Tippaporn

Hummin, there is nothing I write that attempts to deny your own reality. Everything I write is to get you to see that there is more to your reality than what you see. Everything I write is an offering of how reality actually works and I do it in such a way where you can choose to understand it or not. No pushing on my part. You've let it be known that you've suffered severe depression. Severe enough to seek professional help. And it worked for you. Now I'm not going to be so foolish as to try and deny your reality, or deny the reality that the help you sought and utilised was of benefit to you. You have also once questioned why you would want to know any of the information I offer. So here I will put the information I offer into a practical context which would answer your question of why you would want to know using subject matter which you no doubt can easily relate to. To recap, the fundamental law of creation is that one creates their own reality. The mechanism, or the specific means by which this is accomplished is through ideas. Ideas are the building blocks used to create one's life. Ideas which are predominant, or oft repeated to one's self, become what is commonly known as beliefs. Feelings and imagination flow from beliefs. Feelings are largely caused by beliefs. And again, imagination also largely follows beliefs. Ideas and beliefs are composed of energy. They have power. And finally, there are only two things anyone can ever think about - what is wanted and what is unwanted. The above is about as basic an explanation as can be given. But even with this skeletal explanation one can then begin to understand that depression, for instance, which is an emotion, is in essence nothing more than an "uncontrollable," persistent and predominant focus on those ideas which produce negative emotion. And those ideas, which are apt to be very broad in their scope, all revolve around what is not wanted rather than what is wanted. It really is that simple. Now you may assume that I know nothing of depression and therefore have little idea about the subject. Au contraire. I, too, have suffered from severe depression in my life. I know this subject matter most intimately. Fortunately for me I was able to use the tools of understanding those points which I've recapped and have freed myself from depression's most viscous and agonising cycle. I ultimately recognised and understood the true source of my emotions and was then able to purposely choose those thoughts which were in alignment with happiness. And which then produced the positive and beneficial emotions which naturally flow from those thoughts. These days depressive thoughts are rare for me and when they do assail me I can quickly counter those depressive thoughts. Now I might get depressed for a few minutes at most. There is one aspect in all of this that still goes unaddressed. Positive thinking was very much in vogue a few decades ago, with many books written on the power of positive thinking. Yet what was missing from this trend of "new age" thinking was the question of what to do with negative thoughts. You can't simply sweep them under the rug and pretend they're gone forever. In order to address the negative thoughts and how to handle them requires even more understanding of the nature of our reality and ourselves. And that particular understanding involves what it is that we consider real or not real. And here I must once again provide a quote by Seth from an earlier post: Certainly for the more than the hundredth time I say, "Your beliefs form your reality," and this means that your beliefs structure the events you know. Such experience then convinces you more thoroughly of the reality you perceive until a vicious circle is formed, in which all events mirror beliefs so perfectly that no leeway seems to appear between the two. I've explained before that beliefs create reality. Or perhaps it's easiest to think in terms of experience here instead. Reality becomes what reality is believed to be. Within the limits which define our reality's boundaries, of course. Again, you cannot regenerate a lost limb. But to carry on I'll repeat myself; reality becomes what reality is believed to be. A poor man believes he is poor and thus that belief becomes his lived reality, or experience of reality. His belief in poverty becomes a condition of reality rather than a belief about reality. A wealthy man believes he is wealthy and thus that belief becomes his lived reality, or experience of reality. His belief in wealth becomes a condition of reality rather than a belief about reality. Now it's quite obvious that both realities exist and that both are equally valid. Thoughts and beliefs are what create each lived experience. It cannot be any other way. This is the law of the land. So one might see a paradox here. How is it possible for two opposite realities to exist simultaneously? And another question arising from that then might be, "What is real and what is not?" The answer to that paradoxical question is that there exists more than one reality. In this case it is a reality of poverty and an equally valid reality of wealth. Whichever of these two realities someone experiences as their lived experience will be the one they believe in. Therefore that is the answer to the dilemma of what to do with negative thoughts. It is, again, the simple realisation that there exist many numbers of realities, all equally valid. Which one someone chooses is always up to them, decided upon using the same free will we are all imbued with. It is important to note that a switch in belief means quite literally that a switch in experience will surely follow. If this were not true then it would be possible for anything to ever change. We would be frozen within an unalterable reality for eternity. So as I've pointed out before, one must put themselves in a position of questioning their beliefs to uncover for themselves whether or not any particular belief they hold is a condition of reality or simply a belief about reality. That is, if one were interested in understanding the "why anyone would want to know" question and so make a conscious choice which is to their benefit rather than to their detriment.

Ignorance is simply, per it's definition, lack of knowledge, understanding, or information about something. By it's strict definition it is non judgemental. People have, though, attached judgement to it and so to say someone is ignorant is then usually taken as insult. I use the term per it's definition and attach no judgement to the word. I just wanted to make clear what I mean when I use the term so that you don't feel insulted by it. Now the question is, how many of your "truths" are actual truths and how many are beliefs which you accept as conditions of reality rather than beliefs about reality? And which therefore lead you to believe they are immutable truths? Take, for instance, the belief in abundance and prosperity and it's opposite. Each is an idea. Each exists in subjective reality. The idea which an individual focuses on predominantly becomes a belief which then accumulates enough energy to make that subjective belief physically manifest as their lived experience. So those who believe abundance and prosperity experience just that. Those believing it's opposite experience just that. A wealthy individual lives the "truth" of their belief. A poor individual does likewise. Both a wealthy state and an impoverished one are both true. Consider these statements from Seth taken from The Nature Of The Psyche: It's Human Expression: Certainly for the more than the hundredth time I say, "Your beliefs form your reality," and this means that your beliefs structure the events you know. Such experience then convinces you more thoroughly of the reality you perceive until a vicious circle is formed, in which all events mirror beliefs so perfectly that no leeway seems to appear between the two. What Seth is pointing out here is that since physical reality is a three dimensional faithful product and mirror of your beliefs then the longer you believe something to be true the more it is manifested in terms of lived experience. The more it's experience reflects your belief the more convincing your belief becomes as being the "truth." It truly becomes a viscous circle and the individual is blind as to what's really going on. I've always said that the greatest mistake people make is to never examine their beliefs. They belief in this, that, and the other as being true. Once a belief is believed to be true - a condition of reality - they stop questioning and never look back. They never ask themselves whether or not it is instead simply a belief about reality. You create your own reality. That is my fact. Where would you go to double check that? There is only one place you can go to do that. Your inner self. You certainly are not going to find confirmation on any science oriented site. Complex information is initially difficult to absorb. I remember my first experience on the first computer I had bought. The feeling of absolute and devastating dejection as I had no clue what to do. You learn. As to your impression that this information is based mostly, or only, on the experience of people then that impression is dead wrong. While we are all as unique as snowflakes there exist too many commonalities to list. When providing personal experience as an example to get a point across then the related personal experience is used knowing that another has similar experiences. It's called creating a bridge. One can, using that method, more easily bridge the gap of understanding. All of your experience originates from your subjective reality. It is then translated to physical reality. No different, in a sense, that translating one language to another. Most people examine the outside of experience, or the translated one - physical reality. Few examine the inside, which is the originator of all reality - subjective reality. I've told you before, more than once, to examine your subjective reality. That's where the real answers are found. You have to admit that you've been taught to believe in endless ideas since birth as being true. Following are two beliefs which most likely came via religion or science or both since both are proponents of these beliefs. "No one can know the truth," is one of them. "You cannot trust yourself," is another. Both ideas are 100% false. Now since you can't trust yourself and since you cannot know then how in the hell can you expect to know anything with certainty? Both of those beliefs will make it almost impossible for anyone looking for answers to find them. And even when they do they can never fully trust that the answers they've found are true. You're quite capable of recognising the difference between wishful thinking and the real thing, Hummin. This post has become long enough and my time here is cut short today. I'd like to continue addressing the rest of your very interesting and excellent post later, Hummin.

It's really a point of non contention with me. Darwin's theory completely ignores the role of subjective reality. Hell, it ignores subjective reality altogether. A fatal mistake. “Now, if you had all been really paying attention to what I have been saying for some time about the simultaneous nature of time and existence, then you would have known that the theory of evolution is as beautiful a tale as the theory of biblical creation. Both are quite handy, and both are methods of telling stories, and both might seem to agree within their own systems, and yet, in larger respects they cannot be realities…. No — no form of matter, however potent, will be self-evolved into consciousness, no matter what other bits of matter are added to it. Without the consciousness, the matter would not be there in the universe, floating around, waiting for another component to give it reality, consciousness, existence, or song." —SS Part Two: Chapter 20: Session 582, April 19, 1971 All forms of life evolving from a single form which itself was created by random dead matter coming together under the proper conditions and sparked to life (no explanation provided for what that spark was) is a scientific fairy tale.

Learn. But in order to learn you must be open to learning. Whatever confusion you feel now will dissipate quickly and effortlessly with the acquirement of knowledge. But that acquirement does take effort. Not nearly as much as some may suppose.

Don't look for a godly force. Certainly not one as described by religion. Look for the God within you. The spiritual is not physical. Therefore you cannot prove it's existence physically. Give it up.

Again, science in it's current practice and it's current ideology can never provide the answers to who and what we are, and ultimately the totality of our reality. Those answers must be found within and not without. And again, I, and I'll be so bold as to also speak for Sunmaster, do not at all dismiss the valid and true answers science has come up with. I don't deny gravity. I don't deny heliocentricity.. I don't deny thermal expansion. I don't deny inertia. I don't deny electromagnetic induction. And so much more. Remember, too, that my line of work requires that I adhere to certain scientific principles. So to say that I dismiss science is the "bull pie" you allege others are guilty of. Just because my ideas are more expansive and include ideas science is unwilling and incapable of dealing with does not infer that I dismiss science. And just because I critise science does not infer that I am anti science. Yet again and again you make these inferences and baseless allegations which do not exist and insist that they do. Own up, Hummin.

Continued . . . It's not at all a question of "not understanding science," Hummin. Rather, just as some see the failings of religion others see the failings of religion and science. Again, as Sunmaster pointed and as Seth makes clear science, in it's current state, can only deal with objective reality. It is not yet equipped to deal with subjective, or inner reality and therefore is incapable of providing any true answers to explain that portion of our reality. And so, some of us . . . like me . . . like Sunmaster . . . look elsewhere for sources and answers which are capable of explaining that portion of reality to us. I would bet a dollar to a donut that you do not believe those sources exist. Now I've provided an example which shows the ineffectiveness of the "methodology of science" to arrive at a conclusion as to whether or not consciousness, or we, create our own reality. I've again asked @VincentRJas recently as yesterday point blank to give his opinion or comment since he more than anyone keeps insisting that my problem is that I so obviously don't understand the "methodology of science." Yet no matter who I ask, or how many times I ask it, not a single science oriented type here has addressed it. They avoid doing so as if the question were the plague. And I know that @VincentRJhas read that last request since I posted it yet he still ignores answering the question and continues to remain silent on it. Why? Because he, and all of the other science types here who are so thoroughly convinced that the "methodology of science" is capable of providing all answers to existence would have to admit that one of their most cherished beliefs, which they held to be true in the absolute, must now reconcile the fact that they've been wrong.

Now I promised to pile on but I have to start with that one paragraph Why, Hummin, do so many people turn away from religion? Is it because the easily recognise the fallacies? The many contradictions? The faulty logic? Of coarse. So those searching for answers to life and who once believed that religion had all of the answers now begin searching elsewhere. Many then turn to science as science does offer facts based on evidence, proofs and is backed up by solid logic. Science's answers can then be used quite practically to create numerous inventions for the benefit and convenience of mankind. How supremely wonderful! But, as Sunmaster so wisely points out: Here are a few quotes from Seth which would serve to further elucidate and expound on Sunmaster's quite astute answer. He is referring to science with this opening statement. The underlined, bolded text is per Seth's request. I should warn you first: if you have any aversions to learning you will loudly protest over having to read too much, or you'll excuse yourself by objecting to "copy & paste," or you'll come up with any other lame reason to not read . . . and then comment on what you've read. Or, as you've done in the past, you'll claim that it's "beyond" your understanding. Any reasons you offer as objections will not at all be true reasons but just excuses passed off as "credible" reasons. So far in any of your investigations, you have been probing exterior conditions, searching for their interior nature. To make this clear: When you dissect an animal, for instance, you are still dealing only with the "inside" of exterior reality, or with another level of outsideness. (Pause.) In a manner of speaking, when you probe the heavens with your instruments you are doing the same thing. There is a difference between this and the "withinness" out of which all matter springs. It is there that the blueprints for reality are found. There are various ways of studying reality. Let us take a very simple example. Suppose a scientist found a first orange, and used every instrument available to examine it, but refused to feel it, taste it, smell it, or otherwise to become personally involved with it for fear of losing scientific objectivity. In sense terms he would learn little about an orange, though he might be able to isolate its elements, predict where others might be found, theorize about its environment - but the greater "withinness" of the orange is not found any place inside of its skin either. The seeds are the physical carriers of future oranges, but the blueprints for that reality are what formed the seeds. In such dilemmas you are always brought back to the question of which came first, and begin another merry chase. Because you think in terms of consecutive time, it seems that there must have been a first egg, or seed.1 The blueprints for reality exist, however, in dimensions without such a time sequence. Your closest point to the withinness of which I speak is your own · consciousness, though you use it as a tool to examine the exterior universe. But it is basically free of that reality, not confined to the life-and-death saga, and at other levels deals with the blueprints for its own physical existence. In the entire gestalt from cellular to "self" consciousness, there is a vast field of knowledge - much of it now "unconsciously" available - used to maintain the body's integrity in space and time. With the conscious mind as director, there is no reason why much of this knowledge cannot become normally and naturally available. There is, therefore, a quite valid, vital, real and vastly creative inner reality, and an inward sequence of events from which your present universe and life emerges. Any true scientist will ultimately have to learn to enter that realm of reality. So-called objective approaches will only work at all when you are dealing with so-called objective effects - and your physicists are learning that even in that framework many "facts" are facts only within certain frequencies, or under certain conditions. You are left with "workable facts" that help you manipulate in your own backyard, but such facts become prejudice when you try to venture beyond your own cosmic neighborhood and find that your preconceived, native ideas do not apply outside of their context. Because of your attitudes, ideas do not seem as real to you as objects, or as practical. Thoughts are not given the same validity as rocks or trees or beer cans (two of which sat on the coffee tab/,e between us at the moment) or automobiles. In your terms an automobile gets you somewhere. You do not understand the great mobility of thought, nor grasp its practical nature. You make your world, and in an important manner your thoughts are indeed the immediate personal blueprints for it. When you manipulate objects you feel efficient. The manipulation of thoughts is far more practical. Here is a brief example. ( 10:36.) Your medical technology may help you "conquer" one disease after another - some in fact caused by that same technology - and you will feel very efficient as you do heart transplants, as you fight one virus after another. But all of this will do nothing except to allow people to die, perhaps, of other diseases still "unconquered." People will die when they are ready to, following inner dictates and dynamics. A person ready to die will, despite any medication. (Emphatically:) A person who wants to live will seize upon the tiniest hope, and respond. The dynamics of health have nothing to do with inoculations. They reside in the consciousness of each being. In your terms they are regulated by emotions, desires, and thoughts. A true doctor cannot be scientifically objective. He cannot divorce himself from the reality of his patient. Instead, usually, the doctor's words and very methods literally separate the patient from himself or herself. The malady is seen almost as a thing apart from the patient's person - but thrust upon it - over which the patient has little control. The condition is analyzed, the blood is sampled. It becomes "a blood sample" to the doctor. The patient may silently shout out, ''That is not just a blood sample - it is my blood you are taking." But he [or she] is discouraged from identifying with the blood of his physical being, so that even his own blood seems alien. The blueprints for reality: In greater terms they reside within you. In private terms they are part of your being.

Another superb answer, Sunmaster. Even Hummin liked it. Is he starting to crack?

And there you have it. Ignorance is bliss. Until the lights go out and you have no clue as to what to do to remedy the situation. Ignorance is bliss because . . . heaven knows that true knowledge will only f things up. You have to truly appreciate the irrationality of that statement . . . and have a boisterous and hearty laugh.

Wow!!! What a beautiful answer in response to a statement made in sheer ignorance!! Can I pile on? You bet I will. Again, thanks for a truly superb, insightful, and positively correct answer, Sunmaster. Listen up, Hummin. It would behoove you to actually listen for a change.

Since I don't want to overwhelm you with points then I re-ask that you answer this one single point which counters your claim that the 'methodology of science' can be used in uncovering the truth of any worldly phenomenon. I've provided an example where the 'methodology of science' cannot be used to prove the proposition as neither true or false. Do you then finally agree that the 'methodology of science' has limitations?

In evolution there are no sudden jumps from one species to another, its a gradual process of small incremental steps over thousands and millions of years. There never was a first of any species, just like there never was a first human. There was never a moment where a Homo erectus mother gave birth to a Homo sapien child, it doesn't work like that. It's analogous to how a human grows old from a baby to child, adult to middle aged or middle aged to an old man, There's never a moment, you don't go to bed a middle aged man then wake up in the morning an old man, but if you wait a sufficient number of years you become old. That's how evolution works but now we are talking about thousands and millions of years and it's very hard to grasp those time scales. Good answer. Evolution works in a slow and incremental fashion. And I admit to using the term, jump, which could be interpreted in different contexts, is perhaps not the best. Change would have been a more accurate term. So rather than "jump to" then "change to." Putting all other valid questions which could be asked about the process aside then I stand firm on the point that there are no physical records showing the progression of changes. That is something that science has to date been unable to show, let alone validate. Take it from there if you care to, Elad.

Thanks for the reply, VincentRJ. I have to say I appreciate your calm engagement here, and your persistence in continuing with well thought out posts in which you attempt to explain the world according to VincentRJ. Now you do a very good job of accurately describing the process of what happens when someone kicks a brick wall with a great deal of force. And I agree 100% with your apt description. But, you've only described part of the overall process. What about the rest of it? (I know that question will draw a look of puzzlement on your face.)

And you, GammaGlobulin, are certainly one of them.

GammaGlobulin, you truly are a most playful and delightful imp. And thoroughly enjoyable as always.

I can't remember reading it, probably because your posts are so long. I can't think of any example where the 'methodology of science' has failed, but there are numerous examples where the 'methodology of science' has not been applied with sufficient rigour, and numerous examples where erroneous assumptions have been made due to insufficient data and evidence, and/or incorrect interpretation of the data. It was actually contained in one of my shorter posts and to be fair about you missing it it was not in reply to one of your posts. It was a standalone post and not in reply to anyone. It does reference you and I should have used the @VincentRJwhen referencing you. But now that you can read it can you agree that science's methodology cannot be applied to any scientific investigation of whether creating one's own reality would be true or false? And would you also agree that science's methodology would be insufficient on discovering any real truth when subjectivity is involved? Would you agree that due to the fact that subjectivity cannot be observed, measured or quantified in an objective world to the degree which would satisfy the requirements of the protocols of the scientific method that it's application is neutered? Would you agree that you cannot import physical instruments into the subjective world where physicality doesn't exist? Would you then conclude that science, given it's present attitudes and methods, cannot possibly then explain all of the phenomenon which exists in this world? Telepathy, for instance. Precognition. Automatic speech or writing. OBEs. Dreams. How about the Ouija board? What the heck is that all about? Or any other subjective experience. Or does science simply wave off these types of phenomenon and experiences or find some way to explain them away? It's always a problem when you must provide answers, even when you haven't any. By the way, what did you think about the rest of my post? Is there any possibility in your mind, any at all, that consciousness creates form? I'm not asking you to confirm or deny. I'm just asking you if you think the concept has possibility?

Like I said, I couldn't quite remember the joke. Enough of it to serve the purpose of my analogy, though. But yeah, the punchline isn't there, nor is the much of the rest of the joke. Now I do doubt that a Muslim, Jew and Christian would agree that they have the same God.

I'll take up your question of whether or not we face the consequences of our actions in this life in an afterlife. No. Reflection? Yes. Now this answer runs strictly in opposition to that of religion. Per religious teachings we can expect a day (or two or three . . . maybe more depending on how lengthy the scroll is on which all of your sins are recorded ) of judgement. Given the rules of that game of Christianity it's quite straightforward. You are either sent to Hell for eternity or you are allowed entry to Heaven by St. Peter at the Pearly Gates. Reward or punishment. So repent while you can if this is your belief. Now if you're one who is of a scientific persuasion then no worries. There is no afterlife. So obviously no consequences will be faced for any of your actions here on earth since you no longer exist. Your question, Hummin, is a specific question of what will be encountered during the death experience. If you're interested let me know and I'll provide more extensive information. It will be unique and not what you may expect. I will copy and paste a portion which I find extremely humourous. I think you'll agree. In many cases, immediately on leaving the body there is, of course, amazement and a recognition of the situation. The body itself may be viewed, for example, and many funerals have a guest of honor amidst the com-pany - and no one gazes into the face of the corpse with as much curiosity and wonder. The imagine of a shocked, perhaps horrified individual staring in amazement at his own corpse brings tears to my eyes. Not of sadness but of laughter. It brings to mind an excellent, and very true quote from our very own Sunmaster. A very wise individual, btw. All of the folks who believe death to be the end all . . . lights out kinda stuff . . . are going to find themselves very ill prepared to deal with the experience of their demise when their day finally arrives. And when I imagine the shocked and horrified dearly departed stricken with astonishment and bewilderment as they view their sewn up mouth, their coiffured face and hair, laying in the luxuriousness of a casket, a luxuriousness which perhaps they have never been able to experience in life, I think of one of our wonderful science guys.

True, your ideas are very conventional and therefore not too controversial. I absolutely agree with you on that point. Your awareness, however, and I think you'll agree, is not by any stretch of the imagination universal. There is much that exists which you do not perceive. In fact, I will say that there is more that you do not perceive than there is of what you do perceive. Yet despite knowing this as fact people still like to believe that they do perceive everything that can be perceived. And that anything which exists beyond their perceptions is not real. Isn't that laughably and bizarredly contradictory when you think about it? See. I'm laughing. Whether ghosts or otherwise, there is much hidden from view. That's not to say that it can't be unhidden. But, as I explained profusely in one of the above posts, the answers to even the most complex questions are indeed possible for us to have. Now you may believe that that is impossible. Fine. I can easily live with that. I don't have to live your life. Do understand, though, that it is a belief and it is a belief which you chose to adopt, to hold, of your own free will. A belief that you take as a condition of reality rather than a belief about reality. And it's precisely one of those beliefs which prevent people from understanding. That's one of the culprits. Mind you, there are plenty of other folks who do not share your belief, and therefore understand fully that the actual condition of reality allows us to achieve those answers. I have. Or will you deny my reality, after so much complaining with profuse and boisterous indignation that I am refuting yours? How dare I? How dare you? But you haven't yet been exposed to enough information, to enough of the answers to those complicated questions to arrive at any conclusion . . . if you were to be honest about it. What's been offered thus far are but a few of the pieces to a gargantuan puzzle. You don't have enough pieces to view the entire picture yet. You can, if you like, attempt to make a picture of the few puzzle pieces you have thus far. But wouldn't you agree that with so many missing pieces you could only produce a distorted picture? And that such a distorted picture can only lead you to conclude erroneously about what that picture represents? Does that make sense? You either have the patience to wait for more puzzle pieces or you don't. Quit whinnying. Rather whining. Horses whinny. People whine. Sorry. I had you confused for a moment from an earlier post. Reality is a trustworthy source, no? That's my source, Hummin. Any objections? Or will you insist that reality as a source means nothing to you and is merely full of fiction and fairy tales?

@Hummin Here's a good example of Seth explaining the greater reality which exists and which he is aware of in the form of a conversation. I offer it to the end that it might spark some new understanding on your part of the nature of reality. Jane Roberts held classes for a number of years. Seth would come through now and again. This conversation took place during one of those classes. It's related in Jane's own book, Adventures In Consciousness: An Introduction To Aspect Psychology. When Ron asked his question, Seth "took him on" with the kind of humor that instantly cleared the air. There's nothing like a good laugh to return us solidly to the world that we know and plank us back onto the firm framework of our own emotions. Ron's actual question was voiced like this: "Do you see, in other words, when Jane is speaking . . . can you see the room? Or do you only see the room . . . ? Ron pursed and wet his lips then said, "Do you see what I'm getting at?" Seth said, "When I am speaking, I cause myself to concentrate on this minute portion of time and space that you think of as this room. Otherwise, I can look at you, seeing your reincarnational existences, for example, and I am not limited to perceiving only the one self you imagine yourself to be." "Would you be aware of, say, the pot on the table?" Ron asked. "Only if I were interested in the pot on the table." As Seth, I smiled broadly. "But how would it appear to you?" Ron persisted. "As a pot on the table," Seth said sardonically. Ron frowned. "The same way it would appear . . . ?" Seth said, "When I use perceptions in your reality, then I automatically translate inner data into physical terms. Otherwise, I am not limited to that kind of perception." Smiling, speaking very slowly for effect, he added, "I need not perceive that object as a pot, but I can perceive it as a pot. You must perceive it as a pot. And now I am saying good evening." "But you didn't answer my question," Ron said, stubbornly. "I did indeed. You did not listen to the answer. Your questions obsess you, and you do not listen." Ron came out with another garbled version of what he was trying to say. He was growing red-faced, but even more determined. Seth said, with a note of finality, "The reality of the pot on the table - as you know it - is a portion of my entire perception of it." Very soberly Ron said, "You answered the question. I understand." "Thank you," Seth said, so dryly that the students all broke out laughing. Even Ron started grinning. He didn't feel put down either, but vindicated because he felt that he'd held his own just the same. With that exchange Seth hints at the camouflage nature of the pot as we perceive only it's camouflage, and must perceive it as such while physically oriented. The pot, though, as a symbolic representation of inner reality, has a greater reality in which other aspects of it can be perceived. To perceive those other aspects implies the use of senses other than those which we use to perceive physical reality. That exchange also hints at the greater, or more expansive reality in which Seth resides. It is also a reality that we, too, reside in simultaneous to our existence in this world. Granted, we are abjectly unaware of this fact. But we can become aware of it. The red pill is available to all of us. When people talk of God, ourselves, and this world we naturally assume one God, one self, and one world, or one reality. The reflection you see in the mirror is but a portion of yourself. There is more to you. Much more. That is what is felt and recognised, for instance, whenever anyone identifies strongly with nature. The world you find yourself in is but on world. There are many others. The God that people believe in is but one God. There are many more. And this reality which we claim to be the only one is but one of an infinite number of realities. Realising the above is akin to waking up in a dream and realising that you are dreaming. It is waking up to the dream that is our currently created reality and then understanding the true nature of existence. Well, folks can say much about me, true or false. But one thing folks can say about me with truthful certainty is that I am not boring.

Your opening sentence drew a smile from me. At least there was something I've said that sparked some recognition within you. Since I was a young kid, despite all of the troubles I faced in youth, I always held the thought that I would never want to be anyone other than me. That thought was as natural as the world around me and held such supreme conviction to the extent that any other option would be ridiculous to entertain. Now the knowledge which I've pursued my entire life is not theological. Theology is the study of the nature of God and religious belief. I've stated more times than I care to remember that I am not religious by any definition of the term. In fact, I make it a point to avoid religion. I doubt this will be the last time I have to repeat myself. Perhaps one could accuse me of studying the nature of God since I do believe in a source, which I label All That Is. But this would not be true either. I do not search for All That Is or the meaning of All That Is. I do not seek to become "one" with All That Is. Anything I learn about All That Is is a byproduct of what I am intent on discovering. That intention is to pull back the curtain of illusion, so to speak, and understand the true nature of myself and this world. Much like Toto pulled back the curtain in The Wizard Of Oz. I want to see what lies behind this camouflage system of reality. And it literally is a camouflage existence. Every object, every living form, every event, is a symbolic representation of a greater reality. If I may be so bold to say, this is what you feel as you walk outdoors and find yourself amidst your beloved nature. You feel an indescribable connection to that which you find difficult to verbalise. Yet your sense of that connection carries such weight that no one could possibly convince you to deny it's existence. What you feel when you go out into the wild of the world is the same thing I feel. To put it simply, I want to know what it is in a much more direct fashion. I want to understand what that connection is all about. That connection is felt within. And there the journey must begin. That journey can only take place by exploring our subjective reality. That subjective reality is our consciousness. Our consciousness is what we are. And it is not a thing. Taking that journey is to discover ourselves. Don Juan has said that there is no more worthy endeavour that a man can undertake than to know himself. The true answers to any question lie within consciousness. Any answer which man has ever attained comes from within. The objective world is a literal projection of our inner realty, produced by our consciousness in full. A projection of a greater reality into a three dimensional physical medium. It's a shocking revelation, I know. It goes against most everything everyone has been taught in this life. Everything that everyone has been conditioned to believe beginning at the moment they were born. I must admit that it takes a great deal of courage to embark upon such a journey because it does counter so much of what one has been taught to be true throughout life. The real truth so often lies directly in polar opposition to the manufactured truth we've all come to accept. And that indeed creates a highly confounding situation in which your intellect feels assaulted and scandalised when confronted with the real truth. Most turn back. The scene from the movie The Matrix in which Morpheus offers Neo a choice comes closest, in my humble opinion, to describing the choice I made. Other than the part where Morpheus informs Neo of what the truth is. I would say that what that truth is is something entirely different though it's not so easily explained. I made the decision to take the red pill and discover the reality which lies behind the illusion. The reality which creates the illusion. The reality which transforms itself into a symbolic representation expressed in the medium which is physical reality. Our subjective reality is what is to be explored. More so than objective reality. The answers which would explain our precious familiar world lie there. And because this is true then that explains why everyone is capable of ascertaining the truth of our world, of ourselves, and so much more. For each of us resides in that subjective reality. Each of us is capable of making the choice to explore that inner reality. And therefore each of us is fully capable of knowing the truth for ourselves. Seth is not necessary. Yet he does have great value. Seth is, rather, someone like you and me who resides now fully in that inner reality and no longer walks within our physical one. Seth therefore has a much greater view and understanding of the nature of our world. His reality includes ours yet includes much more reality. His reality is more expansive than ours. Not better, not higher, but simply more expansive. He expresses that view, that understanding, that reality as well as ours to anyone who would willingly pay attention. I eagerly consume the knowledge he conveys because I want to know more with greater intensity than most. Now I have often been accused of believing myself to possess some higher intellect, that I look down upon others, that I'm at some other level, or other such nonsensical conclusions. As Seth offers knowledge to anyone willing to take it I in turn do the same here. Attaining knowledge does not make anyone more superior than anyone else. It does not make them more special. It does not make them more worthy. It does not make them more important. It simply makes them more knowledgeable. No different than anyone who acquires specialised knowledge in any given subject matter or field. My field of specialised knowledge is in the nature of us and our reality. Again I will quote don Juan's definition of true humbleness which he gave to Carlos Castenada. "No one is more important than you and you are no more important than anyone else." I have faithfully lived that definition in my life because I understand the truth of it as fully as I understand the truth of, for example, gravity and that jumping off a tall building will result in unwanted consequences. All interpretations of what I appear to represent to others are distortions based on individual belief. Now you ask me why I was converted. You may as well ask my why I was converted to engineering, which sounds absurd. Even more absurd, you might ask me why I was converted to knowing. There was no conversion to anything. Of course I understand your question in the context given, that you believe I'm involved in some sort of theology. Again, your impression is distorted and is generated by your personal beliefs. Your beliefs cause you to come to such conclusions. And I say that in this regard your beliefs are faulty. I do not assign fault to your beliefs in order to diminish you or invalidate your beliefs. I say it so that you might examine the beliefs you hold which led you to ask those questions which in turn reveal your beliefs to me. Reveal those beliefs to yourself. Examine them and pick up their thread. Follow them to their origin. In doing so you will discover a part of yourself and the part of you which creates your reality. I shy away from science programming. I choose my terminology purposely here and hopefully it doesn't go over your head. Why do I choose to avoid science programming? Because in a nut shell there are two theories. One, which is science's, believes that natural processes determine not only our lives but has in fact created us. The second is a theory that is in direct contradiction with the first. And that is that life, which is what we are, determines our lived experience and in fact creates the process in the first place. All I can say is that everyone places there bets. You place your general bet on science. Though you admit that when you find yourself fully amidst the natural world you feel something which is wholly unscientific. How you bridge that gap, that contradiction, is something I can't explain. Now I place my bet, the entire pile, on the second theory. Now both theories cannot be correct. Which one is the correct one and which is the false one? Go ahead and call me a liar if you like but I know.

I am not aware of any post by anyone asking people to believe in supernatural powers. And it certainly wouldn't be coming from me. If you do want to claim, or insinuate, that it was me then you'll have an impossible time trying to find the post on demand because it doesn't exist. I believe you're making this up. If you're claiming it was me then I know you're making it up. I've asked you nothing of the sort. I know you're making this up. I caught you declaring that you know something of which you know nothing and rather than admit it you're covering it up. The cover up is always worse than the crime. So far everything you said is a complete distortion and/or fabrication. Now you're trying to pull a fast one. You know as well as i know and as well as anyone here knows that you can find anything you want on the Internet. So you purposely went to what might be a legitimate site about Seth (I don't claim to know since I haven't checked it out myself), picked out of it the most bizarre posts you could find (and you know damn well that even highly legitimate sites can have comments from nutjobs on it), and then use those posts to frame Seth in a derogatory light. Your post is a deliberate, frame-job hit piece. And buddy, it's deceptive to the max. You must seriously think I'm stupid to not recognise what you're doing. I mean stupid stupid. I know of some legacy main stream news outlets who would hire you on the spot. Given the thorough dishonesty of your post then in the end we do agree on something. Except perhaps a minor point. Rather than "little point" I would substitute "totally worthless."

Reality is what it is. It functions as it does. It is what it is and functions as it does despite anyone's personal beliefs about what it is or how it functions. Personal beliefs do not change the nature of reality one whit. Now that's a basic premise. And a true one. And so it goes without saying that there will be many folks who will have beliefs about reality and how it functions that simply are not a true reflection of true reality. In other words, they're wrong. Are we now promoting the establishment of inclusiveness on this thread where everyone gets to be right? Your reality is the reality you create, as is mine and everyone else's, and it is as valid as any other reality. Your beliefs regarding reality create your particular version it. Within limits, of course. I therefore do not attempt to negate your experienced reality. Again, it has validity. However, I do disagree with your ideas of what reality is and how it functions. Do you see the difference? Now I do not at all insist that my version of reality is true because of the sole reason that I want it to be true. That would be fooling myself, which I'm not in the habit of doing. I insist that it's true because of the fact that it is true. You might not like that answer and wish it to be wrong because you want it to be wrong. You might recall that in an earlier post of mine I stated that one of the mass beliefs which most subscribe to is the idea that no one can know the truth. And anyone making such a claim is a liar. This idea is pretty much at the heart of what your post is about. You don't believe that the common man is capable of divining the truth about reality for themselves. So I must be a liar. Or possessed of some higher intellect. Or existing on another level. Those conclusions are all pure nonsense. Was my post not very informative or do you have obstacles preventing you from understanding it? Which is it? For I guarantee that it makes a whole lot of sense to a whole lot of people out there in the world. So what would be your trouble? I've posted yesterday, or the day before, analogies which help illustrate the barriers people create for themselves which inhibit growth and understanding. You might want to reread that post and ask yourself, with utmost self honesty, whether or not any of those analogies would apply to you. I've stated in the post you quoted that the evidence of truth must come from within yourself. I can find it in myself and I can help you find the evidence within yourself by pointing you in a specific direction. But again, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. You're about as stubborn as horses come.

I've earlier offered an example in which science's methodology fails. Never seen you comment on it, though. Here's the crux of your dilemma as I see it, VincentRJ. You are one who is so thoroughly convinced by the belief that only science can provide valid answers to any question involving reality. You do not recognise your belief as a belief but rather as a condition of reality. Therefore it seems inconceivable to you that valid answers can be arrived at by any other means. And certainly not by anyone not entrenched within the framework of science. And even more certain that the common man, such as myself, is capable of arriving at valid answers. I believe that sooner or later you'll understand the fallacies of your beliefs.