Your use of the expression “the form of human consciousness” pinpoints the very reason why we have this conversation in the first place. As far as I’m concerned, consciousness is formless and is that “hidden observer” itself. All forms, “Cartesian spirit” (and even nothingness) included, are not it because of the simple fact of them being what is observed. That is an experientially verifiable fact, although, as you correctly point out, the methods of acquiring that knowledge are far from what “science-centered modernity” considers objective and valid. Sadly, to this day science did not provide an alternative method (although Hindus and Buddhists would argue that their philosophies are scientific, and would be, to an extent, correct).
On the other hand, even science demonstrated that underlying reality of our perceptions is fundamentally different from their actual shape — no one perceives photons or neural signals directly. Then again, even the concept of an almost homogeneous “quantum soup” is just a perception, too. Thus, science, as it is today, can be said to merely dissect and explain the mechanics and essence of dreams.
You are correct that what “scientists showed is that causality is amoral”, but it’s equally true that karma preserves “moral values across time”. Yes, there’s no “physical accumulation of goodness or badness” simply because goodness and badness are merely preferential labels. What gets physically accumulated, however, is mental conditioning. Hate, fear, desire for revenge, but also love, trust, or gratitude, etc. And these mental programs inevitably shape the material world when acted out. So, morality only means conditioning that leads to reduction of pain and is designed only as a common sense guide until one knows what’s the actual “deal”, because when we talk about realization of absolute (as in knowing but also materializing it) we also talk about seeing all conditioning merely as our personal responses to events. Therefore, we hardly deserve to be punished or rewarded. It’s us who punish and reward ourselves and others, while we go through various degrees of mental gymnastics rationalizing it all, as the rules of the game are, indeed, impartial (not to mention that reward and punishment are mental concepts, too).
And it’s similar with the “law of attraction” which is basically just a strong intent, whether we are plainly aware of it or whether it’s hidden in subconscious layers of our minds. Obviously, and despite certain inherent limitations, if you want something strongly enough, you will get it in the end in one form or another. And that might be a pile of gold just as a life-and-death conflict. In your case it would be “horror for nature”, I guess ;)
Anyway, enlightenment, for a fact, takes you beyond good and bad. That you equate it with insanity in the same sentence tells me that you contemplate nature of enlightenment more than the nature of reality. Thus, you are probably full of contradictory expectations how that “state” ought to be like and if it’s worth pursuing. But, as I said earlier, you cannot think yourself out of the box, if only for the simple fact of thinking being just one aspect of the whole. It is the same problem why language falls short when it comes to expression of the knowledge of all-that-is and why you say that “the theological interpretation of what it’s like to be in those peak states of awareness is more like art than science”.
The greatest fallacy of this conceptual approach to enlightenment is that one quite naturally assumes those “peak states of awareness” are it.
While it’s true that people can manipulate their perception to the point of being able to publicly self-immolate without as much as moving the eyebrow, that’s not the aim of these practices (even though even current-day Buddhism devolved into such gross meditation Olympics … and don’t get me started on the mainstream Buddhist’s cult of personality which is obviously even more detached from the original purpose of Buddhism). In the context of knowing the absolute, the goal of mindfulness, meditation, lucid dreaming, using entheogens, or what have you, is merely to see the nature of mind. I.e. no matter how bizarre or mundane the perception, it’s still but a perception. Thus, there is no special, mystical state of enlightenment, and one can do jack shit to consciousness.
Yes, “we’re identical to God who is the only reality” and he may have “been driven insane by loneliness”, though I would rather say shocked instead of driven insane. Indeed, as it seems it “has compelled him to create universes and avatars in which to hide” but don’t forget it’s ‘I’ who is God and “his horrific nature and responsibilities” are ours, while they are also equally happy and ecstatic (still, both exist only within said created universes).
All in all, don’t exclude yourself from the big picture. Then again, the game is perfect and you are free to do so, even if that position encapsulates the essence of delusion and comes with its own set of pointless suffering. But to each his own, I guess.
