Tippaporn

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.

My apologies, Mike. I interpreted your response as being directed specifically towards me as it could have been read that way. Now I understand you were referring to preachers. I can't blame preachers for preaching, though. They can't really do otherwise. I cut them slack as a matter of understanding. Given that Christianity teaches that the Lord and Jesus Christ are our saviors then a preacher, out of love for his fellow man, must therefore attempt to save others. It's the Godly thing to do. It's his calling. Of course, God isn't our savior as there is nothing to save anyone from. Christianity doesn't know that, though.

Hummin, I'll second Sunmaster's sentiment. You wrote a very beautiful post. Whether one agrees or disagrees with you, you can't take that beautiful post away from you. Cheers! Although you could perhaps consider me your chief antagonist I fancy that I've played some small role in helping you put your self realisations to words. I know I've asked you more than enough questions to clarify yourself when your expressions of how life works for you were severely ambiguous. Or hounded you to the ends of the earth to finally answer all of those unanswered questions I've put to you. I'm still waiting for many of those answers, BTW. And it was good of you to admit outright at one time that you do like to cherry pick. Which is perfectly understood. Now it's absolutely true that no one needs to have the answers to life, or even to have found their God, in order to live a happy and fulfilling existence. No one needs a God or a Seth or a guru nor a master for those conditions have never been hard coded requirements which must be met before happiness and fulfillment can be had. There are innumerable people living in the world right now who lead glorious existences without ever having searched for answers. Many who simply have an innate sense and understanding of what brings happiness and where true happiness comes from. I'll again salute you and end it here. An uncharacteristic short post for me.

BTW, I liked your Worf avatar better. Those Klingons were true warriors. Tough stuff.

Jai yen yen. What I wrote is true, Neeranam. You first gave me a "huh" reply. Okay, it was obvious that you were insulted. So I immediately wrote you a nice post to explain not only my thinking but an admission that I obviously f'd up my wording so that it ended up having the reverse effect of what my intention was. Which was to ensure you wouldn't be offended. And I ended to point blank state that no offense was intended. Any reasonable person, I would think, would have concluded, oh, no intended offense. Just an unfortunate mix up. Not a problem. But none of that was good enough for you. Though it was an innocent misunderstanding, well, no matter. The only thing that could appease your hurt feelings was an outright "I'm sorry." But what the hell should I be sorry about? As it was an innocent misunderstanding then where's the crime? The reality is that I never did insult you. So why the brouhaha over an innocent misunderstanding, Neeranam? Is it that difficult for you to understand? So you're insulted that I would suggest that you would be embarrassed for what you believe. And you're insulted because I didn't apologise to your satisfaction. The polite reply I gave you to clear the air was unsatisfactory without a formal apology. Nope, not good enough. So i give you a curt reply and have again insulted you. Now it's your intelligence. And lastly I insulted you about your sensitivity. To which you admit flat out that you are sensitive to other's criticism and you're not ashamed of being sensitive. Perhaps you're even proud of it. I dunno. Some people are. Here's being a man in my book, Neeranam. Be so confident in yourself and what you believe that no man could ever insult you. About anything. It would be an impossibility. You will have just cut the umbilical chord thru which others control your emotions. No one could ever trigger you any longer and make you feel any way other than how you want to feel. You're now in control of your emotions rather than those who may inadvertently bump your arm as they were passing by. And you're now free to respond with forethought rather than a simple, uncontrollable knee-jerk response. I'm sure you've heard about the rage these days, especially on college campuses, where students suffer from constant micro-aggressions, where every interpretation of a word they deem harmful and hurtful triggers them to the extent that they double over and have to scurry to the nearest "safe place" to be comforted by furry, stuffed animals. These poor kids have been convinced that they don't even control their own emotions. Everyone else does. And everyone else, therefore, needs to change. Not them, though. They wouldn't think of changing themselves. Despite the fact that changing themselves is the only thing they can change. They can't change other people. Now, I've apologised more often than I can remember on this forum. Why, just recently to Hummin. But when someone demands an apology for an incident as trivial as an inadvertent arm bump, in which no harm was intended, then I say no. I did nothing wrong that deserves an apology. But that wouldn't be my only reason for not apologising. For if I were to apologise I would be condoning and supporting your sensitivities. I'd be treating and appeasing you like those unfortunate grown-up college kids. Which is not helpful to you. What would be helpful to you would be to take the advice I gave above. Learn to have supreme confidence in your own being, in your own knowledge. Learn to have an unshakable sense of self worth such that no one's words could ever again cause you to lose control of your own emotions to where you would blame them for making you nilly willy feel so and so. You said you were interested in learning. Well, take this as a lesson. And yes, you are intelligent enough to understand what I've written here. Though this doesn't really have anything to do with intelligence. But it does have everything to do with belief. Cheer up, Neeranam. I'm not your enemy. So don't make me one.

They're not the only knuckleheads.

This video title was just too intriguing to pass on. I just had to watch how someone who can't tell the difference between the mind and brain can conflate the two. I mean, that's gotta be one helluva trick. I just had to know how he performed this impossible feat. "The identity theory is a "scientific hypothesis" which cannot be dismissed on logical grounds." He had to give warning that this was so important that he had to repeat it slowly and write it down. "Okay, what does that mean. Well, I can't tell you. I'd have to spend about 3 or 4 minutes on what the word "is" is. Maybe you didn't know but there are certain kinds of "is'es." They do very different things but they look and sound the same." After 3 or 4 minutes of explaining all of the different "is'es" while talking to the audience like they're 2-year old toddlers he comes up with, "You need to believe me, and not because I'm an authority figure or something like that . . . " I'm scratching my head thinking why the hell he just didn't ask Bill Clinton about what "is" is? I guess he felt he just had to reinvent the wheel. I could go through the entire video and pick it apart but the above gives a good general idea of the inanity. While it was utterly laughable it was, on the other hand, quite sad. This guy was lecturing to students at one of the "higher" education institutions. If this is where science is heading then God help us all. This is from the video description: This is a video lecture about a the 1956 paper "Is Consciousness a Brain Process?" by U.T. Place. This lecture distinguishes the "is"s of identity, prediction, definition, and composition. And I explain how Place uses these distinctions to defend the identity theory from a common line of attack. The central idea is that the mind-brain identity theory is a scientific hypothesis, which cannot be rejected or disproven on logical grounds alone. This is part of an introductory philosophy course. Even sadder were the comments: "Oh my goodness, this was so helpful for my Phil of Mind class. You explained it in such a coherent manner. I can’t wait to check out the rest of your channel, thank you!" "I love the way it's impossible to describe the word 'is' without using the word 'is''." "You save us.. Thank you...very good class..Tomorrow is interanal xam." (Can't even bother to spell correctly . . . maybe hasn't learned yet.) This was my favourite comment: "For my Philosophy 101 college class, I offered a very simple explanation for the "mind-brain" theory. It wasn't elegant, but it seems to have sufficed. It went like this: to the students who offered endless theories as to why the mind and the brain were indeed separate entities, I asked one question: "If they are totally separate, then why when I get drunk or stoned does both my brain and my "mind" get drunk or stoned at the same time?"" mikebike, I gotta think that you were pulling my leg when you posted these "educational" videos. This was all a joke, wasn't it? Anyway, it was good for a laugh . . . and a cry, too. Small wonder that the idea that girls can be boys and boys can be girls . . . and get pregnant, too!!, is flourishing in a society which can no longer tell the difference between sexes. Picking up on the idea that the mind and brain are indistinguishable will be a snatch for them to pick up on that concept.