Sunmaster

5 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

The so-called spiritualists, often claim that science in general focuses on the material world, and ignores the non-material world. This is obviously not correct, because the Electromagnetic Spectrum, is non-material, that is, it has no mass. The Photon has no mass, yet everyone with eyesight experiences the effects of this non-material, massless energy, which science has been investigating for centuries

When we talk about the material world, that includes things we can not touch like the electromagnetic spectrum, which is not the same as the subjective world. 

Science (the soft sciences at least) try to dab into the subjective world but don't go very far and their findings are shackled by the materialistic paradigm they stem from.

Again, science is a tool to make sense of the material world, including non-material forces like electricity, gravity, magnetism etc. It's a very useful tool when applied in that context. 

However, when applied to the inner subjective reality, its usefulness leaves much to be desired. The analogy of the katana sword I mentioned in my previous post is very fitting here as well. 

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

I was holding off thinking you'd have some comments to the body of Seth's quotes.  I hadn't heard anything after the latest three.

 

I already said that I agree with how Seth describes the ego. Not sure what exactly you're looking for? 

Correct me if I'm wrong....it's been a long time...

The "ego contention" we had was that I said the ego has to "die" or "step back" in order for the "light to shine through". Another way of saying, we have to surrender everything, down to our identity-construct ("I am Sunmaster. I am x,y,z.") and down to even the most intimate anchor to life: our breath.

To which you stated that you love your ego and see no reason to give it up, let alone "kill" it. After all, you worked so hard to improve and polish it to a mirror shine. Right?

So, now that we have defined what the ego is (an ever-changing, dynamic perspective-awareness-point we use to interact with the material world and feed back to the inner world), we can explore the contention in more detail. Why would we want to neutralize such a formidable tool?
Notice that in the ego definition above I say "we use it", which implies that we are NOT the ego. We use the ego like we use a tool. But now the question is, who is this "we" if not the ego. Who is this "I" if not Sunmaster?

And if we continue to use the tool analogy.... Would you walk around with a spade every day and even go to sleep with it? Would you bring a chainsaw to a wedding? What about a car jack? Certainly a useful tool, but would you take it to the beach?
The ego is a useful tool when we interact with the world. Without it we would not be able to survive physically.
However, that doesn't mean we should carry it around all the time. In fact, there are times when its presence is not beneficial at all. When? Well, for example when creating art and music. Or when we observe a beautiful sunset. You don't need the ego with its endless monkey chattering to distract you from the Here and Now.
Or during those times when we shift our perspective from the outside to the inside, towards the self (inner ego) and beyond. During those times the ego-tool is useless and holding on to it, however efficient and polished it appears to be, is counterproductive.
A Japanese Katana is an amazing object. It is beautiful and super sharp. It can cut ignorance in tiny pieces, slash injustice to a pulp, chop up right from wrong with a single touch. But how useful is it when you sleep in your bed, when you floss your teeth, when you go for a swim? 

So far, I found nothing in Seth's books that would contradict this interpretation. 

I think that's where we are at the moment.

17 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Yeah, so what happens when "spirit flows through you"?

 

You are able to speak in tongues? 

What happens is that it's friggin scary at first, but if you're not trying to control it and just go with the flow (surrender), it is the most amazing thing you'll ever experience. An experience you'll be forever grateful for.

You are able to speak in tongues? 
Not me, but I'm sure some people do.

2 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

 

"Rivers of living water flowing from a person" and "receiving Spirit" and "Spirit flowing through a person" are meaningless phrases. It means nothing and doesn't exist. 

 

"It means nothing TO ME, and I don't think it exists."

There, fixed it for you.

It's free this time because I feel festively generous.

11 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Hey, how come everyone else gets a reply but not me!!  I call foul!!    <--- That's me crying my eyes out. 

Hey, where is my reply to the ego topic?

Any thoughts, musings, comments? 

Not from Seth but from you. 😉😄

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

 

'Living water' was allegory, then.  Thanks for the fuller context. 

That's how I understood it too, but Mark N. meant it literally, didn't he?

43 minutes ago, Mark Nothing said:

A good way to experience God's power is to use his products to enhance your life.  Living water is a panacea that will return your body to perfect health and turn on the connection to God' spirit in your soul.

 

If you knew the gift of God you would have asked, "Give me a drink", and he would have given you living water.  John 4:10.

 

Living water will cleanse you of your impurities and all your false idols.  It will put a new spirit in your soul and it will take the heart of stone out of your flesh.  Ezekial 36 : 25-27.

 

Living water 5 years now.  Outstanding results.  The inorganic minerals clogging up my body with gout, arthritus, prostate problems, stiff joints all dissappeared.  God knows what he is doing.

 

The Bible is full of stories showing the punishment of those who pursue false idols.  And it got me thinking that lots of people appear to worship hospitals and pharmaceuticals instead of God.  Their punishment is the side affects, costly insurance, never ending treatments.  The miracle of Living water has no side affects and has worked on every one of my issues.  

 

It is God's gift to those who desire it.

 

 

Sorry, what is living water?

Just to clarify something for our anti-religious friends here. 
We are not trying to promote religion over materialism. Both are just belief systems. Both are imperfect and incomplete because they have to use language to exist. They are both just very loose interpretations of what they are trying to describe. Both are just wave-constructs, impermanent thought-forms that cannot be taken as the ultimate answer to what the ocean is. There is no judgement. The ocean doesn't think one wave is better than the other, right? It's not an 'either-or' argument....from the perspective of the ocean, both have their validity.

What we are trying to understand is "Is there an ocean beneath the waves?" and "How do I know/experience this ocean?". 
These questions go beyond religion and materialism. They are intimate questions that are at the very core of our existence. 

If you think that subscribing to the materialistic view will answer these questions, fine. I'd like to know how.
If others believe that endorsing one or the other religion can answer them, fine too. Again, I'd like to know how. 

How well a belief system can answer the above questions determines its usefulness. 
Materialism, by its own definition, only cares about the material world. It has no answers to the subjective inner world question of "Who am I?". Materialism proposes the idea that consciousness is a byproduct of the brain (nothing more than a theory), but anything beyond that is either ignored or brushed off with a promise that "sometime in the future, science will explain it."
I, for one, can't be satisfied with such a vague answer.

Religion doesn't do much better in my opinion. While the core duty of any religion is to reconnect the individual with the Divine, the unfortunate reality is that it often creates more division than unity. Dogma, empty rituals, superficial understanding....are all distractions.


 

18 minutes ago, xylophone said:

"Rational arguments don't usually work on religious people.

If they did there would be no religious people!".

You think rational arguments work with non-religious people? 

I see no evidence of that.

Sorry to post this again, but I think it's fitting the conversation about perspectives (of which the ego-perspective is one).

The ego creates the world around us as a mirror to our own beliefs. We sit on top of the tiny island, believing that's all there is, and from there we project our movie onto the big silver screen of consciousness. Some movies are fun, some dark, some sad, some full of regret, sorrow, anger....but they are all temporary. Only one thing remains the same despite the type of movie that is playing: the screen. The screen (consciousness itself) remains untouched by even the vilest or ecstatic movies. 
What we struggle to realize is that the tiny island is not just a small speck of land, but it is the tip of an endless network that is more or less hidden from plain sight.
We keep the waters muddy by exclusively focusing on the outside. The ego being our primary tool for that.
By focusing on the inside however, we are able to clear the waters surrounding us, enabling us to see much deeper under the water. 
The last pic shows someone who has done that. The water is clear and he can see that his island is connected to all other islands. By dis-identifying and not being affected by the movie, our hero succeeds in piercing through the veil and entering the much bigger system underneath. 

So, when a teacher says "kill the ego" or "put a stake through the vampire's heart", all it means is to take a step back, become the observer of the ego. That way you may gain enough space to detach yourself from its grip and see that YOU and the ego are not the same thing. 
YOU have a body, YOU have an ego, YOU have a personality, a name, YOU have memories, feelings, thoughts, beliefs...these are all temporary objects, they all come and go. But who or what is experiencing them?

Who is this "I" that observes them coming and going? 

 

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Entity?  Perhaps you're not choosing your words wisely?  The use of the word 'entity' and the context in which it is used implies that the ego is an entity unto itself.  An appendage of sorts.

 

"You must understand that there are no real divisions to the self, however, so we speak of various portions only to make the basic idea clear."

 

This is the paradox that needs to be resolved.  Throughout all of my thoughts concerning the ego I keep this paradox at the very front of my mind.  It's easy to gloss over and miss the importance of it.  But I take Seth's warning "you must understand" to heart.  I take that warning together with Seth's many mentions that language is insufficient as there are no words to describe the true nature of ourselves.  So we do the best we can with the tools available.

 

Subordinate?  Again, perhaps you're not choosing your words wisely?  The ego is that aspect of ourselves which is the outer most portion of our physical personality structure which deals most directly with physical reality.  It's function is to sit on the window sill looking both outward and inward.  Subordinate doesn't seem to be a fitting description for such an important function.

 

 

With all due respect, so far not quite. 

 

This specific quote will come later but I include it here as it is a statement about the ego which is so beautifully succinct, and so wonderfully nails the cause of the many misconceptions about the ego.  With a sledgehammer, i might add. 

 

"It cannot relate to a reality that you will not allow it to perceive. It can poorly help you to survive when you do not allow it to use its abilities to discover those true conditions in which it must manipulate. You put blinders upon it, and then say that it cannot see."

 

Boom!!!  We confine our ego with our beliefs, limited beliefs I should add, force it to manipulate in that limited and distorted environment, and then complain about it's poor functioning.  And to add insult to injury we then accuse it, falsely, of being an obstacle which blinds us to our greater reality and actively prevents us from achieving greater understanding of ourselves and our reality.  The ego must function in line with our beliefs.  Not only our beliefs about it but also our beliefs about who we are and our reality in general.  And if our beliefs are limiting then it's no small wonder that we then force our ego to become a guard rather than a guardian, a tyrant instead of a liberator.  That one statement of Seth's forever vindicates the ego of it's poor reputation.  Case closed and damages awarded. 

 

The ego is not some static 'thing'.  It is dynamic.  It is ever changing and evolving.  It is an aspect of us created for a specific purpose - to deal directly with physical reality in a way that other portions of ourselves cannot.  It is not some entity onto itself, an entity which, no less, attempts to limit us and is thus regarded as an enemy of sorts.  So here's a question:  What is the ideal solution if we feel our ego is an obstacle to greater illumination and self discovery?  a) provide it with better beliefs so that it might be able to perform it's function as originally intended or b) circumvent it.

 

I think that the answer for most is to circumvent it.   

 

Anyway, I shall continue with another three posts.

Ok, I see we are jumping right into the deep end of it. 👍

Perhaps I didn't choose my words wisely, as I know that for a Sethian the word "entity" is loaded with a lot more meaning. I know that the ego is not a separate thing and that it is a dynamic system. I'm a visual learner and when I think about the ego, I picture a wave. If you look for it, you can't find a clear separation between the wave and the rest of the ocean, yet we can still identify that little portion of the ocean and give it a name (wave). This is a great analogy for the ego. We have an idea of what it looks like even though it is in constant change, because it still is identifiable as an apparent, separate entity. 
However, if we use our inner senses and start to explore and analyze the ego from within, if we dig deeper and deeper, we come to realize that what we thought had form as an entity, under close scrutiny evaporates right before our eyes. It is nothing more than consciousness itself, temporarily manifesting as a conglomeration of energy. So, why the need to defend this small portion of your existence? 
 

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Subordinate?  Again, perhaps you're not choosing your words wisely?  The ego is that aspect of ourselves which is the outer most portion of our physical personality structure which deals most directly with physical reality.  It's function is to sit on the window sill looking both outward and inward.  Subordinate doesn't seem to be a fitting description for such an important function.

Yes, subordinate. Just like the wave is a subordinate system of the ocean, the ego is an expression of a bigger system. This is not judging its value (good or bad)....it's just a dispassionate observation. Of course, it's an important function, I'm not denying that. 

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

The ego must function in line with our beliefs.  Not only our beliefs about it but also our beliefs about who we are and our reality in general.  And if our beliefs are limiting then it's no small wonder that we then force our ego to become a guard rather than a guardian, a tyrant instead of a liberator.  That one statement of Seth's forever vindicates the ego of it's poor reputation.

I want to make one thing clear. This is not a witch-hunt against the ego. The ego itself is not the problem. 
The problem is our identification with the ego. 
Would it make sense for the ocean to identify with a tiny wave and believe that this is all it is? 

Ultimately, what every religion at its core, every spiritual path is doing, is to shift the perspective from the subordinate, apparent wave-entity to the ocean-entity. But even that is not the end. Even the ocean is subordinate to something else. Can you guess what it is?

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

So here's a question:  What is the ideal solution if we feel our ego is an obstacle to greater illumination and self discovery?  a) provide it with better beliefs so that it might be able to perform it's function as originally intended or b) circumvent it.

 

I think that the answer for most is to circumvent it.   

Who is that which is feeling? Is it the ocean or the wave talking about itself? 
The wave will find a million reasons to justify its own existence and why we should "improve" it and not "kill" it like a bloodsucking vampire. But a rabid, aggressive dog doesn't become tame just by fitting it out with a cute dog costume. A restless monkey will not calm down by trying to reason with it. What you focus on, you give energy to. Why focusing on your wave-ness when you can just as well focus on the ocean-ness?

The ocean in the meantime, is there to witness it all. No need to change anything, no need to improve anything. Whatever happens on its surface doesn't affect its ocean-ness at all. 

One more time to make this completely clear. The ego as an apparent, separate entity is neither good or bad. It is what it is. 
It is helpful for when we interact with the material world. 
It is not helpful if it prevents us from seeing that we are the ocean.
The difference is the degree to which we identify with it. 
Which brings us back to the ultimate question: Who am I? 
Am I the wave, the ocean or.....?







 

12 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

So far, how do Seth's ideas about the ego comport with yours?  Any differences?  Commonalities?  Any general comments or musings?

 

So far I see no discrepancies with the way I see it or with the way Advaita Vedanta explains it. 

The ego as useful construct to interact with the material world. The only problem is when we believe that the ego is all we are and we identify with it. Then, instead of being the master, we become the slaves of a subordinate entity, effectively cutting us off from our true identity. The one that sees the bigger picture. 

So far we are on the same page.

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

The following references the outer ego and hints at it's current state of development.  My feeling is that folks tend to think of the ego as firstly something that is us but not us and secondly view it as a static and finished product.

 

**********

 

I am primarily a teacher, but I have not been a man of letters per se. I am primarily a personality with a message: You create the world that you know. You have been given perhaps the most awesome gift of all: the ability to project your thoughts outward into physical form.
The gift brings a responsibility, and many of you are tempted to congratulate yourselves on the successes of your lives, and blame God, fate, and society for your failures. In like manner, mankind has a tendency to project his own guilt and his own errors upon a father-god image, who it seems must grow weary of so many complaints.
The fact is that each of you create your own physical reality; and en masse, you create both the glories and the terrors that exist within your earthly experience. Until you realize that you are the creators, you will refuse to accept this responsibility. Nor can you blame a devil for the world's misfortunes. You have grown sophisticated enough to realize that the Devil is a projection of your own psyche, but you have not grown wise enough to learn how to use your creativity constructively.
Most of my readers are familiar with the term, "muscle bound." As a species you have grown "ego bound" instead, held in a spiritual rigidity, with the intuitive portions of the self either denied or distorted beyond any recognition.

 

--SS, p. 3

 

**********

 

My general comment is to express my long held view that as a species we have become quite technologically advanced as we have focused predominately on objective manipulation in an objective world.  As our focus intensified on the purely objective we have largely abandoned our spiritual aspect; to the point where we tend to even deny it's existence.  Thus our current development is that of both a highly technical race and an utterly barren one spiritually.  These days the mere mention of our spiritual nature causes people to roll their eyes and avoid the subject as quickly as possible.  At the same time the idea of technology as the saviour of the human race has become the "talk of the town" and many are rushing headlong into the development and creation of AI with the idea that this superintelligence will become the new "God."  Which, quite humourously, will hearken the obsolencence of mankind.  Excuse me, but I have to laugh at the sheer idiocy of the idea.

In any case, I also view our advanced technology, given our current state of development, akin to giving matches to a small child.  I've concluded that everything in this world is a double-edged sword.  Whether the edge to be used is the edge that harms or the edge which benefits is at the discretion of he who has his hand on the hilt.  And it is hoped that he who wields this sword is blessed with some wisdom.  Those developing AI, for instance, are, in my opinion, those who are most removed from any ideas of spirituality.  The uses to which they will put AI to I believe will be determined purely by monetary considerations.  And the militaries of the world will pay handsomely.

Ahhh, the wait is over! 😄

I can't but agree with the post. 

The only tiny issue I have is with what you say about the developers of AI being far removed from spirituality. I watched an interview with Sam Altman, founder of ChatGPT and he seemed a very balanced young man with a clear moral compass. In fact, he himself warns of the negative potentials of AI, when those who control it, have less than altruistic motives. 

So, I'm simply proposing a distinctions between the inventors, who for the most part are scientists or out-of-the-box thinkers eager to push boundaries and see what is possible, and then those who use their findings to make a profit and frak the rest.

The genie is out of the bottle now and nothing can put it back in. It depends on how you use it. 

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL.

 

I never said they were reptiles. I think they cloned themselves to provide slaves, which means they look just like us.

 

Think about it. They arrived on a space ship without enough space for the slaves. No intelligent natives to use, so to make slaves they had to clone themselves, with genetically modified brains to make us inferior. Perhaps some of the slaves escaped and became modern apes, which would explain why apes are related genetically to humans.

 

I could be completely wrong though, and maybe they genetically modified the ape ancestors to become slaves, and they themselves all died out, or left at some stage.

This is quite a pessimistic picture you're painting. :-D 

Let's assume aliens did come to visit us. Why assume they were out to get us and enslave us? It could be the complete opposite. Maybe they came here to plant the seed of knowledge, adding their DNA to the early inhabitants to help them in their (our) evolution? 
Besides, for a race so advanced to permit space travel (or a shift in dimensions?), would it make logical sense that they were still at a developmental stage where they need to oppress another species? 

Anyways, just speaking hypothetically. Not that I have any opinion or set beliefs about it. 

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Trying to find your post, Sunmaster.  Re Ego.  I'm ready. 

There were so many... Let's start from scratch. 

4 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Just watched this Buddhist talk.

Interesting.

True self, false self. Cool stuff.

 

Good one.
If you found this interesting, I suggest watching any of the talks of Swami Sarvapriyananda on YT. I consider him a fantastic speaker, with a wealth of knowledge about religions, philosophy and spirituality. A true gem.

 

20 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO it's because it requires one to surrender a certain amount of control, and that scares some people. They fool themselves that they are in control of their lives.

Yes, but we all do to some degree. 

1 hour ago, Mark Nothing said:

My Grandmother and Mother used to have conversations with God while doing housework.  It seemed to help them organize their day and ensure everything was done.  And keep love flourishing in the household to keep the family unit in tact.

 

My strategy is to go where God is and talk to him in his environment.

 

The first page of the Bible tells you where he is and how to light up the power.

 

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.  God's spirit moved upon the face of the waters.  And God said let there be light, and there was light.

 

I go to the ocean where God is and ask his spirit to provide the light to me. Currently I am asking him to help me understand the Book of Isaiah.  You can ask anything you want, whatever pops into your mind.

Is there a place where God is not?

13 hours ago, ravip said:

Isn't that imagination? or blind faith?

How many of the earths ~8 billion people could do that and agree as one? 

Is this not the root of all misery on this planet?

No, imagination and faith (a belief in something) are products of the mind. The same goes for the ego 

However, we are looking at that which is behind the mind, the source whence the mind emerges from. 

When you are in the waking state and the dream state, your mind is still active. But where is the mind in deep sleep? Where is the mind in deep meditation? YOU (the real you) disassociates itself from the mind by becoming that which observes the mind. The mind becomes just another object, along with all that the mind creates: thoughts, feelings, beliefs, the ego construction...

The root of all misery in the world stems from the identification of the true You with the objects of the mind, including the ego. "I am this body. I am this and that."

To look behind that illusion is the solution to all the misery in the world. 

6 hours ago, ravip said:

Yes I agree with you.

But where can one find the 'original' unedited version of God's word?

What we all believe as God's words are what's written by man, isn't it? If the original script is found, many arguments might come to an end IMHO...

There is only one source and that's within you. 

2 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

You differentiate between believing and knowing. It sounds nice but trusting what you consider as knowledge is potentially seriously flawed of course. 

Do you know your hands belong to your body or do you just believe it?
If you are happy, do you know it to be so or do you doubt it?
Would you take someone else's word over your own experience?

How do you discern whether something is true at all?

We have to distinguish subjective knowledge from objective knowledge here.

SK cannot be accessed or proven by anyone other than yourself. But what if my SK and your SK coincide? What if there are many people with the same or very similar SK? What if the SK of countless people throughout history forms a framework or system that can be tested and verified by others who didn't have that SK before?
You may argue that they could all be under the influence of some mass hallucination, but I think it would make a very strong case that there is indeed some truth in that system.
Science seeks objective knowledge, but it's not its task nor does it have the means to validate SK. 

The usual materialist argument is that if science can't prove something, it must mean that it doesn't exist and materialists will run around in circles, unable to find an answer.

It is evident therefore that the two are incompatible. Science is a tool to gain objective knowledge through the scientific process. There are other tools to gain subjective knowledge. The SK gained is not less important and valuable than the OK. 

34 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

to believe in a superior being without scientific proof is the essence of spirituality IMO.

I have to disagree with this.

To believe is to take something to be true without knowing for sure if it's true or not. "I believe the world was created in 7 days."
The essence of spirituality is spiritual practice, to go from mere believing to knowing through direct experience. 
If you know something to be true, why would you need science to validate it for you? It would be redundant.