Tippaporn

All's well.

I think he's outta here for good this time. It went very much south for him. He's got his tail between his legs now.

Don't let the door hit you in the ar$e on the way out.

Uhm, we know what's stupid in this thread. And it ain't our answers. At this point, save the frogs, you're just trolling now. But I know, you're shameless.

I'm tellin' ya, Sunmaster. Some of these posters are as transparent as glass. There are certain tells which are unmistakable and let you know that these posters are a complete and utter waste of time to engage with. My patience is much shorter than yours.

A lot of the concepts discussed here aren't abstract at all. It's probably the case where you fail to understand something and then due to your failure to understand it you classify it as abstract. That way you can pretend that it's not a lack of understanding on your part . . . why it's simply a bunch of stupid, meaningless abstract concepts. "(that may or may not make any sense)" What a joke. In any case, you come here with the sole intention of disparaging everyone here. You create endless conspiracy theories and never back them up with anything other than your divisive and derogatory opinions. We're gurus. We're false prophets. We're just trying to deceive people. We're attempting to make ourselves look smart. And again, all you have is your opinion. Which, quite frankly, is worthless. And embarrassing. But I'm sure you're the type of guy who can act like an utter fool and not feel the slightest tinge of embarrassment. No shame. Take some good advice, save the frogs. Be a serious person, show some personal integrity . . . both of which you are capable of displaying . . . or else go get a life. Do something worthwhile and uplifting for yourself.

As with soooo much else, a true paradox as both answers are indeed correct. Time exists and time does not exist at the same time (again, excuse the pun). The paradox is solved by understanding that time exists differently depending on what system of reality one is looking at. Again, time is relative. One may eventually come to an even truer understanding of time when the realisation dawns that time is simply a mental construct. OMG, did I really say that? I'm furiously trying to delete that statement but it won't erase itself!! Oh, well, I guess I'll have to live by my words.

All you are describing here, Elad, is how time works in our physical reality. I'm well aware of how it works here. Yes, time is real. "Time is real, its relative and there is no absolute time in the universe, the notion of NOW universally doesn't exist." Here, in your admission that time is relative, you seem to be agreeing with what I am saying here: "It should be understood that the key take away, or the key understanding to be had, is that time is only . . . only . . . something that is experienced as such and such or so and so." My above statement is pointing out, and in complete agreement with your admission that time is relative. Our experience of time is relative to our particular position in a physical reality which has that experience of time, one moment following another with each moment fading into what we then call past, built into the cake. That, my friend, is too self-evident to require any further explanation. What you have not considered yet, logically deduced from the fact that you have not addressed this very crucial point, is my statement that you, and we, are always in the NOW. We are never outside of it. Our experience is always in the present moment. Our experience doesn't occur in the past, nor does it occur in the future. Our experience occurs only in the present moment. That fact must be accounted for, included in any equation which attempts to define and explain the reality of time. Time is relative. And it can be experienced in many different ways other than our "normal" experience of it. There exist systems of reality in which time can be experienced in reverse. And for the inhabitants of that system of reality that would be their "normal" perception of time. And their experience of time would be built into their cake. And then there are realities in which time doesn't even exist. I fully understand and am aware of how unfathomable that statement would be to comprehend. And yet I say it nonetheless. Now you might think that I've now totally gone off the deep end by merely alluding to the existence of other realities. I am now spouting complete and utter nonsense andy you may be thinking to yourself that you might be better of to simply dismiss me altogether and conclude that I'm off my rocker. So I will say that the single most reason which is the culprit for preventing any true understanding of time, along with so much else, is the idea that physical reality is all there is. Until folks get past the idea that physical reality, our precious and beloved physical reality, is not the only one. I understand fully that folks who believe that physical reality is all there is will continue in their attempts to explain what reality is and how it works using the false assumption that there is only one reality which exists and will never then understand the true nature of even our reality, let alone an understanding of how our reality fits in with all other realities. For they are all connected. So do you now dismiss me as a kook, Elad? Read Seth's many discussions and explanations of what time is if you're interested in gaining a different perspective. If you insist on maintaining your current perspective because your "fine with it" then I'm fine with that, too. But I will tell you, whether you agree or not, whether you like it or not, that your current perspective is extremely limited. Anyway. I appreciate your very well thought out response and the fact that you've cut out some of your precious time (excuse the pun) to reply as a serious person. I just hope that you understand and grant that I, too, am a very serious person.

I'd hang it up if I were you, Sunmaster. You'll never get a serious answer to a serious question because you're not dealing with a serious person. Myself? I'm not getting dragged into clown world any longer. It's not my idea of amusement. We get a lot of serious seeming types who devolve quickly. Although, you may have more patience than me.

I came across this fine quote many years ago. Author unknown. "The greater fool is one who argues with a fool." Okay. You win.

I'll keep pounding away as long as I'm here.

The truth is often not what people think the truth to be. The proof is always in the pudding. If what we think as being true is true then why are so many running around asking, "What the f is going on here?" Why haven't we yet found out what happens when we die, for instance? Is that maybe, just maybe, just maybe it's because so many answers we think are true are not? Might that be a possibility? For if the actual truth lies in the opposite direction of the truth that is believed to be true then isn't the actual truth in plain sight and only hidden in plain sight because of the truths we believe to be actual truths yet are contrary and even contradictory? This magical illusion is no more hidden than the nose on your face. Erroneous or relative truths serve to blind actual truths. And that is the truth. Truth be told. I'm being a bit playful with the above.

Couldn't be more apropos, Sunmaster. Kudos!

I've always admired your honesty, mauGR!.

It's okay, save the frogs. There are many who have come and gone on this thread because they eventually back themselves into a corner from which they cannot come out of without losing face.

I'm not too lazy. Of course to say you're too lazy is just an excuse. An excuse which is acceptable to many. Not to me, though. It is what it is. an excuse. So you claim that I am dismissing your precious Karma. And that I contradict myself. Then read my above quote. Where's the denial that Karma doesn't exist? Or is it your belief which then leads you to interpret "as supposed" to mean "doesn't exist?" It's a fair question, isn't it? ". . . when in fact, that's one of the most important part of the Seth teachings." What?!?!?! How in the world do you arrive at that conclusion? Let's see here . . . You admit you've never read any of Seth's works . . . only perused a few quotes. But then you make the claim that Karma is a cornerstone of Seth's explanation as to who we are and what the true nature of reality is? Lordy, lordy. My most accurate assessment is that you have concluded Seth is bunk because you're too lazy to investigate it thoroughly and objectively and now you're on a personal mission to prove yourself correct to everyone? Again, despite the fact that you've never read any Seth and even still, knowing that you don't know anything about Seth, claim to know what Seth is all about. You're writing a critique on a book you've never read. A movie you've never watched. Perhaps you are the false prophet here? It's a fair question, isn't it?

Always remember, folks. Opinions are good!! Just don't pretend to know anything.

One thing that can be said about me is that I am not milk toast. I actually love to stir the pot! To get people to start using their noodles in ways they don't even suspect. It's a good antidote for boredom, too. Controversy is a good thing. And good controversy leads more often than not to confrontation. It's all good.

Let me ask you, save the frogs, do you believe yourself capable of discerning what's true from what's not? Or do you believe you could easily be misled by a false prophet? When you go through the day's news do you resort to fact checkers to tell you what the truth is? Sunmaster talks of his BS detector. I've got one, too. The BS detector is nothing more than common sense. One clue that someone is full of BS is when your common sense makes you aware of contradictions. Contradictions are always a wonderful tell. When Seth speaks of simultaneous time, for instance, that may appear to you to be a contradiction. But it's not a case of Seth contradicting himself as he speaks more often in terms of time. But he must relate to who he is talking to in order for it to make sense to them. Which happens to be us humans whose experience revolves largely around the experience of time as consecutive moments. Now you may consider simultaneous time to be a contradiction to your experience. And it is. What needs to be understood is that it's only a seeming contradiction that's forced to appear so because you are immersed in a reality in which the experience of time exists for us as it does. It should be understood that the key take away, or the key understanding to be had, is that time is only . . . only . . . something that is experienced as such and such or so and so. Seth explains what time is and why we experience it as we do . . . one moment following another with each passing moment seemingly fading into what we call the past . . . in great detail. He also explains why we do not perceive the future, despite the fact that the future exists now. He goes much further to explain the relationships and interactions between our perceived past, present and future. He describes in great detail why and how our experience of time is what it is. The fact that our very biology is geared towards the experience of one moment forever following another moment. Now he also points out a fascinating fact. A fact which you can easily verify yourself. Despite the "fact" that per our experience there exists past, present and future our experience is always in the present moment and never outside of it. We find that we are always operating in what Seth calls the spacious now. There is nothing other than NOW. Time is in the truest sense, therefore, an illusion. I've had quite vivid dreams of future events which then occurred. Now if our limited explanations of time as we understand it were true then it would be an impossibility for anyone to see the future before it happens since the future doesn't exist yet. What you are struggling with is the "fact" that simultaneous time seems to be a direct contradiction to your experience of time. And that alone is what makes the idea appear to be false to you. Or ludicrous as it flies in the face of your experience and understanding and even more importantly your beliefs about what is true or not. Once it's understood that ours is merely one way of experiencing time then it all makes perfect sense. Another clue that time is more than what our usual definition defines it to be . . . clock time . . . is when time seems to speed up or slow down for us. I'm sure everyone has experienced that at one time or another. That experience, though, despite having validity, can always be dismissed as perhaps a psychological phenomenon that isn't real by those refuse to consider any other idea than that which they believe to be true . . . and believe to be the only "truth." Now this dovetails perfectly into that which is exactly what I've been saying here now forever. Beliefs are ideas which are subscribed to and held to be "true" by those subscribing to the belief. The belief is no longer considered a belief about reality but a condition, or fact, about reality. You, my dear save the frogs, believe in past, present and future as conditions of reality and therefore true. There can, then, be nothing else that is true. And so when confronted with an idea which challenges your belief as to your accepted "truth" you quite naturally dismiss this contrary idea as false. Beliefs, therefore create one's reality. The magician's illusion here is precisely that. Whatever one believes to be true is for all intents and purposes true. And since the belief creates the experience and the experience it creates therefore reinforces the belief in a never ending cycle then once it is understood what creates the illusion one can finally understand it and use beliefs consciously to create what they want rather than creating by using beliefs in an unconscious manner. For as long as folks have beliefs which they believe to be true, beliefs which again are thought to be conditions of reality rather than beliefs about reality, it will never, ever occur to them to question the validity of their beliefs, for the "truth" of their beliefs is exactly that which prevents them from doing so. And so they will create their lives, their experience, by default through not examining the beliefs they hold. I am poor is a belief. I am wealthy is a belief. Each belief creates the corresponding experience which matches the belief. The experience reinforces the "truth" of the belief. The belief is taken as a condition of reality, not as a belief about reality. Being poor will be the only "truth" for the person who subscribes to it and holds it. And to suggest there are indeed other "truths" is then seen as nonsense, or an attempt to mislead, perhaps by a false prophet. Do you begin to see what's happening here, save the frogs? Once it becomes apparent it is so self evident that trying to deny it as like trying to deny the nose on one's face. That is why I claim to know rather that say things like, "Well, I think so and so to be true," or "What my experience hath shown me is so and so," or "What I believe is this and that," or "What I've found to be true is this," etc. I know what I know is true, is bedrock reality, and I am not afraid to say that I know. I'm not playing that game of pretending to not really know when I do know any longer. And for the simple and only reason being that folks can't accept that people can know what bedrock reality is. Say you can never know and so it shall be. You will never know.

Brilliant. You look at a few quotes without even considering their fuller context and then immediately conclude that it's all rubbish. Zero patience in attempting any understanding. Simply brilliant there, save the frogs. Well done!! Let's look at just the first quote: “Suffering is not good for the soul, unless it teaches you how to stop suffering. That is its purpose.” Not true? Rubbish? What's he saying there? Can you put it in your own words? Rephrase it? Can you explain what is untrue about it? Can you provide your own explanation for why suffering in the world exists? What's your theory of the case? And how would your theory work as a practical application? How do you handle the suffering in the world? What do you make of it? How many seconds did it take for you to conclude there's no value in that statement and that it's meaningless? So many questions. Will you answer them one by one? Or is your time limited? Now if I were to say you lack patience and do not at all attempt any true understanding by pondering upon the statement for a greater length than a split second some might accuse me of stating my opinions. Unjustly so, too. And point out that it's problematic for me to do so. Yet is it an opinion or is it an accurate assessment? If someone were to say of the drunk passed out mid morning on a park bench that he drinks too much would that be a judgmental opinion or an accurate assessment? Does the truth ever hurt? Questions. More questions. And ever more questions. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_VLOm4_559UI/TL7wqx9XF7I/AAAAAAAABe4/XetoXVg4bao/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/mybrainisfull.jpg

"cult leader may be over the top." Over the top to ludicrousness? I think that's the perception of most here. "but there is such a thing as being too pushy with one's ideas." Different strokes for different folks. There are folks who actually engage in the ideas I present. They find them intriguing and are eager to know more. They are curios people. They desire to know. They have the patience required to know. They naturally avoid all of the many pitfalls which serve as barricades for others. I understand full well that understanding does not come easily at times, and certainly not always quickly. As with many things, it requires persistence. Only those who have heard enough then deem that persistence to be pushiness. "and especially if those ideas are not that sound, it could be a problem." If you wanted to be fair and honest you would admit that you have little knowledge of the ideas I present. They are foreign to you. And as I've often said, you cannot explain how life works, or who we are, in a few paragraphs. Not only that but, again if you wanted to be fair and honest, you must admit that there's a very good chance that everything you believe to be true is not necessarily true. So if an idea flies in the face of what you believe to be true you forget what I point out in the previous sentence. You then come from the position, using the assumption, that everything you know thus far is indeed true. And so, between lacking the patience to wait for a full explanation and assuming that all you know to be true is true then it's only natural and logical that you would, in your haste, ascribe a small portion of an explanation to be unsound. That's purely elementary, my friend. "you mentioned buddhism as a dogma in a past post." Rather, you interpreted me as saying that Buddhism is a dogma. For I said no such thing. Buddhism is not dogma. As with any religion (and yes, it's been argued that Buddhism isn't a religion) there exists a certain degree of dogma. "i've personally read a few buddhist books, grabbed some ideas that interested me, but ignored 90% of it." I wonder what can be inferred from that statement.

You are truly a gentle soul, Sunmaster. You could have addressed your post specifically to me, as it is obviously in response to how you perceive my approach and you wish to comment on my approach by contrasting it with yours. Of course as long as you don't name me then there can be no confrontation. No worries if you directly name me or even call me out. I enjoy criticism. As long as it's constructive and not given for the sole purpose of denigrating. I agree with what you say but I also disagree. But you'll have to wait on my peculiar perspective until tomorrow.

What's amusing and interesting, Hummin, is that even though I state repeatedly that I do not deny your reality or even bash your reality you keep on insisting that that is what I'm doing. If I saw a besotted bloke laying asleep on a park bench in the middle of the morning and I remarked simply and without judgement or without adding any flowery embellishments that he drinks too much you would accuse me of sitting on my judgemental throne and in my high and mighty view of myself pointing out his faults and shortcomings. And that I do so only because I suffer from insecurity. At the same time I'm also denying the drunk his reality, pronouncing his life to be incomplete due to his lack of understanding life. What's amusing and interesting, Hummin, is how you are able to read so much nonsense into something that's not there. Not a single comment on the rest of the post. That's remarkable. You only see what you want to see. I gotta hand it to you, you are one of the biggest crybabies I've ever come across. A never ending river of salty tears. And you will be back to read this. Guaranteed.

save the frogs. The conspiracy theorist.