Tippaporn

Yes you do. You need an ending.

Maybe you truly are evil but you don't think you are? The mind can play terrible jokes on people. Go ask Hummin.

Being saved comes at the cost of your savings. God likes money.

Mumbo jumbo makes up for some of the best opinions here. One of the best and useful inventions ever.

Opinions are good!! Just don't pretend to know anything.

You wouldn't know until you joined. I doubt you could afford the monthly dues. They're rather steep.

What of freedom? Oooops!

It speaks to me, too.

I didn't dismiss the concept. I merely pointed out that the accepted way in which Karma works is in gross error.

I'm changing up my debating tactics. 55555555555

It's all a big misunderstanding.

Earth is a gigantic recycling plant. Everyone checks out only when they're good and ready. Including the worm.

Ever wonder why so many farang hailing from Christian countries end up swapping Christianity for Buddhism? Ever wonder if they're simply swapping one set of dogmas for another set of dogmas?

The early bird gets the worm.

So much to reply to in your short post . . . "nonsensical ideas" "abstract nonsensical spiritual mumbo jumbo" "complex mumbo jumbo" I've said this many times before. Reality is what it is and functions as it does. It cares not one whit what anyone believes about what it is or how it functions. Reality is entirely consistent and therefore does not conform itself to the ideas of others. What that statement implies is that any theory one may hold about reality's functioning must ultimately conform to how reality does indeed actually function. And if a given theory suggests reality function in a way that it does not then the theory is inherently a false one. Anyone who objects to these terms has a problem. ". . . too complex for the average mind." Not at all. That statement is a belief about reality. Not a condition of reality.

It's not the only question. There's another question. Given the assumption that Karma does exist then how does it work? You may find 10 different answers out of 10 different people.

Time to address the rest of your post. "if you remove those nonsensical ideas that some fake guru planted in your head. . . . " I have no guru. I have no master. I have me. And that's all I need. I don't need anyone else to understand that in order for me to know it. "you seem to have fallen prey to all sorts of abstract nonsensical spiritual mumbo jumbo that doesn't serve anyone. except possibly your own ego." The information I deal with is quite practical. I can test it out in the real world and verify it's results. And again, I don't need anyone's agreement to know what I know. "as people become entangled in ever more complex mumbo jumbo, they pat themselves on the back for figuring out sth too complex for the average mind." I don't know what you do for a living but if you're good at what you do then it's implied that you've attained whatever knowledge is required to perform a job very well done. It's also implied that you've figured out whatever was needed to be figured out despite it's complexity. And I would assume that you are quite proud of your accomplishments. And therefore you pat yourself on the back. So it is with me. However, I do not need a pat on the back from others and so do not seek one. Contrary to what some here believe about me. About which I care not. "often the simple elegant theories are the right ones. karma is fairly simple. an 8 year old can understand it." The assumption is not an absolute truth. And no one can calculate how often often is. The logic you use suggests that so long a simple idea can easily be understood it is therefore a true idea. Below is an excellent article which explains fallacious reasoning. A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning in the construction of an argument.

Science is catching up to Seth. Relativity Of Simultaneity Granted, you've been taught, like everyone else, that time exists as it does for us. I couldn't, therefore, hold it against you or any else who believes in past, present and future as absolutes. Consider this. Does your experience ever take place in the past or future? Or is your experience always in the present moment. Whatever moments it took you to read this are no longer and you are again in the present moment. A thorough explanation of the simultaneity, or the ever present, would take some time to explain. But it can be explained. Even to your satisfaction. If you were willing to set aside your beliefs long enough to consider the idea. But never to your satisfaction as long as you are not willing to even explore a new idea (new to you) because of a determination to cling to a held belief. Now I didn't just raise the idea of simultaneity to show how that by itself would render the current concept of Karma invalid. I also mentioned free will. Free will implies that nothing can insert itself into one's own experience. As soon as that happens then free will doesn't exist. Karma suggests that penance or reward is meted out in this life is due to actions taken in another. Particular experience is then forced upon the present personality to either suffer or enjoy. That destroys any idea of true free will. If you don't believe in free will then I ask you, what thoughts do you entertain which are forced into your mind? Or is every thought you think one that is chosen by you? In actuality there is no complexity whatsoever in the theory of how life works. Five words. You create your own reality. That's it. It truly is very simple. Of course, as with any system of belief, including yours, the devil is always in the details.

There are many entries for "the beginning" but I'll post this one as an example of what can be found. Type in God if you're interested in getting Seth's perspective and explanation. I hope playing with the Seth material search engine will be fun, enjoyable, educational, and rewarding. "Now: In the beginning, there was not God the Father, Allah, Zoroaster, Zeus, or Buddha.1 In the beginning there was instead, once more, a divine psychological gestalt—and by that I mean a being whose reality escapes the definition of the word “being,” since it is the source from which all being emerges. That being exists in a psychological dimension (long pause), a spacious present, in which everything that was or is or will be (in your terms) is kept in immediate attention, poised in a divine context that is characterized (long pause, eyes closed) by such a brilliant concentration that the grandest and the lowliest, the largest and the smallest, are equally held in a multiloving constant focus. Your conceptions of beginnings and endings make an explanation of such a situation most difficult, for in your terms the beginning of the [universe] is meaningless—that is, in those terms (underlined) there was no beginning (intently). [... 9 paragraphs ...] (Long pause at 9:55.) In the beginning, then, there was a subjective world that became objective. Matter was not yet permanent, in your terms, for consciousness was not yet as stable there. In the beginning, then, there was a dream world, in which consciousness formed a dream of physical reality, and gradually became awake within that world. Mountains rose and tumbled. Oceans filled. Tidal waves thundered. Islands appeared. The seasons themselves were not stable. In your terms the magnetic fields themselves fluctuated—but all of the species were there at the beginning, though in the same fashion, for as the dream world broke through into physical reality there was all of the tumultuous excitement and confusion with which a mass creative event is achieved. There was much greater plasticity, motion, variety, give-and-take, as consciousness experimented with its own forms. The species and environment together formed themselves in concert, in glorious combination, so that each fulfilled the requirements of its own existence while adding to the fulfillment of all other portions of physical reality (all very intently, and with many gestures). That kind of an event simply cannot fit into your concepts of “the beginning of the world,” with consciousness arising out of matter almost as a second thought, or with an exteriorized God initiating a divine but mechanistic natural world. (Pause.) Nor can this concept fit into your versions of good and evil, as I will explain later in this book. God, or All That Is, is in the deepest sense completed, and yet uncompleted. Again, I am aware of the contradiction that seems to be presented to your minds. In a sense, however (underlined), a creative product, say, helps complete an artist, while of course the artist can never be completed. All That is, or God, in a certain fashion, now (underlined)—and this is qualified—learns as you learn, and makes adjustments according to your knowledge. We must be very careful here, for delusions of divinity come sometimes too easily, but in a basic sense you all carry within yourselves the undeniable mark of All That Is—and an inbuilt capacity—capacity—to glimpse in your own terms undeniable evidence of your own greater existence. You are as close to the beginning of [your] world as Adam and Eve were, or as the Romans, or as the Egyptians or Sumerians. The beginning of the world is just a step outside the moment." —DEaVF1 Chapter 2: Session 886, December 3, 1979

Come to think of it, since a lot of posters here are readers of material related to this topic and watch videos of similar content then I thought i might be a great idea to offer Seth's perspective in a fun and easy way. So here's the Seth search engine. Type in any key word you wish. Genes, genetics, Karma, reincarnation, beliefs, hypnosis, inner self, ego, Christ, God, the beginning, science, evolution, etc. Just about any topic you can imagine he covers. And get Seth's perspective gleaned from the entirety of his exstensive writings. The Seth Material Search Engine

Also, re Karma, if time is simultaneous and all reincarnational selves exist at once then Karma can't possibly work as supposed, which is to do penance for "bad" deeds in a former life. And if one considers that Karma is at work in the present reincarnational existence then Karma would apply to all reincarnational existences. Sounds like never ending hell to me. Every reincarnational self has to suffer for what another one it's reincarnations is responsible for. And where is free will in all of this? It's conveniently missing. Between simultaneous time and free will Karma's supposed functioning is utterly destroyed.

Very, very good quote, Sunmaster. And of course I can't help but notice your use of the Seth search engine. LOL You saved me a lot of typing. But yes, Karma does not work in the way most believe it works.

I've stated before that I'm opposed to the use of the terms "higher" and "lower" in describing any aspect of ourselves. Words are tricky. Not only do different people have differing definitions of a word but a word can also carry hidden meanings. In the case of "higher" and "lower" there can also be implied judgement attached to either term. If someone were to refer to me as being my lower self I would take objection. I've often argued that there is no "higher" or "lower," or "lesser" or "greater" values assigned to any portion of an entity. These are, in my opinion, man made constructs created due to making comparisons. And I would think it accurate to say that the source of this type of differentiation stems from religious concepts. Abraham uses the term source, or source energy, when referring to that more expansive portion of ourselves. Not only does that term avoid perpetuating any false interpretations it also eliminates any chance for applying judgment as well. Inner self is also a much better term, in my opinion, and a more accurate one, as the meaning of the word is rather straightforward and singular nor does it carry any hidden meanings. Lower impulses = base impulses. Higher impulses = enlightened impulses. That is what those terms seem to imply, at least to me. Impulses are simply impulses. They are neither lower or higher. Also, I think the ego is hugely misunderstood and has very much been disparaged, especially by many religions, due to that misunderstanding. It certainly hasn't the best reputation here from what I've read. The ego is an integral portion of our personality. It serves a very specific function. It is the outer most facing portion of our personally which deals most directly with physical reality. It's function is to make accurate assessments of physical reality to be used by the inner self so that the inner self can perform it's function properly. It is meant to receive information from both within and without. When it is cut off from receiving information from the inner self, largely due to beliefs which paint the subjective self as untrustworthy and even dangerous, does the ego then fail to perform as intended. It is not meant for the ego to handle physical reality on it's own. It's meant to work in unison with the other portions of the personality.

My apologies, Neeranam. I mistook you for another old time TV member, Naam. I believe it was he who had Worf as an avatar. If you're familiar with Star Trek you would know that Worf is a Klingon. Klingons are a warring race. Much like the alien Predator in the Predator movie series. Or like some humans. Though I got you mixed up the post was intended to contrast the toughness of a warrior with that of folks who react with unwarranted sensitivity and therefore tend to lose it at the slightest perceived insult or mean word. Even a mistaken one. I did also intentionally intend the contrast to be humourous. Again, if you can't laugh at yourself who can you laugh at.

Even if they are then as the old adage goes, if you can't laugh at yourself then who can you laugh at.