Do you believe in God and why

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours ago, save the frogs said:

This is not to say that an elohim could not interact with the human world. The Bible makes it clear that divine beings can (and did) assume physical human form, and even corporeal flesh, for interaction with people, but that is not their normal estate.

 

Stuff 'em. If they ain't going to give me the winning lotto number what use are they?

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

In the above example, the bedroom is our mind which creates the ego. 

We call it bedroom and make it as comfortable as possible. We add all kinds of stuff to raise the quality of our life while there. But if you never leave that bedroom, what is it if not a prison?

In that case I think my bedroom looks more like the detention room in school than a place I want to hang out in.

[Tippaporn]

15 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

No worries. I use the downtime to get stuff done, like washing the car, painting the house and rearranging all the furniture.

 

Well, I see that you are using all of your abilities in this life well.  Although I'd think the furniture rearranging would be left to the wifey. 

 

Now that's a beautiful work of art.  Hard to guess the year but given the rear bumper I'd say anywhere between '58 and '66.  Steering on the right, too.  I owned a '74 Superbeetle.  The dome-shaped interior lent itself well for sound.  With an added quality cassette deck and some quality box stereo speakers in back of the rear seats (of course the rear seat taken down) the sound was awesome.

 

I've always loved Volkswagen's 60's clever, humourous, often self-deprecating advertising.

 

 

[Tippaporn]

On 1/8/2024 at 10:41 AM, Sunmaster said:

- Non-duality. So far I couldn't find a contradiction with Seth's material. If you could point out specific arguments, I'd be grateful.

 

Offhand I couldn't agree or disagree since Seth does not use the terms 'duality' and 'nonduality' at all.  This is why I've commented on my preference for the use of plain English.  Specialised terminology needs to be defined and if the definitions have variations then it leads to misinterpretations and difficulties in communicating clearly.  Here's the definition of nondualism per Wiki:

. 

What sets nondualism apart from dualism is its inclination towards direct experience as a path to understanding. While intellectual comprehension has its place, nondual traditions emphasize the transformative power of firsthand encounters with the underlying unity of existence. Through practices like meditation and self-inquiry, practitioners aim to bypass the limitations of conceptual understanding and directly apprehend the interconnectedness that transcends superficial distinctions. This experiential aspect of nondualism challenges the limitations of language and rational thought, aiming for a more immediate, intuitive form of knowledge.

 

BTW, I thought that an excellent, clear and concise explanation . . . using plain English. 

 

Now if one were to look up the meaning of dualism, nondualism's oposite, at least on Wiki, one would find this:

 

Dualism most commonly refers to:

• Mind–body dualism, a philosophical view which holds that mental phenomena are, at least in certain respects, not physical phenomena, or that the mind and the body are distinct and separable from one another
• Property dualism, a view in the philosophy of mind and metaphysics which holds that, although the world is composed of just one kind of substance—the physical kind—there exist two distinct kinds of properties: physical properties and mental properties
• Cosmological dualism, the theological or spiritual view that there are only two fundamental concepts, such as "good" and "evil", and that these two concepts are in every way opposed to one another

Dualism may also refer to:

• Dualism (cybernetics), systems or problems in which an intelligent adversary attempts to exploit the weaknesses of the investigator
• Dualism (Indian philosophy), the belief held by certain schools of Indian philosophy that reality is fundamentally composed of two parts
• Dualism (politics), the separation of powers between the cabinet and parliament
• Dualism in medieval politics, opposition to hierocracy (medieval)
• Epistemological dualism, the epistemological question of whether the world we see around us is the real world itself or merely an internal perceptual copy of that world generated by neural processes in our brain
• Ethical dualism, the attribution of good solely to one group of people and evil to another
• Monism and dualism in international law, a principle in contending that international and domestic law are distinct systems of law, and that international law only applies to the extent that it does not conflict with domestic law
• Soul dualism, the belief that a person has two (or more) kinds of souls

My head is starting to spin. 

 

Interestingly I was listening recently to a conversation about finance and economics recently and one of the participants, well-known with vast experience in the field and author, began a newsletter with the side goal of educating people on finance.  He remarked that the finance and economics is not that complex but due to the specialised terminology it makes it difficult for the average person to understand.  He was asked what type of education is required of the average Joe to be able to understand his newsletter, e.g. a degree in finance, etc.  His response was this:

 

I pride myself, and it's my job, in taking the most complex concepts you can think of and putting them in plain English.  Just to be clear, I do not dumb things down.  Economists love jargon, like nominal wage rigidity, which just means that people don't like to take a pay cut.  So why don't you just say people don't like to take a pay cut.  Why do you have to use a phrase like nominal wage rigidity?

 

So how would you put nondualism into plain English?  As you think of the term what words come to your mind that define the meaning of it for you? 

 

More to come . . . as I'll shoot for shorter posts.

 

[Sunmaster]

54 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

What sets nondualism apart from dualism is its inclination towards direct experience as a path to understanding. While intellectual comprehension has its place, nondual traditions emphasize the transformative power of firsthand encounters with the underlying unity of existence. Through practices like meditation and self-inquiry, practitioners aim to bypass the limitations of conceptual understanding and directly apprehend the interconnectedness that transcends superficial distinctions. This experiential aspect of nondualism challenges the limitations of language and rational thought, aiming for a more immediate, intuitive form of knowledge.

An excellent explanation indeed.

 

Dualism, as I understand it, is simply the juxtaposition of 2 things. I am here, God is there, as if they were 2 different things. I am here, the world is out there.

Everything that splits into a subject and object is dualism. When only the subject remains, that's non-dualism.

Through self-inquiry (following the "I" to its root) it becomes evident that in the end there is only the subject, the True Self.

 

For many years I saw Kriya Yoga as the highest form of spiritual teachings. It focuses on meditation and emphasises a loving relationship with God. This is of course a dualistic philosophy. While I really liked this approach, I never took it on 100% because I felt there was something else, but I couldn't put it into words.

 

Then I learned about Advaita Vedanta and was surprised how well and simply it explained that part in me that I had failed to integrate so far. 

 

Then the question became, which path should I focus on? Dualistic or Non-dualistic? It took me only a short time to realise that it's not a question of either-or, but that both ways have their place. It's perfectly OK to express your love for God (duality) while at the same time knowing that you and God are essentially the same thing. (Non-duality).

 

 

PS, the Käfer is a 67 and his name is Basil.

[Tippaporn]

14 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Dualism, as I understand it, is simply the juxtaposition of 2 things. I am here, God is there, as if they were 2 different things. I am here, the world is out there.

Everything that splits into a subject and object is dualism. When only the subject remains, that's non-dualism.

Through self-inquiry (following the "I" to its root) it becomes evident that in the end there is only the subject, the True Self.

 

I certainly agree but I would comment that it can be a bit misleading if you ask me.  I think it more accurate to say that the object is no less real and valid than the subject.  But the object has a source.  It could be said just as well that the Self itself has a source.

 

19 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Then the question became, which path should I focus on? Dualistic or Non-dualistic? It took me only a short time to realise that it's not a question of either-or, but that both ways have their place. It's perfectly OK to express your love for God (duality) while at the same time knowing that you and God are essentially the same thing. (Non-duality).

 

Yes, I agree that both have their place.  The focus on the objective 'you' certainly needs to be there as it has great importance to the larger self.

 

Lots to talk about here.  I'm working on what might be an explanation that would bring a great deal of clarity on the subject.

 

28 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

PS, the Käfer is a 67 and his name is Basil.

 

A '67 model?  I thought they simplified the rear bumper that year?  I'm no expert and as I like to say, the proof is in the pudding.  Yours is a '67 with the old-style, intricate bumper.

 

Why Basil?  First two things that come to mind whenever I hear that word . . . Basil Rathbone and basil on pizza.  Love me my Sherlock Holmes and my pizza!! 

 

Classic Margherita pizza!!  Yummy!! 

 

[Tippaporn]

On 1/8/2024 at 10:41 AM, Sunmaster said:

- Everchanging things have no existence on their own. Seth says the same thing. What appears to be solid is essentially a thought form where energy-consciousness passes through. But the same goes for "things" that are not solid, like the ego. The ego only appears to be real as long as the wind of consciousness fills its sails. 

 

I'll cover that in greater detail later.  But for now I'd just say that the ego isn't a mere appearance of being real.  It's an aspect of 'you' of which 'you' are an aspect of your larger self.  In that sense it's as real as any other portion of 'you'.  I do understand that you mean to say that without the objective self the ego wouldn't exist.  And perhaps it's that logic which then leads to the conclusion that the ego isn't really real due to it's dependency.  Tricky, eh? 

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

 

• Epistemological dualism, the epistemological question of whether the world we see around us is the real world itself or merely an internal perceptual copy of that world generated by neural processes in our brain

The above quote from Wiki is the most relevant to the issue of 'reality' which is often discussed in this thread.

 

Here's the definition of Epistemology: "The theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion."

 

'An internal perceptual copy of that world, generated by neural processes in our brain', is equivalent to 'an individual interpretation, in the brain, of everything a person experiences through the five senses of sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch.'

 

Since all individual humans are both genetically different to some extent, and have different 'early' experiences embedded in their subconscious, which 'unknowingly' affect their opinions and motives, and have different experiences during their education and development, which also affect their 'path' through life, their likes and dislikes, and so on, then it's no wonder there is such a wide range of different beliefs and opinions, amongst humans, which sometimes result in devastating conflicts and wars.

 

In other words, everyone has  at least a slightly different sense of 'reality'. Even Buddhist monks who strive to experience a reality which is free from the influences of the 5 senses, have disagreed on many issues during the past 550 years or so, and continue to do so.

[Tippaporn]

7 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

The above quote from Wiki is the most relevant to the issue of 'reality' which is often discussed in this thread.

 

Here's the definition of Epistemology: "The theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion."

 

'An internal perceptual copy of that world, generated by neural processes in our brain', is equivalent to 'an individual interpretation, in the brain, of everything a person experiences through the five senses of sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch.'

 

Since all individual humans are both genetically different to some extent, and have different 'early' experiences embedded in their subconscious, which 'unknowingly' affect their opinions and motives, and have different experiences during their education and development, which also affect their 'path' through life, their likes and dislikes, and so on, then it's no wonder there is such a wide range of different beliefs and opinions, amongst humans, which sometimes result in devastating conflicts and wars.

 

In other words, everyone has  at least a slightly different sense of 'reality'. Even Buddhist monks who strive to experience a reality which is free from the influences of the 5 senses, have disagreed on many issues during the past 550 years or so, and continue to do so.

 

Most excellent, Vince.

 

I found it humourous when I first read Seth comment on the fact that as individuals, each experiencing their own private version of reality, that he finds it amusing that we could even say, truthfully, that we're all living in the same world.

[Sunmaster]

18 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I certainly agree but I would comment that it can be a bit misleading if you ask me.  I think it more accurate to say that the object is no less real and valid than the subject.  But the object has a source.  It could be said just as well that the Self itself has a source.

 

The dream analogy works well here. 

When you dream you forget your waking self and take the dream objects as real, including your dream body. And they are (or appear to be), in that context. However, once you wake up from that dream, you realise that those buildings don't exist in the waking world. In the dream you had long hair, but in the waking world you are bald. There is a difference. 

 

The same goes for when we wake from this dream that we call the waking world. What happens here appears to be real while we are here. We accept that what we see, our bodies, the world around us, are real. Waking up from this (waking) dream is called enlightenment. The world around us and our bodies don't disappear, but they are then seen for what they really are: temporary manifestations of the one source, your true identity, the Self.

 

An object is only real if there is a subject that can observe it. Your eyes can see everything but the eyes themselves. Even looking in a mirror will only reveal a reflection of your eyes. That's why the Self can not have another source. If it had another source, then it would be just another object and therefore couldn't be the source. And so you follow the "I" to the point where there is no other object left. Only the subject. This is called self-inquiry. 

 

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

67 model?  I thought they simplified the rear bumper that year?  I'm no expert and as I like to say, the proof is in the pudding.  Yours is a '67 with the old-style, intricate bumper.

 

Why Basil?  First two things that come to mind whenever I hear that word . . . Basil Rathbone and basil on pizza.  Love me my Sherlock Holmes and my pizza!! 

The 67 model is called the "one year only" model and is one of the most sought after models. It has elements of the previous years and new parts of the subsequent models. Then there are differences between countries. The 67 in the US for example has the simplified (ugly) bumpers and the straight headlights. Mine has the flat headlights. "Sweet eyes" they call them here. 

"Basil" because it's a cute name and because it sounds good. His full name is Uncle Basil the Bitcoin Bug, because I bought it with the profits I got from crypto.

[Tippaporn]

23 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

The 67 model is called the "one year only" model and is one of the most sought after models. It has elements of the previous years and new parts of the subsequent models. Then there are differences between countries. The 67 in the US for example has the simplified (ugly) bumpers and the straight headlights. Mine has the flat headlights. "Sweet eyes" they call them here. 

"Basil" because it's a cute name and because it sounds good. His full name is Uncle Basil the Bitcoin Bug, because I bought it with the profits I got from crypto.

 

A couple of short stories.

 

I loved my bug because it was truly all terrain having rear wheel drive and the weight of the rear mounted engine over the rear axle.  Most every other car was rear wheel drive but with a front mounted engine over the front axle.  Those vehicles were famous for fish tailing on snowy roads.  Driving home once on a very snowy night my route took me to a very long curved on ramp to the overpass road.  Multiple vehicles were stopped at the bottom of the of the on ramp.

 

As I approached and it was evident that I was going up one driver got out of his car and tried to wave me off to let me know it was too slippery.  I buzzed right around him and went up the ramp without so much as slowing down.  Of course slowing down would have been a mistake.  Straight lined it the whole way up. 

 

Edit:  Yes, the simplified bumpers were ugly. 

 

Now a crypto story.  I was ready to invest USD 10,000 in Bitcoin late '13 at just under USD 150 per coin.  That would have worked out to roughly 67 Bitcoins.  I didn't do it. 

 

Are you still into Bitcoin?  I'd be interested to talk to you. 

 

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

In the dream you had long hair, but in the waking world you are bald.

 

Interesting that you should use that example.   

[Sunmaster]

15 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Are you still into Bitcoin?  I'd be interested to talk to you

I still have some invested, but in another coin.

67BTC....  
 

 

13 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Interesting that you should use that example.   

Lol, yes. I had that dream a couple of weeks ago. In the dream I was so surprised and wondered how the hell they got there. Then of course I woke up to the harsh reality of the usual blank dome. :-( 

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Epistemological dualism, the epistemological question of whether the world we see around us is the real world itself or merely an internal perceptual copy of that world generated by neural processes in our brain

Some interesting stuff being discussed. Puts me in mind of "Childhood's End" and wondering how far you need to go to have the starships in orbit.

 

Re the quote, perhaps you can explain that in simple words. Seems to me to make that happen we could really be in the Matrix, dreaming of an imaginary world while powering the lights for our computer overlords. If so, why can't I dream a much more friendly world than the one I live in?

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

The dream analogy works well here. 

When you dream you forget your waking self and take the dream objects as real, including your dream body. And they are (or appear to be), in that context. However, once you wake up from that dream, you realise that those buildings don't exist in the waking world. In the dream you had long hair, but in the waking world you are bald. There is a difference.

 

Both are real, though.  Real in the sense that they both have not only eternal validity but their realities are eternal as well.  As eternal as their source self.  I sense that the rationale you're using is that the only thing which is r-e-a-l is the source self.  And those portions of itself which it then projects into other realities is real but not r-e-a-l.

 

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

The same goes for when we wake from this dream that we call the waking world. What happens here appears to be real while we are here. We accept that what we see, our bodies, the world around us, are real. Waking up from this (waking) dream is called enlightenment. The world around us and our bodies don't disappear, but they are then seen for what they really are: temporary manifestations of the one source, your true identity, the Self.

 

Temporary manifestations?  Only in terms of a temporal world.  Though our experience of the world and of our physical selves is as one successive moment after another everything exists at once and is forever being created in the moment.  Our our experience of time in a linear fashion is quite deceptive.  It is simply another way of ordering and structuring experience.  Just one of an infinite ways.

 

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

An object is only real if there is a subject that can observe it. Your eyes can see everything but the eyes themselves. Even looking in a mirror will only reveal a reflection of your eyes. That's why the Self can not have another source. If it had another source, then it would be just another object and therefore couldn't be the source. And so you follow the "I" to the point where there is no other object left. Only the subject. This is called self-inquiry.

 

Any object for us is only a three dimensional representation of something which is not three dimensional.  Seth is able to perceive our reality and has remarked on a number of occasions that he enjoys doing so.  It's also interesting that when he devoted a few chapters to the God concept at the end of his first book he stated something that was quite stunning.  All That Is doesn't know if it is the only All That Is which exists and is searching for others like itself.  Now that's a bit mind blowing if you try to wrap your head around that. 

[Tippaporn]

15 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

30 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Are you still into Bitcoin?  I'd be interested to talk to you

I still have some invested, but in another coin.

67BTC....  

 

I'll take the subject of crypto with you privately.

[Tippaporn]

17 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Lol, yes. I had that dream a couple of weeks ago. In the dream I was so surprised and wondered how the hell they got there. Then of course I woke up to the harsh reality of the usual blank dome. :-( 

 

I had a dream just last night in which I had a quite athletic, youthful and attractive body.  Which was true in my youth.  I was prancing past a group of people and was hoping to attract some female admirers.  Then it dawned on me that my face didn't quite match my body.  My next thought in the dream was that maybe nobody would notice. 

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

I had a dream just last night in which I had a quite athletic, youthful and attractive body.  Which was true in my youth.  I was prancing past a group of people and was hoping to attract some female admirers.  Then it dawned on me that my face didn't quite match my body.  My next thought in the dream was that maybe nobody would notice. 

If we can dream anything we want to, why am I never within cooee of an attractive friendly woman?

I still dream of working in hospital, which is more of a nightmare than a dream.

As I age, I find that it's getting hard sometimes to know if the things I remember actually happened, or if I dreamed them.

[Sunmaster]

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

All That Is doesn't know if it is the only All That Is which exists and is searching for others like itself. 

Not sure if it's the same, but it reminds me of something. The undifferentiated Self, that which is not split into 2, is the eye that cannot see itself. It has to create a mirror so that it can see its own reflection. The reflection is not the same as the eye of course, and comes with all kinds of distortions, but the clearer the mirror is, the clearer the reflection. In this example, we are the mirror thanks to which the Self can see and experience itself. How clear is this mirror of ours?

So, while it doesn't make sense for having 2 'All That Is' for the simple reason that it wouldn't be 'All That Is' in the first place,  we can say that 'All That Is' must create a version of itself that reflects its image, and one that MUST forget its origin or the game wouldn't work (necessary distortions). I think I remember Seth talking about this too and this is in line with the Vedantic teachings.

[Tippaporn]

28 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Epistemological dualism, the epistemological question of whether the world we see around us is the real world itself or merely an internal perceptual copy of that world generated by neural processes in our brain

Some interesting stuff being discussed. Puts me in mind of "Childhood's End" and wondering how far you need to go to have the starships in orbit.

 

Re the quote, perhaps you can explain that in simple words. Seems to me to make that happen we could really be in the Matrix, dreaming of an imaginary world while powering the lights for our computer overlords. If so, why can't I dream a much more friendly world than the one I live in?

 

Just so folks can follow along with your reference I'll provide a brief summary:

 

Childhood's End is a 1953 science fiction novel by the British author Arthur C. Clarke. The story follows the peaceful alien invasion of Earth by the mysterious Overlords, whose arrival begins decades of apparent utopia under indirect alien rule, at the cost of human identity and culture.

 

Don't worry, TBL.  Your identity will never be lost or absorbed by any Overlords, even if that Overlord is called God.  You're safe.   

 

And now for some fun diversion . . .

 

The 1931 song written by by Fabian Andre and Wilbur Schwandt and covered by Cass Elliot and The Mamas And Papas in '68.  I'm sure you'll remember TBL.  Dream of the one you love, even if she's fictitious, and have a wonderful dream tonight. 

 

Stars shining bright above you
Night breezes seem to whisper "I love you"
Birds singin' in the sycamore trees
Dream a little dream of me

Say "Night-ie night" and kiss me
Just hold me tight and tell me you'll miss me
While I'm alone and blue as can be
Dream a little dream of me

Stars fading but I linger on, dear
Still craving your kiss
I'm longing to linger 'til dawn, dear
Just saying this

Sweet dreams 'til sunbeams find you
Sweet dreams that leave all worries behind you
But in your dreams, whatever they be
Dream a little dream of me

Stars fading but I linger on, dear
Still craving your kiss
I'm longing to linger 'til dawn, dear
Just saying this

Sweet dreams 'til sunbeams find you
Sweet dreams that leave all worries behind you
But in your dreams, whatever they be
Dream a little dream of me
Dream a little dream of me
 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

Childhood's End is a 1953 science fiction novel by the British author Arthur C. Clarke. The story follows the peaceful alien invasion of Earth by the mysterious Overlords, whose arrival begins decades of apparent utopia under indirect alien rule, at the cost of human identity and culture.

Errrr, I think you are getting your books confused. Childhood's End was when "overlords" oversaw the transformation of the children of the planet into the next phase of evolution, and they all left planet Earth on the space ships. I do not remember if we learned where they were heading.

Childhood's end refers to the human species ending the "child phase" and growing up ( but not the adults left behind ).

That's why your discussion with Sunmaster made me think of the book, as your discussion is certainly "evolved" from the usual banter on the thread.

[thaibeachlovers]

10 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Just so folks can follow along with your reference I'll provide a brief summary:

 

Childhood's End is a 1953 science fiction novel by the British author Arthur C. Clarke. The story follows the peaceful alien invasion of Earth by the mysterious Overlords, whose arrival begins decades of apparent utopia under indirect alien rule, at the cost of human identity and culture.

 

Don't worry, TBL.  Your identity will never be lost or absorbed by any Overlords, even if that Overlord is called God.  You're safe.   

 

And now for some fun diversion . . .

 

The 1931 song written by by Fabian Andre and Wilbur Schwandt and covered by Cass Elliot and The Mamas And Papas in '68.  I'm sure you'll remember TBL.  Dream of the one you love, even if she's fictitious, and have a wonderful dream tonight. 

 

Stars shining bright above you
Night breezes seem to whisper "I love you"
Birds singin' in the sycamore trees
Dream a little dream of me

Say "Night-ie night" and kiss me
Just hold me tight and tell me you'll miss me
While I'm alone and blue as can be
Dream a little dream of me

Stars fading but I linger on, dear
Still craving your kiss
I'm longing to linger 'til dawn, dear
Just saying this

Sweet dreams 'til sunbeams find you
Sweet dreams that leave all worries behind you
But in your dreams, whatever they be
Dream a little dream of me

Stars fading but I linger on, dear
Still craving your kiss
I'm longing to linger 'til dawn, dear
Just saying this

Sweet dreams 'til sunbeams find you
Sweet dreams that leave all worries behind you
But in your dreams, whatever they be
Dream a little dream of me
Dream a little dream of me
 

 

Ah yes, back when music was enjoyable and not just mindless noise. They along with all the rest were the soundtrack of my youth.

One of my enduring childhood memories is of sitting on a bench at school and listening to The Seekers on a small transistor radio. The Carnival is over was a wonderful song, the Seekers were a wonderful group, Durham sang with the voice of angels and we will never see their like again in this awful modern world.

The Mamas and the Papas were certainly up there in the music stratosphere.

[Tippaporn]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Errrr, I think you are getting your books confused. Childhood's End was when "overlords" oversaw the transformation of the children of the planet into the next phase of evolution, and they all left planet Earth on the space ships. I do not remember if we learned where they were heading.

Childhood's end refers to the human species ending the "child phase" and growing up ( but not the adults left behind ).

That's why your discussion with Sunmaster made me think of the book, as your discussion is certainly "evolved" from the usual banter on the thread.

 

Reminds me of another absolutely vivid dream I had long ago.  I mean the kind of vividness with which we perceive our waking reality.  I was driving down a road near where I was living at the time.  The environment of the dream was a perfect match to the actual physical environment.  The sky was forbiddingly ominous and the source of the weather was in front of me.  I approached a particular intersection and stopped as there were police vehicles on the crossroad alerting the population via their vehicle's bullhorns with dire warnings that this was the last call to board the spaceships and leave earth as the ultimate doom, whatever that was, was neigh.

 

I was more curious than afraid and so continued driving into whatever maelstrom was ahead of me.  I had approached a familiar mall which was totally deserted, as was the entire surrounding neighborhood.  No people nor vehicles.  Flooding was present and so I turned back.  Dream end.

 

That dream is decades old and yet I can still recall every scene.  So the mere mention of people leaving earth on spaceships brought it immediately to mind.

 

You triggered me, TBL. 

[Tippaporn]

18 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Ah yes, back when music was enjoyable and not just mindless noise. They along with all the rest were the soundtrack of my youth.

One of my enduring childhood memories is of sitting on a bench at school and listening to The Seekers on a small transistor radio. The Carnival is over was a wonderful song, the Seekers were a wonderful group, Durham sang with the voice of angels and we will never see their like again in this awful modern world.

The Mamas and the Papas were certainly up there in the music stratosphere.

 

The 60's were perhaps the single decade that I can identify which offered such an amazing and prolific plethora of duets and bands featuring grand harmonies.  The Mamas And The Papas were certainly at the top of those rich harmonies.

 

The Seekers with their '65 hit single.  It's actually a quite fitting song for this thread if the "true lover" is translated to mean our world.  And the death of the "true lover" is ours.  And your kiss was sweet as wine would be that kiss of our very last earthly experience. 

 

Say goodbye my own true lover
As we sing a lovers song
How it breaks my heart to leave you
Now the carnival is gone

High above the dawn is waiting
And my tears are falling rain
For the carnival is over
We may never meet again

Like a drum my heart was beating
And your kiss was sweet as wine
But the joys of love are fleeting
For Pierrot and Columbine

Now the harbor light is calling
This will be our last goodbye
Though the carnival is over
I will love you till I die

Like a drum my heart was beating
And your kiss was sweet as wine
But the joys of love are fleeting
For Pierrot and Columbine

Now the harbour light is calling
This will be our last goodbye
Though the carnival is over
I will love you till I die
Though the carnival is over
I will love you till I die

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

The 60's were perhaps the single decade that I can identify which offered such an amazing and prolific plethora of duets and bands featuring grand harmonies.  The Mamas And The Papas were certainly at the top of those rich harmonies.

It was perhaps the last decade before it became about production over the musicians. It's all electronically manufactured now, which is why I won't listen to any of it.

With AI they won't even need human musicians any more.

I listen to a radio channel which only plays music from the 50s, 60s and 70s. Bliss.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

The Seekers with their '65 hit single.  It's actually a quite fitting song for this thread if the "true lover" is translated to mean our world.  And the death of the "true lover" is ours.  And your kiss was sweet as wine would be that kiss of our very last earthly experience. 

Marry the words with Durham's vocals and it's no wonder it was such a huge hit. I bought all their records after I started working, and still have them.

 

I can't listen to that song without feeling melancholy though. It was a big part of a world that no longer exists, and I mourn that world's loss. IMO that era was the height of human endeavour- we explored the entire world, from the deepest depths to the highest peak, we went to the moon, and then we went to war in Vietnam and destroyed the whole thing. What insanity gripped us to do such a monstrous thing, and IMO that was the start of the rot that consumes us to this very day.

[Sunmaster]

Check this out 😄😂

 

https://aseannow.com/topic/1316529-why-are-readers-heresointerested-ingod-related-topics/#comment-18612581

[Sunmaster]

[Tippaporn]

Great one, Sunmaster.