Sunmaster

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

well, someone mentioned james redfield's celestine prophecy in another thread.

that's an interesting read.

one thing i remember from that book is the discussion of power struggles.

many/most human interactions involve power struggles ...

do i do that?

i hope not.

i try not to.

 

The Celestine books were some of the first "spiritual" books I've read after that shift in perception I mentioned. I even bought the workbook because I'm practical minded.
They were the right books/ideas for me at that time, because they were a soft introduction to the world within.

I skimmed the video you posted and from what I heard, the things he said made sense to me. 

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

I don't feel like playing that game.

 

You're already hooked. You just don't know it yet.

Resistance is futile! 

27 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

i haven't dismissed everything you've said. i haven't read most of it.

i pointed out that ONE of tipaporn's comments was bs. 

and i still think it is, 1000 years of wisdom handed down notwithstanding.

 

but you've confirmed what i thought.

you said you've been researching this stuff for 25 years.

so this isn't a normal thread.

you're basically "an authority figure" on this thread.

from my life experience, challenging an authority figure is never a pleasant experience. 

and I don't feel like playing that game.

 

Wow...guru...authority figure.... If you don't stop my ego will inflate to dangerous proportions. ???? 

Seriously though, the mumbo jumbo comment was meant to be in general. You're not the first to use that term, nor will you be the last.
"from my life experience, challenging an authority figure is never a pleasant experience"
This is true in every field. If I talked to an engineer and challenged him about his knowledge of construction, I would find it very hard to convince him that a (real) bridge can be build using toothpicks. He might teach me the fundamentals of engineering and I could then learn how to build a proper bridge. To do that I would have to dismiss old ideas and adopt new ones. 

The feeling of unpleasantness comes from a resistance to change. Not that I want you to change of course. God forbid. We all change at our own pace, but change is inevitable. Resisting it just makes our lives miserable.

So, what games DO you like to play?

 

2 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Not afraid of dying, just afraid of not being there when I can. 

 

Today walking through the train station in opposite direction of those heading for work, I look at their faces, their body language, and their automatic walk to their destination. This is people of all ages, all kinds of profession, and genders, but so much alike. Im so blessed to be able to jump off the wagon before it was to late.

Be careful, people might think you're part of some cult! ????

Just now, Hummin said:

Im more afraid not being here for those I care for, right here right now.

 

I had the same exact thought a few days ago. My mother in law is at the hospital and in pretty bad shape. My wife is doing what she can to help her and the rest of the family out. 
So I was thinking about my own mortality and death. I thought that I too could die any time. I have no regrets and I'm not afraid of dying. The only thing that would hold me back are my wife who needs my support now more than ever, and my parents who are old and will need me soon as well.

34 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Even it is 1000's  of years, doesnt automatically make them right ????

 

The problem is to define your searches before yourselves get polluted and jump on the wagon where you continuously create new and alternative fake realities and do not realize how far from your pureness you have come. 

 

Our minds needs the continuous growth to keep it interesting, and stagnation is not part of our nature.

 

Find the pure orign, stay with it, instead of the materialistic hunger for more, and  it becomes toxic. 

 

 

That's true. 
Validation of any such source is a subjective process and we have to do it by ourselves. At a certain point though, you have to learn to trust your inner voice. You can't wait until something or someone validates reality for you, or you will soon find yourself on your deathbed wondering why you wasted all that time.

I've spent the last 25 years studying all kinds of sources, separating the weed from the chaff (from my point of view) and trying to find a common denominator. A common ground that is free of cultural distortions, empty rituals and oppressing dogma.

I think I found it. It sounds right and true for me and that's all that matters. 
Some may agree, others don't....such is life. No problem.

17 minutes ago, mikebike said:

greater minds than yours or mine have pondered deeply the entirety of the human condition and only a fool would not endeavour to understand what has come before them, and only a total fool would call them "knuckleheads".

Excellent. 
Still, there are fools who outright dismiss the wisdom handed down for 1000s of years and call it mumbo jumbo. 
The irony....

Just now, Hummin said:

How many times have this been posted now ?

 

10 times?

Probably, and it's still as irrelevant as the first time.

33 minutes ago, Paul Haynes said:

All gods are man made . Faith is not knowledge, no proof to any of them .

I agree with the first part of your post. 

2 hours ago, save the frogs said:

edit: anyway, "guru" isn't a bad thing on its own. it's someone sharing information and knowledge to others. 

Yes, I'm aware of the true meaning of guru. If you meant it that way, I could be flattered on some level but it's obviously an undeserved title.

But that's not the way you used that term when you talked about Tippaporn and me, is it? Be honest. You used it in a derogatory way, accusing us quite bluntly of manipulating others for some kind of nefarious motive. 
So yeah, you can try to sugarcoat it now and apologize, but how long will it last until the next outlandish accusation?

Anyway, I just find it funny and I don't take it personally. So no hard feelings. Let's move on.

26 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

and i don't have to read all of it.

No, you don't. Not even a small part of it.

26 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

maybe i shouldn't comment on just a few quotes.

Sure you can, if you can present your thoughts without the emotional whirlwind you usually attach to them. 

26 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

take care and best of luck without me interfering. 

Cheers. Good luck to you too.

2 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

that's a pretty funny way of putting it.

maybe i've been too harsh on you.

my apologies. 

That seems to be your pattern. First you throw around outrageous accusations, then you regret them and apologise. 

Reminds me of a friend of mine. He used to drink a lot and get into these terrible scenes of jealousy with his girlfriend. 

The jealousy was unfounded and he always ended up regretting his behavior until they finally separated. 

2 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

maybe you dont understand a lot of the conversation because a lot of it is bs.

not all of it.

but good luck sifting through all of this.

have fun.

What you're saying is "...a lot of it I just don't get and for that reason I declare it to be BS."
However, the honest thing to say would be "a lot of it I just don't get and I don't believe in it."
Can you see the difference?

57 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

both of you!

but you know what?

let's wipe the slate clean.

ignore that comment. 

let bygones be bygones.

if i read your posts further, i will comment on each individual post as i see fit.

there's no need to put labels on people. 

You're a funny one.

First you call the content of my posts mumbo jumbo without even reading them, then you call me a cult leader, and now you would like to take it all back and honour me with a reply whenever "you see fit" to reply. 

Fascinating. 

3 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Of course.

I've never met a cult leader who likes to be accused of bs before.

I'm not saying everything you post is bs. I haven't read most of it, actually.

I was just criticizing one particular comment Tipaporn made.

And of course you jump in to defend him and bark like a dog in typical cult-leader fashion.

 

Sorry, but I'm confused. 

Is the cult leader supposed to be Tippaporn or I? 

Just want to know what to put in my curriculum. "Cult leader" would be quite cool actually. Life goal: world domination. And a private harem, of course. ????????????

Honestly, this is one of the funniest things postet in a while here. Cheers for that. 

Even funnier is the fact that you announced you'll stop posting, so you positively confirmed my point. ????????????

47 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Like taking MDMA? 

 

That was insane ecstasy feeling for sure, but the days after was horrible for me, and even I enjoyed it as long I was on, the down trip did not apply for doing it to many times. 

 

The eufori and happiness I had as a kid for almost no reasons other than feeling alive, I could only recreate with extreme sport activity. Feeling Normal by doing something pure.

Instead of reposting an old post, I will try to explain it as I live it today.

About 25 years ago I experienced a kind of "shift in perception", a very strong one. This shift , although a short lived one, allowed me to understand the world and myself in ways I had never experienced before. There was such clarity, that there was no denying the fact that we are all so much more than we think we are. That the journey always leads up to the head, but ends at the heart. It taught me to trust what comes from the inside, because that is my true voice. And this is true for me, but I know it's the same for you and everybody else. 



 

14 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I've often thought about Seth qualifying that statement.  And now that you've given me an example I can confirm that I've had a similar experience once.  It was a time, long ago, when my wife at the time decided she wanted to divorce me.  I was devastated and deeply depressed.  I had felt myself to be the cause of our marital failure and my self blame caused me to focus on myself as a failure in all ways.  You're familiar with associative thought, Sunmaster.  And associative thought was heavily in play.

Depression can be so severe that it can actually produce bodily sensations.  I was at work once and at one point felt this depression affect my body to a degree that I had to go into a bathroom stall so that in privacy I might be able to compose myself.  As I sat on the commode with my head sunk into my hands I was suddenly overwhelmed by a feeling of pure love.  For myself and literally everything.  The intensity of that feeling was like nothing I'd ever felt before or since.  I sobbed uncontrollably like a child while completely immersed in that feeling.

Once I managed to control my sobbing I exited the rest room and walked out into the factory.  This feeling of pure love persisted and did not diminish in intensity.  I felt love for every co-worker I gazed at.  There was one guy in particular who I did not like.  And to my shock I felt the same love for him.  I can't recall but I think the experience lasted perhaps a half hour or so.  I certainly had not been entertaining loving thoughts prior to the feeling of love overcoming me.  In fact my thoughts were quite the contrary.

Now this is for you alone, Sunmaster, but in hindsight I was thinking of Oversoul 7.  Was that a deliberate override?  I tend to think it was.

 

But to your point, perhaps that is what Seth refers to when he qualifies emotion and imagination "largely" coming from thought.  Our experience in this world is largely one of thought.  As long as you're awake you can't turn them off.  See Seth and Castaneda on that point, for they are in agreement that if you stop your thoughts then you no longer uphold this creation of this illusion any longer and it would disappear.

No doubt we can experience directly, without thoughts.  But I do recall Seth saying that emotions are not only aspects of who we are in this reality but others, too.  So I would say, yeah, ecstasy is an emotion since it's still a feeling.  But I can see now how feelings can be experienced without thought.  Still I think that due to the fact that Seth makes the statement often enough without the qualifier it is because our experience is generally one in which we are by far and large engaged in creating using thoughts here.

Comments?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Thanks for sharing that experience.
I can't say if it was an override, but it certainly was something special. 
 

31 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Like taking MDMA? 

 

That was insane ecstasy feeling for sure, but the days after was horrible for me, and even I enjoyed it as long I was on, the down trip did not apply for doing it to many times. 

 

The eufori and happiness I had as a kid for almost no reasons other than feeling alive, I could only recreate with extreme sport activity. Feeling Normal by doing something pure.

I tried MDMA when I was young, but it wasn't like that. Or maybe it was like that, but times a million.
I shared my experience here before, but it is now buried somewhere around page 2- or 300. Let me see if I can find it.

7 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Have you ever seen the double rainbow clip? Wonderful experience by visuals and thoughts.

 

Especially as a young man I was filled with ecstasy and energy, and unfortunate ro much for my surroundings that I had to adopt to everyone else.

 

 G

Yes, I've seen one in real life about 5 years ago. I was very happy, but definitely not ecstatic like the guy in the video. A bit too much for my taste 5555

The kind of ecstasy I was talking about was a different kind though, or more intense perhaps. 

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Sorry for the late reply.  Been busy.

 

Seth generally states that emotions and imagination follow thought.  There are a few times where he has qualified that statement with "largely."  And yet I've never come across a given example where emotions or imagination are produced by other means.  Since his repetition of that idea more often than not does not include the qualifier then I think it safe to rely on it without the qualifier.  I'm sure that if the statement without the qualifier was not the, say, typical case then he would have provided the differentiation or further explanation.

 

Ecstasy is certainly an emotion.  But I, myself, don't at all see that emotion divorced from thought.  Per it's definition, which I think is the common accepted one:

 

ecstasy [ ek-stuh-see ]

 

- rapturous delight.

- an overpowering emotion or exaltation; a state of sudden, intense feeling.

- the frenzy of poetic inspiration.

- mental transport or rapture from the contemplation of divine things.

I can think of no example of experiencing the feeling of ecstasy before experiencing thoughts of supreme delight or exaltation.  Do you have an example?

Sudden fear is the result of a sudden awareness of an impending situation . . . real or imagined.   The very instant that a threat is perceived is the same instant that the corresponding emotion is felt.  If one were killed in an instant without ever having an awareness of one's impending doom then the old aphorism, "he never knew what hit him," applies.  Does that make sense to you?

I'm still not sure about fear, or a certain type of fear to be precise. But for ecstasy, based on my personal experience, I can confidently say that no thought was involved when it happened. I say this because I have never experienced anything like it before or after. There was no framework to work with or even a similar feeling I could relate it to. It happened without thought because it was something that transcended the mind. 
The question I would rather ask at this point is whether we should classify it as an emotion in the first place. 
My experience was not just a "mental transport" and I wasn't contemplating anything divine at the time. In fact, I was atheist when it happened. And yet, it was an ecstasy on all levels: physical, mental and above all spiritual. 

That's why I always point out that direct experience is the key to true knowledge. Books and intellectual models of reality can be helpful in making sense of the experience, but without the experience itself, they are just pretty, empty boxes.

14 minutes ago, Tayida said:

Why did God, who is Love, tolerate, and sometimes endorse, so much violence in the Old Testament? One of the main criticisms leveled at Islam is that the Koran clearly instigates and encourages violence... Example: Sura Al-Imran, verse 127 «The Lord will make you overcome, and this is to kill and humiliate the unbelievers, who will thus be losers in this life and in the hereafter"... but the bible also contains similar passages... (I prefer not to report extrapolated sentences without the relative context, but you will agree with me that there are very similar sentences... ).

So, I ask: if he really was as good as they say, why did He endorse that kind of violence?

Easy.
God is God.
The Bible, the Quran, any religious doctrine....were written by men. 

2 very different things.

Even if those texts were written by men under the influence of divine inspiration, and I believe this to be so in part, even then the info received had to go through the unique filter of the person writing it down, thus distorting the original message.

Not to mention all subsequent revisions throughout history that even further distorted the message.

14 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I think fear and ecstasy are two unrelated things. Fear is a genetic safety response, as part of the fight or flight reaction to a threat.

I can see that there may not be much obvious difference, as both are a result of a chemical release in the body, but ecstasy is not necessary to preserve our life from danger or to ensure the survival of the species, though it was nice of God to include it in our genetic programming.

The question I was asking myself was "If emotions are all a product of thoughts, what about ecstasy and (sudden) fear?"
They are both defined as emotions, but I can't see how they would be produced by thought. 

Maybe most emotions are produced by thoughts (thought>emotion), but maybe some come before thoughts (emotion>thought).

Anyway, still trying to make sense of this.