Andrew Holecek, Lucid Dreaming and Yoga |459|

thx Dan... but I'm having a hard time squaring this comment with yr reaction to:

Alex Tsakiris: Some people get offended when their religious beliefs are challenged. They feel like religious beliefs are protected beliefs, but others see religion as an extension of the social engineering project.

David Icke: I call it the “God program.” All of the different names and different rituals obscure the fact that it's a very simple blueprint: “What are you?” “I’m a Christian.” “What does that mean?” “Well, I go to church and this man in a frock (women often now) tells me what God wants me to do.” “Okay, well that’s interesting.” “And he tells me the consequences of me not doing what God wants me to do.” “Okay, you?” “Oh, I’m a Muslim.” “What does that mean?” “Well, I go to the mosque and this man in a frock, he tells me what God wants me to do, and what God will do if I don’t do what God says, which is what this man in a frock tells me he says.” “Okay, you?” “Oh, I follow Judaism.” “What does that mean?” “Oh, I go to the synagogue and this man in a frock, he tells me what God wants me to do, and they’ll be hell and damnation if I don’t do what he says, and that’s what Judaism is.”

And so you go on and you go on and you go on. What are those people in frocks actually doing, Alex? They’re getting in the spaces between the five-sense mind and expanded consciousness. They do not want a direct connection. Even the word connection is not correct, it’s only human’s not even a connection because [in essence] one does not connect, it just is. And what happens is we get a disconnection of influence. It doesn’t mean we’re not still part of the great forever, we always are and always will be. It’s that it’s not influencing us because of this perceptual isolation, which religion has played a major part in.

What you had were forms of culture that for all their flaws, and there were many, practiced a direct connection with what they perceived as the creator, or what I call The One. And then religion came in and created that blueprint and we got the, “Only through this can you get to God, only through me, only through believing me and what I say, can you get there. And by the way, we’re going to give you a story. We’re going to give you a series of rules and regulations, and if you don’t follow them, well, have you ever stoked the fires of hell? That’s where you’re going, mate.”

And then, the impact of all of that, what was it? It was a tiny, tiny perceptual state that’s being sold here. You can’t question it because you’re a blasphemer. If you do, you’re out, you’re not one of us anymore.

But as people started to reject that, [next] came mainstream science, and we went from a situation where you can only get to the state of expanded consciousness, as I would call it, if you do what we tell you, because we know what God wants...actually, there is no state of expanded consciousness. There’s just you and you come out of nowhere, three score years and ten if you’re lucky, and then you go back into nowhere.

And now basically, you’ve got these two working simultaneously, science through technology and the technocracy that’s developing, controlled by technocrats, is now becoming more and more dominant, and there’s a common theme. Just look at the common themes everywhere that this system, the cult behind this system, is emphasizing everywhere that you cannot have a direct connection with expanded states of consciousness.
Alex - This long quote by David Icke is one I fully agree with. 100%. It is at the core of my current teaching. What I was reacting to was much of the rest of the interview. I have commented at length on the other thread and don't want to rehash it all.

What interests me here is the overlap between Andrew Holecek and David Icke around the pathways towards having a direct connection with expanded states of consciousness. David Icke's deconstruction of the cults of Christianity and Scientism is spot on. But he's not anyone I trust to guide me into direct connection with expanded consciousness. When he opens with, "It's not a physical virus. It's a mind virus," I am ready to turn off the rest. This is not the message of someone who is a safe guide into extended realms. He's pretty hostile and hate-filled. A good intellectual analyst on some topics, but "Love, Not Fear" is garbage coming from someone who is all about preaching fear.

When Andrew Holecek peels back the barrier separating him from extended realms, what he finds he calls "illusory." My sense - this is speculation based on my interactions with Tibetans and Tibetan Buddhism over many decades - is that the Tibetan teachers in the West have withheld portions of their knowledge. Gregge Tiffen, who trained in Tibet in the 1960s had a lot more chops to work with souls, ancestors and entities than anyone I have met since. My Tibet refugee friends acknowledge there are teachings reserved solely for those with Tibetan lineage. Andrew Holecek serves a pretty weak tea.

In my journeys into the realm of expanded consciousness, I encounter ancestors, entities and mythic beings. They can life-supportive or destructive. When I bring someone down into the dark realms, my responsibility is to bring out whole and undamaged from the experience.

My main impetus for returning to the forum after several years away from it, is about you, Alex. You were right to challenge Andrew Holecek about his superficial descriptions of extended consciousness. I thought you articulated your points clearly and exposed his lack of understanding. When I heard you fawning over David Icke and advocating his winning a Nobel Prize, alarms go off. Satanic ritual abuse, demon spirit entities and the dark realms of extended consciousness are dangerous. My criticism of the David Icke interview is grounded in a concern that your explorations of evil are affecting your discernment.
Hi Alex,

At the end of this show you said its good to be precise. So in the interests of precision can I just pick you up on something that you frequently say, and which you repeat in this interview, namely that various people think "consciousness is an illusion and an epiphenomenon of the brain."

Epiphenomenalism is a technical position in the philosophy of mind, and not a particularly popular one. It is very different from saying 'consciousness is an illusion'. Most of the people you often quote as believing that 'consciousness is an illusion and an epiphenomenon of the brain' tend to support the view that consciousness is an illusion but absolutely do not endorse epiphenomenalism.

Epiphenomenalism is a form of property dualism about consciousness (so is panpsychism but in a very different way). It is the view that the physical mind generates a property of consciousness but that this property entirely supervenes and is dependent on the physical brain, and because of this consciousness is causally inert. Again, a Epiphenominalist would never say consciousness is an illusion. The whole point of this position is that it is a real and distinct non-physical property generated by physical brains. What is illusionary according to the epiphenominalist is the seeming causal effectiveness of our conscious states. So for example, when we have something like a desire for ice-cream then go to the fridge to get some ice-cream, they would say that the desire doesn't cause you to go get it - instead there are underlying physical processes in the brain that both cause a physical chain of events leading you to go and get ice-cream and simultaneously create the causally inert senses of desire, and satisfaction that go with it.

Most philosophers of mind/scientists who you could broadly believe 'consciousness is an illusion' do not ascribe to this model.

Yada yada yada you may say, but seeing as you mentioned the importance of precision I thought what the hell.
I really liked this, and it made me pause to consider whether a subtle yet but clear distinction could be made between the two positions, but as I think deeper about this, the distinction is actually not so clear - at least for me.

Epiphenomanilism surely is an outgrowth or an adjunct to the notion that "consciousness is an illusion". The two positions are entirely compatible are they not?

You say "What is illusionary according to the epiphenominalist is the seeming causal effectiveness of our conscious states".

So if mental states seem to be causing and driving changes in my physical state, according to the epiphenomenalist, this is an illusion. Instead the mental state itself is caused by (random?) neurons firing - and not the other way around - i.e. mental states causing neurons to fire?

If for example I (mentally and emotionally) am compelled to go on a 3 year retreat and meditate 16 hours a day, inevitably this decision will lead to structural changes withing the brain, strengthening of neural pathways, and weakening of others etc. On the surface, it seems like a purely mental or mind based cause to engage in such a practice.

But I'm guessing an epiphenomenalist would brush this off as an illusion that mind preceeded or caused the action, when in fact it was biology, grey matter and neuronal firing driving this?

In essence, I find this notion must lead inexorably to the to the broader notion that "consciousness is an illusion", so ultimately it seems the two positions are one?

Would love to get your thoughts on this.