Has anyone heard of Jurgen Ziewe or read his book "The Multi-Dimensional Man"? Do you feel his portrayal of afterlife and the greater reality is accurate?

It sure resonates with me a lot better than Tom Campbell's version where we check out, meet a hologram representation of our loved ones for 15 minutes, before we are patted on the bottom and forcibly shipped down the reincarnation chute for another go-round at lowering entropy for the great cosmic consciousness like some poor cows at a massive dairy farm. Ugh.  :(

Does Tom Campbell say that? I can't say I agree. Sounds a bit simplistic.

Well, that was my take-away. Here's what he says:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmkPBrHwQWI

Thanks, I can't watch while at work, and my Mom is staying at my house this week, so I probably won't be able to watch while at home. So it might be a while before I watch.

Tom Campbell will say just about anything to hear himself say it.  Let me explain the problem. 

I am a trained physicist also, and one thing I've learned over my years as I've studied and worked in science, various areas of engineering, or even in the medical profession "very often", actually "most often", people that know a lot about one thing begin to think they know a lot about everything; or they simply think they know everything.

I can tell you, in physics we have no training to speak in the terms that Campbell presumes to speak.  The untrained listener hears all sort of buzz words, technical jargon, and dropping names like Einstein and they get wow'd by that.  Gee a "Nasa" scientist - he really must know what he's talking about.... NOT.

If Campbell were trained as a philosopher, having a very high knowledge of topics such as ontology, logic, or epistemology, he "might" have the ability to start thinking critically about the jive he spews.

First Einstein did not try to create a theory of everything (TOE).  He, and lots of scientists, hoped to find a "Grand Unified Theory" of the !!" 4 " !! basic forces in nature. That's all we know of.  That is to show how electrodynamics, gravity, the strong and week nuclear forces are all somehow derived from the same thing.  Newton was the first, we know of, to illustrated unification theory.  That was when he realized the same force that causes an apple to fall is what also causes the moon to be in orbit.  Scientists are only trying to figure that basic problem now - deriving the known forces from a single principal.  TOE would be great, but these are baby steps.

Now here's with Campbell's baloney becomes apparent.  In science, let's say physics, we study to be able to "derive" mathematical resprentations  for physical nature from basic laws of physics - that's mathematically; and then predict observable events!  Richard Feynman once said, if it can't be tested experimentally it doesn't belong in physics.  We make a hypothesis, specify tests that would prove it, build experience that would verify it, and then try to enunciate a theory; that still remains open to question afterwards.  As an aside, one expedient that actually demonstrated Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was a muon decay rate experiment that actually measured and confirmed the time dilation/length of distance travel for muons in the Earth's atmosphere.

Campbell never actually derives anything. He has no hypothesis that he can predictively prove.  So there is no theory.  He throws words together like entropy, information systems, evolution, and then listening to him a trained person recognizes he is actually not saying anything; in fact its nonsense.  Here's an example:

The probability matrix of a quantum field tensor when reduced, by induction, yields an diverging information matrix that is also dimensionally reduced to a vector that wave guides the DNA to predetermined recursive wavelets.  The pointing vectors of the wavelets seek, by entropy, to produce multi-dimensional manifolds of information that can be recognized by the radially adjacent tensor fields.  The vortex of the fields provides an awareness oriented operator that records its past, or information.  The wavelets encode the vortex, or information flux.  The information flux transforms back into a solution field through fractal integrals, giving the system not only an awareness of past events, but produces decisions via the collapsing of these field.  That energy sustains DNA replication also ,where the TK1, TK2, and MTK channels organically localize the residual field collapse into our 4 dimensions thus maintaining information transfer to the protein level of each cell. Matter is a 4 dimension projection of a 15.5 dimensional mutli-field allowing awareness to emulate an Fourier transformation in the optical field thus producing the appearance of matter...blah, ba bblah..blaBLAAH.

I wrote complete and absolute nonsense just throwing technical words out there arbitrarily selected and it sure sounded fancy didn't it.  Go ahead.  Try and argue with me about it.  You can't win.  I know more than you do.

Sometimes scientist throw out rough ideas to colleges with a few loose notions worked out on a black board; that's called "waving your hands".   Campbell doesn't even try to do that.  He is simply throwing words out there - never "demonstrating" anything, let alone proving the connections or fundamental relationships that could be used to justify what he is saying.

As an aside, besides finding TOE, it so happens that Grand Unification Theory (GUTs) has not been solved and if Mr Campbell really has a TOE (a Big TOE no less), he should write on a black board the solution for GUTs.  That would be great, then I suppose there would be a big reason to listen to him.  I mean if Campbell has a real TOE theory it does explain all of physics doesn't it.  If it's not intended to do that, why call it a TOE, or even a theory for that matter.

But he can't.  Sorry folks; you've being snowed with crap.  He's not a philosopher, psychologist, theologian, or neurologist... among those that actually think deeply about consciousness, etc.  If fact, it's hard to believe he was ever a physicist.

Every notice how he never answers a direct question, but simply redirects it into a misdirected monologue? 

So maybe I'm wrong. He really doesn't mean a "true" TOE theory.  Then here's a very simply question:  How "exactly" does awareness become consciousness, and how does consciousness "know" that it is aware; that "it" is?  How "exactly" does that occur?  Nope. If Einstein, or Feynman listened to Campbell for 2 minutes they would walk away - likely laughing.

The sad thing about it is Campbell's presumption to steal legitimate terms from the hard work of countless scientists and then dare to advertise the notion of TOE at all.

BillB wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 11:18pm:

The probability matrix of a quantum field tensor when reduced, by induction, yields an diverging information matrix that is also dimensionally reduced to a vector that wave guides the DNA to predetermined recursive wavelets.  The pointing vectors of the wavelets seek, by entropy, to produce multi-dimensional manifolds of information that can be recognized by the radially adjacent tensor fields.  The vortex of the fields provides an awareness oriented operator that records its past, or information.  The wavelets encode the vortex, or information flux.  The information flux transforms back into a solution field through fractal integrals, giving the system not only an awareness of past events, but produces decisions via the collapsing of these field.  That energy sustains DNA replication also ,where the TK1, TK2, and MTK channels organically localize the residual field collapse into our 4 dimensions thus maintaining information transfer to the protein level of each cell....blah, ba bblah..blaBLAAH. I wrote complete and absolute nonsense just throwing technical words out there arbitrarily selected and it sure sounded fancy didn't it.  Go ahead.  Try and argue with me about it.  You can't win.  I know more than you do.

In all the fields of human knowledge there is nothing so complex that it cannot be explained in simple words and terms by those who truly understand it.

But some mediums of communication are harder than others as in written form without verbal communication to enable one to quickly correct misunderstandings and without pictures to communicate some things, and when having short space and time. But even so, anything can be put clearly and simply, without jargon, and articulated with common knowledge so as to maximise understanding.


BillB wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 11:18pm:

Then here's a very simply question:  How "exactly" does awareness become consciousness, and how does consciousness "know" that it is aware; that "it" is?  How "exactly" does that occur?

We must define our terms. I will define mine:
Consciousness is the central “I”; the core identity; the central intelligence; the central observer, decider, and source of effort. Consciousness consists of three attributes: awareness of self and surroundings, freewill, and the ability to exert force. (For convenience I will here define consciousness and soul as the same item; soul being consciousness, consciousness being soul. And intelligence too as the same item.)

The first aspect of consciousness is awareness, and is double sided; it can look outward at its surroundings, and it can look inward, back into itself. Like the inner and outer surfaces of a tennis ball each face in different directions, one inward and one outward. Imagine both surfaces of the tennis ball each having an eye upon them; each eye is back to back to the other, with one eye looking outwardly, the other eye looking inwardly. So too, awareness is both outward looking or external awareness, and inward looking or internal awareness. And so by definition, awareness is awareness of itself and its surroundings.

Awareness is the outer layer or first aspect of consciousness. This is also passive intelligence, the ability to discriminate but no ability to freely choose, for choice is pre-programed as in computers or instinctual as in animals. The second aspect of consciousness is freewill or active intelligence, which is the ability to freely choose any option perceived; and the third aspect of consciousness is the ability to exert and apply force, and which in reference to intelligence  is creative intelligence, which is the ability to freely select aspects from a variety of options and blend them together to create a previously imagined result, which is creativity, or to create an anticipated result which is problem solving.   

As an analogy of outward awareness, the eye of your physical body cannot see itself; it may look and search all over your body but it cannot see itself. But it can know its own existence when it realises that it is the one who is doing the looking. Only a foolish eye would conclude its self does not exist because it cannot see itself anywhere on the body. So it is with awareness or consciousness, that is, the soul. The soul is the one who looks; the one with the awareness.

The physical eye can take a reverse bearing off any item it can see, reverse the direction of that item back upon itself and thereby know its own location and existence. So too consciousness can take a reverse bearing off any item it can see, including any structured thought within the mind, and know its own location and existence as the central observer.

Consciousness can exercise both its external and internal awareness at the same time. It can extend either of them, or both of them, it can reach in both directions, outward and inward simultaneously. There is as much within as there is without. Both external and internal awareness have faculties, or senses, which are subdivisions of awareness, and of which the body's senses are the material imprints or replications, and which means that both internal and external awareness can perceive thoughts and energies and matter in different formats, just like the body's senses perceive material reality in its different formats via the different senses.

The term surroundings here refers to anything outward of awareness, of which awareness can be aware, being all structured thoughts, whether visual, auditory or any other format, all emotions and feelings, all sensory income, all environmental surrounding, whether of the physical, emotional or mental environment.

External or outward looking awareness is one station of consciousness. Back to back to external awareness, looking inward, is internal awareness, which is another station of consciousness. Inward further is the station of freewill, or control, which directs the two stations of awareness. This station of control looks outward at the station of internal awareness, and if internal awareness is extended inward within and through the freewilled control station, and from the control station looks further inward and upward it comes to the station of conscience, with which it communicates but of which it is free to obey or disobey. The conscience is like a skylight at the inner upper pinnacle of consciousness. It is the highest sense within our self of what is good and right to do. This is not the individual or social construct that psychs tell us is the conscience, but is an actual organ in the soul. It may be complied with or ignored; that ability of compliance or ignoring it is what enables our freewill. If the freewilled controlling/directing station, along with internal awareness, continues reaching within and upward, it comes up against the station of conscience or the skylight, and can penetrate it, and may go further within and upward, to that of which conscience is the voice of. We might call this station above conscience the master self, or overself. It is that from which we extend, and relative to which, we are like a pseudopod. There is a communication line between each station of consciousness, and the line runs downward through our centres of consciousness in the body, and the line is our consciousness. The line is a cord. It is our self, with stations going upward into itself, and centres of interplay with the Earth's various planes as it goes downward through the body. The line is layered within itself, like a coaxial cable, with spirit/life running down the middle, and communications running along and around the outside. Like the optic nerve has life blood running to and fro through the central blood vessels and around the blood vessels is the optic nerves that carry communications.  As the cord runs down through the subtle bodies and through the physical body different parts of the cord's outer layers peel off at each bodily centre of consciousness, at which energies of that plane and its respective body of ours circulate through that centre. And when we work inwards and upwards into our consciousness we pass through its stations of consciousness, as described.

At the thread's centre and most core is the flow of spirit or pure life, and it is the friction between this layer of spirit and the other layers that produces awareness, both external and internal, and the layers going inward or outward of awareness as awareness is retracted or extended, for spirit permeates everything and everywhere, and we can retract or extend it.

The freewilled or directing station is a product of the life and awareness thread descending into our bodies while the surrounding communication layers of the thread have their flow ceased or held back at the semi-permeable membrane of the skylight, so they only come into the soul faintly, until we dissolve the skylight through living it outwardly and creating a continual outflow from conscience down through the stations and out through our living into the physical world.

It is the combination of this freedom to act independently to conscience, together with the illusory nature of earth life, where mortality seems so real, and survival so necessary, that provides us with freewill and its potential to learn and grow. For freewill requires falsity to be truly free, and also requires ignorance of truth, so it can venture across the full range of truth and falsity, ignorant and learning as it goes. We lived before birth and live after death, but we don't know that, so we strive to survive while alive on Earth. We didn't know what being alive was before we came into earthly bodies with survival needs and drives, and when we pass through death we emerge as a soul with a realisation of what our being alive is, for we have just past through a life of trying to survive finishing in a convincing death and now we stand alive and conscious of it. And so too, with every emotion, feeling and thought related to physical survival, and living requirements and comforts, after death each one of those false emotions, thoughts and attitudes activates a realisation of a quality of true life within the soul, or a true virtue or energy, which we could not have activated without the falsity of Earthly living to bring our realisation to it.      

By exploring the stations of consciousness, going up and down them, and through proper prayer and use of our freewill and faculties, through exercising all the aspects of our consciousness, we gradually become knowledgeable of the nature of our consciousness or intelligence, and aware of the interplay between consciousness and our surrounding psychological machinery, being the mind and emotions and their interaction, and we come to understand the nature of the human condition.            

In essence consciousness results from the friction between spirit and matter; and intelligence results from the contrast between spirit and matter, or more accurately from the contrast between light and darkness in their most absolute sense. Between these two greatest extremes is an infinite array of possibilities that result from the gradient between the two, or from the spectrum of shades and colour and all their combinations thereof that exist between light and darkness, between spirit and matter, and which comprise all existence. And life in its most essential form is the dynamic between the two greatest and most primal extremes, and which dynamic permeates all existence. 

For myself I have all sorts of subjective experiences and notions, but I know that's what they are.  I have a feeling what they are, but my notions aren't formulated, quantified, or demonstrative by rigorous logical or mathematical methods.  I can't prove them - rigorously.  They are part of my newly acquired belief system, not a science.

In the New Age movement there is also sorts of high-jacking of "well defined" scientific terms, by people who do not know the precise usage or meaning of those terms.  I understand that language is fluid and that we are seeking a vocabulary that somehow illustrates our notions as we try to convey this stuff with others.  For most of the folks doing this, I can accept that is what they are doing.

My issue with Campbell is that he should know better AND when he is asked specific questions by interviewers he commonly avoids actually answering the questions and just spews more techno-babble or becomes hostile criticizing some religious thought. 

This sort of thing is what discredits New Age elements to concensus-reality viewers who may listen to what Campbell is saying, then walk away thinking this New Age stuff is crap.

If you listen to Claude Swanson or Skip Atwater you will see the difference; their precise enunciation of their thoughts.

That is why I posed that specific question.  Because Campbell cannot answer, or more precisely explain it.  He shouldn't advertise that he is a "NASA physicist" who is somehow then qualified to be on the lecture tour. 

It's just a franchise.  Of course maybe it's all part of the Reptilian plot.  No wait, would it be the Small Grays?  Nah I think it would be the Reptilians, they look creepy. Could it be the Galactic Federation's Expansionist Division has some new agenda?  No, I don't think the Council of the Wise would allow that.....  I can just make-up and say anything.

1796,  Personally I "believe" that awareness is an attribute of matter, like mass or charge.

It may aggregate and develop into consciousness thus allowing everything to be aware, conscious as a system.

BUT I would never be able to claim that is "true", and it cannot be proven.  Unlike mass or charge is cannot be quantified.  It is only what "I" think may be one underpinning to reality. 

doodad wrote on Jun 30^th, 2015 at 10:27am:

Has anyone heard of Jurgen Ziewe (

What's authentic about Jurgen Ziewe is that he speaks in terms of his "experience", his "observations"; calling upon discussion of mind, lucid dream, and meditation in Bob Monroe like terms.  He diagrams, to illustrate his thoughts, what he believes to be relationships in the various levels of mind he's encountered, based on his personal experiences for over 40 years that he's journaled. 

Compare that to the link provided above that points the viewer to Tom Campbell:

The opening presentation titles: Thomas Cambell - My Big Toe "The Holy Grail or Physics" - a THEORY that INTEGRATES, UNIFIES & Logically DERIVES PHYSICs, metaphysics, mind & matter, the normal and paranormal.  Really. Does anyone think that is a bit preposterous of a statement? 

Campbell will call upon the thoughts of a couple of physicists who conclude reality is the virtual projection of a computer.  Now there are no details about the computer, how it work, who programed it, or who created it.  Campbell will explain these aren't fringe scientist. Really? Then why isn't this virtual reality taught in graduate school physics?  When he is asked questions about this he will not explain the computer.  This is the Holy Grail of Physics, problem solved?

Now in meteorology there is often talk about writing computer models.  We all know how good the models are out several days and the US vs European current models.  Well one may ask, if we really knew all the variables and initial conditions, could we build a computer that could predict the weather for the next instant?  The answer is no.  The reason is no computer system could crunch the numbers for "all" the variables infinitely fast enough and with infinite precision to beat nature at its own game, i.e. simply presenting the real weather in the next instant.

In beginning algebra one is introduced to the notion of the function.  f(x)= 2*X for example.  Sometimes people are taught to think of the function as a black box.  Put a number in, a number comes out.  The idea is to protect the student from the details of abstract or pure algebra. Then students go ahead and start solving equations.  Ya know what student wants to know first where the numbers come from or how the number systems are derived?  Well someone did have to figure that all out.  The Peano Axioms were derived and proven because the Church was executing science for things like the imaginary number system.  Students don't need to know all that to simply use a function.  And I can tell you that it is a boring pain in the rear end to spend half a semester studying the Peano Axioms.   Has Campbell worked all that out for his "Theory"?  Heck no.  And to prevent someone like Campbell pointing to the imaginary number system as somehow substantiating his virtual reality, the fact is the imagery number system actually is used in real problems in electrical engineering and optics to name a couple.

So Campbell is telling you there is a black box computer running the universe or the experience of man's mind.  There is however, no pure theory underpinning his statement.   Challenged by one YouTube respondent who asks for some details, Tom  explained simply that "it" results from the virtually projection and that is all; end of story.

Another writer asked if he was familiar with another's New Ager's "idea" out there about the ultimate reality.  Tom's response was he only read a little about the author on the Internet, BUT thought it sounded too complicated.  TOO COMPLICATE?  And Campbell's "theory" that Integrates, Unifies, & Logically Derives Physics AND Metaphysics is not complicate?!  What baloney is that?  Did Campbell actually study Quantum Mechanics?  Did he think that wasn't complicated?

Another writer asked about measurements: Campbell's response is you can't turn to the physical for answers.  Now at TMI he has lectured about his theory while using Einstein's early work in the pre-Classic Quantum mechanics day.  Campbell will freely take, out of context, statements by minds such as Einstein to substantiate his presentation, but doesn't think one can turn to the physical for verification.  Simply if according to Campbell one can't trust the physical, why is his TOE theory using the results of Einstein and other's work that was based on physical reality?  And if one can't trust the physical how can Campbell himself believe that his own theory unifies the physical laws of nature? Answer that one Campbell.

When Einstein came up with his equation of quantized energy expressed in the Photoelectric effect - that Campbell sites - Einstein was satisfying the experiment work of famous experiment by Heinrich Hertz, who produced and detected electromagnetic waves thus confirming Maxwell's theory of electrodynamics, along with experimental proof of stopping potential.  Einstein was assuming of course that energy was quantization as suggested by Plank's black body radiation experiments.  There are many history experiments that led minds of those times to conclusions that continue to be demonstrated to this day.  And Campbell has found the Holy Grail that Einstein couldn't figure out !!??

He also tells an audience at TMI, that by the end of his lecture they will understand Quantum Mechanics.  Ya know, after studying that topic for some years, what one commonly finds out, and hears from professors that actually teach the subject, is that anyone that says they understand QM, doesn't.  Physics simply uses the theory to crunch out results.  Physics doesn't really know what it is.  Similarly I challenge anyone to go find where Physics actually tells you what simply energy is.  Physics only tells you what it does, and how it is equated.  The simply question regarding what 'energy' "IS", is not answered.

So I appreciate Mr. Ziewe quite a bit for his honesty, humility, and working within the bounds of all a person can actually say subjectively about these experiences and not snowing the untrained listener with malarkey. 

Do you really want to take as fact or truth anything Campbell says?

I have Tom Campbell's book but I've only read a little of it. I've read about quantum mechanics some, but I'm not a physicist, so I won't be able to say a lot about Tom Campbell's "beliefs" this way.

I've watched some of his videos. In one of them he was explaining why he knows what he says is true. It seemed as if there wasn't a lot of room for doubt. At this time he's human, so he can be wrong about some things just as all of us including myself can be wrong.

Early in his book he speaks of Seth/Jane Roberts as a background source. I wonder how open minded he is about questioning Seth/Jane Roberts. If he isn't open-minded about this, then he might not be open minded about questioning other things.

Below is what I wrote about Seth/Jane Roberts a while back.  I wonder how willing Tom would be to consider the logic of some of the things I said.

http://nondualityisdualistic.com/a-night-in-heaven/chapter-13/

I like some of the things Tom says, but it does seem like he de-mystifies things too much.  Existence is magical.

Yes I think you are onto something there Recoverer.  Life, the Universe, everything is magical and perhaps its best to leave it in those terms.  Having studied sciences I realized more and more how far we are from really understanding the physical world, the human physiology, let alone the deep conscious workings of the Cosmos.   To presume to say one knows that is arrogant beyond scale. 

I've been watching an interview with Jurgen Ziewe and what I like is he appears to be a humble man that is simply enrapture with the beautify of it all.  He is an artist by training and I suppose that influences one's experience, but he is simply a pleasant soul and he clearly has reflected deeply on his experiences more along the lines of a reflective heart than a reflective mind..

I think a key point is to not assume that everything Tom says is correct. Some of what he says sounds accurate to me, but not everything.

One time I was looking at his forum, and a poster asked what Tom Campbell thinks of Seth, and one way or the other that poster seemed to get a verification that Seth is okay (I don't remember the precise details).

I think that poster would've been better off figuring it our for himself, rather than give away his power to Tom.

The very fact that Tom couldn't see through Seth, tells me that his discrimination isn't perfect. Not that my discrimination is perfect, but I could see when Seth (or Jane) spoke nonsense.

When it comes to studying the human soul, or human consciousness, we needn't overly look to others. We are consciousness itself, and if we wish to understand consciousness then we can study our self. It is a mistake to think that we cannot apply clear observation and sound reason to our self; we can, if we want to. Valuing truth above all else enables us to see things as they are, even our own interior. As humans, all our bodies work the same, as does the mechanism of our minds, as does our consciousness. If we study our own conscious mechanism then we can come to understand human consciousness generally. Of course every individual is operating their mechanism differently and have various different adjustments and malfunctions, but the cognitive and psychological system is the same for humans generally, and we each have our own model to study - our self.

If a cup wanted to know what was in itself, then why would the cup seek its knowledge from other cups who have written papers on surveys of cup behaviour and drawn conclusions on what might be inside cups? or why ask other cups who claim to have looked into their own interior but then talk about it vaguely or confusingly and often misleadingly. The smart cup who really wants to know the truth about his own interior will know he has the truth within and will look into himself and examine the content of his own interior first hand.

Most who work in the social and psychological sciences are not much of scientists at all; just ideologues collecting stats from selective samples, based on deliberately vague definitions and deceptive categories, and misapplying their skewed findings so as to deceive funding bodies and push a social agenda. Most psychologist whether clinical or research, know next to nothing about how the mind works, cannot define their own terms, except by vagaries and overlapping their terms with plenty of synonyms and thus proving they are fuzzy thinkers, and cannot explain the workings of the human cognitive and psychological mechanisms anywhere near as well as a mechanic or engineer can explain the workings of machinery. They would not pass first year exams if examined by the same standards as any of the real sciences. Compared to an average engineer or physicist most in social and psychological science are intellectual infants whose best skill is deception and manipulation. Sooner or later sincere men and women who value truth and work by sound reason will take over the pseudo-sciences of psychology and sociology, and make them real sciences based on tangible, verifiable truths, and that anyone can verify for their self if they want to.         

We have awareness, and our awareness possesses a faculty of vision, and other sensory faculties too. It can see its surrounding thoughts within the mind as images. It can retract itself back to the core of our being, and from a centralised position looking outward it can examine the surrounding layers of mind, emotion and body. Within and behind, or back to back with awareness of surroundings is an awareness of the interior of consciousness, and this internal awareness has sensory faculties too. So why not examine and study your self? Turn and look within. Learn about the human cognitive and psychological mechanism first hand. Make a project of it; a hobby. Many hobbyists have made wonderful progress and discoveries. If you have a sensible approach and sincerely want to know the truth, whatever truth may be, then the truth is there for the knowing.

cb            

Crossbow:

Related to what you just wrote, for a while I was heavily involved with Eastern teachings.  Because they came from supposedly enlightened and therefore infallible teachers, I believed in them to an extent that stifled my ability to think clearly.

Eventually I reached the point where I was able to think for myself again, and I tried to determine what the nature of myself is without being plagued by false concepts that came from gurus.

This enabled me to find that despite what some supposedly egoless self-denying Eastern-based teachers (including gurus from the West) said, my uniqueness, existence as a Soul is a fact.

It can be difficult to consider this matter thoroughly and clearly, if a part a person's mind, like a parrot keeps repeating, "I have no self, I am not an individual, I do not exist, my mind is just a play of aggregates," an so on.

Albert. Words can be evidence of thought, and of the person. Through your words I have noticed your efforts and development over time. 

I expect your venture into the eastern teachings benefitted you, and you returned with understandings that you might not have acquired otherwise. Even if what you learnt was that the eastern way is not the way for you. But I expect you learnt more than that.

I too have had substantial eastern influence. Together with growing up as a midstream Christian, I was immersed in Taoist and Chinese Buddhist teachings by involvement with a Chinese family through my youth and young adulthood with which I trained martial arts. I am thankful for both my Christian and eastern influences. By them both I learnt to breathe, meditate and pray. 

Progress can be difficult and tricky, there is plenty to slip and trip on; distractions, illusions and traps are all around. Really, I often marvel that so many find their way through this Earthly maze as they do. And equally I marvel at the illusions we are immersed in, how convincing they are. We each have problems to solve, difficulties to manage, obstructions to get past, and we must do it on our own, with some help from others if we are fortunate, and with abundant help from God if we have faith, but our progress is initiated by our self.

I don't believe in blaming others for my errors, (although I have done that in the past, of course) and I believe all mistakes can be blessings in disguise, if from our mistakes we learn and grow into better souls. In amongst my many mistakes, falls and failings, I made what I term some "lucky decisions", from which came benefits that I did not foresee at the time of those decisions. So I cannot take credit for my successes. Prayer, and faith in a kind and loving God has helped, perhaps even helped me make those lucky decisions, I don't know. I do know that whenever my faith slipped, I slipped; and whenever I ignored conscience and better judgement, I went wrong, and hurt others and myself. I believe in extracting the lessons from the experience, and being thankful for those lessons; that way there is no trauma, and unpleasant experiences become blessings. Thankfulness is a potent thing; it is the heart's memory; the reception of truth into the heart's repository; thankfulness never forgets; it opens the heart and lets in light and truth. I also believe in forgiveness; love regardless. It is most healing of all affronts and hurts. There is no hurt where there is forgiveness. Regret and shame are amongst the worst of human feelings, and yet forgiveness washes them away so easily, with just a few words and a touch. I think the worst thing we can do is hold back forgiveness from someone who needs it for relief. That is a sin against another soul, and against Christ. I have done it before, but never again, God help me. Forgiveness is that part of love we can direct to things distasteful; it enables us to love no matter what. Understanding that we all carry the burden of freewill helps us to forgive; for who amongst us has learnt to wield our freewill wisely?        

Although it is true that in all the universe there is no greater burden than the burden of freewill, it is also true that there is nothing the freewilled soul cannot overcome. Freewill, as burdensome and error prone as it is, has unlimited inherent potential, as much as God can spare for faith.     

I have waffled a bit. I just thought I would mention those things.     

1796:

I don't regret being involved with Eastern teachings for a while. Some portions of such teachings are valid and worthwhile.

I don't mind that I was involved with a false guru for a while, because doing so helped me develop discrimination.

When involved with such teachings I learned to turn within.

Being non-judgmental towards others, forgiveness, and gratitude, yes these are important things. When you open yourself to gratitude, you become more conscious of that for which you are grateful. You allow "that" to become a bigger part of your life.

BillB:
I appreciate your perspective on Tom Campbell. Some of his ideas seem worth considering if taken in a different context, but his TOE presentation just seems "off" to me. A very very depressing way of looking at things, at least for me, irrespective of the science.

BillB wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 11:18pm:

The sad thing about it is Campbell's presumption to steal legitimate terms from the hard work of countless scientists and then dare to advertise the notion of TOE at all.

Tom Campbell states that it is his TOE and that there is no need to believe it. Go make your own TOE is his advice.

His claimed expertise is in applied physics not theoretical.


BillB wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 11:18pm:

am a trained physicist also, and one thing I've learned over my years as I've studied and worked in science, various areas of engineering, or even in the medical profession "very often", actually "most often", people that know a lot about one thing begin to think they know a lot about everything; or they simply think they know everything.

Am sure in Tom Campbells presentations and in his TOE books, that he states that there is a limit in how much anyone can know.

So by definition Tom Campbell does not know everything.

It's to do with being part of the System of Consciousness and the only way to know even more was to be outside of it.

The brand of paradigm Tom Campbell espouses is Digital Physics. As I understand it, this is an emerging paradigm that not everyone is pleased with.

You did ask why its not taught in schools, that'll be because it is relatively new (20 years or so)

doodad wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 12:43pm:

BillB: I appreciate your perspective on Tom Campbell. Some of his ideas seem worth considering if taken in a different context, but his TOE presentation just seems "off" to me. A very very depressing way of looking at things, at least for me, irrespective of the science.

It does appear to strip out the perceived beauty of existence and present a view of a computerised system and that we really are just numbers and so so so small.

A Series on interviews on Jurgen Ziewe here~:

Talking about his book

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1sf3zwsW5Y