Friday, November 22, 2013

Commentaries
On the Teaching of Jesus
And the Psychology of Revelation*

1) “On the day when you were one you became two.” (From Saying #11 in the Gospel of Thomas)
Commentary:
The first phrase of this statement (i.e., “when you were one”) originates in the Revelation of the Memory of Creation (Chapter 2, verse 7 of Genesis; also echoed, interestingly enough, in Psalm 2, verse 7), which conveys a Knowledge of the non-dualistic” consciousness with which man was Created by God, also referred to in The Treatise On Resurrection as the “spiritual” resurrection. While the second phrase of this statement (i.e., “you became two”) originates in the Revelation of the Memory of ‘the Fall’ (both of which, together with the revelation of the memories of previous lives, referred to in The Treatise On Resurrection as the “psychic” resurrection, comprise the Revelation of “the resurrection”) into the dualistic consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’.
The problem, however, is that the same word (“you”) cannot unambiguously be used to convey two not merely different, but precisely antithetical meanings; the word “you” in the first phrase having a sharply different ‘meaning’ than the word “you” in the second phrase. In fact, it is simply not even possible to ‘personify’ or ‘localize’ the non-dualistic consciousness with which man was Created by God into a ‘spatiality’ of consciousness (i.e., a “you”) in the first place—in other words, as the dualistic consciousness of a “self” and a ‘thinker’—because those dualistic dimensions of consciousness exist only after rather than before ‘the Fall’.
Thus, more precisely in accordance with the Knowledge Revealed through the Revelations that Jesus received:
Before ‘the Fall’ there exists a non-dualistic consciousness. After ‘the Fall’ there exists the consciousness of duality; that is, a “beast of the sea” consciousness of the “self” and a “beast of the earth” consciousness of the ‘thinker’.
And, although a direct experience of the non-dualistic consciousness Created by God is received through the Revelation of the Memory of Creation, the reality of ‘the Fall’ into the dualistic consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’ cannot be irreversibly reversed to that non-dualistic consciousness itself. In other words, the differentiation into individual “selves” and ‘thinkers’ is an inescapable—and irreversible in the space-time reality—consequence of ‘the Fall’; both the consciousness of the “self” and the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ being required for living successfully in the space-time reality.
2) “You a teacher in Israel and you do not know these things?...I tell you most solemnly, we speak only about what we know and witness only to what we have seen and yet you people reject our evidence.” (Chapter 3, verses 10…11 of the Gospel of John)
Commentary:
The word “we” in this passage refers to Jesus and the prophets who came before him (for example, Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel and Daniel) who had received both the Vision of the “Son of man”/“Tree of Life” (Chapter 3, verse 24 of Genesis) ( i.e., “we…witness only to what we have seen”); the Revelation of “the resurrection”; and the Knowledge Revealed through those Revelations (i.e., “we speak only about what we know”)—such Revelations being considered as evidence by those who receive them; evidence which, however, is typically not acknowledged by the monotheistic religious ‘authorities’.
The term “you people” refers not to the children of Israel as a whole, but to the aforementioned ‘teachers in Israel’; those Jewish religious ‘authorities’ who had no direct experience or Knowledge of the Revelation of Truth, but who claimed to ‘understand’ those Revelations (and were paid for that ‘understanding’) from the frame of reference of the ‘fallen’, dualistic consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’; which, of course, is both the job description of all Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious ‘authorities’, and the reason why they are still paid to this day—that is, for substituting the doctrines of men originating in the ‘fallen’, dualistic consciousness for the original Revelations.
3) “No one has [gone up into] heaven except the one who [came down] from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.” (Chapter 3, verse 13 of the Gospel of John)
Commentary:
What is being poetically described here is the actual experience of the receiving of the Vision of the “Son of man”; although there is, in fact, no literal—that is, spatial—‘going  up’ and no literal or spatial ‘coming down from heaven’. (But the implication that there is some kind of ‘movement in space’ with the receiving of the Vision of the “Son of man” is also a characteristic of the “Night Journey” of Mohammed mentioned in the Quran; although, according to his wife Khadija, “The prophet’s body did not move.”)
In addition, the Vision of the “Son of man” is not a “one” or a “who” in the first place—that is, there cannot be any ‘personification’ of that Vision into any ‘spatiality’ of consciousness any more than there can be a ‘spatialization’ of the non-dualistic consciousness Created by God—but, rather, consists of the Revelation of Knowledge without any trace of the ‘spatiality’ of consciousness referred to as either a “self” or a ‘thinker”; i.e., a “who”.
4) C.S. Lewis once argued—arrogantly, viciously, witlessly and infamously, I would suggest—that Jesus was either a lunatic, a “demon” or ‘God’.
In fact, rather than saying anything at all about Jesus, such a formulation is, instead, a graphic representation of ‘the Fall’ from the consciousness Created by God; consisting of an instantaneous, reflexive shift of attention away from what Jesus taught—that the Doctrine of “resurrection” is a Doctrine of ‘Rebirth’, for example—to who Jesus was; due, at least in part, to the statement by Jesus (or purportedly by Jesus) that:
“I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (Chapter 14, verse 6 of the Gospel of John)
Commentary:
In affirmation of the Knowledge Revealed through the Vision of the “Son of man”, it should be understood that the phonetic tones (in English) of this particular passage originate in the Knowledge of the Ten Principal Phonetic Tones of Creation (arranged along the Seven Churches, or ‘chakras’, in a geometry ‘approximating’ the Kabbalist “Tree of Life”) Revealed through that Vision; the Long A phonetic tone of the “Way” signifying the Revelation of “the resurrection” (which is received in the Fourth Church or the ‘heart chakra’); the Long I phonetic tone of the “Life” signifying the Vision of the “Son of man”/“Tree of Life” (which, radically simplified, is ‘received’ in the Seventh Church or the ‘forehead chakra’); and the Long U phonetic tone of the “Truth” signifying the Revelation of the Law (which, radically simplified, corresponds to what is signified by the First Church or the ‘genital chakra’; for reasons which, however, are most effectively explained in an oral Teaching).
The fundamental and fatal error of this passage, however—and it is not a merely trivial error, but an error which has importantly been utilized by Christian theologians to turn the Teaching of Jesus upside down by, purportedly, ‘validating’ the Satanic idolatrization of Jesus as ‘God’ and the ‘only’ path to the Truth—is, very specifically, the use of the pronouns “I” and “we”; any such use of which consisting of, in fact, a sharp (but generally perceived as subtle) deviation from the Knowledge Revealed through the Vision of the “Son of man”.
More in conformity with the Knowledge Revealed through what Jesus referred to in the Thanksgiving Hymns of the Dead Sea Scrolls as the “Vision of Knowledge”, then, the pronouns “I” and “me” when spoken by a human can only refer to a particular ‘spatiality’ of consciousness; that is, to a ‘fallen’ “self” and a ‘thinker’. Thus, to use these terms self-referentially in relation to Revealed Knowledge itself—in other words, to claim to actually be the very ‘personification’ of that Knowledge—establishes, in fact, a thoroughly delusional but absolute ‘equivalence’ between the non-dualistic consciousness Created by God and the ‘fallen’, dualistic consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’; which, in fact, is equivalent to the assertion that the consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’ have been Created by God; when, in reality, they are self-created, as explained in detail in Towards A New Paradigm of Consciousness.
Thus, in opposition to the idolatrization of Jesus as ‘God’ that has become manifest in the doctrines of Christianity over the past almost two thousand years since this statement was first made—or purportedly made—by Jesus, this passage must be updated and clarified.
Three things are necessary for the understanding of Truth:
1) A rigorous adherence to the Moral Law (also referred to as the First Phase of the War of the Sons of Light (the “Truth”);
2) the receiving of the Knowledge Revealed through the Revelation of the Memory of Creation (the “Way”), the Revelation of the Memory of ‘the Fall’ into the dualistic consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’, and the revelation of the memories of previous lives (also referred to as the Second Phase of the War of the Sons of Light); and,
3) the receiving of the Knowledge Revealed through the Vision of the “Son of man” (the “Life”), also referred to as the Third Phase of the War of the Sons of Light.
And, while a person who has received these Revelations can be understood as being, in some way, a representation or a ‘manifestation’ of such Knowledge, it is simply not in any way possible for anyone ever to be the ‘personification’ of the Knowledge of Truth; or for such a person to constitute the ‘only’ path to the Truth.

5) “…and in front of the garden of Eden He posted the cherubs, and the flame of a flashing sword, to guard the Way to the Tree of Life. “ (Genesis Chapter 3, verse 24)
“As high as the heavens are above the earth are My Ways above your ways…” (Chapter 55, verse 9 of the Book of Isaiah)
“Of the Vision of Knowledge, they {that is, the religious ‘authorities’ in Jerusalem} say, ‘It is unsure.’ And, of the Way of Thy heart, ‘It is not the Way.’” (from the Thanksgiving Hymns of the Dead Sea Scrolls, written by Jesus)
“[…And, when the hearts of the detach]ments of foot-soldiers faint {Long A phonetic tone}, then shall the Might of God fortify [the hearts of the Sons of Light]. And, with the seventh lot, the Mighty hand of God shall bring down [the army of Satan, and all] the angels of his kingdom, and all the members [of his company in everlasting destruction]… (from Column I of the Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light)
“I am the Way…” (Chapter 14, verse 6 of the Gospel of John)
Commentary:
The phrase “to guard the Way to the Tree of Life” conveys the sequence of the Revelations from the Second Phase of the War of the Sons of Light—that is, the Revelation of “the resurrection” (which is received in the Fourth Church or the ‘heart chakra’)—to the Third Phase of the War of the Sons of Light—that is, the Vision of the “Son of man”/“Night Journey”/“sidrah tree” (the culmination of that Vision occurring at the Seventh Church or the ‘forehead chakra’).
(To be continued, Insh’allah.)
*This is intended to be a third part of a trilogy on consciousness; the first part consisting of Meditations On a Science of Consciousness:
and the second part consisting of Towards A New Paradigm of Consciousness:

Saturday, October 19, 2013

Report of A Macroscopic Time-Reversal...
And Its Relevance to Revelation*

Dear Sir,

You’re not going to believe this.

Why not?

Because I am the one who experienced this and even I don’t believe it.

But, no matter how many times I replay this experience in my memory from several weeks ago, I cannot deny that it happened; nor can I make any sense of it at all in terms of the ‘normal’ progression of time in accordance with only one temporal frame of reference.

First, a little background:

My usual exercise routine requires that I run for approximately 2 blocks, then walk for approximately 6 blocks, then run for approximately 1½-2 miles back to the place where I started; something that variably takes between 30 and 38 minutes.

Secondly, there is nothing wrong with my watch.

But this is what happened:

I left on my run at precisely—I waited until the second hand hit the 12 on my watch—5 minutes til the hour (that is, 55 minutes after the previous hour) and ran for approximately 2 blocks. After walking about 5 blocks, I looked at my watch and it showed 44 minutes after the previous hour; that is, 11 minutes before I started; something that, possibly, in some way, is related to the event recorded in the following video:


I continued to walk for 1 more block, then ran approximately half of the 1½-2 miles at the end of my exercise. But, when I looked at my watch, it had taken me 11 minutes to cover that distance, and I arrived at 5 minutes til the hour; that is, precisely the same time that I had started my exercise.

It then took me 33 minutes—when I looked at my watch it was 28 minutes after the next hour—to complete the remaining ¾-1 mile back to where I had started; which, altogether, is within the normal time of my exercise.

I have gone several times through the possible explanations and have eliminated each one of them time after time:

1) there is NO possible way that it would have taken me 49 minutes (from 5 minutes til the hour to 44 minutes after that same hour) to run approximately 2 blocks and walk for another 5 blocks; in other words, I did not make any mistakes when looking, 3 separate times, at the minute hand on my watch—it was at 55 minutes and, then, 44 minutes after the same hour; and, then, 28 minutes after the next hour (it is unlikely that reading that two or three times will help in its understanding); and,

2) it is simply not possible that I ran for 2 blocks, walked for 6 blocks and, then, ran for about ¾ to 1 mile in either NO time, or a time-reversal to the time that I started.

But that is what happened.

Now, do I have a theoretical explanation of what happened here?

Of course I do.

As I have set out in Towards A New Paradigm of Consciousness:


there is a dimension of consciousness in which time not only stands still; but, also, can go backwards.

But all kinds of things occur at the quantum level which do not occur at the macroscopic level; so, is it even possible that this example of time-reversal and, then, time ‘standing still’ can be manifested at the macroscopic level, in confirmation of at least some of the findings, at the microscopic level, of Time Symmetrical Quantum Mechanics?

Certainly, not to my knowledge.

And, yet, this is precisely what seems to have occurred here.

[Nor have I had any further ‘problems’ with my watch since this occurred; any possible ‘message’ apparently having been effectively conveyed—which at least suggests that, in flagrant violation of one of the fundamental rules of the scientific method, observations of the ‘fluidity’ of time are intrinsically irreproducible (but, apparently, they can be recorded on video?); existing within a larger category of events which also includes Reverse Speech Analysis (which clearly demonstrates that information comes backwards in time from the future), laboratory experiments demonstrating pre-cognition in humans (and pre-sentience to electrical shock in worms), ‘psychic’ impressions of future events (for example, the prediction of the headline regarding the sinking of the Titanic), as well as what are commonly referred to as “Miracles” (such as the plagues upon Egypt, water emerging from a rock after it has been struck, the collapse of the walls of Jericho, or the multiplication of loaves and fishes)]

Any ‘theoretical’ explanation you might be able to provide will be entertained.

But I would remind you that I looked at my watch at each of these times and am merely reporting what I observed; which, as I understand it, is what scientists do.

So, do I really believe that any of this really happened?

Of course not.

According to the time-based consciousness of the ‘thinker’, it is simply not possible.

This information defies the very structure of that consciousness (as well as belief) itself, which depends upon time moving smoothly only in a forward direction; and, importantly, in accordance with only one temporal frame of reference. (But maybe one of the principal goals of the graphic representations of the movements of the “agents” and Neo in The Matrix was to gradually ‘free people’s minds’ from the belief that time is a dimension of reality independent of the consciousness of the ‘thinker’—as an “agent” cop says early in The Matrix in response to a jump by Trinity, “That’s impossible”—and to gradually introduce this civilization to the concept of independent temporal frames of reference based upon consciousness.)

But I do remember looking at my watch; I remember what those numbers were; and I do remember it happening just as I have described it.

But of what relevance is all of this to Revelation?

It is simply not possible for the dualistic, time-based consciousness of the ‘thinker’ to fully grasp the reality of either previous or future lives; the reason being that the revelation of the memories of previous lives—that is, the realities experienced by previous “selves” and ‘thinkers’—are intrinsically incapable of being experienced by any particular consciousness of the “self” localized to a particular body living at a particular time; but only from a frame of reference, in terms of consciousness, ‘outside of’ and ‘prior to’ the existence of that body and that “self”; that is, the non-dualistic, non-temporal, 2-dimensional ‘flat space’ “observing consciousness” (of the Eastern esoteric traditions) Created ‘by and in the image of God’ (of the monotheistic Revelations but not theologies).

Translation: Western civilization’s more or less universal disregard of the reality of previous and future lives—because that reality exists outside the frame of reference defined as reality by the “beast of the sea” consciousness of the “self” and the “beast of the earth” consciousness of the ‘thinker’—is very directly tied to the comparative lack of knowledge (because of censorship) of the reality of the three dimensions of human consciousness; in other words, the censorship of the fact that there is a consciousness and a reality which are independent of the ‘fallen’ consciousness of the “self” and ‘thinker’.

And, thus, those responsible for censoring this (K)nowledge about human consciousness bear a responsibility for the bloodshed and suffering of the coming “time of trouble” equal to those officials of the “dragon”-media and those “false prophet” Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious ‘authorities’ who are censoring, ignoring, ridiculing, denying and contradicting the Truth about the Doctrine of “resurrection”.


Michael



*The Revelation of the Memory of Creation is preceded by a sharp and traumatic break (the “shattering of the vessels”) with time as experienced by “selves” and ‘thinkers’; and consists, of course, of a literal time-reversal to not merely the origin of time itself; but to the very origin of the ‘spatiality’ of the (“beast of the sea”) consciousness of the “self” which precedes both the origin of time and the (“beast of the earth”) consciousness of the ‘thinker’. In other words, the Revelation of the Memory of Creation also consists of the Revelation of the Memory of ‘the Fall’ into the dualistic consciousness of the “self” and ‘thinker’. And, for that reason, it is a wordless Revelation; although, by means of a previous time-reversal (the Third rather than the Second Phase of the War of the Sons of Light), Knowledge has already been received (but not yet ‘remembered’) of the Ten Principal Phonetic Tones of Creation (and the Knowledge conveyed by those tones).

The revelation of the memories of previous lives, on the other hand—that is, the revelation of what has been experienced by “selves” and ‘thinkers’ prior to the present “self” and ‘thinker’—consists of a time-reversal to a time either hundreds or thousands of years before the present time (parallel to the time-reversal from 55 to 44 in the above report), which is then followed by a progression of time in a forward direction (parallel to the forward movement of time from 44 to 55—and, 33 minutes later, to 28—in the above report) through those experiences in precisely the same way they were first experienced; that is, without any knowledge of either future time or future experiences of other “selves” and ‘thinkers’. In other words, a ‘memory’ of a previous life does not perfectly fit the definition of a memory as experienced, or defined, by a “self” or a ‘thinker’. That is, one does not really ‘remember’ what those previous “selves” and ‘thinkers’ have experienced. Rather, it is the re-experience of those experiences in precisely the same way that they were originally experienced that is ‘remembered’.

It is also interesting to note that the time-reversal in the above report occurred between :55 and :44, the forward progression of time was for 11 and, then, 33 minutes; and that the time stamp on the CCTV video linked above of the sharp discontinuity of time occurred at 3:33; which numbers are of specific relevance to the Ten Principal Phonetic Tones of Creation conveyed by the “Tree of Life” (“sidrah tree” in the Quran)/the Vision of the “Son of man”/ the “Vision of Knowledge” (the Thanksgiving Hymns of the Dead Sea Scrolls/the “Night Journey” of Mohammed as represented by the YouTube video “Stargate Sequence” from 2001—A Space Odyssey.

Footnote added at 333  October 21 (7+7+7), 2013

 


Thursday, October 17, 2013

WHY the Censorship?

Look.

If the folks at rense.com are willing to publish the link to:


WHY, at the same time, are they unwilling to publish the link to:


(And WHY should someone trying to explain this Knowledge be banned from the Above Top Secret, Before It’s News and Godlike Productions websites?)

It is the censorship of both scientific knowledge as well as the Knowledge of the three dimensions of consciousness—as Revealed by and through the Vision of the “Son of man” (the “Tree of Life” and the “Night Journey”) and the Revelation of “the resurrection”—that has resulted in immeasurable suffering and loss of human life.

But, even if such scientific knowledge is finally becoming more widely known, the civilization which is made aware of this knowledge may very well annihilate itself unless the Knowledge Revealed about human consciousness—and the reality of previous lives—is not merely publicized, but directly applied to the resolution of the religious-political conflicts (especially in the Middle East) presently threatening the very survival of human civilization itself…

Something which I have been attempting, without success, to do for the past 37 years.


Michael

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

I Hope You Understand
What You’re Reading

If Moses were alive today, he would not have written Chapter 3 of Genesis.

Inasmuch as this is the time for the Revelations finally to be made known and ‘unsealed’, in accordance with the Prophecy in Chapter 12, verse 9 of the Book of Daniel; and, inasmuch as Moses received both the Vision of the “Son of man” (referred to in Chapter 3, verse 24 of Genesis as the “Tree of Life”) and the Revelation which would later be referred to as the Revelation of “the resurrection”…

He would, instead, have written a more detailed explanation of the differentiation between the consciousness Created by God and the ‘fallen’ consciousness:

http://science-of-consciousness.blogspot.com/2011/04/towards-new-paradigm-of-consciousness-i.html

Michael

Thursday, March 28, 2013

On the Warfare
of Consciousness and Knowledge

The ‘war in heaven between Michael and his angels and the dragon and his angels’ is a war at the level of consciousness and Knowledge; a War of the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness; a war between the non-dualistic consciousness Created by God and the dualistic consciousness of the “self” (or the “ego”—symbolized by the “beast of the sea”), and the ‘thinker’ (symbolized by the “beast of the earth”); a war between the Knowledge received through Revelation and the knowledge (images and thoughts) of the dualistic consciousness.

The Knowledge of Revelation consists of the Knowledge Revealed through the Vision of the “Son of man”, the Revelation of the Memory of Creation, the Revelation of the Memory of ‘the Fall’ into the dualistic consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’, and the revelation of the memories of previous lives.

The knowledge of the “self” consists of sensations and perceptions of, as well as behaviors within the space-time physical reality; memories and images of those sensations, perceptions and behaviors; and emotions associated with the formation, expansion and shattering of the images of the ‘spatiality’ of the consciousness of the “self” (referred to by Jewish mystics as the ‘shattering of the vessels’); whereas the knowledge of the ‘thinker’ consists of logic, the scientific method and other repeatable and verifiable evidence-based descriptions of the space-time reality.

Knowledge conveyed by the “Vision of Knowledge”, the “Tree of Life”, the “Night Journey” and the Revelation of “the resurrection”, because it is both non-spatial and non-temporal—that is, does not originate in either the ‘movement’ of self-reflection, the postulation of the thought of the ‘thinker’, or sensations and perceptions of the space-time reality—shatters the images of the ‘spatiality’ of the consciousness of the “self”, while stopping the ‘time’ of the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ (thus, the significance of the phrase in Chapter 12, verse 9 of the Book of Daniel “At the time of the End…”; and the phrase in Chapter 10, verse 7 of the Revelation of John “Time will be no longer…”; mistranslated in the Jerusalem Bible as “The time of waiting is over…”).

In other words, the confrontation between the Knowledge conveyed by Revelation and the dualistic consciousness is an annihilating conflict; as signified by the opening of the Sixth Seal, which symbolizes the annihilation of the ‘fallen’ consciousness, prior to the opening of the Seventh Seal, which symbolizes the receiving of the Vision of the “Son of man” itself.

And, because it “knows that its time is short”—or “its days are numbered” (with numbers specifically mentioned in both the Book of Daniel and the Revelation of John, the ‘fallen’, dualistic consciousness of the “self” denies Revealed Knowledge on the basis of images of ‘spatiality’, which it considers evidentiary (the Sadduceean perspective); whereas the ‘fallen’, dualistic consciousness of the ‘thinker’ contradicts Revealed Knowledge on the basis of the thoughts of the ‘thinker’ (the Pharisaical perspective), whose goal is nothing more than self-preservation of the dualistic consciousness against annihilation.

For example, in response to descriptions of the revelation of the memories of previous lives conveyed by the non-dualistic consciousness—that is, not consisting of images of the “self”—(Chapter  26, verse 19 of the Book of Isaiah Chapter 27, verses 52-53 of the Gospel of Matthew and Chapter 20, verses 34-36 of the Gospel of Luke) the consciousness of the “self” projects images of ‘spatiality’, solely for reasons of self-preservation, consisting of images of dead bodies arising from the grave; whereas, such images, being ephemeral and transitory—and, thus, inherently unreliable and unstable—the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ then expropriates metaphysical philosophy for the purpose of preserving those images and that ‘spatiality’ of consciousness by means of doctrine.

Being unable to form an effective image of the consciousness Created by God—the formation of images being crucial to the preservation of the consciousness of the “self”—and the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ being incapable of apprehending the Knowledge conveyed by that consciousness—the most common response of the ‘fallen’ consciousness is simply to deny the Message altogether; and to focus, instead, upon the messenger, resulting in the projection of images of evil and accusations of evil based upon images whose only goal is to preserve that ‘fallen’ consciousness at any cost; images and accusations of evil which are merely a prelude to violence.

It is that reaction, multiplied hundreds of millions of times, that will result in the “time of trouble” Prophesied by Daniel.

Michael

Sunday, February 24, 2013

Friday, April 01, 2011

Towards A New Paradigm of Consciousness

I. Jungian Psychology, Animal Telepathy & the
“Science of Consciousness”
[In conformity with requirements set out by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions {and with no expectation that it will be quickly or widely recognized as being “crazy enough to have a chance of being correct” (Niels Bohr)}, the following essay postulates the existence of a non-spatial—and, thus, species non-specific—3rd dimension of consciousness beyond the consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’; a dimension of consciousness within the context of which the current paradigm of the (‘classical’) “science of consciousness” is to be understood as a ‘special case’ (focusing exclusively upon the consciousness of the ‘thinker’) of a more all-inclusive description of consciousness based upon the acknowledgement of three rather than only one dimension of consciousness; a description of consciousness which extends the range of applicability of the ‘classical’ “science of consciousness” to Jungian psychology and, for example, animal presentiment and telepathy.]

The original goal of classical physics was to establish the fundamental laws for describing the structure and contents of the space-time physical reality, rather than merely to maintain and preserve the paradigm of classical physics itself as the reigning paradigm for the determination of all physical theory. And it was for this reason that the classical physicists of the early-to-mid 20th century—who, interestingly enough, placed much more importance upon the development of an all-inclusive physical theory than upon merely the preservation of classical physics—widely, but not immediately, acknowledged the validity of both the Michelson-Morley experiment and the discoveries of Einstein and Heisenberg.
In other words, in order that the original goal of classical physics be achieved at all, it was eventually found to be necessary to set aside classical physics itself in favor of a much more inclusive physical theory with a much wider range of applicability; a physical theory including classical physics, relativity theory and quantum mechanics.
Similarly, the ultimate goal of science is to achieve an all-inclusive description of both the physical reality and the totality of human (and animal) consciousness and experience, rather than merely to maintain and preserve the scientific method as the unassailable and reigning paradigm for the complete and accurate description of the physical-conscious reality.

In other words, just as it eventually became necessary to acknowledge both relativity theory and quantum mechanics in order to more closely achieve the original goal of classical physics to establish a complete physical theory, it may very well also be necessary to set aside the entire paradigm (and the fundamental rules) of the scientific method itself in order to actually achieve, not merely in theory but in reality, the ultimate goal of science; that is, an all-inclusive understanding of both the physical and the conscious reality which includes information which is as different from, and outside the paradigm and conceptual boundaries of the scientific method as relativity theory and quantum mechanics are different from and beyond the frame of reference of classical physics. (In other words, it is, perhaps, the very assumptions, pre-conceptions and psychological-conceptual structures of the scientific method itself—for example, the uni-directionality of time in a forward direction, and the ‘spatiality’ of consciousness itself to only the “self”, the ‘thinker’, and the members of the human species—which are now providing the main stumbling blocks to revolutionary developments in both theoretical physics and the understanding of both human and animal consciousness.)
Thus, the existence of, in particular, the “science of consciousness” within the framework of the scientific method necessarily raises an important question crucial not only to the very development of the “science of consciousness” itself; but, also, to the very future of the scientific method as the reigning paradigm for the most complete and accurate description of both the physical and the conscious reality:

What, precisely, is the ultimate goal of any (‘classical’) “science of consciousness”?

Is that goal merely to arrive at an understanding of consciousness from strictly within the framework of the scientific method itself—that is, to maintain and preserve the status of the scientific method as the only paradigm capable of providing a complete and accurate understanding of both human and animal consciousness and experience? Or is its purpose, instead, to actually acquire a much deeper understanding of consciousness than that which can be provided by the scientific method; that is, an understanding which also includes information from outside of a rigidly scientific paradigm, but which is just as important to the understanding of the entirety of human and animal consciousness and experience as was the inclusion of relativity theory and quantum mechanics in the development of a much more inclusive physical theory?
Now, to begin with, it must be acknowledged that both the scientific method and the “science of consciousness” originate in the consciousness of the ‘thinker’, and the assumption that the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ is both the fundamental datum of human experience and the ‘inertial frame of reference’ for the complete and accurate description of both the entire physical and conscious reality; a consciousness and an assumption which, in turn, are based upon the metaphysical duality and the philosophy of Descartes. And it is on this basis that the findings of, especially, Jung and the other archetypal psychologists with regards to the consciousness of the “self” (see, for example, the opening passages of the Second Meditation of Descartes) are, to this day, widely trivialized, disregarded and ignored (but no less so than the findings of Reverse Speech Analysis and Parapsychology) as being ‘unscientific’; and, thus, utterly and completely irrelevant to any emergent “science of consciousness”.
In other words, it was only natural that, from its very inception from within the conceptual framework of Cartesian philosophy and the scientific method, the “science of consciousness” deny, trivialize and ignore the reality of the consciousness of the “self” (and its obvious relevance to the understanding of human consciousness, if not the establishing of, specifically, a “science” of consciousness) and focus, instead, almost exclusively on the consciousness of the ‘thinker’; the real question now being whether the scientists of consciousness will continue to “circle the wagons” (by focusing exclusively on the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ and its scientific descriptions of, exclusively, human consciousness), or whether the information with regards to the consciousness of the “self” will, instead, be acknowledged, considered, and incorporated within a more inclusive ‘science’ of consciousness as being no less crucial to the development of a much more complete understanding of consciousness than can occur within the frame of reference of, exclusively, the (‘classical’) “science of consciousness” and the (human) consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’.
But there is, in fact, a much more serious problem (than even acknowledging the reality of the consciousness of the “self”) which must be encountered by any “science of consciousness” which seriously purports to describe the entirety of both human and animal consciousness; even a ‘science’ of consciousness which has become more complete (even if less ‘scientific’ or ‘classical’) by acknowledging, also, the reality of the consciousness of the “self”. And that has to do with those findings of Reverse Speech Analysis and Time Symmetrical Quantum Mechanics (in the context of, literally, decades of research demonstrating the validity of pre-cognition, extra-sensory perception and/or clairvoyance in humans as well as animals; see, for example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo0gyXZQv0o&feature=related
which clearly demonstrate the existence of information which, although of immediate relevance to the understanding of consciousness, not only flies in the face of both the fundamental assumptions of the scientific method and the “science of consciousness”; but, also, threatens the very existence of the consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’ itself which is based upon the assumption of both the uni-directionality of time and the ‘spatiality’ of consciousness to only the “self”, the ‘thinker’, and the members of the human species.
And what I have observed over the past few years is that the fundamental goal of those presently involved in the “science of consciousness” is certainly not to develop any all-inclusive understanding of human (to say nothing of animal) consciousness; but, rather, to merely preserve the scientific method itself (and, not coincidentally, to prevent their own consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’ from collapsing into psychosis); which necessarily requires the trivialization of the reality of not only the consciousness of the “self” (which, of course, is the consciousness that experiences psychosis in the first place); but, also, a non-spatial (or 2-dimensional ‘flat’ space)—and, thus, species non-specific—time-independent consciousness; the existence of which is made necessary by the findings of Reverse Speech Analysis, Time Symmetrical Quantum Mechanics and Parapsychology.
In other words, the only description of consciousness which is, in any way, seriously capable of actually achieving the ultimate goal of the “science of consciousness” in the description of both human and animal consciousness is a description of consciousness which is based upon the acknowledgement that there are not merely one or two; but, in fact, three dimensions of consciousness:
1) the consciousness of the ‘thinker’—symbolized by the “fig leaves” in Genesis 3:7 (see, also, Saying #37 in the Gospel of Thomas), and by the Third Seal (6:5-6) and the “beast of the earth” in Revelations 13:11 and Sura 27:82 of the Quran;

2) the consciousness of the “self”—symbolized by the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” in Genesis 3:3-6, and by the Second Seal (6:3-4) and the “beast of the sea” in Revelations 13:1 (which, together with the consciousness of the ‘thinker’, comprise the dualistic or ‘fallen’ consciousness); and,

3) a non-dualistic, 2-dimensional ‘flat’ space—and, thus, species non-specific—time-independent, “observing consciousness” Created ‘by and in the image of God’ (Genesis 1:27)—represented by the “Tree of Life” in Genesis 3:24 which symbolizes the Vision of the “Son of man”/the “Vision of Knowledge”/the “Night Journey” of Mohammed; and by the First Seal in Revelations 6:1-2.

II. 3-Dimensional Consciousness, 3-Dimensional Geometry
Depending upon the way in which the physicist designs the experiment, an electron sometimes has the properties of a particle and sometimes has the properties of a wave; and, for that reason, is sometimes referred to as a ‘wavicle’.
But, in fact, there is no such thing as a ‘wavicle’. There is merely a ‘something’ which has the properties of both a particle and a wave. And to say that there is a ‘wavicle’ is to say that there is a shape in plane geometry called a ‘squircle’, and which sometimes has the properties of a square and sometimes has the properties of a circle.
Now, with regards to the paradigm of the “three dimensions of consciousness”, some enterprising ‘scientist’ of consciousness may very well acknowledge that there are, in fact, three dimensions of consciousness; but then insist, nevertheless, that there must be a necessarily consciousness of the ‘thinker’-based ‘theory’ or ‘science’ of consciousness which can accomplish an explanatory and all-inclusive ‘grand unification’—in violation of ‘Einstein’s Razor’, I would argue—of even these three dimensions of consciousness.
But that would be to say that there is a shape in solid geometry called a ‘cupheramid’, and which has the properties of a cube (representing the consciousness of the ‘thinker’), a sphere (representing the consciousness of the “self”), and a pyramid (representing the “observing consciousness”).
Furthermore, if an attempt is made to visualize a mathematical point, it is generally visualized as the tiniest sphere possible—rather than, for example, the tiniest pyramid, or tetrahedron, or octahedron possible. And, if that ‘spherical’ mathematical point represents the ‘movement’ of self-reflection, the consciousness of the “self” would be represented by the sphere itself, the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ would be represented by the ‘cubing of that sphere’—that is, the ‘squaring of that circle’ in 3 dimensions (the 3-dimensional Cartesian co-ordinate system; 2 dimensions of which are represented by the background of the following dance:
the black color of the dancers costumes representing the color of the Third Seal of the Revelation of John and representing the consciousness of the ‘thinker’) by adding a fourth dimension of time (notice the increasing tempo of the dance)—whereas the “observing consciousness” would be represented by a pyramid, the mathematical (‘spherical’) point at the top of the pyramid representing the ‘movement’ of self-reflection that gives rise to the “self”.
Thus, the symbols of the Eastern esoteric traditions by which the genital chakra is represented by a square (the consciousness of the ‘thinker’), the heart chakra is represented by a circle (the consciousness of the “self”), and the forehead chakra is represented by an upward pointing triangle (the “observing consciousness”).
And, thus, the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ and the scientific method can be represented by a square; the consciousness of the “self” and Jungian psychology can be represented by a circle; and the “observing consciousness” and the paradigm of the “three dimensions of consciousness” can be represented by a triangle.
And, if you watch the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vR_51ygQb8U&feature=related

carefully, you will observe that, near the beginning of the dance, the base of the triangle (which, in three dimensions, is a pyramid) which represents a square and the consciousness of the ‘thinker’—and, within that triangle, the dancers turn in counter-clockwise (indicating time-reversal) circles (which, in three dimensions, would be spheres), representing the consciousness of the “self”—is closest to the audience; whereas, with the arrival of Michael Flatley, the triangle is inverted, with the point of the triangle (or pyramid) being closest to the audience (and only Michael Flatley turns counter-clockwise, and only once, representing the ‘movement’ of self-reflection, or the ‘pirouette’ of consciousness, as is alluded to in the following song:
And, furthermore, the intersection of the upward pointing and downward pointing triangles is also represented in the Star of David.

III. Static Vs. Dynamic Consciousness
Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity is said to have originated in a thought experiment—or, more accurately, a visualization experiment (the term “thought” experiment itself is evidence of the insistence of the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ that it is the only source of information about the physical-conscious reality)—of what a beam of light would look like to an observer who is moving at the speed of light. Similarly, after studying the nature of the carbon-carbon bonds for several years, Kekulé is said to have received a dream (the accounts vary) of six snakes in the form of a circle, each with the tail of the next snake in its mouth; from which he intuited the structure of the benzene ring. And, in each of these instances, a scientific discovery was made on the basis of information which originated from outside the frame of reference of the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ itself.
The origin of the three dimensions of consciousness paradigm, however—which, however, does not claim to be a scientific theory in the first place; but, rather, a direct observation of the reality of consciousness (and, thus, non-Popper-falsifiable)—was neither a “visualization experiment” nor a dream; but, instead, consisted of a vision I received; which, only later, was understood as signifying the opening of the sixth (or crown) chakra (which occurred precisely 2 ½ days prior to the opening of the Sixth Seal, as described in Chapter 6:12-17 of the Revelation of John); the relevance to the understanding of consciousness which is as follows:
Among those who are attempting to formulate an all-inclusive, ‘unified’ “science of consciousness” or over-all ‘theory’ of consciousness, there now appear to be two principal perspectives; each of which, I would argue, consists of a description of consciousness as a static rather than a dynamic entity: 1) the perspective of the “scientists of consciousness”, which occurs from within the framework of the scientific method, and in accordance with the conceptual structures and requirements of the consciousness of the ‘thinker’; and, 2) the Reichian-Jungian perspective on consciousness, which stresses the importance of including, also, the not-precisely-scientific data with regards to the ‘unconscious’, the ‘archetypes of the unconscious’, and the consciousness of the “self” in any balanced and complete understanding of consciousness.
I would argue, however, that consciousness is, instead, a dynamic process rather than a static entity; a process which cannot be adequately explained by either or both of these static descriptions of consciousness, but which involves the rapid oscillation between three dimensions of consciousness: a 3-dimensional ‘curved-spatiality’ of consciousness referred to as a consciousness of the “self”; an extension of that ‘curved-spatiality’ of consciousness through time, constituting a consciousness of the ‘thinker’; and a 2-dimensional, ‘flat’-space “observing consciousness” which exists both ‘outside of’ and ‘prior to’ the ‘curved-spatiality’ consciousness of the “self”, and that consciousness extended in time by the consciousness of the ‘thinker’.
This dynamic view of consciousness can, perhaps, be best visualized by the rapid oscillation in a 3-dimensional space of a geometric figure consisting of a cube, a sphere and a pyramid; each of which is, simultaneously, rotating in all directions: the cube representing the consciousness of the ‘thinker’, the sphere representing the consciousness of the “self”, and the pyramid representing the “observing consciousness”—all of which is a partial description of the vision I received on November 28, 1974.

IV. Self-Reflection As the Origin of Consciousness
The implications and significance of the ‘movement’ of self-reflection can be understood only if there is a very careful observation of the origin and over-all movement of consciousness, however that is defined, itself:
Assume that you are at a concert listening to Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony. You are completely immersed into and absorbed by the beauty of the music, to the point that you have completely lost all awareness of any “self”; and there is, in fact, no experiencer which can be at all separated from that experience. In other words, the ‘experience’ and the ‘experiencer’ still consist of a unified entity of ‘not yet experiencer’ and ‘not yet experience’.

In the very next instant, the time of which cannot be either predicted or explained—nor is this an ‘action’ which can be performed intentionally, since it is merely a reflex—you instantly become aware of yourself as being at the concert and listening to the music; something which you experience as being quite pleasurable. There is, somehow, a ‘pirouette’ of consciousness itself, or a ‘movement’ of self-reflection by which you become aware of yourself as an experiencer experiencing an experience; a realization which, however, is then immediately consumed by the pleasure of the experience itself, causing the “self” to be, once again, consumed in that pleasure. In other words, although the ‘movement’ of self-reflection has made it possible for you to acknowledge and experience the pleasure of the music; that very pleasure causes you to forget that, immediately prior to the experience of the pleasure of that music, there had to have occurred a differentiation of that ‘not yet experiencer’ and ‘not yet experience’ into an experiencer and an experience. And this is the very first instance of pleasure taking precedence over knowledge; specifically, the knowledge of what precisely occurs with the ‘movement’ of self-reflection itself. In other words, the experience of pleasure always leads to a forgetfulness of the fact that there is a ‘spatiality’ of consciousness —that is, the “self”—which exists immediately prior to the experience of pleasure.
Now, there are a number of things that need to be understood with regards to the observation of the ‘movement’ of self-reflection.
First of all, that ‘movement’ cannot be observed by the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ because, in fact, the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ does not yet exist; there having been no (even ‘unconscious’) postulation of the thought of either a ‘thinker’, or a “self”, or an “I”; the experiencer not yet having been differentiated from the experience.
Secondly, however, this ‘movement’ of self-reflection also cannot be observed by the consciousness of the “self” either; and for precisely the same reason. That is, not even the consciousness of the “self” yet exists to observe the ‘movement’ of self-reflection; because, as already stated, there has not yet been any differentiation into an experiencer and an experience. Translation: the “self” cannot observe its own creation for the same reason that you cannot observe your own birth.
In other words, that the ‘movement’ of self-reflection can be observed at all necessarily means that there is an “observing consciousness” ‘prior to’ and ‘outside of’ the consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’ to observe that ‘movement’. But, at the same time, it must also be acknowledged that this ‘movement’ of self-reflection cannot be observed as it is occurring, but only after the fact. In other words, the first piece of knowledge that is acquired by the observation of the ‘movement’ of self-reflection is that it has already occurred—and that, in each and every instance in which it occurs, it is recognized as occurring only after it has occurred—leaving, as its only vestige, the knowledge that it has occurred rather than the actual observing of that ‘movement’ as it occurs. That is, the “observing consciousness” itself is consumed by the knowledge that the ‘movement’ of self-reflection has already occurred.
But this knowledge (by the “observing consciousness”) that the ‘movement’ of self-reflection has already occurred is merely one element of the knowledge of what that ‘movement’ signifies.
What must be understood here is that this ‘movement’ of self-reflection, in fact, creates the consciousness of the “self” itself; a consciousness of a “self” which ‘performs’ the ‘movement’ of self-reflection itself. In other words, uni-directional time has not yet been created. Thus, in fact, the ‘movement’ of self-reflection must occur in bi-directional time, creating (reflexively) the “self” which ‘performs’ the ‘movement’ of self-reflection… which creates the “self” which performs the ‘movement’ of self-reflection creating the “self” which ‘performs’ that ‘movement’ etc.
And, once that “self” has been created by the ‘movement’ of self-reflection, there is additional knowledge about the implications and significance of the origin of that consciousness of the “self”.
Observing the “self” very carefully, it can then be seen that the ‘movement’ of self-reflection creates both a separation from the space-time reality itself as well as a localized ‘spatiality’ of consciousness consisting of a “self”/“not self” (more easily visualized as a sphere; with the “self” inside of that sphere and the “not self” outside of that sphere). In other words, there is a ‘spatiality’ of consciousness which can be differentiated from the physical reality (hence, the origin of the metaphysical duality—that is, the separation of matter from consciousness) which is then considered the “not self” (and not conscious) as well as other “selves”, which are also considered by the “self” as being part of the “not self”. In other words, the ‘spatiality’ of my consciousness of a “self”—which to you, however, is part of your “not self”—exists over here; while the ‘spatiality’ of the consciousness of your “self” exists over there and is part of my “not self”.
But, at the same time, it must also be acknowledged that this ‘movement’ of self-reflection is a reflex rather than an intentional behavior, there being, as yet, no “self” to have any intention. And, since all behaviors consisting of a reflex originate in neurology, the function of which is to preserve the existence and pleasure of the organism while avoiding annihilation, pain, and threats of annihilation and pain, the neurological origin of the ‘movement’ of self-reflection is in the desire for biological self-preservation and pleasure, and the fear of annihilation and pain. In other words, similar to the way in which the “self”/“not self” emerges instantaneously out of the 2-dimensional ‘flat’ space and into the 3-dimensional ‘curved’ space by means of the ‘movement’ of self-reflection; so, too, desire and fear also emerge instantaneously into that 3-dimensional ‘curved’ space; a desire and fear which is then associated with not merely biological preservation and pleasure; but, also, with the preservation and pleasure of the “self”/“not self” which has been created by the ‘movement’ of self-reflection in the first place. Thus, the ‘movement’ of self-reflection is the source of all dualities: “self”/“not self”, pleasure/pain, etc. etc….as well as “good” and “evil”; “good” being associated with the preservation and pleasure of the “self”; “evil” being associated with the annihilation of the “self” as well as anything which is painful to the “self”.
The next step in the progression of consciousness, then, is in the postulation of the thought of the “self”, or the ‘thinker’, or the “I” for the purpose of maintaining the existence of the ‘spatiality’ of the consciousness of the “self” over time (and which, thus, is the origin of uni-directional time); in which case all of the thoughts and beliefs of the ‘thinker’ perform the function of preserving the consciousness of the “self” from collapsing into psychosis. Thus, anyone who threatens the validity of the thoughts or beliefs of the ‘thinker’ is categorized as “evil”; while anyone who validates the thoughts or beliefs of the ‘thinker’—and, thus, prevents the “self” from collapsing into psychosis—is categorized as “good”.
Thus, without the ‘movement’ of self-reflection, it is crucial to understand that there would be no consciousness at all; while, at the same time, that ‘movement’ is the source of both all dualities and the “self”/“not self”; while, on the other hand, the observation of the ‘movement’ of self-reflection demonstrates the existence of that third dimension of consciousness itself, which I refer to as the “observing consciousness”.
Observing the ‘movement’ of self-reflection again, then, it becomes clear that the ‘pirouette’ of consciousness referred to as the ‘movement’ of self-reflection itself can, perhaps, be more accurately understood as an instantaneous jump from the 2-dimensional ‘flat’ space consciousness of the “observing consciousness” into the 3-dimensional ‘curved’ space consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’; the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ being created by simply the postulation of the thought of the ‘thinker’ in the same way that the “self” is created by the ‘movement’ of self-reflection.
And, finally, anyone who is capable of reading, following, and understanding the above explanation is, during that time, directly experiencing the “observing consciousness”, whereas the inability to follow and understand this explanation signifies that the reader is operating, instead, in either the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ or the consciousness of the “self”.
V. Memories of Previous Lives & the 3-Dimensional Consciousness
The receiving of the memories of previous lives is one of those aspects or experiences of consciousness which is of no interest whatsoever to the ‘classical’ scientists of consciousness (yet, for some unknown reason, they still claim to be pursuing an ‘all-inclusive explanation’ of consciousness); especially insofar as it poses a direct and lethal threat to the unsupported assumption and (often-unarticulated) dogma of the “science of consciousness” (and the scientific method in general) that the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ is, in fact, the sole and ultimate determiner of the absolute and objective truth about the physical-conscious reality; one of those ‘absolute’ and ‘objective’ ‘truths’ being, for example, that people live only one life (after all, the vast majority of people have had no memories of previous lives at all; thus, almost necessitating, from a scientific perspective, that such memories simply be ignored altogether as being nothing more than ‘anomalous’ or ‘anecdotal’). And, similarly, those with a Reichian or Jungian perspective on consciousness typically acknowledge little relevance or significance of the memories of previous lives to what Jung has referred to as the “individuation process”.
With the realization that there are, in fact, 2 additional dimensions of consciousness beyond the consciousness of the ‘thinker’, however, the receiving of memories of previous lives is readily understood to be merely additional evidence in support of the existence of that 3rd dimension of consciousness; a non-temporal, time-independent dimension of consciousness which exists ‘outside’ of, and both prior and subsequent to the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ and the consciousness of “self” in any one life. And, within the paradigm of the 3 dimensions of consciousness, it can be understood that the receiving of memories of previous lives conveys information from previous “selves” as well as ‘thinkers’.
Efforts to establish the scientific validity of the memories of previous lives are concerned primarily if not exclusively with memories of the consciousness of a ‘thinker’ with regards to those previous lives insofar as it is only memories of the consciousness of a ‘thinker’ which are capable of being validated independently and scientifically. And in this genre I would place such books as Soul Survivor; Old Souls; Children Who Remember Previous Lives: A Question of Reincarnation; Unlearned Language: New Studies in Xenoglossy and any other book or study which attempts to validate the reality of previous lives.
In addition to these scientifically-verifiable instances demonstrating the reality of previous lives, however, there are also other memories—that is, memories not primarily of a ‘thinker’, but of a “self”—which are not capable of independent validation insofar as they consist primarily of immediate sensations, perceptions and emotions (in other words, the experiences of a “self”) rather than the thoughts of a ‘thinker’.
In the monotheistic Revelations, for example, one of the elements of the Revelation of the “resurrection” includes the revelation of the memories of previous lives; memories which, however, focus either exclusively or primarily upon memories not of a ‘thinker’ but of a “self”; memories which would include, for example, not fluency in the language that was spoken in that previous life, nor memories of what people looked like in those previous lives; but, rather, for example, memories of other “selves” with whom that person had experienced close personal relationships in those previous lives, thus providing sufficient knowledge to enable him or her to recognize the identities of those people in both their past and their present lives; none of which, of course, however true it is, can be scientifically validated.

VI. Non-Dualistic/Dualistic Consciousness in the Gospel of Thomas



The fundamental assumption of the ‘classical’ “scientists of consciousness”, although it is not always plainly, loudly, or consistently articulated (but merely taken for granted as a ‘given’), is that the scientific method is, for all practical purposes, the “only game in town”; that is, the only available, viable and genuinely serious paradigm for the objective, accurate and complete explanation or description of the reality of human consciousness.

On the other hand, those adhering to a Reichian or Jungian perspective on consciousness insist that no explanation of human consciousness can be at all complete without, in addition, an understanding of the ‘unconscious’ or the consciousness of the “self”. And, with the inclusion of this psycho-analytical perspective on consciousness, it is widely, if not universally considered (by Western civilization, at least) that virtually all conscious reality has been brought well within the framework of the current understandings; in a way similar to the way in which classical physics was once considered to be a complete explanation of the physical reality.
But, in addition to the findings of the parapsychologists and Reverse Speech Analysis, there are a number of statements in the Gospel of Thomas which very seriously and specifically challenge this assumption; and which clearly demonstrate not only the existence of another dimension of consciousness altogether unknown to, and absolutely and completely beyond the frame of reference of both the scientific method and the archetypal psychologists (and thus, beyond, respectively, both the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ and the consciousness of the “self”); but, also, that such a third dimension of consciousness constituted a quite crucial element of the Teaching of Jesus; something which, however, is also altogether unknown to, and absolutely and completely beyond the frame of reference of Christian theology; which, similar to the “science of consciousness”, relies primarily, if not exclusively upon the consciousness of the ‘thinker’; the function of which is to preserve the consciousness of the “self” over time.
The following statements of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas, then:
From Saying #11: “On the day that you were one you became two.”
From Saying #19: “Blessed is he who came into being before he came into being.”
From Saying #22: “When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same…then will you enter [the kingdom].”
From Saying #61: “I am he who exists from the undivided.”
From Saying #85: “Adam came into being from a great power and a great wealth, but he did not become worthy of you. For, had he been worthy [he would] not [have experienced] death…”
From Saying #106: “ When you make the two one you will become the ‘Son of man’.”
can be summarized as follows:
1) Man was Created ‘by and in the image of God’ (Genesis 1:27) with a non-dualistic consciousness which ‘came into being’ before the dualistic consciousness (of the “self” and the ‘thinker’) ‘came into being’;
2) It is not merely possible but necessary to regain the experience of that non-dualistic dimension of consciousness (beyond the dualistic consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’) in which all dualities are resolved;
3) The emergence of—that is, ‘the Fall’ into--the dualistic consciousness from the non-dualistic consciousness is what is referred to in the Gospel of Thomas as ‘death’; and,
4) The term “Son of man” itself—and its referent: the Vision of the “Son of man”—is to be understood as a manifestation or expression of the non-dualistic consciousness with which man was Created by God.
And, in the context of this affirmation by Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas of the existence of a non-dualistic, third dimension of consciousness prior to the dualistic consciousness of the “self” and the ‘thinker’, it can clearly be observed that both the “scientists of consciousness” as well as the Reichian and Jungian analysts have very sharply restricted their understanding of human consciousness to an examination of, exclusively, the dualistic or ‘fallen’ consciousness (of, respectively, the ‘thinker’ or the “self”); completely ignoring, however, both the Teaching of Jesus about the non-dualistic consciousness Created ‘by and in the image of God’, as well as the teachings of the Eastern esoteric traditions with regards to the (“uncreated”—that is, without any reliance upon God) non-dualistic “observing consciousness”; at least a part of which—specifically, that the dualistic consciousness of the ‘thinker’ constitutes (if not the origin, at least) an intensification of duality, conflict and violence—for example, is to be found in the teachings of J. Krishnamurti.
Thus, as far as I have been able to determine, all current efforts to develop a new a new understanding of consciousness are and have been focused exclusively on the development of a new “science” of consciousness—or on the achievement of a rigidly “scientific” revolution in the understanding of consciousness—not only to the specific and categorical denial, however, that there is a third, non-dualistic dimension of consciousness; but also, until recently, involving the relentless censorship and exclusion of any non-dualistic perspective on consciousness as even being at all relevant to the conversation.
And the major source of this resistance to acknowledging the existence, relevance and importance of the third, non-dualistic dimension of consciousness is the ‘classical’ “scientists of consciousness”—that is, the perspective on consciousness of the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ (which also, by the way, ignores the relevance and importance of the consciousness of the “self” to an over-all understanding of human consciousness); symbolized in the fractal Prophecy of Chapter 11 of the Book of Daniel as the “king of the South”, and in the fractal Prophecy of Chapter 13 of the Revelation of John as the “beast of the earth”.