Sunmaster

7 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Don't forget to leave your mailing address for your family. 

 

 

My ego thanks you. 

 

Unfortunately there's no <whipping> emoticon for yours. 

There you go.

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Man, between you and RP you boys are drubbing my ar$e today.  The thanks I get . . .  

 

In all seriousness, though, you're analogy is invalid.  It violates the "two's company, three's a crowd" rule.  Sorry, Sunmaster. 

Seriously though, what do you think about the 3rd option. Maybe that's what Seth meant by "becoming the thought"?

I made a neat little sandbox for the Trolls to play in, but they still prefer to come here. Go figure...

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Are you admitting to having a tryst?  Sinner!!  And your greater self didn't reject you for your impurity?  Good luck connecting with your greater self now after your drunken escapade this past New Year's Eve. 

 

Now that we've swept the eggshells away and understand each other, I can now tell you a deep secret.  Someone once confided to me that they thought you were a cheap Charlie in passing out deserved reactions. 

You said it first... "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." The cave in the Himalayas will be there waiting for me for when I'm ready. 

Are you saying I'm not stroking egos enough? 
There you go: 

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Man, between you and RP you boys are drubbing my ar$e today.  The thanks I get . . .  

 

In all seriousness, though, you're analogy is invalid.  It violates the "two's company, three's a crowd" rule.  Sorry, Sunmaster. 

You say that as if a threesome were a bad thing...ts ts ts
I thought you were open-minded...

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

Of course if we do that 60's or 70's style we'll need some drugs.

Hey, waddabout me?!

53 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

@VincentRJ

 

I have to compliment you, Vince.  We've had a lot of exchanges of the years (that long?) but one thing I've noticed about you is that, unlike many other posters, you are NOT narrow-minded.  Quite the opposite.  And for that I have utmost respect for you. 

 

I had an idea just now that might provide some clarity to you about science and the methodology of science.  We had gone round on this before.  Now elsewhere on this forum I had posted an analogy which I think quite fittingly explains my views here.  But to repurpose it to include science requires a mere tweaking.  Hope you enjoy. 

 

**********

 

Imagine two people standing in front of an object of immense proportion, both standing with their noses almost touching this object.  They are each asked to interpret what this object is.  The one person, we'll refer to him as individual A, begins to provide his conclusions based on what data is apparent within his field of vision.  Now this person makes use of only their intellect as his perceptive tool.  The other person provides his conclusion and the two conclusions basically match.  Yet this other individual, we'll call him individual B, makes use of not only his intellect as a perceptive tool but his intuition as well.

 

Now whilst A is accepting the reality of this object at face value, given, of course, the amount of data he has to work with B's intuition is telling him that there's more to this object than what he is able to observe whilst his nose is pressed up against it.  And so he takes a few steps back.  Now more of this object is revealed to him.  He continues to step back, further and further until the entirety of the object is viewable to him.

 

A questions not that what he perceives is all that there is to perceive.  B's intuition causes him to question and that questioning is precisely what leads B to step back.

 

A then begins a conversation with B and asks whether his perception is the same.  B responds that, no, from his new vantage point his perception is greater since he has much more data available to him than he had with his much narrower perception.  Therefore his perception of what this object is does not match A's.  And so a heated argument begins.

 

A accuses B of being stupid for not perceiving what A perceives.  B shouts back, as there is quite some distance between them now, that he does indeed perceives what A perceives.  That is not the problem as B once had the limited perception and data set that A currently has.  But from his new vantage point, and with the new data available which this vantage point affords, he is able to perceive as A but also to perceive differently.  B communicates what he perceives back to A.  A has taken his limited perception and limited data set at face value, and furthermore firmly believes this to be the only perception possible of this object, as he also believes that what he perceives is all there is to perceive.  And so A yells back at B accusing him of being delusional for what he claims his perception to be.  For if what B claims to exist, per his perception and greater data set, is true then A would, or should, be able to perceive it as well.  And since A cannot perceive it then what B perceives cannot exist.

 

B shouts back at A, "Well, then, step back a bit to where I am and you, too, will be able to perceive what I perceive."  B then begins to provide to A the added data which was impossible to have from his initial vantage point.  A then accuses B of being non-rational and making no sense.  In return A provides B with his rationale and logic which supports the "truth" of what this object is.  B then counters to A with the fact that A's rationale and logic only appear sound given A's limited data set.  But with a greater data set then A's logical flaws would become apparent to him.

 

A refuses to suspend his beliefs as to what this object is and so refuses to step back from it.  In fact he indignantly shouts to A, "Well, what you're saying is crazy talk and no way am I going to go your way as I would then be crazy, too.  And I'm not crazy!!  You're crazy!!!"

 

A then exists the thread with a "humph!!!"

 

**********

 

So here's my tweaking.  A, who has his nose damn near pressed against the object he is trying to discern has a limited field of vision.  Let's assume that limited vision to be A's 'one' reality, the physical world and universe.  That is all that A is aware of . . . as long as his nose is pressed up against it for he is therefore unable to discern that which he cannot perceive.  Let's also say that that particular view of A's is individual, independent, and quite valid as itself.  Yet it is only a part of this greater humongous object.  We'll also say that this individual, independent, and quite valid portion has it's own unique attributes, characteristics and laws.  Let's call these laws what they are, as A knows them to be - the laws of physics.  Let's call the attributes, or the main attribute, objectivity.

 

Now stepping back A could see that his particular view, which represents only a small portion of this object, is only one of many.  A mosaic, if you will.  But A could, rather than stepping back, slide his nose along the surface of the object until, from A's new perspective, his view is of something else.  Another mosaic.  Now this new view of an entirely different mosaic would also be individual, independent, and quite valid, and with it's own unique attributes, characteristics and laws.  Yet the attributes are completely different, as are it's governing laws.  The laws of the previous mosaic do not apply to this mosaic.  Nor do the laws of this new mosaic apply to the previous one.

 

So in conclusion, A then realises that in his probing of his mosaic, in an effort to understand what it is and how it works, the tools and methodologies he uses to explore his mosaic cannot be used on, or in, another mosaic.  For the characteristics and attributes and laws are completely different.  A cannot use his tools and methodologies there so, though he understands now that other mosaics indeed exist, he also understands now that there is no way to bring proof of that mosaic's existence to his previous mosaic.

 

And so that is my analogy to explain my endless insistence that our science's methodologies are useless in proving so much else that exists because it's existence is in quite different terms.  In other words, subjective reality cannot be proven to exist in objective terms.  Such as a thought, an idea, for instance.  We can prove their existence only via their effects on objective reality.  But we cannot prove the existence of the thing itself objectively.

 

The idea that everything can ultimately be proven scientifically is an idea which is grounded in, and wholly dependent upon, the idea that objective reality is the one and only reality which exists.  Destroy the idea of a single reality and the idea which existence is dependent upon vanishes into thin air.  Or the ether, whichever you prefer. 

 

One other point I'd like to make is that there are indeed a set of universal laws which apply to all realities.

 

Let me know if this makes sense to you.  I'm curious. 

Now let me introduce fellow C.

He sees A and B bickering over the object's look, endlessly discussing this and that propriety. C is not satisfied with any of it.
He read somewhere that there is an even better way to know the object than to just stepping back and looking at it and then describing it. He heard that the best way to know the object is to close his eyes, step away from all the mind stuff and identify with the object, in other words....become one with the object. So he does that and thus gains an even higher vantage point of understanding the object, which is now no longer an object, but his own body. He understands that all other vantage points are too limited to grasp the full existence of the object as they still rely on the mind to translate what they see into words. Being the object gives C a complete, immediate and natural understanding, without the filters and distortions of the mind.

Happily, C tells both A and B about his discovery. They look at him in disbelieve. A thinks he's even crazier than B. B takes out his notebook and tries to tell C that what C is saying does not match what the notebook is saying and tells C that he must be mistaken. If C could only study his notebook better, he would see the error too.
So C smiles at himself and goes for a walk.

The thesaurus....at least one book we all have in common. 🤣

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

@Sunmaster

 

Rather than edit my post to include another question, and something else which seems to be lacking in any of your discussions of the worldview you hold, gleaned from various sources, is this:

 

What of the inherent infinite creativity which consciousness is endowed with?  Where does that fit into 'higher' and 'lower' consciousness and inner and outer realities?

 

 

I see creativity as an inherent quality of consciousness. The same way as love. We are vehicles to express these qualities. 

One may tap into these qualities according to his present state of development. 

Incidentally, I just wrote a comment today on Facebook in one of the watercolor groups.

"Art is the physical interpretation, expression and manifestation of your inner world. A shallow person will produce shallow art. A person who has navigated  and explored the inner world deeply, will be able to produce art full of deeper meaning. Strive to know yourself, your true nature and identity and good art will follow. This is independent of technical skills, but those skills obviously help to translate the inner world into physical art effectively."

While I have a hard time calling myself an artist (creativity+skills), I think I'm quite creative and I try to channel this in everything I do. 

Does this answer your question? 

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Imagine the One being a child. It's lonely and bored and wants a friend to play with. So it creates finger puppets. Now it has 10 puppets on its hands but they have no independence. So the child decides to let the finger puppets forget the fact that they are the fingers of the child, so they start believing that they are separate entities. They start to interact with each other as if they were separate characters. The child observes them and chuckles in delight. "Oh look at them. So funny. I wonder when they will realize their true nature. Well, let's wait and see."
Or something like this. :-D

Addendum about "free will".

From the perspective of the puppets they are indeed under the impression that they are deciding things. But ultimately they wouldn't exist without the will of the child. The child's will is a priori to the puppet's will. That makes their "free will" an illusion just like their existence as separate beings is an illusion. 

Does that make sense?

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

 

As to your third question . . .

 

I believe I had passed this on to you earlier.  123 pages.    The definitive handbook on Seth's recommended exercises.

 

Here's an interesting one pertaining to my comments on RP's Brainly offering.

 

Experiencing an idea intuitively

When this focus is finished, when the subject tells himself "Now I will come to, now I have solved the problems that I set out to solve," then what hap-pens is the withdrawal of the self from the plane. The construction vanishes and is heir to the materials which compose the particular universe.

I will also go into this more deeply. You should be able to see now why a concept such as I refer to is difficult to achieve on your plane. You cannot focus upon it thoroughly. When the fourth inner sense is exercised, and I will outline exercises and all three of you would certainly benefit by following my suggestions, you will discover what an idea really is.

You will discover this by experiencing the idea directly, and you can best achieve some approximation of accomplishment by using psychological time. Your idea of experiencing a concept is doubtlessly to follow it through from beginning to end. Sweet tootsies, there is no beginning or end, and this idea of yours is the result of a complete and utter concentration upon camouflage time.

Nor does the evolution of either an idea or a species involve time. It merely involves time in your universe. You insist upon labeling as laws of absolutes what is actually your distorted and limited vision of concepts as they seem to appear to you. Using psychological time, sit in a quiet room; and I hope this is not impossible, when an idea comes to you, and I presume it will, do not play with it intellectually. You can dissect it to your heart's content after the experience.

Reach out to the idea intuitively. Do not be afraid of or reject unfamiliar bodily sensations. With practice, and to a very limited degree, you will find that you can become the idea. You will be inside the idea, looking out, not looking in. This is thought.

If you think you think you are in for a surprise.

Session 37, Page 298

 

 

Compilation of Seth Exercises.pdf 607.66 kB · 0 downloads

 

I often read about "psychological time" but to be honest, I still don't quite understand what it is exactly. Maybe you can explain it?

The practical instruction here is a bit confusing. How do you become the idea? What is the point in becoming the idea? How do you reach out to the idea without becoming attached to it? Have you done it or are you practicing this? How?

I will try to answer your other question about creativity later. Now I have to take Basil and drive to the immigration office.

52 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

It is a reminder that words and concepts are limited and that the world is full of mystery, and that it's important to avoid becoming too attached to ideas, concepts or words as they can limit one's understanding of the true greater reality.

Edit & comment.  Green = Kind of ambiguous to me.  Unfortunately, I can't quite put my finger on it as I'm not too clear on the precise meaning that this is alluding to.  It's the "ideas, concepts" part that I'm having trouble with.  Somehow they don't seem to fit.  Any suggestions or what it means to you?

Excellent post.

The green section reminds me of the finger and the moon analogy. It is important to remember that the finger pointing at the moon (I called it "map" in previous posts) is not the moon. Becoming too attached to the finger, focusing too much on the way it looks, comparing it with other fingers etc, is keeping the seeker from experiencing the moon itself. 
Concepts emerge after the direct experience and are a way for the mind to build a framework around it and make sense of the experience. During the experience, there are no concepts because those are "mind stuff". The experience transcends the mind. 
So, all this means is not to get attached to the mind stuff, which is just a reflection of the moon in muddy waters.
 

59 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

So I ask, why does greater consciousness create these camouflage systems in the first place?

 

A common answer to this question (also known as "What the hell are we doing here?!") is that it is a way for the One to experience itself. And to do that, it has to split into 2. The next step is to put a veil of forgetfulness over the creation in order for the game to really work. 

Imagine the One being a child. It's lonely and bored and wants a friend to play with. So it creates finger puppets. Now it has 10 puppets on its hands but they have no independence. So the child decides to let the finger puppets forget the fact that they are the fingers of the child, so they start believing that they are separate entities. They start to interact with each other as if they were separate characters. The child observes them and chuckles in delight. "Oh look at them. So funny. I wonder when they will realize their true nature. Well, let's wait and see."
Or something like this. :-D

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Why do you choose to come into this camouflage system in the first place?  For it was, indeed, your choice to be here (though you would be hard pressed to recall making that decision ). 

Difficult to answer. Who is that "you" you're referring to? 

And with that, I'll let you digest and I will retire for the time being. 

Not sure how accurate the above info is...

 

While I wait for your reply, I asked another wise "man" called BARD.

 

In regards to RP's post, how do you see this point of direct experience as opposed to mere intellectual knowledge, Tippa?

Is Lao Tze's statement a distortion?

Does Seth offer practical methods to obtain direct experience? 

Asking for a friend...

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Okay, I jumped the gun as I posted before seeing your last post.  You posted before I was able to edit.  Reread for the edit.

 

But excellent.  Now we can have the benefit of discussing what's near and dear to both of us and rather than walking on egg shells over disagreements we can have some real fun while we're at it, too. 

It was a pretend sad face. 
Vulcans can not be sad...

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Come now, Sunmaster.  That was me telling you the equivalent of the "What's better, being black or being gay?" joke.  I'm ribbing you.  Poking fun.  Of course I don't think it's woo.  I'm purposely poking fun to say 1) none of this is life or death serious and 2) lighten up and have fun. 

 

I posted that anecdote to illustrate an ideal relationship I had with another in that we were so loose with each other that nothing between us was ever taken too seriously, though we did talk about serious issues.  But any disagreements we had over serious issues never even got close to producing heated arguments, with all of their accompanying ugly feelings.  Bull and I could talk about anything.  Anything at all and we would always maintain respect and love for each other.  (No, we weren't gay.)

 

Man, I would love to replicate that ideal again here. 

What makes you think I took it seriously??
I was laughing out loud and rubbing my Vulcan bear paws in anticipation!

Challenge accepted! 
 

43 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

~

Your post reminded me of this saying by Lao Tze -

"the way that can be spoken is not the true way"

That quote can be explained in many ways, but instead of trying to put its meaning in my owns word (or rather how I interpret it), I consulted the Brainly website, and the answer that came up addressed it in a far more eloquent way than what I would have written. 

 

> The meaning of this phrase is that the true nature of things cannot be fully captured or explained through words or language. It suggests that there is a deeper, more profound reality that lies beyond our ability to understand or express it through language. It highlights the limitations of human understanding and language and encourages us to seek a deeper understanding of the world beyond what we can see or hear.

 

This phrase is also interpreted as a reminder that language and concepts can only point to the true reality, they cannot capture it. It is a reminder that words and concepts are limited and that the world is full of mystery, and that it's important to avoid becoming too attached to ideas, concepts or words as they can limit one's understanding of the true reality. It suggests that true understanding comes from intuition and direct experience rather than through language or concepts.

 

= = =

 

Why this quote? 

Because all religions / teachings are by definition an imperfect way of trying to convey in words/writing what cannot be expressed in language. 

And so when choosing which Path (if any) to follow on your individual journey towards Truth, it is only natural that you will be attracted to that religion / teaching which is most aligned with you current level of consciousness.  For Tippa that's Seth, for Sunmaster it are the Hindu yogi's, sages and masters.  For me it's Gurdjieff and the Sufi sages.

Let me be clear > Imo there is no wrong or right Path, but it is the path that helps you on your journey which is the right one for you. And the closer you get to the Truth (or actual Reality as Tippa would say), the more you will recognize and appreciate the unspoken same undercurrent in all of these spiritual approaches.

 

Which finally brings me to the point that I wanted to make, that there is indeed - as Seth channeled - a tendency in Western seekers to search for truth 'far from home'.  With 'home' meaning their own cultural background. 

Every religion / teaching did emerge within a specific setting, i.e. the cultural traditions of the people they wanted to reach at that time using text/language fit and adapted for that specific setting in order to convey a glimpse of the Truth that cannot be expressed in words.

It is useful to remember that there is a rich Western esoteric tradition that is actually more fit to our cultural background than the 'exotic' Eastern religions and teachings that were established for people from a different age, time and tradition.

And this is no critique of Seekers that have chosen a non-Western teaching that coincides with their current spiritual needs, as I wrote higher: you have to be opportunistic on your journey and opt for that which helps you further. 

 

A touch of humor always helps, so here one of my favorite cartoons...

 

Absolutely spot on RP! Love it!

This especially: It suggests that true understanding comes from intuition and direct experience rather than through language or concepts.

And this core concept is not just a central point in eastern (exotic) philosophies/religions, but central in all spiritual paths, including Christian mysticism, Islam (Sufi) and Jewish Kabbalah.

And this is also my main point of contention. There can be no true understanding without direct experience. Knowledge on an intellectual level should only be there to translate direct experience, not replace it. 
Because of that I always point to the importance of daily practice. 

Here I can reply to @Tippaporn's answer to my 3rd question. Petting your cats, meditating on questions (=thinking), focusing elsewhere to find answers....are not the same as meditating. They are excellent ways to strengthen your connection within and trust your intuition, but they are still in the realm of the mind and the thoughts it produces. Meditation is a process where you aim not to follow any specific thought, so that the silence behind the thoughts moves to the foreground of your awareness. It is in that silence that lies the truth.
And while this practice is not just an eastern, exotic way to find truth, I think that Buddhism and Hinduism, having explored and refined it for 1000s of years, are experts in that field. 

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Yes and no.  I don't meditate in the traditional eastern religion way.  Never sat in a Lotus position with my arms resting on my knees. hands upraised with index fingers and thumbs touching each other. 

 

But I do meditate on questions or finding solutions to problems.  But the method I use there in quieting my thoughts can be something a simple as petting a pussy cat or distracting my focus elsewhere for an interval. 

 

 

I go to sleep.    It's funny but it's the honest to God truth. 

 

If the purpose of meditation is to connect with the rest of our self then I have to say I connect with the rest of my self often in daily life.  Information flows in both directions and I do receive that flow from my inner self often.  (My ego works GREAT!!  I luvs it!!  )  The thoughts are different and that's the tell for me.  But it's nothing special and it happens to everyone.  Have a problem?  The solution always comes from within.

 

There are multiple ways to connect with other portions of your self, and to different degrees.  I've had some rather intense experiences which weren't the result of meditation but were undeniably valid, intimate, and intensely strong connections.

 

Now I do understand what you're getting at, Sunmaster.  At least I think I do.    Which is to allow your consciousness to explore other realities, including your inner one, whilst maintaining your body here.  Consciousness is, after all, mobile.  Now at the risk of repeating myself, any such disassociation of your consciousness to connect or explore is for the purpose of enhancing your present, corporeal experience.  It is not for the purpose of escape.  I know you'll object to that statement and say, once again, that you're intention is not to escape this physical self.  But sometimes your writings don't seem to match up with that denial. 

 

 

I do note that you put 'escape' in quotation marks. 

 

". . . thus making the circle of physical birth and death redundant."

 

Now that doesn't appear to be a match to the purpose of this physical existence as I understand it to be.   

 

"Being reborn again and again is only necessary as long as there is ignorance regarding your true identity."

 

Is that all that physical existence is about?  Shedding your ignorance regarding your "true" identity and thereby making your physical existences redundant?  Here's where I see distortions.    Distortions regarding the very purpose of experiencing an existence in physical reality.

Great post Tippa. This gives me a lot of material. :-)
I will divide and conquer like you taught me. 

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Truth is a squirrely thing.  There can be more than one.  And oftentimes there is.  Most believe in only a single truth for everything. 

 

I can't help but using the word 'truth' when I speak or write about these things as it's the word that most use to frame things.  But rather I prefer my own quote:

 

Reality is what it is and functions as it does despite anyone's beliefs about what it is and how it functions.

-- Tippaporn

 

It provides a different framework for me.  It's not so much truth that I'm after as much as it is to know what is and how it works.  Hey, I'm a mechanical engineer/designer by trade so my interest extends to my profession in the most practical way.  Design something which does not comport with "how things work" and you've got one helluva disaster on your hands.  Boys can be girls and girls can be boys type of ideas just aren't gonna cut it. 

 

And quit interrupting me.  Do you want your answers or dontcha?   

 

Yeah, but....

I don't have any particular loyalty towards a specific religion or philosophy. My only allegiance is towards truth, in whatever way I can find it. Whatever works, works for me.

When I find 2 (seemingly) opposing truths, that tells me that there must be a "higher" truth that incorporates those 2 truths. So the next logical step is to transcend the confines of the 2 limited truths and find that truth which includes both. 

Take science and religion for example. Many people are stuck on one side or the other. The higher truth in this case can be called spirituality. It transcends and includes both points of view.

That's the only reason I ask so many questions. I'm not satisfied with "agree to disagree ". I want to know where the disagreement comes from.

42 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

BTW, I'm sure you've noticed by now that I'm making separate posts for each of my answers.  Answering many questions and/or discussing many points in a single post makes the post lengths unbearable.

 

I can't believe I just said that!!!     

 

It's just dawned on me, too, that it's much more practical as now you can respond to individual points much easier and quicker.  I admit to feeling a great deal of resistance knowing that in order to reply to a lengthy post and cover all of it's questions and points would require me to sit for a good stretch of time and too often I don't have that huge block of time to commit.  Working it this way then if I don't have the required chunk of time available that I feel is necessary to produce a quality reply then I can break it up and reply to the extent that I have time available.  What's the old adage?  Divide and conquer! 

 

I credit you with bringing that inspiration to me this morning, Sunmaster.  Take a well deserved bow now.   

 

"Sounds like something our atheist friends would say.  555"

 

I cannot describe the feeling of utter contempt for the insult being heaped upon me by comparing me to an atheist. 

 

What's the "555" supposed to mean anyway? 

 

You know I'm having fun with you now.   

 

Anyway, no cop out.  As I mentioned above, I insist on always providing a quality reply.  My replies are often lengthy because I have much to say - too much to say.  And then there's the issue of time required for the quality reply I insist on.  Then sometimes I'll spend a day or two mulling over the great many thoughts which a particular post elicits.  I can't very well express them all and some aren't worthy of expressing after deeper thinking.  Sorry, but not sorry , that I give myself the time I need.

 

And yes, it also happens that the lapse in time between the post and my reply becomes so great that it just gets buried forever amongst pages of new chatter.

I'll answer this first.

You must know by now that I thoroughly enjoy our conversations. I've told you many times. The lengthy replies don't bother me either as they are always interesting and well layed out. But yes, you're right. Answering them in only one post can be difficult and some points lose their strength among other points.

While meditating this morning I had this image in my head. You like to poke the bears, and so do I. Well, not exactly this pic, but AI is a bit thick this morning. In my mind they were poking each other.

Btw....not sure if you were joking about the 555? 5 in Thai is pronounced "ha". This is a common use to indicate laughter.

Actually, I should have written "atheist trolls", not just atheists. Big difference. 
Mea culpa....