Christ Consciousness I

 

(Note: Thoughts called to mind by Mr. Lanyon's book, "The Temple Not Made by Hand".) 

 

Dear Sam:

 

I've written down the following thoughts on "Christ Consciousness" for two reasons. First, because it offers a few insights into my thoughts in that regard and, secondly, because it may give you some feel for the source of my writings.

 

I. The Writing 

 

With regard to the writing, it is of the heart and not the head. Its not the product of any cognitive process on my part; not something that I first think out and then write down; not something that I build, construct or manufacture. It usually starts when some external event triggers a desire to capture a thought, idea or concept that is unique to my experience. Once the writing is so triggered, I'm (at least the intellectual portion of my being) just along for the ride. As such, that which I write is not something that I "think or make up", but rather something that "comes to me". This is true both of the "triggering thought" and all the writing that follows in an attempt to capture the fullness of the idea. In that sense, the writing writes itself. 

 

I've often described the process as that of discovering a "nuclearizing" thought, call it "B", a new idea called to mind and consciousness by something I happen to be reading or something I happen to say during the course of a conversation, that I feel compelled to capture in words. As with most of us, I had many such thoughts when I was young, but never had the ability, inclination or discipline to write them down. Fortunately the "well of inspiration" never fully dried up and began flowing again in 1978 -- probably as a direct result of a rather "passionate" search for the "Truth" that had been going on for nearly 10 years at that time; a search that I have always felt was triggered by the undeniable sense of "mortality" that my involvement as a pilot in Vietnam evoked.

 

Having sensed the "ultimate futility" of the human condition -- the utter "nonsense" of being born only to die -- I reasoned that if life, existence and being was fundamentally intelligent; if it did have meaning beyond that normally ascribed to it by relative sense thought and feeling, and I didn't see it to be so, than the fundamental problem must have been in the way I was taught to look at things; that the "flaw" was not truly in the "world", but in my "world-view". Give this fundamental premise, that the world did make sense, and that the nonsense I saw and felt all around me was therefore a necessary result of a "flaw in my vision" -- the "way I was conditioned to look and so see life", I began a search to see if there were not alternative ways of "seeing things" that would allow one to make sense of all the "seeming" nonsense about him.

 

I further reasoned, that if "life, existence and being" was, in fact, fundamentally logical and reasonable, then there must be some "underlying truth" within all religions, all philosophies, all systems of metaphysics, all systems of human thought, all disciplines -- be they "worldly" or "other-worldly" -- and that each merely reflected one facet, or aspect of the "One Truth" underlying all such relative statements of truth. That, to use an Eastern analogy, each such system, if it had stood the test of time, was simply the same "mountain top" viewed from another "valley"; a "different view" of one fundamental, essential and underlying Truth -- each the "One Mountain Top" as seen from different sides and elevations of the mountain. 

 

Given this assumption, that all relative truths reflected at least so some aspect of The Truth, although some considerably more dimly and obscurely the others, I began a search for the "Common Thread" in all such relative systems of truth. For in so developing an eye for that which was the same, for that which was common to all of them, I reasoned that I would come to discern the one truth implicit in all of them; would be able to form a "composite" view of "the Mountain " and so come to an expanded view -- an absolute view -- that included all relative views within its limitless perspective; to find one view that encompasses and so transcends all relative views.

 

The value in such an approach lies in its inherently constructive nature, in terms of the way we as "relative states of consciousness" habitually look at and so things. Rather then focusing on "differences" -- which is far more effective in terms or processing environment feedback, both in terms of rate and quantity, for purposes of daily living -- it focuses on similarities and points of "co-inside-nce" and thereby "builds-up" ones "world view", rather then "breaking it up" in to ever smaller bits and pieces, pieces that may be relatively true (real and true as far as they go) but which hold only under very limited conditions of time and place.

 

As such, this approach tends to get at the root cause of man's present predicament, that being his present partial and fractured "view of things". It "builds" up and so tends to reunite all the fractured "bits and pieces" of reality that relative thought and consciousness has made of man and his world; and so avoids the fundamental fallacy of trying to "think" the world back together. For thinking can't and never could put "Humpty Dumpty" back together again, because relative thought must "fragment to function, and as such, it's innately divisive and distractive process, at least in terms of the essential "oneness of being" that would become absolutely apparent the moment this rather limited mode of consciousness was dropped.

 

Seeing this, does it not become rather obvious that such a search for truth, one that uses relative thought's fundamental process of differentiation to "build-up" rather than "break-down" that which by definition must be a fundamental and essential unity, not only offers hope in finding an answer, but in the process serves to "heal the fundamental split in consciousness and being" that "self-consciousness", as the "root of all evil", gave rise to. A split that was never true in fact, and as such, a split that only requires an expansion of ones mind and consciousness beyond the limits of relative thought -- a fuller opening of ones eyes; an awakening from the "bad dream" that relative thought and consciousness is and always was -- to reunite all the "bits and pieces" of ones mind and being into the "One Coherent Whole" from which they were never truly parted (except in thought).

 

Getting back to the actual process that occurs when I write, as I suggested, thought "B" will come to mind and serve as a "nucleus" for thought "A" and "B", two idea that I many have previously thought or read that seemed to have no coherent relationship. That is "B", my new thought, will serve as a "connecting bridge" between "A" and "C", earlier, unrelated thoughts, and serve to create an entirely new thought or idea that might be termed "ABC". As such its a process that involves building up understanding through a process of integrating previously unrelated, at least information that seemed to be unrelated from my perspective, data into "higher and higher forms", or alternately rediscovering that which was always there true relationship, but of which I had been unaware.

 

It is at this point that a desire to capture the "composite" thought that has come to me, the "ABC" thought, that I normally begin to write. From that point on the process becomes rather automatic. I have often likened it to "pulling a daisy-chain" out of my sub-conscious (Universal Sub-Conscious, perhaps), a chain or "stream of thoughts" that includes not only a discussion of the original "ABC" thought, but a myriad of others besides, some of which are considerably more expanded or advanced than the original "triggering" thought.

 

In a very true sense, I'm not there while the process is going on. This is not to say that it is "automatic writing" as it is commonly described by the proponents of psychic phenomena. It's me that is doing it, I'm there, I'm just not there in the traditional sense. I cease to be the one who is doing the writing and become the one through which the writing is done (i.e. "Not I, but the Father in me, He doeth the work", etc.). It's a subtle difference, but quite great in terms of its implication. Neither is the process particularly mystical (at least in terms of my own sense of it). I'm there, just like I was there when I took all those essay exams in college.

 

In that sense, it's "flow of consciousness" stuff. You open the valve and a continuous "stream of consciousness" -- you might call it living water -- flows through. What comes out is totally unedited and uncensored in term of both form and content. In fact, if I start thinking about something I've written it tends to dam the flow as surely as an external distraction would. There's a certain rhythm to it that thought clearly disrupts. It's almost as if the two forms of consciousness (modes or manifestations of awareness, consciousness or being) could not co-exist simultaneously. Almost as if you could choose to be conscious in a "centered or focused" manner, or alternately, a "peripheral and diffuse" manner, and that the moment you allow thought to become centered and specific --channeled, you lose consciousness of the "field"; lose the "background" and context in which that center exists.

 

Alternately, one might say that consciousness may be manifested -- and so made man-i-fest -- generally or specifically; that its beam may be narrowed or broadened, depending on the needs of the moment. Clearly, consciousness, as a fundamental condition or state of being or awareness, as in the case of a beam of light, can't be sharp and focused, and at the same time undifferentiated and general. A choice has to be made between the two modes of consciousness based on the demands of the moment. If you're interested in seeing everything in a room simultaneously, then one "level of focus" is appropriate; however, if you interested in only one specific object, in one corner of that same room, then another level of focus would be better. It all depends on the breadth and depth of the field that you're interested in, which, in turn, is defined by the level of your interest.

 

If light is equated to consciousness, and I wished to expand the breadth of my vision and so my awareness, then the light I would need would be more general and less specific, less focused and more diffused. What I gain in so doing is a "bigger picture" per look, an expansion in awareness of what's going on around me as a specific "point of view" (viewpoint, attitude, way of looking at life, etc.). What I gain in breath, however, I lose in depth; I lose in the degree of detail I can see and discern in specific objects that occur in that field. Viewing this whole process as something akin to looking through a micro-scope can also be quite helpful in understanding the process.

 

When I focus the "beam of light" that is my consciousness on one specific object, or direct my attention to one level of objectivity, I have implicitly increased the level of its magnification and so too the depth of my vision. As a result, I come to see more and more of the detail associated with any given object. As such, I so come to "know" that object better and better, in more and more detail. The danger in doing so, however, is that there is a necessary tendency to lose sight of the object as a whole, to lose awareness of its breadth. For in adopting an ever "narrowing" mode of consciousness, will I necessarily lose sight and sense of the context in which the object arises.

 

This problem can also be likened to the human condition in terms of our habitual preoccupation with words and symbols. For in so "objectifying" the world we have unwittingly focused our attention on only one level; have frozen our awareness at the level of "relative sense and thought" and so no longer see the world directly, but through a "screen" of thoughts and ideas about the world. As such, I don't see the actual manifestations of being that I term cat, dog, tree, flower, sun, star, etc. anymore, at least not completely. What I see is something that triggers a whole managery of mental images, or ghosts, that I have named or classified as cat, dog, tree, etc.; a world of words and symbols.

 

As such, I no longer see, respond or react to such manifestations of being directly, I relate to them indirectly and reflectively, in terms of what I have come to think or know about them. The end result is that my consciousness of being and the "fidelity of my seeing", becomes disturbed and distorted, as a result of the "echo's" that each new manifestation of eternal being calls to mind and consciousness. It's a bit like going through life looking through a rear view mirror. You never see what's going on around you, here and now, because you're to busy looking at that which is past -- too busy "seeking the living among the dead".

 

Sorry for running so far afield (one of the hazards of allowing consciousness to manifest generally is that with the larger field to play in, its that much harder to stay on any one track, or go in anyone direction -- I'm also fasting today and that too tends to "de-focus" the mind and loosen its habitual hold on attention. 

 

II. Christ Consciousness 

 

On to Christ Consciousness. When Paul refers to the "mind that was in Jesus Christ", he was referring to Christ Consciousness, or alternately the form, type, manifestation or condition (level or state would be equally true) of consciousness that Christ had and so "made manifest" in the world of the flesh, the world of relative sight and sound; "realized" and so made "real" in terms of the minds and consciousness of that state of being we term human. Alternately, when we say that someone has "Christ Consciousness", what we are really saying is that he has a consciousness or awareness of the "Christ of his Being" -- that by virtue of having the mind that was in Christ Jesus, he has both a Consciousness of Christ and the Consciousness of Christ, as the two conditions are necessarily equivalent.

 

It is normally described, as an experience that someone has, rather than a state or condition of consciousness that someone has momentarily become, by virtue of its adoption. In truth, they are the same, because the experience, if so described, requires that the experiencer no longer be present in the moment of its occurrence. It's exactly the same as the light analogy previously described. The Christ Consciousness is the original state of consciousness -- its pure, undivided, non-dual, undifferentiated, unfocused condition. As such, it is non-specific and general, with all objects -- all objective states of consciousness and being, whether manifest or potential -- included within its limitless bounds. As a result, it is necessarily one with all such objects and all objects are one with it. The universe -- all physical creation -- and the very cosmos one with it in the sense that you are one with your body.

 

This was exactly what Jesus Christ alluded to when he told his followers that the bread they were eating and the wine they were drinking were his "flesh and blood", respectively, and that they were to eat it in remembrance of him. Although generally interpreted symbolically, when he was in the "Christ State of Mind" the wine and bread literarily were his "flesh and blood". Now, who and what am I as a man if not my consciousness of being, my fundamental sense and awareness of existence and being? If I am anything, am I not my consciousness? And what exactly is my consciousness? It is there that I must stop my inquiry, for that which is non-relative cannot be "related", and that which cannot be known in relative terms cannot be said. But what can be extrapolated, hypothesized, and so said, is that any such principle must have some fundamental qualities or attributes. That is, when you can't describe the thing itself in relative terms, due to its essential uniqueness, what you can describe is its reflected qualities.

 

Whether consciousness is the fundamental stuff of the universe is not the point. In truth, it can't be, because the very word implies that there is something apart to be conscious of and someone to be conscious (i.e. a subject, object orientation,etc.). As such, its just another quality of being that the underlying principle of existence can be described in terms of, can be "likened" to. Its value, however, lies in our inability to conceptualize it, in any way, shape or form. Unlike the word "God", it is less subject to the "images and vain imaginings" of relative thought and consciousness.

 

So instead of calling this fundamental principle of being God, which so often evokes so many distorted mental images, lets speak of it in terms to which we as human beings can relate directly; lets call it Christ or God Consciousness. Why God or Christ Consciousness? Because we all have a direct sense of it within us and so have the potential to know and relate to it experientially, rather than abstractly. I feel a fundamental sense of my own existence and being, my own "I AM"ness. I can feel it and relate to it directly rather than reflectively. I can know it, but I can't describe it, because there is nothing else in me or the world it can be likened to.

 

Now what is the most fundamental quality of my "I AM"ness? Well, we just said it. It's its fundamental uniqueness. It is not like unto anything else. As funny as it may seem, uniqueness or uncommonness is the most common quality of life, because that which is unique has the fundamental quality of discreteness -- it is One! It manifests the fundamental quality of oneness and all that oneness implies. So what's the big deal if "everything is one" (there's a double meaning there isn't there). I am one, you are one, a rock is one, all are one, etc., so what? Because only one thing can manifest the fundamental quality of oneness; only one principle can so reflect its most fundamental quality through its creations, the one that lies at the root and heart of all -- God, the Ground of Being, the Infinite, the Absolute, call it what you will, the Source of All.

 

What I am really trying to express is that there is only one "One" and that all else must be contained and so included within its limitless confines; that all else must flow forth from its all inclusive font. As such, All Being must be equally indivisible and one at root. That as with any other fundamental quality of being -- any other original quality such as time, love, light, energy, etc. -- if it can't be said and only felt, then it must be one, and if one, must be a fundamental quality or attribute of the Original One -- the Absolute, that unto which nothing can be likened; that which is unlike anything that can be seen or known relatively.

 

In this regard and given that consciousness is one of these fundamental qualities, then consciousness itself must be essentially indivisible (atomic in the original sense of the word). In truth, we are not really talking about consciousness, but about the principle that manifests a quality that we name consciousness, and discuss it in terms of. We could also discuss it in terms of light, life, truth or love and we would still be referring to one and the same principle and not any one of its fundamental characteristics or qualities. Consciousness is just another temporal name or word; another relative way of looking at God, in order to relate to him in relative terms -- terms which in themselves are never more than half-truths, and so "lies" from an absolute perspective.

 

Anyway, given that all consciousness must be one, then any specific manifestation of consciousness may be seen as a partial degree of that "self-same" consciousness. That is, my consciousness and God's Consciousness are the same in principle, the same "essential stuff" at heart and root; alternately, I may say that God's Consciousness is mine, and mine his in a much more focused and specific mode of expression. In either case, God and I are one at heart. Having sufficient perspective of himself as all, he both knows and feels himself to be one with me; where as I, being much more focused and limited in perspective, based on the present narrowness of the beam of my consciousness, definitely don't feel and may not even know of our fundamental relationship of Oneness -- our essential relationship as Father and Son.

 

This in no way makes our relationship any less real or true from an absolute standpoint, but what it does do is make it and all its implications of non-effect with regard to my relationship with all other like created states of mind and being. That is, the relationship may be absolutely true, but if I am not conscious of it and continue to act and react as if it weren't true, what I expect to see is exactly what I will see. That is, I as a limited state of consciousness, as a partial and circumscribed perspective, could not, of my own limited efforts expand my own conscious perspective sufficiently to realize the full extent of my relationship to all-being, and so the full extent of my own being.

 

The part cannot know the whole, without first giving up itself as part, without giving up its own partialness. It's as simple as that. My limited perspective of life and being as a "human state" of consciousness simply cannot contain the limitless breadth of the "Christ or God" state of consciousness. Two into one simply won't go without fracturing the fundamental unity that Christ Consciousness necessarily implies. 

 

Alternately, divided, dual, subject-object, relative consciousness cannot know or experience Non-Dual, Pure, Non-Relative, Unitary, Absolute, All Consciousness. The one is one mode or manner of consciousness and the other another state or condition of consciousness. When the former mode is present, the latter is absent; when the latter is present, the former is absent. You can know God, or you can know yourself; you can experience a state of "God- consciousness" or you can experience a "self-conscious" state of consciousness, but not both.

 

At least not from your perspective, for although the whole can know itself as both "whole and part" simultaneously; the part cannot until it adopts the same perspective, the same expanded level or view of life and existence -- that being a totally unfocused state of mind; a totally undifferentiated state of "pure awareness", prior to the assumption of any "manifest form" of being; a state or condition of totally diffuse consciousness like unto that of the Un-manifest Light of the Original Consciousness; a condition of consciousness, in which the mind -- or lens of ones awareness -- has been opened to its fullest aperture, has been "opened to Infinity" and is so able to focus upon and so contain the full extent of its Infinite Glory.  C 1985

 

R.F.Hay