The Guide to Unlocking Your Subconscious Mind and Understanding Reality (The Book of Secrets)

I just saw where this book fit in my pattern. Very cool, but can't quite figure out why it seems so secret while it's not. And as I typed that I got my own answer: create no faith. Got it. Thanks and much love, OP.

Curious. What does that mean, "create no faith"?

by the way, I am pleased to announce that the second book, "The Memory", is now finished.

It is a fictional work that narrates most of the important material found in the book. It's about 200 pages or so. (150 standard pages so somewhere around there.)

Easy to follow, entertaining, and perhaps delightful :)

I'll post a link here in a few days.

Awesome. Thank you. An allegory?

Always :)

Why didn't you just give us the ebook for nuttin? Tryin t'get rich quick are we? I aint fallin for your lowdown, dirty con-artistry, OPie!

...just joking. I'm not going to read it, though, but great that you put in so much time and effort. That, alone, is commendable.

Thanks.. No problem. It's a pleasure, actually :)

thank you so very much for this!

Of course.

and the new book will be out shortly.

Here's where I feel the need to be secretive. Not because I have anything to hide but because my threads are intertwined with others'. It's not a matter of being embarrassed or proud of what I am doing, but that I see that by talking about what I just integrated in public I am going to create too many repercussions, if only in the way of distraction for me and others. I want to respect the privacy of the companions/teachers I seek next. This is a lonely path for the autodidact. Here's where looking a person in the eye and talking is so satisfying, too.

Do you believe that when you are looking at someone, you are looking at and experiencing yourself?

I don't know. I don't much believe in belief. But I like the experience.

And a more serious answer: I think it's an inevitable conclusion from my perspective but I am not ready to concede inevitability. Belief does not come naturally to me.

It is interesting to think about...

Perhaps belief is merely one of the different aspects of perception.

If perception is more fundamental to our reality than we believe (which it likely is), it follows that we have different names for it, when it is actually the same thing. We do the same for the electromagnetic spectrum because we cannot perceive the entire spectrum as it is, as one thing.

To a bug or a flower, a television is not a television. We could say, however, that it is still "perception" no matter what their experience of it is.

In a similar way, sometimes we could call perception thought, a newspaper, emotion, and belief, etc.

When perceptions are more relative or closer to us, we could call them thoughts and beliefs. When perceptions seem less relative or distant, we call them newspapers or televisions, or even people.

So perhaps belief is those perceptions we hold close to us.

Is it possible that we have already done just that?

When we look at our body, we see 'one' body when it is not one, nor is it solid. As the book relays, there is far more non-human DNA than human DNA.

But we have integrated this into something we call "I"

I think our current 'level' of perspective (where we see ourselves separate from others) is actually the way we're supposed to be, naturally.

Because there's always more to unify, isn't there?

This should tell us that unification is not only irrelevant, but trying to unify things is a waste of time. What we need and can make use of is here already.

(It also wouldn't make sense for us to 'unify' with others when there is so much unused capacity in ourselves.)

I agree with what you say about unification, because my experience with yoga (my only reference here) is that the "unity" I was pursuing was not why I was here - it was a blast, though, and I got the validity of the Yoga Vashistha, which I paraphrase to to: the truest path to enlightenment is inquiry. All else is just a tool. It encouraged me to just follow my natural tendency to want to integrate. "Unify" sounds like an ultimate goal, which I don't have. But the integration is so existentially satisfying I can't imagine it being a waste of time.

P

Just finished it 5 minutes ago. Loved it. Am going to go back to the beginning. Make sure you read the footnotes As you go along. I didn't and should have....

Also, I have found unification with others satisfying, productive, and conducive to my freedom in the material world.

I think you are right on. And thank you again for the labor of love that book must have been.

I think if the purpose of existence was "unification" then we'd already be unified. (And if we were and we didn't realize it, perhaps there is a good reason.)

Things are likely just as they should be, I think. So we can work within what we already perceive to be there.

For us to say that we are meant to be another way would be missing the point, I think. If "ascension" has no end, then even the most "unevolved" of us is ascended to soemthing.

Last Edited by The Builder on 04/24/2015 11:48 PM

I was thinking to integrate the footnotes into the sections themselves, but wasn't sure about this.

But thanks for reading!

I hate to quote myself, but it finishes the thought. I suppose it feels like unification, but is more like parallel symbiosis.

perhaps it like the feeling of physical health and energy? Feeling more whole and complete?

Absolutely. Down to details about my experience here. But again, this is naturally flowing from my own potential. Even you. The world couldn't be this perfect for me if I didn't create it.

Living in bliss of my creation, what's my accountability for the horror I witness? If I KNOW I control creation, do I have noblesse oblige?

This is where the limitations of English (or whatever language) comes in.

I wish there was a word for "create" that implied creation-through-perception.

percreate, like "procreate"?

Anyway, I agree that it is perfect. Like everything has been balanced in the here and now.

If I may, a relevant quote from page 81-82:

...we cannot perceive the entirety of 10 divided by 3 but we can perceive the entirety of 10 divided by 2. From one perspective reality appears infinite because it cannot be contained in our perspective. It appears chaotic – but chaos is simply an order that we do not yet perceive. From our perspective the universe seems to go on forever in every direction. The only difference is that there is no perspective that can “contain” the entirety of the universe, so it appears infinite. Some perspectives just have different logical narratives than others. Some of these logical narratives provide a more useful explanation of everything and how to work with it. Some of these narratives can put you on the other side of the galaxy by simply thinking about it. But it would still be pattern-making, however useful the patterns would be under certain conditions. Reality can only be approximated.

Our universe seems complex because we're starting from a vantage point that makes it appear that way. We make observations but rule out perception (and mind) as irrelevant, when instead they could be the primary tool for discovery. We build exceedingly expensive machines that do the same work an elementary school drop-out could do – if we started from perspective that was more relevant to what we're observing. Any observation is actually an observation of your reality. When we perceive, we are observing our own perspective and making sense of it in whatever way. If something appears to go on forever, perhaps it's because your reality cannot be contained in any one perspective.

Is it horror, or perspective?

Is it horror when a colony of ants is besieged by children running over them?

Perhaps "control" is irrelevant.

You are right, control is irrelevant, it's a word I use out of habit and it's not the right one. In the logic system I use daily, the person who frames an issue is the one who "controls" the outcome.

I have been operating on the assumption that the horror is perspective. It's been a good coping tool. At the same time, as much as I don't want to be driven by horror or bliss, if there is not supposed to be a difference in this plane why do most of us feel a certain way if a child is slaughtered or we find "love"? I get that the feelings are perceptions, but the pattern for me still merits investigation.

If I accept horror is perspective, that leaves me in a world without moral sense, which some see as the root of all human folly. I use the antiquated term "moral sense" because this idea for me is best summarized by Mark Twain's The Mysterious Stranger. Have you read it? There is nothing new under the sun. but these are tough outcomes to observe.

I am unwilling to "believe" my own conclusions, which are similar to what you have shared. That's not a problem, not asking for help. Some emotional patterns are so pervasive I am not ready to accept they are tricks of my perception. I need to assimilate more evidence. It might take a decade or three.