Quote:
Originally Posted by VinceG  Accuracy isn't as important as the teaching value. You can work in two directions here. You can read an 'official' calibration, and try to figure out why something calibrates at a certain level, treating the calibration as golden and your understanding as suspect.
Or you could work in the other direction. Find something you're interested in and give it a numeric calibration using muscle testing or self-inquiry. (your ability to calibrate using self-inquiry may not come to the surface until you've worked with the scale extensively using the previous method) Then you could treat the calibration as suspect and your understanding as golden, and try to figure out why you would consider something at the level you calibrated it at.
There are two skills to work on here. There's both the ability to calibrate accurately, which you train by doing lots of calibrations so that you lose your attachment to any one particular calibration. And then there's the ability to understand the calibration, which is done by studying the scale itself and contemplating the nature of a graduated, 1000 point scale that anything and everything has a place on. |
I did a calibration for myself, asked permission first. It came out at 444 which seems high to me.
I also asked how many times I've incarnated.