Do you believe in God and why

[Sunmaster]

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.

[Tippaporn]

On 1/15/2024 at 10:19 AM, Sunmaster said:

The first part just means not to become a slave of the body's demands for temporary pleasures. Indulging in excessive food, drink, sex only satisfies the lowest aspects of our being and tend to distract from the more important ones.

 

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. 

[Tippaporn]

6 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. 

 

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.   

 

Edited January 18 by Tippaporn

[Sunmaster]

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. 👍👏🤜🤛💪💪💪

[Tippaporn]

39 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

It's OK. 👍👏🤜🤛💪💪💪

 

No.  No  No! 
 

Not a single comment?

What about Seth's CUs as the indivisible building blocks of all consciousness?

How does that effect your theory of us humans as mere finger puppets to entertain our greater self?  Does that analogy still hold for you?  Actually, it reminds me of the sentiment many have of God creating man, setting him free to then only test everyone's fealty to him and asking, "Is that it?"  Seems that God's ego needs stroking.    Which is bad but worse is the idea you put forth that we're mere entertainment for our greater selves to relieve them of their boredom.  Now that's downright cruel. 

What about our physical selves having independence?  The CUs do.  And we are a gestalt consciousness comprised of them.

How does Seth's explanation of CUs comport with what you've learned?  Do they fit?  In your travels have you learned something similar but expressed differently?
How about . . . . I could go on with questions.

 

Humourous Tippers exiting stage left and Serious Tippers taking center stage. 

 

Edited January 18 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

Are my emoticons appearing as images or text?  It's a mixture on my end.  I rebooted but it still persists.  Let me know, please.

[Red Phoenix]

43 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Are my emoticons appearing as images or text?  It's a mixture on my end.  I rebooted but it still persists.  Let me know, please.

They appear as images (or should I say graphical Gestalts) at my end, but they might camouflage as 'conscious texts' on Sunmaster's PC.

[Tippaporn]

Now this is an interesting story.  Some back story first.

 

My daughter has a best friend in school since KG1 and she's now in grade 5.  So 8 years now.  They share the same birthday.  My wife and this girl's mother have hit it off after KG2 and spend a lot of time with each other.  They've grown very close.  They're both Isaan.  I'll call the mother Dao.

 

Some back story on Dao now.  She plays the lottery all the time.  And I've never seen someone win significant amounts as regularly as she does.  By God, that women has her ducks aligned in a perfect row.  Her horses of belief, emotion, imagination, and expectation are all facing in the direction and they're going at a gallop. 

 

My wife, on the other hand, plays as well but as far as the lottery goes I can say about my wife that if it weren't for bad luck she'd have no luck at all.  My wife and Dao often buy each other lottery tickets.  Sometimes the cost is paid back and sometimes it's gifted.  Going both ways, of course.

 

So, the other day was Children's Day.  My wife and daughter went together with Dao and her daughter to a wat.  The next day Dao bought 500 baht of underground lottery tickets and gifted some to my wife.  And then Dao had a dream that night.

 

In the dream there was a Buddhist figure, I'm not sure what you call them but they look like warriors of sorts.  The one that was in Dao's dream was the one that is supposed to be 40+ years old.  At least that's what age his likeness appears to be.  He didn't appear visually in Dao's dream but she said it was like a voice coming out of the sky.  And the voice asked her whether if she won the lottery would she share it with the friend she went to the wat with.  And Dao replied in her dream, "Sure."  The voice asked a second time and Dao replied the same.  End of dream.

 

Lo and behold Dao won 200,000+.  And then the dream came back to her.  She was a bit puzzled at first as to which friend she was to share her winnings with.  And then it dawned on her that it was my wife she had gone to the wat with.  And so she's already today transferred into my wife's account 45,000 baht.  One of the tickets that Dao had gifted to my wife was a winner for 4,500 baht.

 

And so I asked my wife how much she was going to transfer into my account.  She then kicked me like a dog. 

 

She then went out shopping this morning after dropping our daughter off at school and came home presenting me with a high pressure car wash water pump.  She then told me I needed to have the truck ready by early afternoon as she was leaving early to pick my daughter up from school.  I took the dog fetal position. 

[Tippaporn]

8 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

They appear as images (or should I say graphical Gestalts) at my end, but they might camouflage as 'conscious texts' on Sunmaster's PC.

 

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. 

[Sunmaster]

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...

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, Sunmaster said:

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

 

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? 

[Sunmaster]

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. 

[Sunmaster]

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!

 

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Are my emoticons appearing as images or text?  It's a mixture on my end.  I rebooted but it still persists.  Let me know, please.

 

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. 

[Tippaporn]

4 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

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

 

 

Not psychic.  I allow my outer ego to have a two way flow of information so I'm receiving information from my inner ego as well.  No blockages.  Not all information comes from this world, ya know. 

 

666

 

That should net you quite a bit as long as you sign on the dotted line. 

[Sunmaster]

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?

[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.

[Sunmaster]

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. 😁

 

Edited January 18 by Sunmaster

[Sunmaster]

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. 😉

[Tippaporn]

6 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

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. 😁

 

 

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. 

 

[Tippaporn]

@Sunmaster

 

Just a thought.  Not meant to apply it to you in anyway.  Just a thought to share.

 

Our reality is often referred to as an illusion.  One definition of the word , which definition is varied, means "not real."  And so it is that many then conclude that our reality isn't real at all.  In that way it tends to invalidate our reality.  Camouflage is a much better term for it's definition does not invalidate our reality.  It has a meaning that cannot be so easily misconstrued.  Ours is a camouflage reality which means that it is a representation of something else but quite real and valid in itself.  As a representation of something greater it is, however, not less than.

 

That is my intuitive self speaking.  Of course with it's brother intellect.  But it's not a result of pure intellect. 

 

Edited January 18 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

7 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

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. 😉

 

Far be it from me to get myself into hot water for not answering questions. 

 

" This will keep you busy for a while." 😉

 

Not at all.  I'll just turn the tables on you and keep you busy for awhile. 

 

 https://nowdictation.com/q/psychological+time/

 

No, I haven't made it a point yet to practice it.

[Tippaporn]

Good morning, Sunmaster.  Punching the clock a bit late this morning? 

 

Coffee is served.  Again, regarding the tasty delightful pastries, one for you and two for me. 

 

[Sunmaster]

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. 😅

Edited January 19 by Sunmaster

[Tippaporn]

13 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

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.

 

Well, as I've said, I've been toying with the idea of walking through the material on CUs as there is much that is associated which, again at least for me, brings a number of important concepts together to form a clear and more expansive picture.  Again, too, I'll say that I strongly object to your idea that meditating, for the sole purpose of connecting with your greater self, or with the One, is the only real solution to the problem of understanding our present, corporeal selves and our seeming singular objective reality.  It must be remembered and realised, too, that allowing one's consciousness the mobility to go outside of itself, outside of our physical reality, that is, carries the implication that there are an infinite number of realities for our consciousness to "travel" to.  There is no single destination, therefore.  Which other reality do you wish to explore?

 

Now perhaps you'll object to my quoting sections of the Seth material but here again we have our differences.  Quoting directly has it's benefits.  At least I recognise the benefits it offers.  Would you claim that there are no benefits but rather only hindrances?  Erm, I don''t think you'd make such an admission.    So bear with me, despite your uncontrollable urge to cringe.    I will be commenting extensively . . . putting the material in my own words . . . so that should be of some relief to you.  That way your eyes could glaze over all of the quotes and just refocus whenever my comments appear. 

 

I'll begin in another post starting at the top.  I've actually quoted already from the top in one of my recent previous posts so I'll repost those quotes, along with my comments, in order to preserve the flow of the material.  I'll continue until that time, if it comes at all, when the howls of objection begin to wake up my neighbors.    This material will cover the rest of your post from which I cut only the initial two lines.

[VincentRJ]

9 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

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.

 

 

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? 

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

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. 😅

 

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. 

[Tippaporn]

13 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? 

 

"Don't bogart that joint, my friend, and pass it over to me." 

 

I assume you've read some of the previous posts in which, at least a few of us, agreed that to prevent any discussion of this subject matter from sliding into too much seriousness and/or even pissing contests that the cure would be to remember that there's a humourous side to everything and so an injection of laughter via poking fun at another is one aspect of the cure. 

 

I have to say yours is a remarkable post, and a welcome one.  Your points are well taken and appreciated.  At least by me.  (The heart reaction is indeed mine in case you want to accuse someone.  )

 

It's just that you science types . . . .  Old habits die hard. 

 

Edited January 19 by Tippaporn

[Sunmaster]

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. 

[Tippaporn]

2 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

That's what I'm trying to say.

 

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.