Tippaporn

I'll cover that in greater detail later. But for now I'd just say that the ego isn't a mere appearance of being real. It's an aspect of 'you' of which 'you' are an aspect of your larger self. In that sense it's as real as any other portion of 'you'. I do understand that you mean to say that without the objective self the ego wouldn't exist. And perhaps it's that logic which then leads to the conclusion that the ego isn't really real due to it's dependency. Tricky, eh?

Looks like this God thread spin-off thread has just met it's maker.

I certainly agree but I would comment that it can be a bit misleading if you ask me. I think it more accurate to say that the object is no less real and valid than the subject. But the object has a source. It could be said just as well that the Self itself has a source. Yes, I agree that both have their place. The focus on the objective 'you' certainly needs to be there as it has great importance to the larger self. Lots to talk about here. I'm working on what might be an explanation that would bring a great deal of clarity on the subject. A '67 model? I thought they simplified the rear bumper that year? I'm no expert and as I like to say, the proof is in the pudding. Yours is a '67 with the old-style, intricate bumper. Why Basil? First two things that come to mind whenever I hear that word . . . Basil Rathbone and basil on pizza. Love me my Sherlock Holmes and my pizza!! Classic Margherita pizza!! Yummy!!

Offhand I couldn't agree or disagree since Seth does not use the terms 'duality' and 'nonduality' at all. This is why I've commented on my preference for the use of plain English. Specialised terminology needs to be defined and if the definitions have variations then it leads to misinterpretations and difficulties in communicating clearly. Here's the definition of nondualism per Wiki: . What sets nondualism apart from dualism is its inclination towards direct experience as a path to understanding. While intellectual comprehension has its place, nondual traditions emphasize the transformative power of firsthand encounters with the underlying unity of existence. Through practices like meditation and self-inquiry, practitioners aim to bypass the limitations of conceptual understanding and directly apprehend the interconnectedness that transcends superficial distinctions. This experiential aspect of nondualism challenges the limitations of language and rational thought, aiming for a more immediate, intuitive form of knowledge. BTW, I thought that an excellent, clear and concise explanation . . . using plain English. Now if one were to look up the meaning of dualism, nondualism's oposite, at least on Wiki, one would find this: Dualism most commonly refers to: Mind–body dualism, a philosophical view which holds that mental phenomena are, at least in certain respects, not physical phenomena, or that the mind and the body are distinct and separable from one another Property dualism, a view in the philosophy of mind and metaphysics which holds that, although the world is composed of just one kind of substance—the physical kind—there exist two distinct kinds of properties: physical properties and mental properties Cosmological dualism, the theological or spiritual view that there are only two fundamental concepts, such as "good" and "evil", and that these two concepts are in every way opposed to one another Dualism may also refer to: Dualism (cybernetics), systems or problems in which an intelligent adversary attempts to exploit the weaknesses of the investigator Dualism (Indian philosophy), the belief held by certain schools of Indian philosophy that reality is fundamentally composed of two parts Dualism (politics), the separation of powers between the cabinet and parliament Dualism in medieval politics, opposition to hierocracy (medieval) Epistemological dualism, the epistemological question of whether the world we see around us is the real world itself or merely an internal perceptual copy of that world generated by neural processes in our brain Ethical dualism, the attribution of good solely to one group of people and evil to another Monism and dualism in international law, a principle in contending that international and domestic law are distinct systems of law, and that international law only applies to the extent that it does not conflict with domestic law Soul dualism, the belief that a person has two (or more) kinds of souls My head is starting to spin. Interestingly I was listening recently to a conversation about finance and economics recently and one of the participants, well-known with vast experience in the field and author, began a newsletter with the side goal of educating people on finance. He remarked that the finance and economics is not that complex but due to the specialised terminology it makes it difficult for the average person to understand. He was asked what type of education is required of the average Joe to be able to understand his newsletter, e.g. a degree in finance, etc. His response was this: I pride myself, and it's my job, in taking the most complex concepts you can think of and putting them in plain English. Just to be clear, I do not dumb things down. Economists love jargon, like nominal wage rigidity, which just means that people don't like to take a pay cut. So why don't you just say people don't like to take a pay cut. Why do you have to use a phrase like nominal wage rigidity? So how would you put nondualism into plain English? As you think of the term what words come to your mind that define the meaning of it for you? More to come . . . as I'll shoot for shorter posts.

Well, I see that you are using all of your abilities in this life well. Although I'd think the furniture rearranging would be left to the wifey. Now that's a beautiful work of art. Hard to guess the year but given the rear bumper I'd say anywhere between '58 and '66. Steering on the right, too. I owned a '74 Superbeetle. The dome-shaped interior lent itself well for sound. With an added quality cassette deck and some quality box stereo speakers in back of the rear seats (of course the rear seat taken down) the sound was awesome. I've always loved Volkswagen's 60's clever, humourous, often self-deprecating advertising.

Another red letter day today. Please take down the post, though. Revealing what another poster looks like is against forum rules. Germans are known for their punctuality. I've been in Thailand long enough to consider myself part Thai. So that part of my identity tells me everything is tomorrow.

Welcome back, save the frogs! You didn't get very far, did ya?

Just takin' a troll down the thread, are ya? Okay.

You obviously missed my post. Should I add your name to the protagonist list?

Uhm, BTW, the analogies I've offered have many more applications than just the God thread.

Perhaps my analogy needs a bit of a modification to make it even more clear as to the true, underlying dynamics at play which Sunmaster's thread highlights. Have you ever gone out to eat and you're undecided as to the fare of food you want to eat? Let's say you're on foot in Bangkok and there are a plethora of restaurants offering all manner of different cuisines. Lots of them have menus posted outside. You may stop to take a look at a particular restaurant's menu and decide it's not the food you like. Off you go until you find a restaurant which does offer the food you like. In you go and satisfy your gastronomical inclinations. Imagine now that you're walking by a restaurant and from it's name you know it offers a cuisine you don't like. But rather than simply walking past you decide to enter. You walk in despite the fact that you have no intention of ordering anything. in fact, the only reason you enter is because it bothers you to no end that others would want to eat this type of cuisine. And so you don't take a seat but go round from table to table to let each patron know how disgusting you think their food is. Furthermore, you tell them they're stupid for eating the type of food they're eating. You harass them further by telling them what type of food you eat and then shame them by saying that your food is good and their food is bad. When the patrons protest your treatment and attempt to explain to you what makes their food delicious, so that you might understand and perhaps even reconsider your judgement of it, you tell them their reasons are a bunch of BS and a load of sh!te and their reasons are proof that they're all ignorant. So then one of the patrons asks you why you came into the restaurant if you don't like the fare? You retort that it's because of the fact that the restaurant has a shingle hanging above their establishment, proclaiming to any who are interested in their fare, which invites and justifies you to come in and abuse the patrons. It is, after all, their fault for having the shingle and that they should expect you and people like you to abuse them. BTW, the name of that restaurant is "Do you believe in God and why." Our hypothetical belligerent protagonist we'll call @ozimoron. There are others.

I thought you left?

True, I did arrive later and I don't doubt your word that you behaved civilly and congenially when you first came on board. However, by the time I arrived you had become quite vicious. To be fair you did not win. Since the existence of a God can not be proven nor disproven in physical terms then the debate was fated to be a draw. But as with so many other beliefs the real truth isn't important; only the truth of your belief. That's all that matters, right? I do, though, miss your special terms of endearment for me.

The onus can't be placed on the person making the claim if the claim involves something which cannot be proven with physical evidence that can be placed in one's hand, metaphorically speaking. As I explained with a few examples here:

Put that tinfoil hat on for your protection NOW! Keep it on until the crisis is over. The gory details and what to expect . . . The earth experiencing a change in its resonance from 7.38hz to 11 hz which will cause a transformation in our mind, body and psyche, it means the earth can communicate with us with a higher bit of pulse therefore it is the time to meditate because it will expedite the metamorphosis. Thanks for the heads up, save the frogs.

Well, it appears Skeptic7 was here and then left. Without commenting on my post. Which is exactly what happened to him on the God thread. Just as no one there could prove the existence of God in physical terms neither could he prove the tenets upon which his atheism is founded upon in real terms. So he stomped and stomped hurling insults all the while and finally took his ball and bat and retreated to wherever he resides now. I mean, if the truth of what really happened be told . . .

“You’re a legend in your own mind.” — Harry Callahan Talk about sticking one's foot in one's mouth. Well done, Skeptic7. Well done.

Good post, Fat is a type of crazy. Yes, it's a difficult topic. As is the God concept. The first impressions that come to mind on both subjects can be guaranteed to not be the best. Both require a lot of thought and searching for true answers. Again, not many who are willing to devote the time and effort required to find those real answers. Most just spout off what comes off the top of their heads. I will maintain, though, that without love nothing would exist. I'm decades upon decades into this and though that doesn't guarantee that I know jack about jack it is an indication that I've spent the time and effort. And that is my sincere conclusion which I would not state if I didn't think it was correct. BTW, I have 10 cats presently. Cats are different than dogs. They do not trust nearly as readily as dogs do, which many people find frustrating and off putting. But if you're into cats, as I am, then you would know that they are extremely loving creatures. One of my cats is a nuzzler. If I put my face near hers she will continually rub her snout against my cheeks whilst purring loudly. Now that's love! In fact, my avatar is of a cat asleep on top a gate with a sign reading, "Beware of the dog." I identify with the cat. The sign gives warning of danger. Yet the danger is not immediate as the dog is not present. So the warning is meaningless and the cat understands that. However, if the dog were to appear the cat would quickly vanish. What my avatar represents is the cat reacts to immediate danger but not to imagined danger. People too often, much too often, react to imagined dangers. So my avatar itself is a statement which rails against the poor and unhealthy idea of reacting to imagined dangers.

Just a thought for you to entertain to keep your mind occupied whilst on your drive to Bkk . . . Not so much so that it takes your eyes off the road. Are they maps? Or is the idea that they're maps based on the assumption that you're going somewhere? Which implies a destination, an arriving, . . . an . . . . . . end. Hopefully you do have a map to get you to your end destination though, which is the embassy.

Thanks for the day off, Sunmaster. I've already noticed your absence on the God thread spin-off.

I would be so bold as to make this statement. We could not exist or survive in this world or any other without love. Love is the inherent basis of existence. To understand that statement does requires some thinking about it. Probably a whole lot of thinking. And it's true to say it requires more thinking than most would want to devote to it. Not a problem. Everyone has their own thing in this world. Not everyone has a great interest in understanding that statement. But, no workie, no rewardie. Also, it's not just humans who experience the emotion of love. Ever have a pet? Wouldn't that be 'evidence' that love is a universal thing?

As long as you don't question where the source of love comes from. I decided to quote myself along with yours because later edits have a tendency to get overlooked. Due to my defending God folks may interpret that erroneously and see me as a religious type. I am not. In fact I was raised a Catholic and it didn't take me long to see the many distortions of that religion. Whilst I do not believe in a God as he is depicted in religion I do, however, subscribe to the idea of God as a representation of something else. What that representation is is what I endeavour to find out for myself in this life. That's my personal intention and I understand full well, and more than anyone could imagine, that everyone in this world is here with their own intentions. That fact is simple reality. I have no issue whatsoever with it. In fact I even understand the why of why everyone has their own intentions. I'm here in defence of other people's belief in the existence of a religious God for a few reasons. One of which is that people have this idea that everything they believe to be true is indeed true. Granted they are not quite so firm in believing that all of their beliefs are true. After all, people do change their beliefs from time to time. But the general idea they subscribe to is quite strong nonetheless. Since I am aware that many of the ideas which people subscribe to and hold to be true are not true at all then I will be more than happy to point out where their ideas fail and why. Now I don't do this for the purpose of lecturing others, or to put myself on any kind of pedestal thereby raising myself above the heads of others, but only because I enjoy pushing poor and unhealthy ideas. Such as boys can be girls and girls can be boys and men can menstruate and get pregnant. Those are examples of poor and unhealthy ideas which are being promulgated extensively these days. I enjoy most of all to get people to think beyond their current thinking and take it to another level. Would anyone object to that? Here's a rich, healthy and true idea of which many are unaware: People are not their ideas. People only subscribe to and hold them as their own.

As long as you don't question where the source of love comes from.

For wat it's worth, I took the point of the post as noting the pointlessness of consumers at a restaurant, or the religious, debating and admonishing each other about what is the best food, or religious ideals, to consume. Since it is all food or all religion so let individual choice reign. Pineapple pizza or a Napoli pizza with traditional ingredients. It's all good. My point then noted that to the non religious, it is not comparing different foods, but food and an empty table. The religious sit at an objectively empty table and say they are, if you like, having a satisfying meal that only they can see. Or maybe others of a similar ilk feel they can see and may well see who knows. Of course I concur the religious should not be admonished or ridiculed or similar. But if they stand up and say, take my word that this is a thing or do these 5000 hours of meditation and you'll see it's a thing, it is not unreasonable that they get some hopefully polite debate and or pushback, about whether it is a thing, or evidence that doing the hard work leads to a thing. The analogy was meant only to highlight the obvious fact that people can't seem to get their noses out of what others are choosing for themselves. Only in the setting of a restaurant do people busy themselves only with what choices they want to make and freely allow others to make their own choices and pay them no mind. The analogy was given to illustrate the issue that non-believers insert themselves into the God thread conversation with no intention whatsoever of understanding anything other than what they understand and so their only purpose is to admonish and ridicule. Put succinctly, they only troll. They stick their noses into what others are choosing, no different than a religious fanatic sticking his nose into what you're choosing for yourself. You don't like it when it happens. And vice versa. Perhaps I did a poor job in my initial response to you but your editing of my analogy to include other diners coming to you to entice you to try their food, even if non-existent (insert bolded portion of your quote), and therefore they deserve pushback, doesn't work then. Does that make it clear? I'm asking respectfully, not snidely.

Why are you, presumably, clean shaven? Ask a silly question and get a silly answer. Since a lot of folks here share the sentiment that it's perfectly fine to troll, trash, and ridicule people for holding ideas that they deem are pure fantasy then shouldn't it also be perfectly fine to troll, trash, and ridicule people who act silly? Fair is fair, right? A serious answer, though, would be that God is an idea and because it appears to be human nature to personify everything then God was given a human image. And since that was done a couple of thousand years ago when razors weren't in prolific use they pasted a beard on him to make his image match their own. 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.