|
Post by paul on Aug 2, 2011 20:14:01 GMT 9.5
"Clairaudience is essentially the ability to hear in a paranormal manner, as opposed to paranormal seeing (clairvoyance) and feeling (clairsentience). Clairaudient people have psi-mediated hearing. Clairaudience may refer not to actual perception of sound, but may instead indicate impressions of the "inner mental ear" similar to the way many people think words without having auditory impressions. But it may also refer to actual perception of sounds such as voices, tones, or noises which are not apparent to other humans or to recording equipment. For instance, a clairaudient person might claim to hear the voices or thoughts of the spirits of persons who are deceased. In Buddhism, it is believed that those who have extensively practiced Buddhist meditation and have reached a higher level of consciousness can activate their "third ear" and hear the music of the spheres; i.e. the music of the celestial gandharvas. Clairaudience may be positively distinguished from the voices heard by the mentally ill when it reveals information unavailable to the clairaudient person by normal means (including cold reading or other magic tricks), and thus may be termed "psychic" or paranormal" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clairvoyance#Clairaudience_.28hearing.2Flistening.29I think it is worth distinguish the manifestation of a voice in the head from the process of non-physical hearing associated with the ears - often directionally located. The voice in the head is perhaps similar to the mental processes of those who think in words. I would further distinguish super-acute hearing gained either by training or trauma. This is an elemental (etheric) extension of physical sense organs.
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Aug 3, 2011 6:57:15 GMT 9.5
I think it is worth distinguish the manifestation of a voice in the head from the process of non-physical hearing associated with the ears - often directionally located. Again, this is how auditory hallucinations are usually perceived.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Aug 3, 2011 7:57:20 GMT 9.5
I should also have noted that telepathy when received on the lower mental sub-planes (5.7 and 5.6.7 to 5.6.4) is commonly perceived as words (rather than concepts, images and intents) and thus can be experienced as a voice in the head.
Of course that rarely has a sense of directional origin.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Aug 3, 2011 9:52:53 GMT 9.5
Just found this:
"“...My head was continually full of pictures, colours and sounds when my Haven (alien planet) friends were connecting with me. ...The telepathy I encountered was truly a dynamic means of interaction, tenfold more precise than any language on Earth. You will have heard the expression, 'a picture is as good as a thousand words.' Well, therein lies the answer to the ultimate 'language.' With the transference of a dozen pictures or diagrams in as many seconds, book loads of information can be passed on in a very short time."
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Aug 3, 2011 10:36:27 GMT 9.5
I don't think I am intelligent enough or experienced enough to do either of those things. Yet you presume to host and administer a forum purporting to examine esoteric freemasonry! ... just goes to prove any idiot can run a forum My job is to plant seeds, just doing my job
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Aug 3, 2011 10:47:27 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Aug 3, 2011 10:58:52 GMT 9.5
Schizophrenics have regular brains don't they.. not physically damaged or anything. I usually think of the brain as the hardware and the mind which uses it the software. Using that anology I can still imagine one mind hacking anothers.... ie hypnotists, advertising gurus, subliminal messaging, mothers
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Aug 3, 2011 16:19:42 GMT 9.5
Whether or not there are physical (including chemical) differences is the subject of some debate. That aside, what you say fits perfectly with that to which I have been alluding: There is no difference between perceptions of auditory hallucinations and clairaudience. If there is no difference, then logically they share an identity. Clairaudience is a lesser siddhi, which may lead one astray by appearing to externalize inner experiences.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Aug 3, 2011 17:05:04 GMT 9.5
... There is no difference between perceptions of auditory hallucinations and clairaudience.... From whose perspective would that statement be true? Would such a person also say: There is no difference between the realities of auditory hallucinations and clairaudience?
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Aug 3, 2011 18:36:32 GMT 9.5
From an objective perspective, the realities of sound arise from wave forms in the air as received through the ear and interpreted by the brain as sound (the old tree falling in the forest phenomenon). Apparently both auditory hallucinations and clairaudience arise from within the brain without direct, external stimuli (although perceived to be external in origin).
|
|
|
Post by paul on Aug 3, 2011 19:50:27 GMT 9.5
I think the theory of sound has moved on a bit. Now we have phonons (quasi-particles) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhononThat of course allows the prospect of entanglement. With entanglement physical proximity of sound is not essential to its perception. Independence of perception from the organs of perception has been long known both as a result of yoga (senses as products of the mind) and synesthesia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia
|
|
|
Post by paul on Aug 3, 2011 19:55:14 GMT 9.5
We have however departed some distance from consideration of whether the ego should be killed.
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Aug 3, 2011 20:36:57 GMT 9.5
Independence of perception from the organs of perception has been long known... The only organ of perception is our neurological system, chiefly the brain (it transforms and interprets stimuli received and transmitted by other organs and can also independently generate perceptions).
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Aug 3, 2011 20:39:20 GMT 9.5
We have however departed some distance from consideration of whether the ego should be killed. In doing so we have revealed something of the nature of that we are considering.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Aug 3, 2011 21:01:24 GMT 9.5
The only organ of perception is our neurological system.... Is that the same as saying the Ego is only a symptom of transient neurological activity?
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Aug 3, 2011 21:37:01 GMT 9.5
The Ego is what we are considering! However, for now I will say... No. Both Systems Theory and Pan-en-theism hold that, as a system we are more than the sum of our parts. Thus while the Ego (in a theosophical sense) arises from the unity of those parts, it encompasses and exceeds them (and, in turn, is a part in a larger system).
|
|
|
Post by paul on Aug 4, 2011 7:59:04 GMT 9.5
So what are the components of the Ego?
What is the process of generation?
|
|
|
Post by tamrin on Aug 4, 2011 8:54:05 GMT 9.5
Avoiding the ambiguous term "Ego," I would say the one essential Self is common to and expressed through all sentient beings.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Aug 4, 2011 8:56:14 GMT 9.5
On that basis the topic of this thread cannot be addressed
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Aug 4, 2011 10:55:07 GMT 9.5
Ba? In later periods, the Egyptians developed the idea of five components of the soul representing the heart (the seat of thought and emotion), the shadow, the name, the soul (ba) and the spirit (ka). The ba is everything that makes a person unique, a concept similar to "personality", while the ka gives life. Death occurs when the ka leaves the body. After death, the ba and ka are reunited to form the akh, represented by a bird-like hieroglyphic.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghosts_in_ancient_Egyptian_culture
While we think of ourselves as unique we divorce ourselves from unity. Reunification would require that we lose our sense of uniques sooner or later.
|
|