Do you believe in God and why

[Tippaporn]

The following references the outer ego and hints at it's current state of development.  My feeling is that folks tend to think of the ego as firstly something that is us but not us and secondly view it as a static and finished product.

 

**********

 

I am primarily a teacher, but I have not been a man of letters per se. I am primarily a personality with a message: You create the world that you know. You have been given perhaps the most awesome gift of all: the ability to project your thoughts outward into physical form.
The gift brings a responsibility, and many of you are tempted to congratulate yourselves on the successes of your lives, and blame God, fate, and society for your failures. In like manner, mankind has a tendency to project his own guilt and his own errors upon a father-god image, who it seems must grow weary of so many complaints.
The fact is that each of you create your own physical reality; and en masse, you create both the glories and the terrors that exist within your earthly experience. Until you realize that you are the creators, you will refuse to accept this responsibility. Nor can you blame a devil for the world's misfortunes. You have grown sophisticated enough to realize that the Devil is a projection of your own psyche, but you have not grown wise enough to learn how to use your creativity constructively.
Most of my readers are familiar with the term, "muscle bound." As a species you have grown "ego bound" instead, held in a spiritual rigidity, with the intuitive portions of the self either denied or distorted beyond any recognition.

 

--SS, p. 3

 

**********

 

My general comment is to express my long held view that as a species we have become quite technologically advanced as we have focused predominately on objective manipulation in an objective world.  As our focus intensified on the purely objective we have largely abandoned our spiritual aspect; to the point where we tend to even deny it's existence.  Thus our current development is that of both a highly technical race and an utterly barren one spiritually.  These days the mere mention of our spiritual nature causes people to roll their eyes and avoid the subject as quickly as possible.  At the same time the idea of technology as the saviour of the human race has become the "talk of the town" and many are rushing headlong into the development and creation of AI with the idea that this superintelligence will become the new "God."  Which, quite humourously, will hearken the obsolencence of mankind.  Excuse me, but I have to laugh at the sheer idiocy of the idea.

In any case, I also view our advanced technology, given our current state of development, akin to giving matches to a small child.  I've concluded that everything in this world is a double-edged sword.  Whether the edge to be used is the edge that harms or the edge which benefits is at the discretion of he who has his hand on the hilt.  And it is hoped that he who wields this sword is blessed with some wisdom.  Those developing AI, for instance, are, in my opinion, those who are most removed from any ideas of spirituality.  The uses to which they will put AI to I believe will be determined purely by monetary considerations.  And the militaries of the world will pay handsomely.

[novacova]

Genesis is not a science text book

And no one takes the Bible literally

In my opinion...God brought physical mankind into being over billions of years but he didn’t create us humans until one day when he gave a particular human a soul.

God created us “in his image”

Remember God is not material so “in his image” is a spiritual description not a physical description

(Despite Michelangelo’s beautiful painting on the ceiling of the Sistine chapel)

Before that man (Neanderthal or cro magnon) was just a relatively advanced ape without a human soul.

So as to when Adam and Eve entered into the history isnt clear to me though it was ~120,000 - 156000 years ago.

But I don’t personally think it HAS to correspond to the fossil record. The physical shell of man could have been around for millions of years prior to God putting his image into it.

I’ll give you another physical comparison: Carbon atoms.

The Carbon atoms in you and I existed for 13-15 billion years before they became part of man. That’s not shocking.

Likewise the physical body of man may have existed fully formed with DNA and a big brain for millions of years before God gave that shell a soul. They could have created culture and cave art and spears etc.

...but they weren’t human until God gave that shell a soul and created Adam. So then with the soul of God came also the responsibility of not eating that ever so popular “apple” which could have been anything, maybe Eve got pissed at Adam and ate the family cat named Apple that the family admired, an opposing act of evil that offended God…the beginning of bad behavior that evolved to the point where we are now. That being said, human brains/minds are too finite to comprehend God.

...End of my opinion.

[fondue zoo]

Just now, novacova said:

And no one takes the Bible literally

 

 

Some do, word for word. I've met a few.

 

 

 

 

[Tippaporn]

In these passages Seth loosely defines portions of what he terms here our "core identity," and their basic functions.  These portions include the inner and outer ego.  A rough definition is also given of what the subconscious is.  Or perhaps how it would best be properly viewed.

 

**********

 

Consciousness is a way of perceiving the various dimensions of reality. Consciousness as you know it is highly specialized. The physical senses allow you to perceive the three-dimensional world, and yet by their very nature they can inhibit the perception of other equally valid dimensions. Most of you identify with your daily physically oriented self. You would not think of identifying with one portion of your body and ignoring all other parts, and yet you are doing the same thing when you imagine that the egotistical self carries the burden of your identity.
I am telling you that you are not a cosmic bag of bones and flesh, thrown together through some mixture of chemicals and elements. I am telling you that your consciousness is not some fiery product, formed merely accidentally through the interworkings of chemical components. You are not a forsaken offshoot of physical matter, nor is your consciousness meant to vanish like a puff of smoke. Instead, you form the physical body that you know at a deeply unconscious level with great discrimination, miraculous clarity, and intimate unconscious knowledge of each minute cell that composes it. This is not meant symbolically.
Now because your conscious mind, as you think of it, is not aware of these activities, you do not identify with this inner portion of yourselves. You prefer to identify with the part of you who watches television or cooks or works - the part you think knows what it is doing. But this seemingly unconscious portion of yourself is far more knowledgeable, and upon its smooth functioning your entire physical existence depends.
This portion is conscious, aware, alert. It is you, so focused in physical reality, who do not listen to its voice, who do not understand that it is the great psychological strength from which your physically oriented self springs.
I call this seemingly unconscious the "inner ego," for it directs inner activities. It correlates information that is perceived not through the physical senses, but through other inner channels. It is the inner perceiver of reality that exists beyond the three-dimensional. It carries within it the memory of each of your past existences. It looks into subjective dimensions that are literally infinite, and from these subjective dimensions all objective realities flow.
All necessary information is given to you through these inner channels, and unbelievable inner activities take place before you can so much as lift a finger, flicker an eyelid, or read this sentence upon the page. This portion of your identity is quite natively clairvoyant and telepathic, so that you are warned of disasters before they occur, whether or not you consciously accept the message, and all communication takes place long before a word is spoken.
The "outer ego" and the inner ego operate together, the one to enable you to manipulate in the world that you know, the other to bring you those delicate inner perceptions without which physical existence could not be maintained.
There is however a portion of you, the deeper identity who forms both the inner ego and the outer ego, who decided that you would be a physical being in this place and in this time. This is the core of your identity, the psychic seed from which you sprang, the multidimensional personality of which you are part.
For those of you who wonder where I place the subconscious, as psychologists think of it, you can imagine it as a meeting place, so to speak, between the outer and inner egos. You must understand that there are no real divisions to the self, however, so we speak of various portions only to make the basic idea clear.
Since we are addressing individuals who do identify with the "normally conscious self," I bring such matters up in this first chapter because I will be using the terms later in the book, and because I want to state the fact of multidimensional personality as soon as possible.
You cannot understand yourselves, and you cannot accept my independent existence, until you rid yourself of the notion that personality is a "here and now" attribute of consciousness. Now some of the things that I may say about physical reality in this book may startle you, but remember that I am viewing it from an entirely different standpoint.

 

--SS, p. 4~5

[Tippaporn]

Seth discusses the outer ego in greater detail.  He's already hinting at the fact that the ego is not some static, unchanging characteristic or aspect of ourselves which we possess but rather it is dynamic and in constant development.  He's also suggesting that as our current development leads to cut ourselves off ever more from the rest of ourselves it cuts off as well the outer ego's communication with the inner self.  Hence the ego becomes a guard preventing awareness of inner knowledge rather than an aid to serve as a bridge to that knowledge.  As he states, the true nature of the outer ego has thus far not been recognised.  And that is why, in my opinion, the ego is perceived by many as a hindrance to expanding our conscious awareness of our greater reality.

 

My thoughts in regards to Seth's statement that we have simply overestimated the ego is that as humans we have many attributes and in our day and age it is my feeling that we have grossly overestimated our intellect as well.  As another once put it, "If the earth had to rely on the intellect alone to maintain it's orbit around the sun then it's orbit wouldn't last a nanosecond.  Again, as humans we possess many attributes, such as emotion, creativity and intuition.  Intuition has been kicked to the back of the bus, for instance.  By and large the great emphasis is placed upon the intellect and the intellect alone for, say, solving the world's ills.  "We need more intelligent politicians!!!" is another instance of placing the saving grace of humanity emphasis on the intellect.

 

**********

 

For convenience's sake, you close out the multitudinous inner communications that leap between the tiniest parts of your flesh, yet even as physical creatures, you are to some extent a portion of other consciousnesses. There are no limitations to the self. There are no limitations to its potentials. You can adopt artificial limitations through your own ignorance, however. You can identify, for example, with your outer ego alone, and cut yourself off from abilities that are a part of you. You can deny, but you cannot change, the facts. The personality is multidimensional, even though many people hide their heads, figuratively speaking, in the sand of three-dimensional existence and pretend there is nothing more.
I do not mean to underestimate the outer ego. You have simply overestimated it. Nor has its true nature been recognized.
We will have more to say concerning this point, but for now it is enough to realize that your sense of identity and continuity is not dependent upon the ego.
Now at times I will be using the term "camouflage," referring to the physical world to which the outer ego relates, for physical form is one of the camouflages that reality adopts. The camouflage is real, and yet there is a much greater reality within it - the vitality that gave it form. Your physical senses then allow you to perceive this camouflage, for they are attuned to it in a highly specialized manner. But to sense the reality within the form requires a different sort of attention, and more delicate manipulations than the physical senses provide.
The ego is a jealous god, and it wants its interests served. It does not want to admit the reality of any dimensions except those within which it feels comfortable and can understand. It was meant to be an aid but it has been allowed to become a tyrant. Even so, it is much more resilient and eager to learn than is generally supposed. It is not natively as rigid as it seems. Its curiosity can be of great value.
If you have a limited conception of the nature of reality, then your ego will do its best to keep you in the small enclosed area of your accepted reality. If, on the other hand, your intuitions and creative instincts are allowed freedom, then they communicate some knowledge of greater dimensions to this most physically oriented portion of your personality.
The fact of this book is proof that the ego does not have the whole kettle of personality to itself, for there is no doubt that it is being produced by some other personality than that of the writer known as Jane Roberts. Since that Jane Roberts has no abilities that are not inherent in the species as a whole, then at the very least it must be admitted that human personality has many more attributes than those usually ascribed to it. I hope to explain what these abilities are, and point out the ways that each individual can use to release these potentials.

 

--SS, p. 6~7

 

[Tippaporn]

34 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

The anticipation is killing me.

What?!?!?!  You think I'm going to put you off for 9 months and then not tease you to death at the end of your wait?  What kind of a friend do you think I am? 

 

Remember, Sunmaster.  It's the journey.  Anticipation is always the sweetest part of the journey, not the arrival at the destination. 

 

That be about it for today, Sunmaster.  Read slowly as there isn't a single word that does not carry meaning.  And rereading always reveals a new insight.

[OneMoreFarang]

Yesterday I saw this interesting video. I think this is an interesting perspective.

 

 

[Tippaporn]

25 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Yesterday I saw this interesting video. I think this is an interesting perspective.

 

 

 

Why does God allow violence and the eradication of species?  Fair question.  And a puzzler for many.  My answer is that it's neigh on impossible to understand the world we're in without an understanding of who and what we are.  When that is understood then the answer to the question becomes self evident.  Not only does it become self evident but the realisation comes, too, that it's all good.

 

[Chris Daley]

We all know that these holy books written by a bunch of beardy men.  They got to the part about women and were totally lost.  Basically don't screw your wife when she is on her period.  That the only wisdom they have to offer.

 

The Bible

 

20 Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. 21 Anyone who touches her bed will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. 22 Anyone who touches anything she sits on will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. 23 Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, they will be unclean till evening. 24 If a man has sexual relations with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days; any bed he lies on will be unclean.

(Leviticus 15:19-30)

 

The Karen

 

Surah Al-Baqarah (2:222): "And they ask you about menstruation. Say, 'It is harm, so keep away from wives during menstruation. And do not approach them until they are pure. And when they have purified themselves, then come to them from where Allah has ordained for you. Indeed, Allah loves those who are constantly repentant and loves those who purify themselves.''

 

[Sunmaster]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

The following references the outer ego and hints at it's current state of development.  My feeling is that folks tend to think of the ego as firstly something that is us but not us and secondly view it as a static and finished product.

 

**********

 

I am primarily a teacher, but I have not been a man of letters per se. I am primarily a personality with a message: You create the world that you know. You have been given perhaps the most awesome gift of all: the ability to project your thoughts outward into physical form.
The gift brings a responsibility, and many of you are tempted to congratulate yourselves on the successes of your lives, and blame God, fate, and society for your failures. In like manner, mankind has a tendency to project his own guilt and his own errors upon a father-god image, who it seems must grow weary of so many complaints.
The fact is that each of you create your own physical reality; and en masse, you create both the glories and the terrors that exist within your earthly experience. Until you realize that you are the creators, you will refuse to accept this responsibility. Nor can you blame a devil for the world's misfortunes. You have grown sophisticated enough to realize that the Devil is a projection of your own psyche, but you have not grown wise enough to learn how to use your creativity constructively.
Most of my readers are familiar with the term, "muscle bound." As a species you have grown "ego bound" instead, held in a spiritual rigidity, with the intuitive portions of the self either denied or distorted beyond any recognition.

 

--SS, p. 3

 

**********

 

My general comment is to express my long held view that as a species we have become quite technologically advanced as we have focused predominately on objective manipulation in an objective world.  As our focus intensified on the purely objective we have largely abandoned our spiritual aspect; to the point where we tend to even deny it's existence.  Thus our current development is that of both a highly technical race and an utterly barren one spiritually.  These days the mere mention of our spiritual nature causes people to roll their eyes and avoid the subject as quickly as possible.  At the same time the idea of technology as the saviour of the human race has become the "talk of the town" and many are rushing headlong into the development and creation of AI with the idea that this superintelligence will become the new "God."  Which, quite humourously, will hearken the obsolencence of mankind.  Excuse me, but I have to laugh at the sheer idiocy of the idea.

In any case, I also view our advanced technology, given our current state of development, akin to giving matches to a small child.  I've concluded that everything in this world is a double-edged sword.  Whether the edge to be used is the edge that harms or the edge which benefits is at the discretion of he who has his hand on the hilt.  And it is hoped that he who wields this sword is blessed with some wisdom.  Those developing AI, for instance, are, in my opinion, those who are most removed from any ideas of spirituality.  The uses to which they will put AI to I believe will be determined purely by monetary considerations.  And the militaries of the world will pay handsomely.

Ahhh, the wait is over! 😄

 

I can't but agree with the post. 

The only tiny issue I have is with what you say about the developers of AI being far removed from spirituality. I watched an interview with Sam Altman, founder of ChatGPT and he seemed a very balanced young man with a clear moral compass. In fact, he himself warns of the negative potentials of AI, when those who control it, have less than altruistic motives. 

So, I'm simply proposing a distinctions between the inventors, who for the most part are scientists or out-of-the-box thinkers eager to push boundaries and see what is possible, and then those who use their findings to make a profit and frak the rest.

The genie is out of the bottle now and nothing can put it back in. It depends on how you use it. 

 

 

[Tippaporn]

42 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I can't but agree with the post.

 

So far, how do Seth's ideas about the ego comport with yours?  Any differences?  Commonalities?  Any general comments or musings?

 

[Sunmaster]

12 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

So far, how do Seth's ideas about the ego comport with yours?  Any differences?  Commonalities?  Any general comments or musings?

 

So far I see no discrepancies with the way I see it or with the way Advaita Vedanta explains it. 

The ego as useful construct to interact with the material world. The only problem is when we believe that the ego is all we are and we identify with it. Then, instead of being the master, we become the slaves of a subordinate entity, effectively cutting us off from our true identity. The one that sees the bigger picture. 

So far we are on the same page.

[save the frogs]

15 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I mean, the ego is the equivalent of a vampire sucking out your energy and using it against you?  Oh, for crikey's sake.  Sounds like demon possession to me.    I'm about to defend the ego.  It's my best friend.

 

Well, not sure what he means by vampire.

but some people get into serious problems because of their egos.

just watched a crime show. A journalist was writing negative articles about a politician and exposing his corruption. the politician ended up murdering the journalist. so that's an example of someone's ego going completely out of control.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, brianthainess said:

If Mary was a Virgin I'm pretty sure he didn't before Jesus was born, unless they had anal sex.

And Who said it was only a fable you, god, or the author?

and How do you explain the FACT that the earth is billions of years old? WAKE UP its all fiction.

You are exposing your ignorance. If you actually knew about it, you'd know that Joseph married her AFTER she was pregnant. There are no reports that they had a relationship prior to that.

 

I don't believe the Bible is factual other than as a history book, so I don't know what you are on about with the reference to earth being old. I am well aware of the origins of the universe, at least as understood by science at this point in time.

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, fondue zoo said:

 

 

Some do, word for word. I've met a few.

 

 

 

 

Sadly, most of the world's population are followers and many unthinkingly so. Hence Hitler and Mao's rise to power and a few modern day cult issues ( does "man made climate change" or "covid"  ring any bells? ).

Even more sadly, many of the leaders are monsters, and use their power for bad ends. I'm sure some leaders are just good, but blowed if I can think of any off hand. Most would be a mix of good and bad. Kennedy and Churchill were good leaders at an opportune time for us, but flawed deeply.

 

What does it mean for humanity- I have no clue, but the people that first made blue jeans did well by reading the sheeple correctly.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

So, I'm simply proposing a distinctions between the inventors, who for the most part are scientists or out-of-the-box thinkers eager to push boundaries and see what is possible, and then those who use their findings to make a profit and frak the rest.

IMO we are fracked. The 1% will use it to screw everybody else.

 

I suspect they are using it, even now before it's perfected, to develop ways to use it to control the rest of us, by predicting human behavioral patterns. No doubt the entire covid saga will be a rich vein of information to see what works and what doesn't.

People like to think we are independent, but we are not. IMO we are a herd species and like to do things as a herd. I was once, but some while back I opted out and I have paid the price for doing so, many times over. It's lonely out there.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

I watched an interview with Sam Altman, founder of ChatGPT and he seemed a very balanced young man with a clear moral compass. In fact, he himself warns of the negative potentials of AI, when those who control it, have less than altruistic motives. 

Bit like Oppenheimer, who on looking at what he ( and others ) had created saw when the first bomb was detonated, said “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds”.

Perhaps he too realised that the genie was out and never going back in.

 

The bomb destroys physically, but AI can destroy us from within, by taking away our ability to gain self respect by work. AI robotics is the hope of the human race or it's destroyer. Like you said "It depends on how you use it". 

You are more optimistic that I, so you may have hope that it will be the former, but I, being the opposite, have no such hope. IMO there is a blackness in the very soul of humanity, and that has been and is being exposed for all that want to see.

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

So far we are on the same page.

I forgot to congratulate you on actually reading his entire posts. As I mentioned to him, in the past, I find them too long. Usually I never get past the first paragraph. IMO sometimes less is indeed more.

 

[Tippaporn]

3 hours ago, save the frogs said:

18 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I mean, the ego is the equivalent of a vampire sucking out your energy and using it against you?  Oh, for crikey's sake.  Sounds like demon possession to me.    I'm about to defend the ego.  It's my best friend.

 

Well, not sure what he means by vampire.

 

Methinks the allegory of a vampire is quite clear.  "Sucking out your energy and using it against you."  Is that not an apt symbolic representation of a vampire's basic nature?

 

"The ego actually has no intelligence or creativity of it's own.  It is nothing more than a mass of conditioning and survival responses that has glomed(?) on to an individual mind stream.  In order to survive and maintain itself it has to sap that creative intelligence and energy of that mind stream and continuously direct it towards the exhausting task of recreating itself moment by moment.  This is why it seems so formidable, manipulative and cunning.  It's actually using my own creative power against [points to himself] me.  And I put "me" in quotation marks there because, uhm, it's kinda a oxymoron, right?  To say, to talk about the ego, which is illusory, and talk about a "me" that is, well, kinda of an air quote.  The "me" is the "I am ," it's the, ah, the consciousness, the formless knowing, the formless being of our basic nature."

 

Again, sound like possession by an evil, vampiric entity to me. 

 

My, my, the ideas some folks come up with.  And he received this information in a meditation.  Oh, boy. 

 

3 hours ago, save the frogs said:

but some people get into serious problems because of their egos.

 

Some or all people?  To answer that question one needs to have a proper, meaning correct, understanding of what the ego is and what it's function is.  Without that understanding then how can one accurately talk about the ego?  If we talk about the ego and our idea of it is seriously distorted (as in the video you posted) then what have we accomplished?  Would we not simply be creating more superstitions and fictions about it?  Superstitions and fictions that would ultimately serve as obstacles that would themselves act as repellents to the truth about the ego?  Methinks so.

 

3 hours ago, save the frogs said:

just watched a crime show. A journalist was writing negative articles about a politician and exposing his corruption. the politician ended up murdering the journalist. so that's an example of someone's ego going completely out of control.

 

What might be happening here?  Question:  is any action ever taken that is not acting on an idea?  An idea in motion, if you will.  What's a belief?  Might a belief be an idea which is held as "true" by he who subscribes to the idea?  Did the politician then not act on his beliefs?  What portion of the personality structure collects and maintains beliefs?  Might that not be the ego?

 

Now, to properly explain your example event we would have to know the beliefs of the politician.  Whilst that may not be possible in the specific his beliefs can be ascertained in the general.  But what of the journalist?  Isn't he, too, a player in this tragic drama?  Are we not forgetting about him?  He played a role, after all, did he not?  His role was the victim.  No small role.  How do you fit him in?  Or do you simply leave him out?  Isn't it true that "it takes two to tango?"  Can't just look at half of the story to arrive at the full story now, can we?

 

BTW, did you read the material I offered over three posts which begin to educate on what the ego is and what it's function is?  There's much more coming.  For those interested, and I can't say whether or not you are, or even what your level of interest is if you are indeed interested, it should prove to be, well, forgive the term, enlightening.

[save the frogs]

30 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

BTW, did you read the material I offered over three posts which begin to educate on what the ego is and what it's function is?

No, i havent. but i might

But I did read your last post in its entirety.

I can you read your posts if you wish. But if I disagree, I will point it out in no uncertain terms.

 

[Tippaporn]

14 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Then, instead of being the master, we become the slaves of a subordinate entity, effectively cutting us off from our true identity. The one that sees the bigger picture. 

 

Entity?  Perhaps you're not choosing your words wisely?  The use of the word 'entity' and the context in which it is used implies that the ego is an entity unto itself.  An appendage of sorts.

 

"You must understand that there are no real divisions to the self, however, so we speak of various portions only to make the basic idea clear."

 

This is the paradox that needs to be resolved.  Throughout all of my thoughts concerning the ego I keep this paradox at the very front of my mind.  It's easy to gloss over and miss the importance of it.  But I take Seth's warning "you must understand" to heart.  I take that warning together with Seth's many mentions that language is insufficient as there are no words to describe the true nature of ourselves.  So we do the best we can with the tools available.

 

Subordinate?  Again, perhaps you're not choosing your words wisely?  The ego is that aspect of ourselves which is the outer most portion of our physical personality structure which deals most directly with physical reality.  It's function is to sit on the window sill looking both outward and inward.  Subordinate doesn't seem to be a fitting description for such an important function.

 

14 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

So far we are on the same page.

 

With all due respect, so far not quite. 

 

This specific quote will come later but I include it here as it is a statement about the ego which is so beautifully succinct, and so wonderfully nails the cause of the many misconceptions about the ego.  With a sledgehammer, i might add. 

 

"It cannot relate to a reality that you will not allow it to perceive. It can poorly help you to survive when you do not allow it to use its abilities to discover those true conditions in which it must manipulate. You put blinders upon it, and then say that it cannot see."

 

Boom!!!  We confine our ego with our beliefs, limited beliefs I should add, force it to manipulate in that limited and distorted environment, and then complain about it's poor functioning.  And to add insult to injury we then accuse it, falsely, of being an obstacle which blinds us to our greater reality and actively prevents us from achieving greater understanding of ourselves and our reality.  The ego must function in line with our beliefs.  Not only our beliefs about it but also our beliefs about who we are and our reality in general.  And if our beliefs are limiting then it's no small wonder that we then force our ego to become a guard rather than a guardian, a tyrant instead of a liberator.  That one statement of Seth's forever vindicates the ego of it's poor reputation.  Case closed and damages awarded. 

 

The ego is not some static 'thing'.  It is dynamic.  It is ever changing and evolving.  It is an aspect of us created for a specific purpose - to deal directly with physical reality in a way that other portions of ourselves cannot.  It is not some entity onto itself, an entity which, no less, attempts to limit us and is thus regarded as an enemy of sorts.  So here's a question:  What is the ideal solution if we feel our ego is an obstacle to greater illumination and self discovery?  a) provide it with better beliefs so that it might be able to perform it's function as originally intended or b) circumvent it.

 

I think that the answer for most is to circumvent it.   

 

Anyway, I shall continue with another three posts.

[Tippaporn]

  

On 12/25/2023 at 6:04 AM, save the frogs said:

Just watched this Buddhist talk.

Interesting.

True self, false self. Cool stuff.

 

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

". . . And I put "me" in quotation marks there because, uhm, it's kinda a oxymoron, right?  To say, to talk about the ego, which is illusory, and talk about a "me" that is, well, kinda of an air quote.  The "me" is the "I am ," it's the, ah, the consciousness, the formless knowing, the formless being of our basic nature."

 

One afterthought I want to include.

 

I've always been struck by the utter vagueness and cloudiness which so many enter into when discussing or instructing on who and what we are.  Granted, it's a good start.  Now let's have some details.  Lots of details.  I mean a whole lotta details.  I can't seem to shake the feeling that I'll be waiting a long, long time. 

[Tippaporn]

I'm including this passage as Seth expounds a bit on personality and speaks about perception.  Both topics are, from my viewpoint, important to understand, even if only in rudimentary fashion, as they are simply more clues and insights as to who and what we are.

 

**********

 

Personality is a gestalt of ever-changing perception. It is the part of the identity which perceives. I do not force my perceptions upon the woman through whom I speak, nor is her consciousness blotted out during our communications. Instead there is an expansion of her consciousness and a projection of energy that is directed away from three-dimensional reality.
This concentration away from the physical system may make it appear as if her consciousness is blotted out. Instead, more is added to it. Now from my own field of reality I focus my attention toward the woman, but the words that she speaks - these words upon the pages - are not initially verbal at all.
In the first place, language as you know it is a slow affair: letter by letter strung out to make a word, and words to make a sentence, the result of a linear thought pattern. Language, as you know it, is partially and grammatically the end product of your physical time sequences. You can only focus upon so many things at one time, and your language structure is not given to the communication of intricate, simultaneous experience.
I am aware of a different kind of experience, not linear, and can focus upon and react to an infinite variety of simultaneous events. Ruburt could not express them, and so they must be leveled out into linear expression if they are to be communicated. This ability to perceive and react to unlimited simultaneous events is a basic characteristic of each whole self or entity. Therefore, I do not claim it as some feat that is exclusively my own.
Each reader, being presently ensconced within a physical form, I presume, knows only a small portion of himself - as I mentioned earlier. The entity is the overall identity of which his personality is one manifestation - an independent and eternally valid portion. In these communications, therefore, Ruburt's consciousness expands, and yet focuses in a different dimension, a dimension between his reality and mine, a field relatively free of distraction. Here I impress certain concepts upon him, with his permission and assent. They are not neutral, in that all knowledge or information bears the stamp of the personality who holds it or passes it on.
Ruburt makes his verbal knowledge available for our use, and quite automatically the two of us together cause the various words that will be spoken. Distractions can occur, as any information can be distorted. We are used to working together now, however, and the distortions are very few.
Some of my energy is also projected through Ruburt, and his energy and mine both activate his physical form during our sessions, and now as I speak these sentences. There are many other ramifications that I will discuss later.
I am not, therefore, a product of Ruburt's subconscious, any more than he is a product of my subconscious mind. Nor am I a secondary personality, cleverly trying to undermine a precarious ego. I have seen to it in fact that all portions of Ruburt's personality are benefited, and their integrity maintained and honored.

 

--SS, p. 7

[Tippaporn]

Another diversion from the discussion of the ego per se but Seth explains his purpose, which is to bring awareness to our physically focused ego, and puts into perspective our singular focus on physical, objective reality.

The portion of this passage which is important to me, as it relates to the ego, is Seth's mention that one of his purposes "is to acquaint your egotistical self with knowledge that is already known to a larger portion of your own consciousness, that you have long ignored."  He is basically affirming that our egotistical self is where it's at currently due to our limited knowledge of the self and our reality.  He intends to arm it with that ignored knowledge so that it can then function as intended.

 

**********

 

So if you want to know what my environment is like, you will have to understand what I am. In order to explain, I shall have to speak about the nature of consciousness in general. In doing so I shall end up telling you much about yourself. The inner portions of your identity are already aware of much that I will tell you. Part of my purpose is to acquaint your egotistical self with knowledge that is already known to a larger portion of your own consciousness, that you have long ignored.
You look out into the physical universe, and interpret reality according to the information received from your "outer senses." I will stand, figuratively speaking, in physical reality and look inward for you, and describe those realities of consciousness and experience that you are presently too fascinated to see. For you are fascinated with physical reality, and you are in as deep a trance now as the woman is through whom I write this book.
All of your attention is focused in a highly specialized way upon one shining, bright point that you call reality. There are other realities all about you, but you ignore their existence, and you blot out all stimuli that come from them. There is a reason for such a trance, as you will discover, but little by little you must wake up. My purpose is to open your inner eyes.

 

--SS, p. 16

[Tippaporn]

Here Seth discusses what we refer to as the soul.  While it's separate subject matter it does reference the ego and provides further details concerning the ego.  Of course this informational overview ends up being helpful in it's own way in further understanding the ego.  I had to cut it off at some point as it goes on for quite some length.

 

**********

 

THE SOUL AND THE NATURE OF ITS PERCEPTION

 

With the little background given so far, we can at least begin to discuss the subject of this book: The eternal validity of the soul. Even when we are exploring other issues, we will be trying to illustrate the multidimensional aspect of this inner self. There are many misconceptions connected with it, and first of all we shall try to dismiss these.
First of all, a soul is not something that you have. It is what you are. I usually use the term "entity" in preference to the term "soul," simply because those particular misconceptions are not so connected with the word "entity," and its connotations are less religious in an organizational sense.
The trouble is that you frequently consider the soul or entity as a finished, static "thing" that belongs to you but is not you. The soul or entity - in other words, your most intimate powerful inner identity is and must be forever changing. It is not, therefore, something like a cherished heirloom. It is alive, responsive, curious. It forms the flesh and the world that you know, and it is in a state of becoming.
Now, in the three-dimensional reality in which your ego has its main focus, becoming presupposes arrival, or a destination - an ending to that which has been in a state of becoming. But the soul or entity has its existence basically in other dimensions, and in these, fulfillment is not dependent upon arrivals at any points, spiritual or otherwise.
The soul or entity is always in a state of flux, or learning, and of developments that have to do with subjective experience rather than with time or space. This is not nearly as mysterious as it might sound. Each of my readers plays a game in which the egotistical conscious self pretends not to know what the whole self definitely does know. Since the ego is definitely a part of the whole self, then it must necessarily be basically aware of such knowledge. In its intense focus in physical reality, however, it pretends not to know, until it feels able to utilize the information in physical terms.
You do have access to the inner self, therefore. You are hardly cut off from your own soul or entity. The ego prefers to consider itself the captain at the helm, so to speak, since it is the ego who most directly deals with the sometimes tumultuous seas of physical reality, and it does not want to be distracted from this task.
Channels, psychological and psychic, always exist, sending communications back and forth through the various levels of the self, and the ego accepts necessary information and data from inner portions of the personality without question. Its position in fact depends in a large manner upon this unquestioning acceptance of inner data. The ego, in other words, the "exterior" self that you think of as your self - that portion of you maintains its safety and its seeming command precisely because inner layers of your own personality constantly uphold it, keep the physical body operating, and maintain communications with the multitudinous stimuli that come both from outside conditions and inside conditions. The soul or entity is not diminished but expanded through reincarnations, through existence and experience in probable realities - something that I will explain later.
It is only because you have a highly limited conception of your own entity that you insist upon its being almost sterile in its singularity. There are millions of cells within your body, but you call your body a unit, and consider it your own. You do form it, from the inside out, and yet you form it from living substance, and each smallest particle has its own living consciousness. There are clumps of matter, and in that respect there are clumps of consciousness, each individual, with their own destiny and abilities and potentials. There are no limitations to your own entity: therefore, how can your entity or soul have boundaries, for boundaries would enclose it and deny it freedom.
Often it seems that the soul is thought of as a precious stone, to be finally presented as a gift to God, or considered as some women used to consider their virginity - something highly prized that must be lost; the losing of it being signified as a fine gift to the receiver.
In many philosophies this sort of idea is retained - the soul being returned to a primal giver, or being dissolved in a nebulous state somewhere between being and nonbeing. The soul is, however, first of all creative. It can be discussed from many viewpoints. Its characteristics can be given to some degree, and indeed most of my readers could find out these characteristics for themselves if they were highly enough motivated, and if this was their main concern. The soul or entity is itself the most highly motivated, most highly energized, and most potent consciousness-unit known in any universe.
It is energy concentrated to a degree quite unbelievable to you. It contains potentials unlimited, but it must work out its own identity and form its own worlds. It carries within it the burden of all being. Within it are personality potentials beyond your comprehension. Remember, this is your own soul or entity I am speaking of, as well as soul or entity in general. You are one manifestation of your own soul. How many of you would want to limit your reality, your entire reality, to the experience you now know? You do this when you imagine that your present self is your entire personality, or insist that your identity be maintained unchanged through an endless eternity.
Such an eternity would be dead indeed. In many ways the soul is an incipient god, and later in this book we will discuss the "god concept." For now, however, we will simply be concerned with the entity or soul, the larger self that whispers even now in the hidden recesses of each reader's experience. I hope in this book not only to assure you of the eternal validity of your soul or entity, but to help you sense its vital reality within yourself. First of all, however, you must have some idea of your own psychological and psychic structure. When you understand to some extent who and what you are, then I can explain more clearly who and what I am. I hope to acquaint you with those deeply creative aspects of your own being, so that you can use these to extend and expand your entire experience.
Many individuals imagine the soul to be an immortalized ego, forgetting that the ego as you know it is only a small portion of the self; so this section of the personality is simply projected onward, ad infinitum, so to speak. Because the dimensions of your reality are so little understood, your concepts are bound to be limited. In considering "immortality," mankind seems to hope for further egotistical development, and yet he objects to the idea that such development might involve change. He says through his religions that he has a soul indeed, without even asking what a soul is, and often he seems to regard it, again, as an object in his possession.

 

--SS, p. 42~43

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

I can you read your posts if you wish. But if I disagree, I will point it out in no uncertain terms.

 

Edited 1 hour ago by save the frogs

 

I just caught your edit so I'll quote only your edit.

 

Oh, I would wish nothing of the sort, save the frogs.  I would only wish for you whatever you wish for yourself.

 

On any disagreement your terms are only fair.  I have no objections.

 

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Superstitions and fictions that would ultimately serve as obstacles that would themselves act as repellents to the truth about the ego?

 

I would ask that you keep this close in mind.  Whilst the quote is in reference to the ego I will amend it so that it can be applied in general.

 

Superstitions and fictions that would ultimately serve as obstacles that would themselves act as repellents to the truth.

 

I ask only that you are aware that beliefs can and do often act as barriers to understanding.  Preconceived ideas, or beliefs when false by their very nature block the truth of rockbed reality from being perceived.  We tend to fancy that all of our beliefs are correct.  Which is an impossibility.  That would only be true if we were all knowing.  And no one is so foolish as to claim that.  Keep in mind, therefore, that the beliefs you believe to be true may or may not be true.  Which ones are and which ones aren't can only be determined by close, impartial examination of them and in serious questioning of their actual validity.  If this is not done then one will end up arguing for the truth of their personal belief and not for reality's truth.  The perceived truth of the belief will then act to blind one to the real truth.  So I only caution you or anyone to be aware of this so as not to fall into that tar pit of seeking only affirmation to the truth of your belief.

[Tippaporn]

 

 

Aw, come on folks!!  The worst nightmare for a comedian is to perform in front of a dead audience.  I have to say that some humour is good, innit?  Give credit where credit is due and don't be bashful (or too serious) to hit the belly laugh reaction emoticon!!  Remember, life is supposed to be fun!  

 

[Tippaporn]

Now this is funny!  Better with his delivery.  I like when his eyes pop briefly. 

 

"The ego actually has no intelligence or creativity of it's own.  It is nothing more than a mass of conditioning and survival responses that has glomed(?) on to an individual mind stream.  In order to survive and maintain itself it has to sap that creative intelligence and energy of that mind stream and continuously direct it towards the exhausting task of recreating itself moment by moment.  This is why it seems so formidable, manipulative and cunning."

 

I have a serious side to my personality, too, but you know, as the old adage goes, "too much of a good thing is a bad thing."  Or to quote from John Lydgate's 1430 poem, The Fall of Princes, “For whoso hath too much of any good, Of that same good he shall be soon bereft.”  So if I find myself becoming dour in my seriousness I can play that clip on loop and belly laugh all the way through.

 

Don't forget to hit the like [belly laugh] button, folks.  Ya know the Thais don't like cheap Charlies. 

 

 

[brianthainess]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You are exposing your ignorance. If you actually knew about it, you'd know that Joseph married her AFTER she was pregnant. There are no reports that they had a relationship prior to that.

 

I don't believe the Bible is factual other than as a history book, so I don't know what you are on about with the reference to earth being old. I am well aware of the origins of the universe, at least as understood by science at this point in time.

After she was pregnant? so how come she was a called a Virgin. SHE WAS NOT. Who made her Pregnant? Who's sperm was it? According to your history book, is it not a sin to have sex outside of wedlock?

So history books are not factual The bible is a history book 

Why are we in the year 2023 AD? what is our date based on I thought that was when that kid was born known as Jesus or his Alias Christ

And you try to insult ME calling me Ignorant. 

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, brianthainess said:

After she was pregnant? so how come she was a called a Virgin. SHE WAS NOT.

 Isn't the reason obvious? It would be difficult to create a religion based upon the founder being a 'bastard'. Therefore, the story of a 'virgin birth' was essential.