For me, I AM emerged into this “reality” frame on April 15, 1942.
Me is the “fictive-self” created by the ego that evolved within I AM. Ego helps guide this body/mind (i.e., avatar) through the web of the world (i.e., collective stories) into which I AM emerged. I AM is a “wave” of individuated consciousness and sense of beingness transmitted from a larger field of consciousness (i.e., a seed consciousness) and received by a biological device tuned to it (i.e., a brain). It is also responsible for what we call awareness. For I AM to emerge, its biological vehicle (i.e., avatar) must be born. A reality frame (i.e., the material universe) can be thought of as a complex and dynamic context created within Source Consciousness. A reality frame has both shared aspects (i.e., the generic template), which include “rules of engagement,” so to speak, and individuated aspects that serve to maintain a degree of separation between the avatars (i.e. body/minds) of individuated consciousnesses.
A seed consciousness is a finite field of consciousness capable of generating individuated consciousnesses. By way of analogy, think of planting a seed that generates a plant that creates leaves (think individuated consciousnesses). A seed consciousness exists within and was manifested by the infinite and eternal field of Source Consciousness. Source Consciousness created seed consciousnesses in its own “image,” which means there is an essential identity between the two. In the same sense, a cup of coffee drawn from an urn of coffee retains identity with the coffee in the urn.
A seed consciousness is too extensive to be “fed” by a single biological vehicle (i.e., a body/mind) in a reality frame. “To be fed” refers to the feedback function between individuated consciousness and seed consciousness. In the plant analogy, this would be the energy for the plant created by each leaf through photosynthesis. Thus, an individuated consciousness is an avatar for a seed consciousness that gains experience in a reality frame, which then contributes to the maturation of the seed consciousness. All consciousnesses that have ever existed arose from and within Source Consciousness. Seed consciousnesses lie outside of a reality frame, which exists within Source Consciousness, but the rules governing the reality frame restrict though don’t completely prevent interaction of consciousnesses within it with consciousnesses outside of the reality frame.
A generic template is the common or shared aspects of a reality frame that are the same for all consciousnesses within the reality frame. For example, all living organisms share the requirement for nutrients, all organisms experience granite as having a hard surface, all organisms experience the effects of gravity and so on. The rules of engagement are the principles that govern the relational aspects of the reality frame. These rules define what the nature of the relationship is between one aspect and another within the reality frame. For example, two combustible materials related by friction produce fire. In terms of ordinary daily experience, these rules can be thought of as very similar to the principles of classical physics.
Individuated aspects are aspects that are relatively unique to each individuated consciousness within the reality frame. On the one hand, you might think of these as variations in physical characteristics that make one vehicle distinguishable from another. On the other hand, you can think of these as variations in psychological characteristics that give rise to differences in perceptions that influence the relationships between vehicles. Individuated aspects are necessary for experience within the reality frame. They give rise to the perceptual duality of me and not me. It is the perceived differences arising from perceptual duality that make experience possible. If no differences were perceived, there would be no experiences, as we ordinarily understand experience.
For “psychological characteristics,” it is necessary to consider the notion of “mind” (see “What is Mind?” a sub-section in Part I). Mind is an evolved psychological construct within awareness that comes to consist of an amalgamation of concepts, beliefs, attitudes and interpretations through which sensations are filtered and become perceptions. Perceptions in turn provide a method by which one creates meaning from the sensations that arise in one’s awareness. When one emerges into the reality frame, perception is what is called “bottom-up.” This is probably what the ancient Indian sage Patanjali meant by “naked awareness.” To infants and young children all events are neutral; that is, no interpretation or meaning is imposed upon them. In short, there is no prejudgment.
As a child begins to acquire experience, ideas, especially about repetitive events, begin to form. This process is greatly accelerated by the acquisition of language. Language becomes an efficient way to acquire, second hand, the knowledge, concepts, beliefs, attitudes and interpretations of those one has relationship with such as parents, relatives, peers and cultural structures such as educational, religious, commercial and political institutions. As this process gains momentum, perception becomes what is called “top-down.” In short, few, if any, events are experienced as neutral. Events are interpreted through the filters represented in mind. Top-down perception is necessary for the emergence of the “world.” To the extent that one shares the top–down perceptional scheme of another, then to some degree, “one lives in the same world” as the other.
This interpretive structure* can be thought of as a major activities of mind along with memory and ego . Most events are now filtered through and prejudged against the interpretive structure embedded in memory. This mental structure lies mostly outside of awareness and usually operates outside of awareness (for more on this topic see “Automatic Programs” a sub-section in Part I). It is accessed by conscious awareness and becomes active in mind only when conscious attention is required, which is mediated by ego . Some aspects of the mental structure are so deeply embedded that they are not easily accessed and therefore not easily modified. Since most of the interpretive process is outside of conscious awareness, many of the decisions we make happen automatically and without our being aware of the process. The actions we take resulting from these decisions would often appear mysterious to us except that ego creates explanations for them. Some of the more elaborate explanations are what is sometimes referred to as the myths we live by. Ego also is responsible for creating a sense of “self” (I, me) to explain who is performing these actions. Thus, ego serves as an interface between events requiring conscious attention and our interpretive structure and memories. The concept of “self” (a.k.a. fictive-self) created by ego is often referred to as our story or narrative and includes the explanations for or myths about why we do what otherwise might be inexplicable (see also “Pathway Four into the Inner Ego” a sub-section in Part I).
A key concept that is usually a part of the interpretative structure is that of linear time. Time is largely the product of memory. If you did not have a hierarchy of memories from previous events to place current events into a linear context, you would have little or no sense of linear time. Once a timeline between previous events and current events comes into existence, an imaginative extrapolation becomes possible that we call the future. The future is conceived of as potential time in which events not yet experienced might occur. Our concept of linear time is also largely responsible for our concept of linear causation (i.e., A causes B causes C, etc.). We often engage in the practice of trying to cause or at least to imagine and predict what those future events might be.
Many people, past and present, have talked and written about higher states of consciousness such as “Self-realization,” “Christ Consciousness,” “God Consciousness” and “Unity Consciousness.” The occurrence of such a shift in being appears to be outside of one’s ability to deliberately produce (see also “Taken”). Establishing the ability to move between top–down and bottom–up perception may be a useful precondition for being “taken.” Even if one is never “taken,” being able to move between these two perceptual modalities is a less contracted way of living. Many years ago I read a comment by a Yaqui medicine man, Don Juan Matus, to his apprentice, Carlos Castaneda, to the effect that if he wanted to be a “sorcerer,” he had to “stop the world.” For a long time I was somewhat puzzled by this comment because I confused “world” with “planet.” I now understand it to refer to stepping outside of our interpretive structure (world) or to stop engaging in top-down perception. To stop doing top-down perception, for most people, requires disentangling oneself from the world.
The process of disentanglement from the world begins with being present in each moment. To be present simply means that you are consciously aware of what is here, now, and nothing else. If you are having thoughts, associations, judgments or whatever related to what is here, now, or having memories of the past, extrapolations about the future, thoughts about your story or someone else’s story, you are not present. There are certainly times when it is necessary to enter the web of the world but the critical skill is to avoid becoming trapped in the web.
Presence requires no effort. One simply relaxes into the moment and if you observe that you’ve left presence then effortlessly nudge yourself back. As you do this, hold the intention that you want, as an adult, to approximate the mind you had as a young child. Done regularly enough, presence progressively expands until established as your default state. Once you can be present with regularity, you have reached a point that I’ve discussed as the “Natural Mind.”
When you are not present, you are entangled in the web of the world. A twentieth century American mystic, Franklin Merrell-Wolff, described his attitude toward the world as one of “high indifference.” This attitude allows you be in the world but not of the world. This does not mean you don’t care about things in the world or don’t engage the world. It does mean that you don’t act from top-down perceptions or become emotionally entangled in the world.
Perhaps the greatest obstacle to presence is a function neurology calls the “default mode network.” This neural network seems to be largely responsible for maintaining our fictive-self and narratives about the world. It does this by becoming active whenever we are not specifically engaged in something that requires focused attention. When this function becomes active it acts a lot like a movie-selection algorithm that throws up titles of movie suggestions based on your viewing history. So, thoughts, images and memories related to your ongoing narrative events interpreted as important pop into consciousness until you engage one of them and start “unpacking” it. This process maintains and reinforces the narratives and interpretative perceptions that keep you entangled in the web of the world. Extricating yourself from this web sets you free from the mental construct that you think of as the world. Learning to be present in the moment (i.e., keeping your attention focused in the moment) dampens and eventually makes the default network become virtually silent. It is now natural for you to just be or relax into I AM. This then may set the stage for relaxing deeper into the mystery of being.
* For anyone interested in a model of the interpretive structure as it might occur within an individual, consider the psychology of personal constructs theory of George Kelly. This is briefly described here (see Foundations sub-section). This is described in more detail here. For an For a complete description see Kelly’s two volume work: The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: Norton, 1955.
This essay begins with two assumptions; if you are uncomfortable with either one, this essay may be a challenge for you. The first assumption is that Awareness/Consciousness1 is the ground state of All-That-Is. In this essay, idealism is the preferred perspective over materialism. I will begin with an excerpt adapted from another piece I wrote (see Wholly Spirit sub-section) where this preference is addressed.
1. When capital letters are used to begin a word such as in “Consciousness,” the reference is to a primary state as opposed to a derived state (lower case) such as when the word “consciousness” is used. In other words, Consciousness is a universal state and consciousness is a personal or individuated state.
There are two dichotomous views on the ultimate nature of reality. One can be called the Primacy of Matter (a.k.a. materialism) and the other the Primacy of Consciousness (a.k.a. idealism). Classical physics and everyday experience support the former, and some interpretations of quantum physics and the experience of various mystics support the latter. The two views have significantly different implications. For example, materialists explain consciousness as an epiphenomenon (derivative) of matter, while idealists explain matter as an epiphenomenon of Consciousness. There is considerable contention around which view is correct. The likelihood is that neither conception will ever be conclusively demonstrated to the satisfaction of everyone.
Both views are faced with essentially the same conundrum, that is, initial origination. If you are of the Primacy of Matter persuasion, you must ask how did matter come about and from what? One hypothesis is the so-called “big bang” event or the near instantaneous expansion of an extremely dense concentration of energy/matter (a.k.a. the primordial atom). Even assuming it is correct, there still remains the question of where did this “primordial atom” come from? The noted physicist Stephen Hawking, for example, suggests spontaneous creation or the creation of something from nothing. If you are of the Primacy of Consciousness persuasion, you must ask where did the Universal Field of Consciousness (hereafter just Consciousness) come from? I know of no hypothesis about the origin of Consciousness. Some Primacy of Matter advocates might argue that matter has always existed and the material universe has cycled through endless re-generations. Likewise, some Primacy of Consciousness advocates might argue that Consciousness has always existed and always will exist. In the end, both camps reach a point where they really have no choice but to say that either matter just is or that Consciousness just is. Regardless of which hypothesis you find the most plausible, you are ultimately faced with a leap of faith.
I make the assumption that Consciousness is primary simply because it provides a model that is broader and deeper than materialism. However, one need not throw off materialism entirely when adopting idealism, because materialism can be subsumed under idealism as a secondary construct. In fact, the two models can be construed to be almost identical except with different root assumptions or starting points. The second assumption that I will make is that evolutionary biology is a valid and powerful process operative at many levels. This almost doesn’t need to be put forward as an assumption since the theory describing the process has pretty well been empirically established. There are, however, some points within the theory that can be argued on scientific grounds, such as the reliance upon random change to the exclusion of any other potential factors. The details of the debate around that issue or others are not necessary to this essay. There are also some who reject the theory out-of-hand, because it is inconsistent with their religious ideology. Such individuals will have to tentatively entertain this assumption for purposes of understanding this essay or stop reading now.
An idea related to the first assumption is that of the indivisible whole. If Consciousness is the ground or source state of All-That-Is, then there is only one Consciousness albeit with many derivative consciousnesses. Thus, All-is-One becomes an unavoidable philosophical position. The indivisible whole hypothesis is supported by science within the limits of the “physical” universe. Experiments that have been replicated support the quantum state of entanglement by which two particles 2 become connected and share information. If the information is changed in one, it immediately changes in the other even if the second particle is on the other side of the universe. Since the exchange of information in the space/time universe is limited by the speed of light and the speed of light is too slow to account for this near instantaneous exchange of information, entanglement implies an underlying non-locality that is outside of space/time.
2. There is no such thing as a particle as the general public understands the word. The continued use of the term is a carry over from classical physics but it no longer has the “physical” characteristics it was thought to have in classical physics. In short, a particle is not made of matter as it was understood in the classical sense. Some now describe a particle as a concentration of energy and others as a packet of information.