E: In this culture, there is a necessity to clarify some terms that are thrown about but not understood very much. I'm going to try and give as detailed a picture of these ideas as possible, not from hearsay but from direct contact with what's being described. What will be described is not going to be theoretical.
Reincarnation, resurrection, recurrence and rebirth are terms probably everyone here is familiar with, but very few people have had real contact with what these situations mean. These terms are all interconnected and they all have to do with being All-One, when only One is conscious. I mean by that, being completely alone. At a certain point some of these terms apply to that consciousness where there is nothing but That Which Is, or 'I am no other than That.' It's an I-less state in the sense that there's absolutely nothing, no identity of any kind, no self, no non-self, nothing. These terms have to be understood not from the point of view of an isolated, apparently fragmented individuality, but from the point of view that encompasses every view all at once. In the present, particular world picture we all seem to be inhabiting, there is the appearance that somehow or other we have become separated from this continuity, from this totality, from this uniformity of being.
Before we get into talking about what resurrection is, I think it's necessary to recall for you an exact experiencing of what can get someone into this scenario, into the phenomenal picture of reality.
'I am alone.'
'No I’m not.'
If there is a reflexive response, if there is any uncertainty about that particular reply, one may end up here or in some other ‘world’ system. When there is the recognition that 'I am alone,' there's always a reply to that. The one that replies to 'I am alone' is the Absolute. The Absolute is all possibilities whatsoever and transcendent of all possibilities. It's the Absolute which presents the notion that ‘I am alone’, and if there's any differentiation between what is alone and all possibilities, then that one may find oneself returning to that which remains to be realised of any possibility whatsoever that is not within that 'I am alone'.
In other words, if 'I am alone' has no reply whatsoever, then there is no Absolute - at which point there is no 'I am alone' either. Usually 'I am alone' means that one is subject to a certain state of being conscious within which it is necessary for a recognition of beingness to occur. Were it not necessary for a recognition of beingness to occur, there would be no necessity to say 'I am alone.' Even 'I am' is not enough. When there's absolutely NOTHING in the context of no God, no non-God, no attaining, non-attaining, consciousness, or otherwise, then there's nothing to strive for and there's nothing to say about it. With reference to the word nothing, it’s necessary to understand that this not in the context of anything that has ever been put on ‘nothing’. Nothing is usually understood as a negation of thingness, of object and subject, and such as in that which is non-existent. Nothing in reality can only be analogized in terms of certain esoteric ideas about endlessness or God.
To endlessness everything is as it is; to nothing everything is nothing. A very subtle understanding needs to take place to comprehend what that implies. To endlessness everything is; to nothing, nothing neither needs to 'is or not-is,' you see? There is no necessity for isness or not-isness, existence or non-existence. Endlessness and nothing are the same except that endlessness is still referential in the context of non-beginning and non-ending. The following context is how nothing is intended to be understood here: To nothing, endlessness is nothing, and that's all that can be said. It's not some ultimate state as with endlessness, because one cannot try to attain an ultimate state. In terms of nothing, nothing needs to be attained nor is there anything attaining.
Later, we’ll talk about meaning and meaninglessness in a radically new way. We’ll attend to meaninglessness as a condition of meaning, and then as something which should be understood as the higher meaninglessness, which is not a condition of meaning.
Somewhere throughout experience, it seems that at some point or other, we all appear to take birth. When we get to this space, at some level we enter it knowing what is real. Ultimately there's one aspect about entering any space at all that cannot be forgotten. One must recognize that no matter what it appears like ‘in between’, it's always voluntary. Why is it always voluntary? Because when consciousness is consciousness, that's everything. And I do mean everything. Everything is consciousness; you, your thoughts, my words, the chandeliers, all and everything that could possibly be. When consciousness is consciousness then one has to be that, because there's nothing else. One is fully, completely conscious of all the ramifications of what one is going to be/do throughout all possibility. So no matter how unconscious being may become in terms of what one is in reality (without having to say reality and illusion), there is always knowledge, because there is nothing but what one is, and one cannot hide from oneself.
So one always has full knowledge before one enters one's own program. Once one enters, there are gradations of being conscious of what one really is compared to what one appears to be. But in terms of getting to anywhere, the starting point is always unlimited, conditionless consciousness, and the end point is always unlimited conditionless consciousness. Really there is no in between; it's still all consciousness no matter what it appears to Be. And being is what creates the illusion of differentiation, sameness, fragmentation, scales, gradations of reason and anything that has ever manifeted about Being. None of the previously mentioned situationalities of evolution and devolution come as a result of consciousness; you can't evolve or devolve consciousness. You can evolve being conscious because that is what being does. Being is differentiating every possibility into its finest, most endlessly detailed uniqueness; but in terms of consciousness there is no difference. So with regard to anyone’s being at a certain point in their evolution; if one only believes, only has connection to or only allows oneself to be connected to identifying oneself as a being, then one will be subject to all the laws of being and becoming... However, should one recognise that one is not necessarily only a being, but that there is nothing but pure consciousness - always is, always will be, never can be otherwise the way is suddenly clear. Apparently, the reason this recognition doesn't penetrate is because one doesn't allow it. One voluntarily makes an experiment to see what it's like not to be conscious as pure consciousness. So the deeper in one gets, the more one forgets until one completely forgets what it was that originated the impulse to do any of what one is doing. Within this realm of ignor-ance, one has to crawl out of one’s self-imposed delusion in order to find those who have liberated themselves, at least to a certain degree.
X: If consciousness is described that way, then consciousness is an absolute state.
E:It's not absolute in the sense of ultimateness. Absolute refers to being. Being refers to relation. Being refers to the meaning; for example, in the most simplistic format of it, let’s use numbers one, two and three. In this case, being is the derivative of parentage, if you wish to call it that. Positive and negative and then the plus-minus together. Being is the result of a polarity. Consciousness is not polar. In terms of what's called pure unconsciousness and pure consciousness, there is no difference. There's absolutely no difference because that's only a projected categorization of being of what consciousness is. Consciousness is; it's never begun or ended nor has it had a creation point or anything like that. Consciousness doesn't even exist or non-exist.
Y: You're talking about being; you're talking about physical being?
E:All levels of being. Physicality, to use the terms of physics and quantum physics, is analogous to the relationship between matter and energy. Matter is only a subset of a far vaster continuum known as energy. To refine this example, let’s use the electromagnetic spectrum. The oscillating frequencies of this field reach back to the primary pulse that apparently gave rise to the universe, as well as all the infinite potentials that were released thereafter. Somewhere in the midst of this ocean of energy is one wavefront that we call “visible light”. It is the tiny bandwidth of the electromagnetic spectrum which the human visual sensing apparatus is capable of registering and interpreting. Physical being, in this context, like that limited segment of visible light, is embedded in a far greater continuity of Being. So, let’s say that if we're identified with a certain frequency range of energy, and we say “this” is the starting point and “that” is the ending point, then there are going to be possible higher and lower states of energy, at least in relation to the frequency range we’ve identified with.
Y: Oh. O.K.
E: That's the so-called “ray of creation, the chain of being”. It's a chain in the true sense of the word. That's what's being referred to.
X:That's the question I have about consciousness. Is consciousness also a range or a series of steps or…
E:No it doesn't have or need any of that.... everything arises in it yet consciousness doesn't originate anything. It's very difficult to state it. We believe right now that somehow or other something started us on what we are doing now, and we are bound to go to the end of this journey wherever that's going to lead us. However, in terms of consciousness, that game has never happened. That game has never needed to happen. In some context, yes it can happen, but in the context of consciousness there's never been anything but consciousness and never will be anything but consciousness. In this sense, consciousness has no content. It's completely void. Through being, consciousness is always referred to as having some sort of content. The content of consciousness is that you are conscious of something, you are conscious for something, you are conscious toward/away that sort of thing. That's all based on what being is. Now you may wonder where being comes from if there's nothing but consciousness. That's the kind of question beyond an answer, because in consciousness there are no questions. In terms of consciousness, there is nothing but consciousness. In terms of consciousness there is nothing.
X: But can we comprehend consciousness if we don't have the opposite to become aware of, like it's a refraction.
E:Well, that's just it. Consciousness has no opposite. Consciousness is not opposed by anything, not even by God. Being would assert that there is a “greater being” and that this being, God, the Absolute, is existence; and thus is greater than consciousness. In this sense, you might say that's the characteristic of God. God -The Absolute is the great distinction. There's nothing above God. If you say there is anything greater than God then that's not true because God is always the greatest. But in terms of consciousness there isn’t that question of being the supreme ultimate. There's never that question. There is no question, no assertion, and as such, there is no denial. In terms of what all this appears to be humanity, bodies and problems, especially in being conscious and evolving consciously those kinds of situations arise from being. But what is being? As was mentioned earlier, being might be analogous to that which is a result of two other aspects, two forces... The third force is being. And if we allow ourselves to not disallow that which is ultimate, it's always available in every moment. Perhaps no one ever reveals this “secret” to anyone but in terms of what is truly available, the ultimate always is. More so than any of these so-called other steps “in between”. In terms of the ultimate, there are no steps between the ultimate and where you are at any instant, because you are never apart from what you are as you are. And if your journey is toward pure consciousness, that pure consciousness is no less pure here than it ever will be if you live a billion, trillion lifetimes.
Y: But you're still not as conscious of it though...
Y: speaking, aware of it, yeah.
E: You see, you still want to go somewhere and you still think that you are something.
Y: Well, I'm not aware of the ultimate consciousness.
E: But what do you know of the ultimate consciousness?
Y: I don't know of the ultimate consciousness.
E:All right, let’s mock up that you're not sitting over there and I'm not sitting over here. Let’s mock up that this is really yourself talking to yourself. Let’s make this as if it were like a 4D projection of what you usually do anyway, O.K.? It’s a four dimensional projection because time has taken on a certain significance.
Y: I'm not following..
E: Just mock up the possibility that what I'm going to tell you isn’t coming from outside of you, but it's something that you already know and have fully realized. What you are looking for in terms of an ultimate consciousness, an expectation of what ultimate consciousness is, is no different than what you are ordinarily, except that your expectation for what this ultimate is, seems to produce the apparent obscuration, even though there isn't an obscuration. What you are or ever truly going to become, you are now.