Tippaporn

Etymologically phobia comes from Greek and means fear. Hating something is the Greek misia. Granted phobia has evolved in usage to include hatred as well as fear. I'd still go with Sunmaster.

An epic, simplistic, and misleading fantasy for children that's even too simple for children to swallow. Where's the rest of the story? Oh, there isn't any more to it. People who hate women = Misogamists People who hate humankind = Misanthropes People who hate gays = Homophobes People who hate work = Slackers People who hate foreigners = Xenophobes People who hate books = there's gotta be some special term for that. Sunmaster?

And the Bible story is considered far fetched and unbelievable by these scientists? But this is Science, with a capital 'S', boys and girls. So put your trust and faith in that God and rest assured you can believe what She tells you is the real, evidence based truth. She? Yes, Science had transitioned to female as soon as it found scientific data to support the idea that sex is not based on biology. What a bunch of nonsense for stupid people set to celestial music for the intended effect of wowing them. If Seth is a bunch of woo then science is a bunch of wow.

Just making a joke, TBL.

That proves my point.

There's no point in doing so, Sunmaster. You'd never agree to anything I would point out. You'd only argue your way out of it. Both you and I know that. Of the dozens of examples I could give perhaps the single most example that brought me to the realisation that we aren't ever going anywhere on this topic is your parable of the blind men and the elephant. The arguments that you provided to show that they're all partially correct, those arguments are, as I said, pure mind fvckery. Those arguments defied all intellectual reasoning. The fact that you wouldn't concede but chose instead to twist logic to the point of being unrecognisable in order to be correct, and to be unable to bring yourself to admit that they were all wrong on such a fundamental issue was the final straw for me. That one was just over the top. That was one instance which showed me the degree to which you're willing to fool yourself. To fool ones self is in essence to be dishonest with ones self. And there's nowhere to go with that. Self honesty is a prerequisite to acquiring knowledge. Without it you can't get very far for you'll only end up denying what actually is in favour of what you want it to be. I'm sure you'll end up turning that around on me. That's okay.

The dishonesty.

@Sunmaster At this point I think we're going to just have to agree to disagree.

@Sunmaster Just a few questions . . . If Vedanta is the same as the Seth material then why didn't Seth simply point everyone to Vedanta? Was it merely to give new, modern clothing to the old Hindu texts? Why doesn't Seth ever refer to Vedanta? Is it because Vedanta contains truths and distortions which Seth didn't want to deal with. You know, "Well Vedanta is spot on here but over here it's got the wrong idea." Do you ask yourself those questions? Or are you so heavily invested in the ideas which Vedanta espouses that you'd rather not know? I don't know what the case is but I do know that you are heavily invested and when people are heavily invested in something, right or wrong, they tend not to let it go easily. If you continued to read the Seth material and found something which made perfect sense to you but contradicted something in Vedanta what would you do? The reason I go on about it is because you've claimed that Vedanta is the same as Seth. It's clearly not. And yet you insist that it is. You say you're not an expert on Vedanta and only came to it about a year ago. You've read a few of Seth's books but not all. You've admitted than his material is convoluted - meaning you don't understand much of what you did read. I've been working with Seth's material for 44 years daily. And yet you insist that Seth's material and Vedanta are the same. I say it is not.

What were you saying earlier about self-pleasuring the ego? Unless you go to church every Sunday you're not really a practicing Catholic. Sure, you're free to do anything with your life but then your not a practicing Hindu. Vedanta being one of Hinduism's schools. In name only then.

Indeed. One is right about some things and wrong about others when dealing with absolutes. Partially right or partially wrong applies when there are multiples. In the singular, though, it's either 100% right or 100% wrong. A wall is not an elephant and an elephant is not a wall. There is no 'partial' to it. No wonder we have such difficulty with agreeing on points. ". . . but I doubt you would like that." I have no problem with that. I'm certainly not infallible.

Right. Not said but implied. And that is the language I used . . . "the implication is" . . . " ... Needless to say, I wanted you to know that there is much more than even this, complexities that are truly astounding, intelligences that operate in what I suppose you would call a gestalt fashion, building blocks of vitalities of truly unbelievable maturity, awareness, and comprehension. These are the near ultimate [as I understand such things]." I guess Seth is dead wrong then. Well, it sure sounds like it. If the intellect can only put into words the real deal experience, which is only "a pale, lifeless approximation of the real thing" then it only logically follows that we should be relying only on direct experience. If the intellect can't achieve any knowledge of inner reality itself and only direct experience can then the intellect is, for all intents and purposes, useless in the subjective world. So the conclusion is that the intellect is geared only towards the physical world? "Insisting on using it from this point onwards is the exact opposite of what meditation is all about." Which means dispensing with it when turning your consciousness inwards. I don't know how else you can interpret that..

No, that's not a way of life. A way of life is prescribing how to live it in particular detail - a list of do's and don'ts, whether they be actions or behaviours. Fulfilling a desire to understand the rules of the game and then playing by them is not a way of life. It's an approach to life. But that approach in no way makes decisions as to what I should or shouldn't do, or how I should or shouldn't behave in my life.

Now I've gotta say that that is pure mind f'kery. For whatever one feels then becomes truth. At least partially. Which means that any answer could be partially correct. Granted their limited data and context misled them to mistake a thing as something other than what it truly is. But to call that partially correct? In their misinterpretation of the thing they were trying to perceive.? Man, I can't go there with you, Sunmaster. Still, your response of defining our psychic structure in answer to the question escapes me as to how that definition has anything to do with the question.

Yes, I agree. I think this is an universal truth and I don't see a conflict between our points of view. Whew. So you understand the vital importance of Sunmaster now? And that Brahman can never be a replacement for Sunmaster? I know I'm stretching things here . . . Who are you again? Replacement? Sorry, I don't follow.... Replacement. You know. Since Sunmaster is only a finger puppet who doesn't have a true identity, for there is only one true identity for the self which is Brahman, then the identity which is Sunmaster isn't real. You replace that Sunmaster identity with the one and only identity that exists, Brahman. Who am I? Am I this Sunmaster self? No. I am Brahman.

And yet, all of them are simply maps of reality. A reality that has to be condensed and diluted enough to make sense for us. Can you grasp and truly know/feel what it means to be one with AllThatIs by using your intellect? Can you feel the bliss, the ecstasy of feeling the divine love flowing through your whole being by thinking about it? According to you, you should be able to. If the intellect can generate knowledge on the same level of direct experience, then this should be quite easy. Here, too, I made a comment about religions prescribing a way of life whereas Seth doesn't prescribe one at all. What do maps of reality have to do with that? And I never mentioned the intellect but you went into a discussion of it. So where does that come from?

An issue of definition first. You use the Sethian definitions of outer self and inner self, where the inner self is a connecting point between the world (outer ego) and the vastness of the inner world. So from the outside to the inside, it goes like this (correct me if I'm wrong here): outer ego, inner ego, entity, Oversoul, AllThatIs. The Self I'm talking about is not the same as the "inner self". I use this progression: ego, self (individualized consciousness) and SELF (Absolute Consciousness). In that sense, the SELF needs nothing as it contains everything. The self however, needs to peel off ignorance to remember that it is in fact the SELF. To do that, it needs an accurate assessment of the reality it lives in. You didn't answer the question. I didn't ask about the definition of our psychic structure.

Now that's stretching it. Your inner self depends on accurate assessments of reality from your outer self in order to perform it's function. What about, or how could any of those answers be interpreted as "partial truths?" Now that's an answer I'd love to hear.

@Sunmaster Christianity prescribes a way of life. Islam prescribes a way of life. Hinduism prescribes a way of life. Buddhism prescribes a way of life. Vedanta prescribes a way of life. Seth does not prescribe a way of life. That's a huge difference.

Nothing Viagra can't fix.

Yes, I agree. I think this is an universal truth and I don't see a conflict between our points of view. Whew. So you understand the vital importance of Sunmaster now? And that Brahman can never be a replacement for Sunmaster? I know I'm stretching things here . . . Who are you again?

With the implication that intellectual knowledge is of less or of little value? And so dispense with the intellect and go for direct experience only?

For what?

That's one idea. So what's the purpose of intellect? For if it's unable to acquire knowledge on it's own then what's the good of it? I've created never before seen tooling that worked using my intellect. And then experienced the positive and fulfilling results afterward. Of course there was intellectual fulfillment experienced as I was in the process of design. Is that not valid?

Not my thing. No need to write about it.