I can see from your article, “The Seven Layers of Consciousness”—about how consciousness builds up to a supernatural, spiritual influence over nature to match up with God through faith—why my article would be so confusing to you; why, for example, you mistake philosophy for sociology and why the words I string together grammatically still don't seem to make sense to you.
These “nonsensical words,” as you deem them, are connected in a special way that seems to you wholly unfamiliar. The connections are called “logical” or “evidentiary” and the sets of these specially-connected words are called “arguments.”
Remember, the arguments and evidence supplied by reason (by philosophy and science) are what humiliated the ancient and medieval religions in the early-modern period, forcing the theological speculations to go into hiding mode, to be camouflaged as pseudo-scientific, New Age balderdash. That religious claptrap still operates in the same basic ways, though, via coercion and fraud, the first of which is hinted at in the unspiritual aggression that oozes out of your comment.
Perhaps you recall from one of your previous lives you might believe in, how centuries ago, everyone in Europe was forced to take theology seriously, because those societies were theocratic, meaning that the Church had totalitarian control over people’s thoughts. Then came mass liberation through rational enlightenment, and philosophy, science, capitalism, industry, and democracy swept away the old world order. So now we no longer take for granted the childish intuitions at the bottom of your religious worldview (although we have new, secular forms of adult childishness, alas).
Lots of people resent that historical development because the world discovered by liberated thought is perfectly inhuman in how it makes a mockery of our anthropocentric wishes. The late-modern spiritual question is about how honourably we deal with those harsh facts. Pretending a philosophical article is gibberish is ignoble, since in this case it lands you in the embarrassing position of writing as if I were claiming the mind is merely an illusion, whereas I was arguing against eliminativism, in favour of the reality of the “folk psychological” conception of mind.
That shoddiness of yours doesn’t promise the spiritual maturity or intellectual sophistication you’d expect to be backing up the insolent tone of your comment. It indicates, rather, the hollowness of your theological enterprise. Your multidimensional model of consciousness is pseudoscientific and best treated as an artistic imitation of the kind of theology that used to have unearned authority.
For anyone interested in comparing my view of consciousness with Braham’s, see the first and second links below, and for a criticism of the so-called law of attraction that seems implied by Braham’s “fifth layer of consciousness,” see the third link.