Sunmaster

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

I have no problem with that.  I'm certainly not infallible. 

But Seth is? 

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Right.  Not said but implied.  And that is the language I used . . . "the implication is" . . .

 

No. Neither said nor implied (as I explained in my reply). You interpreted it that way. You created that reality. 

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

 

" ... Needless to say, I wanted you to know that there is much more than even this, complexities that are truly astounding, intelligences that operate in what I suppose you would call a gestalt fashion, building blocks of vitalities of truly unbelievable maturity, awareness, and comprehension. These are the near ultimate [as I understand such things]."

 

I guess Seth is dead wrong then.

Where does it say that those complexities have to be understood on an intellectual level? Where does it say that they can't be experienced? Where is the contradiction?

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Nobody said anything about dispensing with the intellect or relying on direct experience exclusively. 

 

Well, it sure sounds like it.

Again, no and I explained why. It "sounds like it" is a result of your own bias and distortion. 

 

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

If the intellect can only put into words the real deal experience, which is only "a pale, lifeless approximation of the real thing" then it only logically follows that we should be relying only on direct experience.  If the intellect can't achieve any knowledge of inner reality itself and only direct experience can then the intellect is, for all intents and purposes, useless in the subjective world.

Yes and no. 
The mind is a construction, a focusing tool we use to cut out a slice of infinite reality so that we may interact with the material world. Imagine a life with an unfiltered awareness, where you would be aware of light in all its bands of frequency, be aware of all sounds on the spectrum, be aware of all the thoughts and emotions around you, be aware of all the magnetic fields.....how would you be able to have a conversation with your buddies or even just feed yourself? No, our perception is limited in a way that makes physical life possible, by blocking out most of the stuff around us (or in us, for that matter).
While you dive into the formless, the intellect (or maybe better call it "mind") has to be left waiting outside the door. It will be there once you come back and it will serve you even better than it did before. 

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

The intellect can be used in our favour though. For example by shaping new habits and routines that in turn promote direct experience. In practical terms, setting up a place and time for meditation. But once you sit down in meditation, the intellect has done its job. Insisting on using it from this point onwards is the exact opposite of what meditation is all about. The intellect is fed by thoughts and thoughts are what prevents us from "hearing the silence".

 

So the conclusion is that the intellect is geared only towards the physical world?  "Insisting on using it from this point onwards is the exact opposite of what meditation is all about."  Which means dispensing with it when turning your consciousness inwards.  I don't know how else you can interpret that..

The mind's area of expertise is the physical (gross) and mental (subtle) world, but not for the inner worlds beyond the mind (causal). The same way you wouldn't use science to explore the inner worlds, using the mind would give you the same results. Just another empty, lifeless religion built on words instead of first-hand experience. 

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

No, that's not a way of life.  A way of life is prescribing how to live it in particular detail - a list of do's and don'ts, whether they be actions or behaviours.  Fulfilling a desire to understand the rules of the game and then playing by them is not a way of life.  It's an approach to life.  But that approach in no way makes decisions as to what I should or shouldn't do, or how I should or shouldn't behave in my life.

I don't see how Advaita Vedanta is prescribing anything. Unless you want to become a monk, you have full freedom to do with your life whatever you want. Sure, there are guidelines on what the most efficient ways are if your intent is going within...fasting helps cleansing the body and clearing the mind for example, eating certain types of food are more conducive than others if you want a healthy body, certain thoughts and beliefs are more beneficial than others if you seek true fulfillment. But they are all just habits that simply make sense if you choose to dedicate your life to inner discovery. If you want to be a swimming champion, you better don't eat McDonalds or go to sleep late every night. Common sense really. They are not prescribed in order to be "one of the club".
 

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Now I've gotta say that that is pure mind f'kery.  For whatever one feels then becomes truth.  At least partially.  Which means that any answer could be partially correct.  Granted their limited data and context misled them to mistake a thing as something other than what it truly is.  But to call that partially correct?  In their misinterpretation of the thing they were trying to perceive.?  Man, I can't go there with you, Sunmaster.

 

Still, your response of defining our psychic structure in answer to the question escapes me as to how that definition has anything to do with the question.

Well, since none of us are enlightened (yet), we are all those blind men with only a partial truth. I could say your partial truth is simply wrong because it's not the absolute truth, but I doubt you would like that. So I prefer to say that your truth is partially correct. Even though it's wrong. 
Mindfckery much? 😁😅

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Replacement.  You know.  Since Sunmaster is only a finger puppet who doesn't have a true identity, for there is only one true identity for the self which is Brahman, then the identity which is Sunmaster isn't real.  You replace that Sunmaster identity with the one and only identity that exists, Brahman.  Who am I?  Am I this Sunmaster self?  No. I am Brahman.

No!
Replacement implies that you take away A and put B in its place. 
What I'm talking about is transcending A, so that B includes A. 
Very, very different.

16 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Here, too, I made a comment about religions prescribing a way of life whereas Seth doesn't prescribe one at all.  What do maps of reality have to do with that?  And I never mentioned the intellect but you went into a discussion of it.  So where does that come from?

Isn't learning to trust your inner self and consciously creating reality with your beliefs a way of life for you? It sure seems so.

You didn't mention the intellect in this specific post, but did so previously. I claim artistic freedom for jumping from one topic to another. Deal with it. 😁

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

You didn't answer the question.  I didn't ask about the definition of our psychic structure.

Sorry, I thought that was self-evident...
The person who touches the belly and says it feels like a wall is correct. It does feel like a wall. His statement is correct given the limited data and context. So are all the others. Their partial truths are correct. Only a wider perspective reveals that they are only partially correct.
We don't know what we don't know.

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Now that's stretching it.    Your inner self depends on accurate assessments of reality from your outer self in order to perform it's function.  What about, or how could any of those answers be interpreted as "partial truths?"  Now that's an answer I'd love to hear. 

An issue of definition first.
You use the Sethian definitions of outer self and inner self, where the inner self is a connecting point between the world (outer ego) and the vastness of the inner world. So from the outside to the inside, it goes like this (correct me if I'm wrong here): outer ego, inner ego, entity, Oversoul, AllThatIs.
The Self I'm talking about is not the same as the "inner self". I use this progression: ego, self (individualized consciousness) and SELF (Absolute Consciousness).
In that sense, the SELF needs nothing as it contains everything. The self however, needs to peel off ignorance to remember that it is in fact the SELF. To do that, it needs an accurate assessment of the reality it lives in.

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

@Sunmaster

 

Christianity prescribes a way of life.  Islam prescribes a way of life.  Hinduism prescribes a way of life.  Buddhism prescribes a way of life.  Vedanta prescribes a way of life.  Seth does not prescribe a way of life.  That's a huge difference.

And yet, all of them are simply maps of reality. A reality that has to be condensed and diluted enough to make sense for us. 
Can you grasp and truly know/feel what it means to be one with AllThatIs by using your intellect? Can you feel the bliss, the ecstasy of feeling the divine love flowing through your whole being by thinking about it? According to you, you should be able to. If the intellect can generate knowledge on the same level of direct experience, then this should be quite easy.

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Whew.  So you understand the vital importance of Sunmaster now?  And that Brahman can never be a replacement for Sunmaster?  I know I'm stretching things here . . . 

 

Who are you again? 

Replacement? Sorry, I don't follow....

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

With the implication that intellectual knowledge is of less or of little value?  And so dispense with the intellect and go for direct experience only? 

Again, not what I said. 
I said they are not equal when it comes to the subjective inner world. The intellect is a tool to explore and manipulate the world for our benefit. But it's not the appropriate tool to explore the inner world, at least when used on its own without the vital input of direct experience.
Nobody said anything about dispensing with the intellect or relying on direct experience exclusively. 
The intellect can be used in our favour though. For example by shaping new habits and routines that in turn promote direct experience. In practical terms, setting up a place and time for meditation. But once you sit down in meditation, the intellect has done its job. Insisting on using it from this point onwards is the exact opposite of what meditation is all about. The intellect is fed by thoughts and thoughts are what prevents us from "hearing the silence". 

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

That's one idea.

 

So what's the purpose of intellect?  For if it's unable to acquire knowledge on it's own then what's the good of it?  I've created never before seen tooling that worked using my intellect.  And then experienced the positive and fulfilling results afterward.  Of course there was intellectual fulfillment experienced as I was in the process of design.  Is that not valid?

The intellect has it's place, just like the ego, in helping us survive as physical beings and make sense of the world that surrounds us. You used your intellect to understand and manipulate the material world around you. You succeeded in creating what you've envisioned, and this produced satisfaction and fulfilment. 
All these are activities of the external world. 
But ask yourself...who is that who used the intellect? Who is the one who created that tooling? Who experienced fulfillment?
It was the Self at the root of it all. The Self that experienced all of it...the thinking, the creating, the fulfillment. 

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

My fault for misleading you.  It should have read "my own experience with intellectual knowledge."  My bad. 

It's still your experience that comes a priori of the intellectual knowledge. You are not the mind. The mind is an object which makes sense of subjective data. "I have an idea." I=subject....the idea=object. You can't be the idea, because subject and object can't be the same. Same for the body. "I have a body". Same for feelings. "I feel sad." Same for memories..."I remember that one time...". Same for beliefs... "I believe in X,Y,Z.". 
In all these cases, there is one subject that observes the objects rising up from consciousness.
Intellectual knowledge is therefore simply another (immaterial) object which is observed by the Self. 
How can we know the Self? Not by reading a book or thinking about it really really hard. Do you agree? Otherwise we would have scores of philosophers and clever people who have found their true identity and become not just clever, but wise sages. But then, where are all these enlightened people who reached enlightenment by thinking and analyzing? I would guess that there are none. All the sages, masters and profoundly wise people I know of, from every tradition and time period, came to that point by direct experience. Not by the way of the intellect. In fact, the intellect is the very thing that prevents direct experience. 

The Self can only be experienced and AFTER that, that experience can be put into concepts and words, with the all the distortions and limitations that such an act includes. 

This I say from my own experience and has nothing to do with Vedanta or other philosophies.

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

If none of them guessed that it was an elephant then any answer other than an elephant would not be an accurate representation of the elephant.  They would all, therefore, be wrong.  Your analogy doesn't work in showing how two answers can both be correct.  I'm not saying that two different answers can never be correct, though.  The truth can be more than one thing.

Or....they are all right, given the limited amount of data they have. Of course, from a wider perspective we can see that each of them only holds a partial truth.

14 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

With sadness at the conclusion you draw.

Lol
That doesn't answer my question though...

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

 

That, my friend, is a question you need to answer for yourself.

I have come to the conclusion that whatever comes out after the intellect has put it into words, is but a pale, lifeless approximation of the real thing.
How do you answer it?

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

When I ask you "why is Sunmaster here in this world" my answer is that this reality is one of your creations and demands that you use all of the abilities of the type of consciousness that is yours presently.  And using those abilities is what leads to the fulfillment of the individual personality (such as your art for you).  And through your personality then that adds to the fulfillment of your greater self and All That Is.  Adds to, which suggests that there is no single fulfillment.

Yes, I agree. 
I think this is an universal truth and I don't see a conflict between our points of view.

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Well, if you can believe that information then apparently the intellect is not solely an attribute of human consciousness.  And therefore the intellect can be used to gain true knowledge and understanding.  Which means that direct experience is not the only avenue to attaining real knowledge and understanding.

I don't think I said that. What I said was that the intellect is no good at attaining real knowledge on its own. It has to be paired with direct experience. 
Direct experience reveals knowledge in the "form" of instantaneously recognized truth. The intellect then, to the best of its abilities, sifts through that truth and translates it into concepts and words in order to integrate the experience and make sense of it on an intellectual level. Note that, the experience or insight already made perfect sense without the intellect shaping it into words. 
So, the intellect is important of course, but not equal to direct experience.

You can have a body of water without waves, but you can not have waves without a body of water.
Direct experience is more fundamental than intellectual knowledge.

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

One of the ideas of Vedanta, as you have expressed, is that there is intellectual understanding and there is direct understanding.  Direct understanding trumps intellectual understanding.  And so via comparison it is concluded that intellectual understanding is inferior.  Not only is it inferior but intellectual understanding cannot lead to any true understanding.  True understanding can only be validly gotten via direct understanding.  Those, my friend, are ideas.  And they are ideas I most strongly reject as being an accurate representation of how reality works.  They are, therefore, what I consider a distortion of the truth.  My evidence?  That would be my own experience, for one.

You say intellectual knowledge is not inferior to direct experience when it comes to subjective reality, and to support your idea, you call upon your own experience. Can you see the logical fallacy here?

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

eth provides ideas.  Vedanta provides ideas.  Some ideas are the same and some are different.  Yet ideas is all that either offer.  Then given those ideas it becomes a matter of discerning which ideas are an accurate reflection of what reality is and how it functions.  What is clear is that two ideas which oppose each other cannot both be an accurate reflection of reality.  Therefore it is not a matter of better or best but one of accuracy.  One is accurate and the other is not.

Never heard of the parable of the blind men, each one touching a different part of the same elephant and each claiming to know what the elephant looks like? A tree trunk? A rope? A fan? A wall? A spear?
You say 2 conflicting ideas can not be both true. I disagree. Seemingly contradictory ideas may find a peaceful resolution on a new level they both transcend. Or are you saying you can see the whole of the elephant? How? By intellectual understanding??
How is it possible to squeeze the unfathomable, ineffable Absolute Truth into limited relative truth made of concepts and language?

5 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Is that too deep for you?

Not at all. 
Goodbye. Come back any time. 

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

 

I couldn't give your video a reaction as I can only give one.  So I have to reply to give it two reactions.
 

 

 

I'm starting to see more clearly where you're at with this.  Everything you write is pretty much verbatim of what the Swami talked about and what's talked about in this video.  The benefit of those videos is that the information is more structured than our conversations.  Our conversations are ad hoc in that we jump around from one specific idea to another.  That makes it much more difficult for me to get an overall picture of the idea construct of Advaita Vedanta, or any thought system that is more loosely or more tightly based upon it.

 

As I've said, there will be similarities and differences.  I give a thumbs up for the similarities.  But then there are other ideas expressed which, sorry to say, I find putrid.  I would consider those ideas to be conclusions which are reached from the experience of connecting with, say, your inner self which then become explanations, for example, for what our physical self is.  Those are what I call the distortions of the truth.  And in my most honest and humble opinion I consider some of those distortions to be quite massive and even detrimental.

 

Anyway, I need some time to sift through all of this information and organise my thoughts before I reply to your last posts and to this latest video.  I'll probably watch it a second time.  Maybe even a third.  I might want to watch some more of the Swami's videos.  Advaita Vedanta doesn't seem to be a very complex system of thought.  So far I see there are a number of basic concepts, tied together to make overall sense.  I say it's not very complex because there is a whole lot that's left out.  Hence why I bombard you with endless questions that I think become frustrating for you. 

Take your time and when you're ready, I'll be curious to hear what you consider massive and detrimental distortions. 

You're right though, on the surface AV is quite simple and boils down to 2 main concepts: A) Brahman is the Absolute Reality and B) Brahman can be experienced through self-inquiry and meditation.
It is also true that those wise Indian guys had 1000s of years to refine their explorations in consciousness to the smallest of details. You know how Innuits have something like 100 different names for snow? It's the same with the Indian definitions of all the nooks and crannies of consciousness. 

It is also worth remembering that what you hear from Swami Sarvapriyananda on YT is targeted at laypeople, not those who have studied Vedanta in great detail, and so the language and the concepts are presented in a way to be understood by those laypeople. 
I'm quite sure that whatever doubt or protest we can come up with, has already come up and been dealt with many times during the past few 1000s years. 

Sunday. A perfect day to relax, sit back and enjoy a Sunmaster approved video. 
If I'd seen this a couple of years ago, I would have saved myself a lot of typing.
 

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

That first reply wasn't enough?    I'm still on that one.    You're intent on keeping me busy the rest of the day. 

Pfff...says the one with the rapid-fire, encyclopedic posts. 

To see what intellectual knowledge without direct experience is, just look at Christianity. It started as direct experience (Jesus and Co., allegedly), but has quickly become an empty shell. Great to look at from the outside, but soulless inside. Why? Because the whole religion is built on the idea that we are worthless and full of sin, that we can't reach God on our own and need an intermediator. There is no focus on introspection apart from praying. Those that are supposed to teach us the way to God, have themselves no idea how to get there, so they teach the stories in the bible instead. Those that actually do have direct experiences within this structure are too few and have no real power to change anything. Christianity (but not only) is like a lifeless corpse, a zombie. 

The same can be said about all those lofty, highly elaborate ideas and philosophies that do nothing but perpetuate a self-congratulatory circle of intellectual self-pleasuring. Unless those ideas promote and are substantiated by direct experience, they too are lifeless and worthless.

Harsh but true.