Do you believe in God and why

[Elad]

27 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

You say "some people think". What do you think? 

I don't really like to speculate but it wouldn't surprise me if there were extra dimensions.

Have you ever heard of a 3-sphere?

[Sunmaster]

3 minutes ago, Elad said:

I don't really like to speculate but it wouldn't surprise me if there were extra dimensions.

Have you ever heard of a 3-sphere?

No,,never heard.

 

Why don't you like to speculate? Go on, speculate! ????

 

Do you think those extra dimensions are always present?

Do you think those extra dimensions are accessible in some way? 

How do you think it feels like being consciously aware in one of these extra dimensions? 

[save the frogs]

Eureka! We have discovered new dimensions!

 

New dimensions = more fake channelers and fake scientists giving fake information about what's in those dimensions

New dimensions = more confusion

New dimensions = more information that nobody knows what to do with

 

Maybe just apply simple principles to your life instead of getting obsessed with woo-woo stuff? 

"My religion is kindness." -- The Dalai Lama

 

[Tippaporn]

4 hours ago, Elad said:

We are actually always looking into our past lightcone. If you are talking to a friend who is stood 1 m away from you, then it takes light about 2 nano seconds to reach your eyes and then your brain has to process that information, so in that sense, everything you do in your life what you think is the now, is actually slightly in the past. 

In your example you are using a friend who is receiving audio information from you, which would be slower than light.  Sound travels at a much slower speed than light.  Whilst technically correct . . . it takes time to receive communication, regardless, there is no such time lapse for you as you think the thought that you are then conveying to another.  So your thoughts are happening in the now.  And while, yes, it takes time to receive communication from another once that communication is received then the reception of is happening for the friend in his now.

If you were communicating via email, or a physical letter, then of course it takes time for the communication to be received by the recipient.  You, though, are typing the email or writing the letter in your now.  Once the communication is received then the recipient is reading it in his now.

Again, experience happens in the now moment point.  Never in the past or future.  The past is only the perception of experience moving in linear fashion from moment to moment.  If you have any other explanations which would contradict that and prove it to be wrong then I'm more than willing to hear and consider it.

If you're interested in learning more then read Seth's many explanations regarding time, what it is and our experience of it - how and why we experience it as such.  This he explains in great detail as time is an integral part of our physical experience.  As is space.  Both must be well understood for what they are in order for other information to make sense.  In the meanwhile you can't honestly claim Seth is wrong since 1) if you haven't read his explanations it would then be impossible to say he's wrong since you don't know what he's saying and 2) you can make the assumption that your ideas are correct but the possibility exists that they are not.  Once you become aware of Seth's ideas then you may well indeed find your ideas to be incorrect.  Perhaps not.  But it may well be a fatal error to dismiss that very real possibility.

For myself I don't care which answer is correct or incorrect but I will choose the one which is correct.  I will not, though, defend an idea which is incorrect for the sole reason of wanting to be right in what I believe to be true.  I make this point not to accuse you of trying to attempt to defend an incorrect idea.  But to simply make you aware that this is a pitfall which many unwittingly fall into.  One always needs to ask themselves whether this may be the case during an exchange of ideas.  For if one is arguing not for truth but merely to be right then one is only fooling themselves.  And if one is seeking true knowledge it will never, ever happen if one is not brutally honest with one's self.

[Elad]

3 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Eureka! We have discovered new dimensions!

 

New dimensions = more fake channelers and fake scientists giving fake information about what's in those dimensions

New dimensions = more confusion

New dimensions = more information that nobody knows what to do with

 

Maybe just apply simple principles to your life instead of getting obsessed with woo-woo stuff? 

"My religion is kindness." -- The Dalai Lama

 

No one is claiming to be a scientist here but even if they were, so what, scientists aren't special people they get things wrong all the time, especially the physicists. Have you ever heard that saying:

If it smells, its chemistry

If it wriggles, its biology

If it doesn't work, its physics ????

[Elad]

5 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

No,,never heard.

Some cosmologists think that we live on the surface of a 3-sphere. A 2-sphere is like the Earth which is spherical, has a 2D surface, and has no beginning and no end. A 3-sphere, is a sphere with a 3 dimensional surface that has no beginning and no end, so if you traveled in a straight line for many billions of light years then you'd end up in the same place you started. Sounds plausible but I have problems visualizing it. And it solves the problem of where does the universe end, like the surface of the Earth it never ends.    

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, Elad said:

Some cosmologists think that we live on the surface of a 3-sphere. A 2-sphere is like the Earth which is spherical, has a 2D surface, and has no beginning and no end. A 3-sphere, is a sphere with a 3 dimensional surface that has no beginning and no end, so if you traveled in a straight line for many billions of light years then you'd end up in the same place you started. Sounds plausible but I have problems visualizing it. And it solves the problem of where does the universe end, like the surface of the Earth it never ends.    

Tbh, I'm more interested to read your answers to the other questions. 

[save the frogs]

3 hours ago, Elad said:

If it doesn't work, its physics

I think at least one of the regular posters on here has been very critical of scientists as it pertains to anything spiritual.

But knock yourself out!

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

I think at least one of the regular posters on here has been very critical of scientists as it pertains to anything spiritual.

But knock yourself out!

????️

That's me raising my hand. 

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

I think at least one of the regular posters on here has been very critical of scientists as it pertains to anything spiritual.

But knock yourself out!

The official stance of science is that "spirituality" has no place in science, so yeah, one might be critical of scientists claiming anything about spirituality.

Edited March 21, 2023 by Sunmaster

[Tippaporn]

4 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

The official stance of science is that "spirituality" has no place in science, so yeah, one might be critical of scientists claiming anything about spirituality.

Or subjectivity.  Spirituality, subjectivity - maybe same same.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

15 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

The official stance of science is that "spirituality" has no place in science, so yeah, one might be critical of scientists claiming anything about spirituality.

You complain about repetition, but I repeat science has no opinion about spirituality, atoms, dolphins or anything else in the universe. It simply says that a thing needs evidence to be acceptable as credible. Credible can sound emotional but this is simply in terms of if evidence indicates it is likely to be correct. 

Seth could -

say something others couldn't know that is a real thing

come up with a theory that could be tested 

Seth followers could show, based on his theories, that they have a different statistical success in turning dreams into action due to what Seth taught them. Or that because they dream more they have more actual success than the average person. Or better health - longevity - whatever

If nothing to show that's fine - Science lets you do your thing. 

Edited March 21, 2023 by Fat is a type of crazy

[mauGR1]

10 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

If nothing to show that's fine - Science lets you do your thing. 

That's magnanimous from science ????

[Sunmaster]

37 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

You complain about repetition, but I repeat science has no opinion about spirituality, atoms, dolphins or anything else in the universe. It simply says that a thing needs evidence to be acceptable as credible. Credible can sound emotional but this is in simply in terms of if evidence indicates it is likely to be correct. 

Seth could -

say something others couldn't know that is a real thing

come up with a theory that could be tested 

Seth followers could show, based on his theories, that they have a different statistical success in turning dreams into action due to what Seth taught them. Or that because they dream more they have more actual success than the average person. Or better health - longevity - whatever

If nothing to show that's fine - Science lets you do your thing. 

The evidence requested has to fit in their own framework to be accepted. If the evidence doesn't fit that framework, then it's not considered evidence. That's the problem. How can you take subjective data and expect to measure it with objective tools? 
Has sciences ever seriously researched the kundalini? Not that I know of. Yet, this phenomena has been described throughout history, by sources unrelated to each other, and I can personally attest to its validity. 

So, now you have this phenomena that is real (unless one is arrogant enough to say that people who experienced it are all delusional, liars or both), but can not be measured as you would measure the voltage of an electrical current. What does that mean? That it doesn't exist? Does it mean we should ignore it, until science may or may not catch up and validate it some time in the future? Even if you're a hardcore materialist, one would expect a healthy human curiosity as to why people claim to have had the same or very similar experiences. Even if it's only a physiological or psychological effect.

You've been here for a while now. Do you think I'm a liar? Do you think I'm incoherent and delusional? 

It must be said very clearly:
Science is great, but it is NOT the only source of knowledge.

Can science tell you who you are? Who can? 


PS: I do think Seth's teachings are valid, but I'm not qualified to defend them, nor am I interested in doing so. I prefer to speak from my own experience.

Edited March 21, 2023 by Sunmaster

[Tippaporn]

33 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

You complain about repetition, but I repeat science has no opinion about spirituality, atoms, dolphins or anything else in the universe. It simply says that a thing needs evidence to be acceptable as credible. Credible can sound emotional but this is simply in terms of if evidence indicates it is likely to be correct. 

Seth could -

say something others couldn't know that is a real thing

come up with a theory that could be tested 

Seth followers could show, based on his theories, that they have a different statistical success in turning dreams into action due to what Seth taught them. Or that because they dream more they have more actual success than the average person. Or better health - longevity - whatever

If nothing to show that's fine - Science lets you do your thing. 

The issue here, as I've repeated many times, is that science is incapable of proving or disproving anything which is subjective.  Science confines itself to the objective world.  No matter how many time that simple, easily understood concept is stated the science minded here cannot wrap their heads around it.  They flatly insist that only the objective world exists.

I'm not a Seth follower as follower implies being a groupie.  Seth provides an explanation of ourselves and reality.  That's all.  If I were to study math would you call me a math follower?  To call anyone who accepts the information Seth provides as valid a follower is a subtle device as follower tends to imply mindless.

 

Okay, with that out of the way let's look at the examples of random issues you provide for which those accepting the validity of Seth's information should be able to provide evidence or better yet, proof.  Proof which represents science's Holy Grail.  Nothing else will do.  None of your examples could ever be proven per science's methodology.  Which makes the request absurd.

". . . come up with a theory that could be tested."

Here's an example of why science's methodology is useless when it is applied to subjective reality.  Consider this claim:  You create your reality using ideas.  Science can neither prove or disprove the statement.  For one cannot measure thoughts.  One cannot even know what anyone's thought are.  Thoughts are part of subjective reality.  They have no mass, no weight, no dimensions, colour, smell, taste, feel (well, your body can feel thoughts) and you can't see them.  Yet they exist.  Science cannot determine their effects.  If they were to even grant that thoughts do produce effects.

So we go round and round and round as long as the science-minded insist on ignoring subjective reality.  Or insist on denying the existence of other realities.  The science-minded are tethered to their limited beliefs and never even consider whether what they believe to be true is true, or whether anything exists outside of their precious objective reality.

Eventually they get bored here because they just can't get their way with the folks here who understand science's self imposed limitations.

 

Edited March 21, 2023 by Tippaporn

[mauGR1]

12 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Science confines itself to the objective world.  

If one had to be extremely cynical, it could be said that materialistic science is building its own prison.

Edited March 21, 2023 by mauGR1

[Tippaporn]

16 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

If one had to be extremely cynical, it could be said that materialistic science is building its own prison.

Oh, I wouldn't say that assessment is cynical.  It's not.  It is, however, very accurate.

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Oh, I wouldn't say that assessment is cynical.  It's not.  It is, however, very accurate.

Yet, some people don't want to hear it ????

[Fat is a type of crazy]

40 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

The evidence requested has to fit in their own framework to be accepted. If the evidence doesn't fit that framework, then it's not considered evidence. That's the problem. How can you take subjective data and expect to measure it with objective tools? 
Has sciences ever seriously researched the kundalini? Not that I know of. Yet, this phenomena has been described throughout history, by sources unrelated to each other, and I can personally attest to its validity. 

So, now you have this phenomena that is real (unless one is arrogant enough to say that people who experienced it are all delusional, liars or both), but can not be measured as you would measure the voltage of an electrical current. What does that mean? That it doesn't exist? Does it mean we should ignore it, until science may or may not catch up and validate it some time in the future? Even if you're a hardcore materialist, one would expect a healthy human curiosity as to why people claim to have had the same or very similar experiences. Even if it's only a physiological or psychological effect.

You've been here for a while now. Do you think I'm a liar? Do you think I'm incoherent and delusional? 

It must be said very clearly:
Science is great, but it is NOT the only source of knowledge.

Can science tell you who you are? Who can? 


PS: I do think Seth's teachings are valid, but I'm not qualified to defend them, nor am I interested in doing so. I prefer to speak from my own experience.

I see what you are saying but I think science is science and to criticise it is like saying a human should have 3 legs. When you experience who you are, or the positive effects of kundulini, that is a form of evidence. But evidence of one subjective opinion has limited worth and I am sure you'll agree that is appropriate.

Even if you can't measure the individual effect you could statistically measure say the positive outcomes of yoga for the community. The point is science is not hindering you. If you think about it how could science say something is likely correct because a small number of  people say they had a subjective experience. If 10000 people trained in kundulini and experienced a god and this statistically had an effect different to the rest of the community then there it is - evidence. So you could gather like minded souls and build statistics or stay in your own silo and enjoy what you enjoy. If you do the latter don't criticise science is all. 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

39 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The issue here, as I've repeated many times, is that science is incapable of proving or disproving anything which is subjective.  Science confines itself to the objective world.  No matter how many time that simple, easily understood concept is stated the science minded here cannot wrap their heads around it.  They flatly insist that only the objective world exists.

I'm not a Seth follower as follower implies being a groupie.  Seth provides an explanation of ourselves and reality.  That's all.  If I were to study math would you call me a math follower?  To call anyone who accepts the information Seth provides as valid a follower is a subtle device as follower tends to imply mindless.

 

Okay, with that out of the way let's look at the examples of random issues you provide for which those accepting the validity of Seth's information should be able to provide evidence or better yet, proof.  Proof which represents science's Holy Grail.  Nothing else will do.  None of your examples could ever be proven per science's methodology.  Which makes the request absurd.

". . . come up with a theory that could be tested."

Here's an example of why science's methodology is useless when it is applied to subjective reality.  Consider this claim:  You create your reality using ideas.  Science can neither prove or disprove the statement.  For one cannot measure thoughts.  One cannot even know what anyone's thought are.  Thoughts are part of subjective reality.  They have no mass, no weight, no dimensions, colour, smell, taste, feel (well, your body can feel thoughts) and you can't see them.  Yet they exist.  Science cannot determine their effects.  If they were to even grant that thoughts do produce effects.

So we go round and round and round as long as the science-minded insist on ignoring subjective reality.  Or insist on denying the existence of other realities.  The science-minded are tethered to their limited beliefs and never even consider whether what they believe to be true is true, or whether anything exists outside of their precious objective reality.

Eventually they get bored here because they just can't get their way with the folks here who understand science's self imposed limitations.

 

I think these days thoughts can be measured or at least identified in a form. Surely too if ideas create reality, and Seth teaches how to effectively do this, Seth followers should be statistical outliers in some form or another. Like I say I am not saying what is or isn't but I do find criticism of science not fair. 

[Tippaporn]

Imagine that there's an informational source out there which is vastly more aware than us.  Maybe it's true and maybe it's not.  There is, however, one very easy way to find out.  By checking it out.  By seeing for one's self what's there.

Granted, it may be true or it may not be true.  That's the risk one takes.  But, if it is true then one now has access to information which can be transformation on a level that is difficult to image,  The risk?  Reading some books.  Investing a bit of time.  Why, it doesn't even require the investment of one's precious time as one can make use of idle time spent while squeezing out the turds in the loo once or twice (or more) in a day.  The risk now has been entirely mitigated.

I find it kinda mind blowing that there are so very, very few who would take such a risk-free proposition with such vast potential and actually act upon it.

Here's what happens most of the time:

"I read a few paragraphs and the ideas are contrary to the ideas which I've been taught are true.  If these ideas were true then they would agree with everything I believe to be true.  Even though I am fully aware that I do not know everything that is true and furthermore, there is a good chance that some of what I think is true may not be.  So . . . "
 

Now I ask, are these the thoughts of a rational mind or an irrational mind?  Hmmm.  Tough question there.

[Sunmaster]

27 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I see what you are saying but I think science is science and to criticise it is like saying a human should have 3 legs. When you experience who you are, or the positive effects of kundulini, that is a form of evidence. But evidence of one subjective opinion has limited worth and I am sure you'll agree that is appropriate.

Even if you can't measure the individual effect you could statistically measure say the positive outcomes of yoga for the community. The point is science is not hindering you. If you think about it how could science say something is likely correct because a small number of  people say they had a subjective experience. If 10000 people trained in kundulini and experienced a god and this statistically had an effect different to the rest of the community then there it is - evidence. So you could gather like minded souls and build statistics or stay in your own silo and enjoy what you enjoy. If you do the latter don't criticise science is all. 

I don't criticize science because I have a grudge or agenda towards it. Far from that. I appreciate science just like you. The idea that if one is interested in spirituality he must reject science, is a fairytale. 

I know science is not hindering me and I'm not seeking for science to validate my subjective experiences. 

The problem is that whenever we talk about such experiences, the white knights of scientific inquiry here state quite unequivocally that these experiences are worthless/delusions/attempts at manipulating gullible people/ outright deceptions/lies/crazy-talk/mumbo jumbo....take your pick.

So, while you say that science as a discipline is not hindering me in my pursuit of knowledge (thank you science), it is also true that many science followers use it as a measuring tape to judge what is supposed to be real and what is not. Science itself doesn't make that claim.

Yes, Kundalini awakenings are not common, but they are also not so rare that they are statistically irrelevant. 
One may be able to facilitate its rising (I'm not sure about that), but it's not possible to predict it in any meaningful manner so that it can be researched it in a controlled environment. 

What to do?
At this point you can either forget about it, if you think there is no value in it and don't believe that's it's possible to start with.

Or, you can set your prejudice aside for a while and approach the subject with curiosity and a willingness to be surprised.
Learning opportunities often lie in the most unexpected places. Do you agree?

Edited March 21, 2023 by Sunmaster

[Tippaporn]

8 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I see what you are saying but I think science is science and to criticise it is like saying a human should have 3 legs. When you experience who you are, or the positive effects of kundulini, that is a form of evidence. But evidence of one subjective opinion has limited worth and I am sure you'll agree that is appropriate.

Even if you can't measure the individual effect you could statistically measure say the positive outcomes of yoga for the community. The point is science is not hindering you. If you think about it how could science say something is likely correct because a small number of  people say they had a subjective experience. If 10000 people trained in kundulini and experienced a god and this statistically had an effect different to the rest of the community then there it is - evidence. So you could gather like minded souls and build statistics or stay in your own silo and enjoy what you enjoy. If you do the latter don't criticise science is all. 

The problem there, Fat is a type of crazy, is that you cannot measure, statistically or otherwise, subjective reality.  Yoga may or not benefit a person.  If one believes that yoga will then yoga will.  If one believes that yoga won't, or can't, then no benefits are possible to be derived.  To test statistically whether or not yoga is beneficial for anyone who practices it one must first know what everyone's true beliefs about yoga are.  And that, sir, is an impossibility.

The same for kundulini.

The stickler here, Fat is a type of crazy, is the idea that thoughts have zero effects upon one's experience, let alone on reality itself.  It's really a contradiction in play here.  On the one hand no one believes that changing one's beliefs would change their experience - because thoughts can't do that - while on the other hand recognising quite clearly instances where the effects of thoughts on experience are quite clear.  What is a hypochondriac, for instance?  Everyone recognises and accepts the fact that people with no symptoms can produce illness via an irrational fear of illness.  There are two separate, and contradictory beliefs in play, both held in the mind of the individual.  And they flip from one to the other without the slightest awareness of holding contradictory beliefs simultaneously.

Science works great when it applies itself to the purely objective world.  That world is, after all, very r-e-a-l and very functional, too.  It works as it does due to the laws which govern objective reality.  Science has made great strides in divining those laws which exist.  Yet science fails miserably as soon as it attempts to cross into subjective territory.  It fails miserably because science believes subjective reality to be untrustworthy, unpredictable, and therefore unreliable.  So why, then, Fat is a type of crazy, is it then inappropriate to criticise science?  It's almost like taking the attitude of those devoutly religious who consider it blasphemy to criticise God.  Is science God, too, in that sense?  Beyond anyone's critique of it?

Science is wonderful.  While at the same time science sucks.  It's not some paradox which can't be solved.
 

[Tippaporn]

19 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

<snip>

What to do?
At this point you can either forget about it, if you think there is no value in it and don't believe that's it's possible to start with.

Or, you can set your prejudice aside for a while and approach the subject with curiosity and a willingness to be surprised.
Learning opportunities often lie in the most unexpected places. Do you agree?

The roadblock which many cannot find a way around is taking one's current beliefs about what is true or not with them while they consider ideas which are different or new.  You cannot explore new ideas while at the same time comparing them with currently held ideas every step of the way.  It doesn't work.

It is, as you say, Sunmaster, the inability of temporarily setting aside your prejudices.  Your prejudices being your current beliefs.  Also known as bias.  AKA preconceived notions.  AKA prejudgment.  AKA presumption.

 

Edited March 21, 2023 by Tippaporn

[Woof999]

On 3/20/2023 at 5:32 AM, mauGR1 said:

I would say, however, that your god is a human construct, and it's totally insignificant in the spiritual world.

In whose mind was your god constructed? What other species exist or have existed that you are 100% confident see your spiritual word in the same way you do?

 

The very notion of the spiritual world that you see is absolutely a human construct, but one that cannot be seen, heard or measured by any device available to anyone that does not share your faith. In that sense it could easily be seen as a figment of the imagination.

 

The additional dimensions, whatever they may be, that might need to exist for the spiritual world to be real could indeed be real (yet currently still improbable). Many spiritual posters here have used the phrases "I know" and "I told you" to describe things that they cannot show to know and no amount of telling would make any difference.

 

Here's a though that is not meant to be antagonistic... do you think it is at all possible that the spiritual world is just a state of mind, a figment of your imagination that you would love to be real because it allows you to answers questions that, without other means, cannot be answered?

[Tippaporn]

16 minutes ago, Woof999 said:

In whose mind was your god constructed? What other species exist or have existed that you are 100% confident see your spiritual word in the same way you do?

 

The very notion of the spiritual world that you see is absolutely a human construct, but one that cannot be seen, heard or measured by any device available to anyone that does not share your faith. In that sense it could easily be seen as a figment of the imagination.

 

The additional dimensions, whatever they may be, that might need to exist for the spiritual world to be real could indeed be real (yet currently still improbable). Many spiritual posters here have used the phrases "I know" and "I told you" to describe things that they cannot show to know and no amount of telling would make any difference.

 

Here's a though that is not meant to be antagonistic... do you think it is at all possible that the spiritual world is just a state of mind, a figment of your imagination that you would love to be real because it allows you to answers questions that, without other means, cannot be answered?

Rather than ask questions for which you will never receive satisfactory answers why not just put out the effort to find out yourself?  It's easily done.  But it does require effort.  If anyone wants to know then it's their responsibility to find out.  It's not the responsibility of any other to provide the evidence so that another can finally believe.  Do the work.

[mauGR1]

12 minutes ago, Woof999 said:

Here's a though that is not meant to be antagonistic... do you think it is at all possible that the spiritual world is just a state of mind, a figment of your imagination that you would love to be real because it allows you to answers questions that, without other means, cannot be answered?

That's quite possible !

It's also true that every day, while reading my favourite master's lectures, i ask myself the same question you're asking me.

I have no doubt though, that exploring the difference between the awakening state, the deep sleeping state, and the dreamlike state can give one interesting clues about consciousness. 

For example, when you dream, you are still you, but your relationship with your physical body is completely different. 

 

 

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I think these days thoughts can be measured or at least identified in a form. Surely too if ideas create reality, and Seth teaches how to effectively do this, Seth followers should be statistical outliers in some form or another. Like I say I am not saying what is or isn't but I do find criticism of science not fair. 

Nothing is beyond criticism.

If I may make an assessment I would say that the seeming dilemma the science-minded here have is that it has to be one or the other.  It's either science or spirituality - or whatever other meaningless label one wants to apply to subjective reality.  The science-minded cannot accept unscientific ideas and assume that if one doesn't adhere strictly to scientific principles then they conclude, erroneously, that those folk are anti-science.  Rubbish.

The posters here coexist with both science and un-science (I just made up a new word).  There's a place in this world, an important place, for both.  Science-minded folks appear to believe that it's gotta be science ONLY.  Again, rubbish.

[Woof999]

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

why not just put out the effort to find out yourself?

...because this is a discussion group. You also make the assumption that I haven't put in any effort, or you're blinded by a belief that if I had, I must have come to the same conclusions as you (I'm not sure which).

 

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

That's quite possible !

It's also true that every day, while reading my favourite master's lectures, i ask myself the same question you're asking me.

I have no doubt though, that exploring the difference between the awakening state, the deep sleeping state, and the dreamlike state can give one interesting clues about consciousness. 

For example, when you dream, you are still you, but your relationship with your physical body is completely different. 

 

 

Fantastic answer. Thank you.

[Tippaporn]

25 minutes ago, Woof999 said:

...because this is a discussion group. You also make the assumption that I haven't put in any effort, or you're blinded by a belief that if I had, I must have come to the same conclusions as you (I'm not sure which).

Sorry, Woof.  I was out of line with my response.  I read you wrong.