Sunmaster

4 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

Yes.

I know the difference.

 

Marxism is a religion.

 

and

 

Mao ZeDong and Xi JinPing are gods.

 

 

And that's the reason why you started this thread...

On 1/9/2024 at 4:55 AM, GammaGlobulin said:

 

If you've seen One God, then you've seen them all.

 

So then, why the fascination?

Lol

You've seen God? Or do you mean religion? Do you know the difference? 

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

All That Is doesn't know if it is the only All That Is which exists and is searching for others like itself. 

Not sure if it's the same, but it reminds me of something. The undifferentiated Self, that which is not split into 2, is the eye that cannot see itself. It has to create a mirror so that it can see its own reflection. The reflection is not the same as the eye of course, and comes with all kinds of distortions, but the clearer the mirror is, the clearer the reflection. In this example, we are the mirror thanks to which the Self can see and experience itself. How clear is this mirror of ours?

So, while it doesn't make sense for having 2 'All That Is' for the simple reason that it wouldn't be 'All That Is' in the first place,  we can say that 'All That Is' must create a version of itself that reflects its image, and one that MUST forget its origin or the game wouldn't work (necessary distortions). I think I remember Seth talking about this too and this is in line with the Vedantic teachings.

15 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Are you still into Bitcoin?  I'd be interested to talk to you

I still have some invested, but in another coin.

67BTC....  
 

13 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Interesting that you should use that example.   

Lol, yes. I had that dream a couple of weeks ago. In the dream I was so surprised and wondered how the hell they got there. Then of course I woke up to the harsh reality of the usual blank dome. :-( 

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

67 model?  I thought they simplified the rear bumper that year?  I'm no expert and as I like to say, the proof is in the pudding.  Yours is a '67 with the old-style, intricate bumper.

 

Why Basil?  First two things that come to mind whenever I hear that word . . . Basil Rathbone and basil on pizza.  Love me my Sherlock Holmes and my pizza!! 

The 67 model is called the "one year only" model and is one of the most sought after models. It has elements of the previous years and new parts of the subsequent models. Then there are differences between countries. The 67 in the US for example has the simplified (ugly) bumpers and the straight headlights. Mine has the flat headlights. "Sweet eyes" they call them here. 

"Basil" because it's a cute name and because it sounds good. His full name is Uncle Basil the Bitcoin Bug, because I bought it with the profits I got from crypto.

18 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I certainly agree but I would comment that it can be a bit misleading if you ask me.  I think it more accurate to say that the object is no less real and valid than the subject.  But the object has a source.  It could be said just as well that the Self itself has a source.

The dream analogy works well here. 

When you dream you forget your waking self and take the dream objects as real, including your dream body. And they are (or appear to be), in that context. However, once you wake up from that dream, you realise that those buildings don't exist in the waking world. In the dream you had long hair, but in the waking world you are bald. There is a difference. 

The same goes for when we wake from this dream that we call the waking world. What happens here appears to be real while we are here. We accept that what we see, our bodies, the world around us, are real. Waking up from this (waking) dream is called enlightenment. The world around us and our bodies don't disappear, but they are then seen for what they really are: temporary manifestations of the one source, your true identity, the Self.

An object is only real if there is a subject that can observe it. Your eyes can see everything but the eyes themselves. Even looking in a mirror will only reveal a reflection of your eyes. That's why the Self can not have another source. If it had another source, then it would be just another object and therefore couldn't be the source. And so you follow the "I" to the point where there is no other object left. Only the subject. This is called self-inquiry. 

54 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

What sets nondualism apart from dualism is its inclination towards direct experience as a path to understanding. While intellectual comprehension has its place, nondual traditions emphasize the transformative power of firsthand encounters with the underlying unity of existence. Through practices like meditation and self-inquiry, practitioners aim to bypass the limitations of conceptual understanding and directly apprehend the interconnectedness that transcends superficial distinctions. This experiential aspect of nondualism challenges the limitations of language and rational thought, aiming for a more immediate, intuitive form of knowledge.

An excellent explanation indeed.

Dualism, as I understand it, is simply the juxtaposition of 2 things. I am here, God is there, as if they were 2 different things. I am here, the world is out there.

Everything that splits into a subject and object is dualism. When only the subject remains, that's non-dualism.

Through self-inquiry (following the "I" to its root) it becomes evident that in the end there is only the subject, the True Self.

For many years I saw Kriya Yoga as the highest form of spiritual teachings. It focuses on meditation and emphasises a loving relationship with God. This is of course a dualistic philosophy. While I really liked this approach, I never took it on 100% because I felt there was something else, but I couldn't put it into words.

Then I learned about Advaita Vedanta and was surprised how well and simply it explained that part in me that I had failed to integrate so far. 

Then the question became, which path should I focus on? Dualistic or Non-dualistic? It took me only a short time to realise that it's not a question of either-or, but that both ways have their place. It's perfectly OK to express your love for God (duality) while at the same time knowing that you and God are essentially the same thing. (Non-duality).

PS, the Käfer is a 67 and his name is Basil.

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Another red letter day today. 

 

Please take down the post, though.  Revealing what another poster looks like is against forum rules. 

 

Germans are known for their punctuality.  I've been in Thailand long enough to consider myself part Thai.  So that part of my identity tells me everything is tomorrow. 

No worries. I use the downtime to get stuff done, like washing the car, painting the house and rearranging all the furniture.

12 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

you're all being duped by the bible

I resent that statement. 

15 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

The analogy of the map only goes so far.  A better way maybe is to see it as an explanation of the reality around and in you.  In time, we try to improve this explanation to the best of our knowledge and capabilities. We stick this map on the walls of our bedroom and we look at it and we are proud of our achievements to make such a beautiful and well thought-out map. Sometimes we will add some parts or remove others. Then the map hangs there, nicely framed along with all the posters of our favourite bands.  And so we decorate our room with all the things we like. Of course there's a nice library too. Lots of books about science, religion, philosophy and whatnot. 

But looking at the beautiful map or reading all the books in the world will not get you out of that room. And that's what it's all about, in my opinion. If the map actually helps you getting out, then great. When you get out you have to leave everything behind to be free, including the map that helped you in the first place.

 

You rightly talk about a destination. Is there one? Yes and no, I would say. Assuming that you believe in something called enlightenment, from our point of view we can say we are here and enlightenment is there. We are not enlightened, yet. In that sense it is a destination. On the other hand, from the perspective of the eternal self, this notion is an illusion. You are already enlightened right now, you are just not aware of it. So, in that sense we can not talk about a destination. See, again 2 seemingly opposing notions that become both true once seen from a bigger perspective. 

Addendum of morning musings...

In the above example, the bedroom is our mind which creates the ego. 

We call it bedroom and make it as comfortable as possible. We add all kinds of stuff to raise the quality of our life while there. But if you never leave that bedroom, what is it if not a prison?

We lie to ourselves by saying "Yes, but I choose to stay here. And look how nice it is. Look at my map! It shows this room and that other room and the garden around the building. I know what it looks like outside. For now I'll stay here though. I have few more books to read about that garden outside."

"Yesterday I had a good discussion with the guy who lives in the next bedroom (prison cell). He told me what his map looks like. Oh my...a child could have drawn that. I told him so, but he got upset. I don't know why, after all I was just trying to help him make it better. Oh well, his loss. I bet his bedroom is very messy and he never cleans. Tststs, mine is spotless. I'll take a good nap now."

"Outside? Yeah, I know everything about outside. It's right here on my map. I know it because that guy outside told me. Plus I read lots of books about it, of course. So, no need to go for now. If I go now, I might not be able to come back to this lovely room I spent so much time decorating."

Or...

"Outside? There is no outside! Do you believe in fairytale and Santa too? Haha, ridiculous. Just sit down and worry about that leaking sink you got there."

Or...

"Ahhh, I wish I could go outside, but my shoes are broken. It might rain outside and I don't have an umbrella. Will it be cold? What if I don't remember my way back?"

And finally...

"Let's see...according to my map, if I want to go outside I just have to open that door. I thought it was locked, but it was open all along. I'm tired of this place and really excited to see that garden I read so much about. Shoes? Nah, don't need any. Food? There are fruit trees in the garden. Actually, I don't need anything. Let's go!"

Sorry, you said "no beard."...

A better angle...

44 minutes ago, sipi said:

Show me a photo of god without a beard.

There you go.

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Just a thought for you to entertain to keep your mind occupied whilst on your drive to Bkk . . .   Not so much so that it takes your eyes off the road. 

 

Are they maps?  Or is the idea that they're maps based on the assumption that you're going somewhere?  Which implies a destination, an arriving, . . . an . . .  . . . end.

 

Hopefully you do have a map to get you to your end destination though, which is the embassy. 

 

The analogy of the map only goes so far.  A better way maybe is to see it as an explanation of the reality around and in you.  In time, we try to improve this explanation to the best of our knowledge and capabilities. We stick this map on the walls of our bedroom and we look at it and we are proud of our achievements to make such a beautiful and well thought-out map. Sometimes we will add some parts or remove others. Then the map hangs there, nicely framed along with all the posters of our favourite bands.  And so we decorate our room with all the things we like. Of course there's a nice library too. Lots of books about science, religion, philosophy and whatnot. 

But looking at the beautiful map or reading all the books in the world will not get you out of that room. And that's what it's all about, in my opinion. If the map actually helps you getting out, then great. When you get out you have to leave everything behind to be free, including the map that helped you in the first place.

You rightly talk about a destination. Is there one? Yes and no, I would say. Assuming that you believe in something called enlightenment, from our point of view we can say we are here and enlightenment is there. We are not enlightened, yet. In that sense it is a destination. On the other hand, from the perspective of the eternal self, this notion is an illusion. You are already enlightened right now, you are just not aware of it. So, in that sense we can not talk about a destination. See, again 2 seemingly opposing notions that become both true once seen from a bigger perspective. 

29 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

C'mon Sun I know you are better than this. You're post above is absolute disingenuous garbage. I schooled you on this years ago and over and over in that other thread. Those are rhetorical questions aimed at the believers...in gods, mysticism, consciousness-absent-a-brain and other such nonsense...to try to invoke a bit of critical thinking and dislodge them from their (your) folly. It didn't take obviously. I do think you're a talented artist tho. Guess god grace you with such ability❓🤣 (to be clear...that was sarcasm. I am not serious about that. Not admitting there is any god-thingy and remain a lifelong atheist)

Thanks for the compliment. Appreciate it.

We had some hard sparring in the past, but it was fun and helped me to understand many things. One of them was that intellectual understanding of the subjective world was not enough, and because of that I took up the practice of meditation. It's been 3 (or 4?) years now. Best decision ever.

Hope you're well and continue to question everything...and I mean  e v e r y t h i n g.

@Tippaporn

  I was just thinking...

If we consider that religions or spiritual philosophies are basically maps for the individual to get rid of ignorance and reconnect with his true identity, then there is a very simple way to test that map's efficacy. 

How many have reached the intended destination using that map?

In other words, how many people have reached liberation by following a certain path?

I'm not talking about a better way to dream the dream, but a way to wake up from the dream. 

What is the purpose of Seth's teachings? To live a better life by recognising the power of thoughts and beliefs, or is there more? If there is more, then what does Seth's map say about it? And finally, if there is more and he provides directions to it, how many Sethians have followed those directions to the destination? 

PS: You'll have your hands full tomorrow morning. Hope your fingers won't overheat. 55

I won't have much time tmw as I have to drive to bkk to get my new passport at the embassy. Oh Joy.... 🙄😮‍💨

15 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

If you topped up the same day then it never went below 800k for the day.

 

If they deem it an issue, ask them what you can do, Jomtien you don't actually need an agent you can pay direct, but they will often direct you to an agent instead

It doesn't matter if its 1 hour or 1 day. 

59 minutes ago, fusion58 said:

 

Straw man.

 

Your burden isn't to provide me with proof of my existence; your burden is to prove the existence of an incorporeal "self."

This is funny. 🤣🤣

First of all, I don't have the burden to provide you or anyone with jack sht. Maybe you confuse me with someone who believes in a Godman sitting on a cloud. 

Second, are you saying you have no self? Wow! Are you a robot? An AI bot? 😂😂

Hey, prove to me that I am alive! 

And you say "incorporeal", as if there were a corporeal self. Where is this corporeal self? Can you point it out to me? 

47 minutes ago, fusion58 said:

 

It's not up to me to find evidence for someone else's claims.

 

No getting around that pesky burden of proof thing.

 

And not getting around of me not caring to provide you with proof of your own existence. 

1 minute ago, fusion58 said:

 

It sounds like you subscribe to an emergent conception of God as symbolic or otherwise representative of the self, the unity of all phenomena, etc.

 

This kind of idea suffers from the same type of epistemological problem as that of the theist, viz., it assumes the existence of an atomic and/or incorporeal "self."

 

 

Like I said, it's up to you to find the evidence, for yourself, for your own benefit. Nobody forces you to look, nobody should ask anyone else for proof. You are your own proof. 
Self-Inquiry fulfills a need. If you don't have that need, fine. It doesn't make one bit of difference to me or anyone else. 
If that makes you jump up triumphantly and say "Hurray! I knew it. He can't give me evidence! The Self doesn't exist!", then so be it. ;-)