Fat is a type of crazy

5 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Yes, I read about her. Media Matters!! Right. This constant political bias does not constitute true journalism. 

I suppose the proof is in the pudding. Did the news part of the station promote Tucker's claims or not. If they felt Tucker had completed fair and balanced good journalism - ha ha - I am sure they would have

27 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Yes, the truth in a direct manner.
And yes, the human body is a great tool for truth finding, if you know how to use it. When you start to listen within, any kind of concept is a barrier, be it spiritual or materialistic. Concepts are mental constructs. When you listen within however, the goal is to shake off such concepts, like onion skins. And then you work yourself inwards, towards the heart of it, peeling off layers as you go. Just ask yourself: Who am I? Are you the body? Are you the mind? Your feelings and emotions? Your memories? Your name? Layer after discarded layer, you become lighter, more free, more yourself. So you continue as far as you can go. 
The onion skins closest to the heart are the most stubborn. They've been there for a long time. They were put there when we were very young. 
But once those have been peeled off too, what is left?? Who were you before you were given a name? 
You could call it "the heart of the onion", or "Divine Onion" or "The Onioness" or many other cool names.

 

I wouldn't say that they are beyond our senses at all. It depends on which senses you're talking about. The internal senses are very adequate to know the inner world. That's their job. And it's not distant at all. How far are you from you?

 

No need to take on a complete belief system. The only thing you need is a healthy curiosity to find out if there is more to you than what you've been told. What is there to believe? Nothing. Believing is replaced by knowing. What do you have to lose?
We are made of 3 fundamental parts (or onion layers): body, mind and spirit. Leaving any one of them out would only increase the doubt, because you would be trying to hide something... to yourself. And that won't work to your advantage.

Interesting. Could be obvious but I think at birth we are freer in some ways and more limited in some ways that at an older age. As we age, we get limited in ways we were free, and free in ways we were limited. I don't simply mean in terms of mobility but how we think and feel. 

A practical example is if you return to your childhood home, or smell a smell from the past, you feel some things open up, like your smile is broader and you are more relaxed and possibly more sensible in that you don't care about a lot of stuff you care about later. 

So before I had a name I had characteristics of me but a different configuration. Put together slightly differently. 

I don't sense an inner onion as that suggests something other than me like digging for gold. Maybe you mean that you have become disconnected and need to reconnect and feel as you did before you had a name. That makes sense. 

But what could you know? Why couldn't that reconnection still be the physical you. It might feel special but is it necessarily a sign of a different plane or something since you can in fact sense and feel it on this plane. Drugs can have the effect and they are 100 per cent physical. 

So is the only thing you know that you have an inner onion? What else do you know? Seth for example might resonate with you but surely you doubt. 

I focus a bit on the doubt aspect as I see doubt as a strength rather than a weakness. It might get to a point where you can say that you need to experience what you have experienced and that's fine. 

9 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

I let that run through my mind...
I think that's an excellent question that we should all ask ourselves. 

It's human nature to add items to whatever framework we are working with. How much of what is in that framework comes from your own experience and how much derives from other sources? What are the conditions for those other sources to be accepted in your framework? 

For me, there must be a degree of trust, and trust has to be earned. I think it's safe to say that we all have some beliefs that are based on info from the outside. People usually don't go to verify the math behind gravitational attraction. They trust that the source has done its homework and that the results are valid. 

The same goes for more metaphysical data. Take Paramhansa Yogananda for example. Throughout his life he was consistent between what he said and what he did. No students abuse, no sexual misconduct, no amassing of luxury goods or power. All he ever did was to point out the divine within each of us and give practical tools on how to reconnect with it. What he said about the divine matched my own experience, but went a lot further than that. Given that condition (info consistent with my framework) and trust in the source (judged by actions rather than words), the info that goes beyond my personal experience was adopted safely in the framework as well. 

The biggest problem I see, is that some may not have the discerning tools to evaluate whether a source is reliable or not. They go by overall consensus. "Most people say it's like that, so it's probably true". Info gets added to the framework unchecked.

And this is exactly what my main point has been in the past years on this forum. From the very beginning I pointed out that true knowledge comes from the inside. You can read a million self-help books or holy books and it won't change you much. Yet, one instant of deep insight can change everything. 

Practice is the key to reconnect with your inner world. 
Practice strengthens and expands the framework.

Practice is the fuel that powers the BS detector.
Practice is transformative.
Practice is the key to go from believing to knowing.
Practice is the Antivirus in the USB drive.

 

So you have to experience the truth direct. At the risk of repeating myself, on that basis, the best shot at honesty is to pare away all ideas of the religious and spiritual, be it karma or reincarnation or a spiritual plane or any concept of god, since our best opportunity at learning about ourselves comes from one thing. The human body. 

You can draw conclusions about what experiences and thoughts and feelings say about your body and mind, to a much higher degree, than about what you can conclude about outside your body. 

In that sense, though some ideas about god or spirituality may seem to fit better than others, such concepts are much more distant from what can be known, as they are a step beyond our feelings thoughts and senses.

Therefore as much as belief is tempting there must be doubt. The doubt is lessened if we focus on the mind and body and not the concepts of god and spirit. 

You've got to give up. If some can't see what's wrong with posting this image and other recent tweets then it's best to say 'OK Thanks for your comment. Have a nice day.' 

6 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

It's no retreat at all.  People are saying the picture shows a bat next to Bragg's head, I'm saying they're lying.

To me you are splitting hairs. He is threatening him with a baseball bat whether it is aimed as it is head or body isn't really a key issue though one could say if you swing a baseball bat you are likely to hit the upper part of the body. It seems odd to focus on this minor issue given the themes in his tweets but ok maybe he is indicating a threatening gesture that may not hit his head.

46 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I will answer this one because it's about my personal experience.
I had that one major experience which was responsible for changing everything. For several months afterwards I was ecstatic and "blissed out". But I was also <deleted> off, because I wanted to know why nobody had ever told me about this. How come this wasn't taught at school? How come nobody even knows about it? The world would be so much better if this were common knowledge and practiced daily.

I can describe the experience like this....

By surrendering to what wanted to rise up (kundalini), I offered my ego to be obliterated. That construction we call our identity, fell in one big swoop and allowed the kundalini to rise unobstructed through my whole body. Once it reached my head, there was an explosion of light and I had a clarity about myself and the workings of the world that I never even suspected were possible at all.
It was like when you have a USB drive with a lot of junk on it. The kundalini formatted that drive and this allowed it to be filled with a lot more useful and truthful data. 

Now you're right when you doubt that the things I mentioned in the previous post all came from that one experience. They didn't. The experience created a new framework. One which must include everything (the good, the bad, the ugly, science, religion, spirituality and everything in between). If even one aspect of reality doesn't fit this "theory of everything", then that means the theory is not complete. Notice how this is usually the other way around, "This idea doesn't fit my belief system, therefore it must be false."
So then, this framework was created on the ruins of the old one. From here on, I did my own research, reading everything I could get my hands on. The money I spent on books! No internet at that time. Everything I learned found its place in this new framework. 

To answer your question: Yes, a lot of data was downloaded to my "USB drive". This data alone dispensed with the need to believe once and for all. I don't endorse any one single belief system in particular, but try to find the gems of truth in all of them. That's why I can easily jump from talking about scientific consciousness research to meditation, or from physics to mysticism, and I see no contradictions whatsoever. 

Wow, that was a long one. Tippaporn must have infected me with his writing style virus. Yes, I blame him.
 

Thanks. I quite like that explanation. In a sense it is like you are saying that you felt or sensed what something better or more real felt like, and then you could use that as a guide, so when you read interpretations of spirituality, or other stuff, you could see if is consistent with that experience and if it fits in your new frame of reference or not.

You would need to be careful in the interpretation of that experience, and what it left you with, in terms of knowledge and belief and differentiating between the two. 

27 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

You see it as a contradiction, but it's not.

 

Life is full of seemingly unfair situations, children with cancer being one, but also the rich and powerful who get away with things that poor people can't, the sh!t that happens to you despite your best efforts, "it's always the best of us who die young", diseases that befall nice people and so on. 

 

But contradictions are only such when you look at them from the perspective where they were created. If you look at them from a higher perspective, you would be able to integrate them in a wider framework. 

 

In the case above, this would mean a situation where the idea of a benevolent higher power AND sick children can coexist at the same time and are not mutually exclusive. 

 

How is that possible? 

The higher perspective tells me that life is a dream-like scenario. Buddhists call it samsara (illusion), Shakespeare called it a stage, where we are the actors.

 

What do we do on this dreamlike stage?

We slip into a body (play a role) to act out certain scenarios, from which we are supposed to learn something. Through us and our experiences, God can experience itself.

 

What could a sick child learn from cancer? Maybe compassion for other suffering creatures. Maybe they agreed to this scenario to teach those around them about compassion. Maybe something else...

 

The point is that each and everyone of us agreed to be here. Nothing happens by chance. There are no victims of circumstances. 

This life is just a blink of an eye for the eternal soul, and from the perspective of the soul, even the hardest life will appear like a fleeting dream. 

 

The way I see it, there's no contradiction.

The faith is strong in this one. It is appreciated that you had a go to answer this.

You may have had experiences to help you believe there is a god. But did your experiences telegraph the reality you describe? It could be you have linked your experiences to a particular belief system and decided that you'll go with the whole package.

What happened in the universe to make individual spirits exist, and be created imperfect and have so much to learn, and in what sense does each spirit agree to go through the life they go through. 

Does that mean the evolved being feels nothing when people die, when anything happens, as it was part of a learning experience. If they do feel sadness then why.

Do I and the parents really learn something useful if I die a day after birth. What was going on for the millions of years there was no life - was that when spirits were being created. From what and how and why. 

So someone is tortured for 30 years in a basement and you say it is a kind god and he is helping you to learn from this and the future will be better because of this learning?  Surely many experiences do more unlearning and damage than good. Therefore is there an antigod. 

They are tough issues but I guess I would want to have these sort of answers  if I was to say I believe something. Otherwise I might say I had some experiences that indicate there is a god but beyond that not sure. 

35 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So you just believe, God basically started everything, and it now just runs on auto pilot, the good and the bad.

 

Yes.

 

Do you believe in a heaven & hell (afterlife) ?

Do you believe in prayer, and being answered ?

If answered (saved from terminal illness), God's miracle ?

if not answered, 'works in mysterious ways' BS ?

 

Neither. I believe we return to God after our body dies.

No

N/a

No such thing as mysterious ways- nature is what nature is.

 

If God created everything, who or what created God, or are we going with the 'always was, always will be' theory.  And there is no other or need to be, it's just is.

 

God doesn't converse with me so I have no idea, and yes it just is what it is

 

All of which, none can be proved or disproved. 

 

If it could be proven or disproven there would be no need for faith.

 

Just the Christian Bible is so wacked, you'd have to be total idiot to believe any of that.  No need to attempt to disprove that, it does that all by itself.

 

Why stop at the Christian Bible?

I don't put stock in the Bible per se, other than as a history book.

But then if everything is on auto pilot since the start you are the same as non-believers 99.9 per cent but for some reason you are convinced there is a god even though it has no actual interaction or judgement or moral guidance or any form of contact in your life. Maybe you believe in the amazingness of reality rather than god. 

20 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

Still many areas of Pattaya that exhibit post Covid recession. Flight prices are deterring many still. I would not say we have recovered yet.... what we got is Russian draft dodgers and Indians opening grotty cafes. 

I must admit some places have pretty cheap accommodation for my upcoming trip, indicating low demand, whereas in some main tourist areas it is a bit expensive. Airfares have gone back to normal in Australia but maybe not elsewhere. 

3 hours ago, save the frogs said:

FYI: 

A girl once give me a book called "The Five Tibetans". 

It's yoga from Tibet designed to 'raise the Kundalini.' 

Never did the exercises.

But later I read that there are some 'dangers' with 'raising the kundalini'.

But I really never looked into it much.

Watch out with that stuff. Make sure you know what you're doing. 

Sounds like it could turn into a "bad acid trip". 

 

They seem to say it can happen from taking drugs too. Hard to comment on something I haven't experienced. A bit suspicious of things that cause such a big reaction. It either means you are opening things up and it's a good thing or you are holding something back, akin to holding or limiting your breath, and causing the brain to react in an extreme way. 

10 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

That's fair enough, no one can deny your common sense, but perhaps a little more general interest in spiritual research could add some ethics to science. 

If you don't see the slippery slope of a science without ethics it's ok, i guess, surely you are not alone.

Ethics can come from intuition and experience rather than from god. Not sure where ethics comes from in terms of spiritual research if not religion. 

Failings in ethics is not science's fault but discoveries make terrible outcomes possible.

The answer may lie with real world solutions and laws rather than looking for answers through spirituality. The latter may be good for some things but giving a surge of ethics to the whole world through spirituality is not something I see as realistic at this point. 

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Yet, those science's limitations, which can be called sometimes aberrations, you seem to be not too willing to discuss.

In other words, science seems quite willing to help the development of technology, even when that technology is obviously unethical, for a price.

Someone may not see anything wrong with it, after all, making money is important.. yet i have the feeling that this is a wrong path for the whole world to follow..

Happy to acknowledge that science is a bit scary in its applications. Everything from atomic bombs, to artificial intelligence and chat gpt, and what technology is doing to the planet, to our psyches, etc is terrifying if you think about it. So many positives too though. 

For me the answer isn't to look for a god as gods have a bad track record both with practical ethics and of intervening and fixing things. Spiritual endeavours might help bring a kind of peace. 

I suppose the answer is to see what is reality and adapt both to the world, and to my own circumstances, as the decades pass. 

29 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Just because one points out science's self-imposed limitations doesn't mean that they reject physics.  The joke employs fallacious logic.  The conclusion doesn't follow the premise.  Which doesn't reflect well on those scientists who laugh at the joke since they obviously accept the fallacious logic as valid.  They show themselves to be quite stupid in this case.  And if the fallacious logic of the joke is beyond their understanding then I shudder to think of what else is beyond their comprehension.

If it doesn't work it's physics.

It is a self deprecating comment among physicists saying that it is hard to make experiments work as expected - maybe due to complexity, funding, etc.

It has nothing to do with those pointing out science's limitations and whether or not in turn they reject physics.

Sometimes you think too much and miss the point. Then come to some unwarranted conclusions. 

14 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Why is it doing a good thing ???

It highlights that people can potentially stay a few years before getting caught !!...

 

But really, what is the harm to the public caused by overs-stayers in Thailand ?

Are they draining any resources ? taking jobs from Thais ?... those sorts of usual excuses.

 

The only difference between this guy and a ThaiElite visa holder is the amount of money paid that permits circumnavigation of the regulations.

 

The point I want to make here is that the ‘over-stay’ itself harms no one - its just a law made up by a committee of policy makers, unless of course this guy was also involved in illegal activity to maintain is stay here.

 

I get that the overstay is wrong / illegal - but bigger picture thinking makes me wonder, what harm is it actually doing to anyone & why do some people want to see these over-stayers hung from the rafters ?  

 

 

Surely a country would want to control who comes and goes.  Is your opinion the same for other countries? Use resources paid for by local taxes?  The alternative of saying anyone can come and go from any country sounds impractical and chaotic for a range of reasons. 

Somebody out there loves you

Or is confused by you, saddened by you, or wishes to present you with a trophy. But now you'll never know who that is. 

I had a beauty two nights ago. They said there had been a $800 withdrawal from my Commonwealth Bank account and did I approve it.

Don't bank with Commonwealth Bank.

They can fix it.

So I let them go through the process till they attempted to access my computer, and I got bored, and left it there. Seen lots of scammers from Bangalore and Mumbai and Kolkata on youtube, such as Scambaiter and Kitboga and Scammer payback,   so that I pretty much knew the script myself. 

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

I don't criticize science because I have a grudge or agenda towards it. Far from that. I appreciate science just like you. The idea that if one is interested in spirituality he must reject science, is a fairytale. 

I know science is not hindering me and I'm not seeking for science to validate my subjective experiences. 

The problem is that whenever we talk about such experiences, the white knights of scientific inquiry here state quite unequivocally that these experiences are worthless/delusions/attempts at manipulating gullible people/ outright deceptions/lies/crazy-talk/mumbo jumbo....take your pick.

So, while you say that science as a discipline is not hindering me in my pursuit of knowledge (thank you science), it is also true that many science followers use it as a measuring tape to judge what is supposed to be real and what is not. Science itself doesn't make that claim.

Yes, Kundalini awakenings are not common, but they are also not so rare that they are statistically irrelevant. 
One may be able to facilitate its rising (I'm not sure about that), but it's not possible to predict it in any meaningful manner so that it can be researched it in a controlled environment. 

What to do?
At this point you can either forget about it, if you think there is no value in it and don't believe that's it's possible to start with.

Or, you can set your prejudice aside for a while and approach the subject with curiosity and a willingness to be surprised.
Learning opportunities often lie in the most unexpected places. Do you agree?

My previous post was about the criticism of science. It is fine though as you say to keep an open mind and see what can be from meditation or other thought or non thought processes. But I stick to my point that whatever you are doing is not inconsistent with science. Some of your conclusions may be  inconsistent with what science indicates is most likely based on the evidence. I would find some peace in that and say I can either work to develop some sort of evidence or be happy on my personal quest. 

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

The problem there, Fat is a type of crazy, is that you cannot measure, statistically or otherwise, subjective reality.  Yoga may or not benefit a person.  If one believes that yoga will then yoga will.  If one believes that yoga won't, or can't, then no benefits are possible to be derived.  To test statistically whether or not yoga is beneficial for anyone who practices it one must first know what everyone's true beliefs about yoga are.  And that, sir, is an impossibility.

The same for kundulini.

The stickler here, Fat is a type of crazy, is the idea that thoughts have zero effects upon one's experience, let alone on reality itself.  It's really a contradiction in play here.  On the one hand no one believes that changing one's beliefs would change their experience - because thoughts can't do that - while on the other hand recognising quite clearly instances where the effects of thoughts on experience are quite clear.  What is a hypochondriac, for instance?  Everyone recognises and accepts the fact that people with no symptoms can produce illness via an irrational fear of illness.  There are two separate, and contradictory beliefs in play, both held in the mind of the individual.  And they flip from one to the other without the slightest awareness of holding contradictory beliefs simultaneously.

Science works great when it applies itself to the purely objective world.  That world is, after all, very r-e-a-l and very functional, too.  It works as it does due to the laws which govern objective reality.  Science has made great strides in divining those laws which exist.  Yet science fails miserably as soon as it attempts to cross into subjective territory.  It fails miserably because science believes subjective reality to be untrustworthy, unpredictable, and therefore unreliable.  So why, then, Fat is a type of crazy, is it then inappropriate to criticise science?  It's almost like taking the attitude of those devoutly religious who consider it blasphemy to criticise God.  Is science God, too, in that sense?  Beyond anyone's critique of it?

Science is wonderful.  While at the same time science sucks.  It's not some paradox which can't be solved.
 

I totally accept that thoughts can affect our experience of life and have said so. Psychology. Psychiatry. Feelings.   I can't see a link between thoughts and some unknown power that results in a new reality. 

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Nothing is beyond criticism.

If I may make an assessment I would say that the seeming dilemma the science-minded here have is that it has to be one or the other.  It's either science or spirituality - or whatever other meaningless label one wants to apply to subjective reality.  The science-minded cannot accept unscientific ideas and assume that if one doesn't adhere strictly to scientific principles then they conclude, erroneously, that those folk are anti-science.  Rubbish.

The posters here coexist with both science and un-science (I just made up a new word).  There's a place in this world, an important place, for both.  Science-minded folks appear to believe that it's gotta be science ONLY.  Again, rubbish.

It's not rubbish if you can get your mind around what science is. Your subjective experience is a little bit of science. You have felt or sensed certain things and drawn conclusions and , unless you are irrational, that is somewhat scientific. You can't get to the next stage of providing objective proof for whatever reason. So you can say, my subjective experience was so strong and alarming that I believe it is a sign of something such as god, and I accept others won't believe it if they haven't had the same experience. That's enough. Science isn't wrong not to stand on the roof tops and say Tippaporn experienced this so we should all believe it. It is what it is. 

39 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The issue here, as I've repeated many times, is that science is incapable of proving or disproving anything which is subjective.  Science confines itself to the objective world.  No matter how many time that simple, easily understood concept is stated the science minded here cannot wrap their heads around it.  They flatly insist that only the objective world exists.

I'm not a Seth follower as follower implies being a groupie.  Seth provides an explanation of ourselves and reality.  That's all.  If I were to study math would you call me a math follower?  To call anyone who accepts the information Seth provides as valid a follower is a subtle device as follower tends to imply mindless.

 

Okay, with that out of the way let's look at the examples of random issues you provide for which those accepting the validity of Seth's information should be able to provide evidence or better yet, proof.  Proof which represents science's Holy Grail.  Nothing else will do.  None of your examples could ever be proven per science's methodology.  Which makes the request absurd.

". . . come up with a theory that could be tested."

Here's an example of why science's methodology is useless when it is applied to subjective reality.  Consider this claim:  You create your reality using ideas.  Science can neither prove or disprove the statement.  For one cannot measure thoughts.  One cannot even know what anyone's thought are.  Thoughts are part of subjective reality.  They have no mass, no weight, no dimensions, colour, smell, taste, feel (well, your body can feel thoughts) and you can't see them.  Yet they exist.  Science cannot determine their effects.  If they were to even grant that thoughts do produce effects.

So we go round and round and round as long as the science-minded insist on ignoring subjective reality.  Or insist on denying the existence of other realities.  The science-minded are tethered to their limited beliefs and never even consider whether what they believe to be true is true, or whether anything exists outside of their precious objective reality.

Eventually they get bored here because they just can't get their way with the folks here who understand science's self imposed limitations.

 

I think these days thoughts can be measured or at least identified in a form. Surely too if ideas create reality, and Seth teaches how to effectively do this, Seth followers should be statistical outliers in some form or another. Like I say I am not saying what is or isn't but I do find criticism of science not fair. 

40 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

The evidence requested has to fit in their own framework to be accepted. If the evidence doesn't fit that framework, then it's not considered evidence. That's the problem. How can you take subjective data and expect to measure it with objective tools? 
Has sciences ever seriously researched the kundalini? Not that I know of. Yet, this phenomena has been described throughout history, by sources unrelated to each other, and I can personally attest to its validity. 

So, now you have this phenomena that is real (unless one is arrogant enough to say that people who experienced it are all delusional, liars or both), but can not be measured as you would measure the voltage of an electrical current. What does that mean? That it doesn't exist? Does it mean we should ignore it, until science may or may not catch up and validate it some time in the future? Even if you're a hardcore materialist, one would expect a healthy human curiosity as to why people claim to have had the same or very similar experiences. Even if it's only a physiological or psychological effect.

You've been here for a while now. Do you think I'm a liar? Do you think I'm incoherent and delusional? 

It must be said very clearly:
Science is great, but it is NOT the only source of knowledge.

Can science tell you who you are? Who can? 


PS: I do think Seth's teachings are valid, but I'm not qualified to defend them, nor am I interested in doing so. I prefer to speak from my own experience.

I see what you are saying but I think science is science and to criticise it is like saying a human should have 3 legs. When you experience who you are, or the positive effects of kundulini, that is a form of evidence. But evidence of one subjective opinion has limited worth and I am sure you'll agree that is appropriate.

Even if you can't measure the individual effect you could statistically measure say the positive outcomes of yoga for the community. The point is science is not hindering you. If you think about it how could science say something is likely correct because a small number of  people say they had a subjective experience. If 10000 people trained in kundulini and experienced a god and this statistically had an effect different to the rest of the community then there it is - evidence. So you could gather like minded souls and build statistics or stay in your own silo and enjoy what you enjoy. If you do the latter don't criticise science is all.