Sunmaster

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. 😁

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. 👍👏🤜🤛💪💪💪