Who Would Determine the Collective Consciousness

I’ve been discussing for a while now the possibility of Collective Consciousness being an outcome of all the increasing Kundalini Awakenings.  But there may be a possible cloud on the horizon that could cast a shadow on the Dawning of that Glorious Day.  You see, up until now I had been assuming that the Collective Consciousness would have some intrinsically Moral Basis.  I felt that a Collective Consciousness would either be a conscious amalgam of either All Life Consciousness, or All Human Consciousness, and would therefore be inherently Empathetic, Caring  and Inclusive.  But that would only presuppose that those who are first Awakened and Enlightened would not have some kind of a “First Buy In” and be overly instrumental in the formulation of the Etheric Hub or Consensus Persona that the Collective Consciousness would assume, and the moral and social direction it would subsequently take.  

 

First thing we need to acknowledge is that while all Enlightenment Experiences are equal in terms of their definitive Trait of Ineffability, that there is the serious and troubling problem of how Individuals Mentally and Emotionally process their Enlightenment Experience.  The best and perhaps only literature on the subject is William James’ “Varieties of Religious Experience”.  James was the Head of Harvard Universities Psychology Department in 1905 when he was invited to the University Edenborough to deliver a series of lectures upon the psychological significance of Religious Experiences.  That is where we got his book.  It has probably been the last time that Science bothered to look seriously at the subject.  After that, Science, set up as a Rival Religion, could only sneer and snub what it saw as its competition.  Anyway, the most cogent point I found James making was that each Enlightened Individual seemed to make sense of their Ineffable Enlightenment Experience by explaining it in terms of a Religion Context or Political Ideology with which they were already familiar and comfortable with.  So it is that Catholic and Sufi Saints, though having identical Experiences, will place them in context of their own Dogmatic Backgrounds, and where people who simply became Enlightened through Nervous Breakdown, as their Psyches resorted to Enlightenment as a kind of Survival Last Resort, well, such “Enlightened” People are likely to spout out anything afterwards.  For instance, the Quakers follow the Beliefs of their Enlightened Founder who came out of it somehow believing that Only God deserves Respect and so everybody needs to dutifully be rude to everybody else, so it subsequently became a heresy for any Quaker to ever be polite and courteous.  But my own personal Enlightenment lead me in exactly the polar opposite direction, where I have the greatest respect for People but care as little for a Transcendent God as It would care for me. But, no, I am just kidding there about any “personal Enlightenment”.  I am obviously still too thoughtful to be suspected of being Enlightened, and have many more questions than answers.  

 

Also Professor William James had pointed out that in a great many cases, though not in all, but especially in those cases of Stress Induced Survival Driven Enlightenments, that the Personalities and Intellects seem to crystalize around Simplistic World Views, and that in some cases the ability of their brains to experience Doubt or Anxiety is circumvented (in modern terms we would say that the Enlightenment Experience was either caused by or resulted in a vastly overactive Dopamine Gland).   So while a University-Trained Moral or Religious Philosopher would see Complexity, Ambiguity, Conflicting Interests, Qualifications and Reservations in any Assertive Moral or Religious ‘Doctrine’, it seems that the tendency and instinct of the Enlightened Individuals is towards The Simpler the Better¹.   So what we come away from James with is that Enlightenment is essentially a very powerful and affective Aesthetic Sensual Experience that has unpredictable results on the Personality and Belief Structures of the Individual.

 

Nowadays, we read and hear about a great many Kundalini Awakenings, which, if we parse the descriptions given to us by the experiencers, we would determine that most fall short of the Classic Full Blown Ineffable Enlightenment Experience, but still these experiences are causing  enough internal upheaval for these Awakening Individuals to seek some guidance and clarification.  So, where do these curious and often marginally desperate Kundalini Fledglings go to find affirmation and some sense of certainty?  Well, it seems they mostly go to the New Age Publishing and Seminar Tour Industry for all the easy answers.   There the Over Simplistic World View is a Spiritualized Hedonism where Greed is Sanctified and a great deal of advice goes towards the honing of Sexual Predator Skills, or, more euphemistically, how to attract partners and enjoy more satisfying relationships.  Crystals and Essential Oils are deified, since they are such wonderfully profitable  low margin Money Makers, and there is plenty of room under the New Age Tent for the traditional swindles of Astrology and Numerology.  Moral Philosophers are largely shut out of the New Age since all the big Money Making Decisions are coming from the Publishing Houses whose only interest is in appealing to pre-existing Market Demands -  Lust, Greed or whatever it is that Market Surveys find trending upward .   If only more people yearned for the Doctrines and Ideals of Cynical Crankism, then perhaps a Publishing House would even offer me a Book Deal.  But one thing is sure, that the Truth is never allowed to interfere with Decisions about the Market.  

\

So, what could we expect if suddenly hundreds of thousands of Kundalini  Awakenings occurred, even triggering a great number of Full Blown Enlightenments, but all within the Intellectual Context of a Corporate Minded  thinly veiled Materialistic New Age Hedonism that insists upon flying the Banner of “Spirituality”?  If that would be the kind of Consensus Persona that would rise up to the Collective Ethers, or down into the Center of Mother Earth, to become the Hub of our Collective Consciousness, then, well, wouldn’t we all be screwed?

 

My thoughts here is that we would have to hope for a strong sort of a Hegelian Dialectic within the Collective Consciousness in which there would be more than one Etheric Persona Hub.  We would want a number of Hubs that would dialogue and balance each other and hopefully evolve in tandem towards an Moral Ethical Empathetic Collectivist Ideal upon which we would hope to build the first True Civilization – Organically Alive and Sustainable.²                  

 

¹ Reading about Saint Teresa of Avila, there is a story about how Vatican Envoys were sent by the Inquisition to investigate her but they found that she was quite who and what she claimed to be and so signed off on her and, indeed, expressed great admiration for her.  So she wondered to them why they did not extend their stay for a while so that they could themselves attain to her level of Enlightenment.  Well, they didn’t hesitate to refuse the offer, as they explained that being Enlightened would undoubtedly destroy their ability to make fine intellectual distinctions, which, in the greater scheme of things, was necessary for somebody to do … that someone has to keep doing the dirty work of thinking across all the angles, and that they recognize that as their contribution to the Service to the Church, and Teresa quite understood.   Apparently these Learned Men were speaking from experience – that they were familiar with the Enlightened Personalities as a particular Type and had identified a tendency in them for doctrinaire over simplification.

² Having an Ideology that incorporates a number of Persona Types would not be unprecedented for the World.  We can see in Ancient Zoroastrianism and even in the more primitive Pre-moral Pantheistic Religions where it was recognized that Single Gods were too simplistic to really explain anything, and so the Divine Pantheons were viewed as having a number of Demi-Gods or Arch Angels, each with his or her own Archetypical Personality and Mission.   The Catholic Church picked up the same notion with its “Patron Saints”, while retaining the Zoroastrian Arch Angels who are different in name only (for instance, it is clear that Michael is Mithra).