Tippaporn

I've got faith in you.

@Sunmaster What, no reply? I know you have thoughts about what I wrote.

". . . if there was evidence . . ." That's your red herring. BS. Covid and climate change. Let's be honest, Fat. There's science as an ideal and then there's science as it's practiced. The two are vastly different these days. You don't interact with an ideal world, do you? The ideal world doesn't exist and neither does the ideal science. Okay, you've gone off the rails, Fat. What you wrote has no truth in it. I can jam the real truth right down your throat but the evidence is not acceptable here. Early on? That's an out and out lie. The odd scientist? That's an out an out lie. A few politicians? That's an out an out lie. Misspoke my ar$e. That's an out an out lie. It boggles my mind that people can so easily forget what really happened and then deny that what really did happen didn't happen. There's one thing about any exploration of consciousness. It requires absolute self honesty. Without that you'll only be fooling yourself and the truth will remain hidden from you because the dishonesty is that which will hide it. Your choice there, Fat. And thus your uninformed and misinformed opinions carry very little weight. I've studied consciousness for decades. Explained succinctly? You're being unreasonable. The subject matter of consciousness includes multiples upon multiples of subject matter. It is far more complex than you can begin to imagine. How many books would you need to read to get your PhD in astrophysics? What, you can't learn astrophysics in a succinct manner. Can you reasonably expect to understand what consciousness is with a few one liners? A paragraph or two? A couple of posts? As has been said many, many times. Some things can only be proven by yourself to yourself. If physical evidence doesn't exist so then what? Statistical data collection and analysis the points to A being responsible for B? You have no idea how many variables there are to consider. As you admitted, you have not studied consciousness. Therefore you are not in any position to demand how it needs to be proven. Analogies are useful in conveying a point. But they are never meant to be used to make unfitting points. When that happens it's said that the analogy doesn't fit. And it doesn't fit the point you're trying to make with my analogy. Huh? Again, you have not studied what consciousness is and therefore can't begin to opine on what possibilities exist for producing evidence. As to "followers of your ideas" that's like saying that if I taught someone the mechanics behind an automotive engine then they would be followers of my ideas. Consciousness is what it is, like an engine is what it is. Both work according to definite principles and are governed by laws. It's not "my idea." It's the simple fact of the way it is. I agree. Faith is not a dirty word. Those who do not believe in faith have little idea of how often they operate on faith throughout every day of their lives. My reference to faith, though, was that I'm not about to employ it as a method of accepting anything I say as being "true." That's your personal interpretation and it's wrong. Anything one learns needs to be validated. I validate, to the extent I can, what I learn via testing it out in the real world. I can provide you with endless anecdotes that are proof for me but will never be accepted as proofs by those who fail to understand that proofs for anything and everything in existence must come in the form of "hard" evidence. Let's face it, Fat, you have no interest in understanding any of this. You have your beliefs and they suit you just fine. You don't want to change them, nor are you ready to change them. It's fun for you to argue for your beliefs but that's really about as far as it goes.

Goddamn, I love your posts, Vince. You're respectful, you lay out well thought arguments, and you don't run away when challenged. Deep respect once again. The reason "What is consciousness" is the question to ask is because consciousness is the very definition of life. If something possesses consciousness then it is alive. The fact the we we know literally nothing about it is precisely why it is the most vital question which can be asked. Here's why: if we don't know what consciousness is then we cannot know what it's effects in the world are. Now if we were to know what consciousness is and what it's effects are then we would know that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not how evolution works. His theory is not just a little bit off. It's massively off. But how can you know what consciousness is? After all, it's a question which has stumped science, philosophers, and theologians for millennia. There are answers and it can be known. What it is and what it's effects are cannot be so easily proven, however. How do I know that? The proof is in the pudding. It's a question which has stumped science, philosophers, and theologians for millennia and to this date still no one can speak of consciousness with any authority. Another prime reason that it cannot be easily proven is that consciousness is not a physical aspect of the physical universe. You can't place a consciousness in another's hands. Hell, people have tried in vain to find it's location. Because it's not physical it doesn't, therefore, reside in a physical location. It isn't a "thing" or an object. Science has theorised that consciousness resides in the brain. But after hundreds of years they've not found it anywhere in the brain. What does that tell you? Consciousness is, in essence, self awareness. All consciousness is aware of itself as itself. Therefore there are no "levels" of consciousness. There are, however, an infinite number of types of consciousnesses. That much has been figured out. The problem with science's approach in examining consciousness is that it can't be done from the outside. It needs to be examined, or explored, from the inside. But that notion, the inside, is a notion which science cannot accept as it's major tenet is that only the objective universe is real. That idea that there exists only an objective universe is precisely what will hamstring science until such time that science realises that there's more. Until then they won't learn much more than the putrid little they know thus far. You had recently posted a quote from the Wiki page on neurotheology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_religion The following quote from the article is an interesting explanation of the processes that result in a Buddhist monk, meditator, or contemplative guru, experiencing what they feel is the ultimate reality, or a oneness with the universe. "What Andrew B. Newberg and others "discovered is that intensely focused spiritual contemplation triggers an alteration in the activity of the brain that leads one to perceive transcendent religious experiences as solid, tangible reality. In other words, the sensation that Buddhists call oneness with the universe." The orientation area requires sensory input to do its calculus. "If you block sensory inputs to this region, as you do during the intense concentration of meditation, you prevent the brain from forming the distinction between self and not-self," says Newberg. With no information from the senses arriving, the left orientation area cannot find any boundary between the self and the world. As a result, the brain seems to have no choice but "to perceive the self as endless and intimately interwoven with everyone and everything." "The right orientation area, equally bereft of sensory data, defaults to a feeling of infinite space. The meditators feel that they have touched infinity." Whilst this sounds promising to some it does not to me. It is correct as far as showing that there are links to the brain but the approach is still one which focuses exclusively on the physical portion of the conscious mind. The mind is a part of subjective reality. The brain is merely it's physical counterpart. For subjective reality to be connected to physical reality then for all practical purposes there must of course be a link between subjective reality and objective reality. If nothing else can be said about the world then it can be said truly that our universe is practical in every respect. Nothing operates on magic dust. Science will, predictably, conclude that the objective reality produces the subjective reality. They will then have it backwards. They are moving in that direction now postulating incredibly absurd notions such as the sense of free will which people feel they have is simply an illusion created by the brain. Hence the ludicrous conclusion that free will does not exist. At which point science has totally gone off the rails of rationality and careened into the ditch of the bizarre. Humans don't create idea. Humans entertain ideas and hold ideas. What an idea is is just as much of an enigma as what consciousness is. The existence of ideas are recognised and accepted but again, what they are and where they come from, or where they go when you're done with them, no one knows. Ideas are also a part of subjective reality, hence why so little is known about them also. That's a total fallacy which is also a product of the Theory of Evolution. Even on an intuitive and emotional level one screams, "False!!." Tell me, Vince, that your entire life is for no other purpose other than to reproduce and you see no cooperation anywhere in this world. Other than your reproductive value to the human race your life is purposeless, meaningless, worthless, valueless, and only one huge joke. And when it's over it's lights out. Do you truly believe that? Don't your intuitions and emotions protest even a little bit over that idea? The intellect, on the other hand, can be made to rationalise the most ludicrous absurdities. That much is well known as fact. So much that is misunderstood. I'll leave that for another time.

I told you a long time ago, Sunmaster, that save the frogs isn't worth your time. My 11-year-old shows more common sense. And respect.

Well, is that truly a shocker considering that the unknowns about consciousness are not "many" but rather that what most people, including science, know about consciousness is precious, precious, very scant little? Because of that fact, and due to so many accepted ideas of science which I would say are false, any claims of non physical forces would be viewed with massive skepticism. Also, given the vast ignorance about consciousness, combined with erroneous scientific "truths," then would it also be a shocker that obvious connections aren't being made which link to non physical forces? Dear Fat, this "shocking" revelation is, in the words of the great Sherlock Holmes who had exceptional deductive reasoning skills, elementary. What else can one expect as a result??? Reread the above and neither is there definitive proof that it is reliant on or a product of our physicality. It's what's called "up for debate." I'm debating it and taking up the counter position using reason and logic. I've not invoked the word "faith" as a convincer ever. Not to poke fun at you, Fats, or to be condescending but your suggestion for how to show a connection between non physical forces and real world physical outcomes via statistical data collection and analysis is highly amusing - it produced a smile on my face. I consider it so because the idea you suggest has such little thought put into it that the fatal flaws of such an approach are immediately apparent to those who have an understanding of these non physical forces. Now this is a highly important point. I've written before about folks who haven't, as I put it, "thought things through." People all too often give their opinions on subject matter of which they have little knowledge, experience, or have not put a great deal of thought into. They usually repeat only the scant ideas which they've come across in their journey through life, ideas which they've accepted as "true" for themselves. Take the idea which fusion58 and I are arguing about. fusion58 claims that everything which exists can be proven via evidence of it's existence. That is an idea which is heavily promoted by science. Most have heard it. Most trust science. And since they do not want to spend the time and effort to validate the idea for themselves, and since they trust science and trust that science has done the heavy lifting for them - and concluded correctly, then most people simply accept the "truth" of it uncritically and unexamined. And they then repeat it themselves as "truth." This is simply a truth of the way people "pick up" ideas through life which then become their beliefs; beliefs held as "true." That is without dispute - at least if you give pause long enough to think it though. By no means do I judge you now, but I would say you are such a one on this topic. To prove me correct I would only need to ask you how much thought you've given to the subject of what consciousness is, what ideas are, where they come from, what their effects are, what beliefs are, how they work, what thoughts are, etc., etc., and ask you how many books on these subjects you have not only read but studied. And how much effort you've then put in to testing the ideas out in the real world to validate them yourself. Believe it or not there are people in the world, Fats, who delve to great depths on this subject matter. On the subject of consciousness it is simple fact that science and people in general are wholly ignorant on that subject. I do not imply any judgement whatsoever in my use of the word 'ignorant'. I use it in the strict sense of the dictionary definition: lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact Yet those who have studied it, some for a lifetime, are treated as idiots who don't know what they're talking about. An apt analogy, which happens in real life, is an individual who has spent an entire lifetime in his business and knows it inside and out. He hires a newbie, someone who perhaps had taken some classes taught by teachers who may well have taught him correctly at times but also much which is backwards, and this newbie on his first day then decides to "educate" this individual with a lifetime of real experience on how the business needs to run. I've said this many times: people love to pretend they know it all. They approach subject matters as if they were experts despite the fact that they are less than novices. They tend to believe that everything which they believe is correct and true and when challenged get upset and feel prideful indignation. Do show some respect. It has nothing to do with faith, sir. Reading the faith part of it into it is strictly due to your personal interpretation, your personal perception. I've already addressed the 'faith'. I've never, ever suggested meditation. Be accurate. As to reading a million words it works this way: if one has no interest in a subject matter my posts are verbose, long-winded. If one has settled on their convictions and are immovable then my arguments are verbose, long-winded. If one has interest in the subject matter then my posts are too short. If one has no set convictions and possesses curiosity then my posts are too short. It all hinges on ones position. So, do you still want to contend that I am being unfair? I guess that would depend on what position you take, correct?

Logic seems to confound some people as it's only illogical within their framework of beliefs.

Possible or not, the burden to prove the existence of a supernatural being is still yours and yours alone. That’s because you are the claimant. There's one other point which needs to be made. Your statement concedes my point "that evidence does not exist in physical terms" for all phenomenon. As you say, "possible or not." Your statement, once you posit that evidence does not always exist in physical terms, then becomes illogical. For if you agree that evidence does not always exist in physical terms then it is illogical and irrational to then claim burden of proof for clearly you've tacitly agreed that proof does not exist for all phenomenon. Therefore, if proof does not exist it is illogical and irrational to then claim burden of proof. Bottom line is that there exists an objective reality and a subjective reality. Objective reality is physical in nature. Subjective reality is not physical in nature. Any phenomenon which is purely subjective, due to it's very nature, cannot be transformed into physical terms. So, how would you argue that it can be, fusion58? I understand that there are numbers within the scientific community who are positing the idea that all subjective reality is merely a product of the physical brain. Those adopting that absurd notion then further posit ludicrous ideas such as the nonexistence of free will, for instance. The illusion of free will is then explained as being due to the function of the brain. Science then has totally come off the rails of rationality and has careened into the world of the bizarre.

Again, you insist on my holding the "belief in a supernatural being." Another typical intellectually dishonest debating tactic where you keep repeating a false claim in order for the repetition to make it true. This is exactly what you are doing, sir. I predict it won't be long now before you simply exit this conversation as that is what people typically do when their points are shown to be fallacious and they can no longer argue in defence of them. Nor can they successfully find the logical flaws in the other's points and point them out. Intellectual dishonesty is severely limited as it is laden with faults which can't be overcome. And so the eventuality is that those who practice intellectual dishonesty hightail it outta there.

Attacks? Is that what you call critiques of naturalism which show it's logical deficiencies? What kind of a science disciple are you where you can't handle opposing ideas to your scientific theory and simply stomp your feet whilst endlessly and loudly repeating, "My theory is right!!!" Another typical intellectually dishonest debating ploy where you shout down the opposing views and refuse to argue the substance of what you're shouting down. By the way, I never once "attacked" atheism. Never argued against it. Another typical intellectually dishonest debating tactic where you put words into the other's mouth.

The upshot of which is that I'm arguing that the evidence you demand doesn't exist, not that you're not willing to accept it. You want to insist that it does, or should, and refuse not only to accept sound and logical reasoning but can't even debate that sound and logical reasoning. The failure is yours, fusion58.

This is just another intellectually dishonest debate tactic. Resort to ad hominem by accusing the other of simply blowing hot air without ever saying what he's blowing hot air about or why he's wrong. What we have here, in truth, is the fact that you refuse to debate any of the valid points made in these so-called "long-winded dissertations." This is widely recognised and accepted as intellectually dishonesty. So that's what I'm now accusing you of.

Possible or not, the burden to prove the existence of a supernatural being is still yours and yours alone. That’s because you are the claimant. First of all, I had written this in my last reply to you: You have this impression of me that I believe in God, that I believe in supernatural agencies, that I believe in supernatural beings or entities, that I subscribe to theism, that I believe in a supernatural realm. I believe in none of that. And: And so, I expect no more references from you as to what you think I know or believe. If you're uncertain then have the courtesy to ask me first. I demand intellectual honesty for without it there's nowhere for us to go. Are we clear? Yet here you are spouting the same BS about me that I believe in a supernatural being. I demanded intellectual honesty from you I guess that would throw a monkey wrench into your narrative so you simply continue to dishonestly proceed with your narrative that I believe in a supernatural being. Secondly, here's an entry from Wiki on consciousness: Consciousness, at its simplest, is awareness of internal and external existence. However, its nature has led to millennia of analyses, explanations and debate by philosophers, theologians, and all of science. Opinions differ about what exactly needs to be studied or even considered consciousness. In some explanations, it is synonymous with the mind, and at other times, an aspect of mind. In the past, it was one's "inner life", the world of introspection, of private thought, imagination and volition. Today, it often includes any kind of cognition, experience, feeling or perception. It may be awareness, awareness of awareness, or self-awareness either continuously changing or not. The disparate range of research, notions and speculations raises a curiosity about whether the right questions are being asked. Examples of the range of descriptions, definitions or explanations are: simple wakefulness, one's sense of selfhood or soul explored by "looking within"; being a metaphorical "stream" of contents, or being a mental state, mental event or mental process of the brain. Millennia of analyses, and however many hundreds of years by science, and yet to this day science doesn't have much of any clue as to what consciousness is. And they have even less of a clue as to where consciousness is. For the life of them they can't find it's physical location. Do you know why? Because consciousness isn't physical. And thus it can't be proven to exist, nor can it be found to reside anywhere in the physical world. This is illustrates conclusively the point that I've been making which you refuse to accept. There exist in the world phenomenon which are not physical. And if they are not physical then how the f are you going to legitimately place the burden of proof on the claimant, or demand they produce the evidence of it's existence? I'm sure you would claim you have consciousness. That you have awareness. So prove it. Show me where your consciousness is. Well, after millennia of analyses and no one has yet been able to do it then neither will you. But you can't deny the fact that you have consciousness. To deny that would be the epitome of stupidity. Same with thoughts. Thoughts aren't physical. But they sure as hell exist and are real. Think a thought and then prove to someone else that the thought you had exists. You can't. Another instance, which example I've used earlier - but conveniently ignored by you, of phenomenon which surely exist yet can't be proven to exist. But hey, keep fooling yourself as long as you would like to. You don't fool me, though.

Can I assume that you are joking? No. Yes. Consciousness creates form. Form does not create consciousness. What is consciousness?

Science got the best of you, owl sees all. Indoctrination is what me calls it. We talk about all those lefties who can't see the truth if it gobsmacked them upside the head because they don't question any of the great lies they've been told. Evolution is a great lie. You just need to question it. Question everything. Especially, most especially when it agrees with you.

Harari certainly loves and cherishes his life. Harari certainly feels he has a sacred right to life. These people cannot hide their hypocrisy. Do they really believe no one sees it? Now that's dumber than dumb.

I totally agree. When I first read the Seth material I had very specific questions in mind. If the material didn't address those questions directly I didn't focus on it too much. As my questions changed over time other portions of the material appealed to me. There needs to be a blending of science (intellect) and spirituality (intuition and emotions). Since I see science as arising as a counter to religion (not in total, of course) then for science to incorporate spirituality would be seen as a return to religious precepts. It ain't gonna happen anytime soon. This thread is evidence of that in spades. Seth does not focus merely on our material existence. Hence the book of exercises I posted. But we're here now and we're here for a reason. And so Seth certainly addresses that quite practical and real fact, too. The reason for our very existence here is missed completely by Swami Sarvapriyananda. I would say "in my opinion" but it's in his own words, which I transcribed from the video. You are that. Why should we be interested? Well because Vedanta tells us the way to overcome suffering and to attain fulfillment. Which is after all what we are interested in. All that we do in life is trying to overcome suffering and to attain fulfillment. Lasting peace, happiness, security. The way to do that is to realize who you are. That's the big claim. Nowhere that I've seen yet is there any discussion of how specific experience is created. I do not see any talk of ideas or beliefs; what they are, what their function is, and certainly not what their effects are. Who is creating personal suffering? Who creates personal fulfillment, or lack of fulfillment? Is fulfillment in physical life something which is not attainable? Or only in the spiritual world once we become one with the One? Are we not spirits now, in this life, merely clothed in flesh, blood and bones? Lasting peace, happiness, security implies a final destination. There is no final destination to anything. That statement also implies an end to growth. Beyond which lies eternal repetition and true death. That is antithetical to All That Is and Seth explains how that works and why in granular detail in "Unknown Reality Vol. 1." Seth is not within the circle of Vedanta. All else emerges . . . for what reason, though? For what purpose? I've asked you before, why is Sunmaster in this world? For what? Where does Vedanta talk about creativity? What of reincarnational selves? If one reincarnational self attains connection with the One then what of those living the other reincarnational existences? Given that time is simultaneous and all exists at once then how does that work? Are the rest of the reincarnational selves liberated as well by default? What of probable selves? Trace selves? Counterpart selves? Now creativity would explain that. That's what puzzles me. There are huge contradiction which I see. How is it that you don't see them? Seth's material on the ego is one such contradiction. Yes, there are similarities. But nowhere does Seth ever denigrate the ego. And why relegate the ego to a lesser portion of the self? Some parts of your greater identity are better than others? Some, such as the ego, being kicked to the curb? A useful tool, when it works? Else it's only a hindrance? That's a huge contradiction between what Seth claims and what Vedanta seems to claim. Total opposite view points in major respects. Another major contradiction between Vedanta and Seth's material is one which I heard in another of the Swami's videos. He used the same whiteboard with the greater self, or the One, on the left side with a line drawn separating all else. He then claimed that everything existing on the right side of the line was not real and not eternal. Thet's 180 degrees from what Seth is saying. Those two disparities are not just minor, unimportant details to be brushed away (excuse the reference to painting pun ). There are no insignificant details as everything has meaning and importance. Anyway, I accept that our paths are different but I do object to drawing parallels from Vedanta to Seth such that they appear to be identical, if only in the "important" respects and class the differences as simple details that one can overlook. Lest people begin to falsely identify Seth with eastern religious thinking. In fact, Seth growing out of Vedanta as you now put Seth squarely into Vedanta's circle. Square <--> circle pun intended. Square pegs do not fit into round holes.

Sugar has killed me yet. Nor has it made me fat. So what's the problem again?

Utter rubbish. Only Austrians can hold a candle to Germans on cakes and pastries. You married a fellow artist? Forget the photos. Just send us the watercolours of them. Cosa ti succede?

I'll be the final judge on cake since being a German it is my automatic and God-given birthright. Just goes to show that Harari is full of sh!t on human rights. Which one is she making? I'd go for the cheese cake, but with raisins, made with authentic Quark from unpasteurized milk. I kid you not, my mother would smuggle it into the U.S., going so far as to pay bribes to customs agents if need be. Though I would be willing to die for some Streuselkuchen. And if I've gotta die for it then it better be no less than 1 meter in diameter. If your wife needs more recipes I can get her my mother's complete recipe book on cakes. 10,000 baht for a copy. But it's worth the price for it'll guarantee she's a winner every time. I know you can afford it. Need recipes for cookies and pastries, too?

The most astounding thing about Harari is that he has an audience. If he were to preach "you create your own reality" he would have none. What he preaches resonates with people. While the truth of reality does not. You get spat on for doing that.

Whenever you decide to get your lazy ar$e outta bed your coffee and pastries will be waiting for you, Sunmaster. Let your wife sleep for a change.

Uhm, can I get at least three reactions to that post so that my ego can feel that it's been popularly appreciated? Of course you know I could give to f's.

I'll address this to you as well, @Red Phoenix. What I think about Swami Sarvapriyananda doesn't really matter. If I tell you what I disagree with and why then you would only filter that information through your current beliefs and reject all that does not fit. You would then only defend what your beliefs are. We've been through this with the ego and so any analysis of mine of the Swami will only be same. You've accepted your path and are adamant that that is the path you will follow. Who am I to dissuade you with contrary information? Just an anecdote from my life which I had eventually come to recognise. My parents had their beliefs which they impressed upon their children. There was one in particular which threw me for a loop for a long, long time. Germans are a polite people very much like Thais. My parents stressed being considerate of others. To the point where we had to consider others in deference to ourselves. At least that's how I interpreted my parent's lesson to us. And my interpretation was how I then proceeded to interact with people. What that deference meant to me was that I had to consider the beliefs of others as valid over my own. Well, as you can well imagine that worked very poorly for me. And it would work poorly for anyone else, I would add. But there was a benefit there for me. A silver lining in a dark cloud. For this process of considering others over myself meant that I would suspend my own beliefs and adopt the beliefs of another. I would not only see the world through their eyes, through their beliefs, but also would identify with their beliefs as if they were my own. Now since I had my own beliefs about things, as I must, then this was extremely confusing for me. Since I was able to so strongly identify with the beliefs of others and, very importantly, accept their validity, their "truth," then that created the serious dilemma within me because it fostered immense doubt within myself about my own beliefs. I would think to myself often that perhaps my beliefs were just plain wrong. To this day, as I listen to the beliefs others express which are different from mine, it still fosters doubt within me about the truth and validity of my own beliefs. But, fortunately for me, I have recognised this dynamic and these days I have little issue with separating the beliefs of others from my own. That came through a lot of work though. A lot of work as it forced me to question the validity of each and every belief I held that conflicted with the belief of another and to then determine for myself which was "truth" and which was truth. Whilst in this process, though, I would experience confusion as to what was true and what was false. And that would be quite unsettling. Now that is a huge understatement. Sometimes it was even scary to think that what I believed, especially if I had maintained a particular belief for quite a length of time, may not be true at all. The idea was terrifying when I would consider that perhaps I might have been living a lie, or fooling myself. I'll toss in some Seth here. As he has explained, everyone has what he calls a world view. His definition of it is the totality of beliefs one holds at any given time. World views, however, are not permanent, or stagnant, for beliefs constantly change to one extent or another. World views are therefore dynamic. Another important aspect of a world view is that it is not merely ones dry, philosophical stance on everything about life, a world view which is without effect. To the contrary. A world view is highly practical because it literally defines ones modus operandi in life. It is upon that which one chooses ones actions. For action is an idea in motion and one acts only according to the ideas which make up their beliefs. A major upheaval in beliefs would, in practical terms, throw one into a state of confusion as to how then act, or respond to situations which had previously been handled automatically. You choose your parents, it is true, for your parents fit in with your intentions. And, of course, yours with theirs. My intention in this life is to understand who and what I am and the reality I find myself in. And so my parents assisted me in acquiring the skill of being able to suspend my beliefs, the "truth" of them, whilst I consider other ideas, other beliefs, and whether or not they have any real truth. You, Sunmaster, have accepted your beliefs as true, no different than anyone else. And so I'm telling you that in order to consider the validity of the Seth material you would necessarily have to temporarily suspend all of your current beliefs which you consider true whilst you adopt the ideas of Seth as true. To pretend for awhile that they are indeed true. Temporarily only whilst you try their truths on for size. Not permanently, mind you. Whether you decide to make them permanent or not is for you to decide by comparing and contrasting to see which is true for you. This process is, as has been described, the ideal method in which we are to play with ideas as children play with building blocks. And that play is supposed to be fun. Unfortunately, rather than a process of play it is approached with deadly seriousness. Now, if you attempt to understand the Seth material whilst bringing your current beliefs along with you then you will do nothing other than sift through the material and toss out anything which does not fit your current beliefs. Your beliefs will act practically as a filter. And those ideas of Seth which do agree with your current beliefs will be accepted and then give the appearance that Seth's ideas and your current ideas are indeed one and the same. I tell you, though, that overall they are not. There are radical differences between the two. As I've said often, you will no doubt find similarities between the Seth material and all religions. Do not, though, ignore the differences or pretend they do not exist. For those difference are meant to be entertained and questioned if one is truly interested in moving beyond their beliefs in order to divine true reality. I'm opting out of providing my views to everyone because I understand, perhaps more fully than I ever have, that everyone has there own ideas and their own paths which they have, with great intention, embarked upon. Overhauling ones beliefs to a great extent is not for everyone. That would be biting off more than most are willing to chew. Or able to chew given their level of understanding. Adopting any of the information I provide leads to a major overhaul. I can't legitimately and honestly expect that from anyone. You create your own reality. That is simply too much for folks to accept for too many reasons. Yet there's no right nor wrong about it. In the immortal words of Abraham, "life is not a horserace." We are not on a sprint to see how quickly we can attain "enlightenment," or "heaven," or a state of "bliss," or a true understanding of ourselves and our reality. That true understanding will come about naturally in due course and at ones own pace. In this lifetime or another. In this probability or another. We've been given the gift of the Gods; to create. In that sense we are Gods. No matter what reality our consciousness travels to we will still be creating our experience there. There is no reality in which experience is set for you, or predetermined for you, or chosen for you. There is no reality which exists apart from you. The basis of all realities is individual freedom. Freedom is inherent within our being. That will eternally be the case for Sunmaster and for every other consciousness, be it man, animal, stone or star. Challenge is implied in creation. Challenge is growth. To become something, to experience oneself as other than what one knows oneself to be now. And so you will eternally create and never be without challenge. And every challenge then implies "problems" to be overcome. Hence there is no state of existence where you are without challenges for that would indeed be a state where growth reaches a final destination. At that point you can only endlessly repeat yourself. And that is true death, which does not exist. Just so that it is clearly understood, the Seth material is not given to solve anyone's problems. It is not given as "a way of life." It is not given as a philosophy. It is not given as a religion. It is given to return oneself to ones own natural and inherent power to create ones experience, wherever and whatever that may be. My purpose is not to solve your problems for you, but to put you in touch with your own power. My purpose is not to come between you and your own freedom by giving you "answers," even to the most tragic of problems. My purpose is to reinforce your own strength, for ultimately the magic of your being is well equipped to help you find fulfillment, understanding, exuberance, and peace. Anyway, I do not intend to break off communication with either of you. I enjoy our conversations immensely and so wish to continue. Both of you are up for challenges in this regard. Both of you are willing to test out different ideas other than your own. It has been my experience that folks exhibiting that willingness are far and few between. And without that willingness then any engagement becomes little more than hopping on an endless merry-go-round, and one which is no fun at all. I'll take it private then. Whilst all religions teach that people are basically powerless science leaves no doubt. Science teaches that people have no power at all. I reject any idea which suggests that people are powerless. Or any idea which suggests that people do not create their lives, their experiences, down to the last insignificant detail.

It's coincidental that I had very much wanted to address the rest of your post from my perspective rather immediately, RP, but didn't. But, of course, there is no such thing as coincidence. There is such a thing as timing, though. There was something else which I needed to understand in order to respond to your most excellent, insightful post, RP. Which I again thank you for. So let me explain about this timing . . . @Sunmaster's Why does God >insert your grievance here<....? thread was revitalised for a short time. fusion58 had replied to one of my posts so I engaged him. We had a number of lengthy exchanges revolving around the usual "everything that exists must show evidence of itself in physical, quantifiable, sensory terms or else it doesn't exist" claim, which idea has it's foundation in the tenets of science and is widely accepted, especially in the west where science dominates as the curator of "truth." As is the typical outcome of so many of these discussions my "opponent" eventually exited the conversation. save the frogs chimed in after my last unanswered post to fusion58 to complain about my attempt to "take over" the conversation, as I had three posts in a row (as did fusion58 but since he aligned with save the frogs then that was okay ), and chided me over my " verbosity" (as did fusion58 but again since he aligned with save the frogs then that was okay ). I couldn't help but notice the contradiction between his reply, which clearly showed his irritation with me, and few of his recent replies to me in which he said: go for it. i don't want to interfere with whatever you need to be sharing. There's a lot of misinfo out there. So yeah, put your ideas out there. Not sure if a forum like this is the best place. Why not write a book? Or does anybody read books anymore? And: No, I shouldn't be discouraging you. Keep sharing your ideas. Next, Sunmaster posted a video entitled "Who Am I? | Vakya Vritti - Part 3" by Swami Sarvapriyananda. I watched a good portion of the video and portions of another select few of his videos. VincentRJ would pop in now and again and I quoted him a few times but received no reply to any of those posts. I've noticed, too, and maybe you guys have as well, that as Sunmaster and I were having some lengthy, very in depth exchanges there was almost a complete absence of other posters. Now I also post in another forum on a wide array of topics under the umbrella of current world affairs. The divisions between people are basically split in two and couldn't be much more black and white. So, as I consider the above I've come back to RP's wonderful words: And so when choosing which Path (if any) to follow on your individual journey towards Truth, it is only natural that you will be attracted to that religion / teaching which is most aligned with you current level of consciousness. For Tippa that's Seth, for Sunmaster it are the Hindu yogi's, sages and masters. For me it's Gurdjieff and the Sufi sages. Let me be clear > Imo there is no wrong or right Path, but it is the path that helps you on your journey which is the right one for you. And the closer you get to the Truth (or actual Reality as Tippa would say), the more you will recognize and appreciate the unspoken same undercurrent in all of these spiritual approaches. Now I've known the truth of this for a long, long time. It's given in Seth's material. It has been pointed out by Abraham. Yet throughout my spiritual journey I've always maintained the notion that what I know, which is based in both intellectual, intuitive and emotional understanding, could be understood by others. Despite having read don Juan telling Carlos that you can't take anyone with you. Perhaps I thought he might be in error. But now I know with certainty he is not. For in one of my replies to fusion58 I wrote this myself: That was a stark, in-your-face lesson of the power of belief, a huge lesson which many still fail to recognise. It showed with magnificent clarity that even though something is utterly false it can be held as true as long as it is believed to be true. And once held as "true" nothing, and I mean nothing - facts, logic, evidence, what have you - had enough power to challenge the great power of belief. There is, however, one thing that can overcome the immense strength of the power of belief . . . the individual holding the belief as "true" begins to question the belief's validity. That mere questioning can destroy the most powerful of beliefs. Unfortunately, most never, ever dare question what they believe to be "true." And so I've decided to shortly leave others to themselves. . . . you have to be opportunistic on your journey and opt for that which helps you further. So it is with everyone. There is no one who does not question deeply about the subject matter we talk about. And in the wise words of Abraham, "everyone is right were they're supposed to be." My only reservation for exiting all forums prior to the understanding which has been hammered home by RP and my recent realisations is this: Though what I offer seems to me to be of no help to others I've found the engagement to be helpful to me. And now I wonder if I need the engagement any longer. There is one concept I'd like to leave folks with, though it's lengthy and, sorry Sunmaster, it's quoted from the Seth material. So I'll post that separately. This information fits perfectly with RP's perceptive material which I quoted here. At least for me.