Sunmaster

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.

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. 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?

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

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.

Happy New Year guys. Whatever I happen to post in the next 24hrs will be under the influence of various substances. To have some plausible deniability just in case...

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. 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? 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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

Hey, where is my reply to the ego topic? Any thoughts, musings, comments? Not from Seth but from you. 😉😄

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

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.

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?

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? 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. 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? 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.....?

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.

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.

The anticipation is killing me.

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.

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

The many all come from the one. God is in us as we are in God. Like air, it's invisible and all around us, as well as within us whenever we breathe. God is closer to us than we are to our own breath. It is our very nature, yet we have forgotten.

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.

Yes, but we all do to some degree.