Sunmaster

12 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You married a fellow artist? 

 

I have indeed. 😍

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

I'll be the final judge on cake since being a German it is my automatic and God-given birthright.    Just goes to show that Harari is full of sh!t on human rights. 

 

Which one is she making?  I'd go for the cheese cake, but with raisins, made with authentic Quark from unpasteurized milk.  I kid you not, my mother would smuggle it into the U.S., going so far as to pay bribes to customs agents if need be.  Though I would be willing to die for some Streuselkuchen.  And if I've gotta die for it then it better be no less than 1 meter in diameter.  If your wife needs more recipes I can get her my mother's complete recipe book on cakes.  10,000 baht for a copy.  I know you can afford it.  Need recipes for cookies and pastries, too? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, having Italian blood in me, that makes me even more suited to judge food than any German. 😂

The competition is not about the delicious cakes you posted, but artistic cakes made with fondant, sugar paste. They create figures and scenes and such stuff.

I'll post some pics later.

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

I'll address this to you as well, @Red Phoenix.

 

What I think about Swami Sarvapriyananda doesn't really matter.  If I tell you what I disagree with and why then you would only filter that information through your current beliefs and reject all that does not fit.  You would then only defend what your beliefs are.  We've been through this with the ego and so any analysis of mine of the Swami will only be same.  You've accepted your path and are adamant that that is the path you will follow.  Who am I to dissuade you with contrary information?

 

Just an anecdote from my life which I had eventually come to recognise.

 

My parents had their beliefs which they impressed upon their children.  There was one in particular which threw me for a loop for a long, long time.  Germans are a polite people very much like Thais.  My parents stressed being considerate of others.  To the point where we had to consider others in deference to ourselves.  At least that's how I interpreted my parent's lesson to us.  And my interpretation was how I then proceeded to interact with people.

 

What that deference meant to me was that I had to consider the beliefs of others as valid over my own.  Well, as you can well imagine that worked very poorly for me.  And it would work poorly for anyone else, I would add.  But there was a benefit there for me.  A silver lining in a dark cloud.  For this process of considering others over myself meant that I would suspend my own beliefs and adopt the beliefs of another.  I would not only see the world through their eyes, through their beliefs, but also would identify with their beliefs as if they were my own.  Now since I had my own beliefs about things, as I must, then this was extremely confusing for me.  Since I was able to so strongly identify with the beliefs of others and, very importantly, accept their validity, their "truth," then that created the serious dilemma within me because it fostered immense doubt within myself about my own beliefs.  I would think to myself often that perhaps my beliefs were just plain wrong.

 

To this day, as I listen to the beliefs others express which are different from mine, it still fosters doubt within me about the truth and validity of my own beliefs.  But, fortunately for me, I have recognised this dynamic and these days I have little issue with separating the beliefs of others from my own.  That came through a lot of work though.  A lot of work as it forced me to question the validity of each and every belief I held that conflicted with the belief of another and to then determine for myself which was "truth" and which was truth.  Whilst in this process, though, I would experience confusion as to what was true and what was false.  And that would be quite unsettling.  Now that is a huge understatement.  Sometimes it was even scary to think that what I believed, especially if I had maintained a particular belief for quite a length of time, may not be true at all.  The idea was terrifying when I would consider that perhaps I might have been living a lie, or fooling myself.

 

I'll toss in some Seth here.  As he has explained, everyone has what he calls a world view.  His definition of it is the totality of beliefs one holds at any given time.  World views, however, are not permanent, or stagnant, for beliefs constantly change to one extent or another.  World views are therefore dynamic.  Another important aspect of a world view is that it is not merely ones dry, philosophical stance on everything about life, a world view which is without effect.  To the contrary.  A world view is highly practical because it literally defines ones modus operandi in life.  It is upon that which one chooses ones actions.  For action is an idea in motion and one acts only according to the ideas which make up their beliefs.  A major upheaval in beliefs would, in practical terms, throw one into a state of confusion as to how then act, or respond to situations which had previously been handled automatically.

 

You choose your parents, it is true, for your parents fit in with your intentions.  And, of course, yours with theirs.  My intention in this life is to understand who and what I am and the reality I find myself in.  And so my parents assisted me in acquiring the skill of being able to suspend my beliefs, the "truth" of them, whilst I consider other ideas, other beliefs, and whether or not they have any real truth.

 

You, Sunmaster, have accepted your beliefs as true, no different than anyone else.  And so I'm telling you that in order to consider the validity of the Seth material you would necessarily have to temporarily suspend all of your current beliefs which you consider true whilst you adopt the ideas of Seth as true.  To pretend for awhile that they are indeed true.  Temporarily only whilst you try their truths on for size.  Not permanently, mind you.  Whether you decide to make them permanent or not is for you to decide by comparing and contrasting to see which is true for you.  This process is, as has been described, the ideal method in which we are to play with ideas as children play with building blocks.  And that play is supposed to be fun.  Unfortunately, rather than a process of play it is approached with deadly seriousness.

 

Now, if you attempt to understand the Seth material whilst bringing your current beliefs along with you then you will do nothing other than sift through the material and toss out anything which does not fit your current beliefs.  Your beliefs will act practically as a filter.  And those ideas of Seth which do agree with your current beliefs will be accepted and then give the appearance that Seth's ideas and your current ideas are indeed one and the same.  I tell you, though, that overall they are not.  There are radical differences between the two.  As I've said often, you will no doubt find similarities between the Seth material and all religions.  Do not, though, ignore the differences or pretend they do not exist.  For those difference are meant to be entertained and questioned if one is truly interested in moving beyond their beliefs in order to divine true reality.

 

I'm opting out of providing my views to everyone because I understand, perhaps more fully than I ever have, that everyone has there own ideas and their own paths which they have, with great intention, embarked upon.  Overhauling ones beliefs to a great extent is not for everyone.  That would be biting off more than most are willing to chew.  Or able to chew given their level of understanding.  Adopting any of the information I provide leads to a major overhaul.  I can't legitimately and honestly expect that from anyone.  You create your own reality.  That is simply too much for folks to accept for too many reasons.  Yet there's no right nor wrong about it.

 

In the immortal words of Abraham, "life is not a horserace."  We are not on a sprint to see how quickly we can attain "enlightenment," or "heaven," or a state of "bliss," or a true understanding of ourselves and our reality.  That true understanding will come about naturally in due course and at ones own pace.  In this lifetime or another.  In this probability or another.

 

We've been given the gift of the Gods; to create.  In that sense we are Gods.  No matter what reality our consciousness travels to we will still be creating our experience there.  There is no reality in which experience is set for you, or predetermined for you, or chosen for you.  There is no reality which exists apart from you.  The basis of all realities is individual freedom.  Freedom is inherent within our being.  That will eternally be the case for Sunmaster and for every other consciousness, be it man, animal, stone or star.  Challenge is implied in creation.  Challenge is growth.  To become something, to experience oneself as other than what one knows oneself to be now.  And so you will eternally create and never be without challenge.  And every challenge then implies "problems" to be overcome.  Hence there is no state of existence where you are without challenges for that would indeed be a state where growth reaches a final destination.  At that point you can only endlessly repeat yourself.  And that is true death, which does not exist.

 

Just so that it is clearly understood, the Seth material is not given to solve anyone's problems.  It is not given as "a way of life."  It is not given as a philosophy.  It is not given as a religion.  It is given to return oneself to ones own natural and inherent power to create ones experience, wherever and whatever that may be.

 

My purpose is not to solve your problems for you, but to put you in touch with your own power. My purpose is not to come between you and your own freedom by giving you "answers," even to the most tragic of problems. My purpose is to reinforce your own strength, for ultimately the magic of your being is well equipped to help you find fulfillment, understanding, exuberance, and peace.

 

Anyway, I do not intend to break off communication with either of you.  I enjoy our conversations immensely and so wish to continue.  Both of you are up for challenges in this regard.  Both of you are willing to test out different ideas other than your own.  It has been my experience that folks exhibiting that willingness are far and few between.  And without that willingness then any engagement becomes little more than hopping on an endless merry-go-round, and one which is no fun at all.  I'll take it private then.

 

Whilst all religions teach that people are basically powerless science leaves no doubt.  Science teaches that people have no power at all.  I reject any idea which suggests that people are powerless.  Or any idea which suggests that people do not create their lives, their experiences, down to the last insignificant detail.

Going for the length record here? 😄

I understand what you're saying. Everyone filters out information that they are able to process at their current level of understanding. That's why we can read the same book 10, 20 years apart and discover new concepts. They were already there, but we had a blind spot for them.

Of course you know that this means that there are probably blind spots for the material we use as source of information right now. Would you agree?

Most people see spirituality as an opposite of science. For them it's an either-or situation. Yet, for someone with a wider perspective, it becomes clear that they are not at odds, simply because spirituality includes the material world along with science. Science is a small circle within the bigger circle of spirituality. They are not 2 separate circles next to each other.

So, while reading your last post and others before them, I often pictured Seth's material and Vedanta in the same way. They are not 2 separate circles next to each other, maybe intersecting each other a little. I see Seth as a circle within the circle of Vedanta. Seth simply focuses more on the material existence and how to create reality in a way that is most beneficial to you. Vedanta goes a step further and talks about non-duality, from which all else emerges, including the material existence, the ego, life itself.

But like you say, the ultimate intention here is to bring you closer and strengthen your link to your true nature. To make you see who or what you really are.

Turns out that's the ultimate goal of Vedanta too. 😊

So, maybe that's why I can't see any contradictions between the 2. If these 2 intentions are aligned and work in a practicalway, then the rest are just details.

Ps: As usual, I edited some parts.

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Whenever you decide to get your lazy ar$e outta bed your coffee and pastries will be waiting for you, Sunmaster.  Let your wife sleep for a change. 

 

Cheers!

I've got my breakfast waiting for me in the hotel. Will be in Korat until Sunday to support my wife who is participating in a cake competition. 

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

It's coincidental that I had very much wanted to address the rest of your post from my perspective rather immediately, RP, but didn't.  But, of course, there is no such thing as coincidence.  There is such a thing as timing, though.  There was something else which I needed to understand in order to respond to your most excellent, insightful post, RP.  Which I again thank you for. 

 

So let me explain about this timing . . .

 

@Sunmaster's Why does God >insert your grievance here<....? thread was revitalised for a short time.  fusion58 had replied to one of my posts so I engaged him.  We had a number of lengthy exchanges revolving around the usual "everything that exists must show evidence of itself in physical, quantifiable, sensory terms or else it doesn't exist" claim, which idea has it's foundation in the tenets of science and is widely accepted, especially in the west where science dominates as the curator of "truth."  As is the typical outcome of so many of these discussions my "opponent" eventually exited the conversation.

 

save the frogs chimed in after my last unanswered post to fusion58 to complain about my attempt to "take over" the conversation, as I had three posts in a row (as did fusion58 but since he aligned with save the frogs then that was okay  ), and chided me over my " verbosity" (as did fusion58 but again since he aligned with save the frogs then that was okay  ).  I couldn't help but notice the contradiction between his reply, which clearly showed his irritation with me, and few of his recent replies to me in which he said:

 

go for it. i don't want to interfere with whatever you need to be sharing.

 

There's a lot of misinfo out there. So yeah, put your ideas out there. 

Not sure if a forum like this is the best place.

Why not write a book? 

Or does anybody read books anymore?

 

And:

 

No, I shouldn't be discouraging you.

Keep sharing your ideas.

 

Next, Sunmaster posted a video entitled "Who Am I? | Vakya Vritti - Part 3" by Swami Sarvapriyananda.  I watched a good portion of the video and portions of another select few of his videos.

 

VincentRJ would pop in now and again and I quoted him a few times but received no reply to any of those posts.

 

I've noticed, too, and maybe you guys have as well, that as Sunmaster and I were having some lengthy, very in depth exchanges there was almost a complete absence of other posters.

 

Now I also post in another forum on a wide array of topics under the umbrella of current world affairs.  The divisions between people are basically split in two and couldn't be much more black and white.

 

So, as I consider the above I've come back to RP's wonderful words:

 

And so when choosing which Path (if any) to follow on your individual journey towards Truth, it is only natural that you will be attracted to that religion / teaching which is most aligned with you current level of consciousness.  For Tippa that's Seth, for Sunmaster it are the Hindu yogi's, sages and masters.  For me it's Gurdjieff and the Sufi sages.

Let me be clear > Imo there is no wrong or right Path, but it is the path that helps you on your journey which is the right one for you. And the closer you get to the Truth (or actual Reality as Tippa would say), the more you will recognize and appreciate the unspoken same undercurrent in all of these spiritual approaches.

 

Now I've known the truth of this for a long, long time.  It's given in Seth's material.  It has been pointed out by Abraham.  Yet throughout my spiritual journey I've always maintained the notion that what I know, which is based in both intellectual, intuitive and emotional understanding, could be understood by others. Despite having read don Juan telling Carlos that you can't take anyone with you.  Perhaps I thought he might be in error.    But now I know with certainty he is not.  For in one of my replies to fusion58 I wrote this myself:

 

That was a stark, in-your-face lesson of the power of belief, a huge lesson which many still fail to recognise.  It showed with magnificent clarity that even though something is utterly false it can be held as true as long as it is believed to be true.  And once held as "true" nothing, and I mean nothing - facts, logic, evidence, what have you - had enough power to  challenge the great power of belief.  There is, however, one thing that can overcome the immense strength of the power of belief . . . the individual holding the belief as "true" begins to question the belief's validity.  That mere questioning can destroy the most powerful of beliefs.  Unfortunately, most never, ever dare question what they believe to be "true."

 

And so I've decided to shortly leave others to themselves.

 

. . . you have to be opportunistic on your journey and opt for that which helps you further.

 

So it is with everyone.  There is no one who does not question deeply about the subject matter we talk about.  And in the wise words of Abraham, "everyone is right were they're supposed to be."

 

My only reservation for exiting all forums prior to the understanding which has been hammered home by RP and my recent realisations is this:  Though what I offer seems to me to be of no help to others I've found the engagement to be helpful to me.  And now I wonder if I need the engagement any longer.

 

There is one concept I'd like to leave folks with, though it's lengthy and, sorry Sunmaster, it's quoted from the Seth material.  So I'll post that separately.  This information fits perfectly with RP's perceptive material which I quoted here.  At least for me. 

 

What did you think about Swami Sarvapriyananda? 

4 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

~

One of the scientists that has been exploring this field for decades is biologist Rupert Sheldrake.

You might be interested in checking out Chapter 4 - Is Matter Unconscious? of his 2012 book 'The Science Delusion' (updated in 2020) > see attached PDF.

Here the intro paragraph of that chapter:

The central doctrine of materialism is that matter is the only reality. Therefore consciousness ought not to exist. Materialism’s biggest problem is that consciousness does exist. You are conscious now. The main opposing theory, dualism, accepts the reality of consciousness, but has no convincing explanation for its interaction with the body and the brain. Dualist-materialist arguments have gone on for centuries. In this chapter I suggest how we can move forwards from this sterile opposition.

 

But no matter what evidence he provides from the experiments he conducted, 'mainstream science' rejects it as it goes against their dogmatic "scientish" belief systems...

The Science Delusion ( PDFDrive ).pdf 1.98 MB · 0 downloads

I went to Sheldrake's book presentation in London around 2005. Got a signed copy from him. 

I also studied overtone singing with his wife, Jill. 

5 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Both Seth and don Juan have explained that the never ending inner dialogue people engage in every waking moment is precisely what upholds the awareness of the world.  Shut that off and the world literally disappears.

The Vedantic teachings say that too, and they encourage people to do that as a daily practice. 

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

 

Wikipedia has an interesting article on neurotheology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_religion

 

The following quote from the article is an interesting explanation of the processes that result in a Buddhist monk, meditator, or contemplative guru, experiencing what they feel is the ultimate reality, or a oneness with the universe.

 

"What Andrew B. Newberg and others "discovered is that intensely focused spiritual contemplation triggers an alteration in the activity of the brain that leads one to perceive transcendent religious experiences as solid, tangible reality. In other words, the sensation that Buddhists call oneness with the universe." 

 

The orientation area requires sensory input to do its calculus. "If you block sensory inputs to this region, as you do during the intense concentration of meditation, you prevent the brain from forming the distinction between self and not-self," says Newberg. With no information from the senses arriving, the left orientation area cannot find any boundary between the self and the world. As a result, the brain seems to have no choice but "to perceive the self as endless and intimately interwoven with everyone and everything." "The right orientation area, equally bereft of sensory data, defaults to a feeling of infinite space. The meditators feel that they have touched infinity."

 

Here's the definition of 'orientation', in this context.

 

"Orientation is a function of the mind involving awareness of three dimensions: time, place and person. Problems with orientation lead to disorientation, and can be due to various conditions. It ranges from an inability to coherently understand person, place, time, and situation, to complete orientation."

Very interesting. 

There is hope for finally uniting science and spirituality.

On 12/11/2023 at 6:44 PM, xylophone said:

This is so true and both sad and amusing.....................

 

Oh thanks, we only saw it about 15 times here. It never gets old, doesn't it.  

Or does it?

Today I had a discussion with a friend on the topic of "the hard problem of consciousness ", which is "does consciousness emerge from matter?" 

He's a staunch materialist and believes that the brain produces consciousness. 

We were arguing our points of view back and forth in a civilized manner, until he just said. "We all know that the brain produces consciousness. That's indisputable. "

To which I pointed out that it's far from being indisputable. In fact it is still very much disputed by science. There are several scientific theories, ranging from purely biological to more subtle explanations. No scientist would claim to know how consciousness is produced.

Well, it didn't go well after that. He resorted to mocking and ridiculing, so I stopped.

One good thing that came out of it, is that I learned about Neurotheology. A relatively new scientific field that tries to gap the bridge between the materialistic worldview (consciousness from matter) and the spiritual worldview (everything is consciousness). These scientists study purely subjective experiences of altered states of consciousness (including sleep, meditation and mystical experiences) in conjunction with the objective gathering of data by analysing brain waves and changes in the physiology of the subject. 

Fascinating. 

Sometimes a video is worth sharing. This one is.
If you're going to watch it, please take your time and follow with attention. It's 1hr:30mins long, so get yourself a nice cup of tea with honey, kick back and enjoy (if you can). 
Swami Sarvapriyananda is a gifted speaker with great philosophical insight. You can watch it as materialist, believer or anything in between and outside, the message is for anyone who is willing to explore (your) consciousness in a logical way. 
What is matter? What is consciousness? Who are you?
Enjoy
 

21 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Is that Basil sticking his nose out?    Or is Basil a she? 

 

How much for a portrait?  Of course I'd expect a highly artistic interpretation of me which shows me to be 25. 

Basil is a "he". His gender is well defined.

Tippa...then and now...
These are free, for you, for today.

32 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

All's well in my world again.  Looks like I needed to clear my browser's cache.

 

But now I have another problem.  When I type the number 3 as text it comes out as threee - with an extra 'e'.    Are you guys seeing this, too?

Tippa's gone off the rails completely now. 😵‍💫

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

(one of the few emoticons that work) 

Absolutely none of your emojis work. A sign from the Heavens perhaps? hmmm

31 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Wow, Vince.  You just got Popular Post status.  I never get that.    I got on Sunmaster's case to not be a cheap Charlie on handing out reactions in the hope that with his help I might have more than a snowball's chance in hell of having one of my posts become popular. 

The day AN will add an emoji with a condescending, sarcastic smirk, I will hand them out like candies at a kid's birthday party.

51 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

One moment, please, whilst I switch over to my intellect so that I can make use of it's reasoning function.  [great noise of machinery at work]

 

If the intuition is not separate but only a byproduct of meditation, and yet I've never meditated, then why do I possess intuition?  

 

[sound of Sunmaster raising himself off the floor after clumsily falling down] 

<Sunmaster rises his heavy bottom from the floor>

The same way you already have calf muscles as an inherent part of your body. You don't need to exercise to have those muscles. 

The difference is that meditation trains the whole leg muscles and not just the calf muscles. 

Sure, you can focus on your calf muscles specifically, but if you neglect the rest of the legs, the result will be rather awkward looking.

If you are a materialist and don't exercise any of your leg muscles, you basically have no legs to stand on when presenting your arguments. 😄

<Tippa's intellectual machinery goes into overdrive>

9 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Well, you're not saying it very well then.   

 

You see, Vince, I can't help but poke fun at my friend the Sunmaster.  He's got that big, red "X" painted on his back but doesn't know it. 

Jeez. Thanks for that.
If my wife asks me why I'm lying on the sofa the whole day, I'll tell her that it's to cover that "X" Tippa put on my back. 

17 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Well, since I don't meditate I cannot comment for I lack any reference.  But I will say that intuition, at least as I experience it, doesn't always come in spurts of flashes.  It can last all morning for me in great blocks of time.  I have no doubt, and would never argue against, meditation being an avenue and having it's unique benefits.  But then again, there is no one road that leads to a destination.  And I would not believe anyone if they were to tell me that there is only a single road, whether it be meditation or some other process.  Or, put differently, as it is commonly said in the U.S., there's more than one way to skin a cat. 

 

I would not be one to tell others that the only way to "know" is via meditation.  It's one path of many and each path affords it's unique advantages.  But to claim that meditation is the only path it then, by implication, unfairly discounts any other path. 

I'm not saying that meditation is absolutely necessary and the only way to live a fulfilling life, but it certainly gives you the best shot at it, because it greatly strengthens the link to the inner world, including intuition, creativity, compassion. It is a tool (tested, refined and validated over a very long time) to get (re)acquaintanced with the whole of your identity. To know yourself is to know God. 

What I'm clumsily trying to say, is that maybe we shouldn't isolate intuition and view it as something separate, because it's a byproduct of that link strengthening that emerges naturally through meditation. 

10 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 

I would disagree with the concept of 'whole new level'. There are numerous grades and levels of understanding which all involve the intellect, that is, the processing in the mind of all data received through the five senses of sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch. Such processing also involves  the memory of past and related experiences.

 

A person who has never visited a beach anywhere, but has read wonderful stories about the beauty of beaches, which stimulate his/her imagination, might be very disappointed when visiting a beach in Thailand for the first time. The weather might be dull, the water dirty, and the sand might be cluttered with rubish. 

 

On the other hand, if the only story about beaches the person has read, is about the awful trash on Thai beaches, then, when the person, for the first time, happens to visit a beach which is pristine and the weather is fantastic, his direct experience will not accord with what he has read.

 

Also, we need to discuss this concept of 'intellectual knowledge alone'. Is there really such a thing? There are varying degrees of distinction to be made between 'fiction' and 'non-fiction'. It's not 'either/or'. Everything is 'fiction' to some degree, because everything, every sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch, has to be interpreted by the mind, and such interpretations always differ to some degree, even if there is a consensus on an issue.

 

This is why it's impossible to completely separate the subject from the object.

 

The disciplines of science strive to be as non-fictitious as possible, and succeed to the degree that the scientific understanding becomes non-fictitious, resulting from the application of the 'true methodology of scientific enquiry'. However, because of the complexity of many situations, a degree of uncertainty still exists, especially in the so-called 'soft' sciences, such as economics, psychology, sociology, political science, anthropology, various field of medicine, climate change, and so on.

 

It's difficult to find a comprehensice list of 'soft' sciences, probably because it's not an 'either/or' situation. However, the fundamental concept of a 'soft' science is based upon an inability to create the conditions required to 'falsify' a particular theory, because there are so many variables, and/or the time involved to get a result makes the experiment impractical.

 

Is there anyone reading this, who would prefer to live in a world devoid of the benefit of modern science? 

You are right Vincent. Knowledge is gained through a mix of sources. Even the most intellectual, academical professor will use intuition when working on a problem.

I made the extreme example to better highlight the differences. Like you say, there are degrees between the 2 extremes.

Whether the person reading about the beaches is disappointed by reality or not, depends on his imagination and expectation. Mind Stuff. Once he sees the beach, he is confronted with "what is". That's what I'm trying to say. 

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

 

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. 

 

I didn’t include intuition because, from the way I see it, practicing intuition is subordinate to practicing meditation.

It is a skill that can be trained on its own (like you do), but is most effective when developed through meditation. The more you meditate, the more proficient you are in trusting and using your intuition automatically. Meditation goes deeper than just allow you to have flashes of insight.

It's like exercising your calf muscles only, instead of doing a full leg workout, which includes the calves anyway. 

Imagine having skinny legs with massive calf muscles. 😅

And while we're at it...

You didn't answer my question about subjective time.

What exactly is it? Do you practice it? How do you practice it? What are the results/benefits of practicing it?

Can it be compared to meditation? How?

This will keep you busy for a while. 😉

Direct question for you @Tippaporn, but open to everyone. 

Do you agree or disagree that knowledge gained through direct experience offers a whole new level of data and understanding compared to intellectual knowledge alone?

Examples: reading about the beautiful beaches in Thailand VS actual visiting them.

Learning about skydiving on YT VS actually jumping from a plane.

Training as a soldier in your home country VS going to fight in a real battlefield.

Ps: A yes or no answer is perfectly fine. 😁