Tippaporn

@Sunmaster

Well, now that we can freely diss each other's ideas with the understanding that we're not impugning the other's character then I can now give my long held assessment of Sunmaster.  The dude suffers from an identity crisis.  He rejects all of his other identities and believes he has only One . . . the One.  

46 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Vince reduces everything on the physical level, Tippa reduces everything on the mind level.

And Sunmaster reduces everything to bullsh!t.  

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

who designed the individual components

I don't design any car components but I do design the tooling which produces them in mass quantities!  

Thanks for giving me an opportunity to give myself a shout out and cheekily pat myself on my back for everyone to see whilst groaning to themselves.  

31 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Hi Tippa, you might not like my answer but I know you can take it, and so here you go: pure honesty without any sugar-coating...

I did not address anything FROM your post, because imo what you wrote is nothing more than a steaming pile of Bvllsh!t. 

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

Do read it again yourself:

it's pure intellectual masturbation, a thought-monkey aimlessly jumping from one mental branche to another.

But in my response I DID address where those excrements came from: a blind automatic self-defensive reaction from the gravity center of Man level 3. The scholar in the High Book Castle sensing what he perceives to be an attack on his own 'reality' illusion, and trying to protect the crumbling fundaments of his worldview.

To your credit you seek and welcome discussion, but dismissing what seemingly does not fit in your carefully crafted mental construct, is imo the real 'mindfvckery'.  May I suggest to embrace the idea that Truth is by definition 'unspeakable' and any attempt to do so can appear contradictory on the level of the interpreter. 

Your honest friend RP

". . . you might not like my answer . . ."        Little do you know . . .

". . . pure honesty without any sugar-coating."

Nothing could be more welcome to me!

". . . what you wrote is nothing more than a steaming pile of Bvllsh!t."

I love it!  I love your unadulterated, unambiguous honesty, RP.  I cherish it.  The bluntness in expressing that honesty in unmitigated fashion is supreme.  It's what I've always been after in posting . . . people saying what they really think.

RP, we go back a ways now.  Everything you have ever shown me of yourself has been first class.  I've let you know this before.  There's zero doubt about it.  And nothing can change that.  It can never be taken from you.  True friendship is, as I've explained previously, the ability for two people to have such deep appreciation for one another that differences could never dampen that appreciation, nor ever invalidate it.  I am not my ideas.  I am he who has thoughts, thinking being nothing more than the process of entertaining ideas.  Ideas are not me and I am not any idea.  Ditto for you and everyone.  And so if I think you have ideas which absolutely suck then I say the ideas you entertain or subscribe to suck.  Not you, though.  You're golden.

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

Do read it again yourself:

On your recommendation I did.  It's perfectly sensible to me still.

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

it's pure intellectual masturbation, a thought-monkey aimlessly jumping from one mental branche to another.

But in my response I DID address where those excrements came from: a blind automatic self-defensive reaction from the gravity center of Man level 3. The scholar in the High Book Castle sensing what he perceives to be an attack on his own 'reality' illusion, and trying to protect the crumbling fundaments of his worldview.

      None of that addresses a damn thing I said.  If it's bullsh!t but you can't show what's bullsh!t about it then your response is bullsh!t.  For example:

What about multi-personhood, or multidimensionality?  Reincarnational selves, probable selves, for instance,.  Not to mention existences in other camouflage realities.  That idea would kinda shred the concept of levels, whether 7 or any number, and show it to be false.  For this concept of 7 levels deals with only two realities; the physical and the subjective, or whatever one wants to term the reality in which the greater self, All That Is, Brahman, God, whatever the term exist in.

Your contention is that there are levels of enlightenment.  I counter with the above and ask questions.  You respond to none of it.  Except to call legitimate questions and arguments "mental masturbation," "a thought monkey" and claim, without reason or argument or evidence, that I suffer from "the crumbling fundaments of [my] worldview."  Geezus, RP, I feel like I'm in a convo with a hard core liberal on TT because this is the type of response one gets from them.  They don't address the substance of a post but rather only and consistently deflect to, well, bullsh!t responses.  Over and over and over again.

You just cannot ever get a straight answer from them for to answer the question would be damning to them.  Neither can I get straight answers from you or Sunmaster on certain questions.  Why?  Because you don't have any.  Or, if you did answer then it would be damning to your idea constructs.  This "you cannot understand, you must experience it" is a pure bullsh!t answer that allows you both to avoid answering questions you have no answers for.  Or another good one is "I've answered you but you fail to understand."    Again, Seth doesn't seem to have the problems you guys claim to have.  So what's really going on here?

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

To your credit you seek and welcome discussion, but dismissing what seemingly does not fit in your carefully crafted mental construct, is imo the real 'mindfvckery'.  May I suggest to embrace the idea that Truth is by definition 'unspeakable' and any attempt to do so can appear contradictory on the level of the interpreter. 

Addresing your accusation that I'm "dismissing what seemingly does not fit in [my] carefully crafted mental construct" I will once again repeat what I have said so many times before:  "Reality is what it is and functions as it does despite anyone's beliefs about what it is or how it functions."  I doubt there will be any takers who will take up any argument which denies the truth of that statement.  What you inteerpret, or percieve as my "mental construct" is in fact not my mental construct in the sense that it is a result of merely my purely intellectual musings.  We are the reality which we experience and so it goes without saying that the true nature of our reality, or ourselves, is open to being perceived accurately by us.  The ideas I express here are an accurate representation of the true nature of reality.  Those ideas are not my personal ideology but in fact accurate assessments of true reality which are perceived and validated on intellectual levels, intuitive levels, emotional levels, and experiential levels.  Up to you to then accuse me of not knowing that which I know.  For if you accuse me of not being able to know then you must place yourself in the same category.  I fully understand that that statement goes both ways.  In case you want to point it at me.

Now to address the second statement.  Truth?  What truth are you referring to?  The One Truth?  Should that be in all caps?  Animated text which flashes on and off in brilliant colours?  There are many truths about many things.  Uncountable things.  So again, what truth are you referring to?  To say there are truths which are unspeakable is not lost upon me and never has been.  There are truths which are of a paradoxical nature, too.  And no matter what truths we perceive all of those truths will be interpreted by us without exception according to our personal beliefs.  Including those "see the light" experiences which you and Sunmaster have alluded to.  Those, too, will be interpreted using the filter of your beliefs.

Anyway, I'll again lobby for honest debate in which questions do not go unanswered or replaced with deflections of any kind.

Your brutally honest friend, Tippers.  

3 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

But when materialists insist and demand proof of your Seth theories, what do you do? You answer them once, twice, maybe even three times until you reach your limit. They won't get it anyway. Whatever you place in front of them doesn't stick. They just come back with the same questions over and over again. Like you. 

You demand answers to your questions, but when answers are given to you, you don't accept them and just keep asking. Well, I've reached my limit and being repeatedly called a fool and dishonest certainly didn't help.

It's a false equivalency, Sunmaster.  Because the issue isn't about someone refusing, or unable to understand certain knowledge contained in given answers.  The issue is that I am never without answers, and on those occasions in which I don't have an answer which I am confident is a correct answer then I will say so.  You, on the other hand, don't have answers to questions I ask of you and so you often dissemble.  Or you ignore the question.  Or, to quote you, "So I prefer not to answer at all."  How can you debate ideas when you refuse to answer questions?  And it is dishonest to then use the excuse of "you can't understand what can only be understood by direct experience."  Seth had no problem.  So that's all the evidence I need as proof that your reasoning is bogus.

By all means, stick to it if that's all you got.  But how in the hell are you ever going to convince people of something being true when you can't answer their questions.  Well, at least those people who actually do a significant amount of questioning.  People who don't questions will be more apt to just nod their heads and accept yopur offered ideas.

When I say you're being dishonest, Sunmaster, it's not a deliberate dishonesty.  You're simply not aware of it because the reasoning used in your answers is oftentimes logically flawed and your arguments oftentimes use fallicious logic.  You can't see the fallacy of your arguments.  People use fallacies of argument all of the time and they're unaware of it.  Of course, there's the strong element of your desire to have your beliefs about who we are and what reality is to be true.  So much so that you're willing to cross the line if needed.

Just an example of the fallcious logic you've used in the past.  You've made the point that Vedanta, or the Hindu religion, has been around for thousands of years.  It's a fallacy of logic because time is not the determinant which makes something true or false.  It's irrelevant.  Yet the inclusion of the fact that it's been around for thousands of years is meant to decieve one into thinking that it has relevance.  Time is utterly relevant.  Again, it's not a deliberate effort on your part to decieve but rather it's simply not recognised as such.  

No worries about our friendship, if you're still interested.    ". . . repeatedly called a fool and dishonest certainly didn't help."  The truth can be brutal and I'd rather be brutal than pussyfoot around.  There's a time and place for confrontation and this is the time and place for it.  If that's too much, well then, you tell me.

It's about to get r-e-a-l quite on this thread as @Sunmaster and @Red Phoenix will refuse to answer questions which they can't asswer.

17 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Just like a material reductionist, you are trying to reduce the ineffable into easy to understand bits of information, that you can then analyze and categorize and compare with the other little bits of information you already have. The ineffable can only be experienced, not understood intellectually.
So, if you expect and demand otherwise, that ain't gonna work. Sorry.
So I prefer not to answer at all.

I understand, Sunmaster.  And I've understood for quite some time now.  When confronted with questions you cannot answer then you will forever come back to the "The ineffable can only be experienced, not understood intellectually." as a copout.  So, no honesty?  For the copout boils down to taking the burden off of yourself to answer questions and to dishonestly relieve yourself of that burden by placing it on me; I'm the problem because I haven't reached enlightenment; I'm the problem because I'm trying to understand what can't be understood.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  It's the perfect Catch 22.

If you think you can fool me, or placate me with mind fvckery then I'm sorry to have to tell you that I'm not an idiot.

3 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

The way I see it, my one experience 30 years ago gave me a short glimpse of what it's like to be man number 5, 6 or 7 (hard to say when you are just a short time visitor). This short visit helped me greatly to make the jump from man 3 to man 4 and gave me a compass that would show me the right direction. The transition however took a long time, because I relied too much on that one experience and intellectual knowledge (reading mountains of books {see Tippa? no hate for books!}) as a means for progress. But finally realized that progress is not achievable by the mind alone. Daily practice is needed.

To what ultimate end is this desire for enlightenment for, though, Sunmaster?  Would you never again experience your self-created pain and suffering in this world?  Would you always and only be in a state of bliss, or pure happiness?  Would you be in a state of perpetual peace with yourself and the world?  Would enlightenment fill you with supreme awareness, which awareness then translates to understanding everything?

@Sunmaster @Red Phoenix

This idea that once enlightenment has been attained, the top level, then what's left to do?  If that represents an unchangeable state, as Sunmaster has earlier stated, then there is nothing new to create.  Existence is finished.  It has come to an end.  And perhaps that's why, Sunmaster, when I asked you what Sunmaster is doing in this world and what the purpose of this existence is you replied with you finger puppet analogy.  In your own word you stated that you greater self creates this because it is . . . bored.  When creation has come to an end then the only logical conclusion is endless repetition of what already is, which inevitably results in boredom.

Again, show the practicalness of this idea.  How it works.  And if you can't then be honest and say that you don't know.  But please do not attempt to make things up on the fly as an explanation.  Remeber what I said, my own quote:  In the game of life truth always wins.  Bullsh!t is always and forever doomed to failure.

7 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

~ ... and Tippa is a 'pure' Man level 3. 

No offense here, as I would categorize myself as a blend level 2 - level 3. 

Sorry to have to point it out, RP, but you addressed none of my post.  Is it because you can't?  Honesty is required here because otherwise it will be nothing more than debating with liberals who make up everything on the fly.

Just now, Sunmaster said:

I'm glad you asked RP. 😄

Feel free to answer for I ask the same questions of you.

3 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I laughed. 😁

Certainly NOT at the final stage.
Maybe just a tiny but important step ahead the road.

Again, serious questions.  What level are you on?  How many levels are there?  What is it specifically that is needed for you to take this tiny, but important, step?  And when you've reached enlightenment then are you forever in a state of bliss where no other states of feeling exist?  For surely sadness and suffering cannot exist in a state of bliss.

13 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

~ Actually Tippa's question asking what level @Sunmaster has achieved is not as 'daft' as it might look to those that are not familiar with the notion of the levels in man's possible evolution. 

G.I. Gurdjieff - the rascal sage - never used the term 'enlightenment', but distinguishes 7 'levels' of man. 

Every man is born number one, number two or number three, depending on where his 'center of gravity' lies (in the physical, emotional or intellectual center).  And every man has the potentiality through consistent and conscious effort to develop into man number four, five, six or seven, but it are only the very very few that are able to make that transition.  For sake of clarity > Man number seven is what referred to in this thread as being enlightened.  

In G.'s words "Man number seven means a man who has reached the full development possible to man and who possesses everything a man can possess, that is, will, consciousness, permanent and unchangeable I, individuality, immortality, and many other properties which, in our blindness and ignorance, we ascribe to ourselves. It is only when to a certain extent we understand man number seven and his properties that we can under­stand the gradual stages through which we can approach him, that is, understand the process of development possible for us." 

The distinctions between and characteristics of man number one to man number seven (as well as the types of religion/spirituality that those levels are inclined to), are addressed in P.D. Ouspensky's rendering of Gurdjieff's teachings. 

Here a link to a 4-page extract on this notion of 'levels of enlightenment'.

> http://www.doremishock.com/ouspensky/mannumberseven.htm

 

 

What about multi-personhood, or multidimensionality?  Reincarnational selves, probable selves, for instance,.  Not to mention existences in other camouflage realities.  That idea would kinda shred the concept of levels, whether 7 or any number, and show it to be false.  For this concept of 7 levels deals with only two realities; the physical and the subjective, or whatever one wants to term the reality in which the greater self, All That Is, Brahman, God, whatever the term exist in.

The problem with these ideas is that if specific questions were to be asked which drill down deeper into the practical working aspects of this ideology you would find that there are no answers, no explanations.  Just blank stares.  That's satisfactory for some but does not nealy suffice for a great many.

Of course you might get an answer such that these are merely unimportant details.  For once someone attains enlightenment then those questions are only asking for answers to details that no longer matter.  You're enlightened now and everything is understood clearly.  Which answer would be a total copout.

Another answer may be that these questions all originate from the intellect.  Once you've reached enlightment the intellect is no longer needed.  In fact, the intellect is a barrier to enlightenment, as one poster here suggested earlier.

Anyway, my reation to the ideas you put forth, RP, is  and  and .

Earlier discussion here came to a conclusion accepted by a few posters that there needs to be a blending of science and spirituality.  That ain't ever gonna happen when you toss out all reasoning, logic, practicallity, and chain up the intellect in a deep, damp dungeon.  For once you do that then anything goes.

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

10 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

If we can accept that consciousness is at the basis of all things, including us, and that consciousness, in its most fundamental definition, is "All That Is", it follows that we are always part of this consciousness, right now.... on the physical level, on the level of the mind and on the "super-mental" level (the level that transcends and includes the mind and the body). 

This point of awareness that we call "I"....where is it?
The first reaction of most people is "Here, this body. That's me."
Where exactly in your body?
Well...here, in my eyes...in my brain!
Can you pinpoint the exact location?
Ok, maybe it's not the brain but the mind. That's where the "I" is. Memories, thoughts, feelings, likes and dislikes....that's me.

But when you were born, you didn't have any of those. Was it still you?
Well, of course it was me, but.... errr, I don't know....

If I take away all your memories right now, will there still be a "you"? Or will you slump down dead like a sack of potatoes? Feelings come and go. You see them rising, you see them falling away. They appear on the screen of your consciousness. The same with thoughts. You are the "I" that observes them all.

 

Now it gets interesting.

So where is this "I" that comes before the first memories, thoughts, feelings?

 

In meditation I strive to first relax the body, then the mind. The mind is then prepared like a horse. I put the mouthpiece on, the blinders and hold the reins. Everyone can do it. You train your mind to stay focused on one thing and not fall pray to the wild monkey thoughts. Every time a monkey takes hold of you, you simply come back to your anchor, which in my case is a mantra, but can be a multitude of other things. And so, the monkeys will come less frequently and finally leave you alone. What you're left with is a calm, open mind...and silence. This state of mind is the best conductor towards revealing the true "I". The rational mind is not at work here. The true "I" lies beneath the mind, behind our thoughts, memories and feelings. This must be practiced and experienced first-hand. It can not be understood on an intellectual level, because the mind is the very thing that covers the observer behind it. When the mind subsides, the observer becomes stronger and we are able to widen our perspective (climb the tree trunk). 

For those rare people that have taken this to the final stage, a radically different world becomes evident. They may appear the same on the outside, but their "I" identification is no longer in the body-mind, they are now speaking from the perspective of the One Consciousness. "I" is for them the One Consciousness. 

To come back to enlightenment. What is meant by enlightenment is simply that first moment when consciousness realizes (remembers) itself completely and permanently. You can have several mystical experiences, many insights and awakenings before, but those are not permanent. You cannot be "un-enlightened" however. And why would you? You can still chop wood and carry water, while effortlessly resting as that One Consciousness.

 

I don't know if this is how Vedanta or any other philosophy or religion explains it. This is how I explain it.

 

What level are you on?  Or have you reached the final stage already?

Someone laughed.  It's a serious question.

7 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

If we can accept that consciousness is at the basis of all things, including us, and that consciousness, in its most fundamental definition, is "All That Is", it follows that we are always part of this consciousness, right now.... on the physical level, on the level of the mind and on the "super-mental" level (the level that transcends and includes the mind and the body). 

This point of awareness that we call "I"....where is it?
The first reaction of most people is "Here, this body. That's me."
Where exactly in your body?
Well...here, in my eyes...in my brain!
Can you pinpoint the exact location?
Ok, maybe it's not the brain but the mind. That's where the "I" is. Memories, thoughts, feelings, likes and dislikes....that's me.

But when you were born, you didn't have any of those. Was it still you?
Well, of course it was me, but.... errr, I don't know....

If I take away all your memories right now, will there still be a "you"? Or will you slump down dead like a sack of potatoes? Feelings come and go. You see them rising, you see them falling away. They appear on the screen of your consciousness. The same with thoughts. You are the "I" that observes them all.

 

Now it gets interesting.

So where is this "I" that comes before the first memories, thoughts, feelings?

 

In meditation I strive to first relax the body, then the mind. The mind is then prepared like a horse. I put the mouthpiece on, the blinders and hold the reins. Everyone can do it. You train your mind to stay focused on one thing and not fall pray to the wild monkey thoughts. Every time a monkey takes hold of you, you simply come back to your anchor, which in my case is a mantra, but can be a multitude of other things. And so, the monkeys will come less frequently and finally leave you alone. What you're left with is a calm, open mind...and silence. This state of mind is the best conductor towards revealing the true "I". The rational mind is not at work here. The true "I" lies beneath the mind, behind our thoughts, memories and feelings. This must be practiced and experienced first-hand. It can not be understood on an intellectual level, because the mind is the very thing that covers the observer behind it. When the mind subsides, the observer becomes stronger and we are able to widen our perspective (climb the tree trunk). 

For those rare people that have taken this to the final stage, a radically different world becomes evident. They may appear the same on the outside, but their "I" identification is no longer in the body-mind, they are now speaking from the perspective of the One Consciousness. "I" is for them the One Consciousness. 

To come back to enlightenment. What is meant by enlightenment is simply that first moment when consciousness realizes (remembers) itself completely and permanently. You can have several mystical experiences, many insights and awakenings before, but those are not permanent. You cannot be "un-enlightened" however. And why would you? You can still chop wood and carry water, while effortlessly resting as that One Consciousness.

 

I don't know if this is how Vedanta or any other philosophy or religion explains it. This is how I explain it.

What level are you on?  Or have you reached the final stage already?

On 2/8/2024 at 6:04 PM, Sunmaster said:

Question for you @Tippaporn...
How do you see the whole concept of enlightenment? Do you believe it exists? Do you believe it is a radically different way of experiencing the world and yourself? Do you believe it can be realized by following certain thought processes?

Same questions for you. 

44 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Ruburt has embarked upon his own journeys into the unknown reality. I cannot do that for him. I can only point out the way, as I do for each reader.

 

That is the grand irony for those who seek true answers.  And yes, it is a major impediment if allowed.

Precisely my point...
Seth (the Seth Material) can only point towards it. The map is not the territory. The territory is beyond intellectual understanding. The territory has to be walked, not talked about. Each one of us has to do the walking on our own. Once we have walked, we can talk about it with some authority.

Here's a quote from Seth which I know you will love, savor, and shove in my face with childlike glee.    I purposely refrained from posting this earlier for I knew you would use at as a cudgel to beat me repeatedly and mercilessly. 

Now the first paragraph is ideally suited for @VincentRJ.

Give us a moment ... The true scientist understands that he must probe the interior and not the exterior universe; he will comprehend that he cannot isolate himself from a reality of which he is necessarily a part, and that to do so presents at best a distorted picture. In quite true terms, your dreams and the trees outside of your windows have a common denominator: they both spring from the withinness of consciousness.

Simply as an analogy, look at it this way: Your present universe is a mass-shared dream, quite valid - a dream that presents reality in a certain light; a dream that is above all meaningful, creative, based not upon chaos (with a knowing look), but upon spontaneous order. To understand it, however, you must go to another level of consciousness - one where, perhaps, the dream momentarily does not seem so real. There, from another viewpoint, you can see it even more clearly, holding it like a photograph in your hands; at the same time you can see from that broader perspective that you do indeed also stand outside of the dream context, but in a "within" that cannot show in the snapshot because of its limitations.

Maybe that quote will get you to change your tune about objecting to my quoting Seth directly. 

I must follow that quote with another to give it some extra context.

In the same way that you latch upon one personal biological history, you latch upon but one mass earth history. Others go on about you all the time, and other probable selves of your own experience their "histories" parallel to yours. In practical terms of sense data, those worlds do not meet. In deeper terms they coincide. Any of the infinite number of events that could have happened to you and Ruburt [do] happen. Your attention span simply does not include such activity.

Such endless creativity can seem so dazzling that the individual would appear lost within it, yet consciousness forms its own organizations and psychic interactions at all levels. Any consciousness automatically tries to express itself in all probable directions, and does so. In so doing it will experience All That Is through its own being, though interpreted, of course, through that familiar reality of its own. You grow probable selves as a flower grows petals. Each probable self, however, will follow through in its own reality - that is, it will experience to the fullest those dimensions inherent to it. You pick and choose one birth and one death, in your terms.

Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with you that it is important that we explore our own consciousness I completely disagree with the idea that any exploration is beyond intellectual understanding.  As you stated once before, the journey into the unknown is done without the intellect.  I disagree because the intellect is an inherent attribute of consciousness.  I should provide you with Seth's information regarding the intellect, but not in this post.  That material explains that our present use of the intellect is misguided.

Now in this second quote the bolded text is my emphasis.  As consciousness expresses itself in all directions, which includes infinite different realities - ours being merely one of them, via it's experience within any reality it will experience All That Is but interpreted in the terms of the reality in which consciousness has created for itself.

My objection to the teachings of Vedanta, for instance, is that this school of thought does not seem to recognise what this second quote is stating.  Vedanta basically teaches that there is only one goal of existence; and that is to realise who you are for the sole purpose of then liberating oneself from the suffering of this world and thereby ending the reincarnational cycle, never again having to return to this world of suffering.  Vedanta seems to miss entirely the point of this existence and why it was created in the first place.  As well as the self which occupies this territory.  Seth stresses again and again that the point of any exploration of consciousness is not meant as a means of escape, or a way of replacing physical experience with another, but only in order to enhance our experience in the reality which we currently have our experience in.  For that reality is essential and vital in itself.

Vedanta does not explain why the suffering exists in the first place, except perhaps as a cruel prod to force one into realising themselves.  Nor does it explain how that suffering is created.  The cornerstone of the Seth material states that you create your own reality via the translation of subject ideas into materialised physical form and experienced events.  Whatever suffering one experiences is created via the ideas they adopt as beliefs.  The Physical Universe As Idea Construction.  That essay Jane produced in 1963 via automatic writing was her first initiation with Seth.  The concept is seminal and perhaps the fact that it is a cornerstone is why it was Jane's initial writing.  Seth:  "You get what you concentration on."  "You create your own reality.  There is no other main rule."  Abraham, another channeled personality, "There are only two things one can ever think about.  What you want and what you don't want."  "There is no such thing as exclusion.  There is only inclusion."

16 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Question for you @Tippaporn...
How do you see the whole concept of enlightenment?

Well, I best first define what enlightenment is according to me.  Generally speaking I'd go with the dictionary definition:  the state of understanding something.  Apt synonyms would be: awareness, insight. understanding, wisdom.  As it applies specifically to Hinduism and Buddhism I accept these definitions:  a final spiritual state in which everything is understood and there is no more suffering or desire; the highest spiritual state that can be achieved.  I'll assume you're referring to the latter so I'll answer accordingly.

As to the first definition, since I don't believe in beginnings or endings, or in final destinations of any kind, then I reject that interpretation of enlightenment.  I do not believe that there exists a state where everything is understood because more that is as yet unknown is constantly being created.  I've stated before that growth is eternal for if that were not the case then nothing new could ever come into being.  Without anything new then existence could only be eternally repeating itself.

As to the second definition I do not believe there is a "top of the pyramid" for that would imply the existence of levels and also imply that the goal of any existence is to climb a ladder which ultimately leads to the top.  I believe that idea to be sourced in our current ideas which play out, for instance, as the goal of life being to forever climb the rungs of the financial ladder to ever and ever greater riches.

I prefer the general definition, which is to perpetually increase our awareness of just how much there is to us, to forever gain new insights, to eternally increase our level of understanding, all of which creates wisdom.

16 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Do you believe it exists?

As defined by Hinduism and Buddhism, no.

16 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Do you believe it is a radically different way of experiencing the world and yourself?

I believe that growth is what we are all engaged in every moment of our existence via experiencing and engaging in our world through our selfhood.  Growth increases our awareness, insight and understanding.  In that sense then we are in a never ending process of enlightenment.  So since this is the natural process of existence in which we are constantly engaged then it cannot be radical.  No one can escape becoming enlightened in one way or another, to one extent or another.  There is no one who learns nothing in life.

17 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Do you believe it can be realized by following certain thought processes?

Again, I believe that enlightenment as defined by Hinduism and Buddhism does not exist.  If an expansion of awareness is desired in certain direction then yes, there are certain thoughts, or ideas, which are beneficial and aid in that expansion.  Those are the beliefs which people subscribe to and hold.  Limiting beliefs impede an expansion of awareness and beliefs grounded in the idea that the self is unlimited allow for such an expansion to occur.

I've said before, though, that life is not a horserace to some imagined finish line.  The joy is in the journey, not the destination.

@VincentRJ

Just to leave you with a quote from the Seth material:

The unknown reality, colon: Again, because of your precise orientation you are often theoretically intrigued by the contemplation of worlds not your own. And while you may often yearn for some evidence of those other realities, you are just as apt to become scandalized by the very evidence that you have so earnestly requested.

Ruburt has embarked upon his own journeys into the unknown reality. I cannot do that for him. I can only point out the way, as I do for each reader.

That is the grand irony for those who seek true answers.  And yes, it is a major impediment if allowed.

13 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

You seem very confused, Tippaporn. Why do you assume that my intention was to find 'dirt'? I'll repeat what I wrote in the post you are responding to.

My apologies for assuming that your intention was to find dirt on Jane.  I arrived at that assumption due to the fact that there is much information to be found on the Internet on Jane and Seth.  Of all of the available information that exists I found it curious that you would link to a couple of citations which focus on aspects of Jane's life which do not present her in a favourable light.

19 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I have an enquiring mind, and don't accept anything simply because a particular authority claims it is true. However, I have a high degree of faith in the 'true' methodology of science, and whenever I see that the requirements of that methodology have not been fully applied, as in the case of Anthropogenic Climate Change, I believe it is sensible to be skeptical.

I would always advise one to be skeptical and agree that that is a sensible approach.  Skepticism promotes questioning.  However, I would love for you to apply that same skepticism to the belief that the 'true' methodology of science is the only means of validating everything which exists.  Unless you question it you will never understand it's limitations.  Yet that methodology is such a fundamental cornerstone of science that it would appear that to understand and accept it's limitations would be to somehow reject science.  Science would for certain reject you if you were to accept that the methodology of science is limited. 

I very much recognise and appreciate immensely that you have an enquiring mind.  In fact I applaud you and have applauded you.  An enquiring mind is in essence a questioning mind.  And so I would recommend to you that you not only ask questions of that which you do not know but importantly ask questions of that which you do know.  Only by questioning what you do "know to be true" will you ever be able to uncover that perhaps what you thought you knew to be true just ain't so.  And if you choose to refuse to question what you do "know to be true" then you may only be accepting a reality which does not exist in fact but only exists in your own mind.

41 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Likewise, if a poet and fiction writer, whilst in a state of trance, claims that 'consciousness creates all the matter in the universe', then I would search for validated evidence that confirms this hypothesis, before accepting it as true.

And if validated evidence cannot be had via the 'true' methodology of science then what?  The idea that validation for some things can only come from yourself is something which appears you currently are not willing to accept as true.  What I am insisting on, incessantly so, is that the 'true' methodology of science can never prove that 'consciousness creates all the matter in the universe' one way or the other.  For science that idea, or contention, will forever exist only as a hypothesis.

47 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

However, I also accept that there are many, many issues that are far too complex for the successful application of the 'Methodology of Science' . . .

I think you're beginning to understand. 

50 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I should also address a part of my quote that you might have misinterpreted. 

 

"Following are a couple of articles which address her beliefs and her background, which seems quite awful, and which must have influenced her later writings."

 

The sentence does not state that 'her beliefs' seem quite awful, but just her background. If I included both beliefs and background to seem awful, I would not have used the word 'seems'. Perhaps it would have been clearer if I'd changed the position of the commas, as in: "Following are a couple of articles which address her beliefs, and her background which seems quite awful, and which must have influenced her later writings."

I accept that.  I did notice the qualifier 'seems' when I first read it.  Jane's background did indeed influence her in many respects.  To say that it "must have" influenced her writings I accept as true.  But we'll never know what part of her background played an influence nor will we ever be able to determine whether any portion of her background which may have influenced her writings did so in a negative or positive way.  It's a question which I, myself, see as having little bearing as I allow the material to stand for itself.

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

 

Everyone throughout their life is influenced by their background and early experiences, but not in the same way because no two situations are identical. Some people become criminals because of traumatic experiences during their childhood. Jane Roberts became a famous writer, which is obviously a remakable achievement.

Just an interesting and pleasant anecdote which comes to mind relating to the influences in ones life and how that influence exerts itself.  This is a true story which I came across years ago.  Someone had attended a local outdoor art show featuring local artists.  The guy was interesting in a painting by an 80-year-old woman.  So he asked her how long it took her to paint it.  She replied, "80 years."

9 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

 

Well, one of my points is that Seth is a fictional character created by a female author who suffered a very traumatic childhood, and who had many health problems throughout her life, dying at an early age of 55.

Sorry to say, Vince, but pointing out the damning flaws in your logical processes to reach flawed conclusions was only Part One.  In Part Two I'll cover another major flaw in your reasoning.  This part has to do with your scientific beliefs as they form the basis for the illogical thinking that follows from those beliefs.

It's true and well accepted that man, and science, have precious little understanding of what consciousness is or what it's capabilities are.  Therefore, given such immense ignorance it is neigh on impossible to then determine which expressions of consciousness are valid and which are not.  Science accepts only those expressions which it can verify via their scientific methodology.  Any expressions which science is unable to verify using that methodology are considered invalid.  Hence it is only common sense that given the great degree of ignorance regarding consciousness then it must be, it can only be, that many of those expressions which science currently rejects as valid are indeed valid.

The expressions of consciousness are of a vastness which easily escapes comprehension.  What is known of consciousness by science is not only the slimmest of a sliver but much of what is thought to be known is flat out erroneous.  Despite the fact that the degree of ignorance of what consciousness is and what it's capabilities are is so great that doesn't prevent science from declaring with certainty which expressions of it are valid and which are not.  Those expressions considered valid become conventional thought and represent science's paradigm.  Any expressions which fall outside of that paradigm are not only deemed invalid but also anyone who claims to have experience outside of science's limited framework of conventionality are seen as disturbed.  For science to declare with such certainty what is acceptable experience and what is not is an indication that the degree of their hubris may well exceed the degree of their ignorance.

These scientific-minded pundits which you cite take a scientific approach to the question of Jane, Seth, and mediumship largely vie case studies.  Studies which seek to categorise, compare, contrast and ultimately make sense of the subject matter.  They begin with their theses and from there select only that data which is significant in terms that it confirms their theses.  Data which does not is left out for it does not fit.  This data is left out for the reader as much as it is left out for the authors.  In that sense it does a disservice to the reader in that it denies the reader data which the reader may deem important and relevant.

Science's approach in examining consciousness is to examine it from a detached position..  For scientific methodology demands that.  Consciousness, however, can never be understood using that approach as consciousness is not a thing, an object which can be calibrated using purely objective oriented tools.  For any true understanding of what consciousness is and what it's capabilities are then the tool to use is consciousness itself.  Unfortunately no scientist would ever consider such a proposition as it would defile and automatically invalidate any findings.  Such is the box which science has unwittingly placed itself in.

7 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Well, one of my points is that Seth is a fictional character created by a female author who suffered a very traumatic childhood, and who had many health problems throughout her life, dying at an early age of 55.

You mean Jane Roberts was human?  Oh, my God.  I've been reading the Seth material and Jane's own works for decades.  This is a new revelation to me.  Thanks for letting me know, Vince.  I'll steer clear of the material from here on out. 

Sarcasm aside, what did you expect to find when your intention was to find "dirt?"  Tell me, if you were to do the same with scientists and look closely at their personal lives, specifically and only to find whatever trash you could about them for the sole purpose of discrediting them, do you think some scientists might be living imperfect lives?  That's a rhetorical question because you know the answer to it.  Of course you would.  And if so (and you can be guaranteed to find that most scientists have dark issues in their lives as they, too, are human) then what does any of that have to do with the works they produce?  That's another rhetorical question because you know the answer to that one as well.  Nothing.

Your using your rational and logical thought processes to prove the following theory to be correct: if an author's character is suspect, or a scientist's, then their work is suspect.  If found to be suspect then that invalidates their work.  And if this theory is "true" then one only need to examine ones character to judge their work.  This is a well known logical fallacy of the Red Herring family of fallacies called argumentum ad hominem.

The most common form of this fallacy is "A" makes a claim of "fact," to which "B" asserts that "A" has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going entirely off-topic, and hence "B" concludes that "A" has their "fact" wrong -without ever addressing the point of the debate.

This is one fallacy you're using to dismiss Jane's works and/or invalidate it.  A fallacy also well regarded as character assassination.  Which is, well, at least I regard it such, to be a despicable tactic that makes one wonder about the character of the person who employs it.

Another logical fallacy you're employing, out of several others that can be cited, is also from the Red Herring family of fallacies called ad verecundiam, or appeal to authority, a form of argument in which the opinion of an influential figure is used as evidence to support an argument.  Hence the "authoritative" treatises you cited as your "proof" that Jane is a disturbed individual and also to use as "proof" of the conclusion that Seth is a fictional character.

The only thing of importance is the work itself.  Of course you already know this and don't need me to tell you this.  What is wholly evident, though, is that you rest your case on fallacious arguments for the purpose of dismissing Jane's works and thereby relieving yourself of any responsibility to examine her work's actual substance.  The fallacious arguments also allow you to then pass off an utterly uninformed opinion as well informed.

It does take quite a bit of work to keep folks honest.  Hopefully you can appreciate that effort with some acknowledgement.  For it is done for your benefit so that in the future you use sound rationale and logic and don't expose yourself as appearing dumb.    Don't misinterpret me here, Vince.  This is not at all intended a slight.  It's just simply assessing reality accurately and properly.  Whether you allow yourself to accept reality or whether you wish to believe your deceptive logic is valid, for that is in essence what logical fallacies are - deception, then that is up to you.  You're a good poster and I'm sure you'll choose wisely. 

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

@Tippaporn

I remember reading years ago about an event (or events) in India, where different schools of thought would come together and battle out their theories in a sort of open tournament. The debates would start by one opponent summarizing the other's point of view, and only once the other opponent declared that that summary was correct, could the first one make his point and refute the opponent's point. Basically, they were all monks beating the philosophical sh!t out of each other. 
This is the way I always saw our exchanges. 

Yesterday I did some soul searching and I came to 2 conclusions:
1) In exchanging blows, I don't regret the content, but I think it could have been delivered with more compassion.
2) In the heat of the debate, I think some spiritual pride tainted my responses. I wanted to offer a nice glass of Chateauneuf-du-Pape, but it was tainted by a drop of lemon.

For this I would like to apologize to you.

I forgot to credit you with possessing supreme graciousness, Sunmaster. 

Getting a feel yet for having a friendship that can get ugly at times but none of that could ever get in the way of the friendship?  Wonderful, innit? 

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

~

@Sunmaster & @Tippaporn - Enjoying the debate between the two of you. 

And the Winner is ...

 

 

I always thought you were partial to Sunmaster.  This proves it. 

And to all those who want to complain about my long-winded, verbose posts I salute y'all with my middle finger whilst I play a fitting tune dedicated to y'all. 

The J. Geils Band with an awesome cover of John Lee Hooker's Serves You Right To Suffer off of their eponymously titled '70 debut LP.