Sunmaster

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

But you will defend what you believe to be true. 

Yes, I do enjoy having a good sparring match of ideas. 😉

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

I do not want to get involved in a discussion of "levels," in which progression is supposed to occur from one to the other. All such discussions are based upon your idea of one-personhood, consecutive time, and limited versions of the soul. There are red, yellow, and violet flowers. One is not more progressed than the others, but each is different.

 

These units [consciousness units, or CUs) combine into various kinds of gestalts of consciousness. Basically, it is not correct to say that one is more progressed than another. The petal of a flower, for example, is not more developed than the root. An ant on the ground may see that the petal is way above the root and stem, but ants are too wise to think that the petal must be better than the root.

 

Now: Consciousness flowers out in all directions -

 

All directions taken by the flower of consciousness are good.

 

That observing point of view is one which is based on ideas of one-personhood, consecutive time, and limited versions of the soul.  What are probable selves?  Are those not our consciousness flowering out in all directions?  in this case probable directions in which each choice we make is explored in either our reality or another?  The same with reincarnational selves, though those are also probable selves but within a historical context.  Do they exist on different levels?  Parallel levels?

 

Don't get me wrong, Sunmaster.  I'm not being argumentative with you.  I'm merely asking you questions as to how you would place these on levels.

 

 

The very framework of the statement implies a progression which Seth is explaining doesn't exist.  It implies that we are working towards becoming a realized being.  And a 'realized being; implies a more advanced being just as an 'unrealized being' implies less advanced.  But what is a 'realized being'?  An identity which is aware that it is part of a greater identity, of which it already is?  It appears to me that you think that the Sunmaster identity needs to be it's greater identity.  Yet your Sunmaster identity is that already.  There's no becoming it in that sense.  You already are it.

 

What is your idea of the meaning of gestalt consciousness?

 

 

As long as you believe that higher or lower states exist then you will have trouble understanding much of what I'm saying.  What I'm saying is outside of that framework.  You wish to remain inside of it.

 

If you wish to not be distracted by all of the hindrances of your lower impulses so that you can be in pursuit of exploring your inner self then why not become a hermit on top of a mountain?  Leave all the hindrances behind and beyond the temptation of your no good ego?  If getting drunk and chasing tails is fulfilling then I would say that is the very definition of practicisng spirituality.  By God, I've certainly done my share in my life and I would not reject any of it in favour of meditation that demands some sort of purity of the self.  We are on very different pages here.

 

 

My use of importance here refers to lower and higher states of being.  Or less advanced and more advanced states of being.  It was taken from your statement:

 

"The first part just means not to become a slave of the body's demands for temporary pleasures. Indulging in excessive food, drink, sex only satisfies the lowest aspects of our being and tend to distract from the more important ones."

 

Indulging in pleasure represents satisfying the 'lower' aspects of being.  To distract from the more important ones, where 'important' equates to 'higher' aspects of being.

 

Important can be used in the context of 'higher' or it can be used in the context of preference.  Your quote above uses it in the latter context.  My question uses the word 'important' in the former context.

 

 

The smiley emojis I use are 1) my way of keeping the topic light - as in humourous and 2) as an impish grin because I know the questions will start the gears turning in your head.  Nothing sinister or snide about it.  This topic isn't deadly serious sh!t and so I attempt to keep it from sliding in that direction.  Show some humour!  Life is supposed to be fun. 

 

Anyway, getting back to, ahem, dead seriousness my question is meant to lead you to consider the eternity of Sunmaster.  Since our understanding of identity is limited and we tend, quite naturally of course, to think linearly, then most believe in a straight-line, linear birth to death progression of development.  Yet all time exists now.  Which means that body, your car, your house do enjoy eternal existence.  Not an iota of existence is ever erased.  It only all disappears as you change your focus elsewhere.  Yet you can always return your focus.  Seth had mentioned that he is particular fond of his 14th (I think) century study and often enjoys returning.

 

Our existence is bound by time only in the sense that our experience of it, our organization of it, is agreed upon to be in a straight-line, linear birth to death progression of development.  And yet our existence can be experienced differently by organizing it differently.  One such way would be organizing it via association.  You've done that, as has everyone.  You may think of something which reminds you of something else which then reminds you of something other etc.  All of your thoughts have a cohesiveness yet the thoughts are structured associatively in an out of time sequence.  Creativity is unlimited and there are an infinite number of ways of organization.  A single event can be experienced to last a thousand years but not in the sense that time is stretched.  Ah, there's so much more.

 

 

"Of course my ideas are based on my limited perception of reality, which is still bound by consecutive time."

 

My ideas of development, specifically linear development, have developed (pun intended ) to where I'm standing further back from the immense object.  But yes, as long as I'm physical I will be adhering to the experience of consecutive nows, one after the other.

 

I went a couple of rounds with mauGR1 on hierarchies.  Yes, they exist but only within a certain framework.  Just as gravity exists in this framework but no in the non physical.

 

 

I said what I did because it is only logical.  For a physical individual to have Seth's perspective and knowledge he would most likely have graduated out of the reincarnational cycle.  But even accessing that knowledge, which is nonverbal, he would have to translate it into our terms.  Hey, distortions happen.  Seth had said that any information anyone receives then becomes new as the holder of the information automatically changes it to a degree.  There have been lots of people who have traveled to other realities and when they came back interpreted their experience using their beliefs as a filter.  Hence tales of people having extrasensory experiences and upon return telling tales of encountering demons and such.

 

Seth covers so much information, from animal consciousness to past civilizations and so much more that you would have to admit that so much of what Seth covers is nowhere to be found in any religion.  It just is what it is.  This not a pissing contest and it is not, never was, and never will be one for me.  I'm simply giving you my honest opinions and views.  No judgement.

 

 

  Sorry, but I have limited time.  What's the old saying, "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak."  Change that to, "The spirit is willing but the time is short." 

It's funny that you mention the "pissing contest", because that's where it seems to be heading to be honest. I don't subscribe to any one philosophy or teaching in particular, so I don't have to defend anything. I don't quote lengthy paragraphs of scriptures or famous books to make my points. My eggs are not all in one basket, so to speak. I have sifted through many different sources in the past 30 years with the sole intent of validating and organizing my own experiences and thoughts. 

Accepting a single source or map is a double edged sword. If the source is clear and has a proven track record of leading the seeker to the intended destination, then that's great. Hinduism and Buddhism have done that more than any other, I would argue. You can contest that there is no destination, that we are just perfect the way we are. But are we? 

  Sorry, but I have limited time.  What's the old saying, "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak."  Change that to, "The spirit is willing but the time is short." 
C'mon, this just seems like a cheap cop-out Tippa.  Sounds like something our atheist friends would say. 555


My questions were:
 

To summarize:

1. The ego is the very "thing" that prevents opening up to a wider reality, because its very job is to concentrate your attention on a small part of reality. 

2. Does Free Will exist? Yes and no. It apparently exists within a paradigm bound by time and space, but since we know that this reality is only one reality within a bigger reality that is not bound by those restrictions, free will becomes just another illusion. In short, free will appears to be real when we look at it from inside the dream (this reality as seen from the ego perspective), but once you wake up, it disappears along with the dream. 

3. A personal question. Do you practice any kind of meditation or have other ways to find the silence behind the thoughts? If yes, what happens when your thoughts quiet down?

As you know, Eastern philosophies put first-hand experience through regular daily practice above all else. Intellectual knowledge, even the sharpest and most compelling, is nothing if not combined with direct experience. The analogy of the donkey carrying a load of sugar, but never tasting it, is perfect here. I know because after studying for 30 years, all it did for me was to fill my head with lots of concepts, but it didn't lead me one step closer to uncovering that which lies behind my ignorance. It made me look smart in the eyes of some, and a smartass evangelist in the eyes of others. And they were right (the second group). I can say that now, but I couldn't admit that to myself before.

That's why nobody likes bible thumpers. They like to speak from a pulpit, but they have not earned the right to stand on one. Why? Because the source of their knowledge is secondhand knowledge from a book, not their own experience. How do we know? By the simple fact that they try to convince others of the veracity of their words. Had they first-hand knowledge, then there would be no need to convince others. Others would naturally be attracted to them and understand the truth of their words.

The very framework of the statement implies a progression which Seth is explaining doesn't exist.  It implies that we are working towards becoming a realized being.  And a 'realized being; implies a more advanced being just as an 'unrealized being' implies less advanced.  But what is a 'realized being'?  An identity which is aware that it is part of a greater identity, of which it already is?  It appears to me that you think that the Sunmaster identity needs to be it's greater identity.  Yet your Sunmaster identity is that already.  There's no becoming it in that sense.  You already are it.

I've talked about this before. Knowing on an intellectual level that "you are already it" is not the same as being it, living it from that perspective. Can you say you are enlightened right now? Can you say you can see what the Entity (in Sethian terms) is seeing? Probably not.

Yes, you stepped back and are looking at the "thing" from a distance (as opposed to pressing your nose against it), and that's a great step forward. A progression, a development, a new level of understanding. And yet, looking at that thing is not the same as BEING that thing. Because what else is it other than YOU?

You see? I'm not content with simply looking at it and describing it to others. I strive to BE IT. I see nothing else more worthwhile and precious than that. I would offer all my intellectual knowledge I collected in these past 30 years and burn it on a bonfire, in exchange for a second of BEING that thing. 
Would it help to meditate in a cave? It probably would help, yes. It's not my path though. I have responsibilities that I have to honor. But who knows, maybe there is a cave somewhere waiting for me...in this life or in another.

So no, there is no pissing contest, because I have nothing to present to you other than what I know to be true in my heart, and that doesn't come from any book, philosophy, religion or guru.

Too serious?

15 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

What does your "true" identity aspire to be?

My true identity has nothing to aspire to. 
Can I, in my present limited awareness, say I'm consciously aware of being that true identity yet. No. 

Do I, in my present limited awareness, aspire to be aware of it? Yes.

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

 

There are lower aspects to our being? 

 

 

Some realities are more important than others? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do not want to get involved in a discussion of "levels," in which progression is supposed to occur from one to the other. All such discussions are based upon your idea of one-personhood, consecutive time, and limited versions of the soul. There are red, yellow, and violet flowers. One is not more progressed than the others, but each is different.

 

These units [consciousness units, or CUs) combine into various kinds of gestalts of consciousness. Basically, it is not correct to say that one is more progressed than another. The petal of a flower, for example, is not more developed than the root. An ant on the ground may see that the petal is way above the root and stem, but ants are too wise to think that the petal must be better than the root.

 

Now: Consciousness flowers out in all directions -

 

All directions taken by the flower of consciousness are good.

 

Levels?  Are you sure these levels exist?  Or is it simply an interpretation resulting from a limited understanding of identity and erroneous ideas of progression through time?

 

**********

 

The units (of consciousness) form themselves into the various systems that they have themselves initiated. They transform themselves, therefore, into the structured reality that they then become. Ruburt is quite correct in his supposition of what he calls "multipersonhood" in Adventures.

 

You think of one I-self (spelled) (he's referring to the physical self) as the primary and ultimate end of evolution. Yet there are, of course, other identities with many such I-selves, each as aware and independent as your own, while also being aware of the existence of a greater identity in which they have their being. Consciousness fulfills itself by knowing itself. The knowledge changes it, in your terms, into a greater gestalt that then tries to fulfill and know itself, and so forth.

 

**********

 

Does that not give you a visual of Russian Matryoshka dolls?  It does for me.

 

If you haven't read Unknown Reality Vol. 1 then you're probably not familiar with Seth's definition of consciousness units.  So here's his explanation of what they are.

 

There is a basic unit of consciousness that, expressed, will not be broken down, as once it was thought that an atom was the smallest unit and could not be broken down. The basic unit of consciousness obviously is not physical. It contains within itself innately infinite properties of expansion, development, and organization; yet within itself always maintains the kernel of its own individuality. Despite whatever organizations it becomes part of, or how it mixes with other such basic units, its own identity is not annihilated.

 

It is aware energy, identified within itself as itself, not "personified" but awareized. It is therefore the source of all other. kinds of consciousness, and the varieties of its activity are infinite. It combines with others of its kind, forming then units of consciousness - as, mentioned often, atoms and molecules combine.

 

I've put into my own words before on this thread, in a reply to Hummin, that consciousness is infinitely creative and attempts to experience itself in an infinite number of ways.  Such as a human being, for example.  As it does so it experiences growth, or expansion, as it experiences itself differently and then knows itself in a different way.  Hence no one expression is better or less than the other, higher or lower, and so there are no levels to 'climb'.  So I am again here putting into my own words the meaning of Seth's quote between the ******s.

 

The idea that there are progressive states, the idea that one is more important than another . . . those ideas "are based upon your idea of one-personhood, consecutive time, and limited versions of the soul."

 

This is why I asked you the two questions 10 days ago.  Your answers would be revealing as they would expose your beliefs since you would naturally need to express them in order to answer the questions.  I'm a tricky son-of-a-b!tch, so my sincere apologies. 

 

Now I guarantee you that no eastern religion has traveled that far into consciousness to be able to elucidate on the existence of consciousness units.  I say that because if they had they'd have written  or talked about it.  Perhaps I'm in error but I doubt it.  Which is why I'm into Seth, and others like him, and not into anything else.  As I had mentioned long before, I doubt there exist any mortals, despite their exploratory journeys into inner reality, who have the advantage of Seth's much, much vaster perspective and can match his ability to travel to different realities.  I don't say that with any intention of having a pissing contest, claiming that "My source is better than your source, nah na, nah na na."  I made my choice by simply using my intellect and intuitions.  It was a no brainer for me as to which source I would use as a guide for my own explorations. 

 

Unknown Reality Vol. 1 was perhaps one of my favourite books.  But not until years later.  I wasn't ready for it at first.  But, boy, was it a doozy after I connected with what he was explaining.  Talk about bringing the larger picture into clearer focus.  Not absolute focus, obviously.  I haven't learned that much yet.  But here's my response to that book. 

 

Would that material strike you similarly?  I don't know.  But I did have the idea to walk through that portion which had perhaps the greatest eye opening effect for me and see if it's helpful or valuable to you.  Now I just need to focus myself. 

Sure, talking about levels is always tricky because they depend on the observing point of view. We are talking from the point of view of not (yet) realized beings. We may know about the entity we belong to, we may know that our true identity is infinite, eternal consciousness, but we don't live it. We are not Buddha, nor Seth. 

There are lower aspects to our being? 

Yes, from a purely practical point of view. Do you think getting drunk and spending your time chasing tails does anything beneficial when your aim is to explore your inner world? Certainly not. They are a hindrance. They fulfill lower needs and keep the waters muddy. 

Some realities are more important than others? 
In itself, no. They are not more important. They are more important to me and the life I want to live. Is my life (reality) more important than the life (reality) of a beggar, a degenerate, a thief? Definitely not. Like you say (Seth says), it's just the way consciousness chose to express itself.
However, the way I choose to express my reality is more important to me than the way others express theirs. 

What happened to "time doesn't exist" and eternity?  Only some things enjoy eternal existence? 
Not sure what you're trying to do here and why the need to add the smiling emojis. Life in the material world is subject to time. There are other levels of existence that are not (as) bound by time. That includes Seth. "Things" don't enjoy eternal existence. Does your body enjoy eternal existence? Your car? Your house? 

The idea that there are progressive states, the idea that one is more important than another . . . those ideas "are based upon your idea of one-personhood, consecutive time, and limited versions of the soul."
You dispute my use of "levels" and hierarchies, yet in Seth's quote he mentions development. Development can only happen within a time-constricted reality. "Today I'm like this, tomorrow I will develop into something different." What happened? Aren't we all already enlightened, perfect expressions of the One? If today my awareness is limited and tomorrow it has less limitations, then there is progress, there is development, there is a hierarchy, there are levels of understanding. 
Of course my ideas are based on my limited perception of reality, which is still bound by consecutive time. So are yours and most other people's. But not all.

Now I guarantee you that no eastern religion has traveled that far into consciousness to be able to elucidate on the existence of consciousness units.  I say that because if they had they'd have written  or talked about it.  Perhaps I'm in error but I doubt it. 

Sorry, but I think that's just your own bias talking. How deep have you studied or practiced Eastern philosophies to make that statement? Or is it just your belief? They may not have used the term "consciousness units", but they do say that consciousness is the ultimate reality. Sat Chid Ananda (existence, consciousness, and bliss). 

This is why I asked you the two questions 10 days ago.  Your answers would be revealing as they would expose your beliefs since you would naturally need to express them in order to answer the questions.  I'm a tricky son-of-a-b!tch, so my sincere apologies. 

I think I answered all your questions, but I'm still waiting for you to answer all of mine. ;-) 

15 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

First part? 

 

Second part? 

The first part just means not to become a slave of the body's demands for temporary pleasures. Indulging in excessive food, drink, sex only satisfies the lowest aspects of our being and tend to distract from the more important ones. This is not to say that we all have to live like renunciates or monks in a cave, but warns from focusing too much on the body, which is just a temporary vessel. Therefore, "treacherous friend", love your friend, but not at the expense of your own wellbeing. When your friend demands more from you than you can (or should) give, then he's not your friend anymore.

11 hours ago, Chris Daley said:

So there is definitely some form of rebirth from a scientific standpoint.  Because the energy is just passed on into something else and on a larger scale the stars will keep regenerating and build new universes.  Evidence of this is found in the cosmic microwave background radiation left from our big bang and observations of supernovas.

 

Christianity - life has no meaning

Buddhism - life has no meaning

Science - your life will be part of other life before and after your life for eternity

This just came up in my feed....

https://youtu.be/HHmo21q-5jw?si=6PNZ0usQr5z7INMJ

@TippapornThis is a quote from the teacher guru of Paramhansa Yogananda. 

This is just to show that the power of thoughts and beliefs was already recognised and used from time immemorial, and explained in no uncertain terms. How else could it be?

When you explore the inner worlds as thoroughly as the Hindus did, it's inevitable that they would discover this. Any yogi will see this fairly soon on the journey.

Seth's contribution was to bring this knowledge to a modern (Western) audience who had no idea about any of it. 

Just emphasising the common ground of both philosophies. 😉

49 minutes ago, Chris Daley said:

Christianity - life has no meaning

Buddhism - life has no meaning

How did you come to this conclusion? 

5 minutes ago, Chris Daley said:

I found an interesting connection.  The Buddhist religion teaches that we live in an endless cycle of birth and rebirth and we can escape from it if we wish.  And science shows that the big bang creates a universe but that universe will eventually implode in on itself and all matter will start again in a constant cycle of birth and rebirth.

 

However it is not beyond the realms of science to build and craft and escape the known universe.  Only one hundred years ago flying was impossible.

 

But it is a fact that all matter comes from stars and is constantly reborn.  But what if we escape out star system?

 

 

The idea is interesting and would make for a nice sci-fi movie. Humans create a machine to escape the known universe from its impending annihilation, only to re-emerge in a brand-new universe. 
A couple of problems though...the new universe will only have base elements and gases for a few trillion (?) years before planets are formed. 
Or will they create a time machine that sends them to a universe that is already fit for human life? 
Or will they create a machine that sends them to a parallel universe? 
If nothing material will survive the annihilation, the only way would be to create a machine that transforms us into immaterial thought patterns or a sort of cohesive thought-essence...which then would become immortal.
Sounds a bit like a soul to me. 55

It's ok to put a lot of faith in science, but this seems all a bit too farfetched, even for a sci-fi lover like me. :-)

Buddhism and Hinduism propose a much simpler and practical "escape". A solution that can be implemented by everyone, at any time. One that has nothing to do with science and man-made machines, but revolves around the idea that everything in the universe is consciousness. Consciousness can not be destroyed or killed. It is the building block of all there is. It was there before the "Big Bang" and will be there after the universe implodes (that remains to be seen). It is outside of time, so even talking about before/after makes little sense.
The "escape" consists in realizing your true nature by going within. To follow your own consciousness to the root of all consciousness, thus making the circle of physical birth and death redundant. Being reborn again and again is only necessary as long as there is ignorance regarding your true identity. And once you know that identity, whether the material universe gets annihilated or not, becomes irrelevant.

5 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 

Did you paint that, Sunmaster? That's an excellent painting,  but it looks as though you changed your mind and added a second painting of additional clouds above the original painting.

 

Perhaps you bought the painting, then decided to improve it by adding the additional sky and clouds which you painted yourself. 

Yes, I painted it. It's in a small A5 sketchbook, so I decided to use both pages to get the feeling of immensity and wonder before the boy's eyes. 
I thought of TBL because he often mentioned how he sees God's work whenever he looks at a sunset.

32 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

So why did you start this thread?  Perhaps your reply of affirmation to swissie gives us a rather revealing clue.

 

9 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

9 hours ago, swissie said:

Very true and very frightening. Even university folks increasingly worship the "Evangelist TV Propaganda Machinery". Religious Fundamentalism in the Heartland of the US is rampant. To the point, that non "Bible Thumbers" have restricted career opportunites. Having to take intellectual refuge on the east/west coast of the US.

Agree

Expand  

 

You are not religious, you don't believe in any God or even in the concept of a God, and you feel threatened by those who do.  This thread was a means to push back.

To me it seems quite obvious why he started this thread. He says it in the opening post and again in his love letter to swissie.
He craves attention, as simple as that. 

He says his posts don't get the attention he would like to or think they deserve, and was wondering why the God-threads get so many replies. So, his next step is to start a new topic with the word "God" in it and voila', the replies are raining down. That's all that matters to him. Not the topic itself. He has not made one ounce of effort to reply to your posts and engage in a constructive discussion on the topic, because that was not the point in the first place.
And for this reason, this thread is completely worthless. It's only of value to GG to mask his lack of self-esteem with likes and vacuous replies.
 

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

@GammaGlobulin

 

Here's an analogy for you which you may find useful.

 

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 A 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!!!"

 

That about sums up this thread, BammaGlobulin.  You, like A, believes that the only things which exist are those which you are able to perceive.  That the only data which exists is the data currently available to you.  And since you refuse to even consider that more than what you are currently able to perceive, and that more data exists than what data you currently possess, you have unwittingly but willingly enclosed yourself in a small, a very small, mental box believing that there is nothing outside of it.

 

You're idea of what God is, or better put, the idea of God, is only that which you are able to perceive given your limited data set and what others perceive given their more expansive data set therefore is not r-e-a-l.  You are intellectually muscle bound and therefore are unable to reach your intuitions.

 

Yes, GammaGlobulin, I am nothing but an incoherent, babbling, irrational and illogical fool spewing delusional nonsense.  My writing is certainly proof of that.   

Love this! So absolutely spot on and applicable to learning and personal development in general. 

9 hours ago, swissie said:

Why Are Readers Here...So...Interested in...God-Related Topics???

Because we can't understand that we are here only to reproduce. Nothing else. No panic. Flowers and goldhamsters also don't know why they are here, except for reproduction.

To instill some sort of sense, the most advanced monkey had to invent Gods and religions. The rest of all living things can do fine without Gods and Religions.

 

You sure got it all figured out 555

This one is for you @thaibeachlovers

4 hours ago, Baht Simpson said:

Sunmaster says to look within and you say to look without. So which is it? You are contradicting each other to prove the same point.

"God" as I see it, is All There Is, within and with-out, so in that sense there is no contradiction. 

TBL has his own view of course, but that's no problem. Different approaches to the same thing.

My approach is based on direct experience through the help of meditation and self-inquiry. Swami Sarvapriyananda, a monk I deeply respect, gave this analogy: spiritual knowledge without direct experience is like a donkey carrying a load of sugar on its back. It has the precious load so close to it, but never gets to taste its sweetness. 

21 minutes ago, Baht Simpson said:

No, I'm going to sincerely apologize for misreading you. You're correct I have come late to this thread and there is no way I could wade through 18,000 posts to see who said what. I incorrectly assumed that because you were talking about finding an Inner God, using the capital G like Thaibeachlover that you were coming at it from a Christan perspective. An honest mistake but nothing in your reply led me to think otherwise. 

 

 

 

 

 

All good.

No need to start from the beginning, unless you are in prison and have nothing better to do.

If the topic interests you and you come at it with an open mind, then you are welcome to contribute of course. We don't have to be of the same opinion, that would be boring. But a respectful attitude goes a long way.

🖖

1 hour ago, Baht Simpson said:

Not sure if you're referencing me or someone else.

 

For avoidance of doubt:

 

Do I believe in a Creator God? No, I'm an athiest?

Do I respect all your beliefs? No, because many of them are preposterous.

Do I believe you have the right to hold those beliefs? Of course

Do I believe you should proselytize? No. 

Of course I'm referring to you and those like you. Like BigStar, who comes to drop a link to a book but can't be bothered to elaborate his point. 

You come here, guns blazing, talking about "your God this, your God that", assuming that everyone here subscribes to the idea of a Christian God. None of us do. None of us are religious in the sense you talk about. 

So where does that leave us?

Perhaps read some of the previous pages to get an idea, but like many other people with your attitude you will say "I don't have time for this nonsense" and will retreat with a feeling of false superiority. Seen it all before. 

Hence my comment.

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Seems I may have been right after all.

Yep. Not worth replying to. 

4 minutes ago, Baht Simpson said:

2,000 years of study and 18,395 posts on this thread and we still have no evidence of a creator God

What kind of evidence would set your heart at peace?

10 minutes ago, BigStar said:

I can't be bothered and am not going to argue any points with the uninformed on the forum.

Fair enough. I hope you don't mean me by "the uninformed on the forum" though. 

2 minutes ago, BigStar said:

 

By writing, in his book. Probably used Microsoft Word originally, but I dunno.

Funny. Something I would have said. 55

So, you read the book? Can you give us a bit more on how religions started out?

19 minutes ago, BigStar said:

Gives a great account of how religions started up in the ancient world, in general.

 

How?

Check this out 😄😂

https://aseannow.com/topic/1316529-why-are-readers-heresointerested-ingod-related-topics/#comment-18612581