)?

I think Eckhart Tolle referred to this previously somewhere, that consciousness is NOT a “thing”—it is EVERYTHING—ALLNESS—the Source of us individually and ALL other possibilities.

Consciousness is that infinite, ever-present ocean—ever churning, ever pulsing, ever being, wave after wave, in indescribable vastness and indeterminable immensity—substance, void, material and non, presence, imfiniteocean56.jpgessence, simply ALL possibilities both imaginable and inconceivable.  

For humans, consciousness refers to our material processes of being alive and aware of our surroundings, including the awareness of ourselves.

But consciousness in general is indefinable and indistinguishable from what we refer to as God or Source.

No wonder Chopra and Kabat-Zinn avoided the details on the nature of consciousness in that hour discussion.