Sunmaster

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

What works for me is not believing any of these fairy tales. And, no, Hindus don't believe their gods are manifestations of the one god. You might but they don't.

You can speak for yourself and that's fine. If you are happy to live this way, who am I to judge. 
But can you speak for 1.2 billion Hindus? I think not.
Maybe have a look at Advaita Vedanta and you will see that it's like I said.

26 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I still do my best though, because I enjoy creating, thinking, exploring, being of help. They seem like worthwhile endeavors while here.

I just listened to the video to and at the end Huberman is saying almost the exact same words. 555 Funny

18 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

So, to be clear. Muslims and Christians and Jews all worship the same god? What about Buddhists and Hindus?

The "God" aspects are personifications of the One. "I am here, God is there somewhere." (=Duality)
Buddhism focuses on the One that has not split into 2. So there is no "I" and "God", but only the Self as the undifferentiated Ground of All Being. (Non-Duality). Both are correct in their own ways. 
Hinduism, as I understand it, incorporates both aspects. They have thousands of Gods, but ultimately know that they are all manifestations of the One (Brahman).

Whether you worship the One in its dualistic manifestations (praying to the Christian God, the Jewish God or the Hindu Shiva) or prefer the non-dualistic interpretation is a matter of personal preference and inclination. Whatever works for you and brings you closer to the Source is good for you.

9 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

So, to be clear. Muslims and Christians and Jews all worship the same god? What about Buddhists and Hindus?

Fingers....Hand.

7 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

@Sunmaster

 

Separate.  Another question.

 

Again from your perspective, why is Sunmaster in this world?

Another good question. You're on fire today. :-) 

Sunmaster the ego likes to think he can make a difference in the world, that he can bring glimmers of goodness, truth and beauty from the Source to illuminate the dark corners of the world. Nowadays I'm not so sure it makes a difference to be honest, but not out of cynicism. 
I still do my best though, because I enjoy creating, thinking, exploring, being of help. They seem like worthwhile endeavors while here.
I'll mull it over some more and get back to you. Maybe I can come up with a better answer.

 

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

@Sunmaster

 

A different tact.  A question.

 

From your perspective what's the point of becoming aware of the rest of yourself?

A good question....

Not sure if there is a point to it. I see it more as an evolutionary inevitability.
A bit like a grain of iron being attracted to a giant magnet, or a drop of water on its way to the ocean. What's the point of that?

It just is what it is.

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

I'll start believing in God when someone can tell me which god to choose and why.

The Gods, as portrayed in the various religions, are just different interpretations of the One. Just like fingers of the same hand. Don't focus on the fingers, but trace them back to the hand and you'll find your answers.

42 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Do you believe in .... FREE WILL?

 

 

I don't. 

Most people in the west see free will as another inalienable birthright of every man, just like the right to life and liberty. Materialists attribute the belief in predestination to the gullible religious zealots.

Well, turns out both are right.

Free will only works on the level of the ego. It needs an observer, an action (the decision making) and a result (the outcome of said decision)...all neatly ordered on a timeline and observable. 

For example, I'm about to go out. The sun is shining so I decide not to take my umbrella. Later that day however, there's a big storm and I get soaked. Free will at work.

But what is the ego identification if not an illusion? Where is the ego when you're asleep? You still exist even though there is no ego at that moment. 

What remains once you transcend the ego? The Self. Your true identity, which is the same for all of us. The Self exists always, it is untouched by space or time, it is eternal. How then, could a time and ego dependent free will work for the Self. It doesn't. The Self is just another word for God or Cosmic Consciousness. Ascribing free will to God would mean to diminish his power and he would therefore cease to be God.

For the Self there is only the present. The past and the future all happen at the same time. Everything that has happened and will happen is happening right now in accordance with the perfect divine will. 

This means that free will only exists as long as we falsely identify with the ego. Once we shed the layers of ignorance that keep us from knowing our true identity, free will will dissipate along with all other illusions. You will still perform actions, but they won't be guided by the ego's will. They will be flawless actions guided by pure intent.

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

 

I unreservedly condemn everyone who engages in hate speech in the strongest words possible. It's sociopathic behaviour.

Now let's find out what exactly you consider hate speech. 

2 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

It will have been forgotten in 10 years.

10 more years!?!? Good Lord....

33 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

~

Thanks for your response, Sunmaster.  Succinct as always.

But may I  suggest to read the short article/opinion piece, as it not also makes the case against this 'wokeness' BS, but also mentions some options and opportunities to counter and cancel the so-called woke “mind virus” that’s plaguing the US and - luckily to a lesser degree - also other countries.

Source: https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/2024-the-year-to-cancel-wokeness-in-america-5554997

 

Ok, read it and found it so-so.
For one, it bothers me that whenever Americans try to demonize something, they lable it "communist". But whatever.

Edit: It bothers me, yet it doesn't offend me. See, how easy it is?

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Personally, I'd use plain English when speaking of duality and non-duality.  If folks have to look it up to understand it then it makes communication more difficult.  And impossible if the reader doesn't know what the term means and doesn't look it up.  Just a suggestion.    BTW, it's one of the reasons I never got into Eastern religion or philosophy - too much special meaning jargon.  Same with science.  Ever open up a Wiki page on some scientific subject and every other word is a hyperlink?  What an absolute maze as you end up with a dozen Wiki pages open! 

Confused. I didn't use any foreign words, did I?

Eastern teachings go back thousands of years. They explored and categorized the inner world in great detail to draw a very precise map of consciousness. Of course, there are lots of technical and highly specific terms, just like there are many specific terms in medicine. It's up to the student if he wants to learn the language or not. Personally, I only know a few myself (Brahman (=ultimate unchanging reality), Maya (=illusion), Purnam (=wholeness) and Sat Chit Ananda (=existence, consciousness, bliss)...), but rarely use them here. 

I stopped pasting excerpts from books or websites because I feel it disrupts the natural flow of the conversation and I prefer focusing on the subjective, personal experience we have of our existence. That's the main topic after all. 

32 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

How about identifying with all of them simultaneously?  You can be aware of all of them whilst focused on one identity.  Or several at the same time.  "I am Joe, and Jane, and Jim, and Bob."

Sure. This is what happens when you dis-identify with the wave-form (body-mind) and identify as the ocean (=become one with it=you are the ocean).

As the ocean, you feel one with all it contains...with all of creation, including Joe, Jane, Jim and Bob.

36 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

How many identities can one be aware of at the same time?  Or isn't that possible?  Ever awaken in a dream and realise you're dreaming?  You have awareness of both your waking self and your dreaming self, don't you?    They are distinct yet simply different aspects of "you."  Is it possible to identify with more than a single portion, or aspect of one's self simultaneously?  I believe so! 

Yes, I had lucid dreams before. 
I also experienced awakening from this dream and being aware of the body at the same time.
But being aware of a portion of your self (the Self being aware of the body/mind) is not the same as being identified with it. 

42 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Where you believe that one has to dis-identify I believe that one has to identify with more than what they identify with.  Again, I believe you view is due to the limited understanding that we have of identity.  Perhaps I should post some pertinent Seth material.  I have something in mind which I consider fantastic but boy is it lengthy.

Just a different way to say the same thing. Identifying with the body/mind (ego) is the very thing that prevents you from identifying as something larger. It's the famous analogy of the monkey grabbing some nuts in a jar. As long as he holds on to the nuts, his hand is trapped. Only by letting go of the nuts he regains his freedom. Whether they are nuts, smelly goat droppings or shiny pearls, the problem of being trapped remains. 

No offense, but I'd rather hear your own opinions than Seth's. I've read and I'm still reading his material, but frankly I don't see the point in pasting entire chapters of material, when I have you who can summarize it and add your own ideas and experiences. Much more interesting. 

54 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

BTW, how would you answer these questions?

Are you referring to bliss? No, I'm not after that. Bliss is just a byproduct of that state. If that were my goal, it would just be another desire. And who is the one who experiences this desire? Our old friend the ego. There is nothing to be gained, but everything to surrender. The monkey has to let go of the nuts. 
 

1 minute ago, xylophone said:

Surely you don't believe that nonsense........or maybe you do? So perhaps the hundreds of thousands of innocent people who have been killed in Gaza & Ukraine, not to mention the millions in the DRC, Yemen and Ethiopia did not have these qualities, "tree of life are kindness, generosity, patience, peace, goodness, modesty, kindness, joy, charity, self control, faithfulness".

 

Utter claptrap, and some. 

If you lead a certain type of life, developing patience, kindness etc, it will certainly benefit you and those around you.
If you get attacked by a lion, will you blame yourself for not being kind enough?
What has one got to do with the other? How does the lion attack diminish your efforts in any way?

10 minutes ago, Mark Nothing said:

The fruits you grow on your tree of life tells you if God is present with you or not.  You know by the fruit.  Is the fruit juicy, sweet and nourishing or toxicly poison, if it even exists at all?

 

If you have battles with strife, jealousy, fits of anger, dissensions, envy, sorcery, idol worship, divisions, drunkeness, orgies, impurity then God's spirit will disappear and eventually it will not exist in you and you have killed your tree of life.

 

The signs God is present in the fruit of your tree of life are kindness, generosity, patience, peace, goodness, modesty, kindness, joy, charity, self control, faithfulness.

 

The spirit you allow into your soul determines the fruit.  God works his magic if you open the connection and ask him. Every area of your life will flourish.  Otherwise he won't and the results in life will show.  Most likely health ailments.

 

 

Although I wouldn't use the same language (defining God as some separate entity), I understand and agree with the reasoning behind it.
Still working on the drunkenness though... 555

52 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Let me know if your jaw dropped or perhaps you're familiar with this and you are nonplussed by it.

 

Jaw is firmly in place. 

Yes, consciousness is a big topic, and despite what any of us may think or know about it (or think to know), we know very, very little. All we can do is to feel our way forward in the darkness that surrounds us and hope we don't bang our heads too much in the process.
Still, it's fun comparing notes. 

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Now it appears to me that you have questions as to 'identity'.  Your question is framed as an either or.  "Am I the wave, the ocean or . . .?"  That certainly implies that our identity is singular.  It's either the "you" that's reflected in the mirror or the greater, more expansive "you."  But it can't be both.  So in order to know which of my interpretations is correct (or perhaps partially correct) I have to ask you what your present concept of 'identity' is.

I think we maybe have to distinguish between identity and identification. Identity is ultimately one for all, or ONE...the Absolute, the SELF, One Consciousness. This is the identity I mention the wave analogy. The body-mind that produces the ego is the wave in that example. The ocean can be compared to all dualistic expressions (both material and immaterial, including a separate God-entity), while the Ground of All Being, that true identity is the water....the undifferentiated Is-ness from which duality emerges (Non-duality).
Where on this spectrum you see yourself, I call identification. I see it as a focal point of awareness, like tuning in to a certain station on the radio.  This focal point can shift up and down the spectrum (searching for other stations), that's why some of us identify as a wave ("I am this body. I am this personality."), a few identify as the ocean ("I am eternal consciousness") and on rare occasions with water itself ("I am"). 

I hope you understand that when I talk about these wider identifications, my knowledge is very limited and my ability to express my ideas becomes quite fuzzy. I have to feel my way forward like a drunk looking for his glasses in a dark room. If I had to locate the focus of my awareness, I would say I'm just starting to put some space between me and the wave, which allows me to disidentify with it and see it more objectively. I am not Sunmaster, but I have this body-mind called Sunmaster.

27 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Dis-identifying with the outer ego is therefore necessary to blend with the Oneness, which brings bliss.

 

The concept of blending our physical consciousness with Oneness and thereby achieving bliss, to me, is most definitely Eastern religion based.  And one which I'm not fond of for it implies an end to our current type of consciousness along with it's separate, unique and individual identity.  Is that a state which you are actively after?  And if it is then what of the Sunmaster "you?"  Is that "you" discarded or, rather, blended into the Oneness, or absorbed by it, and so ceases to exist as a separate and unique identity?  Do we have only a single identity?  Temporarily separate until merged?

Say you have a very vivid dream. It's amazing and very realistic. In fact, during the dream you consider everything to be real, including the sense of self you have. But when you wake up, do you regret losing that identification as the dream-self? Do you mourn its disappearance? Yes, it was a unique dream-self and (apparently) separate, but now you're awake in a new reality. 
Sunmaster, as a seemingly separate and unique being is not that important, just like your dream-self is not that important to your awake-self. Can it ever be lost? I don't believe so. Can the world still be enjoyed even though you don't identify as Tippaporn? I believe so. 

Does this answer your questions?
 

58 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

@Sunmaster

 

Oops!!  I hate getting caught in lies.  I'm being taken away from my computer by my family.  My wife grabbed my arms and my daughter my legs.  I tried holding on to the keyboard but I had to let go to prevent ripping out the chord.  I'm afraid I won't be back until tomorrow.    I hate when life gets in my way. 

No worries, I've been waiting for over 6 months, one more day won't kill me. Enjoy family time. 👍

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

The point with my anecdote was to bring awareness to the fact that our experience in this world is so vast that it takes patience, and quite a bit of it, to assemble an accurate working which accounts for not some but all of experience.  All of it must be tied together.  Not an easy feat but still doable.

Thanks @Tippaporn for the always interesting posts. Im a bit jealous that you are responding to VincentRJ before finishing the ego topic, but maybe you have a plan to join the 2 threads at some point.

And don't worry about the length, I can handle them long posts quite easily. 😄

So, I'm back... but man, sobering up is taking longer with each passing year. 😢

Just to add to the paragraph I quoted... Yes, that was exactly what I was looking for: a theory of everything. If science can't explain certain phenomena or tries to soothe us with the promise that "one day we certainly be able to explain it", then that's just not good enough and anyone who settles for such a incomplete theory is not only doing a disservice to reason generally, but first and foremost to himself.

During my search for a theory of everything I came across Ken Wilber and Spiral Dynamics, who tried to do just that. His theory incorporates all fields of human existence, the spiritual and the material. He doesn't just cherrypick whatever is convenient and ignores the rest. Nudge nudge, science guys. 😉

I can see a theory or framework where one doesn't exclude the other. It's not about whether science or spirituality have the right answers. Both have correct answers in their respective fields and both must be included when explaining reality. 

49 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

As I've mentioned before, science can only investigate what can be detected

Yes, that's fine. The problem is that a lot of people equate the non-detectability with non-existence, which I'm sure you'll agree, is a giant logical faux pas.

49 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

is reasonable to speculate that the woman is hallucinating, but suppose she is lying. Science doesn't have sufficiently sophisticated technology to detect a picture of the deceased husband in the woman's mind, but the technology is sufficiently developed to detect her degree of berievement

Assuming she's not lying, the fact that what she sees is not detectable with scientific tools, just means that either you don't use the right tools or there are no tools. I can have the most vivid and amazing dream, but how can I prove to you that i indeed had that dream? Is the lack of hard evidence proof that I'm lying or that the dream didn't exist? 

49 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Likewise, the individual experience of a particular Guru, resulting from certain practices, might be similar to the experiences of other people employing the same practices, but not similar to everyone's experience employing those practices, because of the differences in each person's background, genetic condition, past experiences, previous lifestyle, previous medical conditions, and so on.

Right. So you agree that there is a way to determine the validity of the subjective experience of a person. When enough others, employing the same practice arrive to the same or very similar conclusions (peer review), this should at the very least give us enough material to take that practice seriously.

Sounds like the scientific method applied to the subjective inner world is indeed a thing.

Hmm, some people might call this spiritual science.