Tippaporn

There's a difference between 'lecture' and 'insight'. Seems there's little that's not open to personal interpretation. Was that last statement 'lecture' or 'insight'? What's your interpretation?

True. Same can be said about death.

Bis später!

Only a portion of your entire identity is "presently" familiar to you, as you know. Therefore, when you consider the question of a supreme being, you imagine a male personality with those abilities that you yourselves possess, with great emphasis upon qualities you admire. This imagined god has therefore changed throughout your centuries, mirroring man's shifting ideas of himself. God was seen as cruel and powerful when man believed that these were desirable characteristics, needed particularly in his battle for physical survival. He projected these upon his idea of a god because he envied them and feared them. You have cast your idea of god, therefore, in your own image. In a reality that is inconceivably multidimensional, the old concepts God are relatively meaningless. Even the term, a supreme being, is in itself distortive, for you naturally project the qualities of human nature on it. If I told you that God was an idea, you would not understand what I meant, for you do not understand the dimensions in which an idea has its reality, or the energy that it can originate and propel. You not believe in ideas in the same way that you believe in physical objects, so if I tell you that God is an idea, you will misinterpret this to that God is less than real - nebulous, without reality, without purpose, and without motive action. If you can't make sense of the above then the concept of God will no doubt escape you even if given a definition of God. What God is actually defies all attempts to define it. This subject matter is for people whose thoughts run quite a bit deeper. If they don't then that's fine. There's no right or wrong about it. Just don't expect to understand something when you're not interested in understanding it. You obviously won't.

Frye would probably sh!t himself if he were in front of God. Just joking. Again, Frye is just another who doesn't understand why awful things exist for us and would blame God for his miseries. Yeah, I use a laughing emoticon but I do understand the difficulty of understanding why 'bad' things exist. It ain't easy given the beliefs people have. Actually, given the beliefs people have is precisely what makes it impossible to understand.

God is a representation of the existence of more than what we are aware of. Which awareness for most extends to this world and the self in the mirror only. Gods come and go, as everyone knows by just a cursory reading of human history, but what they represent is continually expressed despite the particular label applied. Every god that's accepted today will eventually be sent to the "old god's home" and be replaced by another, new one. Like it or not, agree with it or not, but you can't change it.

"It's fair game to troll . . ." And there's your outright admission that those who disagree agree with you are therefore fair game to troll. No I do believe that trolling is against forum rules. Which makes it astounding that you would actually admit to it outright on the forum.

". . . about religious nutcases?" There's the proof in your own words that you're simply trolling when you go on that thread. You don't believe in God and that's fine. But the idea that others do is like a stick up yer <> that causes discomfort everytime the idea pops into your head and you then just can't resist the urge to disparage them so it gives a bit of relief to your discomfort. So, if your only purpose in posting in that thread is to disparage the believers then . . . you're frickin' trolling.

I don't see Sunmaster as distorting the question at all. I do, however, see you distorting it, due to having a false yet unspoken premise. An atheist asking that question couldn't even begin to answer it in the event that God did exist and babies are born with disabilities. The premise behind the question is that if God existed he'd never allow it. The premise is faulty. Which makes the question absurd.

Sounds like an admission, ozimoron. Was he good to you this past Christmas?

That's a point that Sunmaster failed to make clear in stating the purpose of this thread. There are a number of posters coming on to the God thread who come on only to mock those who believe in God (I'm defending those who believe in God but that's not to imply that my defence is solely due to the fact that I, too, am religious and share their beliefs). One approach to deny the existence of God, which they obviously do deny, is to use satire in the form of the question, "Well, if you believe in God then explain why God would allow these terrible things to exist. For surely if there was a God he would never allow those terrible things to exist." The question is, of course, due to a complete lack of understanding on their parts. But I digress . . . And so, Sunmaster had the idea to have those posters, well, in the immortal words of Mick, get yer ya-ya's out here.

What hubris!!

@Sunmaster I'm afraid the issue of the ego will forever be unresolved between us. Advaita Vedānta has one version of what the ego is and Seth provides another. There are similarities and there are differences. The differences are irreconcilable. If you're still interested in having that discussion then I will be a willing party. However, I do recognise that the most that I can do in such a discussion is to point out the differences and provide explanations, reasoning and logic which would show where and what the distortions are in Advaita Vedānta's version of the ego. Of course that would necessarily require dragging in so many other concepts. Primarily the concept of who and what we are for that is, accurately, at the basis of any true understanding of the ego. Without having a correct understanding of that then there can be no true understanding of what the ego is. But there again a discussion of who and what we are would also highlight the differences between the Advaita Vedānta school of thought and Seth's explanation. Then those differences would be debated, just like the differences regarding the ego are now debated. Now the above suggests an inevitable end result of a stalemate as a possibility. There are, however, other possibilities. Some of which aren't difficult to imagine as to what those other end results might be. In any case, such a discussion would have educational value. How deep would you like to go, Sunmaster?

@Sunmaster For what it's worth I'll give you my perception of where you stand right now. Please take it as only what I see - my humble opinion and nothing more. Whether it's accurate or not is not the point and it's accuracy, or not, is up to you to accept or reject. You have, no doubt, a very fine mind in general and an highly enquiring mind when it comes to deep issues. You've searched for the answers to those questions which were, and are, most important to you. Your search led you to investigate many different schools of thought, philosophies, and religions. On your search you also came across the Seth material. You saw parallels amongst all of the material you investigated as well as discrepancies. But ultimately you had to settle on something so you chose that which made the most sense to you. For now it is Advaita Vedānta. You will take it as far as you can. And perhaps there will come a time when you chuck it for something else.

Question: Is it logic or philosophy upon which your arguments are based? I decided to educate myself, in at least a rudimentary fashion, on Advaita Vedanta. Here's what I came up with. Correct me if I'm wrong on anything. Advaita Vedanta is a school of Hindu philosophy and a Hindu sādhanā, a path of spiritual discipline and experience. In a narrow sense it refers to the oldest extant scholarly tradition of the orthodox Hindu school Vedānta, written in Sanskrit;[note 2] in a broader sense it refers to a popular, syncretic tradition, blending Vedānta with other traditions and producing works in vernacular. Advaita Vedānta adapted philosophical concepts from Buddhism, giving them a Vedantic basis and interpretation, and was influenced by, and influenced, various traditions and texts of Indian philosophy. So basically it's a Hindu school of thought, of which there are many schools. Advaita is a subschool of Vedānta, the latter being one of the six classical Hindu darśanas, an integrated body of textual interpretations and religious practices which aim at the attainment of moksha, release or liberation from transmigratory existence. Here I can trace some of the ideas you express in your writings to a few of the meanings ascribed to Advaita. Nonduality of subject and object. As Gaudapada states, when a distinction is made between subject and object, people grasp to objects, which is samsara. By realizing one's true identity as Brahman, there is no more grasping, and the mind comes to rest. Monism: there is no other reality than Brahman, that "Reality is not constituted by parts," that is, ever-changing 'things' have no existence of their own, but are appearances of the one Existent, Brahman; and that there is in reality no duality between the "experiencing self" (jiva) and Brahman, the Ground of Being. I could go on and make every connection between each idea you subscribe to with it's source in Advaita Vedānta. But there's no need for it. I'll instead make my point here. There is within all religions distortions of truth. That's true for both western religions and eastern religions, or philosophies. Now I was raised a Catholic and had come to recognise the distortions within Christianity. As I turned to see if eastern religions had something better to offer what initially struck me most was, what appeared to me at least, the highly structured and complex system of thought. As my first reaction was that it made my head spin I very quickly set it aside and continued my search. Perhaps I couldn't express what I was specifically looking for in words at that time but the two general thoughts that were very prominent in my mind back then was that 1) what I was looking for existed and 2) I'd instantly recognise it as soon as I would stumble upon it. When I did come across the Seth material I immediately recognised that it was neither a religion nor a school of thought nor a philosophy. So that satisfied part of was I was looking for. No dogma, thank you but no thank you. The only question then was how accurate was it in not only describing my practical experience but in providing explanations to those eternal questions which were asked by all religions and philosophies. Of course another requirement I had was that blind faith was not to be a required component. I did not want to be in a position where if I were to explain to another what I believed my sole argument to convince would be, "Trust what I say. You must believe me." What I was looking for needed to be open to validation. I was not interested in merely theories but practical information which would be of a beneficial nature that I could put to use easily to enrich my life in practical ways. For what would be the purpose otherwise? The Seth material is not at all some esoteric, philosophical, religious or philosophical text. What it is is a simple, straightforward explanation of what we are and how reality actually works. To that end it's scope is quite breathtaking as well as it's granular detail. It is, as best as I can tell, without any distortions. Seth himself has remarked upon that point. If anyone wanted to learn about how an electrical light switch operates there are books that would tell you all of the necessary detail as to the how of it; in other words it would cover the practical operation of a light switch. A book of that nature may even go further into an explanation of the principles upon which the practical how of it is based and that which makes the how of it possible. The Seth material is exactly that and nothing more. And just as with a light switch, once one understands the how if it and the principles by which it works they are then able to construct their own light switch from scratch, if they so desired, so it is with the Seth material. Once on understands how reality works and the principles by which it works then they are able to put it into practical use as well. The purpose of the Seth material is not at all meant as providing "a way of life" that everyone should then need to follow, as that is what many religions espouse - "The Way" as per their "Answers" (which only they have possession of the "correct" ones. ). Instead, the purpose of the Seth material, getting back to the light switch analogy, is to use it for whatever purpose you wish and towards whatever end you desire. If you want to build a light switch then here's the "how to" and the "what makes it work." If you're in poor health and you desire to be healthy then here's the "how to" and the "what makes it work." If you're lonely and want a mate then here's the "how to" and the "what makes it work." If you're unsatisfied with your job and you're looking to change, or even begin a new career, then here's the "how to" and the "what makes it work." The Seth material is nothing more than a "how to" and "what makes it work" guide. Any and all exercises it provides for connecting with other portions of yourself is for the single and sole purpose of using the knowledge which that endeavour would bring to enrich your experience here. Seth never stops emphasising the importance of who you are as a physical personality or identity and the importance of what you're doing in this worldly, physical reality. But that understanding, the understanding of the importance of the physical self and it's doings here can only come from the understanding of who and what we are. Which Seth explains exhaustively, in granular detail, and concisely. The entire purpose of any religion is to bring awareness of that part of us which exists outside of our present awareness and to connect with it. But the connecting part of this purpose of religion is not meant for the purpose of moving towards that portion of ourselves, which we now become aware of, by escaping our existence here. Because that would defeat our entire purpose for being here in the first place. Now it's only self evident and purely logical that if the purpose of religion is as I stated above then there would certainly be a number of commonalities between religion view of us and our reality and what Seth' view of it. But as every religion contains distortions then any of those distortions will instantly be at loggerheads with the reality Seth offers. That is only self evident and purely logical as well. And so, Sunmaster, we shall continue to have both our agreements and disagreements. Advaita Vedānta and Seth's explanation of who we are and what our reality is are ultimately incompatible and the differences irreconcilable. We can agree on the commonalities of Advaita Vedānta and the Seth material but on the differences we will never be able to. We can only ever agree to disagree.

@Sunmaster Hey Sunmaster, Busy today. Had a procession of monks early this morning so the moo ban lined the streets to give their offerings. And shortly after we've had company arrive. I'll be tied up all day. No worries about continuing our discussion. I'm all in.

You're trolling. I gave you a ridiculous answer to your trolling ridiculous question.

How would you know. There's a phrase for that . . . talking out yer ar$e.

Because God loves Trump. In fact, God voted for Trump both in '16 and '20.

Good answer by Sunmaster. Here's a fairly easy one for you. Why are you in this world, Chris? If you can answer that you wouldn't be asking the question you asked. But I understand the question I posed is one you don't have an answer for. Nor can you even begin to come up with any inkling of an answer. I might be wrong but it's just my educated guess.

mauGR1 3079 posts I guess I'd be tired, too. 55555555555 Well, hope he returns.

Just curious. What's happened to mauGR1? Just checked his profile. His last postings were in the God thread on May 25 of last year. No posts anywhere else since. Last visited the site on Sept. 21. Hope he's well.

Sorry, Sunmaster. It'll be another 9 months before I can give you a reply. It may, though, come as early as tomorrow morning.

Now that's a beautiful experience, Sunmaster. The only experience I've ever had of witnessing a final breath was with one of our cats (we've 10 at the moment). We don't know how old she was as my wife had taken her and her new litter of kittens in off the street. She was a sweet cat with a huge heart. And very much overweight. Perhaps she made up for all of her hungry days once she had food anytime she wanted it. We had premonitions of her end of days and when her time of choosing arrived it was not unexpected. She was keeping to herself in our bedroom and I can't recollect what it was that gave me an awareness that she was ready to exit. I called my wife and we sat on the bedroom floor with her laying between us. I picked her up and put her on my lap but she immediately walked off, then plopped down on her side on the floor, took a few heaves and the process began. She stretched her legs out and after a short shudder she was gone. Took less than 30 seconds after she got off my lap. Her one kit is still with us. She was born on New Year's Day so she just turned 13. I don't know how anyone else feels about their preferred method of exiting. I'm torn between a peaceful sleep and an exit with a lot of fireworks. I'll probably cut out without a lot of fanfare and go quietly into that gentle night. I never really got into fireworks as I've always thought it a waste of money. I mean once or twice is good but after so many it's 'seen that, done that' ho hum.

Hybrid? I dunno. I'd say that if we were speaking of dogs then using that terminology you'd be considered a mutt, aka mongrel? Both my parents were born in Poland but were German citizens. From my understanding during the early 1900's Poland had a shortage of skilled labour and enticed skilled Germans to emigrate to fill the shortage. Once Poland was invaded in '39 my mother and her family had returned to Germany, as well as my father's family. My father fought against the Russians on the eastern front during WWII. My mother was just a girl and attended middle and high school in Germany during the war. So I guess I'm a pure breed. Not that I put much stock (pun intended ) into that. After all, we're all ultimately descendants of from Adam and Eve, right? Since I was born in Germany, then emigrated to the U.S., moved back to Germany and once again back to the U.S., and have since lived in Thailand for 20+ years when someone asks me these days where I'm from I just reply, "Earth." I could, of course, just point to the sky. Sometimes I do that.