In my past meditative experiences, especially when I was going through the Gnostic texts, including the Pistis Sophia, as well as other texts relating to Mary Magdalene, I would feel significant heartbreak. Whether it was placing myself in the shoes of Mary Magdalene and witnessing the crucifixion of her beloved, or actually feeling myself going through Christ's ordeal from being betrayed by fellow followers, to the spear of destiny intruding my figure, such meditations revealed itself with incredible intensity leaving me tearfully heartbroken.
Just recently, I had the ability to revisit this experience through the masterful meditative energy work of Panache Desai, through one of his webinars associated with Jesus. Though the intensity was nowhere near my prior experience in terms of anguish, most likely because I had already been through that, but it was more revealing in a heart opening sense. While Panache instructs the meditator in a particular journey, the body accepts the energy flow, but the mind takes you to another vision.
From being the divine child accepting the gifts of the magi, as well as nourishment from the divine Mother, to being nailed to the cross with utter humiliation being naked and degraded before all, Jesus represents the ultimate sacrifice of his self for the greater good. All of which I felt in my journey into Christ Consciousness under the "spell" of Panache, which I feel now is the ability to unconditionally love.
As I have articulated prior, and more so established through this meditative experience, Jesus did not become Christ by being nailed to the cross, but what happened to him internally when such occurred. He looked out towards his people, the individuals he so wished to bring the blessings of heaven, those who were mocking him and ready to do the worst to him, Jesus simply stated, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do". (Luke 23:34) The ultimate act of love, the ability to forgive the worst of them, Jesus asked the Ultimate to not let anyone bear the karma of their actions towards him, with no element of revenge or spite. Hence, Jesus showed us the ability to love despite our worst circumstances, and towards those who treat us the worst.
The ability to unconditionally love despite circumstances is what Tibetan Buddhists practice to attain the state of "rainbow light body", a magical technique confirmed by the Catholic Church. However, given that circumstances can be difficult to love, most of such monks take to a cave or another place of seclusion in order to make every thought, every emotion, that of compassionate love. In addition, in order to ignite the "merkaba" of the Egyptian tradition, such intensity of love is required and can be felt and further nourished by the rotation of the star tetrahedron. Overall, to attain the status of Christ, Buddha, or Pharaoh (a certain level of spiritual elevation was required to be Pharaoh), one needs to acquire the ability to unconditionally love all that is.
No doubt, if you're getting mocked, spit on, whipped, and nailed onto a cross for everyone to see, while all the time remaining with an open heart, you've attained a level of conscious mastery, Christ Consciousness. Therefore, I feel that the power of Christ is not the actual act of being crucified, but it is how he responded to his circumstances. With unconditional forgiveness and unconditional love.
In my search of becoming closer to the divine through a tradition that is associated with Hinduism, I'm left re-discovering, or should I say uncovering, much ideology to be a mere attempt to synthesize differing teachings. My love for the divine in her tantrik forms, have left me questioning numerous Brahmanic practices. There's still much left to be uncovered, and I'm finding that religious biases are what is pushing historical inaccuracies.
From Indus Valley having no religious icons, sans a one-inch stamp depicting a male seated with horns, along with numerous horned animals in conjunction with pregnant feminine icons, we are provided with a stretch of the imagination pushing that figure to be Shiva. Moreover, in the Vedic tradition, it is still unclear how Vishnu overtook the pantheon, when Varuna was the ultimate, followed by Indra who is to be extensively more powerful than Vishnu. Nonetheless, the following puranic era established Vishnu as the head of the pantheon, but the stories do not seem to add up. In a prior post, I addressed how the figure Buddha Shakyamuni is more in-line with Shiva or tantra as opposed to Brahmanic dualist form-worship that is akin to Vishnu traditions. Hence, it appears to me that to state that Buddha Shakyamuni was an incarnation of Vishnu was done solely to cease conversions, especially in a tradition with a caste system that prohibits individuals from experiencing the divine, something tantra and Buddha Shakyamuni opposed.
It is important to note that new agers, particularly those with a theosophical interest of Mdm. Blavatsky, believe that Krishna and Jesus were incarnations of, not Vishnu, but Lord Maitreya. In terms of Krishna, that belief is starting to make more and more sense to me. In studying the history of the development of Hinduism, Hinduism is first and foremost not a religion, but a collective of differing cults, which was sought to be synthesized under the larger banner of Hinduism. This is not Protestant versus Catholic where the Christ figure is worshiped nonetheless, but it is Duality/Dvaita Vedanta/Right Hand Path versus Nonduality/Advaita Vedanta/Left Hand Path. For it seems that since the time of Brahmanic establishment, the lower parishioners have consistently rebelled under the patriarchal ruling, which led to the Upanishads, which led to the Puranas, which led to Tantra, which led to Bhakti (devotion). Though I can feel the beauty that has been established from such revolts and synthesis, the truth of these beings seem to have been manipulated.
Krishna is said to be the full embodiment of the energy of Vishnu, fully realized as one can say, unlike his prior incarnations including Rama who was constantly questioning Sita's fidelity. Like the Rama/Sita story where Ram is Vishnu and Sita is Lakshmi, a match made in heaven, Krishna's counterpart is to be Radha to carry on the tradition. But, Krishna doesn't marry Radha, he marries Rukmini and many other women. Again, of course the bhakti movement, with heavily influences of the Brahmanic Vaishnava lineage states he only married Rukmini, and Rukmini and Radha were the same person. Most Hindus will typically go on to believe such views, until they take a third-party scholarly approach in viewing the ancient texts. In order to combat/synthesize the tantric traditions, it is important for Krishna to have his feminine counterpart, or his Shakti, which is typically agreed upon to be Radha.
David Kinsley, in his book Hindu Goddesses, discovered from his research that the figure Radha was not developed until the 12th century. Hence, Radha is a fairly new character to develop, where the Mahabharata text extolling the virtues of Krishna most likely developed in the 4th century. Hence, a significant time has tolled between the establishment of the Mahabharata and the finding of Radha.
From Kinsley's numerous research, one text would depict Radha as married to another individual while she would spend the nights with Krishna. Another shows Krishna infuriating Radha by being with other women/gopis. Such texts include the Padma-, Brahma-vaivarata-, Devi-Bhagavata Purana, and the Venisamhara. Numerous other texts are listed, where Radha has solely one theme, her devotion to Krishna. That is her sole importance, unlike Sita who is associated with the Earth and with a King to bring abundance and prosperity (Lakshmi), Radha is known only for her devotional fanaticism to Krishna. Kinsley argues that such was done particularly under the Bhakti movement, to teach devotees to give up all, including one's spouse, for the divine. In fact, much of the bhakti movement would make all of the gopis illicit lovers of Krishna, where Krishna would walk away from one (probably Radha) when she would start feeling "special" compared to the other gopis.
That's where my issue in search for the truth comes in to play. At least Sita was associated with the Earth, as well as bringing abundance and prosperity as queen, all elements associated with Lakshmi. Moreover, if Lakshmi is associated with "Sri" in the Vedas, as in Sri Lakshmi, then she would be associated with numerous other gods and high ranking demons, where she would then finally associate with Vishnu when he ends up being on the top of the hierarchy during the churning of the ocean, another argument Kinsley makes. Hence, the reason why Rama would constantly question her fidelity. Make sense?
But Radha, I don't see any Lakshmi aspects to her, though there are very short stories of her astrological aspects explaining her uniqueness, and even a curse where she was to endure separation from Krishna. However, to omit her from Krishna's story will not have much damage, if any, unlike Sita in the Ramayana. In other words, she seems to be a figure developed out of the bhakti movement, and further synthesized with Krishna using tantrik ideology, where she is then fully developed in the Gitagovinda, and elevated much later in the 15th/16th century under the Rdhavallabhins and Sakhibhavas groups that place her at the center of the cosmos, a very tantrik non-Brahmanic ideology.
For someone who grew up chanting Radhe-Krishna, and looking to them as the "divine couple", the uncovered information is heartbreaking. It's like meeting your favorite idol/celebrity to only realize he/she is not what you thought. I'm still trying to figure out who this Vishnu character is, and overall the origin of the Aryan Brahmanic tradition, which much of Hinduism appears to be a rebellion against (Tantra/Bhakti/Etc.). There's so much convulsion for this conquering group, it appears that their tactic has been "if you can't beat them, join them", in order to survive throughout the ages. In my search for the truth, there appears to be a lot of undoing that needs to be done.
One thing is for sure. Those within the tradition fail to answer these questions, only alluding to "one must have devotion to understand", etc., or having a "misunderstanding of the Puranas", as evidenced by the numerous websites, with of course, a Brahmanic leaning. Of course, none of these answer these questions, including how Vishnu, the little unknown barely mentioned character in the Vedas, usurped Indra's position (same with Varuna). In fact, they are simply a scapegoat to continue dogmatic following, something the next generations will completely dissolve. We live in the age of information now. We have access to these texts with a few clicks away, and all of us have the ability to become more educated than ever, something completely new to the planet, something completely new to the Brahmanic caste system. In fact, the elders in my family would tell me that they didn't have access to these books, that the only way they could learn was to look over the priests shoulders to get a glimpse at these books. Going through these books myself, it feels like a whole new religion is unfolding picking away at everything I grew up to believe. The priestly class has perpetuated these dogmatic teachings, and I guess that's why I love the Shiva-Shakti aspect of Hinduism, as it is a slap in the face to Patriarchal Brahmanic culture. No doubt, my loved Shiva was the first to commit the greatest sin in Hinduism, Brahminicide. Do note, that I do not mean to further separate, especially when I have found so much beauty in Vishnu/Krishna and Radha, but even Jesus himself had to toss a few tables with the priestly class in his day.
I'm only searching for the truth.
I remember years back, my former girlfriend and I spent a "double-date" with one of her close colleagues. Out of the blue, the other girl in the automobile asked myself and her male date whether we "liked penis". Her date vehemently regurgitated "hell nah!", while I responded with the witty, "I like mine". Though my response was meant to be humorous as well as a jab at the other male's machismo response, taking a look into the emotions behind both of our responses expresses so much more than what was orally expressed on the surface.
Firstly, I never had an issue with homosexuals. It's not part of my religion to oppose them, nor did societal beliefs penetrate me as much as they have with many other individuals. Though I must concede, particularly in the 90s, it was not cool to be gay. In fact, if anything was considered "out-of-line", guys would typically interpret that particular situation as "gay". Hence, much of our verbiage and the way men would insult each other was to label each other as gay. Something I'm pleased that the next generation has not taken on, at least I think.
To understand whether I have gay sentiments is to dive into my own psychology, despite what society or religion wants. If I conjure the image of a male, particularly one deemed attractive by society, does it trigger me in any way? The response is generally no, where though I may admire a certain male physique as a fitness goal to aim for, I don't have the inclination to physically enjoy the male physique in another expression. Going through my historical memories, I never once had a male trigger me the way females have, with the flush of nervousness, sensational heart beat racing, and the ability to pull me into the moment to completely admire a beautiful female figure. Hence, there are no inclinations to a separate male form that entices my physical vehicle. Nonetheless, if there is, well, we should be free to choose to honor that expression.
One believes things because one has been conditioned to believe them. -Aldous Huxley
Going back to the response of "hell nah!", we can derive so much emotional backing behind barking such response. It wasn't just a simple "no", it was a passionate response as if there is no way he "likes penis". From my perspective, I don't really care whether someone likes penis or not, unless if it is someone I would like to be intimate with. In other words, being gay, or having homosexual inclinations, is not a big deal to me. Nonetheless, the fellow male colleague was most likely speaking from a societal perspective derived from an anti-homosexual stance, as well as a religious background from being raised Catholic. However, though not necessarily this individual since I'm unaware of his psyche, many individuals may simply be and act a certain way because it fits within the societal/cultural/religious norms. Moreover, society/culture/religion has seemed to have vehemently opposed homosexuality, which places targets on such individuals. The whole, thou shalt do this, thou shalt not do that, is completely manipulative, where circumstances should be assessed by a decision tree or karma instead.
"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." — Albert Einstein
In conclusion, I simply ask are we being true to ourselves, are we being transparent to our own emotions and the way we feel, or are we programmed by the societal/cultural/religious virus that has plagued our conscious/subconscious/collective conscious. Most of us in the western world go about the hustle and bustle of our daily tasks, where achievement and prosperity are the ultimate goals, but rarely do we traverse our own psyche to discover what lies within. Well, at least that was something that has never been taught to me in my 24+ years of western education.
Only meditation has let me discover what is truly resonate with myself. And really, fuck society, culture, religion, particularly where it is stagnant leaving no room for evolution. It's time to rediscover ourselves, what lies within, it's time to rediscover Spirit.
In Robert Greene's Mastery, he lists numerous individuals who seemed to develop a passion as a child. The famed Leonardo Da Vinci was one such individual, where due to being born out of wedlock, he was forbidden from attending the University that would have led to a noble profession. Left to himself, he would traverse the woods where he began his drawings. From an early age, his perception of organic material led him to the question of what makes things grown and transform where he developed the desire to figure things out and do things for his own self. In apprenticing with an artist, Da Vinci would continue to do things his way, through his own passions. His personal drive and nonconformity led his teacher to somewhat despise him, the same sentiment probably shared by the local community who all were looking for the same patterns in their artwork. But, Da Vinci had a drive to do more, and to do things his way, to express regardless if anyone took note. Hence, moving to Milan, he setup shop and continued to do his work the way he wanted. As an example, Da Vinci would attempt the first paintings of Angels with realistic wings. He would study aviary, the geometry and mechanics of flight, to push his artwork further. To do so without fame or profit, Da Vinci was moved solely by his own personal desire, his own passion, what Robert Greene described as his "inclination".
From Da Vinci's path, as well as many others described in Mastery, seems to support the "follow your bliss" sentiment. Being in the Vortex as Abraham Hicks would say, you simply take a step forward in the direction that seems to have the most "inclination", the most love, the most joy, the most bliss, and keep proceeding from there. This process is substantially different from what typical conformed society has consistently propagated, where from an early age, children are placed in a boxed room and force fed information society expects them to learn to keep the wheel of society turning. Looking back at my own schooling, how little time was actually provided to absorb and process before the next batch of factual information would be forced unto us, and I mean forced given that it was expected to be memorized and understood in someone else's allotted time-frame. How much of the curriculum does the child get to dictate based on his or her own "inclination". Further, I have often felt that every parent/teacher should know their child's natal astrology to discover their interests, and psychological way of comprehension, to help push them in the direction they would desire. Nonetheless, our society seems to be driven on practicality, we need to financially support ourselves, and even a worse belief, we need to find emotional support outside of ourselves. Hence, though one may have an "inclination", they may seek another route that would lead to more finances, or more fame or social status that would bring in love, respect, honor, etc. We're taught to seek these things from outside of ourselves, as opposed to following our own inner resonance and inclinations.
Through the law of attraction teachings, the idea is to stay in the resonance of your bliss, your "inclinations", which will lead you to what you need in the moment. Such philosophy is contrary to societal beliefs, where extensive childhood and adult education is required to prepare for a "future", as opposed to living in the Now, or accepting presence-energy, and acting out of inclinations. It pulls us out of truly living in the moment, where intuitive impulses will assist in directing. Like spending an hour just listening to music, we often shuffle through our music looking for songs that best suit the current mood or uplifts it. Same with our lives, it seems like individual like Da Vinci, Mozart, Darwin, Marie Curie, Albert Einstein (named in Mastery), and other individuals like Nikolai Tesla and Carl Jung, all followed an inner drive that was discovered within them from an early age, where they simply fed it to expand those interests.
Though the law of attraction sounds a bit new agey, in fact, it appears to be the preeminent teaching to enter into the Age of Aquarius, or "freedom" from the mystical mysterious Age of Pisces, there appears to be numerous elevated individuals who have this common unity. However, this material is not taught in formal education systems, and many of us are still clinging onto paths that were given to us by others (parents, education, sociology, politics, etc.), going against the grain and following your hearts' desire seems to be the key to enter the realm of genius, not necessarily a proper education.
So get into a feeling of bliss, take steps that will further that bliss, and perpetually drink of the Universe till your heart is content. If you have a passion for something, feed it impulsively like there's no one watching/judging.
This is solely an opinion piece. Nonetheless, it's something that's been plaguing my head where I've attempted to undo a lot of what I've been taught. When it comes to religion/spirituality, I'm now in the sensation where everything has to first pass my resonance in order for me to accept it. Looking at religions in general, it seems that no major religion today seems to be similar to how the ancients practiced it. Raised Hindu, the more I study about the Puranic stories, the more questions arise. Firstly, if the Vedas placed Varuna and Indra at the head of the pantheons, then how did Vishnu overtake such entities in the Puranas, which were written/channeled much later than the Vedas? There's a huge gap there. The same applies to Christianity, where much of the Gnostic teachings seems to be more inline with Eastern mysticism (check out the Gospel of Thomas), as opposed to modern Christianity which appears to have most of its roots in Catholicism, and Catholicism looks more like Mithraic Roman ideologies as opposed to Hebrew. Those following post Catholicism seem to either have narrowed down the Catholic teachings to uproot pagan elements, or follow a prophet/channeler who typically has a tie to some secret society. It's my understanding that King James commissioned Francis Bacon to draft the King James Version of the Bible, which gave the Bible a Shakespearean flare.
Vishnu, particularly the Vaisnava line practices Dvaita-Vedanta, or duality where the human spirit (atma) is different from the supreme reality (Brahman). Hence, such practitioners believe that worship is necessary. Advaita Vedanta, or non-duality believes that the human spirit (atma) and the ultimate reality (Brahman) are the same, we just need to tap into it. From my own meditative practices as well as internal experiences in studying this material, Advaita Vedanta is my own personal preference. Such preference has forced me to look at what I had practiced beforehand, duality/worship, with a sharp sword in order to undo what I originally use to be believe and practice.
Let's face it, religion and politics have historically been intertwined. Even when separated, politics would govern how one should act in the worldly arena, and religion was to govern the spirit in the afterlife. Hence, both modes seem to be ways for those on the higher up to either teach us a positive path, or lead us into significant control and manipulation. They were both forms of governing us and molding us into what the hierarchy deems to be appropriate. As a an ego-identity that chooses to look for spirit (Atma/Higher Self), I have chosen to sort through such hierarchies to find what is going to elevate me, and what is there to manipulate me. That includes diving into our beloved ancient stories to look for the truth, since much can easily be re-written in someone's favor.
In Hinduism, it seems that the philosophers of Dvaita Vedanta and Advaita Vedanta have been battling each other since the time of the Vedas. There have been teachers who have sought to synthesize the two school, including Swami Prabhupada who brought us ISKON. But even ISKON is heavily Vaisnava leaning and I can't find any Advaita principles in their practice as opposed to worshiping Krishna (Vishnu) as the collective Higher Self. Basically, Vishnu is known as the operator/manager of the universe in the Hindu trinity. Though the Vaisnava schools honors Shiva, the destroyer/transcendence, Shiva still destroys and transcends what Brahma created and Vishnu manages. The school of thought under Shiva, or the Saivite tradition, appears to be more in line with Advaita Vedanta as opposed to the Vaisnava line. Hence, Saivite versus Vaisnava.
Philosophically, I believe duality practice can help purify the heart, as one practices devotion to a higher source. But, non-duality is the next level to cleanse one's psyche. So I like aspects of both and believe a balance between the two is appropriate for me. However, because these religious philosophies do attempt to gain followers through attempts to show who is better, I feel like much that is written in our histories or religious belief systems are untrue.
As an example, I cannot correlate Vishnu, the manager of the Universe, with Buddha Shakyamuni, an individual who sought enlightenment beyond the Universe, the wheel of samasara. From what I have been taught, Buddha Shakyamuni was to be an incarnation of Vishnu. However, Buddha Shakyamuni's teachings seem more to be in line with Advaita Vedanta as opposed to the form-worship of Dvaita Vedanta. To further such teachings, particularly through Guru Padmasambhava, the enlightened Buddhist monk who brought Buddhism to Tibet, in taking a vow to the three jewels, you no longer bow to entities including Vishnu given his association to the Wheel of Samsara. So is Vishnu a manager of the Wheel of Samasara, or is he an enlightened entity above the Wheel of Samsara? If he is both, why can't we approach Vishnu for enlightenment?
From my research, I have found that when Buddhism was gaining dominance in India, the Hindu priestly class was in an upheaval. With Kings like Ashoka who hailed and propagated Buddhist philosophies throughout Asia, such teachings would send ripples through societal beliefs such as caste systems, etc. Buddha Shakyamuni had challenged it all, and spread the idea of finding one's own true nature, as opposed to the dualistic form worship. That seems like it would be enough to shake up the Hindu priestly class, the same way Akenaten shook up the Egyptian priests, the same way Jesus shook up the Hebrew Rabbis. And we know what opposition both Akenaten and Jesus faced from the priestly class.
From my own hunch, it seems the best way for the Hindu priestly class to stop conversions to Buddhism would be to adopt Buddha Shakyamuni into the pantheon. Hence, make Buddha Shakyamuni an incarnation of Vishnu so people don't need to fully convert. Though it is my understanding, where Brahmans cite to particular puranas , that Vishnu incarnated as Buddha to convert the "heretics", those that despised the Vedas. These texts sound like they prophesied Buddha Shakyamuni, but taking refuge in the three jewels excludes deities (form) within the Hindu pantheon. Hence, shots are fired back at the Brahmanic culture, the one Vishnu is to propagate.
Again, it seems better suited to associate Buddha Shakyamuni with Shiva and/or Advaita Vedanta given that both entities are about transcending form. Maybe it's because they both expounded Dharma, though I can't connect Krishna's (Vishnus) Dharma as described to Arjuna on the battlefield with Buddha's compassionate nonviolence. Even Oppenheimer referenced Krishna in witnessing the effects of the atomic bomb. Maybe it was just a different teaching for a different age. Nonetheless, I'm still having a hard time connecting the two and probably never will. In fact, those in Theosophy and the New Age connect Krishna and Buddha Shakyamuni not to Vishnu, but to Lord Maitreya, a little known figure in Hinduism.
Anyways, in diving in deeper, I'm noticing these inconsistencies are all over the place. It's interesting that we're taught to simply accept such ideas, to have "faith". Evidence is usually because it came from some enlightened sage or prophet. I think it's just basic channeling if anything, and even then, you have to sort through the other planes to ensure your information is solid. But we just don't know. Nonetheless, I'm asking these questions to undo what I have previously believed in search for a greater Truth.
Given the advent of the internet and the widespread sharing of information outside of limiting media sources, there's a plenitude of individuals claiming to be "awake". Whether it is awake to the corruption of our social-economic structures ranging from our political circus to religious dogmatism, or spiritually awake in the sense to knowledge of the "third-eye". Given that I am first and foremost a seeker, particularly one that felt the qualms of society and religion at a very early age, I have never been quite satisfied with any information obtained, especially without resulting experiences. Even from the most followed gurus, I felt there is always more, and I want the fastest route possible. Nonetheless, I don't think there is an "awakened" state, other then from our current human condition. But, there seems to be a perpetual "awakening", a reason to spiritually exist. A desire that seems to never be quenched.
Meditation, mixed with decades of diving into numerous esoteric and mystical texts, has screwed up my psyche to the point where I don't really relate to much of the masses. Particularly beginning with my ego-death experience back in early 2015, everything my two-eyes seem to perceive feels illusory. It's like watching a movie filled with characters acting our their ego-script, especially when knowing one's astrology. The veil over my intuition, or curtain covering the "behind the scenes" is still there, probably so that I don't immediately give up on the script, and further keeps my journey relevant. Nonetheless, not only do I feel that those around me are acting out of script (either astrology, societal beliefs, or parental instilling, etc), but I have since sought to manipulate my own psyche, and potentially undo my ego-script. As Bentinho Massaro stated, in-line with our ancient metaphysical texts, "consciousness creates the body, the body does not create consciousness". Hence, I should be able to manipulate my own consciousness, where I seek to undo conditioning that appears to limit what I believe myself capable of being.
My meditation experiences have continually affected the way I perceive this dimension with my two-eyes. Because of such perception, I see people so engaged in their roles, in their beautiful desire to serve or manipulate, but I feel that many miss a bigger picture. This feeling stems from my perception of this engagement as an illusion. It's like waking up from a nighttime dream, do I sit and think to myself that I could have done better in that dream, or do I take whatever symbolism I can remember and try to gain wisdom and move on. It's a sense of detachment. Same with this dimension perceived with my two-eyes, is death a waking up from this dream? When I die to this dream, am I going to have regrets of not serving enough, or doing the best I can, or do I perceive it the way I would with my nighttime dream? With a sense of detachment.
Every mystical text and organization that I have found has stressed the "awakening" to be Self-Realization, or awakening the ego-identity to the Higher Self. To remove the "I" identity for a "Universal" identity, and quite possibly something beyond the Universe (Brahman). No doubt, my ego-death experience discussed above placed me in a position where I felt like I was a Universe of many different star systems, where my individual identity was merely a clay pot attempting to be something. In such experience, everyone that I attempted to remember and perceive felt like a moving clay version of a Van Gogh painting. To bridge that Universal identity with this clay pot seems to be the goal of bridging to Higher Self, or to be "aware" while conscious, sleep, and deep sleep (unconscious) as defined as Turiya in the Siva Sutras. Such state of being is placing one in a complete state of "awareness" void of thought, one which is brought about through the Goddess energy residing at the base of the spine who assists in clearing the delusory and limiting faculties of the psyche. To attain such clarity of the ever-present Now moment, is the pulling in of Higher Self energy.
Hence, to awaken appears to be so much more than the simple corruptions of our world, which are most likely there as obstacles to keep us desiring and/or striving for more. From a loving perspective, the evils we see are most likely a beautiful purging of our shadow side lost in our psyche that plagues our ego-identity, when truly viewing the Universe and all Her counterparts as a mirror reflection of our own consciousness. This is why Tibetan Buddhist stress compassionate loving for all, for to attain rainbow light body status, you must realize that all is a reflection of the one infinite Self, for the Highest Self is one. Therefore, to truly awaken seems to be defined as walking among the delusion as the Higher Self bridged with ego-identity, and thus creating a beautiful illusion, or a Lila as described in Hinduism.
To sum it up, we're either coming from a place of mindful pure "awareness", which is Higher Self energy, or we are coming from a place clouded by opinions, judgments, and thoughts, which is ego-identity. The more we bridge into the state of simple "awareness", we obtain clarity from the resistance of our ego-identity and expand our ability to be "aware", or awaken to so much more that can be described as "cosmic consciousness".
What's the next awakening beyond that? Well that beats me and I'm assuming that is something that can't be fully described through "human" faculties, but I feel exists. Nonetheless, allow me to take this one-step at a time.
When we dissolve the "I", the subconsciousness becomes consciousness.
Overly educated and continuously exploring and revealing more behind the veil.
"It cannot be too highly emphasized that the mystic swims in the same waters in which the psychotic drowns."
-James Wasserman, The Mystery Traditions