Tippaporn

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.

Thanks, Sunmaster.  But I reject your apology for there's no apology needed.

"In every moment everyone does the best that they know how to do."

--Seth

A fitting personal anecdote to explain that:

I had a five year relationship with my first Thai girlfriend.  It was one of the most blissful relationships I'd ever had.  No fights about anything ever.  Just fun and laughter.  She was very loving.  And yet there was a deep seated and fatal problem to our relationship, unbeknownst to me.  She didn't have an attraction to farang and preferred Thai men.  Whilst I was good to her and raised her stature economically she yearned for a Thai on Thai relationship.  She could not resist that yearning and so she did the dirty on me.

I confess that it broke my heart, especially considering the bliss I had felt on my end for so many years on end.  After we broke up I experienced emotional swings from one extreme end of the spectrum to the other.  I would wake up one morning and my thoughts would immediately focus upon her transgressions.  My emotions where at the far end of the scale of anger that would turn to deep sadness.  The next morning I would wake up and immediately focus on the love and the good times we had experienced and shared together.  My emotions then moved to the far end of the scale of love, gratefulness and appreciation for all that she had given me.  No matter how much I tried to cancel out the good with the bad I knew that the good was eternal and therefore could not be erased.  And so I experienced this seesaw for well on a month.

Anyone knows that to constantly go from one extreme to another emotionally is not healthy.  I recognised the deep quandary I was in and sought to end it.  So I decided to utilise what I had learned in, get ready for it, books.  My desire paved the way to release the knowledge of what I had learned and bring it to awareness.  That Seth quote came to me out of nowhere one day and proved to be the solution to my intolerable dilemma.  Understanding the truth of that statement filled me with utter compassion for her and from that moment on I released all anger and sadness for I understood that she was doing only the best she knew how.  She didn't want to hurt me, for she did love me, yet her desire had to find it's fulfillment.

To this day I can freely recall every detail of her transgressions and feel nothing but love and appreciation for her.  I'll deeply love and appreciate her always and only love and appreciate her.  I will, however, accept that nice glass of Chateauneuf-du-Pape from you, Sunmaster, and make a toast to her.  Her name?  Tippaporn.

Okay y'all, put away your Kleenex's now.  Was that the end of my experience of utilising that specific knowledge?  Well, the anecdote has a Part Two.

Now I did not want to be single and so I was firm on creating for myself another relationship.  This time, however, I got out pencil and paper and wrote down a list of everything I wanted in a woman.  I was not about to repeat that relationship via a hit and miss approach so I understood it was important to first define for myself what it was that I wanted as opposed to what I didn't want before I went fishing again. If, that is, I had any expectation of success.  At the top of the list were 1) honesty, 2) a good heart, 3) a balanced personality, 4) a woman who was happy with herself.

Less than a month later I was headed home one Sunday night from one of our mutual friend's house.  I was about to turn into my soi when I was struck with a strong impulse which I couldn't deny and so followed it.  That impulse was to go to a bar, walk in and order a single beer, and the first lady who came to me I would take home.  I was not interested in sex at all.  I was only interested in talking to another female.  I took her home and we sat on the sofa and talked for hours.  She had just come off a three year relationship herself.  She then asked me if I wanted her to stay with me.  Again I followed my impulse without the slightest analysis and said, "Sure."  Seventeen years later and the list I had penned of what I wanted in a woman was completely satisfied.  We are extremely happy, fulfilled, and loving.

Now fast forward another five years from our initial meeting.  A few months prior to returning to Thailand from a long 3-1/2 year stay in the U.S. I was on Skype with her, as was our usual almost daily routine.  This day, however, her voice was not it's usual.  She told me that she had some news for me that was about to seriously threaten our relationship.  Okay.  I felt completely calm and relaxed and felt not the slightest apprehension as she delivered the news.  She was pregnant.  She told me that she still wanted to stay with me and not with the biological father of her newly formed child.  But, she told me that she wanted to stay with me only if I could love her child.

What happened next was quite remarkable.  At least in my view.  I was literally besieged with a gadzillion thoughts in what seemed to me to be hitting me almost simultaneously.  Whilst each thought was indeed fleeting at the same time each thought was almost suspended in time in that I was able to identify each distint thought with absolute clarity and respond to it.  These thoughts which I was experiencing were rational yet were not due to any kind of intellectual analysis on my part.  I would say that each thought was of a different and distinct implication which this situation presented me with.  And after each thought my response was an immediate, "Good," and then did the next thought present itself.  For I could just as clearly see how each potential consequence would work out to my beneficence.  And to all of our beneficence, including the biological father.

Whilst my still girlfriend at the time continued to plead her case, as I was being bombarded by an incredible number of ramifications, after less than two minutes I replied, "Sure."  My then girlfriend did the best she knew how in every moment.  I had no right to have any expectation for her to be celibate for 3-1/2 years.  Besides, I understood only too well the cultural conditioning we've all been indoctrinated with regarding what is appropriate and what is not regarding sexual encounters.  It makes little sense.  I also became the favourite man amonst her girlfriends who were awestruck that I would still accept her.  Our daughter's biological father had even remarked to me that he was quite taken by my graciousness in accepting him and offering him participation and sharing in his daughter's life.  Unfortunately he could never overcome his negative feelings over the fact that the mother would not go with him.  He engaged with us perhaps once or twice a year and has since disappeared without a trace.

Interestingly, I was torn in a way about having another child.  I already had two in the U.S. and I was not in favour of experiencing child rearing again.  It's a lot of work and I didn't want to do the work anymore.  Our daughter is now 11 years old.  And she's been a blessing of such enormity which I could never have imagined in my wildest dreams.  Just goes to show what delicious fruits can be harvested by trusting in yourself rather than by reacting automatically from the stance of acceptable conventional "wisdom."  I should have just dumped my girlfriend then and there, right? 

Compassion to me, Sunmaster, comes from knowing that "In every moment everyone does the best that they know how to do."  No apologies needed, my friend. 

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

Yeah, one person has it all worked out and all other 6 billion people on the planet are idiots.

It doesn't work like that. 

 

The Bible is essentially an authoritarian text. We have all the answers. We're God and you're a nobody. Just shut up and listen.

How did that work out?

 

There is no one text anywhere that has all the answers or any authority on anything.

The only real "Bible" is the collective efforts of many intelligent human beings taken together, not any one source that claims to know it all. 

 

Fool's gold.

 

If there's any one poster here who shows more resistance to understanding more than he currently understands that would be you, Frogs. 

Getting you to understand anything outside of your belief system, especially when anything is opposed to your belief system, is the epitome of a 'futile effort'. 

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

I'm no expert on 'Seth', and I have to admit that until I searched the internet for information about him, I assumed he was a real person rather than a 'fictional' character created by the female writer, Jane Roberts, whilst she was in many states of some type of trance, communicating with the paranormal.

 

Her life and writings should be a fascinating subject for parapsychologists. 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.

 

https://sethresearchproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Cunningham_Contribution-to-the-Study-of-the-Possession-Trance-Mediumship-of-Jane-Roberts_Journal-of-Parapsychology-2019-832-248-267.pdf

 

"Dorothy Jane Roberts was born in Saratoga Springs, New York, on May 8, 1929, the only child of Delmer and Marie (Burdo) Roberts. In 1931, when Jane was two years old, her father and mother divorced. For the next five years, Jane lived on welfare with her mother in half of a rented house shared with her mother’s parents in a relatively poor neighborhood of Sarasota Springs. It was during this time that Jane’s mother began to develop a long-standing rheumatoid arthritis condition that eventually made her bedridden—the same disease of which Jane would die in 1984 at the age of 55. Being raised a Catholic, priests in the parish regularly visited the house to offer help to the family. The sexual overtones of these visits is disclosed in Jane’s recollection about “how the one priest who put her to bed when she was but 3 or 4 years old would ‘play’ with her sexually, and how Marie finally figured that out” (Roberts, 1997, p. 222).
My mother was a strong, domineering woman, probably scared to death of the position she found herself in. She was psychotic, attempting suicide several times and scaring the devil out of me as a kid with threats . . . One day [she] would say that she loved me, and the next day she’d scream that she was sorry I’d ever been born—that I’d ruined her life . 
To escape this unhappy childhood, Jane wrote poetry. By the testimony of those who knew her during these early years, Jane always wanted to become a writer and devote her life to writing poetry, novels, and short stories."
 

This next article addresses her psychic, mediumship processes. It's very convoluted. 

https://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1/9856/ShawA0516.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

 

"Writing from the 1960s through the early 1980s, Jane Roberts claimed to channel the teachings of a discarnate energy personality named Seth.  My purpose in this project will be to show that the Seth material, even as a product of the New Age movement, can be read according to the same principles that scholars have developed for approaching the channeled texts of previous eras.  
Because the Seth material comprises dozens of works over thousands of pages, I have focused my investigation on a single text: The God of Jane: A Psychic Manifesto.  Written by Roberts, the book is a memoir which describes her experiences as a medium.  Through various close readings of the manifesto, and by situating the work in a historical and cultural context, I demonstrate that The God of Jane functions as an interpretive guide for reading New Age channeled texts.  In addition, I find that Roberts is not only a literary medium, she is also a literary theorist, who translates the tradition of mediumship into the latter half of the twentieth century."   
 

And your point is?

Are you trying to understand what the Seth material is via parapsychology treatises on mediumship?

10 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

@Red Phoenix lurking in the background and steering clear of any involvement. 😁

No way is RP going to wade in these waters.  Between the snakes, piranha, crocodiles, alligators, blood sucking leeches, sharks, and boiling waters from underground geysers he's made a wise choice. 

@Sunmaster

Just to leave you with this.  I am not a Sethian.  Seth is the entity who provided us with information as to who and what we are, how our reality works, and so much more.  So I don't defend Seth.  What I do defend are those ideas he's given which are a spot on accurate match to actual reality.  When it comes to the range of material nothing I've ever come across can hold a candle to the vast number of topics covered in the material.  Which makes it extremely complex and just as challenging to absorb, make sense of, and utilise that knowledge.

After reading don Juan and realising that those were not books that would have much practical value I went searching for something which did.  The overriding, burning question I had for myself was to know how my experience in this world was being created.  With that firmly in mind I would scour the occult sections of every book store I'd run across searching for what I specifically had in mind.  I can't tell you how many books I'd skim through.  Now even at my then level of understanding I had enough common sense which I trusted to spot bullsh!t.  And if I found something which I knew was wrong I'd put it back on the shelf.  I saved myself a lot of money by simply skimming. 

Now I did pick up Seth Speaks, skimmed it, and put it back on the shelf.  Not that I found bullsh!t in it but because the ideas seemed a bit far flung for me.  It wasn't until about a year later whilst I was working as a bartender I befriended one of the waitresses.  Her head was in the same place, relatively speaking, and I would talk to her about don Juan.  So one day she came to work and handed me Seth Speaks.  Coincidence?    The rest is history.

Now what's always puzzled me is this, and hopefully you can give me your answer.  I've perused a lot of material and all of it was produced by humans.  Fallible  humans.  I had already adopted the beliefs that there was more to us and that we survived death.  So when I began reading Seth's material and found it to be credible, and when I considered the source of it and realised the much vaster perspective that an entity such as a Seth had then I could not ignore the fact that as far as quality of material went I had hit a literal gold mine of information.  It was beyond obvious to me from the get go that material coming from such a source would put anything else produced by mere mortals to shame.  Have you ever had that thought?  I'd love to know how you, having Seth and Vedanta to choose from you picked religion over Seth.  Was it the complexity of Seth's material?  I've never been able to convince anyone on that point.  I could never get anyone to see the immense value of material coming from a source possessing such broad perspective.  For I thought anyone who hungered for quality information would jump at the opportunity for what could be better?

In that last post of yours to me you had asked, "Or is the sole goal of a Sethian to "create your reality" and live a content life with good relationships, wealth, happiness in the material world?"  The most obvious implication of your question was that you believed that Seth's material was only to teach people how to create wonderful physical lives and nothing more.  So I wanted to dispel that notion by saying that Seth had always encouraged his readers to use the mobility of consciousness to explore other realities.  Not for the purpose of escaping this one for that would defeat the entire purpose of this existence.  Through his many exercises (123 pages worth when assembled in a single volume) his aim was for the reader to become familiar with what lies outside of this reality for the sole purpose of enhancing the readers present existence.  Markedly different than Vedanta's goal of liberating ones self from not only this world but from the whole reincarnational cycle so one would never have to come back to this place of suffering ever again.  Which, in essence, completely devalues our present existence.  If escape is the only goal why not just off yourself? 

Anyway, it's as RP said.  For you it's Vedanta, for me it's the Seth material, and for RP it's George Ivanovich Gurdjieff.  You have your reasons and challenges for coming here, I have mine, and RP has his.  But the Seth material is not the same as Vedanta nor is it the same as Gurdjieff.  One may find similarities and think it's the same but the differences are more vast than the similarities.

Cheers,

Tippers

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

You encouraged me to be honest and straightforward with you, but when I do, you play the offended child and shut down.

But you haven't been totally honest.  Without that there's nowhere to go then.  All of your writings are literally verbatim the teachings of Vedanta.  You've got religion and it shows in your responses.  We've gone round and round about the ego and no matter what information I give you to dispel the notion that the ego is not exactly what Vedanta says it is just doesn't take.  The beliefs about the ego which you express are the identical beliefs about the ego which Vedanta expresses.  Whilst I see some major differences you see none.  So I'm scratching my head thinking how can you not see the glaring differences?  And then you objected to my quoting from Seth directly.  Which puzzled me as to why you wouldn't want the information directly from him but only through me in my own words.  It made no sense.  So given that you hadn't really commented on the nine posts I did make I quit posting any of the rest of Seth's information on the ego that I had put together.  I spent a lot of time assembling all of that information and adding my comments but fortunately it wasn't a total waste of time as it benefited me to go through that exercise.

Ultimately, it seemed that anything I would offer on any topic would always be fitted to Vedanta.  Which can't help but lead to dishonesty.  Again, as I would point out the differences between Seth's description and explanations regarding the ego you would simply come back with, "I see no discrepancies."  You can't be honest in saying that when I see the discrepancies clearly.  Trying to get you to see things any other way than what Vedanta has taught you failed and so I understood then that you had got religion.  I'd have as much luck with you as I would with a devout Jehovah's Witness.  And they ain't ever gonna budge.

What you perceive as me playing the offended child and shutting down isn't what happened.  What happened was that I decided to cut my losses.  You can't debate someone who is willing to be dishonest and even worse you'll never change someone's religion by debating different ideas.  The mere idea that Vedanta could possibly have distortions was flatly rejected  Your last post to me was flush with dishonesty.  At least I could see it.  So I thought, well, time to get out.

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Either way, my fondness and respect for you won't change and I wish you all the best

You're a good man, Sunmaster.  The feelings are mutual.  No hard feelings at all on my end.  Though I may pop in to give you a hard time now and again. 

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

It's a autobiographical story, but I guess it has stricken a bell for you, too?

The story devalues knowledge gained from books.  Anyone who has benefited from books would take exception.  Knowledge of ourselves and our reality is to be found everywhere in the world.  And that includes books.  But again, it's the insistence that only direct experience can impart knowledge.  Which is what Vedanta seems to teach.  Uhm, the experience of our physical selves imparts no real knowledge?  Our intellect, intuitions, or emotions don't impart valid knowledge?    It seems to me that you've now got religion, for Hinduism is a religion and Vedanta is a branch of Hinduism, and if it's other than what Vedanta teaches then, well, too bad, it's incorrect, right?

24 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Yes, it's called "bibliophobia". 

Etymologically phobia comes from Greek and means fear.  Hating something is the Greek misia.  Granted phobia has evolved in usage to include hatred as well as fear.  I'd still go with Sunmaster. 

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

 EDIT: Sorry, it works better with some illustrations.

Another day, another story....Another idea for a children's book?

 

There was a young man full of doubts about life. He started to question everything and so he embarked on a quest to collect as much information as possible about the world around him. He immersed himself in deep study and before long he had amassed a huge number of books. With the books he started to build a fortress around him. The thick walls of the fortress gave him a sense of security and superiority. Armies repeatedly tried to attack the fortress, but it was so well built that it was impenetrable and so all the attacks failed. This fact alone was evidence to him that what he had learned from the books was the truth. From the top of the fortress tower, he looked down and felt untouchable.

 

One day, a small child was playing with a dog outside the huge wall. "What are you doing in there?", the child asked. "I'm learning about the world and how it all works. Can't you see all my books?" 

"Sure I can see them. But if you want to learn about the world, wouldn't it be better to come out here and experience it?"

"No need. I have a vast library here that can tell me everything I need to know." 

"Oh OK. Sounds great. Does your library teach you what a rose smells like? Or what it feels like when you wash your face in the cool water of the mountain stream?" 

"Ehm...well, no...but I don't need to know those things. They are not necessary to know the secret of life.", the man proclaimed proudly. "I have already found the secret of life. Many tried to attack me and prove me wrong....they all failed. My knowledge and my logic are invincible! I dare you to try and attack me!"
 

 

 

The child looked thoughtful. He started to walk towards the walls, passed right through them as if they were made of smoke, walked up to the man and slapped him right in the face. The man couldn't believe his eyes. He was furious. How did this happen? How was this possible?

"It's quite simple", the child replied." Your walls only work against those who believe them to be real. Those other armies had fortresses made of the same stuff, so for them they were real. I see things differently. I see a strong light where you are standing, but this light is weakened and dimmed by those smoke walls you built around yourself. There was a time when you needed the protection of the fortress so that you could gather your strength, but now that you are strong, these walls are no longer needed. They are no longer a fortress but a self-created prison."

The man was still dumbfounded. Is it possible that there is more to life than what I thought? And what about this light he's talking about?

So he asked, "What is this light you're talking about?" 

"It's the light the illuminates the world.", the child said. 

"Can I see it too?"

"Of course you can! You are that light!" The child smiled broadly.

"Do you have a book that can teach me?", the man asked hopingly. 

"No sorry, no books....but if you step out of that fortress, you can smell that rose and you can wash your face in the cool mountain stream. Then you will know and see it for yourself."

 

Confronted with the new evidence, there was nothing left to do for the man than to swallow his pride, leave the safety of his fortress and venture out. Now, for the first time, he could feel the grass under his feet, he could feel the warmth of the sun on his face, he could feel the gentle breeze of the wind through his hair. A new world opened up in front of him. The objects of the world were still the same as before, but now they were illuminated by a new light. By observing the light reflected from the objects around him, he got to know his own light. 

 

 

His cheek was still a bit sore from the slap he got earlier, but it didn't hurt anymore. It was now a reminder of the time when he was a prisoner of his own making and was grateful for it. 

The man turned around and thanked the child for his help. "What's you name little boy?" 

"My name is your name. I am you. I just came to remind you of who you are." and with that, the child vanished into thin air, just like the walls of the fortress.

The man was now all alone, outside, defenseless, yet none of that worried him.

He had lost his fortress, but he gained a kingdom.

He had lost his safety, but he gained freedom.

He surrendered in order to find his light. 

 

The End.

😊

An epic, simplistic, and misleading fantasy for children that's even too simple for children to swallow.  Where's the rest of the story?  Oh, there isn't any more to it. 

People who hate women = Misogamists

People who hate humankind = Misanthropes

People who hate gays = Homophobes

People who hate work = Slackers

People who hate foreigners = Xenophobes

People who hate books = there's gotta be some special term for that.  Sunmaster?

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

I just found a new small Youtube channel. He sounds Australian. 

I know some people hate competition .... but try to relax. 

 

And the Bible story is considered far fetched and unbelievable by these scientists? 

But this is Science, with a capital 'S', boys and girls.  So put your trust and faith in that God and rest assured you can believe what She tells you is the real, evidence based truth.  She?  Yes, Science had transitioned to female as soon as it found scientific data to support the idea that sex is not based on biology. 

What a bunch of nonsense for stupid people set to celestial music for the intended effect of wowing them.  If Seth is a bunch of woo then science is a bunch of wow.

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Are you deliberately misunderstanding what I said?

Just making a joke, TBL.

24 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Sorry you feel that way . . .

That proves my point.

59 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Care to explain where the dishonesty is?

There's no point in doing so, Sunmaster.  You'd never agree to anything I would point out.  You'd only argue your way out of it.  Both you and I know that.

Of the dozens of examples I could give perhaps the single most example that brought me to the realisation that we aren't ever going anywhere on this topic is your parable of the blind men and the elephant.  The arguments that you provided to show that they're all partially correct, those arguments are, as I said, pure mind fvckery.  Those arguments defied all intellectual reasoning.  The fact that you wouldn't concede but chose instead to twist logic to the point of being unrecognisable in order to be correct, and to be unable to bring yourself to admit that they were all wrong on such a fundamental issue was the final straw for me.  That one was just over the top.

That was one instance which showed me the degree to which you're willing to fool yourself.  To fool ones self is in essence to be dishonest with ones self.  And there's nowhere to go with that.  Self honesty is a prerequisite to acquiring knowledge.  Without it you can't get very far for you'll only end up denying what actually is in favour of what you want it to be.  I'm sure you'll end up turning that around on me.  That's okay.

9 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Out of curiosity, what made you reach the breaking point?

The dishonesty.

@Sunmaster

At this point I think we're going to just have to agree to disagree. 

@Sunmaster

Just a few questions . . .

If Vedanta is the same as the Seth material then why didn't Seth simply point everyone to Vedanta?  Was it merely to give new, modern clothing to the old Hindu texts?

Why doesn't Seth ever refer to Vedanta?  Is it because Vedanta contains truths and distortions which Seth didn't want to deal with.  You know, "Well Vedanta is spot on here but over here it's got the wrong idea."

Do you ask yourself those questions?  Or are you so heavily invested in the ideas which Vedanta espouses that you'd rather not know?  I don't know what the case is but I do know that you are heavily invested and when people are heavily invested in something, right or wrong, they tend not to let it go easily.

If you continued to read the Seth material and found something which made perfect sense to you but contradicted something in Vedanta what would you do?

On 2/3/2024 at 12:57 PM, Sunmaster said:

The problem here is, your harking on about Vedanta this and Vedanta that, compare it to Seth said this and Seth said that.

The reason I go on about it is because you've claimed that Vedanta is the same as Seth.  It's clearly not.  And yet you insist that it is.  You say you're not an expert on Vedanta and only came to it about a year ago.  You've read a few of Seth's books but not all.  You've admitted than his material is convoluted - meaning you don't understand much of what you did read.  I've been working with Seth's material for 44 years daily.  And yet you insist that Seth's material and Vedanta are the same.  I say it is not.

35 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I don't see how Advaita Vedanta is prescribing anything.

What were you saying earlier about self-pleasuring the ego? 

36 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Unless you want to become a monk, you have full freedom to do with your life whatever you want.

Unless you go to church every Sunday you're not really a practicing Catholic.   Sure, you're free to do anything with your life but then your not a practicing Hindu.  Vedanta being one of Hinduism's schools.

40 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

They are not prescribed in order to be "one of the club".

In name only then. 

24 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Mindfckery much? 😁😅

Indeed. 

26 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Well, since none of us are enlightened (yet), we are all those blind men with only a partial truth. I could say your partial truth is simply wrong because it's not the absolute truth, but I doubt you would like that. So I prefer to say that your truth is partially correct. Even though it's wrong.

One is right about some things and wrong about others when dealing with absolutes.  Partially right or partially wrong applies when there are multiples.  In the singular, though, it's either 100% right or 100% wrong.  A wall is not an elephant and an elephant is not a wall.  There is no 'partial' to it.  No wonder we have such difficulty with agreeing on points. 

". . . but I doubt you would like that."

I have no problem with that.  I'm certainly not infallible. 

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

Again, not what I said. 

Right.  Not said but implied.  And that is the language I used . . . "the implication is" . . .

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

I said they are not equal when it comes to the subjective inner world. The intellect is a tool to explore and manipulate the world for our benefit. But it's not the appropriate tool to explore the inner world, at least when used on its own without the vital input of direct experience.

" ... Needless to say, I wanted you to know that there is much more than even this, complexities that are truly astounding, intelligences that operate in what I suppose you would call a gestalt fashion, building blocks of vitalities of truly unbelievable maturity, awareness, and comprehension. These are the near ultimate [as I understand such things]."

I guess Seth is dead wrong then.

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

Nobody said anything about dispensing with the intellect or relying on direct experience exclusively. 

Well, it sure sounds like it.

5 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

I have come to the conclusion that whatever comes out after the intellect has put it into words, is but a pale, lifeless approximation of the real thing.

If the intellect can only put into words the real deal experience, which is only "a pale, lifeless approximation of the real thing" then it only logically follows that we should be relying only on direct experience.  If the intellect can't achieve any knowledge of inner reality itself and only direct experience can then the intellect is, for all intents and purposes, useless in the subjective world.

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

The intellect can be used in our favour though. For example by shaping new habits and routines that in turn promote direct experience. In practical terms, setting up a place and time for meditation. But once you sit down in meditation, the intellect has done its job. Insisting on using it from this point onwards is the exact opposite of what meditation is all about. The intellect is fed by thoughts and thoughts are what prevents us from "hearing the silence".

So the conclusion is that the intellect is geared only towards the physical world?  "Insisting on using it from this point onwards is the exact opposite of what meditation is all about."  Which means dispensing with it when turning your consciousness inwards.  I don't know how else you can interpret that..

7 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Isn't learning to trust your inner self and consciously creating reality with your beliefs a way of life for you? It sure seems so.

No, that's not a way of life.  A way of life is prescribing how to live it in particular detail - a list of do's and don'ts, whether they be actions or behaviours.  Fulfilling a desire to understand the rules of the game and then playing by them is not a way of life.  It's an approach to life.  But that approach in no way makes decisions as to what I should or shouldn't do, or how I should or shouldn't behave in my life.

15 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

You didn't mention the intellect in this specific post, but did so previously. I claim artistic freedom for jumping from one topic to another. Deal with it. 😁

1 minute ago, Sunmaster said:

Sorry, I thought that was self-evident...
The person who touches the belly and says it feels like a wall is correct. It does feel like a wall. His statement is correct given the limited data and context. So are all the others. Their partial truths are correct. Only a wider perspective reveals that they are only partially correct.
We don't know what we don't know.

Now I've gotta say that that is pure mind f'kery.  For whatever one feels then becomes truth.  At least partially.  Which means that any answer could be partially correct.  Granted their limited data and context misled them to mistake a thing as something other than what it truly is.  But to call that partially correct?  In their misinterpretation of the thing they were trying to perceive.?  Man, I can't go there with you, Sunmaster.

Still, your response of defining our psychic structure in answer to the question escapes me as to how that definition has anything to do with the question.

42 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

  

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

5 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

8 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

When I ask you "why is Sunmaster here in this world" my answer is that this reality is one of your creations and demands that you use all of the abilities of the type of consciousness that is yours presently.  And using those abilities is what leads to the fulfillment of the individual personality (such as your art for you).  And through your personality then that adds to the fulfillment of your greater self and All That Is.  Adds to, which suggests that there is no single fulfillment.

Yes, I agree. 
I think this is an universal truth and I don't see a conflict between our points of view.

Whew.  So you understand the vital importance of Sunmaster now?  And that Brahman can never be a replacement for Sunmaster?  I know I'm stretching things here . . . 

 

Who are you again? 

Replacement? Sorry, I don't follow....

Replacement.  You know.  Since Sunmaster is only a finger puppet who doesn't have a true identity, for there is only one true identity for the self which is Brahman, then the identity which is Sunmaster isn't real.  You replace that Sunmaster identity with the one and only identity that exists, Brahman.  Who am I?  Am I this Sunmaster self?  No. I am Brahman.

33 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

@Sunmaster

 

Christianity prescribes a way of life.  Islam prescribes a way of life.  Hinduism prescribes a way of life.  Buddhism prescribes a way of life.  Vedanta prescribes a way of life.  Seth does not prescribe a way of life.  That's a huge difference.

And yet, all of them are simply maps of reality. A reality that has to be condensed and diluted enough to make sense for us. 
Can you grasp and truly know/feel what it means to be one with AllThatIs by using your intellect? Can you feel the bliss, the ecstasy of feeling the divine love flowing through your whole being by thinking about it? According to you, you should be able to. If the intellect can generate knowledge on the same level of direct experience, then this should be quite easy.

Here, too, I made a comment about religions prescribing a way of life whereas Seth doesn't prescribe one at all.  What do maps of reality have to do with that?  And I never mentioned the intellect but you went into a discussion of it.  So where does that come from?

21 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

32 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Now that's stretching it.    Your inner self depends on accurate assessments of reality from your outer self in order to perform it's function.  What about, or how could any of those answers be interpreted as "partial truths?"  Now that's an answer I'd love to hear. 

An issue of definition first.
You use the Sethian definitions of outer self and inner self, where the inner self is a connecting point between the world (outer ego) and the vastness of the inner world. So from the outside to the inside, it goes like this (correct me if I'm wrong here): outer ego, inner ego, entity, Oversoul, AllThatIs.
The Self I'm talking about is not the same as the "inner self". I use this progression: ego, self (individualized consciousness) and SELF (Absolute Consciousness).
In that sense, the SELF needs nothing as it contains everything. The self however, needs to peel off ignorance to remember that it is in fact the SELF. To do that, it needs an accurate assessment of the reality it lives in.

You didn't answer the question.  I didn't ask about the definition of our psychic structure.