Tippaporn

We're taught that the material world is all there is. So it's not a great surprise that folks are grabbing what they can while it lasts. It's the natural outcome, the product of that idea. And other similar ideas which fall into it's orbit, of course. Materialism isn't inherently "wrong," though. Considering the fact that this reality is one in which we learn to create via ideas then to create one's own life one needn't worry about what anyone else is creating for themselves. I know what the common answer to that would be. "But what they create affects me . . ." Only as much as you allow it to, though.

BTW, I thought you already had your fill of this place and exited quite some time ago. Don't come back now just to troll with your disbelief and demands to satisfy you on your terms only. And with an upfront refusal to debate anything. We're serious people here.

Oh boy. You really put me on the spot. What do I do now?!?!?!?! Sorry, Fat is a type of crazy, but I can't meet your demands. I therefore admit to you that I'm just a normal person with normal beliefs. Nothing more. Sorry, folks, for having misled ya'll this entire time. No one can meet your demands except yourself, Fat is a type of crazy. It's for you to prove to yourself for no one else's proofs will do. That is the simple reality of your situation. And others. Go ahead and punt. It's your life.

I'd like to comment on some of the experiences folks here have related as to experiencing subjective reality more or less directly. Direct knowing, for instance. Ours is a reality which requires our full attention and focus. That focus is important to our very survival. Now many here understand that there exists the reality of our inner self. Some call it the greater self, or the higher self, both terms which I don't like because the words are loaded with all sorts of meanings. Experiencing that more expansive reality of our inner, or subjective self is without doubt highly beneficial. One can experience great clarity without any reasoning involved whatsoever. Euphoria as well. Unfortunately those types of experience lead some to believe that earthly existence is little more than a mere shadow in comparison. A lower form of existence. There are religions which teach the road to enlightenment and speak of this worldly existence in most derogatory fashion. Our physical existence is then thought to be unwanted, something to move out of as quickly as possible. I can understand how these ideas evolve. Yet what is forgotten, or unaccounted for, or dismissed, is the fact that our very existence here serves a very important function to the inner self. The inner self is unable to experience as we do and thus benefits from and through our experience. Our existence here is quite important and integral and so any philosophy which attempts to denigrate it grossly misses the point. Seth provides many, many exercises for the express purpose of expanding our awareness outside of it's usual confines. But he also stresses that any such expansion of awareness, or expansion of consciousness, is not meant to replace our experience here but rather it is to be used to enhance our physical experience. Some here have alluded to the sentiment that reason and logic are merely poor cousins to this state of direct knowing. And therefore conclude that reasoning and logical thought are not so important. That sentiment ignores the most obvious and in-your-face fact that we are reasoning and thinking creatures. As Seth has stated, humans are the thinking portion of nature. The inherent reasoning and thinking aspects of our type of consciousness are vitally important. Those aspects are what allows use to produce all which man has created and that which animals cannot. From our technologies to our arts and sciences we utilise not only our abilities of imagination and intuition but our intellect and reasoning capabilities as well. I would hesitate greatly before poo-pooing reason and logic. Neither would I overly rely on intellect alone, as intellect has been fashionably thought these days to be the only aspect of ourselves which can solve every man-made problem. The ideal is a blending of all of our aspects and abilities.

Again, I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I will, however, state what I know and leave it up to each and everyone here to choose for themselves. And hopefully people will choose wisely for themselves. But, as the Thais love to say, up to you. Amen.

At the risk of repeating myself I will say again: Reality is what it is. Reality functions as it does. It cares not one whit what anyone believes it is or believes about it's functioning. It does not change. Call that truth if you will. Although as is evidenced here "truth" is not the same for everyone. Truth is indeed truly relative. So instead call reality and it's functioning bedrock reality. It exists as surely as you exist. How does our reality function? How is it that we create? Those answers can be found in just the title of an essay produced by Jane Roberts back in 1963. "The Physical Universe As Idea Construction." That is not metaphorical. That is literal. Anyone who understands that concept thoroughly is then capable of perceiving the illusion we call objective reality. We literally create every last stitch of our experience, from the most insignificant detail down to the most profound experience, via our use of idea construction. Every belief anyone holds or subscribes to is an idea construction. What we are doing on this plane of existence is the work of literal creation using ideas, little different than a painter using paints. And yet we are largely unaware of the task of creation that we are engaged in or the the means by which we perform this task. And there is good reason why we come here unaware. It is possible, however (though it's a rare one who is willing to believe in the possibility), and perhaps it's ultimately inevitable for all of us, to understand what bedrock reality is, how it functions, and what our role has been all along. That, my friends, is like awakening in a dream to the realisation that one is dreaming. It is an awakening instead to the realisation of who we are and what we are doing here. And furthermore, a thorough understanding of how we do what we do. It 's an understanding that life doesn't happen to us but rather life is created by us. We literally are, each of us, Gods in that sense. We are creators. The most confounding and confusing aspect is this notion of truth. Whatever one believes is literally their "truth." And so there are more "truths" out there than one can shake a stick at and each "truth" is "true." But, you see, that is the entire point of idea construction. You take ideas, subjective reality, and literally materialise that into it's physical counterpart. You then are able to experience an idea in all of it's fullness rather than simply experiencing it mentally. Whatever ideas are materialised then become the r-e-a-l objective reality which is then experienced. It's all real and it's all "true." Beliefs are nothing more than ideas. So whatever one believes will be that which he or she will then experience. If you lack money that is a belief. Not a condition of reality but a belief about reality. You create using ideas so the belief in the lack of money produces the experience of a lack of money. Change the belief to an abundance of money and so that belief produces the experience of abundance. A poor man will show you the evidence of his "truth." A wealthy man will show you the evidence of his "truth." Both poverty and abundance exist and each is both real and true. Once it is understood that there are multiple "truths" then the only question becomes which one do you prefer? Which "truth" would you like to experience? The idea that there is only one true reality causes great consternation and confusion. There exist literally endless realities. Sooner or later one becomes aware of the real rules of this game and can begin to play by those real rules. No longer does he or she create by default, which is via the idea that life happens to you, and begins to deliberately create private experience by picking and choosing those ideas, and only those ideas, which produce the manufactured reality which is desired. One finally comes to the realisation that he or she is a literal God creating his or her own experience. And that there is no outside force which thrusts upon or inserts experience into any other's experience. It is all chosen by the inherent free will which is an indelible part of what we are. Complete and total free will. Once that realisation comes upon one, the fact that we are all involved in creating our reality in all of it's gruesome and/or majestic detail, then does one's private world truly change. The veil of illusion has been pierced and when that point is reached I believe our reincarnational cycle is over and we move on to other challenges. Anyway, I want to re-emphasise the point that there is such a thing as bedrock reality which is the source of all believed realities. There is the possibility of becoming aware of that reality. And for me, as a design engineer, as someone who has deep appreciation for how things work using the laws which govern this reality, the mechanics of what's really going on is truly a marvel to behold.

Here's what I see happening. Person 1: I believe thus and so. Person 2: What evidence or reason can you provide which leads to the conclusion of your belief? Person 1: I have none. Person 2: Well, here's some evidence and reasoning which contradicts your belief. Person 1: Are you saying my belief isn't true? Person 2: Given the evidence and reasoning I provided you won't you agree that my position is true. Person 1: Stop trying to convert me and stop trying to deny my personal reality. Person 2: Okay. "Why do you think you know what I have, or have not examined? I doubt you are psychic to know, so all you have are words that I have written on here, and words are a very imperfect way of communicating at the best of times, and more so when it comes to this subject." I don't have to be a psychic. It might come as a surprise to you but it's precisely the words you write here which expose what your beliefs are for all to see. And if your expressed beliefs don't make sense (granted, I fully understand and am fully aware that they make sense to you) then I can only attempt to show you why they don't make sense. And that's when everyone takes huge offense. And stops debating what is actually true or not and says, f the truth, and only goes on to defend their belief to the death. They usually give up before that, though, and just opt out of the debate using any number of excuses. Such as: "If I were to attempt to explain my beliefs more fully my posts would be as long as yours, and I've already said why that would not be a "good thing"." That's an excuse to avoid exposing and discussing the reasoning you actually employ which allows you to believe what you believe to be true. As long as you don't explicitly state your reasoning then you can forever come up with responses such as, "I believe in what seems right to me," to serve as the ultimate justification for believing anything at all. And thereby ending any further debate. The discussion then evolves to claims that I'm simply trying to convert others, can't understand others, think myself superior, deny others their valid experiences, that I'm really insecure, on and on and on. Imagine that there are people whose understanding is such that it allows them to see the reasoning behind someone's beliefs without them ever stating their reasoning. It's called self evidence. And that self evidence is easily perceivable after one gains a lot of knowledge. Sorry, I understand that I'm not allowed to claim that I know anything. My apologies. It's all just due to my insecurities.

I've altered my post to fit your specific objection. It's simply swapping out "God" for "simultaneous time." Google relativity of simultaneity. Then ask yourself whether it's an absurd concept only to you? And only because you know nothing of the subject matter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneitysimultaneous time

Pray tell what it is I wrote that is nonsensical. I'm more than willing to have a debate about it. We might thus even be able to come to an understanding.

It's only natural that if someone isn't familiar with the subject matter then he's apt to consider so much of a discussion on the topic to be nonsense. I wouldn't hold that against anyone. But if you conclude something to be nonsense then it would be well to then raise your objections giving your own reasoning. A debate could then ensue. But simply declaring something nonsensical without saying why it is then, as you say, debate becomes impossible.

There's a curious aspect regarding beliefs. As long as one believes in something as true or not then so it is true or not for them. It should be understood that belief trumps reason, logic and even facts. More often than not people will argue for their beliefs and the truth be damned. Actual truth is not the goal that is sought when defending a belief. The goal becomes only to defend the belief at all costs. Thus no amount of reason, logic or facts can sway a man who is convinced of the truth of his belief.

The above meme is for you, save the frogs. How can you know anything other than what you know if you're adamant about never going beyond what you know? Granted, you're willing to accept an unknown to be true but only if it satisfies your definition of evidence. For instance, you don't believe in the concept of a God. You have neither evidence for nor against. The main reason you don't believe that a God exists is because you see no evidence and evidence is a requirement for you to believe something At the same time you understand that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Yet despite this knowledge you still claim that God can't exist and those who do are full of nonsense. If you pride yourself on your reasoning mind then the above shows how folks can use reason itself to create unreasonable positions.

Well, maybe not an override. But an intervention. My despair was triggered by the divorce but that was only the straw that broke the camel's back. The construction of my poor self image had begun many, many years prior and, like Marley's chains, I constructed it link by link and the weight of it had become unbearable. What I received was an infusion of love for myself. Granted, it spilled out everywhere. But it was for me to feel love for myself. On that point I have zero doubt. Kinda like electric shock given a patient whose heart has stopped. When I had first read Oversoul 7 I just naturally made the connection. I believe there was one such similar episode with one of the personalities who received an intervention. I can't rightly recall but I think it had to do with a cat crossing the personality's path which caused him to change physical course. Yes, it was very special. And it remains a touchstone to this day.

I've often thought about Seth qualifying that statement. And now that you've given me an example I can confirm that I've had a similar experience once. It was a time, long ago, when my wife at the time decided she wanted to divorce me. I was devastated and deeply depressed. I had felt myself to be the cause of our marital failure and my self blame caused me to focus on myself as a failure in all ways. You're familiar with associative thought, Sunmaster. And associative thought was heavily in play. Depression can be so severe that it can actually produce bodily sensations. I was at work once and at one point felt this depression affect my body to a degree that I had to go into a bathroom stall so that in privacy I might be able to compose myself. As I sat on the commode with my head sunk into my hands I was suddenly overwhelmed by a feeling of pure love. For myself and literally everything. The intensity of that feeling was like nothing I'd ever felt before or since. I sobbed uncontrollably like a child while completely immersed in that feeling. Once I managed to control my sobbing I exited the rest room and walked out into the factory. This feeling of pure love persisted and did not diminish in intensity. I felt love for every co-worker I gazed at. There was one guy in particular who I did not like. And to my shock I felt the same love for him. I can't recall but I think the experience lasted perhaps a half hour or so. I certainly had not been entertaining loving thoughts prior to the feeling of love overcoming me. In fact my thoughts were quite the contrary. Now this is for you alone, Sunmaster, but in hindsight I was thinking of Oversoul 7. Was that a deliberate override? I tend to think it was. But to your point, perhaps that is what Seth refers to when he qualifies emotion and imagination "largely" coming from thought. Our experience in this world is largely one of thought. As long as you're awake you can't turn them off. See Seth and Castaneda on that point, for they are in agreement that if you stop your thoughts then you no longer uphold this creation of this illusion any longer and it would disappear. No doubt we can experience directly, without thoughts. But I do recall Seth saying that emotions are not only aspects of who we are in this reality but others, too. So I would say, yeah, ecstasy is an emotion since it's still a feeling. But I can see now how feelings can be experienced without thought. Still I think that due to the fact that Seth makes the statement often enough without the qualifier it is because our experience is generally one in which we are by far and large engaged in creating using thoughts here. Comments?

Well said.

No one can know. How does that belief benefit you, Hummin? Just be aware that you can't help but put yourself in the same pot as you believe that. You, then, can never know either. News flash: There are people in the world that do know, Hummin. Certainly not everything. But they do know a great deal. While you cry whenever you feel someone is trying to deny your reality merely by challenging you you then do a one-eighty without so much as missing a beat and deny the realities of those who claim to know. Does that not smack of hypocrisy? Knowing something = superiority? A logical fallacy. Speaking with confidence on what you know = superiority? Another logical fallacy. My criticism here is pointed directly at your ideas, Hummin. Not your person. You are a good man. My criticism is constructive and not degrading. I hold your feet to the fire. I attempt to force you to use that noodle between your ears which has been gifted you for a reason. And I've told you before you are extremely stubborn. And a bit of a cry baby. Have a great Sunday, too, Hummin.

I agree with the first two statements. The last is, in my opinion, bogus. Except in that he ends that statement affirming man's grace We inherently have desire and thoughts. If these are inherent yet they are weak and evil then we are inherently weak and evil. It can't be any other way. Makes no sense. Habits are neither weak nor evil. Habits are simply habits. They can cut both ways. I've rejected Buddhism for the same reasons I rejected Christianity. Too much that just doesn't make sense and doesn't ring true.

"I believe I have answered most of your questions." 5555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555 Well, at least you qualify that as a belief. Because it's nowhere near factual. "I would put them in a different order, Emotions - thoughts - imagination and you know this is not done in a short answer." I don't think you could explain how your theory works even with an answer of any length. But I do think that you'll never be willing to provide anything other than that short answer. I guarantee we'll never see one but I'd wager we would see an excuse as to why you won't provide one. "Do we feel before we think?" I've said it here many times, even in replies to you directly and as of late, that one of the easiest things to prove to one's self is the fact that thoughts come first and emotions and imagination follow. Since you are asking the question after I've suggested you test the idea out yourself is, again, the proof in the pudding that you stubbornly ignore anything I tell you. I'm talking to the proverbial wall. "You asking the ultimate question depending on your belief and your teaching . . . " 5555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555 I'm asking the simplest of questions. One so simple that anyone can easily figure it out in no time at all, especially given that the answer has been provided already. All you have to do is confirm via observation. ". . . and there is no good answers really . . . " The answers are everywhere. But if you recall you've admittedly stopped searching. I think the reason you make this statement is so that you can claim all sorts of personal beliefs, never have to worry about being wrong, and never have to worry about anyone holding your feet to the fire to explain yourself. It's your "get out of jail" free card. "There is no good answers really. Not for anything. We can all just make everything up as we go along. And anyone's answers are as good as anyone else's. As long as it's true for you who's to say it's not true. Everyone gets a passing grade. Class dismissed." ". . . except we are a product of continuous stimuli . . . " Got anything to back that statement up? Do you remember grade school when your math teacher would demand not only the answer to the math problem but also require you to show your work (called proofs). So this is your answer but no reasoning to show how you've arrived at your answer. If you had tried that with you math teacher you probably would have received a well deserved rap on the knuckles from her ruler.

Sorry for the late reply. Been busy. Seth generally states that emotions and imagination follow thought. There are a few times where he has qualified that statement with "largely." And yet I've never come across a given example where emotions or imagination are produced by other means. Since his repetition of that idea more often than not does not include the qualifier then I think it safe to rely on it without the qualifier. I'm sure that if the statement without the qualifier was not the, say, typical case then he would have provided the differentiation or further explanation. Ecstasy is certainly an emotion. But I, myself, don't at all see that emotion divorced from thought. Per it's definition, which I think is the common accepted one: ecstasy [ ek-stuh-see ] - rapturous delight. - an overpowering emotion or exaltation; a state of sudden, intense feeling. - the frenzy of poetic inspiration. - mental transport or rapture from the contemplation of divine things. I can think of no example of experiencing the feeling of ecstasy before experiencing thoughts of supreme delight or exaltation. Do you have an example? Sudden fear is the result of a sudden awareness of an impending situation . . . real or imagined. The very instant that a threat is perceived is the same instant that the corresponding emotion is felt. If one were killed in an instant without ever having an awareness of one's impending doom then the old aphorism, "he never knew what hit him," applies. Does that make sense to you?

"Does a 2 year old create the brain tumour that kills him slowly and in a great deal of pain?" That's a tough one. To accept. You create your own reality. There is no other main rule. Now, you may not agree with the above, and no doubt you don't. You assuredly have your own beliefs as to the causes and reasons for the reality of the above hypothetical example. And one can be assured also that you have no way of proving whatever your belief is. Despite that fact you believe it anyway. Despite the fact that you have no way of explaining how your belief works. If my belief sounds unbelievable then you must admit that your belief sounds just as unbelievable. Again, remember that your belief comes with no proof nor evidence nor any working model nor any explanation as to why your belief is "true." The difference between your belief and mine is that while you can offer no explanation, and thus willy nilly believe in whatever sounds about right (much of it guaranteed to be some of the unexamined mass beliefs which were taught you on your trail through life) I at least am able to provide the means for proving what I say to be true to one's self and provide rational and reasoned explanations including a working model. Is what I say above true?

Well spoken.

Come to think of it @Hummin , I can't even ask you questions because you won't even answer them. You'll give me some ridonkulous excuse for your own failure to answer questions and even go so far to disingenuously turn the tables to blame me for your refusal. So if I were to ask you what thoughts, emotions and imagination are, what their purpose is, and why we have them you'd come back to me with this: "Why I do not answer all your questions, is because maybe you need to answer those questions for yourself, not me to give you those answers." The truth is, Hummin, you don't answer questions because you have no answers. You make communication truly impossible.

"I can call you out on one thing, you know very little about chronic depression . . . " You don't know that. You couldn't know that. So I call BS. BTW, mine was chronic. ". . . which comes from technically said the wiring in your brain, be it from birth simply said by heritage or the environment you grow up in. There is a reason we have medical conditions named by diagnoses, and for each Diogenes there is similarities but still there is differences that seperates them." Don't take it personally now, Hummin. You are not your ideas. You are the personality who thinks ideas. Now that we've got that straight then I call bullsh!t on the ideas you've just presented. I can tell you why. In detail. But you haven't been willing thus far to explore any of the ideas I've offered you. And as long as you are unwilling then my explanations fall on deaf ears. I may as well be talking to the wall. Have you taken me up on playing with the concept that emotions and imagination follow your thoughts? Such a simple, simple exercise. Takes no time at all. Very little effort. Again, the proof is always in the pudding. You've no interest, really, to even consider any new ideas. But you do seem to gravitate towards any idea, no matter it's idiocy, as long as it's "science" based. You seem to listen as long as it bears the patina of authority. The common man . . . not so much. Boy, if only I had PhD at the end of my name. You'd be all ears.

Depression has it's cause and that cause is the same for everyone. Thoughts. The degree of depression is only a difference in the degree of focus. The length of depression in terms of time is only the duration of focus. The reason for having depressive thoughts is as varied as snowflakes. Your remedy is a good one. Because everything about your remedy is positive. Which should serve as proof that thoughts generate emotions and direct the imagination which then together all produce experience.