"According to the Doctrine of Vibration, only liberation in this life is authentic liberation. Liberation after death in some form of disembodied state free of all perceptions and notions of the world of diversity is not the ultimate goal." ...
This is followed by an explanation that an "eyes open" mode of being and an "eyes closed" mode of meditation provide complementary experiences that can be synthesized to form a true understanding of, in layman's terms: what the heck is going on.
I mean, that's it, right there. That's both what you do and how you do it, and the rest, you can draw from it. Liberation is for the living, and, liberation is an understanding of self/other synthesis, from which you can draw answers to the most important question ever: What you should be doing. That's it - game, set, and match!
(Note the absence of notions of salvation, hell, and divine wrath. [expletive] you, western God.)
- - -
However, further details I can't buy into so readily. Especially parts about how enlightenment can only be pursued with the guidance of a "master", and through a dialogue that is not just spoken or implied by example, but that takes place "within universal consciousness". How does that work?
I feel like the explanation of what the master does and why he/she is so vital is a muddying of the clear, lucid waters of the doctrine itself. Clouding it with assertions about what happens during the pursuit of enlightenment, in a non-corporeal, transcendent plane, which the master and pupil apparently project into (or from).
- - -
You know what I would like to see, is an exploration by the original scholars, of what creates and drives the consciousness we perceive in animals ... perhaps with a bit of foreknowledge handed to them, about how natural selection operates to shape the instinctive behaviors of animals.
For example, when a human gazes into the eyes of a cat, the human perceives a certain feeling of mutual communication and affection with the animal. But what does the cat perceive at that time? Especially knowing that the cat has been subconsciously, selectively bred by humans over ten thousand generations to exhibit a more humanoid facial shape, thus inspiring a stronger affection in caretaker humans?
When a human and cat gaze at each other, the cat could be thinking something utterly alien compared to what the human is thinking; if the cat is thinking at all. And yet, by contemplating this situation, we can understand much about ourselves. ... Even though the cat is not a master of anything, or even mentioned in the descriptions of how a master guides a pupil to enlightenment.
- - -
And what would the original scholars think about germ theories of disease, and how a person's behavior can be subtly altered by bacterial infections? Are those documented mechanisms of physiological influence just ... coincidence? Or are we meant to infer that the bacteria themselves are somehow carriers of a consciousness in fragments, which we then commune with?
- - -
So many things unaccounted for...
Fascinating thoughts though.