Tippaporn

And now to show some appreciation for the salt of the earth folk like bannork. We should all be grateful for without folks like him we'd all go hungry. ???? ???? ????️ ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? Little Feat with the title track of their '79 Down On The Farm LP.

Damn, I messed up. I had the adage all wrong. All good things come in twos but it's really all good things come in threes. Ah, well. Too late now.

Sweet Little Angel off of the same '09 Live At Bill Graham's Fillmore West 1969 album.

Mike Bloomfield with Nick Gravenites and Friends performing Blues On The Westside live on Feb. 8, '69. Off of the '09 release Live At Bill Graham's Fillmore West 1969.

Gerry Rafferty with One Drink Down off of his '71 debut album, Can I Have My Money Back?

Gerry Rafferty with The Ark off of his '78 City To City LP.

Child In Time, also off of the '72 Made In Japan LP.

Deep Purple performing Smoke On The Water live In Osaka, Japan on 15th August '72. Off of their '72 Made In Japan album.

Frank Zappa performing Montreal live at Montreux Casino, Switzerland on Dec. 4, '71. This was the famous concert in which a fire broke out burning the casino and the band's equipment. The song "Smoke on the Water" by Deep Purple is about the incident. Also off of the '06 Imaginary Diseases release.

Frank Zappa performing D.C. Boogie live at D.A.R. Constitution Hall in Washington, D.C. on Nov. 11, '72. Off of the '06 Imaginary Diseases release.

Neil Young & Crazy Horse performing Winterlong live at the Fillmore East on March 6 & 7, 1970.

Neil Young performing Dance Dance Dance live at Massey Hall in '71.

The boy who cried wolf. 555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555

Sunmaster, while I have to disappear for awhile a thought just occurred to me that might be helpful. I've noticed that you have downloaded all of the material I've attached earlier in a PM. Amongst that material is Jane's book, Adventures In Consciousness An Introduction To Aspect Psychology. It's a good read. On page 70 of the PDF (page 124~125 of the book) is a diagram of the source and aspect selves which Rob did for the book. I think you'll be intrigued. Maybe in a few days when I come back, and if you've the time to peruse any of the book, we can discuss it. I'll attach the file here for your convenience. I actually have two PDF copies. I'm not sure what the differences are but the one I'm attaching here is the 2nd PDF version, which you do not have. Rob's illustration in this file is on PDF page 69. 239933-Adventures In Consciousness An Introduction To Aspect Psychology_text.pdf

I'm not trying to be flippant with my humour but the way I see it is that I've been a bad, bad boy today. I've been posting all morning long and it is now 11:58 AM. There's still enough daylight to salvage part of my day for the duties I need to be involved in. I will, however, reply later, Sunmaster.

You have articulated the seeming dilemma extraordinarily well, Red Phoenix. You shouldn't be so quiet sitting on the sidelines. You have much to offer. I'll comment on your post, as is my habit, bit by bit. "Is this discussion not once again an example of polarity?" I assume you're referring to the polarity of thought. "You create your reality" as opposed to it's polar opposite, "life happens to you." Or is the term meant to suggest the existence of some existing and independent force known as "polarity?" "On the one hand you have the majority of people whose core-belief is that 'everything happens to you' and that you as an individual have no power to change anything in the outside world. And strangely enough these are also the people that will argue that they have 'free will', but it seems that in their reality that free will amounts to little more than re-arranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic. And their victim-mentality makes them blame everything 'bad' that happens to them to those outside influences over which they have no power, while at the same time boasting about what they achieved because then the credit is only to them. " Well put, Red Phoenix. Well put. That describes to a tee how most people belief the world to operate. They readily pat themselves on their backs and gloat about their accomplishments, proudly telling everyone who will listen, "See!!!!! - I did this!!!!!" while otherwise pointing their finger at the sky, raging a terrible lament at some unknown entity for having thrust upon them their unwanted miseries and failures. I would guarantee that this is one of the prime reasons @save the frogs insists adamantly that creation is a mix. For who in their right mind would accuse themselves for the creation of their woes? Is that not the ultimate insult? To tell a man suffering an intolerable illness that he himself is the ultimate cause of his illness? Few . . . oh so few . . . would be able to bear such a responsibility. "On the other hand and at the complete end of the spectrum you have those that literally believe that 'you shape your reality' and since that reality is all there is they are omni-potent. "I am a God in the depths of my mind"" Well, not in the depths of my mind. I keep it pasted on my forehead so as not to forget it. Read the quote I provided to Sunmaster a few posts up. Rather, I'll paste the portion which is pertinent and perfectly suited to this discusion: Give us a moment ... Man is himself made as much of God-stuff as earth-stuff, so in those terms now the god in himself yearned toward the man in the god, and earth experience. Not understanding yourselves, you have tried to put the idea of God outside of yourselves and your living framework. Through various exercises in this book, I hope to acquaint each of you with the inherent oneness of the inside and outside realities, to give you a glimpse of your own infinite nature even within the bounds of your creaturehood - to help you see the god-stuff in the man-stuff. In other terms, this can help you see the potentials of your species and break down the barriers of limiting thoughts. I would like to change your ideas of human nature. To some extent this will entail humanizing your idea of divinity. But oddly enough, if that is done you will end up seeing the divinity in man. I know this sounds blasphemous but, oh well, here goes . . . in a very real sense we are Gods. I let you turn that over in your mind for awhile. Seth has said it a number of times . . . we need to evolve our thinking away from a "one God, one world" limited viewpoint. "My personal belief is that nothing happens by chance. And thus everything you encounter has meaning and is put on your path to teach you that which you know already but have forgotten. So in a sense you do create your reality, while dealing with these outside influences. The words 'influence/shape' better convey the idea that we are neither the 'ping-pong ball in the tornado' nor the Creator of the universe. It's more like a cosmic dance where you come to realize that what happens to you is the universe responding to your consciousness and inviting you to join and giving up your Ego." I have no intention of giving up my ego, thank you. Not now or ever as long as I'm on earth. After all, my ego is my best and beloved buddy. All humour aside I ask, what is the point of coming into life with an ego only to then have the sole lifelong purpose and goal of unceremoniously ridding yourself of that ego? For are you aware that as soon as you obliterate one ego another will arise? Perhaps the number one reason I have never entertained exploring eastern religion is due to their maligning of an integral portion of who we are on this earth. You could not function in this world without an ego. It is a portion, a very important portion serving a critical function of the self which is clothed for a time in flesh and blood here. For what sane reason would people come to the conclusion that the ego is some sort of step child of the self that needs to be locked into a damp and dark cellar with the key tossed away? The ego has been falsely and unjustly accused of being the source of all the unsavoury aspects of man. And even of preventing man from rising above himself in this "god forsaken existence" into some blended oneness existing in some unknown medium of bliss. ". . . and is put on your path . . . " We are now back to the original conundrum . . . who put whatever on your path? "So in a sense you do create your reality, while dealing with these outside influences." Influencers, yes. But these influencers cannot create in your experience. It is all by your own mental hand. As soon as another creates for you then bye, bye free will. The two concepts cannot coexist for they are contradictory. To believe that another creates one's experience then one also must believe that free will does not exist. One could then rationalise it as save the frogs did. It's a mix. We are coming to realise that we create it all. It ain't necessarily easy. I do expect a lot of kicking and screaming.

I can't speak to, or comment on your private experiences with kundalini energy. I can neither claim to know of something I know nothing of nor is it possible for me to relate to the experiences you had. If part of that experience involves what is considered pure "knowing," or understanding something without any need to rationalise it, well I believe that happens daily to all of us. I would say I've had, and still do have, plenty of instances in my life where I know something without having to intellectualise it. I do understand, though, that your experience with kundalini energy involve much more. While I also would never attempt to invalidate your experiences, for I accept your experiences to be absolutely valid, neither can I begin to attempt to say what they were. Now I do know that as Seth has provided many exercises for us to explore reality as it exists apart from this world he has cautioned folks to avoid interpreting their experiences along conventional narratives. In other words, someone may have read about another's other-worldly experiences whereby that other defined his experience, say as taking place in whatever realm, and that someone experiences their own other-worldly and interprets it according to what another has described. Someone with a religious background might have an experience in which there were angels yet these are experiences that are then interpreted using the individuals personal symbology. It should not be concluded by others that there are any real angels. Very early on in my travels I came across a book entitled, Journeys Out Of The Body, written by one Robert Monroe. It was a wonderful book. Not only because it was fascinating to hear him relate all of his OOB journeys but wonderful in the sense that he never attempted to define or categorise any of his experiences. He would relate the experiences as he recalled them but then say he wasn't sure what it really was about. I very much appreciated that as I read his book. For myself, in exploring one's consciousness I would not attempt to use anyone else's signposts lest you become rigid in the interpretations of your experiences. Now this may seem a bit lengthy but it helps to explain what I'm alluding to. Plato, for instance, was one individual who tapped into a portion of his consciousness and drew from it a conclusion, or interpretation, based on his own beliefs which wasn't entirely accurate. Each probability system has its own set of "blueprints," clearly defining its freedoms and boundaries, and setting forth the most favorable structures capable of fulfillment. These are not "inner images of perfection," and to some extent the blueprints themselves change, for the action within any given system of probabilities automatically alters the entire picture, enlarging it. The blueprints are actually more like inner working plans that can be changed with circumstances, but to some extent they are idea-lizations, with a hyphen. As an individual you carry within you such a blueprint, then; it contains all the information you require to bring about the most favorable version of yourself in the probable system that you know. These blueprints exist biologically and at every level - psychically, spiritually, mentally. The information is knit into the genes and chromosomes, but it exists apart, and the physical structures merely represent the carriers of information. In the same fashion the species en masse holds within its vast inner mind such working plans or blue-prints. They exist apart from the physical world and in an inner one, and from this you draw those theories, ideas, civilizations, and technologies which you then physically translate. Platonic thought saw this inner world as perfect. As you think of it, however, perfection always suggests something done and finished, or beyond surpassing, and this of course denies the inherent characteristics of creativity, which do indeed always seek to surpass themselves. The Platonic, idealized inner world would ultimately result in a dead one, for in it the models for all exteriorizations were seen as already completed - finished and perfect. Many have seen that inner world as the source for the physical one, but imagined that man's purpose was merely to construct physically these perfect images to the best of his abilities. (Very forcefully:) In that picture man himself did not help create that inner world, or have any hand in its beauty. He could at best try to duplicate it physically - never able, however, to match its perfection in those terms. In such a version of inner-outer reality the back-and-forth mobility, the give-and-take between inner and outer, is ignored. Man, being a part of that inner world by reason of the nature of his own psyche, automatically has a hand in the creation of those blueprints which at another level he uses as guides. (Long pause, eyes closed.) To some extent great artists not only capture a physical picture of Inner Idea, capitalized, but they also have a hand in creating that idea or inner model to begin with. In your terms, the inner world does represent Idea Potential as yet unrealized - but those ideas and those potentials do not exist outside of consciousness. They are ideals set in the heart of man, yet in other terms he is the one who also put them there, out of the deeper knowledge of his being that straddles physical time. Existence is wise and compassionate, so in certain terms consciousness, knowing itself as man, sent future extensions of itself out into the time scheme that man would know, and lovingly planted signposts for itself to follow "later." Give us a moment ... Man is himself made as much of God-stuff as earth-stuff, so in those terms now the god in himself yearned toward the man in the god, and earth experience. Not understanding yourselves, you have tried to put the idea of God outside of yourselves and your living framework. Through various exercises in this book, I hope to acquaint each of you with the inherent oneness of the inside and outside realities, to give you a glimpse of your own infinite nature even within the bounds of your creaturehood - to help you see the god-stuff in the man-stuff. In other terms, this can help you see the potentials of your species and break down the barriers of limiting thoughts. I would like to change your ideas of human nature. To some extent this will entail humanizing your idea of divinity. But oddly enough, if that is done you will end up seeing the divinity in man. Ideals that before seemed beyond the reach of individuals or of the species will change their character, and become working models that can be used effectively and joyfully. Hopefully that helps while also giving you a bit more to think about. Whenever I refer to "we" I mean me, you and everyone. In terms of which portion of ourselves which does the creating then that would be the outermost facing portion. Our more expansive inner self does not create for us. That portion can attempt to intercede via influence but it is always up to the outer portion to either accept or reject that influence. Seth has always maintained that there really are no divisions to the self. He uses those terms, such as ego, subconscious, etc., since that is what we are familiar with.

Rarely a serious answer. Just more guffaw. Does that define your character, save the frogs?

"so Seth is promoting drug use." What an absurd assumption to make. Yet it's easily explained. You don't like Seth. You believe the information which Seth provides to be bullsh!t. And so, I have stated in my post to Sunmaster that Seth discusses enforced illumination yet nowhere did I even hint as to what any of that information was about in detail. There was no indication whatsoever that Seth was leaning in any direction - for or against - yet you immediately jumped to the conclusion that Seth was promoting drug use. This is a personal lesson to you, save the frogs, of how beliefs operate. Yours in particular in this instance. And it all goes underneath your conscious awareness.

Now if the idea that we create our own reality sounds bizarre it is for this reason. The idea runs 180° counter to what the vast majority of the people in this world believe to be true. Which is what you've stated. The idea that we create our own reality seems to be absurd only from . . . only from the perspective that the opposite is true. Now consider this. If what you and most everyone else believes to be true is true then wouldn't you think that most everyone would easily be able to explain any event and why it happened? But as I'm fond of saying, the proof is always in the pudding. And the cold, hard fact is that you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who can explain any event accurately. Need more of the proof that's in the pudding? If what you say is true then please explain why, as you are well aware of, there are endless theories of what life is and how it works? Why is there no consensus? Isn't that very odd? Might the answer to the above questions be because despite the centuries upon centuries in which man has attempted to find true answers as to why things happen the whole goddamned premise is flawed? And as I've repeated so often, when a theory is based on a false premise then any conclusions drawn using that false premise must . . . must be false as well. If what you believe to be true is true, save the frogs, then you should be able to answer and explain or identify, at minimum, the following: 1) If your living experience is not fully created by you then who creates a portion of it? 2) If there is another entity, force, or however you want to define this thing which creates for you then where is it? 3) Is there one entity/force or are there multiple entities/forces? 4) How much of your living experience do you create and how much of it is created by other entities/forces? 5) What are the criteria which must be met for other entities/forces to intercede and create your experience for you? 6) Are there no criteria and is it just willy nilly? 7) Are you responsible for only your "good" experiences and all "bad" experiences are created by other entities/forces? 8.) How can you recognise when one of your lived experiences was created by you? 9) How can you recognise when one of your lived experiences was created by other entities/forces? 10) Do you possess any personal power which would be able to prevent other entities/forces from creating your lived experience if you did not want what they want for you? 11) Might you be delusional in thinking you create any of your lived experiences? 12) Might your belief that you control at least a portion of your lived experiences simply be an illusion? 13) What makes you believe you have any control over your lived experience? 14) What makes you believe you don't have any control over your lived experience? 15) What is freedom? 16) What is the purpose of freedom, if it does even exist? 17) Do we have freedom? 18) If we do have freedom then to what extent? 19) Do you prefer to be free or do you prefer to be controlled? 20) Is freedom a mix similar to the ability to create one's own lived experience? 21) What are desires? 22) Why do we have them? 23) Do we have the ability to fulfill our desires? 24) If you do not have full control over your lived experience then what of desires? 25) Are the manifestations of our desires controlled also by other entities/forces? I could easily go on and on and on with quite important questions such as the above but I don't want to tax you too much, save the frogs. Now I've grown up and I've been indoctrinated with the identical ideas which you've grown up with and been indoctrinated to. And what I've found in my life as I ask these questions to my family, to my friends, to my teachers, to my government, to religions, to science, to people on the street, to the higher centers of learning is that what I get back is an utter morass of conflicting beliefs, conflicting explanations, explanations which appear to have a semblance of logic and common sense yet upon closer examination, under a discerning and inquisitive eye, have none. And from all of this endless and often mindless data I am expected to figure out what is true and what is not. Yet that is my task. And I accept it joyfully. Now it seems to me, save the frogs, that you have likewise believed much of what has been explained to you since the cradle uncritically. Meaning you accepted as truth ideas which you never really examined. Some of what you and I have been told is true and, in my most humble opinion, most of it false. All I'm asking of you and every other reader here is to reexamine what you've been fed and what you've accepted to be true throughout your entire life to see how much of what you accepted as fact, as truth, is really true and how much of it is simply pure bullsh!t. My guess is that you don't have the time.

It is not about winning or loosing, it is about living in this world we call reality and the challenges we are met daily to accomplish what we think is important and also know how to live in peace with our self and our surroundings. I know I was quite sure, maybe to sure I had all the answers to long until I got hit with a reality check, for then be reborned, where I crawled back to my orign of myself, and accepted my loss of faith as well started to sense my own reality connecting to Nature again. No visions, nothing big, just becoming grounded again, and feel the sensation I only had as a curious kid again, stepping out in the world with baby steps. No more mysteries or big questions to solve, just connection and home welcoming feeling. No big named speakers, profets, words, gurus, priests, visions, or promises, just feeling being there right now right here. Simple and comforting ???? Even we think we have the answer, it doesnt mean that answer is for anyone else than you! I do not predict I know, especially to know what is best for you, I just continue saying we live in the middle of something greater than us. I preach Nature is everything, nothing else "It is not about winning or loosing, it is about living in this world we call reality and the challenges we are met daily to accomplish what we think is important and also know how to live in peace with our self and our surroundings." Take away the "it is not about winning or loosing" for the moment and it could be said regarding the rest of your statement that no truer words have ever been spoken. You are spot on, Hummin. Kudos to you. Regarding the winning and losing there's much to say as to it's meaning. It's quite evident to me that your meaning refers to the type of winning and losing usually ascribed to a debate. In this case, the debate we are engaged in whereby it's a contest of your ideas versus my ideas and vice versa. In that sense I would agree. The true intention of a debate is not to win or lose. A debate is for the purpose of arriving at the truth. If the objective of a debate is to merely declare a winner and loser, the truth be damned, then the debate's true intention has been perverted. My meaning of "you win" refers not to a concession on my part in which I throw in the towel and declare you as the winner of our debates over ideas. Instead I mean it in the sense that you largely avoid being corralled into debating any actual ideas. Which is why I have said that you are more slippery than any eel. Most every effort I make to get you to answer a specific question, or to get you to explain your ideas in greater depth, or get you to show how your ideas might work in practicality, or get you to take a simple practical step by which you can prove to yourself a point that I'm making, or get you to define or expound or speak with more clarity on what you preach as to what you've learned so that it's not so vague and nebulous and therefore another might benefit from the wisdom you've gained . . . all of these many attempts have frustrated me to no end. You are the epitome of trying to get an honest, straightforward answer to a hard question out of a politician. You'll never get one. And so I am giving up on my attempt to pin you down on any of the above. I'm tuckered out whilst you maintain your stamina to continue to elude. You win that contest, Hummin. And I won't bother going into all of the deception whereby you attempt to turn the tables on me. Go in peace, Hummin.

"what insights? "do you remember any of them?" I told you already. You can't invalidate my experiences. "anyway, as someone who has not experimented very much, maybe i don't know what i'm talking about." Now that's honesty!!

I am always open to receive any good information. Why, I've been on the hunt for good information all my life and collect as much of it as I can wherever I can find it. It's been my overriding focus since I can remember. You have no idea how intense that focus has been throughout my life. But whatever the information it has to be correct. It can't be bogus. If it's not correct then I won't receive it. You seem to think I should be willing to receive bad information and as I reject bad information you have thus concluded, erroneously, that I therefore am not receptive. Accepting bad information is not going to happen. Going back to my analogy of metal forming: If I know how to form metal and someone were to approach me and give me an idea then given the knowledge that I do possess I am then in a prime position to be quite capable of assessing the offered idea as to whether it's workable or not. Workable being a good idea and impractical equating to a bad idea. And it has happened where I've rejected another colleague's idea and his reaction was anger. Now I can't say your reaction to me is one of anger but it is the same in the sense that it's very much negative. Now I don't consider myself to be the sharpest knife in the drawer yet I'm capable of understanding truth when I come across it. I refuse to demean others by insinuating that they are incapable. In fact, the entire point of the Seth material is to empower the individual, to help him understand his true capacity and his true potential, his true self, for Seth understands quite well, from his much greater expansive that we've been robbed of our power. And there are many ideas, many beliefs, that are widely accepted across societies all over the world which promote this false sense of powerlessness. One of the worst being the idea that we are incapable of knowing the truth of ourselves and our reality. My intention is to help in returning that rightful power to the individual by explaining who we really are, what we're really about, how this reality really works as opposed to all of the false ideas about it that have been ingrained in most all humans from the time of their birth. The oddest thing I can think of regarding my fellow man, Hummin, the saddest thing I can think about, is the fact that I know every individual here is after happiness foremost, and a fulfilling life. Every human, with no exception, yearns to be able to manifest their desires in the real world. Now get this, Hummin. When I tell people that they have this power and attempt to explain it to them do you know what happens more often than not? They spit in my face. Which is, to me, a firm indication of how much bad Kool-Aid they've drunk. Think about that, Hummin. Think hard on that. And then ask why would people have such intense desire to make their dreams come true and yet when they're told that they can, and even shown how they can, they give you only a murderous scowl? As I say, Hummin. You're a good man and deserving of all the good that this dear world has to offer. But I'm done fighting with you. You win. Have it your way. No hard feelings.

I'm firm in my belief that we create our own reality. As soon as other forces are introduced to override us, whether Spirit, or the Grace of God, or the Grace of Kundalini, then the entire concept becomes false. Seth has stated numerous times that the individual can receive influence but the final say is his whether to accept or reject any particular influence. You either have free will or you don't. It can't be a mix. So for me it is most definitely up to us and our thinking and our beliefs. Whenever I did take psychedelics I took them in small quantity. I never attempted to push the envelop by taking massive doses. Put it this way . . . I literally had respect for the drugs as I understood quite well their destructive force if you were to abuse them. Funny that this topic came up as I am in the midst of rereading The Nature Of Personal Reality. And the precise chapter is Chapter 10, the chapter title reading: THE NATURE OF SPONTANEOUS ILLUMINATION, AND THE NATURE OF ENFORCED ILLUMINATION. THE SOUL IN CHEMICAL CLOTHES Seth goes very much at length and in detail about enforced illumination, which is what taking drugs is. He makes a definite distinction between natural drugs, such as cannabis, peyote and psilocybin mushrooms and manufactured chemical drugs. Reread it if you have time. I'd post it here but other than you I know of no other on this thread who has the proper background to understand it. I don't mean to denigrate anyone with that statement. It's just plain common sense fact that the deeper one goes into a subject then the knowledge which has been digested earlier becomes the prerequisite knowledge for moving ever deeper. And that deeper knowledge in turn becomes prerequisite for that which lays even deeper.