Tippaporn

Well, as I've said, I've been toying with the idea of walking through the material on CUs as there is much that is associated which, again at least for me, brings a number of important concepts together to form a clear and more expansive picture. Again, too, I'll say that I strongly object to your idea that meditating, for the sole purpose of connecting with your greater self, or with the One, is the only real solution to the problem of understanding our present, corporeal selves and our seeming singular objective reality. It must be remembered and realised, too, that allowing one's consciousness the mobility to go outside of itself, outside of our physical reality, that is, carries the implication that there are an infinite number of realities for our consciousness to "travel" to. There is no single destination, therefore. Which other reality do you wish to explore? Now perhaps you'll object to my quoting sections of the Seth material but here again we have our differences. Quoting directly has it's benefits. At least I recognise the benefits it offers. Would you claim that there are no benefits but rather only hindrances? Erm, I don''t think you'd make such an admission. So bear with me, despite your uncontrollable urge to cringe. I will be commenting extensively . . . putting the material in my own words . . . so that should be of some relief to you. That way your eyes could glaze over all of the quotes and just refocus whenever my comments appear. I'll begin in another post starting at the top. I've actually quoted already from the top in one of my recent previous posts so I'll repost those quotes, along with my comments, in order to preserve the flow of the material. I'll continue until that time, if it comes at all, when the howls of objection begin to wake up my neighbors. This material will cover the rest of your post from which I cut only the initial two lines.

Good morning, Sunmaster. Punching the clock a bit late this morning? Coffee is served. Again, regarding the tasty delightful pastries, one for you and two for me.

Far be it from me to get myself into hot water for not answering questions. " This will keep you busy for a while." 😉 Not at all. I'll just turn the tables on you and keep you busy for awhile. https://nowdictation.com/q/psychological+time/ No, I haven't made it a point yet to practice it.

@Sunmaster Just a thought. Not meant to apply it to you in anyway. Just a thought to share. Our reality is often referred to as an illusion. One definition of the word , which definition is varied, means "not real." And so it is that many then conclude that our reality isn't real at all. In that way it tends to invalidate our reality. Camouflage is a much better term for it's definition does not invalidate our reality. It has a meaning that cannot be so easily misconstrued. Ours is a camouflage reality which means that it is a representation of something else but quite real and valid in itself. As a representation of something greater it is, however, not less than. That is my intuitive self speaking. Of course with it's brother intellect. But it's not a result of pure intellect.

4:53 AM. Got to work a few minutes before our start time. You up yet? ". . . compared to intellectual knowledge alone?" You forgot intuitive knowledge. Intuition is direct knowledge. It is the means by which we receive inner information directly. That inner information is direct knowledge. Seth has always said that we are muscle bound intellectually and the ideal would be a blending of the intellect and intuition. I, for instance, use both and rely on intuition more than you could imagine. Since we have developed our intellects as we have (science is an indication) to the exclusion of our intuitions (science is an indication) I tend to relate to people by appealing strictly to their intellects. Intuitive knowledge is often frowned upon as being unreliable as it can't be "proven." You seem to be under the impression that direct knowledge via meditation is the only way to perceive our reality "correctly," or in a "true" sense. On that point I strongly disagree. Our reality, whilst it is a camouflage reality where inner reality is translated into three dimensional form, or at least as much of it that can be translated into that limited medium, still contains those truths which allow us to discern the greater truth of ourselves and our reality. Hasn't it been said often enough that the evidence of our greater selves and of our greater reality is everywhere to be found in our world? This is a point that I believe you fail to see. You seem to think that the only way one can achieve perceiving the truth of ourselves and our reality is strictly through meditation and connecting with our "real" self. The phony one, which is Sunmaster, can't possibly come to any real conclusions of our true nature via experiencing and interacting with the "illusion" of physical reality. Seth once said, showing just how humble he was, that "you could learn more by observing the animals than you could from reading my books." Of course one would need to interpret their observations properly. Or, perhaps more accurately, one would need to know what to look for, or what to observe. One would need to be able to "read" the animals. Just a brief example. The profession of metal stamping is one where you take a flat sheet of steel and via a set of operations, involving either cutting or forming, produce a shaped part. Oftentimes this is accomplished using a tool called a progressive die. The strip of flat steel is fed through the tool in increments, each station in the tool performing a specific operation. This produces what we call a "strip." The strip, when run through the entire tool, has an instance of each operation in succession. Now when there is a problem resulting in an out of spec part then a trained tool & die maker will cut the strip out of the tool and "read" it. For within that strip are the clues which show where the problem lies. Anyone untrained in this profession would look at the strip and, not knowing what to look for, would be unable to "read" the obvious clues. Your point of reading versus experiencing is valid and true. But a bit misleading in the sense that all of your examples involve physical experience. Granted that the physical experience then also has attached to it the subjective experience produced by the physical action. Although, reading a handbook, such as Seth, doesn't necessarily involve physical experience. It largely involves reading about and then playing yourself with mental experience. And that playing results in direct experience. "Ps: A yes or no answer is perfectly fine." 😁 To your chagrin I rarely give yes or no answers. Because too often yes or no answers are wholly insufficient and can also result in "reading" into them much that shouldn't be "read" into them.

Not psychic. I allow my outer ego to have a two way flow of information so I'm receiving information from my inner ego as well. No blockages. Not all information comes from this world, ya know. 666 That should net you quite a bit as long as you sign on the dotted line.

Odd. As I say, it's a mixture on my end. Just started this afternoon. It was fine this morning. Every other poster's emoticons appear as images but none of mine. I'm on Firefox so I thought perhaps it's the browser. So I open it up on Chrome and now all emoticons appear as text. My reality is losing it's stability.

Oh, so you gave RP a laugh reaction but not me. Okay. Does he bring his teacher an apple when he comes to class? Teacher's pet?

Why RP, you never told me you had a warped sense of humour like me. I've gotta hand it to ya, you've got talent. I like it. I like it a lot. A brother in laughter. I haven't had a reply from Sunmaster yet as to how they're appearing on his end. Perhaps he's still meditating on it.

Now this is an interesting story. Some back story first. My daughter has a best friend in school since KG1 and she's now in grade 5. So 8 years now. They share the same birthday. My wife and this girl's mother have hit it off after KG2 and spend a lot of time with each other. They've grown very close. They're both Isaan. I'll call the mother Dao. Some back story on Dao now. She plays the lottery all the time. And I've never seen someone win significant amounts as regularly as she does. By God, that women has her ducks aligned in a perfect row. Her horses of belief, emotion, imagination, and expectation are all facing in the direction and they're going at a gallop. My wife, on the other hand, plays as well but as far as the lottery goes I can say about my wife that if it weren't for bad luck she'd have no luck at all. My wife and Dao often buy each other lottery tickets. Sometimes the cost is paid back and sometimes it's gifted. Going both ways, of course. So, the other day was Children's Day. My wife and daughter went together with Dao and her daughter to a wat. The next day Dao bought 500 baht of underground lottery tickets and gifted some to my wife. And then Dao had a dream that night. In the dream there was a Buddhist figure, I'm not sure what you call them but they look like warriors of sorts. The one that was in Dao's dream was the one that is supposed to be 40+ years old. At least that's what age his likeness appears to be. He didn't appear visually in Dao's dream but she said it was like a voice coming out of the sky. And the voice asked her whether if she won the lottery would she share it with the friend she went to the wat with. And Dao replied in her dream, "Sure." The voice asked a second time and Dao replied the same. End of dream. Lo and behold Dao won 200,000+. And then the dream came back to her. She was a bit puzzled at first as to which friend she was to share her winnings with. And then it dawned on her that it was my wife she had gone to the wat with. And so she's already today transferred into my wife's account 45,000 baht. One of the tickets that Dao had gifted to my wife was a winner for 4,500 baht. And so I asked my wife how much she was going to transfer into my account. She then kicked me like a dog. She then went out shopping this morning after dropping our daughter off at school and came home presenting me with a high pressure car wash water pump. She then told me I needed to have the truck ready by early afternoon as she was leaving early to pick my daughter up from school. I took the dog fetal position.

Are my emoticons appearing as images or text? It's a mixture on my end. I rebooted but it still persists. Let me know, please.

No. No No! Not a single comment? What about Seth's CUs as the indivisible building blocks of all consciousness? How does that effect your theory of us humans as mere finger puppets to entertain our greater self? Does that analogy still hold for you? Actually, it reminds me of the sentiment many have of God creating man, setting him free to then only test everyone's fealty to him and asking, "Is that it?" Seems that God's ego needs stroking. Which is bad but worse is the idea you put forth that we're mere entertainment for our greater selves to relieve them of their boredom. Now that's downright cruel. What about our physical selves having independence? The CUs do. And we are a gestalt consciousness comprised of them. How does Seth's explanation of CUs comport with what you've learned? Do they fit? In your travels have you learned something similar but expressed differently? How about . . . . I could go on with questions. Humourous Tippers exiting stage left and Serious Tippers taking center stage.

Well now, have you any comment on any of this? After all, I did spend 4 hours 34 minutes and 23 seconds composing this post. Got up very early again this morning, too. Despite my wife asking me to lay in bed with her just a little while longer. I don't want to feel that I missed out this morning for nothing.

I have to say that upon reading this the first thought that popped into my head was that you had a reincarnational existence as a Puritan. Just one question, though . . . what's excessive? That's gotta be a tough one to answer.

Don't forget to leave your mailing address for your family. My ego thanks you. Unfortunately there's no <whipping> emoticon for yours.

Showing off your ignorance?

Are you admitting to having a tryst? Sinner!! And your greater self didn't reject you for your impurity? Good luck connecting with your greater self now after your drunken escapade this past New Year's Eve. Now that we've swept the eggshells away and understand each other, I can now tell you a deep secret. Someone once confided to me that they thought you were a cheap Charlie in passing out deserved reactions.

Like I said, I had 120+ kilo bear down on my lithe 61+ kilo frame, pounded into kitty litter with a concrete floor as padding, and I immediately jumped up and shook it off. Nah, you don't weigh that much. Do you?

Man, between you and RP you boys are drubbing my ar$e today. The thanks I get . . . In all seriousness, though, you're analogy is invalid. It violates the "two's company, three's a crowd" rule. Sorry, Sunmaster.

Huh? I don't get it. And if I did then my excuse is that I'm too old to change.

Ya know if yer not careful then sooner or later I'm gonna come after your ar$e and sue you to kingdom come. First an assault when you shoved me (hard) and now making me into a parody. Hmm . . . What would be the criminal offense for that. I'll have to consult my attorney and get back to ya. Until then, just don't leave the country.

Wanna be my friend, TBL? Of course if we do that 60's or 70's style we'll need some drugs.

I was a bit surprised. I mean, you can find almost anything on YouTube. (Except Hendrix as his sister is vigilant about having them removed on copyright grounds. She wants every last penny that her brother earned for herself.)

Plain English: That was frickin' awesome, RP. Tippers speak: I extend my benediction for the boisterous cachinnate you conferred. I retained that meritorious lampoon for posterity.

@VincentRJ I have to compliment you, Vince. We've had a lot of exchanges of the years (that long?) but one thing I've noticed about you is that, unlike many other posters, you are NOT narrow-minded. Quite the opposite. And for that I have utmost respect for you. I had an idea just now that might provide some clarity to you about science and the methodology of science. We had gone round on this before. Now elsewhere on this forum I had posted an analogy which I think quite fittingly explains my views here. But to repurpose it to include science requires a mere tweaking. Hope you enjoy. ********** Imagine two people standing in front of an object of immense proportion, both standing with their noses almost touching this object. They are each asked to interpret what this object is. The one person, we'll refer to him as individual A, begins to provide his conclusions based on what data is apparent within his field of vision. Now this person makes use of only their intellect as his perceptive tool. The other person provides his conclusion and the two conclusions basically match. Yet this other individual, we'll call him individual B, makes use of not only his intellect as a perceptive tool but his intuition as well. Now whilst A is accepting the reality of this object at face value, given, of course, the amount of data he has to work with B's intuition is telling him that there's more to this object than what he is able to observe whilst his nose is pressed up against it. And so he takes a few steps back. Now more of this object is revealed to him. He continues to step back, further and further until the entirety of the object is viewable to him. A questions not that what he perceives is all that there is to perceive. B's intuition causes him to question and that questioning is precisely what leads B to step back. A then begins a conversation with B and asks whether his perception is the same. B responds that, no, from his new vantage point his perception is greater since he has much more data available to him than he had with his much narrower perception. Therefore his perception of what this object is does not match A's. And so a heated argument begins. A accuses B of being stupid for not perceiving what A perceives. B shouts back, as there is quite some distance between them now, that he does indeed perceives what A perceives. That is not the problem as B once had the limited perception and data set that A currently has. But from his new vantage point, and with the new data available which this vantage point affords, he is able to perceive as A but also to perceive differently. B communicates what he perceives back to A. A has taken his limited perception and limited data set at face value, and furthermore firmly believes this to be the only perception possible of this object, as he also believes that what he perceives is all there is to perceive. And so A yells back at B accusing him of being delusional for what he claims his perception to be. For if what B claims to exist, per his perception and greater data set, is true then A would, or should, be able to perceive it as well. And since A cannot perceive it then what B perceives cannot exist. B shouts back at A, "Well, then, step back a bit to where I am and you, too, will be able to perceive what I perceive." B then begins to provide to A the added data which was impossible to have from his initial vantage point. A then accuses B of being non-rational and making no sense. In return A provides B with his rationale and logic which supports the "truth" of what this object is. B then counters to A with the fact that A's rationale and logic only appear sound given A's limited data set. But with a greater data set then A's logical flaws would become apparent to him. A refuses to suspend his beliefs as to what this object is and so refuses to step back from it. In fact he indignantly shouts to A, "Well, what you're saying is crazy talk and no way am I going to go your way as I would then be crazy, too. And I'm not crazy!! You're crazy!!!" A then exists the thread with a "humph!!!" ********** So here's my tweaking. A, who has his nose damn near pressed against the object he is trying to discern has a limited field of vision. Let's assume that limited vision to be A's 'one' reality, the physical world and universe. That is all that A is aware of . . . as long as his nose is pressed up against it for he is therefore unable to discern that which he cannot perceive. Let's also say that that particular view of A's is individual, independent, and quite valid as itself. Yet it is only a part of this greater humongous object. We'll also say that this individual, independent, and quite valid portion has it's own unique attributes, characteristics and laws. Let's call these laws what they are, as A knows them to be - the laws of physics. Let's call the attributes, or the main attribute, objectivity. Now stepping back A could see that his particular view, which represents only a small portion of this object, is only one of many. A mosaic, if you will. But A could, rather than stepping back, slide his nose along the surface of the object until, from A's new perspective, his view is of something else. Another mosaic. Now this new view of an entirely different mosaic would also be individual, independent, and quite valid, and with it's own unique attributes, characteristics and laws. Yet the attributes are completely different, as are it's governing laws. The laws of the previous mosaic do not apply to this mosaic. Nor do the laws of this new mosaic apply to the previous one. So in conclusion, A then realises that in his probing of his mosaic, in an effort to understand what it is and how it works, the tools and methodologies he uses to explore his mosaic cannot be used on, or in, another mosaic. For the characteristics and attributes and laws are completely different. A cannot use his tools and methodologies there so, though he understands now that other mosaics indeed exist, he also understands now that there is no way to bring proof of that mosaic's existence to his previous mosaic. And so that is my analogy to explain my endless insistence that our science's methodologies are useless in proving so much else that exists because it's existence is in quite different terms. In other words, subjective reality cannot be proven to exist in objective terms. Such as a thought, an idea, for instance. We can prove their existence only via their effects on objective reality. But we cannot prove the existence of the thing itself objectively. The idea that everything can ultimately be proven scientifically is an idea which is grounded in, and wholly dependent upon, the idea that objective reality is the one and only reality which exists. Destroy the idea of a single reality and the idea which existence is dependent upon vanishes into thin air. Or the ether, whichever you prefer. One other point I'd like to make is that there are indeed a set of universal laws which apply to all realities. Let me know if this makes sense to you. I'm curious.