Do you believe in God and why

[VincentRJ]

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Why am I telling you all of this, Vince?  So that you can understand, and maybe even appreciate, that there exists knowledge of which we know little.  To keep an open mind.  And to not hold so tightly to preconceived ideas that it prevents you from seeing what else out there exists.  With sincere respect, Vince. 

I do keep an open mind, and I always change my views when I discover new evidence that is more convincing than the previous evidence that my opinions were based upon.

 

An example is my current view on the claimed catastrophic effects of human CO2 emissions. A few decades ago, when Anthropogenic Global Warming became an issue, I accepted the 'so-called' science that was reported in the media, and which was discussed and explained during interviews of certain scientists, on the media. Why should I doubt the views of respectable scientists, when I've always had a high confidence in the efficacy of the Methodology of Science.

 

However, when I investigated the issues for myself, doing searches on the internet for specific information, which was never addressed during such interviews, such as the history of flooding and storms in a particular location, the pH of the oceans, the undeniable benefits of CO2 which is stupidly vilified in the media as a pollutant, and so on, I soon realized that it wasn't 'validated science' that was being reported, but selected data which was cherry-picked to create the maximum alarm.

 

So I changed my mind with regard to the claimed dangers of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and began thinking about the reasons for this political agenda to create excessive alarm. Was it to prepare well in advance for an eventual scarcity of fossil fuels that would eventually occur as nations continue to develop and increase their wealth? Was it to create fear, in order to control the population? Was it a misguided but genuine attemt to improve the natural environment, and so on?
 

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

While your response to TBL does not flat out say "I believe in a single reality" it is, however, implied.  It is impossible to express such sentiments while holding to the belief that other realities exist for the two are contradictory.  Your nous would tell you that, correct? 

Of course there isn't a single reality. There are trillions of life forms on our planet, and they are all different to some extent. Even creatures of the same species are all slightly different, so I would estimate, as a very rough guess, that there are around 500 quadrillion realities on our planet, and possibly much more.

 

Each lifeform has its own reality, although the reality of members of the same species tends to be very similar.

 

As I've mentioned before, reality is an inseperable combination of the environment and the subject experiencing the the environment.
The reason why science tends to focus more on objectivity than subjectivity is because the environment is absolutely essential for life to exist. However, life is not essential for the environment to exist, although it's true that the existence of life does change the environment to some extent.

 

A Buddhist monk sitting in a cave, meditating 16 hours a day, for 20 years, and imagining another reality, still needs the environment to survive, the air to breath and the food to eat. But the air and the plants and the oceans do not need the Buddhist monk.

[CharlieH]

Clean up on aisle 4 completed.

[Tippaporn]

5 hours ago, CharlieH said:

Clean up on aisle 4 completed.

 

Thanks for you efforts, Charlie.  I didn't get to see the mess, though, so I'm not sure what the clean up was about.  Any gruesome pics you can share?  Or are they too graphic? 

 

And a Happy New Year to you and your family, Charlie. 

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

So I changed my mind with regard to the claimed dangers of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and began thinking about the reasons for this political agenda to create excessive alarm. Was it to prepare well in advance for an eventual scarcity of fossil fuels that would eventually occur as nations continue to develop and increase their wealth? Was it to create fear, in order to control the population? Was it a misguided but genuine attemt to improve the natural environment, and so on?

IMO one should always follow the money for answers to such.

 

Have governments made it easier to live close to work thereby not needing to drive to work- no.

Have governments improved public transport thereby not needing to drive at all- no.

Have governments mandated less air travel- no, and they have encouraged more air travel.

Have governments brought industry back home, so needing less ships to transport goods- no.

Have governments cut back the cruise ship industry- far from that, they welcome more ( shipping is incredibly polluting ).

Have governments encouraged wind power for ships- no.

Have governments mandated international meetings being done by video conferencing so attendees do not need to fly- no.

Have governments done anything to stop people building on coasts or in fire risk forests- no

Have governments tried to stop the destruction of rain forests in Sth America, Africa and Asia- no

 

So, what have governments done? They encourage EVs which cost a great deal, without improving electrical generation. They have encouraged solar and wind power which makes a lot of money for those industries, and shareholders.

and that is about as far as they have gone.

 

Is it all a money making scam for the 1%? IMO absolutely.

 

Baaaaaa.

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

A Buddhist monk sitting in a cave, meditating 16 hours a day, for 20 years, and imagining another reality, still needs the environment to survive, the air to breath and the food to eat. But the air and the plants and the oceans do not need the Buddhist monk.

But the air and the plants and the oceans do not need the Buddhist monk.

Or anyone else

 

Absolutely true, and yet, humans continue to think that we are the most important thing on the planet. Some even think we are the most important thing in the universe, and some actually believe that we are the only intelligent beings in the universe- so much for being an intelligent species!

 

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Surely, in order to 'find out when we pass over to the other side as to why', there must be a thinking and conscious mind that continues to exist after the body has died. That is, a mind that functions without a brain. Wow! How miraculous! 

 

What seems more plausible to me is that death is like going to sleep without ever waking up. It's the end. It's all over for the individual. There's nothing to worry about and nothing to think about any more. It's equivalent to perfect and everlasting peace, which is why I prefer this idea, in the absence of any sound, contradictory and scientifically valid evidence..

Which is why I believe in the immortal soul, and you do not.

[save the frogs]

16 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

@Tippaporn 

I don't care! 

You will when he's done with you.

We're only 600 pages in. Just getting warmed up.

[Tippaporn]

On 12/30/2023 at 10:31 AM, Sunmaster said:

On 12/30/2023 at 6:44 AM, Tippaporn said:

 

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.

 

 

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.

Ok, I see we are jumping right into the deep end of it. 👍

Perhaps I didn't choose my words wisely, as I know that for a Sethian the word "entity" is loaded with a lot more meaning. I know that the ego is not a separate thing and that it is a dynamic system. I'm a visual learner and when I think about the ego, I picture a wave. If you look for it, you can't find a clear separation between the wave and the rest of the ocean, yet we can still identify that little portion of the ocean and give it a name (wave). This is a great analogy for the ego. We have an idea of what it looks like even though it is in constant change, because it still is identifiable as an apparent, separate entity. 
However, if we use our inner senses and start to explore and analyze the ego from within, if we dig deeper and deeper, we come to realize that what we thought had form as an entity, under close scrutiny evaporates right before our eyes. It is nothing more than consciousness itself, temporarily manifesting as a conglomeration of energy. So, why the need to defend this small portion of your existence? 
 

 

On 12/30/2023 at 6:44 AM, Tippaporn said:

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.

Yes, subordinate. Just like the wave is a subordinate system of the ocean, the ego is an expression of a bigger system. This is not judging its value (good or bad)....it's just a dispassionate observation. Of course, it's an important function, I'm not denying that. 

 

On 12/30/2023 at 6:44 AM, Tippaporn said:

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.

I want to make one thing clear. This is not a witch-hunt against the ego. The ego itself is not the problem. 
The problem is our identification with the ego. 
Would it make sense for the ocean to identify with a tiny wave and believe that this is all it is? 

Ultimately, what every religion at its core, every spiritual path is doing, is to shift the perspective from the subordinate, apparent wave-entity to the ocean-entity. But even that is not the end. Even the ocean is subordinate to something else. Can you guess what it is?

 

On 12/30/2023 at 6:44 AM, Tippaporn said:

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.   

Who is that which is feeling? Is it the ocean or the wave talking about itself? 
The wave will find a million reasons to justify its own existence and why we should "improve" it and not "kill" it like a bloodsucking vampire. But a rabid, aggressive dog doesn't become tame just by fitting it out with a cute dog costume. A restless monkey will not calm down by trying to reason with it. What you focus on, you give energy to. Why focusing on your wave-ness when you can just as well focus on the ocean-ness?

The ocean in the meantime, is there to witness it all. No need to change anything, no need to improve anything. Whatever happens on its surface doesn't affect its ocean-ness at all. 

One more time to make this completely clear. The ego as an apparent, separate entity is neither good or bad. It is what it is. 
It is helpful for when we interact with the material world. 
It is not helpful if it prevents us from seeing that we are the ocean.
The difference is the degree to which we identify with it. 
Which brings us back to the ultimate question: Who am I? 
Am I the wave, the ocean or.....?

 

Good morning, Sunmaster.

 

Okay, as I mentioned in my last post oftentimes I hold off on replying immediately if I feel I need more information and/or more time to get insights as to where your thinking is and, more importantly, what the crux of it is.  Now there are two ways I can interpret our discussion thus far and I admit I'm not sure which is the correct one.  We could very well be on different pages or on the same page.  I woke up this morning and spent an hour composing a reply based on the interpretation I felt was the correct one, which I've now trashed (but saved just in case it is correct ).  Before I settle on that one I felt it best to pick your brain a bit more first.  The last thing I want to do is to misinterpret you and then in my reply make it sound like you're saying something you're not.    I kinda feel relieved I didn't yet hit the "Submit Reply" button prematurely. 

 

Since reading and rereading your last few posts, including your post entitled "Shattering the Ego," you ask:

 

Which brings us back to the ultimate question: Who am I? 
Am I the wave, the ocean or.....?

 

Now it appears to me that you have questions as to 'identity'.  Your question is framed as an either or.  "Am I the wave, the ocean or . . .?"  That certainly implies that our identity is singular.  It's either the "you" that's reflected in the mirror or the greater, more expansive "you."  But it can't be both.  So in order to know which of my interpretations is correct (or perhaps partially correct) I have to ask you what your present concept of 'identity' is.

 

I will say that Seth provides a great deal of information and explanations specifically on the subject of identity.  And he's made it crystal clear that our current concepts of it are woefully limited.  Which, of course, does lead to problems on a certain level.  Then again, our current focus on and awareness of only a singular identity - the one in the mirror - is a specific path of development which our consciousness has taken for the purpose of expressing ourselves in a way which could not be expressed if we were to be aware that there is much more included in our identity.

 

Seth's material on identity is covered in much greater detail in his books after The Nature Of Personal Reality.  If you haven't read those books I'd recommend reading them.  Now as I'm quite familiar with Seth's concepts of identity I could furnish some material that would be quite intriguing and illuminating.

 

In your post, "Shattering the Ego," you made this statement:

 

Dis-identifying with the outer ego is therefore necessary to blend with the Oneness, which brings bliss.

 

The concept of blending our physical consciousness with Oneness and thereby achieving bliss, to me, is most definitely Eastern religion based.  And one which I'm not fond of for it implies an end to our current type of consciousness along with it's separate, unique and individual identity.  Is that a state which you are actively after?  And if it is then what of the Sunmaster "you?"  Is that "you" discarded or, rather, blended into the Oneness, or absorbed by it, and so ceases to exist as a separate and unique identity?  Do we have only a single identity?  Temporarily separate until merged?

 

In any case, it appears to me that our discussion might veer off into the issue of 'identity' and what that truly is rather than the ego.  Fix the identity problem and what the ego consciousness is will automatically become clear.

 

Ball is now in your court again. 

[Tippaporn]

@Sunmaster

 

I couldn't help but give you a teaser on Seth's information on 'identity'.  I chose a rather jaw dropping one purposely to get your reaction. 

 

As I alluded to in my post above, there is no single line development of consciousness.  Consciousness takes many different lines of development, some of which would be quite foreign to us.  Our type of consciousness has taken but one line of development and currently we accept it as the only one.

 

In the systems in which evolution of consciousness has worked in that fashion, all faculties of body and mind in one "lifetime" are beautifully utilized. Nor is there any ambiguity about identity. The individual would say, for example, "I am Joe, and Jane, and Jim, and Bob."

 

Let me know if your jaw dropped or perhaps you're familiar with this and you are nonplussed by it.

 

Note to anyone else reading this.  Given current mass accepted ideas you ain't gonna make sense out of it so don't even try.    The fact is reality includes so much more than most can conceive of even in their wildest imaginations.  But it does exist despite an unawareness of it's existence. 

[Tippaporn]

@Sunmaster

 

Geezus, I've been waiting for a reply for over 10 minutes now!!  Going on 15 minutes!! 

 

[Sunmaster]

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Now it appears to me that you have questions as to 'identity'.  Your question is framed as an either or.  "Am I the wave, the ocean or . . .?"  That certainly implies that our identity is singular.  It's either the "you" that's reflected in the mirror or the greater, more expansive "you."  But it can't be both.  So in order to know which of my interpretations is correct (or perhaps partially correct) I have to ask you what your present concept of 'identity' is.

I think we maybe have to distinguish between identity and identification. Identity is ultimately one for all, or ONE...the Absolute, the SELF, One Consciousness. This is the identity I mention the wave analogy. The body-mind that produces the ego is the wave in that example. The ocean can be compared to all dualistic expressions (both material and immaterial, including a separate God-entity), while the Ground of All Being, that true identity is the water....the undifferentiated Is-ness from which duality emerges (Non-duality).
Where on this spectrum you see yourself, I call identification. I see it as a focal point of awareness, like tuning in to a certain station on the radio.  This focal point can shift up and down the spectrum (searching for other stations), that's why some of us identify as a wave ("I am this body. I am this personality."), a few identify as the ocean ("I am eternal consciousness") and on rare occasions with water itself ("I am"). 

I hope you understand that when I talk about these wider identifications, my knowledge is very limited and my ability to express my ideas becomes quite fuzzy. I have to feel my way forward like a drunk looking for his glasses in a dark room. If I had to locate the focus of my awareness, I would say I'm just starting to put some space between me and the wave, which allows me to disidentify with it and see it more objectively. I am not Sunmaster, but I have this body-mind called Sunmaster.

 

27 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Dis-identifying with the outer ego is therefore necessary to blend with the Oneness, which brings bliss.

 

The concept of blending our physical consciousness with Oneness and thereby achieving bliss, to me, is most definitely Eastern religion based.  And one which I'm not fond of for it implies an end to our current type of consciousness along with it's separate, unique and individual identity.  Is that a state which you are actively after?  And if it is then what of the Sunmaster "you?"  Is that "you" discarded or, rather, blended into the Oneness, or absorbed by it, and so ceases to exist as a separate and unique identity?  Do we have only a single identity?  Temporarily separate until merged?

Say you have a very vivid dream. It's amazing and very realistic. In fact, during the dream you consider everything to be real, including the sense of self you have. But when you wake up, do you regret losing that identification as the dream-self? Do you mourn its disappearance? Yes, it was a unique dream-self and (apparently) separate, but now you're awake in a new reality. 
Sunmaster, as a seemingly separate and unique being is not that important, just like your dream-self is not that important to your awake-self. Can it ever be lost? I don't believe so. Can the world still be enjoyed even though you don't identify as Tippaporn? I believe so. 

Does this answer your questions?
 

[Sunmaster]

52 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Let me know if your jaw dropped or perhaps you're familiar with this and you are nonplussed by it.

 

Jaw is firmly in place. 

Yes, consciousness is a big topic, and despite what any of us may think or know about it (or think to know), we know very, very little. All we can do is to feel our way forward in the darkness that surrounds us and hope we don't bang our heads too much in the process.
Still, it's fun comparing notes. 

[Mark Nothing]

The fruits you grow on your tree of life tells you if God is present with you or not.  You know by the fruit.  Is the fruit juicy, sweet and nourishing or toxicly poison, if it even exists at all?

 

If you have battles with strife, jealousy, fits of anger, dissensions, envy, sorcery, idol worship, divisions, drunkeness, orgies, impurity then God's spirit will disappear and eventually it will not exist in you and you have killed your tree of life.

 

The signs God is present in the fruit of your tree of life are kindness, generosity, patience, peace, goodness, modesty, kindness, joy, charity, self control, faithfulness.

 

The spirit you allow into your soul determines the fruit.  God works his magic if you open the connection and ask him. Every area of your life will flourish.  Otherwise he won't and the results in life will show.  Most likely health ailments.

 

 

[xylophone]

3 minutes ago, Mark Nothing said:

The fruits you grow on your tree of life tells you if God is present with you or not.  You know by the fruit.  Is the fruit juicy, sweet and nourishing or toxicly poison, if it even exists at all?

 

If you have battles with strife, jealousy, fits of anger, dissensions, envy, sorcery, idol worship, divisions, drunkeness, orgies, impurity then God's spirit will disappear and eventually it will not exist in you and you have killed your tree of life.

 

The signs God is present in the fruit of your tree of life are kindness, generosity, patience, peace, goodness, modesty, kindness, joy, charity, self control, faithfulness.

 

The spirit you allow into your soul determines the fruit.  God works his magic if you open the connection and ask him. Every area of your life will flourish.  Otherwise he won't and the results in life will show.  Most likely health ailments.

 

 

Surely you don't believe that nonsense........or maybe you do? So perhaps the hundreds of thousands of innocent people who have been killed in Gaza & Ukraine, not to mention the millions in the DRC, Yemen and Ethiopia did not have these qualities, "tree of life are kindness, generosity, patience, peace, goodness, modesty, kindness, joy, charity, self control, faithfulness".

 

Utter claptrap, and some. 

[Sunmaster]

10 minutes ago, Mark Nothing said:

The fruits you grow on your tree of life tells you if God is present with you or not.  You know by the fruit.  Is the fruit juicy, sweet and nourishing or toxicly poison, if it even exists at all?

 

If you have battles with strife, jealousy, fits of anger, dissensions, envy, sorcery, idol worship, divisions, drunkeness, orgies, impurity then God's spirit will disappear and eventually it will not exist in you and you have killed your tree of life.

 

The signs God is present in the fruit of your tree of life are kindness, generosity, patience, peace, goodness, modesty, kindness, joy, charity, self control, faithfulness.

 

The spirit you allow into your soul determines the fruit.  God works his magic if you open the connection and ask him. Every area of your life will flourish.  Otherwise he won't and the results in life will show.  Most likely health ailments.

 

 

Although I wouldn't use the same language (defining God as some separate entity), I understand and agree with the reasoning behind it.
Still working on the drunkenness though... 555

[Sunmaster]

1 minute ago, xylophone said:

Surely you don't believe that nonsense........or maybe you do? So perhaps the hundreds of thousands of innocent people who have been killed in Gaza & Ukraine, not to mention the millions in the DRC, Yemen and Ethiopia did not have these qualities, "tree of life are kindness, generosity, patience, peace, goodness, modesty, kindness, joy, charity, self control, faithfulness".

 

Utter claptrap, and some. 

If you lead a certain type of life, developing patience, kindness etc, it will certainly benefit you and those around you.
If you get attacked by a lion, will you blame yourself for not being kind enough?
What has one got to do with the other? How does the lion attack diminish your efforts in any way?

[Tippaporn]

15 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I do keep an open mind, and I always change my views when I discover new evidence that is more convincing than the previous evidence that my opinions were based upon.

 

First of all, that's a beautiful post, Vince.  And this statement is music to my ears.    Well done, sir! 

 

15 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

An example is my current view on the claimed catastrophic effects of human CO2 emissions. A few decades ago, when Anthropogenic Global Warming became an issue, I accepted the 'so-called' science that was reported in the media, and which was discussed and explained during interviews of certain scientists, on the media. Why should I doubt the views of respectable scientists, when I've always had a high confidence in the efficacy of the Methodology of Science.

 

However, when I investigated the issues for myself, doing searches on the internet for specific information, which was never addressed during such interviews, such as the history of flooding and storms in a particular location, the pH of the oceans, the undeniable benefits of CO2 which is stupidly vilified in the media as a pollutant, and so on, I soon realized that it wasn't 'validated science' that was being reported, but selected data which was cherry-picked to create the maximum alarm.

 

And such a wonderful example, too!!  I watched Gore's 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth (I can't call it a documentary since there's no truth in it) and I admit my initial reaction was, "Oh my!!  This is terrible!!  I wasn't aware of it."  But that sentiment faded just as quickly as I was able to think through his premises and assumptions.

 

Now if you don't mind I'll add my analysis of this particular experience of yours in the form of a general point.  Evidently you were first convinced of the reality of climate change as explained by Gore and others, as was I, and you happened to do your own research which led you to find out differently.  Put in a different way you could say that your investigation led to an expansion of awareness.  You became aware of information which existed all along yet had to be sought out.  You didn't know it existed until you looked.  Initially you had no evidence of it's existence but despite that lack of evidence you decided to look anyway.  And lo and behold you found it.

 

Bottom line:  you searched for contrary evidence despite not knowing whether or not it existed.  Not only is that good science but it's also good practice in general.  People have beliefs, a belief being, as you say, something which is considered to be true.  The problem is that all too often once a person adopts a particular belief they never go back and examine it to check it's validity.  Not only don't they not search for contrary evidence they tend to reject any contrary information anyone presents them with.  They end up not seeking the r-e-a-l truth but rather are only interested in upholding and confirming the "truth" of their belief.  What you did with climate change you did with an open mind.  When someone defends their beliefs and refuses to consider information to the contrary they do so with a closed mind.

 

I wanted to emphasise your anecdote because there's a valuable lesson in it.

 

Now just an aside that's totally unrelated . . .

 

I purposely framed your investigation as an 'expansion of awareness' to dispel the notion, which is common, that it refers to some kind of esoteric experience.  It's really just a very apt phrase of ordinary English words which describe quite ordinary, everyday experience.  Learning, any learning, such as the education everyone gets in school, for example, is in essence an expansion of awareness.  Since it's often the chosen term used by those who delve into spiritualism the term then has an attached air about it as something mystical.  Nothing of the sort.  It means nothing more than what the definitions of the plain English words define them as; becoming aware of something one hadn't been aware of before.  'Expansion of awareness' is interchangeable with 'expansion of consciousness'.  They're really one and the same as consciousness is awareness.

 

17 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

So I changed my mind with regard to the claimed dangers of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and began thinking about the reasons for this political agenda to create excessive alarm. Was it to prepare well in advance for an eventual scarcity of fossil fuels that would eventually occur as nations continue to develop and increase their wealth? Was it to create fear, in order to control the population? Was it a misguided but genuine attemt to improve the natural environment, and so on?

 

There isn't a single reason for the push for climate change.  Multiples of multiple reasons.  Lots of players and every player has a different motive and interest - or agenda .  $$,$$$,$$$,$$$,$$$ is one reason (I think the number of dollar signs I typed out represent tens of trillions, which is probably an accurate amount that's at stake).  Control of the population is another.  Improvement of the natural environment is one, also.  Which reason depends on the player.  What's Greta's motive and interest?  I'd say multiple. 

[Tippaporn]

28 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Surely you don't believe that nonsense........or maybe you do? So perhaps the hundreds of thousands of innocent people who have been killed in Gaza & Ukraine, not to mention the millions in the DRC, Yemen and Ethiopia did not have these qualities, "tree of life are kindness, generosity, patience, peace, goodness, modesty, kindness, joy, charity, self control, faithfulness".

 

Utter claptrap, and some. 

 

As it's laid out I can't say I disagree.  Way too many contradictions.  There is truth there but it's distorted beyond recognition.  Which is why I don't subscribe to any religion.  But I wouldn't go so far to say religion has zero value.  It's simply not a very efficient way to learn as one has to sift through the chaff to get to the grain.  The problem with that is that for a lot of folks the chaff looks just like the grain.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Now it appears to me that you have questions as to 'identity'.  Your question is framed as an either or.  "Am I the wave, the ocean or . . .?"  That certainly implies that our identity is singular.  It's either the "you" that's reflected in the mirror or the greater, more expansive "you."  But it can't be both.  So in order to know which of my interpretations is correct (or perhaps partially correct) I have to ask you what your present concept of 'identity' is.

I think we maybe have to distinguish between identity and identification.

 

Okay.  I'll go with that.  As in this case:

 

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.

 

You have multiple aspects but are not aware of them and thus identify with the only one you are aware of.

 

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

Identity is ultimately one for all, or ONE...the Absolute, the SELF, One Consciousness. This is the identity I mention the wave analogy. The body-mind that produces the ego is the wave in that example. The ocean can be compared to all dualistic expressions (both material and immaterial, including a separate God-entity), while the Ground of All Being, that true identity is the water....the undifferentiated Is-ness from which duality emerges (Non-duality).

 

Personally, I'd use plain English when speaking of duality and non-duality.  If folks have to look it up to understand it then it makes communication more difficult.  And impossible if the reader doesn't know what the term means and doesn't look it up.  Just a suggestion.    BTW, it's one of the reasons I never got into Eastern religion or philosophy - too much special meaning jargon.  Same with science.  Ever open up a Wiki page on some scientific subject and every other word is a hyperlink?  What an absolute maze as you end up with a dozen Wiki pages open! 

 

Other than that I'll hold off on commenting on the substance.

 

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

Where on this spectrum you see yourself, I call identification. I see it as a focal point of awareness, like tuning in to a certain station on the radio.  This focal point can shift up and down the spectrum (searching for other stations), that's why some of us identify as a wave ("I am this body. I am this personality."), a few identify as the ocean ("I am eternal consciousness") and on rare occasions with water itself ("I am").

 

How about identifying with all of them simultaneously?  You can be aware of all of them whilst focused on one identity.  Or several at the same time.  "I am Joe, and Jane, and Jim, and Bob."

 

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

I hope you understand that when I talk about these wider identifications, my knowledge is very limited and my ability to express my ideas becomes quite fuzzy. I have to feel my way forward like a drunk looking for his glasses in a dark room. If I had to locate the focus of my awareness, I would say I'm just starting to put some space between me and the wave, which allows me to disidentify with it and see it more objectively. I am not Sunmaster, but I have this body-mind called Sunmaster.

 

Say you have a very vivid dream. It's amazing and very realistic. In fact, during the dream you consider everything to be real, including the sense of self you have. But when you wake up, do you regret losing that identification as the dream-self? Do you mourn its disappearance? Yes, it was a unique dream-self and (apparently) separate, but now you're awake in a new reality. 
Sunmaster, as a seemingly separate and unique being is not that important, just like your dream-self is not that important to your awake-self. Can it ever be lost? I don't believe so.

 

How many identities can one be aware of at the same time?  Or isn't that possible?  Ever awaken in a dream and realise you're dreaming?  You have awareness of both your waking self and your dreaming self, don't you?    They are distinct yet simply different aspects of "you."  Is it possible to identify with more than a single portion, or aspect of one's self simultaneously?  I believe so! 

I'll go with Seth here on us having a very limited idea of identity.

 

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Can the world still be enjoyed even though you don't identify as Tippaporn? I believe so.

 

Where you believe that one has to dis-identify I believe that one has to identify with more than what they identify with.  Again, I believe you view is due to the limited understanding that we have of identity.  Perhaps I should post some pertinent Seth material.  I have something in mind which I consider fantastic but boy is it lengthy.

 

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

The concept of blending our physical consciousness with Oneness and thereby achieving bliss, to me, is most definitely Eastern religion based.  And one which I'm not fond of for it implies an end to our current type of consciousness along with it's separate, unique and individual identity.  Is that a state which you are actively after?  And if it is then what of the Sunmaster "you?"  Is that "you" discarded or, rather, blended into the Oneness, or absorbed by it, and so ceases to exist as a separate and unique identity?  Do we have only a single identity?  Temporarily separate until merged?

 

BTW, how would you answer these questions?

 

Since I have already put together material on the ego I may as well not let my work go to waste and post it.  It certainly can't hurt, even if this conversation shifts to identity.  Again, I've included the context of any discussion of the ego so it's broader in scope.  And one can never read it too many times. 

[Sunmaster]

32 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

How about identifying with all of them simultaneously?  You can be aware of all of them whilst focused on one identity.  Or several at the same time.  "I am Joe, and Jane, and Jim, and Bob."

Sure. This is what happens when you dis-identify with the wave-form (body-mind) and identify as the ocean (=become one with it=you are the ocean).

As the ocean, you feel one with all it contains...with all of creation, including Joe, Jane, Jim and Bob.

 

36 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

How many identities can one be aware of at the same time?  Or isn't that possible?  Ever awaken in a dream and realise you're dreaming?  You have awareness of both your waking self and your dreaming self, don't you?    They are distinct yet simply different aspects of "you."  Is it possible to identify with more than a single portion, or aspect of one's self simultaneously?  I believe so! 

Yes, I had lucid dreams before. 
I also experienced awakening from this dream and being aware of the body at the same time.
But being aware of a portion of your self (the Self being aware of the body/mind) is not the same as being identified with it. 

 

42 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Where you believe that one has to dis-identify I believe that one has to identify with more than what they identify with.  Again, I believe you view is due to the limited understanding that we have of identity.  Perhaps I should post some pertinent Seth material.  I have something in mind which I consider fantastic but boy is it lengthy.

Just a different way to say the same thing. Identifying with the body/mind (ego) is the very thing that prevents you from identifying as something larger. It's the famous analogy of the monkey grabbing some nuts in a jar. As long as he holds on to the nuts, his hand is trapped. Only by letting go of the nuts he regains his freedom. Whether they are nuts, smelly goat droppings or shiny pearls, the problem of being trapped remains. 

No offense, but I'd rather hear your own opinions than Seth's. I've read and I'm still reading his material, but frankly I don't see the point in pasting entire chapters of material, when I have you who can summarize it and add your own ideas and experiences. Much more interesting. 

 

54 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

BTW, how would you answer these questions?

Are you referring to bliss? No, I'm not after that. Bliss is just a byproduct of that state. If that were my goal, it would just be another desire. And who is the one who experiences this desire? Our old friend the ego. There is nothing to be gained, but everything to surrender. The monkey has to let go of the nuts. 
 

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Personally, I'd use plain English when speaking of duality and non-duality.  If folks have to look it up to understand it then it makes communication more difficult.  And impossible if the reader doesn't know what the term means and doesn't look it up.  Just a suggestion.    BTW, it's one of the reasons I never got into Eastern religion or philosophy - too much special meaning jargon.  Same with science.  Ever open up a Wiki page on some scientific subject and every other word is a hyperlink?  What an absolute maze as you end up with a dozen Wiki pages open! 

Confused. I didn't use any foreign words, did I?

Eastern teachings go back thousands of years. They explored and categorized the inner world in great detail to draw a very precise map of consciousness. Of course, there are lots of technical and highly specific terms, just like there are many specific terms in medicine. It's up to the student if he wants to learn the language or not. Personally, I only know a few myself (Brahman (=ultimate unchanging reality), Maya (=illusion), Purnam (=wholeness) and Sat Chit Ananda (=existence, consciousness, bliss)...), but rarely use them here. 

I stopped pasting excerpts from books or websites because I feel it disrupts the natural flow of the conversation and I prefer focusing on the subjective, personal experience we have of our existence. That's the main topic after all. 

[Chris Daley]

I pay my money to the gods and get nothing in return.  If I do the ceremony and pay the money I expect the new mountain bike and drum kit wrapped up and waiting for me.

 

I pay the money to the god shop and get stung by a bee.  It's bull<deleted>.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/3/2024 at 5:01 PM, xylophone said:

Surely you don't believe that nonsense........or maybe you do? So perhaps the hundreds of thousands of innocent people who have been killed in Gaza & Ukraine, not to mention the millions in the DRC, Yemen and Ethiopia did not have these qualities, "tree of life are kindness, generosity, patience, peace, goodness, modesty, kindness, joy, charity, self control, faithfulness".

 

Utter claptrap, and some. 

You are confusing 2 issues. You are saying that being killed in a war negates a person's character- it does not. We all die sooner or later, but while we lived did we live a life of kindness, generosity, patience, peace, goodness, modesty, kindness, joy, charity, self control, faithfulness?

If we did we were good people and death by any means does not change that one iota.

 

Life is not a game where goodness is rewarded with a trouble free life.

 

Seems some can't see the forest for the trees.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Chris Daley said:

I pay my money to the gods and get nothing in return.  If I do the ceremony and pay the money I expect the new mountain bike and drum kit wrapped up and waiting for me.

 

I pay the money to the god shop and get stung by a bee.  It's bull<deleted>.

You confuse God and the men in funny hats that make money off the believers.

You need to take you complaint up with men, not God.

 

BTW, God doesn't give out presents for believing.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/3/2024 at 5:36 PM, Tippaporn said:

 

As it's laid out I can't say I disagree.  Way too many contradictions.  There is truth there but it's distorted beyond recognition.  Which is why I don't subscribe to any religion.  But I wouldn't go so far to say religion has zero value.  It's simply not a very efficient way to learn as one has to sift through the chaff to get to the grain.  The problem with that is that for a lot of folks the chaff looks just like the grain.

Simplest way to look at religion is the same way as most of this man made world- follow the money.

If we can accept that the 1% have always been with us, and I do, look at every man made construct and ask how the money is being extracted from the masses ( or in the olden days, how to get the peasants to front up with the fatted calf for the sacrifice ( the BBQ ) ). The Vatican wasn't built with a few pennies from the faithful.

 

It took me longer to work out "follow the money" than it did to discover that God exists ( but not in a church or a mosque, or a temple, and definitely not in a book ) but it works most of the time.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/3/2024 at 5:36 PM, Tippaporn said:

 

As it's laid out I can't say I disagree.  Way too many contradictions.  There is truth there but it's distorted beyond recognition.  Which is why I don't subscribe to any religion.  But I wouldn't go so far to say religion has zero value.  It's simply not a very efficient way to learn as one has to sift through the chaff to get to the grain.  The problem with that is that for a lot of folks the chaff looks just like the grain.

Simplest way to look at religion is the same way as most of this man made world- follow the money.

If we can accept that the 1% have always been with us, and I do, look at every man made construct and ask how the money is being extracted from the masses ( or in the olden days, how to get the peasants to front up with the fatted calf for the sacrifice ( the BBQ ) ). The Vatican wasn't built with a few pennies from the faithful.

 

It took me longer to work out "follow the money" than it did to discover that God exists ( but not in a church or a mosque, or a temple, and definitely not in a book ) but it works most of the time.

[Tippaporn]

5 hours ago, Chris Daley said:

I pay my money to the gods and get nothing in return.  If I do the ceremony and pay the money I expect the new mountain bike and drum kit wrapped up and waiting for me.

 

I pay the money to the god shop and get stung by a bee.  It's bull<deleted>.

 

Shiny trinkets.  It's always the trinkets!  It seems that it's the only thing folks are interested in.  What's the old saying, "You can't take it with you."  There are, however, things you collect in life that you do take with you.  Or not if you haven't collected them whilst here. 

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Simplest way to look at religion is the same way as most of this man made world- follow the money.

If we can accept that the 1% have always been with us, and I do, look at every man made construct and ask how the money is being extracted from the masses ( or in the olden days, how to get the peasants to front up with the fatted calf for the sacrifice ( the BBQ ) ). The Vatican wasn't built with a few pennies from the faithful.

 

It took me longer to work out "follow the money" than it did to discover that God exists ( but not in a church or a mosque, or a temple, and definitely not in a book ) but it works most of the time.

 

Human comforts and toys.  And entertainment.  Desires don't much go beyond that for many. 

[save the frogs]

Just watched this.

Scottish ghost story ... about PREMONITIONS.