Tippaporn

Oh come now, Sunmaster. Time and again you've told me that my book learning amounts to nothing compared with direct experience. It's barren, are the words you once used, I believe That invalidates book learning as having any true value. And since book learning is experience, a part of our experience, then by extension it devalues the rest of experience. So no, I didn't put any words in your mouth. I could, if so inclined, go back to all of your posts and provide you with your own words. You've a piss poor estimation of your own ego, for instance, which you've expressed many times. It's internal dialogue is nothing more than monkey chatter. How demeaning. It inhibits you from realising your "true" self - again I remind you that your idea of identity is extremely limiting - and works against you. And yet your ego is a portion of you. How can you then speak so poorly of your own self and believe that a portion of it is your enemy? Goofy, confused looks don't suffice as an answer, @Sunmaster. Hopefully you'll respond to this once you get back this evening.

Please do answer that question, @Sunmaster, so I don't have to re-ask it a hundred frickin' times. @Red Phoenix ignored answering it as well. Maybe RP has exited this thread for good as I can't draw him out yet. Also, I'm not looking for a simple "yes" or "no" answer for that really tells me little, so tell me in your own words what it means to you.

sth? Sorry, that renders your first statement unintelligible for me. I wholeheartedly agree with your second statement, though. And that's my beef with Sunmaster's idea. Not my beef with Sunmaster the dude. But with his idea. All experience, on whatever level, has importance and validity. I'm not arguing that an adventure in consciousness may be more powerful in it's brilliance and clarity in conveying knowledge. I'm only arguing that that avenue for gaining knowledge does not invalidate other avenues which lead to knowledge which is just as valuable and necessary. The reasoning behind that is if that avenue of acquiring knowledge is all that's needed then what the hell are we doing here as physical creatures?

Man, I have to wait all day? No problem. Though I may retire early today as I have to get up very early tomorrow morning - like about 1~2 AM. Bring it on. German, Italian, double barrelled shot gun, 16mm caliber machine gun, RPGs, Hellfire missiles . . . ah ain't scared a nuttin'. Got nukes? Bring 'em. Hopefully you've got it through your head by now that you can't hurt me. I don't tuck my tail between my legs and run. I am not my ideas so I take none of this personally. As Frogs said:

Oh come now, Sunmaster. Time and again you've told me that my book learning amounts to nothing compared with direct experience. It's barren, are the words you once used, I believe That invalidates book learning as having any true value. And since book learning is experience, a part of our experience, then by extension it devalues the rest of experience. So no, I didn't put any words in your mouth. I could, if so inclined, go back to all of your posts and provide you with your own words. You've a piss poor estimation of your own ego, for instance, which you've expressed many times. It's internal dialogue is nothing more than monkey chatter. How demeaning. It inhibits you from realising your "true" self - again I remind you that your idea of identity is extremely limiting - and works against you. And yet your ego is a portion of you. How can you then speak so poorly of your own self and believe that a portion of it is your enemy?

My belief comes from my Damascus moment. It doesn't require examination as it happened, and I accept it as my proof that God exists. There is absolutely no way you can disprove my Damascus moment. I was not on drugs, I was not drunk, I was not tired, I was fit and healthy ( it was a long time ago ), I wasn't a believer, and I wasn't looking for it. I have never suffered hallucinations under such conditions before or since. I don't for a moment doubt your Damascus moment and certainly neither would I invalidate it. But I'm sure that Damascus moment didn't enlighten you on all of life and reveal all answers to life. It was proof of God's existence but in and of itself it didn't solve all of your earthly "problems." Any and all of those problems are due to your unexamined beliefs. These are two distinctly separate issues. "I believe man is flawed and no good." That, for instance, is a belief. And an unexamined one, for if you were to seriously examine it you cannot but realise the truth is otherwise. But the belief will produce the results which are it's nature. And those results will be most unpleasant. You simply cannot connect the dots as yet as to how exactly that belief plays out in your world.

Ho, ho, ho. Sunmaster makes his return. Maybe. We'll have to see. Goddamnit, Sunmaster, how can you invalidate the lived experience of physical reality? You've "seen the light," only once and briefly so, you've interpreted as you do and do not even question that interpretation. I've had my own "direct experience" but it's never led me to devalue physical experience. 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. Do you believe that, Sunmaster? I do. Physical experience, and that includes all of it - including reading books, allows for the valid experience of All That Is. I resent any ideas which attempt to water down physical experience or any expression within it. Or purports that knowledge on the physical level is less than knowledge gained via 'direct experience'. No doubt they are different but each is equally valid. Who the hell are you to say that our experience, my experience as a physical creature is invalid and meaningless? When I say that your create your own reality via beliefs, granted I got that out of a frickin' book second hand, I've experienced that knowledge by putting into practice. And you're going to tell me that's not valid experience? That's daft. I'll quote myself from my unanswered post to @Red Phoenix: You cheapen and devalue any knowledge gained from any experience other than the ultimate superior "direct experience." You refuse to accept that they are equally important, valuable and valid. Geezus Kerist. I've resorted to mocking and shaming because polite conversation doesn't seem to work with you. So please forgive me for beating you over the head. Repeatedly. If the pain of indignation is to much to bear then disappear. Lick your wounds in private. Else give me some of that German that's in you. Throw in the Italian part, too. I won't feel indignant and hurt over what you really think.

@Sunmaster @Red Phoenix Quitters. Where do I send the first aid kits?

There you go, then. You've just admitted it. I've told you before, you have no interest in knowing anything other than what you already know. When I told you that the first time you balked. Now you're admitting that it's true. So that begs the question, what the hell are you doing on this thread then if not to engage in different ideas, ideas other than your own? "It's painfully obvious to me that something exists first as an idea." I'll be blunt in my honesty, so please forgive me, Frogs. I don't believe you for a second. ". . . abstract thought . . ." There's another admission. While the explanation of how we create with ideas isn't nonsense it is, however, abstract. Nothing could be more straightforward. ". . . I think there are more important things to spend time thinking about." Yeah, like where your next meal is coming from.

@Sunmaster @Red Phoenix Are you guys willing to examine your own currently held beliefs to see if they truly have validity or are you happy to just accept them regardless of whether they have validity or not? To examine them carefully and thoroughly takes guts because you may find them flawed. And then what do you do? Give them up and start from scratch? Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!

@save the frogs My 11-uear-old daughter has taken to football. She loves the sport and we encourage her. We've bought all of the equipment for her. Now she wants to a good footballer. But she has much to learn. I teach her and as she tries dribbling techniques, for instance, and they are at first difficult for her because she's never done them before then she can quickly become frustrated at her failed attempts and then wants to quit. That's all very natural of people. Becoming good at anything requires effort but it's not effort that is beyond anyone. Becoming good at anything requires tenacity, discipline, and the desire becomes the driver. If there's insufficient desire then the outcome is guaranteed; you won't be good at it. The challenge is no longer seen as a challenge but as a problem. And problems are rarely if ever fun. On the other hand, if the desire is great then the outcome will also be guaranteed; you will excel. The challenges are something to look forward to and they are never seen as problems. They will be fun and invigorating. You actually look forward to them. And the greater the challenge the more fun it is. So it is with knowledge. The ideas, whilst new, need to be worked at. They require effort. Understanding may be difficult at first and it can become frustrating when the understanding doesn't come immediately. Many simply quit at that point. So that I don't have to repeat the same, I'll insert the second paragraph here, or simply ask that you reread it for all of that applies here as well. And to a tee. The Physical Universe As Idea Construction. The concept describes how we create our experience. Nothing in this world exists without first existing as an idea. We use ideas to create a three dimensional experience the same as an artist uses paints to create a two dimensional painting. Our ideas are the artist's paints. The ideas are not us just as the paints are not the artist. From all of the ideas which are within existence we pick and choose those we wish to adopt as "true." Those then become our beliefs. The beliefs we adopt may be true or they may not be true. But as we employ them they will produce a three dimensional effect, just as any brushstroke will produce a result on a canvas. The idea manifests itself according to it's own nature, just as a particular hue of paint is it's own nature. We then experience the creation we've produced using our chosen ideas just as the artist experiences his creation using the colours which he's chosen. Both we and the artist are either pleased with the results or not. If not pleased then we swap out the idea which produced the displeasing result and used another to see if that one would please us. The artist does the same as he chooses another colour to see if that's pleasing to him. None of the above is bizarre, unintelligible, cryptic, nonsensical, woo, ambiguous, or beyond understanding. Understanding it fully, however, requires effort. Now reread the second paragraph. There is, however, another major problem which the analogy of my daughter's desire to be a footballer does not cover. That problem is one where everyone already settled upon their ideas of how the world works. The above concept does not fit that current world view. And so more often than not it gets rejected whilst there is never an effort to understand it. So when you say that you do not agree with the ideas I present then I would say to you that the reason you don't agree is not because the ideas are bizarre, unintelligible, cryptic, nonsensical, woo, and ambiguous. It's because you have a lack of desire to understand them. And that lack of desire stems from the fact that since you've already settled upon your ideas of how the world works then from the perspective of those ideas the ideas I present do indeed seem bizarre, unintelligible, cryptic, nonsensical, woo, and ambiguous. Now, if you will please do explain your ideas of how the world works and we will quickly test and see if those ideas are bizarre, unintelligible, cryptic, nonsensical, woo, and ambiguous or not. I'll challenge you, Sunmater, Red Phoenix or any other to put your ideas up for examination and testing and you can do the same with mine. May the best, or true ideas win. So far @Sunmaster and @Red Phoenix have quit. This post is not an indictment of you, Frogs. The best I can do is to speak honestly, and excuse me if brutally so at times, and it's up to you to either accept or reject that I am simply being honest as best I can or that I'm indicting you.

Then you like me. BTW, who is "we?" There aren't two people in the world who share the same set of beliefs. There is no "we." Aside from the "we," you have to realise and admit that as much as you reject my ideas I reject yours. On the basis that they make no real sense nor can the mechanics be shown. The difference is that I can explain my ideas thoroughly whereas you and others can't. Most people simply say "I believe in <insert belief>" but when asked to explain why their beliefs makes sense, and especially the mechanics to show precisely how their beliefs work, there's dead silence. By asking question you find out very quickly that there's no depth to what they believe. I, on the other hand, can take you down to whatever depth you can handle and show you the mechanics of the ideas. How they actually work in the real world. There are simply not many who have the interest, the curiosity, or the willingness to explore ideas different than their own and to find out whether those ideas truly have any validity. Neither are they willing to examine their own currently held beliefs to see if they have validity.

Sexuality is a part of human nature. The Church's demand for celibacy is backfiring for it's too great a demand to ask. The Church is in essence trying to deny priests and nuns their own nature. A bad idea. A very bad idea.

Here's how I see it, Frogs. The No. 1 commodity in this world is ideas. Everyone is constantly in the market buying and selling them. Some people buy ideas without ever looking at, or examining the product. Others go about in the market with the old adage "Buyer beware" firmly in mind. So take Sunmaster and myself. He's trying to sell me his ideas and I'm offering my ideas to him to buy. He doesn't like my ideas and I don't like his. I'm asking him all sorts of questions about what he's selling. I'm asking questions because I want to know about the product before I buy so I can determine for myself if it's a quality product. Now if he can't answer questions I have which point out the defects in his product then I'm going to be awfully wary. On the other hand, he doesn't ask me any questions about my product. He simply refuses to buy. If I show him some of the features of my product as enticement, show him why it's quality and then ask him to show me where he thinks it might be damaged goods he doesn't. In any case, Sunmaster is trying to get me to buy his product. I'm trying to sell mine to him. He's insistent and so am I. Yet only one of us is trying to ram their product down the throat of the other? My response? So why do you accuse me of ramming my ideology down the throat of Sunmaster but you don't perceive Sunmaster ramming his ideology down my throat? Well, that's simple. You like Sunmaster but you don't like me. That would be the truth, right? So I become the obnoxious salesman in your eyes. Can it be any other way? In truth, neither I nor Sunmaster are trying to ram anything down anybody's throat. That's only your distorted perception. All in all, people really, really hate when someone confronts them with truth about themselves which they're unwilling to accept. You're such a one, Frogs. I've know that about you for a long, long time. I'll let Jack tell you.

Nah.

The 34 undecided after the final vote are the only honest ones. They saw the good of the Catholic church and they also saw the bad. They were the only honest ones because it is impossible for the Catholic church to be 100% good or 100% bad. If there's a single instance in which the Catholic church has done good then that good can never be erased. Same goes for the bad. And so it's a mix. Granted the mixture does vary over time. But it will always be a mix. It would have been more fair and honest to ask the question, "is the Catholic church it it's present state more a force for good or bad?" And even then it's impossible to weigh and measure for to be accurate about it one would have to tally every act committed by the Catholic church and determine how many people benefited from each act and how many people were harmed by each act. And then one would also have to tally the benefits and harms not by the Catholic church's actions but via the beliefs of each individual who believes in and follows the Catholic church. Ultimately, therefore, this panel is an entirely futile exercise as the true answer can never be known. This can be nothing more than public opinion, and only the smallest segment of public opinion as it's limited to those who were able to vote. It means nothing because it proves nothing. But that won't prevent some people for using this public opinion faux exercise as proof to confirm their own personal opinion and thus deceptively sell it to others as such. I'm not arguing for or against the Catholic church but only arguing for honesty.

Why would you think there's trouble? Because we don't agree? Trouble only if any disagreement spoils the friendship. Which is not the case on my end. That's for me to determine. Not you. You would have no way of knowing. Reality is what it is and functions as it does. If "fixed in [my] ways" means that my recognition, to whatever extent, of what reality is and how it functions will not change then yes. To change "my ways" would then mean that I would have to adopt ideas which are not representative of what reality is and how it functions. That would make little sense, eh? If you know the principles which made an automotive engine work would you ever change to adopt principles which would lead to an automotive engine not working? You seem to be under the impression that the true workings of reality can never be ascertained by anyone. Especially by some no name poster on AN. What gives you that faulty impression? What falling out? You mean the disagreement? Are you conflating that with a "falling out?" Duh! Is your ideological belief system flexible, fluid, and open to change? We've never clashed before, have we? In case you're thinking yourself to be uniquely perceptive on that point then I'm afraid to have to tell you about the rest of the crowd watching with you and seeing it, too.

@Red Phoenix 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. Do you believe that, RP? I do. Physical experience, and that includes all of it - including reading books, allows for the valid experience of All That Is. I resent any ideas which waters down physical experience or any expression within it. Or purports that knowledge on the physical level is less than knowledge gained via 'direct experience'. No doubt they are different but each is equally valid.

Yes, you had shared the fictional short story with me a while back which illustrated the point. But the moral of the story was that you needed to have at least part of the answer to the question you were asking before you could receive the full answer. Not whether it was a genuine question or a meaningful question. I'm OK with questions that are geared towards drawing out answers from someone, knowing in advance that by doing so their answers will eventually conflict with each other. Its a method of showing someone by using their own words that the rational and logic of their thought process is flawed due to the obvious incompatibility of the ideas they hold revealed by their very answers. That's not a 'gotcha' where you can then assert that your truth, or idea, is correct but a 'gotcha' in that you can assert that their idea is false. Just to note: formulating a series of questions meant to trick a person into revealing the inconsistencies in their beliefs is not what a trick question is. A trick question is one which forces another to give an incorrect answer. As an example: "A bat and ball cost $1.10. The bat costs one dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?" If your answer was 10¢ that would be wrong. The answer is intuitive, appealing but wrong. Admitting that you don't know something is never wrong. How can it be? It is what it is and there's no spinning it. Of course if you tether an admission of not knowing to a concession in a pissing contest then yeah, I understand the hesitancy in expressing such an admission. I brought up to Sunmaster quite a while ago that our differences can very well lead to interpreting our individual stances as a pissing contest. I recognised that and purposely raised it and Sunmaster replied to it. I've said many times that I don't see the clash of ideas as a pissing contest, or a contest of who knows more than the other, nor am I interested in winning an argument for the sole intention of winning. A pissing contest is as you say, RP, pubescent. Yet it is inherent in any clash of ideas that each person will assert that the ideas they subscribe to are the correct ones. That's not a revelation that should be lost on anyone. A pissing contest develops when the ideas of two people clash and one or the other, or perhaps even both, refuse to admit that they don't know something. This results in questions not being answered for admitting that there's something one doesn't know something may then threaten their assertion that their ideas are correct if they were to come to know that something. They fear that they're overlooking something important which has an important bearing but including that information may likely destroy their point of view. So they purposefully ignore that information. You've experienced this in spades over on TT. It's no different here. Just different subject matter. A pissing contest develops when the ideas of two people clash and one or the other, or perhaps even both, refuse to admit that they don't know something. This also results in perceiving a clash of ideas to be a contest of 'who knows more'. For to admit there's something you don't know can give the psychological appearance of the other knowing more than you know. If the only intention is to have one's ideas be the 'correct' ones then oftentimes one always needs to maintain the notion that they know more than the other. For it is the lack of knowing which then becomes the reason why the other cannot accept one's ideas as correct. You've experienced this in spades over on TT. It's no different here. Just different subject matter. A pissing contest develops when the ideas of two people clash and one or the other, or perhaps even both, refuse to admit when their ideas are incorrect. This results in defending one's ideas at all costs. Right or wrong no longer matters. It's irrelevant. The only thing which is relevant is that what they want to believe to be correct is correct. This is where dishonesty enters in. For in defending the indefensible one must rely on dishonesty. Truth cannot be used for truth would force one to concede that their ideas are incorrect. And that cannot be allowed as long as one wants to insist on believing as they do. You've experienced this in spades over on TT. It's no different here. Just different subject matter. That fact has never been lost on me, RP. And in a clash of ideas the humble recognition of that fact should always be at the forefront of one's mind. Having that recognition at the forefront would always allow one to freely acknowledge when there is something that one does not know. However, this truthful fact should not be misused to imply in all cases that what you do know you don't really know. I'm a stickler for speaking of only that which I do know whilst being fully aware of the fact that there will always be more that I don't know than what I do know. I don't always succeed but I've a pretty high batting average. That is another fact that has never been lost on me, RP. Although, any information is changed by he who holds it for indeed it is coloured by their beliefs. So whilst the information is old, in the sense that it already exists, it becomes new via ones personal interpretation of that information. The statement is true but only in part. It is not always the case where information is fitted to ones beliefs. For the case exists where information completely changes ones beliefs. I understand well your concept of levels, RP, but I do not agree with that concept. I believe it to be only an appearance. Realising ones full human potential does not come from climbing any imagined levels but from utilising all of ones abilities. All of this may seem to have little to do with your daily personal experience, and yet it is intimately connected, for personally and en masse you can indeed create "the best" of all possible worlds. The performance of a great athlete gives evidence of abilities inherent in the human form that are little used. Great artists by their very works demonstrate other attributes latent in the race as a whole. They still represent one-line delineations, however. Within the experience of your race as you know it lie all the patterns that would point to some fully developed human being, in which all inherent tendencies were given full play and came to fruition. You would have an individual who displayed within himself [or herself] all of those great abilities known to the race, fulfilled according to his own unique temper — the artist, mathematician, athlete, the inventor — all the extraordinary qualities of creaturedom; the emotional realities would be used to their capacity, and any of the racial qualities or characteristics of the species would be given their complete freedom. Wisdom and foolishness would be seen as aspects, one of the other. Religion and science would each be unhampered by dogma in such an individual. In the same way, following your own "trace" experiences and characteristics, you can discover those "probable" abilities that are yours, and uncover to some degree the nature of probable actions open to you for physical materialization. Using all of your abilities would lead to the fulfillment of your physical being and your inner being. It would lead to the growth of your physical being and your inner being. It would lead to the recognition of who you are both as a physical being and as a portion of your inner being. Doing so would raise your level of awareness. It's not really a level of awareness, for using that term it could be said that there are an infinite number of levels, even on the human level, but an expansion of awareness. An expansion of consciousness. And that expansion is never ending. And your expansion expands All That Is as well since you are a part of that. I cannot comment on your experience. You have not described it in any detail other than to say it enlightened you to whatever extent. The same with Sunmaster. I do not, and never have, diminished the importance of these types of experiences. I encourage them for I understand they are important. And so whilst I cannot comment on your specific experience and what it specifically involved I do know that any and all such experiences must ultimately be interpreted by the physical self using its beliefs as a filter in order to make sense of that experience for the physical self. In that sense it is no different than interpreting a nightly dream. Therefore I am wary of anyone's specific claims regarding their experiences for one can claim such an experience as representing almost anything; for example, to be a direct communication with God himself when in fact it was only ones personal symbolism which interpreted the experience as such. There are countless examples of people who have had valid experiences and have clothed them in the garb of their personal symbolism, thus distorting them. Whilst I am wary of ones interpretations for that reason I in no way deny the validity of what they have experienced. They will interpret it to suit their overall intentions. I would not argue there is a qualitative difference between those experiences of consciousness had with other realities and neither would I argue the clarity which accompanies such experiences. I've had my own so I do not speak from ignorance. It is true that some of those experiences do not involve the use of language but I would not go so far as to say they go beyond the intellect. For again the intellect is an attribute of consciousness, as are intuitions and emotions. My experience, for instance, was the most intense emotional experience I have ever had in the extreme, in which absolute understanding was emotionally understood. However, whilst it was largely emotional I cannot deny that there was intellectual and intuitive understanding, too. The idea that I strongly oppose, however, is the conclusion drawn, or the implication made that this type of understanding invalidates any other type of understanding. When someone tells me that I don't really know what I know until I've experienced that knowing in the fashion of 'direct experience' then one is completely missing the fact that understanding can come in unlimited forms and via unlimited avenues. It's as if 'direct experience' and the 'knowing' which it imparts - and cannot be put into words - invalidates all physical experience and the 'knowing' which normal experience imparts. Perhaps that is due to the fact that 'direct experience' often has an intensity and brilliance which is markedly different than that of our normal waking state. And so it is then interpreted not only as superior but supreme. And furthermore that knowing derived from 'direct experience' makes any other kind of learning, such as from books, useless, barren and futile. Hence Sunmaster now fobbed off any learning from books and no longer needs them. The idea is extremely limiting and I will forever vociferously argue against any and all ideas which purport to limit consciousness. "There are no limits to the self." --Seth This idea that book learning is likened to a fortress is fallacious and highly distorted in my opinion. It's not that I reject the idea out of hand but that I have awareness of other ideas which explain the fallacy, yet which are so numerous that it is difficult to express all of these ideas as that expression must be done in single line, time consuming fashion; one idea following the other. Whereas despite the quantity of ideas, in my mind they can all race through in a flash. Which explains why my posts are extreme in length. For the quantity of ideas and concepts needed for someone to understand what I know is so vast that it requires so many words and therefore can be, and often is, frustrating in that I am limited to expressing all of these ideas in, again, single line, time consuming fashion. I would love to be a Vulcan, like Spock, and be able to mind meld with another. Then you would see what I see. A discussion between a man who has learned to a fair extent the mechanics of reality (I am referring to myself, in case you wonder) and someone who has not but nonetheless has his ideas about what the mechanics of reality are, picked up largely indiscriminately for a wide array of sources, is no match. For the claim that I actually know something I understand full well that I will get a ton of flack. Largely from those who have been indoctrinated with the belief that no one can really know anything with surety. I call bullsh!t on the idea for it is highly misleading, excludes way too much that needs to be accounted for, and so is distorted. And the idea is, also in my humble opinion, poorly expressed. Believe that idea to be true if you will, RP. And as long as you do you will not question it's validity. A huge blunder, in my humble opinion.

That should conclude this thread. February 10th in the year of our Lord 2024. May God bless us all.

Reality is what it is and functions as it does despite anyone's beliefs about what it is or how it functions. How can an understanding of what reality is and how it functions be considered a 'thought fortress'? Imagine if I were to explain to an apprentice how a progressive die functions and my apprentice had some backwards ideas which he was convinced were the right ideas about it's functioning, and I were to then explain to him, no, it functions like this, and my apprentice were to respond by accusing me of only wanting to demonstrate to him how strong and water-tight my 'thought fortress' was. Reality is what it is and functions as it does despite your beliefs about what it is or how it functions. Right or wrong, you prefer your ideas and are tired of hearing counters to them, is all you're saying here. And that you're frustrated that I don't accept your ideas and never will. I'd recommend taking some time, oh, like maybe a few decades, and read the Seth material for a different perspective. But you already have your answers. For you, you've already convinced yourself of the idea being "true" that nothing new can be found in books any longer. So, then, work with the ideas that you believe to be true and see where they lead you. That's the only option you'll allow yourself at this point. Happy Trail's Sunmaster, and thanks for helping me grow. The incomparable Roy Rogers and Dale Evans. With your creativity perhaps you can turn the lyrics into a mantra that brings you instantaneous connection.

There is one thing which I find curious. Of all the material I know of, including religious texts, the only material I've ever found which discusses ideas and beliefs is the Seth material. Does anyone think it odd that we are never for a moment not in the process of thinking thoughts from the moment we open our eyes upon awakening until we fall fast asleep again and yet there's never enquiry into what ideas and beliefs are, or what their effects might be? I find that incredibly odd. And yet when drilling down on that subject one only gets blinkered looks. As if ideas and beliefs play no role in reality or produce no effects whatsoever. Very odd, indeed.

>> Sorry Tippa, I still fail to see how anything you wrote in response to the idea that there are 7 levels of man is relevant. "Reincarnational selves, probable selves, for instance,. Not to mention existences in other camouflage realities." I do not out-of-hand dismiss such notions, but why would that "shred" the concept of development-levels attainable to man, and show that to be false? For me that response was a total non-sequitur. A bit like me stating that one could look at the Earth as consisting of 7 continents, and you then dismissing that idea by bringing up penguins, kangaroos and polar bears. I agree with you, RP. After rereading my arguments they are indeed irrelevant. I still don't believe in the 7 levels of man's development but I'll have to find a valid argument. >> Yep, you can ask questions and I am sure that @Sunmaster as well as myself will try to answer them. And that answer will of course always be from our point of view ('reality'). And when we do not answer, that's not a matter of unwillingness but rather that either we do not have an answer (we are far from omni-scient in these matters), or that we opt to ignore the questions, as they are 'unanswerable' and require a fertile ground to be of any use. "Ask a foolish question". Edited 12 minutes ago by Red Phoenix Here I disagree. I remember going round and round with Hummin over his refusal to answer questions. Even he admitted that he would cherry pick amongst the questions those which he felt he could argue successfully. I do not accept the reasons given for not answering questions. If true that you guys don't respond to questions because you don't have any answers then one would expect some enquiry, or comments, or interest to know more. Or even direct acknowledgement that you don't know, which would be better than simply ignoring a question. That never seems to happen. I can only recall a single instance where Sunmaster admited that he didn't know. And if 'unanswerable' then is it beyond the realm of possibility that perhaps I might be able to provide some of that "fertile ground." But there's no interest.

That's quite accurate. Bravo. So you are listening after all. 😁 I have been all along. Sunmaster looking in the mirror: That is not me. I don't really exist. I've told you before, Seth has correctly said that our idea of identity is very much misunderstood. You don't seem to believe that. Seth is trying to get us to understand that our current understanding of identity is so narrow and distorted that we think we have only one identity - the one we see reflected in the mirror. There is more to us. You firmly agree with that. Seth explains that we are gestalt consciousnesses. In other words, many consciousnesses coming together to form a new and inviolate identity comprised of that multitude of individual consciousnesses. Our physical identity, which is a gestalt consciousness, is itself a part of a larger identity, or greater gestalt consciousness. Not understanding this, Sunmaster then gets it into his head that the identity which is reflected in his mirror is not his r-e-a-l identity. His true identity is that greater entity of which he is only part of. The identity which is reflected in his mirror is not really an independent identity at all. He then gets the idea in his head that he must forsake that identity in order to accept his "true" identity, as he now understands that this seeming identity in the mirror is part of something larger than himself. It is not really a separate and inviolate identity at all. Nor is it eternally independent and valid. Seth then attempts to get us to understand that our narrow and distorted idea of identity keeps hidden from us the fact that we have many identities. They are all independent and eternally valid. In his misunderstanding of identity Sunmaster believes that the reflection in his mirror is not independent. It does not have it's own reality which follows it's own nature and it's own path and it's own growth. You think of one I-self (spelled) as the primary and ultimate end of evolution. Yet there are, of course, other identities with many such I-selves, each as aware and independent as your own, while also being aware of the existence of a.greater identity in which they have their being. .... It is quite possible, for example, for several selves to occupy a body, and were this the norm it would be easily accepted. That implies another kind of multipersonhood, however, one actually allowing for the fulfillment of many abilities of various natures. usually left unexpressed. It also implies a freedom and organization of consciousness that is unusual in your system of reality, and was not chosen there. ... The I-structure arises from the inner self, formed about various interests, abilities, and drives. Selections are made as to the areas of concentration. You rarely find a person who is a great intellect, a great athlete, and also a person of deep emotional and spiritual understanding - an ideal prototype of what it seems mankind could produce. In some systems of physical existence, a multipersonhood is established in which three or four "persons" emerge from the same inner self, each one utilizing to the best of its abilities those characteristics of its own. This presupposes a gestalt of awareness, however, in which each knows of the activities of the others, and participates; and you have a different version of mass consciousness. Do you see the correlation? In the systems in which evolution of consciousness has worked in that fashion, all faculties of body and mind in one "lifetime" are beautifully utilized. Nor is there any ambiguity about identity. The individual would say, for example, "I am Joe, and Jane, and Jim, and Bob." ... Any concepts of gods or other beings that are based upon limited ideas of personhood [identity] will ultimately be futile. ... You are multipersons (intently). You exist in many times and places at once. You exist as one person, simultaneously. This does not deny the independence of the persons, but your inner reality straddles their reality, while it also serves as a psychic world in which they can grow. These excerpts really don't need me to expound upon the concepts. They're quite clear. There are an infinite variety of psychological organisitions of which current man is completely unaware of. His concept of identity is woefully lacking. And that lack of understanding, Sunmaster, is what I believe leads you to believe in one I-self (spelled) as the primary and ultimate end of evolution. Now if you believe that the goal is to become Brahman, All That Is, God, whatever, and experience the rest of your existence from that perspective is, well, good luck trying to achieve that. How can Sunmaster reject Sunmaster in the belief that he must do so in order to realise his one and only "true" identity? Now that's what I call true self-sacrifice. You're a brave man, Sunmaster. Just to note, the Seth quotes are merely book material, scripture, another manual, describe a different map, but since it was sourced from a book you can skip over those quotes as they cannot impart any real knowledge as that material did not come from direct experience. <sarc>

What the hell do you think experiencing physical life gives you? Nothing?