Tippaporn

BTW, I'm sure you've noticed by now that I'm making separate posts for each of my answers. Answering many questions and/or discussing many points in a single post makes the post lengths unbearable. I can't believe I just said that!!! It's just dawned on me, too, that it's much more practical as now you can respond to individual points much easier and quicker. I admit to feeling a great deal of resistance knowing that in order to reply to a lengthy post and cover all of it's questions and points would require me to sit for a good stretch of time and too often I don't have that huge block of time to commit. Working it this way then if I don't have the required chunk of time available that I feel is necessary to produce a quality reply then I can break it up and reply to the extent that I have time available. What's the old adage? Divide and conquer! I credit you with bringing that inspiration to me this morning, Sunmaster. Take a well deserved bow now. "Sounds like something our atheist friends would say. 555" I cannot describe the feeling of utter contempt for the insult being heaped upon me by comparing me to an atheist. What's the "555" supposed to mean anyway? You know I'm having fun with you now. Anyway, no cop out. As I mentioned above, I insist on always providing a quality reply. My replies are often lengthy because I have much to say - too much to say. And then there's the issue of time required for the quality reply I insist on. Then sometimes I'll spend a day or two mulling over the great many thoughts which a particular post elicits. I can't very well express them all and some aren't worthy of expressing after deeper thinking. Sorry, but not sorry , that I give myself the time I need. And yes, it also happens that the lapse in time between the post and my reply becomes so great that it just gets buried forever amongst pages of new chatter.

Short answer? Absolutely yes.

I cannot find the passage but Seth had remarked once about westerners rejecting the western religion upon which they were raised and so went searching elsewhere Only to settle on eastern religion as it appeared more exotic. I'm not offering my opinion here, simply relaying one of Seth's sentiments. But given that I agree that all religions contain distortions to varying degrees then I must say I can see his point.

You are perceptive here, Sunmaster. It certainly can be. Be careful. Very careful.

Oh, geez, Sunmaster. Please don't interrupt me now as I'm trying to answer ALL of your unanswered questions. I woke up extra early this morning to do just that.

Is there a law against putting all of your eggs in one basket? Or is it unwise? As I've stated many times on this thread: Reality is what it is and functions as it does despite anyone's beliefs about what it is and how it functions. -- Tippaporn That is an original quote of mine so I'm not ashamed to take credit for it. I'm actually quite proud of it. What we are and what reality is can be found scattered about in many baskets. Or even in a single basket.

But you will defend what you believe to be true.

That's fine, Sunmaster. You have your preference based on your ideas. I, though, will continue to post lengthy paragraphs since I don't share your ideas and have my own. Thus my preference is to post them whenever and wherever I see them to be fitting and practically useful. I hope it's not annoying to you. I'll also continue to make prolific use of emoticons to convey my sense of humour.

Yes, indeed. It's not so funny, or coincidental, that I mentioned it because I did it on purpose. I sense it in your writing and in the seriousness of your approach. Evidenced, as a single instance of many, by your questioning of my smiley emoticons. As if they were somehow inappropriate or given as my mocking you. As I said, life is supposed to be fun. I like to have fun. I joke constantly and laugh boisterously throughout my day. Ask my daughter. She'll tell ya. So I thought it best to broach the subject and address it head on. For we both know how pissing contests end. People ultimately walk away from each other as there can be no winner. What is a pissing contest anyway? It's two people with differing views, each claiming their view to be the correct one. And neither willing to see or agree with another's point of view. Or to concede on any point of view. That applies to any subject matter - simply browse the rest of this forum for evidence, including ours. The Seth material is not identical to eastern religion, nor any other religion. The others are not a perfect match. Else Seth would have come through and pointed his readers to some religion or another. He would not have written the books he did for his message would have simply been a one liner: "<insert religion> has all the answers you seek." But he didn't do that because his viewpoint and religion's were not the same. Common sense alone 'enlightens' you to see that. Now I've said that every religion contains great truths. But every religion has it's share of distortions as well. That, to me, is not at all difficult to see. And accept. And why shouldn't I accept it? I'm pnly interested in knowing who and what we are and what our reality is as it exists apart from our beliefs about it. I have no undying loyalty to any religion and therefore feel no need to defend it on all counts. Defend it I will, with vigor, whenever it is representative of truth. But not when it is distortive. And here I am not suggesting, Sunmaster, that you defend yours on all counts. As you said, your views come from many different places. You've mixed and matched and derived your truths by picking them out singly from various sources. So I want to make that clear lest I'm accused of accusing you of staunchly defending any religion. I've experienced others who have come from different backgrounds asking the same questions I've been asking myself, and with perhaps the same amount of vigor. It's only then natural that we engage in conversation and share our views. They tell me what they've learned and where they've received their information from and I do likewise. This is not the first time that I've encountered another who, after listening to my views and agreeing on some points or others, then remarks, "Hey, Seth is saying the same thing that I've learned from my source. They're the same!" But as I listen to the views of the other and as his views clash with Seth's on important points, and when I respond that they're not the same I inevitably hear, "Oh, yeah they are." I then lower my head and frown, knowing that things are not going to proceed smoothly. This is, in my estimation, where you and I are at the moment. You wish to believe that your views are in complete alignment with Seth's. But they are not. The Seth material and your views are not identical. And where they differ that then creates points of friction. Take the ego, for example. Your views are very much different than Seth's. Granted, there are similarities. There is agreement on points. But there are very important, and irreconcilable, differences as well. Getting back to my analogy of the immense object, I see what you see and I see also that there is more. But you do not see what I see. And until you step back you won't see what I see. But in order for you to be able to step back you would need to suspend your current ideas of what the ego is first. As long as you step back whilst bringing your ideas along with you then you will do little more than compare and contrast the two vies. You cannot attempt an objective understanding to occur for bringing your ideas along with you those ideas will then act filtering mechanism creating bias. Now we could continue to focus on the differences of our views but that will only lead to a pissing contest. You'll dig your heels in on what you believe to be true and as your truth is different than mine then I'll dig in mine. You'll become more serious and I'll, well, I'll be smiling to myself. I'll be smiling because I understand this is not at all serious. And no, this emoticon does NOT mean that I am laughing in your face. I'll pick and choose some more of your post to respond to . . .

@Sunmaster Just one other point. Now Seth said that all religions contain distortions. I tend to believe him. I certainly see both the truths and the distortions within Christian religions. Heading to the other side of the globe we have Hinduism, Buddhism, and a host of others. Let's take Hinduism. How many different schools of Hinduism are there? If there were no distortions there would be only a single school. Just as if Christianity was without distortions you would not see so many different sects. The only reason I'm making this point is so that you can understand why I agree with Seth. And I'm not making the point to bash any eastern religion. But just as I would argue for the legitimate truths of Christian theology I would not hesitate to point out it's distortions. Same with eastern religion.

I do not want to get involved in a discussion of "levels," in which progression is supposed to occur from one to the other. All such discussions are based upon your idea of one-personhood, consecutive time, and limited versions of the soul. There are red, yellow, and violet flowers. One is not more progressed than the others, but each is different. These units [consciousness units, or CUs) combine into various kinds of gestalts of consciousness. Basically, it is not correct to say that one is more progressed than another. The petal of a flower, for example, is not more developed than the root. An ant on the ground may see that the petal is way above the root and stem, but ants are too wise to think that the petal must be better than the root. Now: Consciousness flowers out in all directions - All directions taken by the flower of consciousness are good. That observing point of view is one which is based on ideas of one-personhood, consecutive time, and limited versions of the soul. What are probable selves? Are those not our consciousness flowering out in all directions? in this case probable directions in which each choice we make is explored in either our reality or another? The same with reincarnational selves, though those are also probable selves but within a historical context. Do they exist on different levels? Parallel levels? Don't get me wrong, Sunmaster. I'm not being argumentative with you. I'm merely asking you questions as to how you would place these on levels. The very framework of the statement implies a progression which Seth is explaining doesn't exist. It implies that we are working towards becoming a realized being. And a 'realized being; implies a more advanced being just as an 'unrealized being' implies less advanced. But what is a 'realized being'? An identity which is aware that it is part of a greater identity, of which it already is? It appears to me that you think that the Sunmaster identity needs to be it's greater identity. Yet your Sunmaster identity is that already. There's no becoming it in that sense. You already are it. What is your idea of the meaning of gestalt consciousness? As long as you believe that higher or lower states exist then you will have trouble understanding much of what I'm saying. What I'm saying is outside of that framework. You wish to remain inside of it. If you wish to not be distracted by all of the hindrances of your lower impulses so that you can be in pursuit of exploring your inner self then why not become a hermit on top of a mountain? Leave all the hindrances behind and beyond the temptation of your no good ego? If getting drunk and chasing tails is fulfilling then I would say that is the very definition of practicisng spirituality. By God, I've certainly done my share in my life and I would not reject any of it in favour of meditation that demands some sort of purity of the self. We are on very different pages here. My use of importance here refers to lower and higher states of being. Or less advanced and more advanced states of being. It was taken from your statement: "The first part just means not to become a slave of the body's demands for temporary pleasures. Indulging in excessive food, drink, sex only satisfies the lowest aspects of our being and tend to distract from the more important ones." Indulging in pleasure represents satisfying the 'lower' aspects of being. To distract from the more important ones, where 'important' equates to 'higher' aspects of being. Important can be used in the context of 'higher' or it can be used in the context of preference. Your quote above uses it in the latter context. My question uses the word 'important' in the former context. The smiley emojis I use are 1) my way of keeping the topic light - as in humourous and 2) as an impish grin because I know the questions will start the gears turning in your head. Nothing sinister or snide about it. This topic isn't deadly serious sh!t and so I attempt to keep it from sliding in that direction. Show some humour! Life is supposed to be fun. Anyway, getting back to, ahem, dead seriousness my question is meant to lead you to consider the eternity of Sunmaster. Since our understanding of identity is limited and we tend, quite naturally of course, to think linearly, then most believe in a straight-line, linear birth to death progression of development. Yet all time exists now. Which means that body, your car, your house do enjoy eternal existence. Not an iota of existence is ever erased. It only all disappears as you change your focus elsewhere. Yet you can always return your focus. Seth had mentioned that he is particular fond of his 14th (I think) century study and often enjoys returning. Our existence is bound by time only in the sense that our experience of it, our organization of it, is agreed upon to be in a straight-line, linear birth to death progression of development. And yet our existence can be experienced differently by organizing it differently. One such way would be organizing it via association. You've done that, as has everyone. You may think of something which reminds you of something else which then reminds you of something other etc. All of your thoughts have a cohesiveness yet the thoughts are structured associatively in an out of time sequence. Creativity is unlimited and there are an infinite number of ways of organization. A single event can be experienced to last a thousand years but not in the sense that time is stretched. Ah, there's so much more. "Of course my ideas are based on my limited perception of reality, which is still bound by consecutive time." My ideas of development, specifically linear development, have developed (pun intended ) to where I'm standing further back from the immense object. But yes, as long as I'm physical I will be adhering to the experience of consecutive nows, one after the other. I went a couple of rounds with mauGR1 on hierarchies. Yes, they exist but only within a certain framework. Just as gravity exists in this framework but no in the non physical. I said what I did because it is only logical. For a physical individual to have Seth's perspective and knowledge he would most likely have graduated out of the reincarnational cycle. But even accessing that knowledge, which is nonverbal, he would have to translate it into our terms. Hey, distortions happen. Seth had said that any information anyone receives then becomes new as the holder of the information automatically changes it to a degree. There have been lots of people who have traveled to other realities and when they came back interpreted their experience using their beliefs as a filter. Hence tales of people having extrasensory experiences and upon return telling tales of encountering demons and such. Seth covers so much information, from animal consciousness to past civilizations and so much more that you would have to admit that so much of what Seth covers is nowhere to be found in any religion. It just is what it is. This not a pissing contest and it is not, never was, and never will be one for me. I'm simply giving you my honest opinions and views. No judgement. Sorry, but I have limited time. What's the old saying, "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak." Change that to, "The spirit is willing but the time is short."

Just having some innocent fun.

Does the amoeba aspire to be a cell? Does the cell aspire to be an ant? Does the ant aspire to be a plant? Dies the plant aspire to be a fish? Does the fish aspire to be an ape? Does the ape aspire to be a man? Or do they all aspire to escape their physical prison by shedding their ignorance and becoming their "true" identity? End of the line? What does your "true" identity aspire to be?

There are lower aspects to our being? Some realities are more important than others? What happened to "time doesn't exist" and eternity? Only some things enjoy eternal existence? I do not want to get involved in a discussion of "levels," in which progression is supposed to occur from one to the other. All such discussions are based upon your idea of one-personhood, consecutive time, and limited versions of the soul. There are red, yellow, and violet flowers. One is not more progressed than the others, but each is different. These units [consciousness units, or CUs) combine into various kinds of gestalts of consciousness. Basically, it is not correct to say that one is more progressed than another. The petal of a flower, for example, is not more developed than the root. An ant on the ground may see that the petal is way above the root and stem, but ants are too wise to think that the petal must be better than the root. Now: Consciousness flowers out in all directions - All directions taken by the flower of consciousness are good. Levels? Are you sure these levels exist? Or is it simply an interpretation resulting from a limited understanding of identity and erroneous ideas of progression through time? ********** The units (of consciousness) form themselves into the various systems that they have themselves initiated. They transform themselves, therefore, into the structured reality that they then become. Ruburt is quite correct in his supposition of what he calls "multipersonhood" in Adventures. You think of one I-self (spelled) (he's referring to the physical self) 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. Consciousness fulfills itself by knowing itself. The knowledge changes it, in your terms, into a greater gestalt that then tries to fulfill and know itself, and so forth. ********** Does that not give you a visual of Russian Matryoshka dolls? It does for me. If you haven't read Unknown Reality Vol. 1 then you're probably not familiar with Seth's definition of consciousness units. So here's his explanation of what they are. There is a basic unit of consciousness that, expressed, will not be broken down, as once it was thought that an atom was the smallest unit and could not be broken down. The basic unit of consciousness obviously is not physical. It contains within itself innately infinite properties of expansion, development, and organization; yet within itself always maintains the kernel of its own individuality. Despite whatever organizations it becomes part of, or how it mixes with other such basic units, its own identity is not annihilated. It is aware energy, identified within itself as itself, not "personified" but awareized. It is therefore the source of all other. kinds of consciousness, and the varieties of its activity are infinite. It combines with others of its kind, forming then units of consciousness - as, mentioned often, atoms and molecules combine. I've put into my own words before on this thread, in a reply to Hummin, that consciousness is infinitely creative and attempts to experience itself in an infinite number of ways. Such as a human being, for example. As it does so it experiences growth, or expansion, as it experiences itself differently and then knows itself in a different way. Hence no one expression is better or less than the other, higher or lower, and so there are no levels to 'climb'. So I am again here putting into my own words the meaning of Seth's quote between the ******s. The idea that there are progressive states, the idea that one is more important than another . . . those ideas "are based upon your idea of one-personhood, consecutive time, and limited versions of the soul." This is why I asked you the two questions 10 days ago. Your answers would be revealing as they would expose your beliefs since you would naturally need to express them in order to answer the questions. I'm a tricky son-of-a-b!tch, so my sincere apologies. Now I guarantee you that no eastern religion has traveled that far into consciousness to be able to elucidate on the existence of consciousness units. I say that because if they had they'd have written or talked about it. Perhaps I'm in error but I doubt it. Which is why I'm into Seth, and others like him, and not into anything else. As I had mentioned long before, I doubt there exist any mortals, despite their exploratory journeys into inner reality, who have the advantage of Seth's much, much vaster perspective and can match his ability to travel to different realities. I don't say that with any intention of having a pissing contest, claiming that "My source is better than your source, nah na, nah na na." I made my choice by simply using my intellect and intuitions. It was a no brainer for me as to which source I would use as a guide for my own explorations. Unknown Reality Vol. 1 was perhaps one of my favourite books. But not until years later. I wasn't ready for it at first. But, boy, was it a doozy after I connected with what he was explaining. Talk about bringing the larger picture into clearer focus. Not absolute focus, obviously. I haven't learned that much yet. But here's my response to that book. Would that material strike you similarly? I don't know. But I did have the idea to walk through that portion which had perhaps the greatest eye opening effect for me and see if it's helpful or valuable to you. Now I just need to focus myself.

First part? Second part?

It's enjoyable but not great reggae. Well, there's certainly some rock that isn't made for dancing. More tapping the feet or fingers or moving your body or slapping your thighs.

So you want to discuss but then you do not want to discuss. Typical of folks when their beliefs are challenged, shown to be flawed, and yet the individual doesn't want to give up his precious belief. Despite the fact that it is highly flawed, impractical, and even harmful. He'll keep it anyway. Good day to you as well.

@Gandtee Another example . . . or two. And I'll bring it back to the UK. We've all heard of the stories. from the Spanish Inquisition to the former Soviet Union, where censorship was taken to the degree that people were forced to recant their beliefs or their political views under duress of potential death. That, my friend, is censorship to the extreme. Are you so confident that once censorship takes hold in much more benign ways, which are as yet somewhat palatable, that it will not reach it's ultimate destination of totalitarian censorship? Under Biden the U.S. recently attempted to create a new "Ministry Of Truth." Of course they didn't call it that. I forgot what misnomer they used to dress it up as something it was not. In any case, it was to be set up for the purpose of battling mis/disinformation. But after some quick and easy investigation the woman who was to head this new federal department was found to have been the queen of mis/disinformation herself. The idea was quickly scrapped without media fanfare. Imagine if censorship was at the point where it was able to squelch this truth and this federal department actually had come into existence. Under the leadership of an obviously corrupt individual lord only knows how much damage to the 1st Amendment she may have accomplished. Understand that it is not the people who believe in freedom who clamour for censorship. It is always those with something to hide. Yet it will always, always, always be sold as protecting you and keeping you safe. Call it false advertising. The UK is attempting to create what was defeated in the U.S. The UK’s Controversial Online Safety Act Is Now Law - 20 October 2023 Inch by inch by inch the tortoise eventually crosses the finish line. And you, the frog in the cool water boiled to death.

Yes, i know that you didn't suggest it. I brought it up specifically as it was necessary in explanation of what censorship ultimately intends to do. If censorship prohibits you from expressing your thoughts verbally, on paper, or in action then it effectively and practically censors your thoughts. Your thoughts are thus denied any form of outlet. You are neutered. I ask you, is that what you want?

Well, kudos to you for understanding that your thoughts are above censorship. But, you are still not clear about censorship of the expression of your thoughts. You've obviously missed the distinction raised in my point in regards to name calling since you haven't at all addressed it. So perhaps a hypothetical example might get you to understand since you still have doubts about the inherent harms which censorship causes. Let's do up a hypothetical situation using politics. Politician A calls politician B a crooked douchebag. We'll assume A is correct due to a plethora of evidence pointing in that direction. Folks supporting A see B the same as they, too, are aware of the existing evidence and appreciate the candor of A. A is telling it like it is. He's speaking truth, though bluntly. B obviously takes feigned offence as he knows full well that A is speaking the truth. Supporters of B, oblivious to the existing evidence - perhaps out of denial, are outraged and demand that A is censored. And so A is censored, as are his supporters. Think Twitter. Now B is running for re-election. B is corrupt but the corruption has not yet been exposed nor verified. B runs as a 'good' guy. A and his supporters are unable to alert the voters that B is indeed corrupt, because they cannot as yet prove it in a court of law, and B supporters are about to vote for a crook. Supporters of B have thus far been fooled by B. B wins re-election. B supporters cheer. Soon after B's 5th re-election victory B gets indicted for corruption. B is convicted and sent to prison. The damage of B's corruption to the people is exposed. B supporters now rue their support of B all these years. "Not to be scattered around like chaff, that seems to be the case with many today." This shows that you have totally missed the distinction I made clear in my last post between an expression of thought which expresses truth and the expression of thought which expresses untruth. So far you seem either not to see the difference or the difference is irrelevant to you. Let me ask you another question. If someone were to falsely accuse you, causing you great harm in reputation, professionally, and monetarily then you should refrain from exposing the accuser by calling him out for what he is? A lying scoundrel? Keep well in mind, too, that calls for censorship against an individual or entity are oftentimes made specifically by those who fear that open dialogue will expose the truth of their criminality and bring them to the justice which they deserve. Censoring people then works to keep people's mouth shut about the truth of criminality. Is that what you want? Burn that point into your mind. "There is of course respect and politeness to others that we should have learnt from childhood." Would you show a criminal respect and politeness? In other words, are you saying that everyone, regardless of how worthy or unworthy they are of respect and politeness, should nonetheless deserve yours? If yes my response will be, "HUH?"

One more important point on the subject for you to consider. What is speech anyway? It should be obvious to anyone that speech is the expression of an individual's thought. In our reality thoughts are private. And private for a good reason. No one really knows what another is thinking. Until, that is, the very moment that private thought is given expression. Expression comes in three basic forms . . . verbal, on paper, or through action. It is impossible to control or regulate another's private thoughts. Censorship can at best only target the expression of one's thoughts. However, no one has the ability to censor the thoughts themselves. Nor should anyone be given the power to censor the thoughts of another. Especially given that people tend to abuse the power that they have. And so it is one of the reasons why thoughts are private in our reality. So I ask you, would you be in favour of gifting the power to another individual to be able to censor your very thoughts? The sole power to determine what thoughts you should or should not entertain? If your answer is 'yes' then all I can say then is that you have much to learn.

Do you mean Free Speech such as ex Presidents and politicians name calling like adolescent children? If so, I agree. Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me. Remember that old adage oft spoken by the targets of bully's taunts in schoolyards? Do you honestly think that censorship is capable of ceasing that? But the distinction must be made between name calling which is truthful and name calling which is untruthful If someone calls you a racist when you are clearly not then that would be name calling that is untruthful. You are not a racist. But if someone blatantly lies to you and you call them a liar then the name calling is truthful. They are indeed a liar. Do you see the difference? In any case, whether name calling is truthful or not good luck trying to prohibit it via censorship. Since the truth or untruth of name calling is not always readily apparent, or perhaps readily apparent but the untruth cast in doubt by the name callers constant insistence that it is the truth - or the target of the name callers truth denied by the target insisting it's not true, then censorship fails badly. It will cause more harm than good. It might take those in favour of censorship, on the grounds you laid out, years to figure out that there's more harm than good but that's for you to figure out for yourself through trial and error. Censorship doesn't work. Period. America's founders understood that so clearly, and understood it to be so fundamental a right in order to preserve freedom, that they made unrestricted free speech the very first amendment. After careful consideration they came to know and understand what you as yet don't know and understand. Before you take offence at my accusation I will point you to the proof in the pudding. "Do you mean Free Speech such as ex Presidents and politicians name calling like adolescent children? If so, I agree." You favour censorship. So I accuse you in truth.

Listen, GammaGlobulin, I like you as a poster. I've always enjoyed your posts. In fact I've let you know outright on several occasions via direct compliments. So I really don't want to exchange barbs with you. That would simply be a pissing contest and for what? Because we happen to disagree on a particular subject matter? And should we then dislike each other over a single issue when we derive enjoyment on more than not? As I said, I'm not so foolish that I would throw the baby out with the bathwater. No two people will ever be in agreement on every issue amongst the vast number of issues we deal with in life so the fact that differences will arise is only the natural course of human affairs. We both have different views on this subject matter. So what? You've your own personal decision to make as to where we go from here. I've made mine a long time ago. Before this thread existed. I'll continue to enjoy your posts and maintain the respect which you deserve. Better to have a friend in the world than an enemy. What say you?

Very innovative. The first 4 albums were excellent. No doubt they were creative and talented. I wouldn't even try to deny them that. But their soft rock didn't appeal to me and the friends I hung around with at the time. Perhaps we were a bit snobby when it came to music but there were a number of bands in the 70's which we termed commercial music. One of the purposes of music is that it connects with people on a deeper level. No woo when I say that. As long as it does that then it's great. My musical tastes evolved as I got older and very much broadened in scope. I get immense enjoyment now from music I wouldn't get caught dead playing back then. But still not broad enough to encompass everything. Soft rock kind of puts me to sleep and I still hate disco very much. I enjoy 10CC's Dreadlock Holiday very much. But I love reggae. I'll take a hard pass on The Second Sitting For The Last Supper, though I like the lyrics.

Sounds like you've found eternal life on this planet, which is cool. I'll tell ya, though, if it were offered to me I'd take a pass. Eternal life as me on this single orb would be true death, which doesn't exist. As I mentioned in one of my posts to you, the knowledge discussed on the God thread is not mere dry philosophical musings. It has practical value. I'll be well situated when I decide to leave. Yes, you read that correctly.