Do you believe in God and why

[save the frogs]

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

Im not so sure drugs are trustworthy portal openers, even many believe in it, I just cant, even I have first hand experience and know people who do it for those purposes, I cant see it helped them to be more enlightenend, except they dig deeper without caring to much of their surroundings. Call it a total ego trip and also in many cases self medication and a escape from reality. 

or maybe drugs are portal openers, but they open the portals too quickly?

but rather spiritual growth is the only way to open portals?

 

[Sunmaster]

Just now, save the frogs said:

or maybe drugs are portal openers, but they open the portals too quickly?

but rather spiritual growth is the only way to open portals?

 

Different drugs have different effects on consciousness. I prefer psychedelics and endorse the use for therapeutic use and for self discovery. That implies a respectful and responsible use, meaning that the way you use them is not just for fun, to watch the wallpaper morphing or to feel cool at a party.

Even with psychedelics there are big differences. Some are super potent, others are more mellow. Some last for 15 hours, others for 15 minutes. 

One thing they have in common though, is that you don't get dependent on them. They are not like heroin where you can't wait to get the next fix. 

 

And yes, they do have the ability to open portals to your inner world that are normally closed. They swing those portals wide open, letting your consciousness connect to aspects that can be wonderful and eye-opening. But if you are not prepared to such a massive influx, it can also be very frightening.

 

Meditation does the same thing, but much slower, so that it is much easier to understand and integrate those changes. Also, the insights gained through meditation become permanent, while those gained through psychedelics are often temporary...or better...the insights are huge but it takes longer to integrate them.

 

 

[save the frogs]

great comment, sunmaster.

thanks.

 

[Tippaporn]

4 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Different drugs have different effects on consciousness. I prefer psychedelics and endorse the use for therapeutic use and for self discovery. That implies a respectful and responsible use, meaning that the way you use them is not just for fun, to watch the wallpaper morphing or to feel cool at a party.

Even with psychedelics there are big differences. Some are super potent, others are more mellow. Some last for 15 hours, others for 15 minutes. 

One thing they have in common though, is that you don't get dependent on them. They are not like heroin where you can't wait to get the next fix. 

 

And yes, they do have the ability to open portals to your inner world that are normally closed. They swing those portals wide open, letting your consciousness connect to aspects that can be wonderful and eye-opening. But if you are not prepared to such a massive influx, it can also be very frightening.

 

Meditation does the same thing, but much slower, so that it is much easier to understand and integrate those changes. Also, the insights gained through meditation become permanent, while those gained through psychedelics are often temporary...or better...the insights are huge but it takes longer to integrate them.

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.

[save the frogs]

39 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Getting off whilst sitting across from someone else and we'd look at each and just bust out and laugh and laugh and laugh. 

you can watch stand-up comedy or comedy films to laugh.

not only will you laugh, but some of the comedy is genius so you will be infused with their genius.

of you could even try to develop a sense of humor to make people laugh, although that's hard. 

just taking drugs to laugh seems silly to me. 

 

[Sunmaster]

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.

 

Edited May 29, 2023 by Sunmaster

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

you can watch stand-up comedy or comedy films to laugh.

not only will you laugh, but some of the comedy is genius so you will be infused with their genius.

of you could even try to develop a sense of humor to make people laugh, although that's hard. 

just taking drugs to laugh seems silly to me. 

 

Well, hearty laughter was one of the byproducts of the drugs but it wasn't the only one.  For myself I would tap into a great deal of valuable insight.  I can't with any honesty say that there wasn't value in it.  I don't expect you to understand that but then again there's nothing you can do or say to invalidate what was for me good experiences.

 

Edited May 29, 2023 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

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.

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.
 

Whenever I did take psychedelics I took them in small quantity.  I never attempted to push the envelop by taking massive doses.  Put it this way . . . I literally had respect for the drugs as I understood quite well their destructive force if you were to abuse them.

Funny that this topic came up as I am in the midst of rereading The Nature Of Personal Reality.  And the precise chapter is Chapter 10, the chapter title reading:

THE NATURE OF SPONTANEOUS ILLUMINATION,
AND THE NATURE OF ENFORCED ILLUMINATION.
THE SOUL IN CHEMICAL CLOTHES

Seth goes very much at length and in detail about enforced illumination, which is what taking drugs is.  He makes a definite distinction between natural drugs, such as cannabis, peyote and psilocybin mushrooms and manufactured chemical drugs.  Reread it if you have time.  I'd post it here but other than you I know of no other on this thread who has the proper background to understand it.  I don't mean to denigrate anyone with that statement.  It's just plain common sense fact that the deeper one goes into a subject then the knowledge which has been digested earlier becomes the prerequisite knowledge for moving ever deeper.  And that deeper knowledge in turn becomes prerequisite for that which lays even deeper.

[Hummin]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

"I see alot of conflicting statements in your post, and might need to re read it later with another perspective."

So I take it you'll never point out what you see as conflicting?  I expected as much.  But I'm sure you'd tell me that it's for me to figure out and not for you to tell me.  You're much more slippery than an eel, Hummin.  And, in my opinion, not very honest, either. 

 

There's just a few comments I'll make to some of the things you wrote before I leave you to yourself.

"New ideas is good but Im not so fan of new ideologies . . . "

Learning how reality works is not an ideology, Hummin.  I say thoughts produce feelings and you say that's an ideology.  That's why I say you're not very honest, Hummin.  You twist so much up like a pretzel and it never ceases to mystify me how someone can come to so many erroneous and irrational conclusions.

". . . your posts . . . are so absolute in terms of conviction from your side."

If I were to tell you how to form a piece of metal, and I had great experience and success with that, and you didn't know much about forming metal, and to boot you had some erroneous ideas about the process by which metal is formed, and you gave me your idea, and your idea had no basis in the laws which govern metal forming, and thus without any basis had no chance of working, and I'd correct you, and you'd continue with your idea, and I then became insistent as to how to do it, you would take exception with the absolute conviction I expressed as I told you, with utter confident insistence, what works and even thoroughly explained to you, every which way from Sunday, why it works as it does in minute detail.  Not only would you take exception to my confidence and conviction but you would also, by implication, deny that I know what I'm talking about.  And to add insult to injury you would also say that I believed myself to be superior - better than you - simply because I knew what you did not.

Do you see how you twist it all up?  Don't bother answering.  And I know you never would give a direct and honest answer anyway.  The question is actually rhetorical.  Because I already know your answer.  You'd avoid the question and start in with your go to response to everything:  "Nature have given us everything we need to know to exist on this planet, etc., etc., etc."

Sorry, Hummin, but that's your problem, not mine.  You can believe all you like whatever it is you like to believe and that's fine by me.  You're the one who ultimately has to deal with the reality of your own creations.

Anyway, thanks for the reply because it tells me that I won't have to carve out any time to discuss this or anything else with you.  I know you're an idealist.  I know you have a good heart.  I know you're a good man.  I know you're a worthy man.  A deserving man.  And you deserve all that is good and wonderful in life.  I tell you that with just as much conviction as I tell you anything else.  But goddamn, I ain't traveling in endless circles with you any longer.  Peace, brother.  And rotsa ruck.



Edit:  Just one other device that you love to use.  If someone doesn't agree with you and pushes back on you then you claim they're not listening.  Only when someone agrees are they listening.  But you always manage to turn what is your problem into someone else having the problem.

 

Thank you for all compliments, I really appreciate it ???? Good or bad, I aknownledge them all.

 

I think we both feel the same, react the same way, but where you go to the lenght in trying to explain, I know as same for me, you will not receive, just tell me how wrong I am. So yes it is up to you to discover where I can be right, and in must cases wrong in your view. 

 

I can only point out I can not absorb, or see your understanding of the reality, even I can see your enlightenment, your drive, and where it comes from.

 

If I knew what I know now 20 years ago, my whole journey would had been wasted, and I might not had matured the way I have. 

 

Im quite comfortable where I stand, even I know I can not satisfie your hunger to give you right exept on one point, we all creating our own reality in realtime in flesh and blood. 

Edited May 29, 2023 by Hummin

[save the frogs]

37 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

For myself I would tap into a great deal of valuable insight. 

what insights?

do you remember any of them?

anyway, as someone who has not experimented very much, maybe i don't know what i'm talking about. 

Edited May 29, 2023 by save the frogs

[Tippaporn]

25 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Thank you for all compliments, I really appreciate it ???? Good or bad, I aknownledge them all.

 

I think we both feel the same, react the same way, but where you go to the lenght in trying to explain, I know as same for me, you will not receive, just tell me how wrong I am. So yes it is up to you to discover where I can be right, and in must cases wrong in your view. 

 

I can only point out I can not absorb, or see your understanding of the reality, even I can see your enlightenment, your drive, and where it comes from.

 

If I knew what I know now 20 years ago, my whole journey would had been wasted, and I might not had matured the way I have. 

 

Im quite comfortable where I stand, even I know I can not satisfie your hunger to give you right exept on one point, we all creating our own reality in realtime in flesh and blood. 

I am always open to receive any good information.  Why, I've been on the hunt for good information all my life and collect as much of it as I can wherever I can find it.  It's been my overriding focus since I can remember.  You have no idea how intense that focus has been throughout my life.  But whatever the information it has to be correct.  It can't be bogus.  If it's not correct then I won't receive it.  You seem to think I should be willing to receive bad information and as I reject bad information you have thus concluded, erroneously, that I therefore am not receptive.  Accepting bad information is not going to happen.

 

Going back to my analogy of metal forming:  If I know how to form metal and someone were to approach me and give me an idea then given the knowledge that I do possess I am then in a prime position to be quite capable of assessing the offered idea as to whether it's workable or not.  Workable being a good idea and impractical equating to a bad idea.  And it has happened where I've rejected another colleague's idea and his reaction was anger.  Now I can't say your reaction to me is one of anger but it is the same in the sense that it's very much negative.

Now I don't consider myself to be the sharpest knife in the drawer yet I'm capable of understanding truth when I come across it.  I refuse to demean others by insinuating that they are incapable.  In fact, the entire point of the Seth material is to empower the individual, to help him understand his true capacity and his true potential, his true self, for Seth understands quite well, from his much greater expansive  that we've been robbed of our power.  And there are many ideas, many beliefs, that are widely accepted across societies all over the world which promote this false sense of powerlessness.  One of the worst being the idea that we are incapable of knowing the truth of ourselves and our reality.  My intention is to help in returning that rightful power to the individual by explaining who we really are, what we're really about, how this reality really works as opposed to all of the false ideas about it that have been ingrained in most all humans from the time of their birth.

The oddest thing I can think of regarding my fellow man, Hummin, the saddest thing I can think about, is the fact that I know every individual here is after happiness foremost, and a fulfilling life.  Every human, with no exception, yearns to be able to manifest their desires in the real world.  Now get this, Hummin.  When I tell people that they have this power and attempt to explain it to them do you know what happens more often than not?  They spit in my face.  Which is, to me, a firm indication of how much bad Kool-Aid they've drunk.  Think about that, Hummin.  Think hard on that.  And then ask why would people have such intense desire to make their dreams come true and yet when they're told that they can, and even shown how they can, they give you only a murderous scowl?

As I say, Hummin.  You're a good man and deserving of all the good that this dear world has to offer.  But I'm done fighting with you.  You win.  Have it your way.

No hard feelings. 
 

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

what insights?

do you remember any of them?

anyway, as someone who has not experimented very much, maybe i don't know what i'm talking about. 

"what insights?

"do you remember any of them?"

I told you already.  You can't invalidate my experiences.

 

"anyway, as someone who has not experimented very much, maybe i don't know what i'm talking about."

Now that's honesty!!   

[Hummin]

26 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I am always open to receive any good information.  Why, I've been on the hunt for good information all my life and collect as much of it as I can wherever I can find it.  It's been my overriding focus since I can remember.  You have no idea how intense that focus has been throughout my life.  But whatever the information it has to be correct.  It can't be bogus.  If it's not correct then I won't receive it.  You seem to think I should be willing to receive bad information and as I reject bad information you have thus concluded, erroneously, that I therefore am not receptive.  Accepting bad information is not going to happen.

 

Going back to my analogy of metal forming:  If I know how to form metal and someone were to approach me and give me an idea then given the knowledge that I do possess I am then in a prime position to be quite capable of assessing the offered idea as to whether it's workable or not.  Workable being a good idea and impractical equating to a bad idea.  And it has happened where I've rejected another colleague's idea and his reaction was anger.  Now I can't say your reaction to me is one of anger but it is the same in the sense that it's very much negative.

Now I don't consider myself to be the sharpest knife in the drawer yet I'm capable of understanding truth when I come across it.  I refuse to demean others by insinuating that they are incapable.  In fact, the entire point of the Seth material is to empower the individual, to help him understand his true capacity and his true potential, his true self, for Seth understands quite well, from his much greater expansive  that we've been robbed of our power.  And there are many ideas, many beliefs, that are widely accepted across societies all over the world which promote this false sense of powerlessness.  One of the worst being the idea that we are incapable of knowing the truth of ourselves and our reality.  My intention is to help in returning that rightful power to the individual by explaining who we really are, what we're really about, how this reality really works as opposed to all of the false ideas about it that have been ingrained in most all humans from the time of their birth.

The oddest thing I can think of regarding my fellow man, Hummin, the saddest thing I can think about, is the fact that I know every individual here is after happiness foremost, and a fulfilling life.  Every human, with no exception, yearns to be able to manifest their desires in the real world.  Now get this, Hummin.  When I tell people that they have this power and attempt to explain it to them do you know what happens more often than not?  They spit in my face.  Which is, to me, a firm indication of how much bad Kool-Aid they've drunk.  Think about that, Hummin.  Think hard on that.  And then ask why would people have such intense desire to make their dreams come true and yet when they're told that they can, and even shown how they can, they give you only a murderous scowl?

As I say, Hummin.  You're a good man and deserving of all the good that this dear world has to offer.  But I'm done fighting with you.  You win.  Have it your way.

No hard feelings. 
 

It is not about winning or loosing, it is about living in this world we call reality and the challenges we are met daily to accomplish what we think is important and also know how to live in peace with our self and our surroundings.

 

I know I was quite sure, maybe to sure I had all the answers to long until I got hit with a reality check, for then be reborned, where I crawled back to my orign of myself, and accepted my loss of faith as well started to sense my own reality connecting to Nature again. 

 

No visions, nothing big, just becoming grounded again, and feel the sensation I only had as a curious kid again, stepping out in the world with baby steps. No more mysteries or big questions to solve, just connection and home welcoming feeling. 

 

No big named speakers, profets, words, gurus, priests, visions, or promises, just feeling being there right now right here. Simple and comforting ????

 

Even we think we have the answer, it doesnt mean that answer is for anyone else than you! 

 

I do not predict I know, especially to know what is best for you, I just continue saying we live in the middle of something greater than us. I preach Nature is everything, nothing else

Edited May 29, 2023 by Hummin

[save the frogs]

9 hours ago, Hummin said:

profets

no such thing as a profet.

there is only prophet or profit. 

and there's probably a reason why they sound alike. 

Edited May 30, 2023 by save the frogs

[save the frogs]

On 5/29/2023 at 9:05 AM, 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.

no, we don't create our reality 100%.

and it is a mix. 

 

Edited May 30, 2023 by save the frogs

[Sunmaster]

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)?

 

 

 

 

[save the frogs]

On 5/29/2023 at 9:05 AM, Tippaporn said:

Seth goes very much at length and in detail about enforced illumination, which is what taking drugs is.  He makes a definite distinction between natural drugs, such as cannabis, peyote and psilocybin mushrooms and manufactured chemical drugs. 

so Seth is promoting drug use.

Snoop Dogg with his song is also promoting the use of cannabis daily.

And Snoop Dogg does not appear to me to be someone who has other people's best interests. 

He looks more like a gangster.

Seems odd that he's giving the same advice as a spiritual guru. 

[Sunmaster]

44 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

so Seth is promoting drug use.

Snoop Dogg with his song is also promoting the use of cannabis daily.

And Snoop Dogg does not appear to me to be someone who has other people's best interests. 

He looks more like a gangster.

Seems odd that he's giving the same advice as a spiritual guru. 

You are jumping to conclusions and making connections that way off.

I'm not an expert in Seth teachings like Tippaporn, but from what I read, Seth never promoted the use of any drugs.

To compare Snoop to Seth is like comparing Ophra to Buddha.

Edited May 31, 2023 by Sunmaster

[save the frogs]

23 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Ophra.

you mean Oprah?

I needed ChatGPT to help me with that one.

[Sunmaster]

14 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

you mean Oprah?

I needed ChatGPT to help me with that one.

Potato potAto

[Red Phoenix]

9 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Potato potAto

Shave the frogs!

[Tippaporn]

10 hours ago, Hummin said:

10 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I am always open to receive any good information.  Why, I've been on the hunt for good information all my life and collect as much of it as I can wherever I can find it.  It's been my overriding focus since I can remember.  You have no idea how intense that focus has been throughout my life.  But whatever the information it has to be correct.  It can't be bogus.  If it's not correct then I won't receive it.  You seem to think I should be willing to receive bad information and as I reject bad information you have thus concluded, erroneously, that I therefore am not receptive.  Accepting bad information is not going to happen.

 

Going back to my analogy of metal forming:  If I know how to form metal and someone were to approach me and give me an idea then given the knowledge that I do possess I am then in a prime position to be quite capable of assessing the offered idea as to whether it's workable or not.  Workable being a good idea and impractical equating to a bad idea.  And it has happened where I've rejected another colleague's idea and his reaction was anger.  Now I can't say your reaction to me is one of anger but it is the same in the sense that it's very much negative.

Now I don't consider myself to be the sharpest knife in the drawer yet I'm capable of understanding truth when I come across it.  I refuse to demean others by insinuating that they are incapable.  In fact, the entire point of the Seth material is to empower the individual, to help him understand his true capacity and his true potential, his true self, for Seth understands quite well, from his much greater expansive  that we've been robbed of our power.  And there are many ideas, many beliefs, that are widely accepted across societies all over the world which promote this false sense of powerlessness.  One of the worst being the idea that we are incapable of knowing the truth of ourselves and our reality.  My intention is to help in returning that rightful power to the individual by explaining who we really are, what we're really about, how this reality really works as opposed to all of the false ideas about it that have been ingrained in most all humans from the time of their birth.

The oddest thing I can think of regarding my fellow man, Hummin, the saddest thing I can think about, is the fact that I know every individual here is after happiness foremost, and a fulfilling life.  Every human, with no exception, yearns to be able to manifest their desires in the real world.  Now get this, Hummin.  When I tell people that they have this power and attempt to explain it to them do you know what happens more often than not?  They spit in my face.  Which is, to me, a firm indication of how much bad Kool-Aid they've drunk.  Think about that, Hummin.  Think hard on that.  And then ask why would people have such intense desire to make their dreams come true and yet when they're told that they can, and even shown how they can, they give you only a murderous scowl?

As I say, Hummin.  You're a good man and deserving of all the good that this dear world has to offer.  But I'm done fighting with you.  You win.  Have it your way.

No hard feelings. 
 

It is not about winning or loosing, it is about living in this world we call reality and the challenges we are met daily to accomplish what we think is important and also know how to live in peace with our self and our surroundings.

 

I know I was quite sure, maybe to sure I had all the answers to long until I got hit with a reality check, for then be reborned, where I crawled back to my orign of myself, and accepted my loss of faith as well started to sense my own reality connecting to Nature again. 

 

No visions, nothing big, just becoming grounded again, and feel the sensation I only had as a curious kid again, stepping out in the world with baby steps. No more mysteries or big questions to solve, just connection and home welcoming feeling. 

 

No big named speakers, profets, words, gurus, priests, visions, or promises, just feeling being there right now right here. Simple and comforting ????

 

Even we think we have the answer, it doesnt mean that answer is for anyone else than you! 

 

I do not predict I know, especially to know what is best for you, I just continue saying we live in the middle of something greater than us. I preach Nature is everything, nothing else

"It is not about winning or loosing, it is about living in this world we call reality and the challenges we are met daily to accomplish what we think is important and also know how to live in peace with our self and our surroundings."

Take away the "it is not about winning or loosing" for the moment and it could be said regarding the rest of your statement that no truer words have ever been spoken.  You are spot on, Hummin.  Kudos to you.

Regarding the winning and losing there's much to say as to it's meaning.  It's quite evident to me that your meaning refers to the type of winning and losing usually ascribed to a debate.  In this case, the debate we are engaged in whereby it's a contest of your ideas versus my ideas and vice versa.  In that sense I would agree.  The true intention of a debate is not to win or lose.  A debate is for the purpose of arriving at the truth.  If the objective of a debate is to merely declare a winner and loser, the truth be damned, then the debate's true intention has been perverted.

My meaning of "you win" refers not to a concession on my part in which I throw in the towel and declare you as the winner of our debates over ideas.  Instead I mean it in the sense that you largely avoid being corralled into debating any actual ideas.  Which is why I have said that you are more slippery than any eel.   Most every effort I make to get you to answer a specific question, or to get you to explain your ideas in greater depth, or get you to show how your ideas might work in practicality, or get you to take a simple practical step by which you can prove to yourself a point that I'm making, or get you to define or expound or speak with more clarity on what you preach as to what you've learned so that it's not so vague and nebulous and therefore another might benefit from the wisdom you've gained . . . all of these many attempts have frustrated me to no end.  You are the epitome of trying to get an honest, straightforward answer to a hard question out of a politician.  You'll never get one.  And so I am giving up on my attempt to pin you down on any of the above.  I'm tuckered out whilst you maintain your stamina to continue to elude.  You win that contest, Hummin.

And I won't bother going into all of the deception whereby you attempt to turn the tables on me.

Go in peace, Hummin.

[Tippaporn]

On 5/30/2023 at 11:04 PM, save the frogs said:

no, we don't create our reality 100%.

and it is a mix.

Now if the idea that we create our own reality sounds bizarre it is for this reason.  The idea runs 180° counter to what the vast majority of the people in this world believe to be true.  Which is what you've stated.  The idea that we create our own reality seems to be absurd only from . . . only from the perspective that the opposite is true.

Now consider this.  If what you and most everyone else believes to be true is true then wouldn't you think that most everyone would easily be able to explain any event and why it happened?  But as I'm fond of saying, the proof is always in the pudding.  And the cold, hard fact is that you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who can explain any event accurately.  Need more of the proof that's in the pudding?  If what you say is true then please explain why, as you are well aware of, there are endless theories of what life is and how it works?  Why is there no consensus?  Isn't that very odd?  Might the answer to the above questions be because despite the centuries upon centuries in which man has attempted to find true answers as to why things happen the whole goddamned premise is flawed?  And as I've repeated so often, when a theory is based on a false premise then any conclusions drawn using that false premise must . . . must be false as well.

If what you believe to be true is true, save the frogs, then you should be able to answer and explain or identify, at minimum, the following:

1) If your living experience is not fully created by you then who creates a portion of it?

2) If there is another entity, force, or however you want to define this thing which creates for you then where is it?

3) Is there one entity/force or are there multiple entities/forces?

4) How much of your living experience do you create and how much of it is created by other entities/forces?

5) What are the criteria which must be met for other entities/forces to intercede and create your experience for you?

6) Are there no criteria and is it just willy nilly?

7) Are you responsible for only your "good" experiences and all "bad" experiences are created by other entities/forces?

8.) How can you recognise when one of your lived experiences was created by you?

9) How can you recognise when one of your lived experiences was created by other entities/forces?

10) Do you possess any personal power which would be able to prevent other entities/forces from creating your lived experience if you did not want what they want for you?

11) Might you be delusional in thinking you create any of your lived experiences?

12) Might your belief that you control at least a portion of your lived experiences simply be an illusion?

13) What makes you believe you have any control over your lived experience?

14) What makes you believe you don't have any control over your lived experience?

15) What is freedom?

16) What is the purpose of freedom, if it does even exist?

17) Do we have freedom?

18) If we do have freedom then to what extent?

19) Do you prefer to be free or do you prefer to be controlled?

20) Is freedom a mix similar to the ability to create one's own lived experience?

21) What are desires?

22) Why do we have them?

23) Do we have the ability to fulfill our desires?

24) If you do not have full control over your lived experience then what of desires?

25) Are the manifestations of our desires controlled also by other entities/forces?

I could easily go on and on and on with quite important questions such as the above but I don't want to tax you too much, save the frogs.

 

Now I've grown up and I've been indoctrinated with the identical ideas which you've grown up with and been indoctrinated to.  And what I've found in my life as I ask these questions to my family, to my friends, to my teachers, to my government, to religions, to science, to people on the street, to the higher centers of learning is that what I get back is an utter morass of conflicting beliefs, conflicting explanations, explanations which appear to have a semblance of logic and common sense yet upon closer examination, under a discerning and inquisitive eye, have none.  And from all of this endless and often mindless data I am expected to figure out what is true and what is not.  Yet that is my task.  And I accept it joyfully.

Now it seems to me, save the frogs, that you have likewise believed much of what has been explained to you since the cradle uncritically.  Meaning you accepted as truth ideas which you never really examined.  Some of what you and I have been told is true and, in my most humble opinion, most of it false.  All I'm asking of you and every other reader here is to reexamine what you've been fed and what you've accepted to be true throughout your entire life to see how much of what you accepted as fact, as truth, is really true and how much of it is simply pure bullsh!t.

My guess is that you don't have the time. 

 

Edited June 1, 2023 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

12 hours ago, save the frogs said:

so Seth is promoting drug use.

Snoop Dogg with his song is also promoting the use of cannabis daily.

And Snoop Dogg does not appear to me to be someone who has other people's best interests. 

He looks more like a gangster.

Seems odd that he's giving the same advice as a spiritual guru. 

"so Seth is promoting drug use."

What an absurd assumption to make.  Yet it's easily explained.  You don't like Seth.  You believe the information which Seth provides to be bullsh!t.  And so, I have stated in my post to Sunmaster that Seth discusses enforced illumination yet nowhere did I even hint as to what any of that information was about in detail.  There was no indication whatsoever that Seth was leaning in any direction - for or against - yet you immediately jumped to the conclusion that Seth was promoting drug use.

This is a personal lesson to you, save the frogs, of how beliefs operate.  Yours in particular in this instance.  And it all goes underneath your conscious awareness. 

 

Edited June 1, 2023 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

12 hours ago, save the frogs said:

you mean Oprah?

I needed ChatGPT to help me with that one.

Rarely a serious answer.  Just more guffaw.  Does that define your character, save the frogs? 

[Red Phoenix]

24 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Now if the idea that we create our own reality sounds bizarre it is for this reason.  The idea runs 180° counter to what the vast majority of the people in this world believe to be true.  Which is what you've stated.  The idea that we create our own reality seems to be absurd only from . . . only from the perspective that the opposite is true.

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.

 

 

[Sunmaster]

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.

[Tippaporn]

On 5/31/2023 at 7:41 AM, Sunmaster said:

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)?

I can't speak to, or comment on your private experiences with kundalini energy.  I can neither claim to know of something I know nothing of nor is it possible for me to relate to the experiences you had.  If part of that experience involves what is considered pure "knowing," or understanding something without any need to rationalise it, well I believe that happens daily to all of us.  I would say I've had, and still do have, plenty of instances in my life where I know something without having to intellectualise it.  I do understand, though, that your experience with kundalini energy involve much more.  While I also would never attempt to invalidate your experiences, for I accept your experiences to be absolutely valid, neither can I begin to attempt to say what they were.

Now I do know that as Seth has provided many exercises for us to explore reality as it exists apart from this world he has cautioned folks to avoid interpreting their experiences along conventional narratives.  In other words, someone may have read about another's other-worldly experiences whereby that other defined his experience, say as taking place in whatever realm, and that someone experiences their own other-worldly and interprets it according to what another has described.

Someone with a religious background might have an experience in which there were angels yet these are experiences that are then interpreted using the individuals personal symbology.  It should not be concluded by others that there are any real angels.

Very early on in my travels I came across a book entitled, Journeys Out Of The Body, written by one Robert Monroe.  It was a wonderful book.  Not only because it was fascinating to hear him relate all of his OOB journeys but wonderful in the sense that he never attempted to define or categorise any of his experiences.  He would relate the experiences as he recalled them but then say he wasn't sure what it really was about.  I very much appreciated that as I read his book.

For myself, in exploring one's consciousness I would not attempt to use anyone else's signposts lest you become rigid in the interpretations of your experiences.

Now this may seem a bit lengthy but it helps to explain what I'm alluding to.  Plato, for instance, was one individual who tapped into a portion of his consciousness and drew from it a conclusion, or interpretation, based on his own beliefs which wasn't entirely accurate.

Each probability system has its own set of "blueprints," clearly defining its freedoms and boundaries, and setting forth the most favorable structures capable of fulfillment.

These are not "inner images of perfection," and to some extent the blueprints themselves change, for the action within any given system of probabilities automatically alters the entire picture, enlarging it. The blueprints are actually more like inner working plans that can be changed with circumstances, but to some extent they are idea-lizations, with a hyphen.

As an individual you carry within you such a blueprint, then; it contains all the information you require to bring about the most favorable version of yourself in the probable system that you know.  These blueprints exist biologically and at every level - psychically, spiritually, mentally.  The information is knit into the genes and chromosomes, but it exists apart, and the physical structures merely represent the carriers of information.  In the same fashion the species en masse holds within its vast inner mind such working plans or blue-prints.  They exist apart from the physical world and in an inner one, and from this you draw those theories, ideas, civilizations, and technologies which you then physically translate.

Platonic thought saw this inner world as perfect.  As you think of it, however, perfection always suggests something done and finished, or beyond surpassing, and this of course denies the inherent characteristics of creativity, which do indeed always seek to surpass themselves.  The Platonic, idealized inner world would ultimately result in a dead one, for in it the models for all exteriorizations were seen as already completed - finished and perfect.

Many have seen that inner world as the source for the physical one, but imagined that man's purpose was merely to construct physically these perfect images to the best of his abilities.  (Very forcefully:)  In that picture man himself did not help create that inner world, or have any hand in its beauty.  He could at best try to duplicate it physically - never able, however, to match its perfection in those terms.  In such a version of inner-outer reality the back-and-forth mobility, the give-and-take between inner and outer, is ignored.  Man, being a part of that inner world by reason of the nature of his own psyche, automatically has a hand in the creation of those blueprints which at another level he uses as guides.

(Long pause, eyes closed.)  To some extent great artists not only capture a physical picture of Inner Idea, capitalized, but they also have a hand in creating that idea or inner model to begin with.

In your terms, the inner world does represent Idea Potential as yet unrealized - but those ideas and those potentials do not exist outside of consciousness.  They are ideals set in the heart of man, yet in other terms he is the one who also put them there, out of the deeper knowledge of his being that straddles physical time.  Existence is wise and compassionate, so in certain terms consciousness, knowing itself as man, sent future extensions of itself out into the time scheme that man would know, and lovingly planted signposts for itself to follow "later."

Give us a moment ... Man is himself made as much of God-stuff as earth-stuff, so in those terms now the god in himself yearned toward the man in the god, and earth experience.  Not understanding yourselves, you have tried to put the idea of God outside of yourselves and your living framework. Through various exercises in this book, I hope to acquaint each of you with the inherent oneness of the inside and outside realities, to give you a glimpse of your own infinite nature even within the bounds of your creaturehood - to help you see the god-stuff in the man-stuff.  In other terms, this can help you see the potentials of your species and break down the barriers of limiting thoughts. I would like to change your ideas of human nature.  To some extent this will entail humanizing your idea of divinity.  But oddly enough, if that is done you will end up seeing the divinity in man.

Ideals that before seemed beyond the reach of individuals or of the species will change their character, and become working models that can be used effectively and joyfully.
 

Hopefully that helps while also giving you a bit more to think about.

 

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.

[Sunmaster]

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?

Edited June 1, 2023 by Sunmaster

[Tippaporn]

1 hour 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.

You have articulated the seeming dilemma extraordinarily well, Red Phoenix.    You shouldn't be so quiet sitting on the sidelines.    You have much to offer.

I'll comment on your post, as is my habit, bit by bit.

"Is this discussion not once again an example of polarity?"

I assume you're referring to the polarity of thought.  "You create your reality" as opposed to it's polar opposite, "life happens to you."  Or is the term meant to suggest the existence of some existing and independent force known as "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. "

Well put, Red Phoenix.  Well put.  That describes to a tee how most people belief the world to operate.  They readily pat themselves on their backs and gloat about their accomplishments, proudly telling everyone who will listen, "See!!!!! - I did this!!!!!" while otherwise pointing their finger at the sky, raging a terrible lament at some unknown entity for having thrust upon them their unwanted miseries and failures.  I would guarantee that this is one of the prime reasons @save the frogs insists adamantly that creation is a mix.  For who in their right mind would accuse themselves for the creation of their woes?  Is that not the ultimate insult?  To tell a man suffering an intolerable illness that he himself is the ultimate cause of his illness?  Few . . . oh so few . . . would be able to bear such a responsibility.

"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""

 

Well, not in the depths of my mind.  I keep it pasted on my forehead so as not to forget it.    Read the quote I provided to Sunmaster a few posts up.  Rather, I'll paste the portion which is pertinent and perfectly suited to this discusion:

Give us a moment ... Man is himself made as much of God-stuff as earth-stuff, so in those terms now the god in himself yearned toward the man in the god, and earth experience.  Not understanding yourselves, you have tried to put the idea of God outside of yourselves and your living framework. Through various exercises in this book, I hope to acquaint each of you with the inherent oneness of the inside and outside realities, to give you a glimpse of your own infinite nature even within the bounds of your creaturehood - to help you see the god-stuff in the man-stuff.  In other terms, this can help you see the potentials of your species and break down the barriers of limiting thoughts. I would like to change your ideas of human nature.  To some extent this will entail humanizing your idea of divinity.  But oddly enough, if that is done you will end up seeing the divinity in man.

I know this sounds blasphemous but, oh well, here goes . . . in a very real sense we are Gods.  I let you turn that over in your mind for awhile.    Seth has said  it a number of times . . . we need to evolve our thinking away from a "one God, one world" limited viewpoint.

 

"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."



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.

 

". . . and is put on your path . . . "

We are now back to the original conundrum . . . who put whatever on your path?

"So in a sense you do create your reality, while dealing with these outside influences."

Influencers, yes.  But these influencers cannot create in your experience.  It is all by your own mental hand.  As soon as another creates for you then bye, bye free will.  The two concepts cannot coexist for they are contradictory.  To believe that another creates one's experience then one also must believe that free will does not exist.  One could then rationalise it as save the frogs did.  It's a mix.

We are coming to realise that we create it all.  It ain't necessarily easy.  I do expect a lot of kicking and screaming.