Tippaporn

Hey, how come everyone else gets a reply but not me!! I call foul!! <--- That's me crying my eyes out. You can run but you can't hide.

One man's gold is another man's rubbish. Ain't that the truth. Your methodology would work just fine if the objective world were the only one.

My google search also revealed many religious references like the one you quoted, but I'm reluctant to propagate nonsense. My belief is in the true 'methodology of science'. This methodology, as I understand it, requires at least some degree of skepticism on all theories, so that any flaws in a theory can be investigated, using a method of enquiry and investigation which is as objective and as unbiased as possible. Unfortunately, being biased and acting in accordance with an established, politicised, agenda, is normal human behaviour. A hearty thumbs up on your last line. The rest are a thumbs down. I went with the thumbs up reaction to your post as I preferred giving you the benefit of the doubt.

I forgot to mention . . . there are three pastries but only two of us. So . . . one for you and two for me. I am gracious and charitable in sharing knowledge but I'm a greedy bastard when it comes to pastries.

Good morning, Sunmaster.

Obviously not everything in the Bible is to be taken literally. But some do anyway. But that's just a side issue to the important part of Mark Nothing's post, which deserves the focus. Which is that he found success with it.

Take it at your own pace. Again, nothing 'wrong' with that. One final comment. The real trouble with exploring Seth's material is not that one has to think a great deal, and certainly one does, but that the ideas he presents lead to requiring that one change ones self. And that, my dear friends, is the real stickler. People don't like to change themselves. They would rather that the world changes around them. And to their liking, I would add importantly. But since your world is your creation then the only possible way to change your world is to change yourself. I should make the distinction very clear between your world and the world.

Uhm, then why are you on this thread?

I hate to break it to you, TBL, but death doesn't automatically fill you with the knowledge and wisdom you refused to accept in this life. You will still be "you." You'll still need to do the work to gain that knowledge and wisdom for yourself. No freebies.

And now the money quote . . . Now there's a very poor idea which you hold and with this one it's quite easy to connect the dots. It's an idea which, forgive me for my honesty, prevents you from achieving much that you desire to achieve in your life, and you could well achieve yet, despite your advanced years. But as you say, you've gotten "old, old and tired." It's a poor idea which is, again forgive me for my honesty, nothing more than an excuse. If you doubt my honesty then the proof lies everywhere and any time you see an example of an aged man with great vigor still actively pursuing his dreams. They do not use your idea, and similar, as an excuse. Rather, they hold those specific ideas which allow them their vigor to never stop fulfilling their dreams. You simply have vigor that you refuse to acknowledge. It's up to you to sift through the ideas you hold in your mind to ferret out the ones responsible. No one can do that work for you. You can face it or you can shrink away. There's always another "time." In a paradoxical way either choice is good.

Nothing 'wrong' there, TBL. You're satisfied for the time being of holding onto to an idea which, admittedly, may be wrong but seems not to produce any deleterious effects that you can point to. So no harm done, right? I would, however, bring awareness to the no "deleterious effects that you can point to" portion of the statement. It should be understood that every idea produces a result. Beneficial ideas produce beneficial results and poor ideas produce poor results. What makes this game of life so frustrating at times is that one cannot always connect the dots between the ideas and the results that they produce. If, though, one does understand that every idea produces a result then despite the fact that connecting the dots between the idea and it's product seems elusive one can at least distinguish between a good idea and a poor one. And once an idea is understood as a poor one then simply dispense with it. It isn't particularly necessary to go through the process of identifying the specific results. If folks were to be able to connect the dots more easily then I would guarantee that people would be much more discriminating as to the ideas they accept. There would be some major mental housecleaning going on.

Now it's one thing to have erroneously placed women above men by considering them 'special', meaning better than, and to have come to the realisation that it's simply not so. It's quite another, though, to then feel taken in and become bitter about it. I'm not saying you're bitter about women, TBL, but are you? If yes then that would indicate your view of women would have gone from one extreme to the opposite extreme. Which would be just as erroneous as your initial opinion of women. In truth there are female aspects present within men and male aspects present within women. Which aspects predominant depend largely on one's biology. The gay culture of course shows that men can allow the female aspects to dominate and women can allow the male aspects to dominate. Creativity knows no bounds. The point being that neither aspect is better than the other. They are simply different. Each offers something the other does not. They are not equal in the sense that they are same. But they are equal in the senses that one is not better than the other.

'Living water' was allegory, then. Thanks for the fuller context.

That brings to minds something very similar that my ex-wife used to say to me during some of our arguments. She would act like a total bitch and when I would protest her unbecoming behaviour by forcing her to face it directly she would retort, with the greatest indignation, of course, "Yeah, well that's me!! I am who I am and if you don't like you can go [well, you know]!!" Though she was inescapably confronted with her poor ideas she chose to retain them despite having full awareness that they were ideas which were NOT beneficial to her. In such cases there's naught for me to do but leave folks to themselves and allow them to work out their miseries by themselves and chose their own timing for finally resolving them.

And it was purposely kept short as you've mentioned multiple times in the past your aversion to long posts. Very perceptive there, TBL.

H2O?

You can't argue with successful results.

True. Yet I can't blame @brianthainess, @xylophone & @VincentRJ too much. Some of the biblical stories are, to put it mildly, far out when taken literally. And a lot of Christians do take them literally. I could see myself joining in on the ridicule as there's much that I think is nonsense about religion. But I don't because I understand everyone has assumed their own challenges in life and therefore not everyone is meant to be in agreement on everything. So I allow respect. What anyone else believes is no skin off my ar$e. I've always felt that science was a response by those who couldn't accept the fantastic religious tales in strictly literal terms and also saw the many contradictions within religion and so searched for answers elsewhere. Elsewhere being the material world since the subjective world of religion made no rhyme nor reason in large part nor was it dependable in their eyes. Science looked for validation of the world through physical proofs which were repeatable. If religion is at one extreme then science compensated by going to the other extreme. Though subjective reality is undeniable it was nonetheless discarded entirely due to it's strong basis within religion. A new religion based on pure reason and zero faith could have no ties to the old religion. Now I've rejected religion for at least the two reasons I gave above but I also rejected science for similar reasons. As religion didn't provide the answers, and science didn't either, then I continued looking for answers elsewhere. Fortunately - at least to me - I did have a good idea of what I was looking for. Certainly the essence of it. And I have been convinced since I was a young child that there was an answer to every question. I haven't been disappointed. Not to say I've already found all of the answers to all of my questions. I do recognise that that is an eternal process. No one has all of the answers. Not any one individual, not any religion, and not science. Given that then I'd say these three amigos should at least show a bit of humility as they are no more 'advanced' or 'enlightened' than the rest of us. But when science becomes your God and truth then, yeah, you could end up with a bloated head and believe you're walking on clouds. What say you guys? Any serious comments to the above or just more horseplay? Yer choice. Either way is fine with me. Similarly, no skin off my ar$e.

Why not read the posts? No harm to it. But there's great potential, too. Your opinion is just one belief that you picked up on your travels through life and never again bothered to question as to whether it's true or not. You must have had experience in life where you picked up a belief, examined it and found it not to be true, and dropped it. No one is without such experience. Could it be possible your idea of the ego isn't true? Reading the posts would at least give you the opportunity to question your belief and if you found what is written to be true then you could divest yourself of an unhealthy belief. Why not take advantage of it?

Some people take your view and some believe each and every consciousness is precious and needed. Who is right and who is wrong? Both can't be correct. What's a belief? Can you define it? Those folks represent your belief in the insignificance of people in reverse whilst at the same time believing that some pigs are better than others.

Now this is funny! Better with his delivery. I like when his eyes pop briefly. "The ego actually has no intelligence or creativity of it's own. It is nothing more than a mass of conditioning and survival responses that has glomed(?) on to an individual mind stream. In order to survive and maintain itself it has to sap that creative intelligence and energy of that mind stream and continuously direct it towards the exhausting task of recreating itself moment by moment. This is why it seems so formidable, manipulative and cunning." I have a serious side to my personality, too, but you know, as the old adage goes, "too much of a good thing is a bad thing." Or to quote from John Lydgate's 1430 poem, The Fall of Princes, “For whoso hath too much of any good, Of that same good he shall be soon bereft.” So if I find myself becoming dour in my seriousness I can play that clip on loop and belly laugh all the way through. Don't forget to hit the like [belly laugh] button, folks. Ya know the Thais don't like cheap Charlies.

Aw, come on folks!! The worst nightmare for a comedian is to perform in front of a dead audience. I have to say that some humour is good, innit? Give credit where credit is due and don't be bashful (or too serious) to hit the belly laugh reaction emoticon!! Remember, life is supposed to be fun!

I just caught your edit so I'll quote only your edit. Oh, I would wish nothing of the sort, save the frogs. I would only wish for you whatever you wish for yourself. On any disagreement your terms are only fair. I have no objections. I would ask that you keep this close in mind. Whilst the quote is in reference to the ego I will amend it so that it can be applied in general. Superstitions and fictions that would ultimately serve as obstacles that would themselves act as repellents to the truth. I ask only that you are aware that beliefs can and do often act as barriers to understanding. Preconceived ideas, or beliefs when false by their very nature block the truth of rockbed reality from being perceived. We tend to fancy that all of our beliefs are correct. Which is an impossibility. That would only be true if we were all knowing. And no one is so foolish as to claim that. Keep in mind, therefore, that the beliefs you believe to be true may or may not be true. Which ones are and which ones aren't can only be determined by close, impartial examination of them and in serious questioning of their actual validity. If this is not done then one will end up arguing for the truth of their personal belief and not for reality's truth. The perceived truth of the belief will then act to blind one to the real truth. So I only caution you or anyone to be aware of this so as not to fall into that tar pit of seeking only affirmation to the truth of your belief.

Here Seth discusses what we refer to as the soul. While it's separate subject matter it does reference the ego and provides further details concerning the ego. Of course this informational overview ends up being helpful in it's own way in further understanding the ego. I had to cut it off at some point as it goes on for quite some length. ********** THE SOUL AND THE NATURE OF ITS PERCEPTION With the little background given so far, we can at least begin to discuss the subject of this book: The eternal validity of the soul. Even when we are exploring other issues, we will be trying to illustrate the multidimensional aspect of this inner self. There are many misconceptions connected with it, and first of all we shall try to dismiss these. First of all, a soul is not something that you have. It is what you are. I usually use the term "entity" in preference to the term "soul," simply because those particular misconceptions are not so connected with the word "entity," and its connotations are less religious in an organizational sense. The trouble is that you frequently consider the soul or entity as a finished, static "thing" that belongs to you but is not you. The soul or entity - in other words, your most intimate powerful inner identity is and must be forever changing. It is not, therefore, something like a cherished heirloom. It is alive, responsive, curious. It forms the flesh and the world that you know, and it is in a state of becoming. Now, in the three-dimensional reality in which your ego has its main focus, becoming presupposes arrival, or a destination - an ending to that which has been in a state of becoming. But the soul or entity has its existence basically in other dimensions, and in these, fulfillment is not dependent upon arrivals at any points, spiritual or otherwise. The soul or entity is always in a state of flux, or learning, and of developments that have to do with subjective experience rather than with time or space. This is not nearly as mysterious as it might sound. Each of my readers plays a game in which the egotistical conscious self pretends not to know what the whole self definitely does know. Since the ego is definitely a part of the whole self, then it must necessarily be basically aware of such knowledge. In its intense focus in physical reality, however, it pretends not to know, until it feels able to utilize the information in physical terms. You do have access to the inner self, therefore. You are hardly cut off from your own soul or entity. The ego prefers to consider itself the captain at the helm, so to speak, since it is the ego who most directly deals with the sometimes tumultuous seas of physical reality, and it does not want to be distracted from this task. Channels, psychological and psychic, always exist, sending communications back and forth through the various levels of the self, and the ego accepts necessary information and data from inner portions of the personality without question. Its position in fact depends in a large manner upon this unquestioning acceptance of inner data. The ego, in other words, the "exterior" self that you think of as your self - that portion of you maintains its safety and its seeming command precisely because inner layers of your own personality constantly uphold it, keep the physical body operating, and maintain communications with the multitudinous stimuli that come both from outside conditions and inside conditions. The soul or entity is not diminished but expanded through reincarnations, through existence and experience in probable realities - something that I will explain later. It is only because you have a highly limited conception of your own entity that you insist upon its being almost sterile in its singularity. There are millions of cells within your body, but you call your body a unit, and consider it your own. You do form it, from the inside out, and yet you form it from living substance, and each smallest particle has its own living consciousness. There are clumps of matter, and in that respect there are clumps of consciousness, each individual, with their own destiny and abilities and potentials. There are no limitations to your own entity: therefore, how can your entity or soul have boundaries, for boundaries would enclose it and deny it freedom. Often it seems that the soul is thought of as a precious stone, to be finally presented as a gift to God, or considered as some women used to consider their virginity - something highly prized that must be lost; the losing of it being signified as a fine gift to the receiver. In many philosophies this sort of idea is retained - the soul being returned to a primal giver, or being dissolved in a nebulous state somewhere between being and nonbeing. The soul is, however, first of all creative. It can be discussed from many viewpoints. Its characteristics can be given to some degree, and indeed most of my readers could find out these characteristics for themselves if they were highly enough motivated, and if this was their main concern. The soul or entity is itself the most highly motivated, most highly energized, and most potent consciousness-unit known in any universe. It is energy concentrated to a degree quite unbelievable to you. It contains potentials unlimited, but it must work out its own identity and form its own worlds. It carries within it the burden of all being. Within it are personality potentials beyond your comprehension. Remember, this is your own soul or entity I am speaking of, as well as soul or entity in general. You are one manifestation of your own soul. How many of you would want to limit your reality, your entire reality, to the experience you now know? You do this when you imagine that your present self is your entire personality, or insist that your identity be maintained unchanged through an endless eternity. Such an eternity would be dead indeed. In many ways the soul is an incipient god, and later in this book we will discuss the "god concept." For now, however, we will simply be concerned with the entity or soul, the larger self that whispers even now in the hidden recesses of each reader's experience. I hope in this book not only to assure you of the eternal validity of your soul or entity, but to help you sense its vital reality within yourself. First of all, however, you must have some idea of your own psychological and psychic structure. When you understand to some extent who and what you are, then I can explain more clearly who and what I am. I hope to acquaint you with those deeply creative aspects of your own being, so that you can use these to extend and expand your entire experience. Many individuals imagine the soul to be an immortalized ego, forgetting that the ego as you know it is only a small portion of the self; so this section of the personality is simply projected onward, ad infinitum, so to speak. Because the dimensions of your reality are so little understood, your concepts are bound to be limited. In considering "immortality," mankind seems to hope for further egotistical development, and yet he objects to the idea that such development might involve change. He says through his religions that he has a soul indeed, without even asking what a soul is, and often he seems to regard it, again, as an object in his possession. --SS, p. 42~43

Another diversion from the discussion of the ego per se but Seth explains his purpose, which is to bring awareness to our physically focused ego, and puts into perspective our singular focus on physical, objective reality. The portion of this passage which is important to me, as it relates to the ego, is Seth's mention that one of his purposes "is to acquaint your egotistical self with knowledge that is already known to a larger portion of your own consciousness, that you have long ignored." He is basically affirming that our egotistical self is where it's at currently due to our limited knowledge of the self and our reality. He intends to arm it with that ignored knowledge so that it can then function as intended. ********** So if you want to know what my environment is like, you will have to understand what I am. In order to explain, I shall have to speak about the nature of consciousness in general. In doing so I shall end up telling you much about yourself. The inner portions of your identity are already aware of much that I will tell you. Part of my purpose is to acquaint your egotistical self with knowledge that is already known to a larger portion of your own consciousness, that you have long ignored. You look out into the physical universe, and interpret reality according to the information received from your "outer senses." I will stand, figuratively speaking, in physical reality and look inward for you, and describe those realities of consciousness and experience that you are presently too fascinated to see. For you are fascinated with physical reality, and you are in as deep a trance now as the woman is through whom I write this book. All of your attention is focused in a highly specialized way upon one shining, bright point that you call reality. There are other realities all about you, but you ignore their existence, and you blot out all stimuli that come from them. There is a reason for such a trance, as you will discover, but little by little you must wake up. My purpose is to open your inner eyes. --SS, p. 16