Tippaporn

We have been given the greatest and most awesome gift imaginable - the ability to create. If that is not apparent yet then all one has to do is look about themselves and see the plentiful evidence which exists everywhere that one looks in the world. Our creations include that which we create through the physical manipulation of the stuff of earth into man-made objects which would not otherwise appear in nature to the creation of each and every event of our lives. How this is all accomplished still remains a mystery to most. The simple truth is that our creation is done through the use of ideas. Anything and everything which is the product of man was first an idea conceived. The transformation of these ideas, this subjective reality, into a physically manifested reality then required that physical action be taken on the ideas we conceive and hold. Hence, the definition of action as an idea in motion. We act upon our ideas thereby putting the idea into motion. This is how subjective reality creates the objective world. We, the image reflected in our mirrors, is made of god-stuff. In that sense we are creators. And as creation is an attribute of God, or whatever label one wishes to apply to it, then technically we are all gods.

I agree. Animals don't need us in the sense that they can't do without us. That's a belief a lot of tree huggers maintain. I think Sunmaster's reference to bringing goodness, truth and beauty into the world is based more on the same sense that animals have as illustrated in this video.

Been reading your exchange with Sunmaster. I don't mean to butt in but the word 'inclusive' got my attention. You don't need to answer if you don't want to but I'm just curious. Since the term inclusive is one very much used by trans folk are you trans?

Another good question. You're on fire today. :-) Sunmaster the ego likes to think he can make a difference in the world, that he can bring glimmers of goodness, truth and beauty from the Source to illuminate the dark corners of the world. Nowadays I'm not so sure it makes a difference to be honest, but not out of cynicism. I still do my best though, because I enjoy creating, thinking, exploring, being of help. They seem like worthwhile endeavors while here. I'll mull it over some more and get back to you. Maybe I can come up with a better answer. Granted, it's not an easy question and one that most never ask themselves. They're here and never think much about the why of it. Too busy figuring out how to live the life that's seemingly thrust upon them. Good to see you give yourself some time. Best to give yourself some time. No need for quick answers anyway.

Revealing as well.

Well, good to see you weren't fooled. Good point on keeping the focus on the philosophical basis of religions. There's much value there.

Thanks, retarius. Actually, either word works. This would be one of the definitions of the noun 'tact'. a keen sense of what to say or do to avoid giving offense; skill in dealing with difficult or delicate situations And in a sentence. WarnerMedia is taking a different tact in pitching its streaming service than NBCUniversal did when lining up advertisers for its Peacock streamer.

I had to listen to the rest of the clip @save the frogs. I just wanted to see how batsh!t crazy this dude is. At one point Dr. Andrew Huberman asks him about whether the possibility exists that we have even "some small, small shard of free will." Sapolsky replies with a wide tooth filled grin and crazed, childlike expression to say, "Nah." The editing of the vid was perfect. Huberman asks his question with a sheepish grin at the end as if he knows he's about to hear a crazed answer. The camera switches immediately to the exact moment of Sapolsky's "Nah" reply and then cuts right back to the sane face of Humberman. The flash effect was pure brilliance. Thanks for the recent vids, save the frogs. Pure comedy. I laughed my ar$e off. Better than watching Comedy Central. Video is set to begin just as Huberman poses his question.

Now that was revealing.

@Sunmaster Separate. Another question. Again from your perspective, why is Sunmaster in this world?

@Sunmaster A different tact. A question. From your perspective what's the point of becoming aware of the rest of yourself?

Dr. Robert Sapolsky is a Professor of Biology, Neurology and Neurosurgery at Stanford University. (The dude on the right.) Oh my God! This is what science is teaching at one of the premier higher learning institutions? As I've said before, science does a good job uncovering the physical processes by which the physical world functions but when it comes to the subjective world they have no idea of what they're talking about. Good grief! Denying even the most obvious aspects of reality seems to be in vogue these days. From girls becoming boys to boys becoming girls to men having the ability to menstruate and get pregnant to now questioning whether or not free will exists. WTF is going on? All I can say is that it ain't gonna end well. Dr. Robert Sapolsky certainly looks the part he's playing. That dude needs no make up whatsoever. I couldn't resist hearing what he had to say in explanation but I couldn't listen to more than a few minutes. Whew! For your sake, save the frogs, I hope you don't take this guy seriously. Amazing. He's an actual science professor at Stanford teaching impressionable kids absolute nonsense. Whew!

Human comforts and toys. And entertainment. Desires don't much go beyond that for many.

Shiny trinkets. It's always the trinkets! It seems that it's the only thing folks are interested in. What's the old saying, "You can't take it with you." There are, however, things you collect in life that you do take with you. Or not if you haven't collected them whilst here.

I think we maybe have to distinguish between identity and identification. Okay. I'll go with that. As in this case: Instead, you form the physical body that you know at a deeply unconscious level with great discrimination, miraculous clarity, and intimate unconscious knowledge of each minute cell that composes it. This is not meant symbolically. Now because your conscious mind, as you think of it, is not aware of these activities, you do not identify with this inner portion of yourselves. You prefer to identify with the part of you who watches television or cooks or works - the part you think knows what it is doing. You have multiple aspects but are not aware of them and thus identify with the only one you are aware of. Personally, I'd use plain English when speaking of duality and non-duality. If folks have to look it up to understand it then it makes communication more difficult. And impossible if the reader doesn't know what the term means and doesn't look it up. Just a suggestion. BTW, it's one of the reasons I never got into Eastern religion or philosophy - too much special meaning jargon. Same with science. Ever open up a Wiki page on some scientific subject and every other word is a hyperlink? What an absolute maze as you end up with a dozen Wiki pages open! Other than that I'll hold off on commenting on the substance. How about identifying with all of them simultaneously? You can be aware of all of them whilst focused on one identity. Or several at the same time. "I am Joe, and Jane, and Jim, and Bob." How many identities can one be aware of at the same time? Or isn't that possible? Ever awaken in a dream and realise you're dreaming? You have awareness of both your waking self and your dreaming self, don't you? They are distinct yet simply different aspects of "you." Is it possible to identify with more than a single portion, or aspect of one's self simultaneously? I believe so! I'll go with Seth here on us having a very limited idea of identity. Where you believe that one has to dis-identify I believe that one has to identify with more than what they identify with. Again, I believe you view is due to the limited understanding that we have of identity. Perhaps I should post some pertinent Seth material. I have something in mind which I consider fantastic but boy is it lengthy. BTW, how would you answer these questions? Since I have already put together material on the ego I may as well not let my work go to waste and post it. It certainly can't hurt, even if this conversation shifts to identity. Again, I've included the context of any discussion of the ego so it's broader in scope. And one can never read it too many times.

As it's laid out I can't say I disagree. Way too many contradictions. There is truth there but it's distorted beyond recognition. Which is why I don't subscribe to any religion. But I wouldn't go so far to say religion has zero value. It's simply not a very efficient way to learn as one has to sift through the chaff to get to the grain. The problem with that is that for a lot of folks the chaff looks just like the grain.

First of all, that's a beautiful post, Vince. And this statement is music to my ears. Well done, sir! And such a wonderful example, too!! I watched Gore's 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth (I can't call it a documentary since there's no truth in it) and I admit my initial reaction was, "Oh my!! This is terrible!! I wasn't aware of it." But that sentiment faded just as quickly as I was able to think through his premises and assumptions. Now if you don't mind I'll add my analysis of this particular experience of yours in the form of a general point. Evidently you were first convinced of the reality of climate change as explained by Gore and others, as was I, and you happened to do your own research which led you to find out differently. Put in a different way you could say that your investigation led to an expansion of awareness. You became aware of information which existed all along yet had to be sought out. You didn't know it existed until you looked. Initially you had no evidence of it's existence but despite that lack of evidence you decided to look anyway. And lo and behold you found it. Bottom line: you searched for contrary evidence despite not knowing whether or not it existed. Not only is that good science but it's also good practice in general. People have beliefs, a belief being, as you say, something which is considered to be true. The problem is that all too often once a person adopts a particular belief they never go back and examine it to check it's validity. Not only don't they not search for contrary evidence they tend to reject any contrary information anyone presents them with. They end up not seeking the r-e-a-l truth but rather are only interested in upholding and confirming the "truth" of their belief. What you did with climate change you did with an open mind. When someone defends their beliefs and refuses to consider information to the contrary they do so with a closed mind. I wanted to emphasise your anecdote because there's a valuable lesson in it. Now just an aside that's totally unrelated . . . I purposely framed your investigation as an 'expansion of awareness' to dispel the notion, which is common, that it refers to some kind of esoteric experience. It's really just a very apt phrase of ordinary English words which describe quite ordinary, everyday experience. Learning, any learning, such as the education everyone gets in school, for example, is in essence an expansion of awareness. Since it's often the chosen term used by those who delve into spiritualism the term then has an attached air about it as something mystical. Nothing of the sort. It means nothing more than what the definitions of the plain English words define them as; becoming aware of something one hadn't been aware of before. 'Expansion of awareness' is interchangeable with 'expansion of consciousness'. They're really one and the same as consciousness is awareness. There isn't a single reason for the push for climate change. Multiples of multiple reasons. Lots of players and every player has a different motive and interest - or agenda . $$,$$$,$$$,$$$,$$$ is one reason (I think the number of dollar signs I typed out represent tens of trillions, which is probably an accurate amount that's at stake). Control of the population is another. Improvement of the natural environment is one, also. Which reason depends on the player. What's Greta's motive and interest? I'd say multiple.

@Sunmaster Geezus, I've been waiting for a reply for over 10 minutes now!! Going on 15 minutes!!

@Sunmaster I couldn't help but give you a teaser on Seth's information on 'identity'. I chose a rather jaw dropping one purposely to get your reaction. As I alluded to in my post above, there is no single line development of consciousness. Consciousness takes many different lines of development, some of which would be quite foreign to us. Our type of consciousness has taken but one line of development and currently we accept it as the only one. 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." Let me know if your jaw dropped or perhaps you're familiar with this and you are nonplussed by it. Note to anyone else reading this. Given current mass accepted ideas you ain't gonna make sense out of it so don't even try. The fact is reality includes so much more than most can conceive of even in their wildest imaginations. But it does exist despite an unawareness of it's existence.

Ok, I see we are jumping right into the deep end of it. 👍 Perhaps I didn't choose my words wisely, as I know that for a Sethian the word "entity" is loaded with a lot more meaning. I know that the ego is not a separate thing and that it is a dynamic system. I'm a visual learner and when I think about the ego, I picture a wave. If you look for it, you can't find a clear separation between the wave and the rest of the ocean, yet we can still identify that little portion of the ocean and give it a name (wave). This is a great analogy for the ego. We have an idea of what it looks like even though it is in constant change, because it still is identifiable as an apparent, separate entity. However, if we use our inner senses and start to explore and analyze the ego from within, if we dig deeper and deeper, we come to realize that what we thought had form as an entity, under close scrutiny evaporates right before our eyes. It is nothing more than consciousness itself, temporarily manifesting as a conglomeration of energy. So, why the need to defend this small portion of your existence? Yes, subordinate. Just like the wave is a subordinate system of the ocean, the ego is an expression of a bigger system. This is not judging its value (good or bad)....it's just a dispassionate observation. Of course, it's an important function, I'm not denying that. I want to make one thing clear. This is not a witch-hunt against the ego. The ego itself is not the problem. The problem is our identification with the ego. Would it make sense for the ocean to identify with a tiny wave and believe that this is all it is? Ultimately, what every religion at its core, every spiritual path is doing, is to shift the perspective from the subordinate, apparent wave-entity to the ocean-entity. But even that is not the end. Even the ocean is subordinate to something else. Can you guess what it is? Who is that which is feeling? Is it the ocean or the wave talking about itself? The wave will find a million reasons to justify its own existence and why we should "improve" it and not "kill" it like a bloodsucking vampire. But a rabid, aggressive dog doesn't become tame just by fitting it out with a cute dog costume. A restless monkey will not calm down by trying to reason with it. What you focus on, you give energy to. Why focusing on your wave-ness when you can just as well focus on the ocean-ness? The ocean in the meantime, is there to witness it all. No need to change anything, no need to improve anything. Whatever happens on its surface doesn't affect its ocean-ness at all. One more time to make this completely clear. The ego as an apparent, separate entity is neither good or bad. It is what it is. It is helpful for when we interact with the material world. It is not helpful if it prevents us from seeing that we are the ocean. The difference is the degree to which we identify with it. Which brings us back to the ultimate question: Who am I? Am I the wave, the ocean or.....? Good morning, Sunmaster. Okay, as I mentioned in my last post oftentimes I hold off on replying immediately if I feel I need more information and/or more time to get insights as to where your thinking is and, more importantly, what the crux of it is. Now there are two ways I can interpret our discussion thus far and I admit I'm not sure which is the correct one. We could very well be on different pages or on the same page. I woke up this morning and spent an hour composing a reply based on the interpretation I felt was the correct one, which I've now trashed (but saved just in case it is correct ). Before I settle on that one I felt it best to pick your brain a bit more first. The last thing I want to do is to misinterpret you and then in my reply make it sound like you're saying something you're not. I kinda feel relieved I didn't yet hit the "Submit Reply" button prematurely. Since reading and rereading your last few posts, including your post entitled "Shattering the Ego," you ask: Which brings us back to the ultimate question: Who am I? Am I the wave, the ocean or.....? Now it appears to me that you have questions as to 'identity'. Your question is framed as an either or. "Am I the wave, the ocean or . . .?" That certainly implies that our identity is singular. It's either the "you" that's reflected in the mirror or the greater, more expansive "you." But it can't be both. So in order to know which of my interpretations is correct (or perhaps partially correct) I have to ask you what your present concept of 'identity' is. I will say that Seth provides a great deal of information and explanations specifically on the subject of identity. And he's made it crystal clear that our current concepts of it are woefully limited. Which, of course, does lead to problems on a certain level. Then again, our current focus on and awareness of only a singular identity - the one in the mirror - is a specific path of development which our consciousness has taken for the purpose of expressing ourselves in a way which could not be expressed if we were to be aware that there is much more included in our identity. Seth's material on identity is covered in much greater detail in his books after The Nature Of Personal Reality. If you haven't read those books I'd recommend reading them. Now as I'm quite familiar with Seth's concepts of identity I could furnish some material that would be quite intriguing and illuminating. In your post, "Shattering the Ego," you made this statement: Dis-identifying with the outer ego is therefore necessary to blend with the Oneness, which brings bliss. The concept of blending our physical consciousness with Oneness and thereby achieving bliss, to me, is most definitely Eastern religion based. And one which I'm not fond of for it implies an end to our current type of consciousness along with it's separate, unique and individual identity. Is that a state which you are actively after? And if it is then what of the Sunmaster "you?" Is that "you" discarded or, rather, blended into the Oneness, or absorbed by it, and so ceases to exist as a separate and unique identity? Do we have only a single identity? Temporarily separate until merged? In any case, it appears to me that our discussion might veer off into the issue of 'identity' and what that truly is rather than the ego. Fix the identity problem and what the ego consciousness is will automatically become clear. Ball is now in your court again.

Thanks for you efforts, Charlie. I didn't get to see the mess, though, so I'm not sure what the clean up was about. Any gruesome pics you can share? Or are they too graphic? And a Happy New Year to you and your family, Charlie.

@Sunmaster Oops!! I hate getting caught in lies. I'm being taken away from my computer by my family. My wife grabbed my arms and my daughter my legs. I tried holding on to the keyboard but I had to let go to prevent ripping out the chord. I'm afraid I won't be back until tomorrow. I hate when life gets in my way.

Yeah, when you get to a certain age the sobering up process becomes so taxing that you give up drinking. At least that's been my experience I still enjoy a beer or a whiskey, soda & coke now and again (prefer Southern Comfort to Black Label but Southern Comfort is a liqueur, not a whiskey, though it's colouring is similar and thus can confuse). But one of the last times I had more than a few bottles of beer whilst at home i tried to feel my wife up. The trouble with waiting for science is that, in my humble opinion - which certainly has a lot of unspoken basis to it, 'one day' will never come. Simply because science has hogtied themselves with their methodology über alles making it's task literally impossible. But, you just can't explain it to 'em so that they'll understand. Well, the problem isn't that you can't explain it well enough. Rather they can't hear the explanation with the palms of their hands covering their ears. And I fully agree with you that there needs to be a melding of science and spirituality. One or the other alone just isn't enough. As to replying to your other posts I have to say that I oftentimes hold off on replying immediately for a number of reasons. My prime reason is that too often my initial on-the-fly response is not my best. Depending on the subject matter I may wait a day, or even more, to allow insights to bombard me. When that happens my fingers are extremely challenged with hitting the keys fast enough to keep up with my thoughts. And I'm a fast typer. Also, I prefer to get to the heart of an issue. Giving it some time allows for that to expose itself to me. And, in our particular case, I need to hear more from a poster on a particular topic. But I did arrive at a response for your posts. I'll be typing that out as soon as I hit "Submit Reply" to this post. Don't go to sleep too early tonight.

No problem.

Now to reply to your post. Okay. I'll grab the most recent one. It's still warm. Barely a few hours old. Not buried yet. While your response to TBL does not flat out say "I believe in a single reality" it is, however, implied. It is impossible to express such sentiments while holding to the belief that other realities exist for the two are contradictory. Your nous would tell you that, correct? Nous. I like that British slang. As much as I do I prefer Sherlock Holmes' 'deductive reasoning'. Or one of my favourites, "the proof is always in the pudding." Now if you still object then we can settle this very quickly with a direct yes or no answer to a simple question. Do you believe other realities besides ours exist? I have to make one thing clear, though. Quantum physics proposes the idea of a multiverse where basically every probable variant of an event exists. And some hypothesize of an infinite number of such universes. From Wiki on Multiverses: The multiverse is the hypothetical set of all universes. Together, these universes are presumed to comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, energy, information, and the physical laws and constants that describe them. The different universes within the multiverse are called "parallel universes", "flat universes", "other universes", "alternate universes", "multiple universes", "plane universes", "parent and child universes", "many universes", or "many worlds". One common assumption is that the multiverse is a "patchwork quilt of separate universes all bound by the same laws of physics." Here's an interesting article which explains the concept in very basic terms. The Many-Worlds Theory, Explained “Every quantum transition taking place in every star, in every galaxy, in every remote corner of the universe is splitting our local world on Earth into myriad copies of itself.” I disagree with much of their speculations but I do commend them as they are exploring the idea of probable realities and alternate realities, which are quite valid propositions. I hesitate to explain that concept in any great detail as it would take quite a bit to explain and it would also necessitate the introduction of so many other concepts for it to be understood. Yet sadly even the multiverse theory is confined to only physical reality. When I ask you if you believe in the existence of more than one reality then I'm inferring that not all realities are physical. Subjective reality, for instance. Briefly, physical reality is considered a camouflage reality. The definition of a camouflage reality is the appearance reality takes as it expresses it's larger reality in a different medium. No different, really, than art in which it's expression can take different forms depending on the medium - paintings upon a canvas or a model in clay or a pencil drawing on paper. The variety of camouflages reality can take is infinite. Just wanted to make that clear so that you know what you're answering to. Good enough. I can agree with that definition. I'll have to go through the rest of your post later. Outta time for today. Cheers, Vincent.