Conditions for Connection

[T.C.]

Because, while I could subjectively extrapolate my own interpretations, it's advised to consult the forum if it's not in he written material. So, here I am.

Hi de-tached.

I'm 90% sure the issue of whether it works with eyes closed, was covered either in a session with the C's, or in The Wave or another page connected to the Cassiopaean Transmissions. That means that it IS in the written material.

This is demonstrative of what Galahad was talking about in the beginning. You could have found that answer yourself, but instead, you chose to ask the forum. The forum is made up of 3rd density people who are trying to help others, so it hasn't lead to anything bad, apart from maybe a loss of learning on your part.

Using a board, you're not going to be talking to a group of humans that want to help. You're going to be wading through the jungle of the spirit world. Consider this quote from The Sufi Path of Knowledge:

The experience of unveiling opens up an infinite expanse of previously unseen realities to the heart of the spiritual seeker. ...The realm into which the adept first enters is, after all, the World of Imagination, whose byways never end. It is the domain of the satans and other deceiving forces. The traveler needs to keep a clear head during his journeys and not be misled by the swirling forces which lie just beyond the horizons of stability and balance.

...Nowadays most people interested in the spirituality of the East desire the "experience," though they may call what they are after "intimate communion with God." Those familiar with the standards and norms of spiritual experience set down by disciplined paths are usually appalled at the way Westerners seize upon any apparition from the domain outside of normal consciousness as a manifestation of the "spiritual." In fact there are innumerable realms in the unseen world, some of them far more dangerous than the worst jungles of the visible world. No person familiar with the teachings of Sufism would dare lay himself open to such forces...

 

[anart]

I never thought it was "a game". Perhaps it's the establishing a commonality of conversation, but I feel your subjective observations do not accurately represent my disposition.

I would tend to disagree with this. It appears to me that Galahad and several other forum members have picked up on what I have picked up on as well, and it has nothing to do with 'commonality of communication'. It has to do with the energy behind your words. This energy indicates that you are jumping ahead and not understanding the very important basics of this subject. Not only that, but that you don't really have any intention of questioning your own understanding. There may be some phenomenon seeking going on as well.

I think we have gotten somewhere! WOO!
Please don't mistake my frustration with "hostility". I'm rarely hostile. Confrontational when needed, but I'm typically very peaceful and remember myself regularly.

Apologies for having to point this out, but your behavior thus far is not at all in line with the view of yourself you have expressed here.

As for not understanding why I'm asking, if one cannot derive the purpose from all the times I've rephrased the question, then it's okay. I can't think of a clearer way to put it than the numerous times I have, so either those who can't understand are just not meant to answer my question or, as i said before, "perhaps I haven't yet learned to converse in a manner befitting with the common phrasing on this forum" which causes a disconnect of understanding.

Or, perhaps you have been perfectly understood and you just don't like the answers you've received.

For the record, I understand the irremovable importance of doing the work, reading the material, and having "a clean machine". I'm not asking for me, this is purely hypothetical. Scientifically speaking, it is axiomatically assumed that in order to have a well-developed comparison for testing this variable:
a.) those involved already HAD to have a thorough understanding of the material personally & between themselves in order to have...
b.) an established, familiar, clean, working connection by which to compare the lack of seeing the board vs. seeing the board.

There's no difference using subjects with whom the board is slow, vague, deceptive and futile, is there? That makes no sense for comparison. Hence why I was fishing for insight here; it's the best example, I'm aware of, that has an efficient, clear functioning of the board.

I apologize if I was incorrect in presuming everyone else figured this was assumed to, but, to me, it seems self-evident.

If that is self-evident to you - if you actually deeply understand that the main point is receivership capability - (have you read the Wave??) and not mood lighting, jewelry or other mechanics, then why ask the questions you've asked at all? It seems to me that the above was written to 'get it out of the way' as if you're jumping through hoops (with no depth of understanding) to try to get at some information you think is still lying out there hidden from you.

THANK YOU for a clear concise answer, JP! It may not be straight from the Cassiopaean Experiment, but it's a great observation and an interesting case study I'll be looking in to.

This answer, by the way, is a bit of a snipe at the other answers you've received - that since they did not tell you what you wanted, they were not clear and concise. I think, perhaps, 'de-tached', that you might want to slow down and really determine what it is your looking for, and that you should finish reading the Wave if you haven't yet - a broad base of knowledge is key, because it develops receivership capability. I expect you will not be satisfied with this response, because you seem to want quick definitive answers to the physical details of the process, but, how will those details matter if there is no 'receivership capability'?

 

[Peam]

The question of eyes open or closed was asked in session 95/02/25

(GB) Can we do it with our eyes closed. [An experiment is attempted to see if the information will come through with all eyes closed. It is unsuccessful. Trying various combinations of eyes closed and/or open are also unsuccessful. It seems that
the eyes of all participants must be open at once in order for the contact to be sustained. This agrees with the idea that it is a purely telepathic contact and not 3rd density or "poltergeist" in nature.

 

[mkrnhr]

Hi de-tached,
Through this thread, it seems that you are more interrested in sensations than in knowledge. I can hear a "No" already but this is not a critic, you are free to choose your way. You're looking for fast-food kind of recipe to do your channeling experiment. IMHO, and as I said I'm just a first class pupil though I'm here for many years, an important factor in this communication, other that how to do it, is who's doing it. And who you are (not you but we) is the knowledge dynamics we incarnate. You cannot go out and face dragons without a shield, it's stupid, and our shield is the knowledge that protects, and the more knowledge we have, the more knowledge we can get. And in order to answer your question, imagine you are walking in a jungle by night, would you close your eyes?
Anyway, assuming that you already know everything and that all you need now is practical shortcuts,, and that you're not as your interaction all along this thread a perfect prey for hungry desincarnates, you may choose a scientific approach : Doing it with eyes closed and with eyes open, and then according to the results make some statistics.
The other option is to learn, and not to influence the class with your expectations, the natural flow of learning of all those who sincerely want to learn.
Good luck.

 

[de-tached]

Thanks all for your patience, insight, and observations to reflect on. This is why I came here.

Apparently my method of cognition and inquiry is not yet groomed and streamlined sufficiently to be in line with the flow of the forum; such is that I don't yet fully understand and haven't communicated clearly enough. Apologies for any and all aggravation regarding the oversight of my inquisition. I'll reserve future questions until after reading the entirety of the suggested readings.

And my condolences to all who may feel that my energy or approach may be too direct, impulsive, intense, scrutinizing, or presumptuous... like I said... I can be impatient about gaining knowledge, even that which doesn't directly apply to my own practices. I'm working on it...

Much obliged and thanks again. <3

 

[anart]

Thanks all for your patience, insight, and observations to reflect on. This is why I came here.

Apparently my method of cognition and inquiry is not yet groomed and streamlined sufficiently to be in line with the flow of the forum; such is that I don't yet fully understand and haven't communicated clearly enough. Apologies for any and all aggravation regarding the oversight of my inquisition. I'll reserve future questions until after reading the entirety of the suggested readings.

Could I ask you to consider one more thing before walking away from this discussion? Could you consider the possibility that you have communicated clearly (it has nothing to do with being 'groomed' to this forum) and that you have been understood and that is why you received the input you received? If you are able to consider that, how does it change your impressions of the input?

 

[de-tached]

Could I ask you to consider one more thing before walking away from this discussion? Could you consider the possibility that you have communicated clearly (it has nothing to do with being 'groomed' to this forum) and that you have been understood and that is why you received the input you received? If you are able to consider that, how does it change your impressions of the input?

I have considered it and even admitted some of it it prior to all the discussion. And in keeping with the fact that I have been most likely understood properly (which I probably have to a reasonably "objective" degree considering the consensus), I still maintain my position that it's due to the lack of my understanding and efficiency on my behalf which is inhibiting a clear communication. I'll still reserve further postings until I am completed with the suggested readings and reflections, so I do not take up precious time and energy.

 

[Laura]

The point of the videos is to teach what is needed to be taught. If I thought it could be done by writing on this forum, I would be doing that. I'm not; I'm making the videos. So, please wait for them and watch them as they are released. I can assure you that I will cover aspects of the topic you've never thought about as well as those that are exercising you at the moment.

 

[de-tached]

I'll be patient. :)

Thank you.

 

[Joe]

LOL.. okay but OUTSIDE THE OBVIOUS solutions to seeing what is being selected on the board, a video camera could be used to film the session from above. One might suggest an "impartial 3rd person", but I know external influences could alter with the connection in an unprogressive manner.

And yes, I am thinking about using a board. I've been using tarot and exploring altered states of consciousness for years and am quite comfortable opening those channels... Hence, why I'm inquiring. :)

I've been keeping up on the video material and the reading material, but for the sake of a "scientific" approach, I feel the need to ask in order to discern whether connecting to one's higher self via the board necessitates a visual relationship. If so, could there be subconscious wishful projection, programming, or spirit attachment interfering and thus becoming interpreted as "my higher self 'guiding my hand' " toward the visual cues?

Do you think that the only thing that could influence what is spelled on a board is the fact that the person is looking at it? It is more likely to be influenced to a much greater extent by the extent of the garbage in one's head - illusions, programs, beliefs etc. Garbage in, garbage out.

 

[Joe]

Apparently my method of cognition and inquiry is not yet groomed and streamlined sufficiently to be in line with the flow of the forum; such is that I don't yet fully understand and haven't communicated clearly enough.

You have made this point several times recently. I wonder how you manage to go about the task of ordering in a grocery store or shop, or restaurant, or any other situation where you are required to state clearly what you want and respond clearly to feedback. That is all that is being asked of your here. If you are under the impression that there is some special language on this forum that is not used in everyday life, then you are mistaken, we make a point of asking all members to speak clearly and directly, for the simple reason that it enhances the discussion and opportunities for understanding and learning.

Please use normal language from now on in your posts. Perhaps pretend that you are in a store and are asking an attendant for details of some item you need.

 

[de-tached]

LOL.. okay but OUTSIDE THE OBVIOUS solutions to seeing what is being selected on the board, a video camera could be used to film the session from above. One might suggest an "impartial 3rd person", but I know external influences could alter with the connection in an unprogressive manner.

And yes, I am thinking about using a board. I've been using tarot and exploring altered states of consciousness for years and am quite comfortable opening those channels... Hence, why I'm inquiring. :)

I've been keeping up on the video material and the reading material, but for the sake of a "scientific" approach, I feel the need to ask in order to discern whether connecting to one's higher self via the board necessitates a visual relationship. If so, could there be subconscious wishful projection, programming, or spirit attachment interfering and thus becoming interpreted as "my higher self 'guiding my hand' " toward the visual cues?

Do you think that the only thing that could influence what is spelled on a board is the fact that the person is looking at it? It is more likely to be influenced to a much greater extent by the extent of the garbage in one's head - illusions, programs, beliefs etc. Garbage in, garbage out.

I agree that It's more likely to be influenced by such, but that does not negate the possibility of alternate forms of deceiving influence which are still imperative to analyze if one is to go about an experiment scientifically. I'm very grateful all this will be explained in the upcoming videos.

And actually, I run into the conundrum of unquestioned distorted linguistics ALL the time...

"Like, Ohm'Gawd! She literally crapped herself laughing!"
Wow... wh-.... REALLY? Well, what did she DO about it?"
"About laughing?"
No, about her sh*tty pants...
"No, she didn't REALLY crap her pants- she LITERALLY crapped her pants."

That's a small, silly example of people who misuse words al the time, but it's RIFE once you make it a point to refine one's language.
I also take people up on their questions.

"If you have any questions, let me know."
What do you feel is the underlying ontological and epistemological framework of our multifaceted, hyperdimensional reality with relevance to our limited perception of it?

...At least I give them the courtesy of pertaining it their subjective relevance, instead of asking them to try and approach it from an impossible "objective" perspective.


Sometimes people find it annoying to disturb their comfortable mechanical little thought loops.
Sometimes people enjoy the irreverence and insight.
Same with all things in nature in the struggle between the novel clarity of connectedness and the entropic distorted states of disarray.

C'est la vie.
I'll try to keep it simple here.

 

[T.C.]

Sometimes people find it annoying to disturb their comfortable mechanical little thought loops.

You've proved that, here, de-tached. Try to see that; that no matter how many times people in this thread have tried to point something out to you, even explicitly asking you to be more open and use normal language, you just reply with long posts, using long words, alluding to things that aren't really relevant to the issues being discussed, such as...

Sometimes people enjoy the irreverence and insight.
Same with all things in nature in the struggle between the novel clarity of connectedness and the entropic distorted states of disarray.

Just try to stop doing that for a while. Just as an experiment, try, and observe the way it makes you feel when you don't do it.

 

[mkrnhr]

Maybe you will be interrested by Chapter 48 of the Wave where The Juvenile Dictionary is plainly discussed. That's the first chapter of book 6. See, with some background it is not necessary to reinvent the wheel with every new participant.

Now implying that forum members, who are not all native english-speaking would adapt to your own style is a little... what do you think? Can you observe yourself from a distance?
It seems that all you're doing is feeding your self-importance delusion. You distorted phrases do not impress anybody here, only you.

 

[de-tached]

Again, not trying to impress. Just being me. I know big words don't necessitate big thought, but the array of words created in the English language were created with reason. There are subtle differences in their implications which are imperative within a complex context. I have no control over their size or commonality of use- they are what they are.

Have you ever seen "Idiocracy"?
Hopefully not more than once, but it clearly (and amusingly) illustrates the over-emphasis of complacently convenient overuse of remedial colloquialism and rhetoric for the sake of "cultural courtesy".

I'm not implying that the language used here is remedial, FAR from it, or that anyone would or should adapt to my style.
But let's not forget the importance of a diverse vocabulary to convey abstract and complex concepts.

I'll be keeping in mind that there are those who use English as a second, third, etc... language as I get more involved after finishing the suggested reading and contribute to the larger topics. Thanks. :)