Tippaporn

@Sunmaster @Red Phoenix This idea that once enlightenment has been attained, the top level, then what's left to do? If that represents an unchangeable state, as Sunmaster has earlier stated, then there is nothing new to create. Existence is finished. It has come to an end. And perhaps that's why, Sunmaster, when I asked you what Sunmaster is doing in this world and what the purpose of this existence is you replied with you finger puppet analogy. In your own word you stated that you greater self creates this because it is . . . bored. When creation has come to an end then the only logical conclusion is endless repetition of what already is, which inevitably results in boredom. Again, show the practicalness of this idea. How it works. And if you can't then be honest and say that you don't know. But please do not attempt to make things up on the fly as an explanation. Remeber what I said, my own quote: In the game of life truth always wins. Bullsh!t is always and forever doomed to failure.

Sorry to have to point it out, RP, but you addressed none of my post. Is it because you can't? Honesty is required here because otherwise it will be nothing more than debating with liberals who make up everything on the fly.

Feel free to answer for I ask the same questions of you.

Again, serious questions. What level are you on? How many levels are there? What is it specifically that is needed for you to take this tiny, but important, step? And when you've reached enlightenment then are you forever in a state of bliss where no other states of feeling exist? For surely sadness and suffering cannot exist in a state of bliss.

What about multi-personhood, or multidimensionality? Reincarnational selves, probable selves, for instance,. Not to mention existences in other camouflage realities. That idea would kinda shred the concept of levels, whether 7 or any number, and show it to be false. For this concept of 7 levels deals with only two realities; the physical and the subjective, or whatever one wants to term the reality in which the greater self, All That Is, Brahman, God, whatever the term exist in. The problem with these ideas is that if specific questions were to be asked which drill down deeper into the practical working aspects of this ideology you would find that there are no answers, no explanations. Just blank stares. That's satisfactory for some but does not nealy suffice for a great many. Of course you might get an answer such that these are merely unimportant details. For once someone attains enlightenment then those questions are only asking for answers to details that no longer matter. You're enlightened now and everything is understood clearly. Which answer would be a total copout. Another answer may be that these questions all originate from the intellect. Once you've reached enlightment the intellect is no longer needed. In fact, the intellect is a barrier to enlightenment, as one poster here suggested earlier. Anyway, my reation to the ideas you put forth, RP, is and and . Earlier discussion here came to a conclusion accepted by a few posters that there needs to be a blending of science and spirituality. That ain't ever gonna happen when you toss out all reasoning, logic, practicallity, and chain up the intellect in a deep, damp dungeon. For once you do that then anything goes.

What level are you on? Or have you reached the final stage already? Someone laughed. It's a serious question.

What level are you on? Or have you reached the final stage already?

Same questions for you.

Precisely my point... Seth (the Seth Material) can only point towards it. The map is not the territory. The territory is beyond intellectual understanding. The territory has to be walked, not talked about. Each one of us has to do the walking on our own. Once we have walked, we can talk about it with some authority. Here's a quote from Seth which I know you will love, savor, and shove in my face with childlike glee. I purposely refrained from posting this earlier for I knew you would use at as a cudgel to beat me repeatedly and mercilessly. Now the first paragraph is ideally suited for @VincentRJ. Give us a moment ... The true scientist understands that he must probe the interior and not the exterior universe; he will comprehend that he cannot isolate himself from a reality of which he is necessarily a part, and that to do so presents at best a distorted picture. In quite true terms, your dreams and the trees outside of your windows have a common denominator: they both spring from the withinness of consciousness. Simply as an analogy, look at it this way: Your present universe is a mass-shared dream, quite valid - a dream that presents reality in a certain light; a dream that is above all meaningful, creative, based not upon chaos (with a knowing look), but upon spontaneous order. To understand it, however, you must go to another level of consciousness - one where, perhaps, the dream momentarily does not seem so real. There, from another viewpoint, you can see it even more clearly, holding it like a photograph in your hands; at the same time you can see from that broader perspective that you do indeed also stand outside of the dream context, but in a "within" that cannot show in the snapshot because of its limitations. Maybe that quote will get you to change your tune about objecting to my quoting Seth directly. I must follow that quote with another to give it some extra context. In the same way that you latch upon one personal biological history, you latch upon but one mass earth history. Others go on about you all the time, and other probable selves of your own experience their "histories" parallel to yours. In practical terms of sense data, those worlds do not meet. In deeper terms they coincide. Any of the infinite number of events that could have happened to you and Ruburt [do] happen. Your attention span simply does not include such activity. Such endless creativity can seem so dazzling that the individual would appear lost within it, yet consciousness forms its own organizations and psychic interactions at all levels. Any consciousness automatically tries to express itself in all probable directions, and does so. In so doing it will experience All That Is through its own being, though interpreted, of course, through that familiar reality of its own. You grow probable selves as a flower grows petals. Each probable self, however, will follow through in its own reality - that is, it will experience to the fullest those dimensions inherent to it. You pick and choose one birth and one death, in your terms. Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with you that it is important that we explore our own consciousness I completely disagree with the idea that any exploration is beyond intellectual understanding. As you stated once before, the journey into the unknown is done without the intellect. I disagree because the intellect is an inherent attribute of consciousness. I should provide you with Seth's information regarding the intellect, but not in this post. That material explains that our present use of the intellect is misguided. Now in this second quote the bolded text is my emphasis. As consciousness expresses itself in all directions, which includes infinite different realities - ours being merely one of them, via it's experience within any reality it will experience All That Is but interpreted in the terms of the reality in which consciousness has created for itself. My objection to the teachings of Vedanta, for instance, is that this school of thought does not seem to recognise what this second quote is stating. Vedanta basically teaches that there is only one goal of existence; and that is to realise who you are for the sole purpose of then liberating oneself from the suffering of this world and thereby ending the reincarnational cycle, never again having to return to this world of suffering. Vedanta seems to miss entirely the point of this existence and why it was created in the first place. As well as the self which occupies this territory. Seth stresses again and again that the point of any exploration of consciousness is not meant as a means of escape, or a way of replacing physical experience with another, but only in order to enhance our experience in the reality which we currently have our experience in. For that reality is essential and vital in itself. Vedanta does not explain why the suffering exists in the first place, except perhaps as a cruel prod to force one into realising themselves. Nor does it explain how that suffering is created. The cornerstone of the Seth material states that you create your own reality via the translation of subject ideas into materialised physical form and experienced events. Whatever suffering one experiences is created via the ideas they adopt as beliefs. The Physical Universe As Idea Construction. That essay Jane produced in 1963 via automatic writing was her first initiation with Seth. The concept is seminal and perhaps the fact that it is a cornerstone is why it was Jane's initial writing. Seth: "You get what you concentration on." "You create your own reality. There is no other main rule." Abraham, another channeled personality, "There are only two things one can ever think about. What you want and what you don't want." "There is no such thing as exclusion. There is only inclusion."

Well, I best first define what enlightenment is according to me. Generally speaking I'd go with the dictionary definition: the state of understanding something. Apt synonyms would be: awareness, insight. understanding, wisdom. As it applies specifically to Hinduism and Buddhism I accept these definitions: a final spiritual state in which everything is understood and there is no more suffering or desire; the highest spiritual state that can be achieved. I'll assume you're referring to the latter so I'll answer accordingly. As to the first definition, since I don't believe in beginnings or endings, or in final destinations of any kind, then I reject that interpretation of enlightenment. I do not believe that there exists a state where everything is understood because more that is as yet unknown is constantly being created. I've stated before that growth is eternal for if that were not the case then nothing new could ever come into being. Without anything new then existence could only be eternally repeating itself. As to the second definition I do not believe there is a "top of the pyramid" for that would imply the existence of levels and also imply that the goal of any existence is to climb a ladder which ultimately leads to the top. I believe that idea to be sourced in our current ideas which play out, for instance, as the goal of life being to forever climb the rungs of the financial ladder to ever and ever greater riches. I prefer the general definition, which is to perpetually increase our awareness of just how much there is to us, to forever gain new insights, to eternally increase our level of understanding, all of which creates wisdom. As defined by Hinduism and Buddhism, no. I believe that growth is what we are all engaged in every moment of our existence via experiencing and engaging in our world through our selfhood. Growth increases our awareness, insight and understanding. In that sense then we are in a never ending process of enlightenment. So since this is the natural process of existence in which we are constantly engaged then it cannot be radical. No one can escape becoming enlightened in one way or another, to one extent or another. There is no one who learns nothing in life. Again, I believe that enlightenment as defined by Hinduism and Buddhism does not exist. If an expansion of awareness is desired in certain direction then yes, there are certain thoughts, or ideas, which are beneficial and aid in that expansion. Those are the beliefs which people subscribe to and hold. Limiting beliefs impede an expansion of awareness and beliefs grounded in the idea that the self is unlimited allow for such an expansion to occur. I've said before, though, that life is not a horserace to some imagined finish line. The joy is in the journey, not the destination.

@VincentRJ Just to leave you with a quote from the Seth material: The unknown reality, colon: Again, because of your precise orientation you are often theoretically intrigued by the contemplation of worlds not your own. And while you may often yearn for some evidence of those other realities, you are just as apt to become scandalized by the very evidence that you have so earnestly requested. Ruburt has embarked upon his own journeys into the unknown reality. I cannot do that for him. I can only point out the way, as I do for each reader. That is the grand irony for those who seek true answers. And yes, it is a major impediment if allowed.

My apologies for assuming that your intention was to find dirt on Jane. I arrived at that assumption due to the fact that there is much information to be found on the Internet on Jane and Seth. Of all of the available information that exists I found it curious that you would link to a couple of citations which focus on aspects of Jane's life which do not present her in a favourable light. I would always advise one to be skeptical and agree that that is a sensible approach. Skepticism promotes questioning. However, I would love for you to apply that same skepticism to the belief that the 'true' methodology of science is the only means of validating everything which exists. Unless you question it you will never understand it's limitations. Yet that methodology is such a fundamental cornerstone of science that it would appear that to understand and accept it's limitations would be to somehow reject science. Science would for certain reject you if you were to accept that the methodology of science is limited. I very much recognise and appreciate immensely that you have an enquiring mind. In fact I applaud you and have applauded you. An enquiring mind is in essence a questioning mind. And so I would recommend to you that you not only ask questions of that which you do not know but importantly ask questions of that which you do know. Only by questioning what you do "know to be true" will you ever be able to uncover that perhaps what you thought you knew to be true just ain't so. And if you choose to refuse to question what you do "know to be true" then you may only be accepting a reality which does not exist in fact but only exists in your own mind. And if validated evidence cannot be had via the 'true' methodology of science then what? The idea that validation for some things can only come from yourself is something which appears you currently are not willing to accept as true. What I am insisting on, incessantly so, is that the 'true' methodology of science can never prove that 'consciousness creates all the matter in the universe' one way or the other. For science that idea, or contention, will forever exist only as a hypothesis. I think you're beginning to understand. I accept that. I did notice the qualifier 'seems' when I first read it. Jane's background did indeed influence her in many respects. To say that it "must have" influenced her writings I accept as true. But we'll never know what part of her background played an influence nor will we ever be able to determine whether any portion of her background which may have influenced her writings did so in a negative or positive way. It's a question which I, myself, see as having little bearing as I allow the material to stand for itself. Just an interesting and pleasant anecdote which comes to mind relating to the influences in ones life and how that influence exerts itself. This is a true story which I came across years ago. Someone had attended a local outdoor art show featuring local artists. The guy was interesting in a painting by an 80-year-old woman. So he asked her how long it took her to paint it. She replied, "80 years."

Sorry to say, Vince, but pointing out the damning flaws in your logical processes to reach flawed conclusions was only Part One. In Part Two I'll cover another major flaw in your reasoning. This part has to do with your scientific beliefs as they form the basis for the illogical thinking that follows from those beliefs. It's true and well accepted that man, and science, have precious little understanding of what consciousness is or what it's capabilities are. Therefore, given such immense ignorance it is neigh on impossible to then determine which expressions of consciousness are valid and which are not. Science accepts only those expressions which it can verify via their scientific methodology. Any expressions which science is unable to verify using that methodology are considered invalid. Hence it is only common sense that given the great degree of ignorance regarding consciousness then it must be, it can only be, that many of those expressions which science currently rejects as valid are indeed valid. The expressions of consciousness are of a vastness which easily escapes comprehension. What is known of consciousness by science is not only the slimmest of a sliver but much of what is thought to be known is flat out erroneous. Despite the fact that the degree of ignorance of what consciousness is and what it's capabilities are is so great that doesn't prevent science from declaring with certainty which expressions of it are valid and which are not. Those expressions considered valid become conventional thought and represent science's paradigm. Any expressions which fall outside of that paradigm are not only deemed invalid but also anyone who claims to have experience outside of science's limited framework of conventionality are seen as disturbed. For science to declare with such certainty what is acceptable experience and what is not is an indication that the degree of their hubris may well exceed the degree of their ignorance. These scientific-minded pundits which you cite take a scientific approach to the question of Jane, Seth, and mediumship largely vie case studies. Studies which seek to categorise, compare, contrast and ultimately make sense of the subject matter. They begin with their theses and from there select only that data which is significant in terms that it confirms their theses. Data which does not is left out for it does not fit. This data is left out for the reader as much as it is left out for the authors. In that sense it does a disservice to the reader in that it denies the reader data which the reader may deem important and relevant. Science's approach in examining consciousness is to examine it from a detached position.. For scientific methodology demands that. Consciousness, however, can never be understood using that approach as consciousness is not a thing, an object which can be calibrated using purely objective oriented tools. For any true understanding of what consciousness is and what it's capabilities are then the tool to use is consciousness itself. Unfortunately no scientist would ever consider such a proposition as it would defile and automatically invalidate any findings. Such is the box which science has unwittingly placed itself in.

You mean Jane Roberts was human? Oh, my God. I've been reading the Seth material and Jane's own works for decades. This is a new revelation to me. Thanks for letting me know, Vince. I'll steer clear of the material from here on out. Sarcasm aside, what did you expect to find when your intention was to find "dirt?" Tell me, if you were to do the same with scientists and look closely at their personal lives, specifically and only to find whatever trash you could about them for the sole purpose of discrediting them, do you think some scientists might be living imperfect lives? That's a rhetorical question because you know the answer to it. Of course you would. And if so (and you can be guaranteed to find that most scientists have dark issues in their lives as they, too, are human) then what does any of that have to do with the works they produce? That's another rhetorical question because you know the answer to that one as well. Nothing. Your using your rational and logical thought processes to prove the following theory to be correct: if an author's character is suspect, or a scientist's, then their work is suspect. If found to be suspect then that invalidates their work. And if this theory is "true" then one only need to examine ones character to judge their work. This is a well known logical fallacy of the Red Herring family of fallacies called argumentum ad hominem. The most common form of this fallacy is "A" makes a claim of "fact," to which "B" asserts that "A" has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going entirely off-topic, and hence "B" concludes that "A" has their "fact" wrong -without ever addressing the point of the debate. This is one fallacy you're using to dismiss Jane's works and/or invalidate it. A fallacy also well regarded as character assassination. Which is, well, at least I regard it such, to be a despicable tactic that makes one wonder about the character of the person who employs it. Another logical fallacy you're employing, out of several others that can be cited, is also from the Red Herring family of fallacies called ad verecundiam, or appeal to authority, a form of argument in which the opinion of an influential figure is used as evidence to support an argument. Hence the "authoritative" treatises you cited as your "proof" that Jane is a disturbed individual and also to use as "proof" of the conclusion that Seth is a fictional character. The only thing of importance is the work itself. Of course you already know this and don't need me to tell you this. What is wholly evident, though, is that you rest your case on fallacious arguments for the purpose of dismissing Jane's works and thereby relieving yourself of any responsibility to examine her work's actual substance. The fallacious arguments also allow you to then pass off an utterly uninformed opinion as well informed. It does take quite a bit of work to keep folks honest. Hopefully you can appreciate that effort with some acknowledgement. For it is done for your benefit so that in the future you use sound rationale and logic and don't expose yourself as appearing dumb. Don't misinterpret me here, Vince. This is not at all intended a slight. It's just simply assessing reality accurately and properly. Whether you allow yourself to accept reality or whether you wish to believe your deceptive logic is valid, for that is in essence what logical fallacies are - deception, then that is up to you. You're a good poster and I'm sure you'll choose wisely.

I forgot to credit you with possessing supreme graciousness, Sunmaster. Getting a feel yet for having a friendship that can get ugly at times but none of that could ever get in the way of the friendship? Wonderful, innit?

I always thought you were partial to Sunmaster. This proves it.

And to all those who want to complain about my long-winded, verbose posts I salute y'all with my middle finger whilst I play a fitting tune dedicated to y'all. The J. Geils Band with an awesome cover of John Lee Hooker's Serves You Right To Suffer off of their eponymously titled '70 debut LP.

Thanks, Sunmaster. But I reject your apology for there's no apology needed. "In every moment everyone does the best that they know how to do." --Seth A fitting personal anecdote to explain that: I had a five year relationship with my first Thai girlfriend. It was one of the most blissful relationships I'd ever had. No fights about anything ever. Just fun and laughter. She was very loving. And yet there was a deep seated and fatal problem to our relationship, unbeknownst to me. She didn't have an attraction to farang and preferred Thai men. Whilst I was good to her and raised her stature economically she yearned for a Thai on Thai relationship. She could not resist that yearning and so she did the dirty on me. I confess that it broke my heart, especially considering the bliss I had felt on my end for so many years on end. After we broke up I experienced emotional swings from one extreme end of the spectrum to the other. I would wake up one morning and my thoughts would immediately focus upon her transgressions. My emotions where at the far end of the scale of anger that would turn to deep sadness. The next morning I would wake up and immediately focus on the love and the good times we had experienced and shared together. My emotions then moved to the far end of the scale of love, gratefulness and appreciation for all that she had given me. No matter how much I tried to cancel out the good with the bad I knew that the good was eternal and therefore could not be erased. And so I experienced this seesaw for well on a month. Anyone knows that to constantly go from one extreme to another emotionally is not healthy. I recognised the deep quandary I was in and sought to end it. So I decided to utilise what I had learned in, get ready for it, books. My desire paved the way to release the knowledge of what I had learned and bring it to awareness. That Seth quote came to me out of nowhere one day and proved to be the solution to my intolerable dilemma. Understanding the truth of that statement filled me with utter compassion for her and from that moment on I released all anger and sadness for I understood that she was doing only the best she knew how. She didn't want to hurt me, for she did love me, yet her desire had to find it's fulfillment. To this day I can freely recall every detail of her transgressions and feel nothing but love and appreciation for her. I'll deeply love and appreciate her always and only love and appreciate her. I will, however, accept that nice glass of Chateauneuf-du-Pape from you, Sunmaster, and make a toast to her. Her name? Tippaporn. Okay y'all, put away your Kleenex's now. Was that the end of my experience of utilising that specific knowledge? Well, the anecdote has a Part Two. Now I did not want to be single and so I was firm on creating for myself another relationship. This time, however, I got out pencil and paper and wrote down a list of everything I wanted in a woman. I was not about to repeat that relationship via a hit and miss approach so I understood it was important to first define for myself what it was that I wanted as opposed to what I didn't want before I went fishing again. If, that is, I had any expectation of success. At the top of the list were 1) honesty, 2) a good heart, 3) a balanced personality, 4) a woman who was happy with herself. Less than a month later I was headed home one Sunday night from one of our mutual friend's house. I was about to turn into my soi when I was struck with a strong impulse which I couldn't deny and so followed it. That impulse was to go to a bar, walk in and order a single beer, and the first lady who came to me I would take home. I was not interested in sex at all. I was only interested in talking to another female. I took her home and we sat on the sofa and talked for hours. She had just come off a three year relationship herself. She then asked me if I wanted her to stay with me. Again I followed my impulse without the slightest analysis and said, "Sure." Seventeen years later and the list I had penned of what I wanted in a woman was completely satisfied. We are extremely happy, fulfilled, and loving. Now fast forward another five years from our initial meeting. A few months prior to returning to Thailand from a long 3-1/2 year stay in the U.S. I was on Skype with her, as was our usual almost daily routine. This day, however, her voice was not it's usual. She told me that she had some news for me that was about to seriously threaten our relationship. Okay. I felt completely calm and relaxed and felt not the slightest apprehension as she delivered the news. She was pregnant. She told me that she still wanted to stay with me and not with the biological father of her newly formed child. But, she told me that she wanted to stay with me only if I could love her child. What happened next was quite remarkable. At least in my view. I was literally besieged with a gadzillion thoughts in what seemed to me to be hitting me almost simultaneously. Whilst each thought was indeed fleeting at the same time each thought was almost suspended in time in that I was able to identify each distint thought with absolute clarity and respond to it. These thoughts which I was experiencing were rational yet were not due to any kind of intellectual analysis on my part. I would say that each thought was of a different and distinct implication which this situation presented me with. And after each thought my response was an immediate, "Good," and then did the next thought present itself. For I could just as clearly see how each potential consequence would work out to my beneficence. And to all of our beneficence, including the biological father. Whilst my still girlfriend at the time continued to plead her case, as I was being bombarded by an incredible number of ramifications, after less than two minutes I replied, "Sure." My then girlfriend did the best she knew how in every moment. I had no right to have any expectation for her to be celibate for 3-1/2 years. Besides, I understood only too well the cultural conditioning we've all been indoctrinated with regarding what is appropriate and what is not regarding sexual encounters. It makes little sense. I also became the favourite man amonst her girlfriends who were awestruck that I would still accept her. Our daughter's biological father had even remarked to me that he was quite taken by my graciousness in accepting him and offering him participation and sharing in his daughter's life. Unfortunately he could never overcome his negative feelings over the fact that the mother would not go with him. He engaged with us perhaps once or twice a year and has since disappeared without a trace. Interestingly, I was torn in a way about having another child. I already had two in the U.S. and I was not in favour of experiencing child rearing again. It's a lot of work and I didn't want to do the work anymore. Our daughter is now 11 years old. And she's been a blessing of such enormity which I could never have imagined in my wildest dreams. Just goes to show what delicious fruits can be harvested by trusting in yourself rather than by reacting automatically from the stance of acceptable conventional "wisdom." I should have just dumped my girlfriend then and there, right? Compassion to me, Sunmaster, comes from knowing that "In every moment everyone does the best that they know how to do." No apologies needed, my friend.

If there's any one poster here who shows more resistance to understanding more than he currently understands that would be you, Frogs. Getting you to understand anything outside of your belief system, especially when anything is opposed to your belief system, is the epitome of a 'futile effort'.

And your point is? Are you trying to understand what the Seth material is via parapsychology treatises on mediumship?

No way is RP going to wade in these waters. Between the snakes, piranha, crocodiles, alligators, blood sucking leeches, sharks, and boiling waters from underground geysers he's made a wise choice.

@Sunmaster Just to leave you with this. I am not a Sethian. Seth is the entity who provided us with information as to who and what we are, how our reality works, and so much more. So I don't defend Seth. What I do defend are those ideas he's given which are a spot on accurate match to actual reality. When it comes to the range of material nothing I've ever come across can hold a candle to the vast number of topics covered in the material. Which makes it extremely complex and just as challenging to absorb, make sense of, and utilise that knowledge. After reading don Juan and realising that those were not books that would have much practical value I went searching for something which did. The overriding, burning question I had for myself was to know how my experience in this world was being created. With that firmly in mind I would scour the occult sections of every book store I'd run across searching for what I specifically had in mind. I can't tell you how many books I'd skim through. Now even at my then level of understanding I had enough common sense which I trusted to spot bullsh!t. And if I found something which I knew was wrong I'd put it back on the shelf. I saved myself a lot of money by simply skimming. Now I did pick up Seth Speaks, skimmed it, and put it back on the shelf. Not that I found bullsh!t in it but because the ideas seemed a bit far flung for me. It wasn't until about a year later whilst I was working as a bartender I befriended one of the waitresses. Her head was in the same place, relatively speaking, and I would talk to her about don Juan. So one day she came to work and handed me Seth Speaks. Coincidence? The rest is history. Now what's always puzzled me is this, and hopefully you can give me your answer. I've perused a lot of material and all of it was produced by humans. Fallible humans. I had already adopted the beliefs that there was more to us and that we survived death. So when I began reading Seth's material and found it to be credible, and when I considered the source of it and realised the much vaster perspective that an entity such as a Seth had then I could not ignore the fact that as far as quality of material went I had hit a literal gold mine of information. It was beyond obvious to me from the get go that material coming from such a source would put anything else produced by mere mortals to shame. Have you ever had that thought? I'd love to know how you, having Seth and Vedanta to choose from you picked religion over Seth. Was it the complexity of Seth's material? I've never been able to convince anyone on that point. I could never get anyone to see the immense value of material coming from a source possessing such broad perspective. For I thought anyone who hungered for quality information would jump at the opportunity for what could be better? In that last post of yours to me you had asked, "Or is the sole goal of a Sethian to "create your reality" and live a content life with good relationships, wealth, happiness in the material world?" The most obvious implication of your question was that you believed that Seth's material was only to teach people how to create wonderful physical lives and nothing more. So I wanted to dispel that notion by saying that Seth had always encouraged his readers to use the mobility of consciousness to explore other realities. Not for the purpose of escaping this one for that would defeat the entire purpose of this existence. Through his many exercises (123 pages worth when assembled in a single volume) his aim was for the reader to become familiar with what lies outside of this reality for the sole purpose of enhancing the readers present existence. Markedly different than Vedanta's goal of liberating ones self from not only this world but from the whole reincarnational cycle so one would never have to come back to this place of suffering ever again. Which, in essence, completely devalues our present existence. If escape is the only goal why not just off yourself? Anyway, it's as RP said. For you it's Vedanta, for me it's the Seth material, and for RP it's George Ivanovich Gurdjieff. You have your reasons and challenges for coming here, I have mine, and RP has his. But the Seth material is not the same as Vedanta nor is it the same as Gurdjieff. One may find similarities and think it's the same but the differences are more vast than the similarities. Cheers, Tippers

But you haven't been totally honest. Without that there's nowhere to go then. All of your writings are literally verbatim the teachings of Vedanta. You've got religion and it shows in your responses. We've gone round and round about the ego and no matter what information I give you to dispel the notion that the ego is not exactly what Vedanta says it is just doesn't take. The beliefs about the ego which you express are the identical beliefs about the ego which Vedanta expresses. Whilst I see some major differences you see none. So I'm scratching my head thinking how can you not see the glaring differences? And then you objected to my quoting from Seth directly. Which puzzled me as to why you wouldn't want the information directly from him but only through me in my own words. It made no sense. So given that you hadn't really commented on the nine posts I did make I quit posting any of the rest of Seth's information on the ego that I had put together. I spent a lot of time assembling all of that information and adding my comments but fortunately it wasn't a total waste of time as it benefited me to go through that exercise. Ultimately, it seemed that anything I would offer on any topic would always be fitted to Vedanta. Which can't help but lead to dishonesty. Again, as I would point out the differences between Seth's description and explanations regarding the ego you would simply come back with, "I see no discrepancies." You can't be honest in saying that when I see the discrepancies clearly. Trying to get you to see things any other way than what Vedanta has taught you failed and so I understood then that you had got religion. I'd have as much luck with you as I would with a devout Jehovah's Witness. And they ain't ever gonna budge. What you perceive as me playing the offended child and shutting down isn't what happened. What happened was that I decided to cut my losses. You can't debate someone who is willing to be dishonest and even worse you'll never change someone's religion by debating different ideas. The mere idea that Vedanta could possibly have distortions was flatly rejected Your last post to me was flush with dishonesty. At least I could see it. So I thought, well, time to get out. You're a good man, Sunmaster. The feelings are mutual. No hard feelings at all on my end. Though I may pop in to give you a hard time now and again.

The story devalues knowledge gained from books. Anyone who has benefited from books would take exception. Knowledge of ourselves and our reality is to be found everywhere in the world. And that includes books. But again, it's the insistence that only direct experience can impart knowledge. Which is what Vedanta seems to teach. Uhm, the experience of our physical selves imparts no real knowledge? Our intellect, intuitions, or emotions don't impart valid knowledge? It seems to me that you've now got religion, for Hinduism is a religion and Vedanta is a branch of Hinduism, and if it's other than what Vedanta teaches then, well, too bad, it's incorrect, right?

Still pals. Just some serious headbutting.