Sunmaster

16 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

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. 

Some work fine, others don't.

9 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Well now, time for a fuller reply.  And thanks for your additional explanation. 

 

"Imagine the One being a child. It's lonely and bored and wants a friend to play with."

 

I would say that your analogy is inappropriate since your greater self is not bored in the least.    Your greater self is sourced in endless creativity.  Your greater self is engaged in constant and never ending self expression.  It is also eternally fulfilling itself.  Thus in it's creative expression of itself towards it's fulfillment it forms realities in which it seeds with portions of itself.  Bored?  I don't think so. 

 

"So it creates finger puppets. Now it has 10 puppets on its hands but they have no independence."

 

I believe the idea that our physical selves have no independence to be highly distorted.  Consider this:

 

There is a basic unit of consciousness that, expressed, will not be broken down, as once it was thought that an atom was the smallest unit and could not be broken down. The basic unit of consciousness obviously is not physical. It contains within itself innately infinite properties of expansion, development, and organization; yet within itself always maintains the kernel of its own individuality. Despite whatever organizations it becomes part of, or how it mixes with other such basic units, its own identity is not annihilated.

It is aware energy, identified within itself as itself, not "personified" but awareized. It is therefore the source of all other kinds of consciousness, and the varieties of its activity are infinite. It combines with others of its kind, forming then units of consciousness - as, mentioned often, atoms and molecules combine.

 

Seth's introduction of consciousness units, or CUs, I consider to be one of his most startling revelations.  The shocker he is bringing awareness to is that these indivisible units of consciousness form all types of consciousness.  Now in Seth's previous books he's made clear the idea that what we are, our physical Sunmaster selves, is a gestalt consciousness.  Now I should give my definition of 'gestalt':  an organized whole that is perceived as more than the sum of its parts.  These CUs, then, organize themselves into gestalts and then these gestalts have their own identity as a gestalt consciousness.  Hi, Sunmaster!!    Yet the individual CUs always retain their identities and individuality despite merging together to form a greater unit.  Hi, Sunmaster!!    The mechanics of this are gone into much greater depth by Seth.

 

Think of a company.  Any company is composed of individuals.  As a company, a gestalt created by and comprised of all the individuals taking willing part in the company, it then, too, has an identity as say, XYZ Corp.  Now the company assigns functions to the individuals, all of whom freely and willingly take part.  Whilst the company provides a certain amount of direction the workers, then, have free will which is bounded by the company's rules and regulations.  Yet if an individual decides to leave the company, which he is free to do, then he still retains his identity and his free will but moves on.  This is rather a crude analogy and one which just came to mind.  I'd have to think about it more to see that it's truly fitting but I think it gets the general idea across. 

 

Now this material certainly blows apart our limited views of identity.  And individuality.  And explains our separate individuality despite being unified with our greater self, which is merely a much greater gestalt consciousness than the gestalt consciousness that we are as physical selves.  Remember my analogy of Russian Matryoshka dolls?  To me they represent a gestalt consciousness within, or part of, another gestalt consciousness, which itself is part of an even greater gestalt consciousness.  This is how I view All That Is.  The ultimate gestalt consciousness which is, as the definition of gestalt defines: an organized whole that is perceived as more than the sum of its parts.  All That Is is more than the sum of it's parts.

 

Seth also makes my analogy of the Russian Matryoshka dolls clear in this passage:

 

The units form themselves into the various systems that they have themselves initiated. They transform themselves, therefore, into the structured reality that they then become. Ruburt is quite correct in his supposition of what he calls "multipersonhood" in "Adventures [In Consciousness]."

You think of one I-self (spelled) as the primary and ultimate end of evolution. Yet there are, of course, other identities with many such I-selves, each as aware and independent as your own, while also being aware of the existence of a.greater identity in which they have their being. Consciousness fulfills itself by knowing itself. The knowledge changes it, in your terms, into a greater gestalt that then tries to fulfill and know itself, and so forth.

 

Consciousness creates camouflage systems which they then immerse themselves in.  At least as much of themselves as can be expressed within that camouflage system, for the whole cannot fit.  Those portions of itself that enter the camouflage system are themselves gestalt consciousness with their own identity and individuality and free will and independence.  Question:  do you think babies are made only on earth? 

 

The last two lines of that excerpt describe, or allude to, the never ending expansion of our greater selves, which has nothing to do with space.  The point of our physical selves is to aide in that expansion.  That makes us critically important to our greater selves.  And our physical experience then changes our greater self.  And so it is with All That Is as well.  Never ending expansion via fulfillment and rediscovering itself as something else, all rooted in inherent and unlimited creativity.

 

I had mentioned before that the Unknown Reality is one of my favourite books, though not until sometime later in my life as I needed to become knowledgeable about other concepts first.  Here is Seth speaking directly to what I'm alluding to:

 

"The Nature of Personal Reality" is an excellent handbook, one that will enable people to manipulate in the world they know with greater effectiveness. It will not matter whether or not they understand deeper issues upon which the whole nature of physical reality itself depends. The material I am giving now will attempt some explanation of those deeper issues.

Ruburt's own development makes this possible, for it was necessary that he progress to the point that he has in "Adventures [In Consciousness]," and reach the level of certain theories so that these could be used as springboards. Give us a moment . . .

 

It turns out that my experience was no different.  I needed to understand more concepts upon which the material on consciousness units would make sense to me.

 

I've been toying a lot lately with the idea of presenting Seth's material on consciousness units and walking them through in my own words as I simply can't shake the feeling that this material would would bring a great deal of clarity and explanation that would dispel so many distortions, as I sense them to be.  Because a part of me feels to be going round and round as what I'm attempting to explain on other issues appears to me to not be understood.  There is a great deal of material that follows what I have excerpted which is in itself exceedingly eye opening as well.  Seth gets into the mechanics of it.  The mere existence of Basil serves as proof that you like to get down with the nuts and bolts. 

 

Anyway, that's my long-winded response.    As I see it, your difficulty with the above will be whether or not it fits into your worldview, or what about it may clash with your worldview.  No doubt you may find yourself having to rearrange some of your mental furniture.  Or you'll simply reject what clashes or doesn't fit and let me know in no uncertain terms. 

I have no problem with the idea of CU's. Consciousness is All There Is, so it makes sense that the smallest particles are made from the same stuff and have a certain degree of self-awareness to interact with other particles. 
It also makes perfect sense that a group of particles get together to form a more complex unit, but with an awareness that is more than just the sum of its parts. 
It also makes sense that our present consciousness/awareness is in turn part of a bigger, more complex unit. 

I believe that we are presently immersed into full divine awareness (already fully enlightened) but not aware of it, the same goes for any and all units (atoms, cells, organs etc). The are all conscious and self-aware according to their level of development and complexity, yet all of them (including us) are direct expressions of the One Consciousness. Just like a hologram: the tiniest part of a hologram carries within itself the whole image. 

Honestly, I don't see how this would clash with my worldview. 

You wrote Consciousness fulfills itself by knowing itself.

This is the finger-puppet metaphor right there.
The knowledge changes it, in your terms, into a greater gestalt that then tries to fulfill and know itself, and so forth.

The finger puppet gains knowledge (THROUGH DIRECT EXPERIENCE AND NOT BOOKS) and finds out a greater gestalt called hand, an even greater one called arm...until it eventually comes to the ultimate realization that it is not just a puppet, nor just a hand or arm, but the child itself.

There, I successfully managed to merge both theories into one. Where are my cookies?

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

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? 

How do you even know who gave what reaction to whom? It's anonymous...
Are you psychic? Give me some lottery numbers too!

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

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. 

If you spend more than 50% of your time thinking about pu$$y and 50% about where to get your next beer, you'll have 0% left to think about more important things. I think that's excessive. 20% + 20% are more than enough. 

10 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

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. 

I don't know. All I see are CU's...

33 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

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.   

 

It's OK. 👍👏🤜🤛💪💪💪

7 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Don't forget to leave your mailing address for your family. 

 

 

My ego thanks you. 

 

Unfortunately there's no <whipping> emoticon for yours. 

There you go.

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

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. 

Seriously though, what do you think about the 3rd option. Maybe that's what Seth meant by "becoming the thought"?

I made a neat little sandbox for the Trolls to play in, but they still prefer to come here. Go figure...

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

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. 

You said it first... "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." The cave in the Himalayas will be there waiting for me for when I'm ready. 

Are you saying I'm not stroking egos enough? 
There you go: 

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

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. 

You say that as if a threesome were a bad thing...ts ts ts
I thought you were open-minded...

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

Of course if we do that 60's or 70's style we'll need some drugs.

Hey, waddabout me?!

53 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

@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. 

Now let me introduce fellow C.

He sees A and B bickering over the object's look, endlessly discussing this and that propriety. C is not satisfied with any of it.
He read somewhere that there is an even better way to know the object than to just stepping back and looking at it and then describing it. He heard that the best way to know the object is to close his eyes, step away from all the mind stuff and identify with the object, in other words....become one with the object. So he does that and thus gains an even higher vantage point of understanding the object, which is now no longer an object, but his own body. He understands that all other vantage points are too limited to grasp the full existence of the object as they still rely on the mind to translate what they see into words. Being the object gives C a complete, immediate and natural understanding, without the filters and distortions of the mind.

Happily, C tells both A and B about his discovery. They look at him in disbelieve. A thinks he's even crazier than B. B takes out his notebook and tries to tell C that what C is saying does not match what the notebook is saying and tells C that he must be mistaken. If C could only study his notebook better, he would see the error too.
So C smiles at himself and goes for a walk.

The thesaurus....at least one book we all have in common. 🤣

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

@Sunmaster

 

Rather than edit my post to include another question, and something else which seems to be lacking in any of your discussions of the worldview you hold, gleaned from various sources, is this:

 

What of the inherent infinite creativity which consciousness is endowed with?  Where does that fit into 'higher' and 'lower' consciousness and inner and outer realities?

 

 

I see creativity as an inherent quality of consciousness. The same way as love. We are vehicles to express these qualities. 

One may tap into these qualities according to his present state of development. 

Incidentally, I just wrote a comment today on Facebook in one of the watercolor groups.

"Art is the physical interpretation, expression and manifestation of your inner world. A shallow person will produce shallow art. A person who has navigated  and explored the inner world deeply, will be able to produce art full of deeper meaning. Strive to know yourself, your true nature and identity and good art will follow. This is independent of technical skills, but those skills obviously help to translate the inner world into physical art effectively."

While I have a hard time calling myself an artist (creativity+skills), I think I'm quite creative and I try to channel this in everything I do. 

Does this answer your question? 

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Imagine the One being a child. It's lonely and bored and wants a friend to play with. So it creates finger puppets. Now it has 10 puppets on its hands but they have no independence. So the child decides to let the finger puppets forget the fact that they are the fingers of the child, so they start believing that they are separate entities. They start to interact with each other as if they were separate characters. The child observes them and chuckles in delight. "Oh look at them. So funny. I wonder when they will realize their true nature. Well, let's wait and see."
Or something like this. :-D

Addendum about "free will".

From the perspective of the puppets they are indeed under the impression that they are deciding things. But ultimately they wouldn't exist without the will of the child. The child's will is a priori to the puppet's will. That makes their "free will" an illusion just like their existence as separate beings is an illusion. 

Does that make sense?

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

 

As to your third question . . .

 

I believe I had passed this on to you earlier.  123 pages.    The definitive handbook on Seth's recommended exercises.

 

Here's an interesting one pertaining to my comments on RP's Brainly offering.

 

Experiencing an idea intuitively

When this focus is finished, when the subject tells himself "Now I will come to, now I have solved the problems that I set out to solve," then what hap-pens is the withdrawal of the self from the plane. The construction vanishes and is heir to the materials which compose the particular universe.

I will also go into this more deeply. You should be able to see now why a concept such as I refer to is difficult to achieve on your plane. You cannot focus upon it thoroughly. When the fourth inner sense is exercised, and I will outline exercises and all three of you would certainly benefit by following my suggestions, you will discover what an idea really is.

You will discover this by experiencing the idea directly, and you can best achieve some approximation of accomplishment by using psychological time. Your idea of experiencing a concept is doubtlessly to follow it through from beginning to end. Sweet tootsies, there is no beginning or end, and this idea of yours is the result of a complete and utter concentration upon camouflage time.

Nor does the evolution of either an idea or a species involve time. It merely involves time in your universe. You insist upon labeling as laws of absolutes what is actually your distorted and limited vision of concepts as they seem to appear to you. Using psychological time, sit in a quiet room; and I hope this is not impossible, when an idea comes to you, and I presume it will, do not play with it intellectually. You can dissect it to your heart's content after the experience.

Reach out to the idea intuitively. Do not be afraid of or reject unfamiliar bodily sensations. With practice, and to a very limited degree, you will find that you can become the idea. You will be inside the idea, looking out, not looking in. This is thought.

If you think you think you are in for a surprise.

Session 37, Page 298

 

 

Compilation of Seth Exercises.pdf 607.66 kB · 0 downloads

 

I often read about "psychological time" but to be honest, I still don't quite understand what it is exactly. Maybe you can explain it?

The practical instruction here is a bit confusing. How do you become the idea? What is the point in becoming the idea? How do you reach out to the idea without becoming attached to it? Have you done it or are you practicing this? How?

I will try to answer your other question about creativity later. Now I have to take Basil and drive to the immigration office.

52 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

It is a reminder that words and concepts are limited and that the world is full of mystery, and that it's important to avoid becoming too attached to ideas, concepts or words as they can limit one's understanding of the true greater reality.

Edit & comment.  Green = Kind of ambiguous to me.  Unfortunately, I can't quite put my finger on it as I'm not too clear on the precise meaning that this is alluding to.  It's the "ideas, concepts" part that I'm having trouble with.  Somehow they don't seem to fit.  Any suggestions or what it means to you?

Excellent post.

The green section reminds me of the finger and the moon analogy. It is important to remember that the finger pointing at the moon (I called it "map" in previous posts) is not the moon. Becoming too attached to the finger, focusing too much on the way it looks, comparing it with other fingers etc, is keeping the seeker from experiencing the moon itself. 
Concepts emerge after the direct experience and are a way for the mind to build a framework around it and make sense of the experience. During the experience, there are no concepts because those are "mind stuff". The experience transcends the mind. 
So, all this means is not to get attached to the mind stuff, which is just a reflection of the moon in muddy waters.
 

59 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

So I ask, why does greater consciousness create these camouflage systems in the first place?

 

A common answer to this question (also known as "What the hell are we doing here?!") is that it is a way for the One to experience itself. And to do that, it has to split into 2. The next step is to put a veil of forgetfulness over the creation in order for the game to really work. 

Imagine the One being a child. It's lonely and bored and wants a friend to play with. So it creates finger puppets. Now it has 10 puppets on its hands but they have no independence. So the child decides to let the finger puppets forget the fact that they are the fingers of the child, so they start believing that they are separate entities. They start to interact with each other as if they were separate characters. The child observes them and chuckles in delight. "Oh look at them. So funny. I wonder when they will realize their true nature. Well, let's wait and see."
Or something like this. :-D

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Why do you choose to come into this camouflage system in the first place?  For it was, indeed, your choice to be here (though you would be hard pressed to recall making that decision ). 

Difficult to answer. Who is that "you" you're referring to? 

And with that, I'll let you digest and I will retire for the time being. 

Not sure how accurate the above info is...

 

While I wait for your reply, I asked another wise "man" called BARD.

 

In regards to RP's post, how do you see this point of direct experience as opposed to mere intellectual knowledge, Tippa?

Is Lao Tze's statement a distortion?

Does Seth offer practical methods to obtain direct experience? 

Asking for a friend...

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Okay, I jumped the gun as I posted before seeing your last post.  You posted before I was able to edit.  Reread for the edit.

 

But excellent.  Now we can have the benefit of discussing what's near and dear to both of us and rather than walking on egg shells over disagreements we can have some real fun while we're at it, too. 

It was a pretend sad face. 
Vulcans can not be sad...

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Come now, Sunmaster.  That was me telling you the equivalent of the "What's better, being black or being gay?" joke.  I'm ribbing you.  Poking fun.  Of course I don't think it's woo.  I'm purposely poking fun to say 1) none of this is life or death serious and 2) lighten up and have fun. 

 

I posted that anecdote to illustrate an ideal relationship I had with another in that we were so loose with each other that nothing between us was ever taken too seriously, though we did talk about serious issues.  But any disagreements we had over serious issues never even got close to producing heated arguments, with all of their accompanying ugly feelings.  Bull and I could talk about anything.  Anything at all and we would always maintain respect and love for each other.  (No, we weren't gay.)

 

Man, I would love to replicate that ideal again here. 

What makes you think I took it seriously??
I was laughing out loud and rubbing my Vulcan bear paws in anticipation!