16 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Since you seem to have done that yourself please save me some time by just answering the two questions I asked earlier!

1. Who or what is a god?

2. What are they/it supposed to do?

 

 

 

Let's not get off on the wrong foot guys.

I will try to answer your question shortly, once i pass the checkin at the airport.

35 minutes ago, Hummin said:

The only problem, where does the creator come from, and who created the creator? 

 

 

 

On the other hand, we will create life on other planets of not already infested moon and mars, dors that makes us the creators? We can even pass down rules for the new life, one day we goe extinct, but the rules somehow in some form survives. 

 

 

 

Do you believe in higher civilization on rhis planet before our own? Meaning earlier civilations have been viped out, but humans went back to basic and started from zero.

 

@fredwiggy

If you speak of a creator, then you must speak of that which is created and the means by which it is created. These 3 things always go together. 

But these distinctions only make sense in a world where linear time plays a role, the material world, where there is an apparent beginning and an apparent end.

Imagine a world where time is irrelevant. In that world it would be impossible to distinguish the start of something from its end, because they would both be happening at the same time, in an eternal now. 

From that point of view, the question of who created the creator wouldn't make any sense. 

So, while the concept of a God is rooted in dualism (I'm here and God is there), there is also a non-dual Ground of All Being from which everything else rises. Ramana Maharshi calls it the SELF. Our individual self is a part of it. The only obstacle that (seemingly) divides us from the SELF is our limited knowledge. Not intellectual knowledge, but knowledge based on direct experience. 

Enlightenment is just that, the total realisation that we are indeed the SELF.

And what does that mean in terms of the creator? It means WE are ultimately the creator of everything. And by "we" I don't mean the ego driven personality, but our true identity, which is the SELF.

The implications are fascinating. We create the concept of God and project it outwards, as if it were separate from us. So, when we pray to God, we actually pray to an aspect of ourselves. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. 

It also means that me, you and everyone else are manifestations of that same SELF and that the separation we see is an illusion. 

Imagine what the world would look like if we could realize that! 

15 hours ago, Hummin said:

I think the first thing most should find before their place in the world and universe, is to find their space within themselves right here right now! If you cant find it there, I doubt you can find it any place elsewhere. 

 

I love The Alchymist Santiago who insatiable quest to search for his place in the world and also the ultimate search for the meaning of life and the universe ended up where he started his search, realizing all he wanted and searched for, where right there in the first place, but he was blind to it, and neaded the whole journey with experiences to finely realize the magic. 

 

 

100%, Hummin. ????

51 minutes ago, Harsh Jones said:

I am not sure if I fully understand. You mean the "no free will" view ?

"Free will" is connected to that, but I wasn't referring to it specifically.

In my opinion, if you want to find the root of all the problems we are facing as a society right now, it is necessary for each one of us to look within. 
By doing so, you inevitably discovery your true identity and gain a much wider understanding of your place in the world/universe.
If you don't do that, you will continue to identify as the limited ego construct and believe that you are nothing more than the body. 

In essence, what I'm trying to say is that it's the narrow view of materialism that is holding us back. It's like owning a Ferrari and believing that you can only drive it in first gear. But that is not so. There are a lot more gears you can use! 

18 minutes ago, Harsh Jones said:

I think if the atheists were right and everything was random, life would be a lot better. If we were all just playing the averages and everything was 50/50, life should be far less painful for the average person. It had to take divine intervention to make the human condition and all of its frailty this bad. 

 

The average persons life is pretty awful. And it will always be this way

As long as the average person believes that life is something that happens to him, that he is a victim of circumstances, that he is somehow separated from everything else, as long as his ego dictates who he is...then yes, life will be pretty awful for him. 

This is the normal way of life of the vast majority of people, and we can see how dysfunctional this way of life is.

It's not even a question between atheism vs religion. It's more than that. It's a question about the inevitable human evolution of consciousness. For now, a tiny minority of less than 1% are spearheading this change, but I'm confident it will grow until it becomes the new normal.

Probably not in this lifetime though. 

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Don't take this as a return to the fray, as it's not, but I've had quite a while to think about that very subject, and I have a a strong opinion on it.

As regular posters will know, I am of the opinion that God created the universe and then left it to get on with it, but to those that like to complain that God doesn't exist because "he" allows children to die of cancer, IMO if God had human emotions God might look at what mankind is doing to the wonderful planet we were given for a home, and how we as a species spend much of our time killing each other and exterminating other species and decide that it's time for another comet event so the planet can start over.

 

Perhaps the unbelievers should be grateful that either a/ God does not exist, or b/ God doesn't interfere in planetary affairs.

 

Or c) "God" exists and there is a reason for everything, regardless if we can see/understand it or not. 

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

i don't know.

what?

That's the big question. A question which everyone should find out by themselves. 

49 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

if your ego is healthy, then the ego is part of who you are

Exactly, it's a part of who you are, so what is the other part? 

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

while your abstract theories may have some validity, not many people are going to pick up abstract information and sort out the ego this way.

 

if your ego is out of balance, it will eventually clash with someone else's ego.

it's through these clashes that people learn to manage their egos.

 

or sometimes through setbacks your ego gets adjusted. you're a millionaire and then you go bankrupt ... now you need to redefine your ego based on other values etc ...

 

complex issue, ego is. 

 

 

I don't think the ideas are abstract at all. You have an ego, right? Can you step back and see it as a "thing", observe it, describe it? How it was created, built...brick upon brick when you were a child? 

If you can observe it, doesn't that mean that you are indeed something else? If there is the ego and there is an observer, doesn't that mean that identifying with the ego construct is far less than you really are?

It's all very practical.

5 hours ago, save the frogs said:

that's one of the best quotes of the thread so far.

to honor it, i've asked chatGPT to re-write it in the style of Yoda.

 

Exist, God does not. Conscript of man, it is. Control the weak and gullible by fear, it aims to do.

Have you ever been diagnosed with bipolar disorder? ????

Your posts go from one extreme to the other and after all this time, I still don't know where you actually stand. 

And regarding the post you quoted....if you consider that the best quote of the thread (the small part you've followed so far), you either have very low standards, or maybe you meant it ironically. ????
I sincerely hope it's the latter.

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

Belief can move mountains, and also the correct treatment for human diseases as well weaknesses. Even if it is just placebo.

 

I believe nature can cure any illness or any disorders. No doubt the answers is right in front of us

Psychedelics ARE nature. 

1 minute ago, save the frogs said:

anyway, good news for anyone into drug experimentation.

andrew huberman, a neuroscientist, is promoting "safe and effective journeys'' with psychedelics. 

 

 

It's nothing new. Psychedelics have been used privately for a very long time to heal, but only recently under scientific supervision. They have a very high success rate in curing heavy drug addiction and depression. 

In the 60s, before they were banned, LSD was used on prison inmates. Something like 60% turned their lives around and had no further issues with the law.

It's completely irrational to have such an effective tool and not use it.

4 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Oh, sth else.

Has anyone mentioned dreams in this thread?

Like ... a nightmare is God talking to us, isn't it?

I've actually had some nightmares that warned me about dangers ...

Like a girl I was dating ... i saw her face in a dream and her head was covered with snakes like medusa.

I got the hell out of that relationship ... she would have eaten me alive.

 

Anyone ever had a "prophetic" dream? I have, but it wasnt mind-blowing. I had a dream a few months before my mom died. In the dream, it told me exactly when she would die. She already had cancer, so it's wasn't a major revelation that she would die soon, but the dream pin-pointed the time she would die and it was accurate. 

 

Yes, i believe we talked about dreams on a few occasions.

I had a couple of dreams that helped me sort out stuff in the waking world.

I also had several lucid dreams, but it takes a lot of effort and discipline to be aware that I'm dreaming.

4 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

my question wasn't a joke.

if gurus and gangster rappers are both promoting drugs ... what does it imply?

 

It implies absolutely nothing because gurus are not promoting the use of drugs.

55 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I have no intention of giving up my ego, thank you.  Not now or ever as long as I'm on earth.  After all, my ego is my best and beloved buddy. 

All humour aside I ask, what is the point of coming into life with an ego only to then have the sole lifelong purpose and goal of unceremoniously ridding yourself of that ego?  For are you aware that as soon as you obliterate one ego another will arise?  Perhaps the number one reason I have never entertained exploring eastern religion is due to their maligning of an integral portion of who we are on this earth.  You could not function in this world without an ego.  It is a portion, a very important portion serving a critical function of the self which is clothed for a time in flesh and blood here.  For what sane reason would people come to the conclusion that the ego is some sort of step child of the self that needs to be locked into a damp and dark cellar with the key tossed away?

 

The ego has been falsely and unjustly accused of being the source of all the unsavoury aspects of man.  And even of preventing man from rising above himself in this "god forsaken existence" into some blended oneness existing in some unknown medium of bliss.

I would like to add to this part.

The point of Eastern philosophies is not to "destroy", or "getting rid" of the ego. The ego is a tool to interact with the material world. The point is to not identify with the ego construction. Meditation helps doing exactly that. 
What happens when you dis-identify with the ego? You learn that the outer ego is not who you are. You learn that it is only a part of the real YOU. The real problem is believing that the outer ego is all you are. 

"For are you aware that as soon as you obliterate one ego another will arise?"
What makes you believe that? 
You don't obliterate anything. You simply break the tyranny that the ego holds on you, telling you "you are this and that and that's all you are", and you make your true identity shine through. The outer ego is recognized as what it is: a tool, a useful construction. The usefulness of this construction depends on the beliefs it is built upon, like you always say. 

"And even of preventing man from rising above himself in this "god forsaken existence" into some blended oneness existing in some unknown medium of bliss."

If the outer ego is left unchecked and you identify with it, the result is that you don't see the connection you have with the inner world and thus don't see that the worldly personality is only the tip of the iceberg. Dis-identifying with the outer ego is therefore necessary to blend with the Oneness, which brings bliss. Basically, you re-identify with something bigger, deeper and more true than before.

This is what I tried to show with my latest drawing. The outer ego is only the tip of the iceberg. The subconscious is under the waterline and is rarely explored. If it were, it would become obvious that there is much more to us than what we can see on the surface and we would recognize that we and everything is connected.
Meditation helps in this process of recognition, cracks open the silver screen upon which our lives seem to play out, and exposes the underlying forces from which everything arises.

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Whenever I refer to "we" I mean me, you and everyone.  In terms of which portion of ourselves which does the creating then that would be the outermost facing portion.  Our more expansive inner self does not create for us.  That portion can attempt to intercede via influence but it is always up to the outer portion to either accept or reject that influence.

Seth has always maintained that there really are no divisions to the self.  He uses those terms, such as ego, subconscious, etc., since that is what we are familiar with.

I understand that you can't comment on my experienceitsef. That's not what I was asking about.
I also understand that there are no distinct divisions between the outer self and the inner self and the Self, and that the whole system is interdependent, where energy flows both ways.

So, if I am getting this right, you are saying it is the outer ego (the personality) alone who creates either consciously or unconsciously the reality it finds itself in. The inner self is not responsible for the outer self's creations. 

This is where I have trouble.... My outer self had no way of consciously knowing about the Kundalini energy and logically, couldn't therefore have created it. 
The inner self, not being restricted and being aware of a far larger portion of reality, undoubtedly knows what the Kundalini is all about. It's an energy coiled up at the base of the spine, which once released, rises up through the spine and ultimately erupts from the crown chakra. It is a rare occurrence, but at the same time perfectly natural. 
The outer ego can try to set the right conditions for it, but ultimately can't force this energy to erupt. It has a mind of its own, so to speak. 

If we now try to use this information and interpret it through the Seth teachings, I would say that the experience was not created by the outer ego who had zero previous knowledge or experience of it, but by something "higher up", which allowed it to happen. This "something" we can call the entity, the source of the inner self. Or we can call it "grace". Calling it Grace doesn't make it something external to us. In reality, nothing is truly external. It does however imply that a decision was made somewhere up the line, of which the outer ego/personality experienced the consequences.
Or maybe there was no decision at all.... maybe it was simply the right time, like when a flower blossoms. It just happened because the conditions were right.

Both of these theories still make more sense to me than the idea that the limited outer self created the experience.  I agree with you in the sense that the outer self set the conditions for it (time....place...mindset), but not the rising of Kundalini itself.

"Our more expansive inner self does not create for us."

It (the entity/inner self) does create us (the personality) though, along with all the potential situations we then choose to experience. Correct?

I've added a little sketch of the inner/outer worlds, according to how I interpret the Seth material. How do you see it?

7 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Is this discussion not once again an example of polarity?

On the one hand you have the majority of people whose core-belief is that 'everything happens to you' and that you as an individual have no power to change anything in the outside world. And strangely enough these are also the people that will argue that they have 'free will', but it seems that in their reality that free will amounts to little more than re-arranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic. And their victim-mentality makes them blame everything 'bad' that happens to them to those outside influences over which they have no power, while at the same time boasting about what they achieved because then the credit is only to them. 

On the other hand and at the complete end of the spectrum you have those that literally believe that 'you shape your reality' and since that reality is all there is they are omni-potent.  "I am a God in the depths of my mind".  

Transcending the polarity then means realizing that neither of these extremes is 'true'.  But that paradoxically the Truth lies in the middle. 

My personal belief is that nothing happens by chance.  And thus everything you encounter has meaning and is put on your path to teach you that which you know already but have forgotten.  So in a sense you do create your reality, while dealing with these outside influences.  The words 'influence/shape' better convey the idea that we are neither the 'ping-pong ball in the tornado' nor the Creator of the universe.  It's more like a cosmic dance where you come to realize that what happens to you is the universe responding to your consciousness and inviting you to join and giving up your Ego.

 

 

Well put. I agree.

On 5/29/2023 at 8:05 PM, Tippaporn said:

I'm firm in my belief that we create our own reality.  As soon as other forces are introduced to override us, whether Spirit, or the Grace of God, or the Grace of Kundalini, then the entire concept becomes false.  Seth has stated numerous times that the individual can receive influence but the final say is his whether to accept or reject any particular influence.  You either have free will or you don't.  It can't be a mix.  So for me it is most definitely up to us and our thinking and our beliefs.
 

A question for you then @Tippaporn.

Without any prior knowledge of the kundalini energy, neither practical nor theoretical, without ever having heard or read of it, without any expectations as to what should happen,....how could I have created it with my thoughts?

When you say "we create our reality", who or what is the "we" you are referring to? The outer ego (the personality we identify with) or the inner ego (that aspect of the wider self that is an intermediary between the ultimate Self and the outer ego)?

48 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I agree with everything you wrote, Sunmaster.  Except the part about "just for fun."  The only time I did psychedelics was at parties.  Never by my lonesome.  And it was fun.  Getting off whilst sitting across from someone else and we'd look at each and just bust out and laugh and laugh and laugh.  I can picture it, and feel it, still to this day.  I can't say that wasn't good for my soul.  It was.

But as you said in an earlier post, it's a big topic.

I'm not saying it is wrong. I have used them for fun too when I was younger, but in my post I was thinking more of the spiritual applications. Let's not forget that these psychedelic substances (psilocybin, peyote, San Pedro cactus, ayahuasca, Amanita Muscaria and others) are sacraments, used since the dawn of time in shamanic rituals to connect with the spirit world (which in other words is our inner world).

The mindset and the setting (place/environment) are crucial here.
The set and setting hypothesis basically holds that the effects of psychedelic drugs are dependent first and foremost upon set (personality, preparation, expectation, and intention of the person having the experience) and setting (the physical, social, and cultural environment in which the experience takes place).

The chances to have a bad trip are greatly reduced, but even then there is no absolute guarantee. It's not only up to us and our thinking and our beliefs. These sacraments open us to dimensions which go beyond thinking, beyond rational concepts. Shamans and teachers say it is ultimately up to Spirit, or the Grace of God, or the Grace of Kundalini whether there will be a deep and meaningful connection or not. I believe that too.