Do you believe in God and why

[Tippaporn]

23 hours ago, Baht Simpson said:

2,000 years of study and 18,395 posts on this thread and we still have no evidence of a creator God. Check out Karl Barth. He wrote 6 million words on the subject. 

 

"2,000 years and he ain't shown yet.

We've kept his seat warm and the table's set.

The second sitting for the Last Supper."

- 10cc

 

10CC had a few soft rock hits but they were a commercial band to me.

[VincentRJ]

16 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

This one is for you @thaibeachlovers

 

 

 

Did you paint that, Sunmaster? That's an excellent painting,  but it looks as though you changed your mind and added a second painting of additional clouds above the original painting.

 

Perhaps you bought the painting, then decided to improve it by adding the additional sky and clouds which you painted yourself. 

[Sunmaster]

5 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 

Did you paint that, Sunmaster? That's an excellent painting,  but it looks as though you changed your mind and added a second painting of additional clouds above the original painting.

 

Perhaps you bought the painting, then decided to improve it by adding the additional sky and clouds which you painted yourself. 

Yes, I painted it. It's in a small A5 sketchbook, so I decided to use both pages to get the feeling of immensity and wonder before the boy's eyes. 
I thought of TBL because he often mentioned how he sees God's work whenever he looks at a sunset.

Edited January 13 by Sunmaster

[Baht Simpson]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

10CC had a few soft rock hits but they were a commercial band to me.

Very innovative. The first 4 albums were excellent.

[Tippaporn]

39 minutes ago, Baht Simpson said:

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

10CC had a few soft rock hits but they were a commercial band to me.

Very innovative. The first 4 albums were excellent.

 

No doubt they were creative and talented.  I wouldn't even try to deny them that.  But their soft rock didn't appeal to me and the friends I hung around with at the time.  Perhaps we were a bit snobby when it came to music but there were a number of bands in the 70's which we termed commercial music.  One of the purposes of music is that it connects with people on a deeper level.  No woo when I say that.  As long as it does that then it's great.  My musical tastes evolved as I got older and very much broadened in scope.  I get immense enjoyment now from music I wouldn't get caught dead playing back then.  But still not broad enough to encompass everything.  Soft rock kind of puts me to sleep and I still hate disco very much. 

 

I enjoy 10CC's Dreadlock Holiday very much.  But I love reggae.  I'll take a hard pass on The Second Sitting For The Last Supper, though I like the lyrics.

 

 

Edited January 13 by Tippaporn

[Chris Daley]

I found an interesting connection.  The Buddhist religion teaches that we live in an endless cycle of birth and rebirth and we can escape from it if we wish.  And science shows that the big bang creates a universe but that universe will eventually implode in on itself and all matter will start again in a constant cycle of birth and rebirth.

 

However it is not beyond the realms of science to build and craft and escape the known universe.  Only one hundred years ago flying was impossible.

 

But it is a fact that all matter comes from stars and is constantly reborn.  What if we escape our star system?

 

 

Edited January 14 by Chris Daley

[Sunmaster]

5 minutes ago, Chris Daley said:

I found an interesting connection.  The Buddhist religion teaches that we live in an endless cycle of birth and rebirth and we can escape from it if we wish.  And science shows that the big bang creates a universe but that universe will eventually implode in on itself and all matter will start again in a constant cycle of birth and rebirth.

 

However it is not beyond the realms of science to build and craft and escape the known universe.  Only one hundred years ago flying was impossible.

 

But it is a fact that all matter comes from stars and is constantly reborn.  But what if we escape out star system?

 

 

The idea is interesting and would make for a nice sci-fi movie. Humans create a machine to escape the known universe from its impending annihilation, only to re-emerge in a brand-new universe. 
A couple of problems though...the new universe will only have base elements and gases for a few trillion (?) years before planets are formed. 
Or will they create a time machine that sends them to a universe that is already fit for human life? 
Or will they create a machine that sends them to a parallel universe? 
If nothing material will survive the annihilation, the only way would be to create a machine that transforms us into immaterial thought patterns or a sort of cohesive thought-essence...which then would become immortal.
Sounds a bit like a soul to me. 55

It's ok to put a lot of faith in science, but this seems all a bit too farfetched, even for a sci-fi lover like me. :-)

Buddhism and Hinduism propose a much simpler and practical "escape". A solution that can be implemented by everyone, at any time. One that has nothing to do with science and man-made machines, but revolves around the idea that everything in the universe is consciousness. Consciousness can not be destroyed or killed. It is the building block of all there is. It was there before the "Big Bang" and will be there after the universe implodes (that remains to be seen). It is outside of time, so even talking about before/after makes little sense.
The "escape" consists in realizing your true nature by going within. To follow your own consciousness to the root of all consciousness, thus making the circle of physical birth and death redundant. Being reborn again and again is only necessary as long as there is ignorance regarding your true identity. And once you know that identity, whether the material universe gets annihilated or not, becomes irrelevant.

[Chris Daley]

So there is definitely some form of rebirth from a scientific standpoint.  Because the energy is just passed on into something else and on a larger scale the stars will keep regenerating and build new universes.  Evidence of this is found in the cosmic microwave background radiation left from our big bang and observations of supernovas.

 

Christianity - life has no meaning

Buddhism - life has no meaning

Science - your life will be part of other life before and after your life for eternity

Edited January 14 by Chris Daley

[Sunmaster]

49 minutes ago, Chris Daley said:

Christianity - life has no meaning

Buddhism - life has no meaning

How did you come to this conclusion? 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/13/2024 at 6:49 PM, Sunmaster said:

Yes, I painted it. It's in a small A5 sketchbook, so I decided to use both pages to get the feeling of immensity and wonder before the boy's eyes. 
I thought of TBL because he often mentioned how he sees God's work whenever he looks at a sunset.

I haven't been on a couple of days so I missed it. Thanks for that, it is very typical of me on a beach at sunset. Every holiday in LOS would be spent on a beach and every evening at sunset I'd go for a walk on the beach and look at the last rays as the world turned.

 

I've saved it for future reference.

 

BTW, for any that don't know, the best sunsets I've ever seen anywhere on the planet were on Railay West. Not the actual sunset, but about 10 minutes later when we got a spectacular light display.

 

I'll post a photo if I can find one

[thaibeachlovers]

Here you go. Sunset at Railay West about 10 minutes after the sun actually went below the horizon.

[thaibeachlovers]

PS that's from a proper photo that I scanned, not a digital camera.

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, Chris Daley said:

I found an interesting connection.  The Buddhist religion teaches that we live in an endless cycle of birth and rebirth and we can escape from it if we wish.  And science shows that the big bang creates a universe but that universe will eventually implode in on itself and all matter will start again in a constant cycle of birth and rebirth.

 

However it is not beyond the realms of science to build and craft and escape the known universe.  Only one hundred years ago flying was impossible.

 

But it is a fact that all matter comes from stars and is constantly reborn.  What if we escape our star system?

 

 

Your craft can only escape it it can go into an alternate universe, but what is the chance of that happening? That would require the power of God to make happen. Even if one could, one would have no idea of what life in that universe would be like, and finally why would one wish to do so, unless at the end of the universe?  For sure humans will not be around then, as we will have killed ourselves off long before. Eventually we will get so good at killing that we just kill everyone and maybe the planet as well, OR, if we ever exhibit any evidence that we are able to escape the solar system the Galactic Council will exterminate us to save the universe from such a savage species.

 

BTW, we do escape the universe, after our bodies die and our souls return to God.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/13/2024 at 10:12 PM, Tippaporn said:

 

No doubt they were creative and talented.  I wouldn't even try to deny them that.  But their soft rock didn't appeal to me and the friends I hung around with at the time.  Perhaps we were a bit snobby when it came to music but there were a number of bands in the 70's which we termed commercial music.  One of the purposes of music is that it connects with people on a deeper level.  No woo when I say that.  As long as it does that then it's great.  My musical tastes evolved as I got older and very much broadened in scope.  I get immense enjoyment now from music I wouldn't get caught dead playing back then.  But still not broad enough to encompass everything.  Soft rock kind of puts me to sleep and I still hate disco very much. 

 

I enjoy 10CC's Dreadlock Holiday very much.  But I love reggae.  I'll take a hard pass on The Second Sitting For The Last Supper, though I like the lyrics.

 

 

The song I love from them is "I'm not in love",but I like melancholy songs about lost love. It's good to know I'm not alone in missing out on love.

 

Don't like Dreadlock Holiday at all, though I do like Reggae.

 

I like just about all music from Classical to jazz to country to trance to Abba and everything in between. Hate and loath rap, and that heavy base noise that young people play too loudly now. Far as I'm concerned if one can't dance properly to it, it isn't music.

[Sunmaster]

@TippapornThis is a quote from the teacher guru of Paramhansa Yogananda. 

This is just to show that the power of thoughts and beliefs was already recognised and used from time immemorial, and explained in no uncertain terms. How else could it be?

When you explore the inner worlds as thoroughly as the Hindus did, it's inevitable that they would discover this. Any yogi will see this fairly soon on the journey.

Seth's contribution was to bring this knowledge to a modern (Western) audience who had no idea about any of it. 

 

Just emphasising the common ground of both philosophies. 😉

[Sunmaster]

11 hours ago, Chris Daley said:

So there is definitely some form of rebirth from a scientific standpoint.  Because the energy is just passed on into something else and on a larger scale the stars will keep regenerating and build new universes.  Evidence of this is found in the cosmic microwave background radiation left from our big bang and observations of supernovas.

 

Christianity - life has no meaning

Buddhism - life has no meaning

Science - your life will be part of other life before and after your life for eternity

This just came up in my feed....

 

https://youtu.be/HHmo21q-5jw?si=6PNZ0usQr5z7INMJ

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Don't like Dreadlock Holiday at all, though I do like Reggae.

 

It's enjoyable but not great reggae.

 

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Far as I'm concerned if one can't dance properly to it, it isn't music.

 

  Well, there's certainly some rock that isn't made for dancing.  More tapping the feet or fingers or moving your body or slapping your thighs. 

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

@TippapornThis is a quote from the teacher guru of Paramhansa Yogananda. 

This is just to show that the power of thoughts and beliefs was already recognised and used from time immemorial, and explained in no uncertain terms. How else could it be?

When you explore the inner worlds as thoroughly as the Hindus did, it's inevitable that they would discover this. Any yogi will see this fairly soon on the journey.

Seth's contribution was to bring this knowledge to a modern (Western) audience who had no idea about any of it. 

 

Just emphasising the common ground of both philosophies. 😉

 

First part? 

 

Second part? 

[Sunmaster]

15 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

First part? 

 

Second part? 

The first part just means not to become a slave of the body's demands for temporary pleasures. Indulging in excessive food, drink, sex only satisfies the lowest aspects of our being and tend to distract from the more important ones. This is not to say that we all have to live like renunciates or monks in a cave, but warns from focusing too much on the body, which is just a temporary vessel. Therefore, "treacherous friend", love your friend, but not at the expense of your own wellbeing. When your friend demands more from you than you can (or should) give, then he's not your friend anymore.

Edited January 15 by Sunmaster

[Tippaporn]

3 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

. . . the lowest aspects of our being . . .

 

There are lower aspects to our being? 

 

3 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

. . . to distract from the more important ones.

 

Some realities are more important than others? 

 

5 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

. . . a temporary vessel.

 

What happened to "time doesn't exist" and eternity?  Only some things enjoy eternal existence? 

 

On 1/5/2024 at 10:02 AM, Tippaporn said:

@Sunmaster

 

A different tact.  A question.

 

From your perspective what's the point of becoming aware of the rest of yourself?

 

On 1/5/2024 at 10:03 AM, Tippaporn said:

@Sunmaster

 

Separate.  Another question.

 

Again from your perspective, why is Sunmaster in this world?

 

I do not want to get involved in a discussion of "levels," in which progression is supposed to occur from one to the other. All such discussions are based upon your idea of one-personhood, consecutive time, and limited versions of the soul. There are red, yellow, and violet flowers. One is not more progressed than the others, but each is different.

 

These units [consciousness units, or CUs) combine into various kinds of gestalts of consciousness. Basically, it is not correct to say that one is more progressed than another. The petal of a flower, for example, is not more developed than the root. An ant on the ground may see that the petal is way above the root and stem, but ants are too wise to think that the petal must be better than the root.

 

Now: Consciousness flowers out in all directions -

 

All directions taken by the flower of consciousness are good.

 

Levels?  Are you sure these levels exist?  Or is it simply an interpretation resulting from a limited understanding of identity and erroneous ideas of progression through time?

 

**********

 

The units (of consciousness) form themselves into the various systems that they have themselves initiated. They transform themselves, therefore, into the structured reality that they then become. Ruburt is quite correct in his supposition of what he calls "multipersonhood" in Adventures.

 

You think of one I-self (spelled) (he's referring to the physical self) as the primary and ultimate end of evolution. Yet there are, of course, other identities with many such I-selves, each as aware and independent as your own, while also being aware of the existence of a greater identity in which they have their being. Consciousness fulfills itself by knowing itself. The knowledge changes it, in your terms, into a greater gestalt that then tries to fulfill and know itself, and so forth.

 

**********

 

Does that not give you a visual of Russian Matryoshka dolls?  It does for me.

 

If you haven't read Unknown Reality Vol. 1 then you're probably not familiar with Seth's definition of consciousness units.  So here's his explanation of what they are.

 

There is a basic unit of consciousness that, expressed, will not be broken down, as once it was thought that an atom was the smallest unit and could not be broken down. The basic unit of consciousness obviously is not physical. It contains within itself innately infinite properties of expansion, development, and organization; yet within itself always maintains the kernel of its own individuality. Despite whatever organizations it becomes part of, or how it mixes with other such basic units, its own identity is not annihilated.

 

It is aware energy, identified within itself as itself, not "personified" but awareized. It is therefore the source of all other. kinds of consciousness, and the varieties of its activity are infinite. It combines with others of its kind, forming then units of consciousness - as, mentioned often, atoms and molecules combine.

 

I've put into my own words before on this thread, in a reply to Hummin, that consciousness is infinitely creative and attempts to experience itself in an infinite number of ways.  Such as a human being, for example.  As it does so it experiences growth, or expansion, as it experiences itself differently and then knows itself in a different way.  Hence no one expression is better or less than the other, higher or lower, and so there are no levels to 'climb'.  So I am again here putting into my own words the meaning of Seth's quote between the ******s.

 

The idea that there are progressive states, the idea that one is more important than another . . . those ideas "are based upon your idea of one-personhood, consecutive time, and limited versions of the soul."

 

This is why I asked you the two questions 10 days ago.  Your answers would be revealing as they would expose your beliefs since you would naturally need to express them in order to answer the questions.  I'm a tricky son-of-a-b!tch, so my sincere apologies. 

 

Now I guarantee you that no eastern religion has traveled that far into consciousness to be able to elucidate on the existence of consciousness units.  I say that because if they had they'd have written  or talked about it.  Perhaps I'm in error but I doubt it.  Which is why I'm into Seth, and others like him, and not into anything else.  As I had mentioned long before, I doubt there exist any mortals, despite their exploratory journeys into inner reality, who have the advantage of Seth's much, much vaster perspective and can match his ability to travel to different realities.  I don't say that with any intention of having a pissing contest, claiming that "My source is better than your source, nah na, nah na na."  I made my choice by simply using my intellect and intuitions.  It was a no brainer for me as to which source I would use as a guide for my own explorations. 

 

Unknown Reality Vol. 1 was perhaps one of my favourite books.  But not until years later.  I wasn't ready for it at first.  But, boy, was it a doozy after I connected with what he was explaining.  Talk about bringing the larger picture into clearer focus.  Not absolute focus, obviously.  I haven't learned that much yet.  But here's my response to that book. 

 

Would that material strike you similarly?  I don't know.  But I did have the idea to walk through that portion which had perhaps the greatest eye opening effect for me and see if it's helpful or valuable to you.  Now I just need to focus myself. 

[Tippaporn]

Does the amoeba aspire to be a cell?

Does the cell aspire to be an ant?

Does the ant aspire to be a plant?

Dies the plant aspire to be a fish?

Does the fish aspire to be an ape?

Does the ape aspire to be a man?

 

Or do they all aspire to escape their physical prison by shedding their ignorance and becoming their "true" identity?

 

End of the line? 

 

What does your "true" identity aspire to be?

 

 

[Tippaporn]

Just having some innocent fun. 

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

 

There are lower aspects to our being? 

 

 

Some realities are more important than others? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do not want to get involved in a discussion of "levels," in which progression is supposed to occur from one to the other. All such discussions are based upon your idea of one-personhood, consecutive time, and limited versions of the soul. There are red, yellow, and violet flowers. One is not more progressed than the others, but each is different.

 

These units [consciousness units, or CUs) combine into various kinds of gestalts of consciousness. Basically, it is not correct to say that one is more progressed than another. The petal of a flower, for example, is not more developed than the root. An ant on the ground may see that the petal is way above the root and stem, but ants are too wise to think that the petal must be better than the root.

 

Now: Consciousness flowers out in all directions -

 

All directions taken by the flower of consciousness are good.

 

Levels?  Are you sure these levels exist?  Or is it simply an interpretation resulting from a limited understanding of identity and erroneous ideas of progression through time?

 

**********

 

The units (of consciousness) form themselves into the various systems that they have themselves initiated. They transform themselves, therefore, into the structured reality that they then become. Ruburt is quite correct in his supposition of what he calls "multipersonhood" in Adventures.

 

You think of one I-self (spelled) (he's referring to the physical self) as the primary and ultimate end of evolution. Yet there are, of course, other identities with many such I-selves, each as aware and independent as your own, while also being aware of the existence of a greater identity in which they have their being. Consciousness fulfills itself by knowing itself. The knowledge changes it, in your terms, into a greater gestalt that then tries to fulfill and know itself, and so forth.

 

**********

 

Does that not give you a visual of Russian Matryoshka dolls?  It does for me.

 

If you haven't read Unknown Reality Vol. 1 then you're probably not familiar with Seth's definition of consciousness units.  So here's his explanation of what they are.

 

There is a basic unit of consciousness that, expressed, will not be broken down, as once it was thought that an atom was the smallest unit and could not be broken down. The basic unit of consciousness obviously is not physical. It contains within itself innately infinite properties of expansion, development, and organization; yet within itself always maintains the kernel of its own individuality. Despite whatever organizations it becomes part of, or how it mixes with other such basic units, its own identity is not annihilated.

 

It is aware energy, identified within itself as itself, not "personified" but awareized. It is therefore the source of all other. kinds of consciousness, and the varieties of its activity are infinite. It combines with others of its kind, forming then units of consciousness - as, mentioned often, atoms and molecules combine.

 

I've put into my own words before on this thread, in a reply to Hummin, that consciousness is infinitely creative and attempts to experience itself in an infinite number of ways.  Such as a human being, for example.  As it does so it experiences growth, or expansion, as it experiences itself differently and then knows itself in a different way.  Hence no one expression is better or less than the other, higher or lower, and so there are no levels to 'climb'.  So I am again here putting into my own words the meaning of Seth's quote between the ******s.

 

The idea that there are progressive states, the idea that one is more important than another . . . those ideas "are based upon your idea of one-personhood, consecutive time, and limited versions of the soul."

 

This is why I asked you the two questions 10 days ago.  Your answers would be revealing as they would expose your beliefs since you would naturally need to express them in order to answer the questions.  I'm a tricky son-of-a-b!tch, so my sincere apologies. 

 

Now I guarantee you that no eastern religion has traveled that far into consciousness to be able to elucidate on the existence of consciousness units.  I say that because if they had they'd have written  or talked about it.  Perhaps I'm in error but I doubt it.  Which is why I'm into Seth, and others like him, and not into anything else.  As I had mentioned long before, I doubt there exist any mortals, despite their exploratory journeys into inner reality, who have the advantage of Seth's much, much vaster perspective and can match his ability to travel to different realities.  I don't say that with any intention of having a pissing contest, claiming that "My source is better than your source, nah na, nah na na."  I made my choice by simply using my intellect and intuitions.  It was a no brainer for me as to which source I would use as a guide for my own explorations. 

 

Unknown Reality Vol. 1 was perhaps one of my favourite books.  But not until years later.  I wasn't ready for it at first.  But, boy, was it a doozy after I connected with what he was explaining.  Talk about bringing the larger picture into clearer focus.  Not absolute focus, obviously.  I haven't learned that much yet.  But here's my response to that book. 

 

Would that material strike you similarly?  I don't know.  But I did have the idea to walk through that portion which had perhaps the greatest eye opening effect for me and see if it's helpful or valuable to you.  Now I just need to focus myself. 

Sure, talking about levels is always tricky because they depend on the observing point of view. We are talking from the point of view of not (yet) realized beings. We may know about the entity we belong to, we may know that our true identity is infinite, eternal consciousness, but we don't live it. We are not Buddha, nor Seth. 

There are lower aspects to our being? 

Yes, from a purely practical point of view. Do you think getting drunk and spending your time chasing tails does anything beneficial when your aim is to explore your inner world? Certainly not. They are a hindrance. They fulfill lower needs and keep the waters muddy. 

Some realities are more important than others? 
In itself, no. They are not more important. They are more important to me and the life I want to live. Is my life (reality) more important than the life (reality) of a beggar, a degenerate, a thief? Definitely not. Like you say (Seth says), it's just the way consciousness chose to express itself.
However, the way I choose to express my reality is more important to me than the way others express theirs. 

 

What happened to "time doesn't exist" and eternity?  Only some things enjoy eternal existence? 
Not sure what you're trying to do here and why the need to add the smiling emojis. Life in the material world is subject to time. There are other levels of existence that are not (as) bound by time. That includes Seth. "Things" don't enjoy eternal existence. Does your body enjoy eternal existence? Your car? Your house? 

The idea that there are progressive states, the idea that one is more important than another . . . those ideas "are based upon your idea of one-personhood, consecutive time, and limited versions of the soul."
You dispute my use of "levels" and hierarchies, yet in Seth's quote he mentions development. Development can only happen within a time-constricted reality. "Today I'm like this, tomorrow I will develop into something different." What happened? Aren't we all already enlightened, perfect expressions of the One? If today my awareness is limited and tomorrow it has less limitations, then there is progress, there is development, there is a hierarchy, there are levels of understanding. 
Of course my ideas are based on my limited perception of reality, which is still bound by consecutive time. So are yours and most other people's. But not all.

Now I guarantee you that no eastern religion has traveled that far into consciousness to be able to elucidate on the existence of consciousness units.  I say that because if they had they'd have written  or talked about it.  Perhaps I'm in error but I doubt it. 

Sorry, but I think that's just your own bias talking. How deep have you studied or practiced Eastern philosophies to make that statement? Or is it just your belief? They may not have used the term "consciousness units", but they do say that consciousness is the ultimate reality. Sat Chid Ananda (existence, consciousness, and bliss). 

This is why I asked you the two questions 10 days ago.  Your answers would be revealing as they would expose your beliefs since you would naturally need to express them in order to answer the questions.  I'm a tricky son-of-a-b!tch, so my sincere apologies. 

I think I answered all your questions, but I'm still waiting for you to answer all of mine. ;-) 

Edited January 15 by Sunmaster

[Sunmaster]

15 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

What does your "true" identity aspire to be?

My true identity has nothing to aspire to. 
Can I, in my present limited awareness, say I'm consciously aware of being that true identity yet. No. 

Do I, in my present limited awareness, aspire to be aware of it? Yes.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

Sure, talking about levels is always tricky because they depend on the observing point of view.

 

I do not want to get involved in a discussion of "levels," in which progression is supposed to occur from one to the other. All such discussions are based upon your idea of one-personhood, consecutive time, and limited versions of the soul. There are red, yellow, and violet flowers. One is not more progressed than the others, but each is different.

 

These units [consciousness units, or CUs) combine into various kinds of gestalts of consciousness. Basically, it is not correct to say that one is more progressed than another. The petal of a flower, for example, is not more developed than the root. An ant on the ground may see that the petal is way above the root and stem, but ants are too wise to think that the petal must be better than the root.

 

Now: Consciousness flowers out in all directions -

 

All directions taken by the flower of consciousness are good.

 

That observing point of view is one which is based on ideas of one-personhood, consecutive time, and limited versions of the soul.  What are probable selves?  Are those not our consciousness flowering out in all directions?  in this case probable directions in which each choice we make is explored in either our reality or another?  The same with reincarnational selves, though those are also probable selves but within a historical context.  Do they exist on different levels?  Parallel levels?

 

Don't get me wrong, Sunmaster.  I'm not being argumentative with you.  I'm merely asking you questions as to how you would place these on levels.

 

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

We are talking from the point of view of not (yet) realized beings.

 

The very framework of the statement implies a progression which Seth is explaining doesn't exist.  It implies that we are working towards becoming a realized being.  And a 'realized being; implies a more advanced being just as an 'unrealized being' implies less advanced.  But what is a 'realized being'?  An identity which is aware that it is part of a greater identity, of which it already is?  It appears to me that you think that the Sunmaster identity needs to be it's greater identity.  Yet your Sunmaster identity is that already.  There's no becoming it in that sense.  You already are it.

 

What is your idea of the meaning of gestalt consciousness?

 

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

There are lower aspects to our being? 

Yes, from a purely practical point of view. Do you think getting drunk and spending your time chasing tails does anything beneficial when your aim is to explore your inner world? Certainly not. They are a hindrance. They fulfill lower needs and keep the waters muddy. 

 

As long as you believe that higher or lower states exist then you will have trouble understanding much of what I'm saying.  What I'm saying is outside of that framework.  You wish to remain inside of it.

 

If you wish to not be distracted by all of the hindrances of your lower impulses so that you can be in pursuit of exploring your inner self then why not become a hermit on top of a mountain?  Leave all the hindrances behind and beyond the temptation of your no good ego?  If getting drunk and chasing tails is fulfilling then I would say that is the very definition of practicisng spirituality.  By God, I've certainly done my share in my life and I would not reject any of it in favour of meditation that demands some sort of purity of the self.  We are on very different pages here.

 

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Some realities are more important than others? 
In itself, no. They are not more important. They are more important to me and the life I want to live. Is my life (reality) more important than the life (reality) of a beggar, a degenerate, a thief? Definitely not. Like you say (Seth says), it's just the way consciousness chose to express itself.
However, the way I choose to express my reality is more important to me than the way others express theirs.

 

My use of importance here refers to lower and higher states of being.  Or less advanced and more advanced states of being.  It was taken from your statement:

 

"The first part just means not to become a slave of the body's demands for temporary pleasures. Indulging in excessive food, drink, sex only satisfies the lowest aspects of our being and tend to distract from the more important ones."

 

Indulging in pleasure represents satisfying the 'lower' aspects of being.  To distract from the more important ones, where 'important' equates to 'higher' aspects of being.

 

Important can be used in the context of 'higher' or it can be used in the context of preference.  Your quote above uses it in the latter context.  My question uses the word 'important' in the former context.

 

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

What happened to "time doesn't exist" and eternity?  Only some things enjoy eternal existence? 
Not sure what you're trying to do here and why the need to add the smiling emojis. Life in the material world is subject to time. There are other levels of existence that are not bound by time. That includes Seth. "Things" don't enjoy eternal existence. Does your body enjoy eternal existence? Your car? Your house?

 

The smiley emojis I use are 1) my way of keeping the topic light - as in humourous and 2) as an impish grin because I know the questions will start the gears turning in your head.  Nothing sinister or snide about it.  This topic isn't deadly serious sh!t and so I attempt to keep it from sliding in that direction.  Show some humour!  Life is supposed to be fun. 

 

Anyway, getting back to, ahem, dead seriousness my question is meant to lead you to consider the eternity of Sunmaster.  Since our understanding of identity is limited and we tend, quite naturally of course, to think linearly, then most believe in a straight-line, linear birth to death progression of development.  Yet all time exists now.  Which means that body, your car, your house do enjoy eternal existence.  Not an iota of existence is ever erased.  It only all disappears as you change your focus elsewhere.  Yet you can always return your focus.  Seth had mentioned that he is particular fond of his 14th (I think) century study and often enjoys returning.

 

Our existence is bound by time only in the sense that our experience of it, our organization of it, is agreed upon to be in a straight-line, linear birth to death progression of development.  And yet our existence can be experienced differently by organizing it differently.  One such way would be organizing it via association.  You've done that, as has everyone.  You may think of something which reminds you of something else which then reminds you of something other etc.  All of your thoughts have a cohesiveness yet the thoughts are structured associatively in an out of time sequence.  Creativity is unlimited and there are an infinite number of ways of organization.  A single event can be experienced to last a thousand years but not in the sense that time is stretched.  Ah, there's so much more.

 

3 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

The idea that there are progressive states, the idea that one is more important than another . . . those ideas "are based upon your idea of one-personhood, consecutive time, and limited versions of the soul."
You dispute my use of "levels" and hierarchies, yet in Seth's quote he mentions development. Development can only happen within a time-constricted reality. "Today I'm like this, tomorrow I will develop into something different." What happened? Aren't we all already enlightened, perfect expressions of the One? If today my awareness is limited and tomorrow it has less limitations, then there is progress, there is development, there is a hierarchy, there are levels of understanding. 
Of course my ideas are based on my limited perception of reality, which is still bound by consecutive time. So are yours and most other people's. But not all.

 

"Of course my ideas are based on my limited perception of reality, which is still bound by consecutive time."

 

My ideas of development, specifically linear development, have developed (pun intended ) to where I'm standing further back from the immense object.  But yes, as long as I'm physical I will be adhering to the experience of consecutive nows, one after the other.

 

I went a couple of rounds with mauGR1 on hierarchies.  Yes, they exist but only within a certain framework.  Just as gravity exists in this framework but no in the non physical.

 

3 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Now I guarantee you that no eastern religion has traveled that far into consciousness to be able to elucidate on the existence of consciousness units.  I say that because if they had they'd have written  or talked about it.  Perhaps I'm in error but I doubt it. 

Sorry, but I think that's just your own bias talking. How deep have you studied or practiced Eastern philosophies to make that statement? Or is it just your belief? They may not have used the term "consciousness units", but they do say that consciousness is the ultimate reality. Sat Chid Ananda (existence, consciousness, and bliss). 

 

I said what I did because it is only logical.  For a physical individual to have Seth's perspective and knowledge he would most likely have graduated out of the reincarnational cycle.  But even accessing that knowledge, which is nonverbal, he would have to translate it into our terms.  Hey, distortions happen.  Seth had said that any information anyone receives then becomes new as the holder of the information automatically changes it to a degree.  There have been lots of people who have traveled to other realities and when they came back interpreted their experience using their beliefs as a filter.  Hence tales of people having extrasensory experiences and upon return telling tales of encountering demons and such.

 

Seth covers so much information, from animal consciousness to past civilizations and so much more that you would have to admit that so much of what Seth covers is nowhere to be found in any religion.  It just is what it is.  This not a pissing contest and it is not, never was, and never will be one for me.  I'm simply giving you my honest opinions and views.  No judgement.

 

3 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

This is why I asked you the two questions 10 days ago.  Your answers would be revealing as they would expose your beliefs since you would naturally need to express them in order to answer the questions.  I'm a tricky son-of-a-b!tch, so my sincere apologies. 

I think I answered all your questions, but I'm still waiting for you to answer all of mine. ;-)

 

  Sorry, but I have limited time.  What's the old saying, "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak."  Change that to, "The spirit is willing but the time is short." 

[Tippaporn]

@Sunmaster

 

Just one other point.  Now Seth said that all religions contain distortions.  I tend to believe him.  I certainly see both the truths and the distortions within Christian religions.  Heading to the other side of the globe we have Hinduism, Buddhism, and a host of others.  Let's take Hinduism.  How many different schools of Hinduism are there?  If there were no distortions there would be only a single school.  Just as if Christianity was without distortions you would not see so many different sects.

 

The only reason I'm making this point is so that you can understand why I agree with Seth.  And I'm not making the point to bash any eastern religion.  But just as I would argue for the legitimate truths of Christian theology I would not hesitate to point out it's distortions.  Same with eastern religion. 

[Sunmaster]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

I do not want to get involved in a discussion of "levels," in which progression is supposed to occur from one to the other. All such discussions are based upon your idea of one-personhood, consecutive time, and limited versions of the soul. There are red, yellow, and violet flowers. One is not more progressed than the others, but each is different.

 

These units [consciousness units, or CUs) combine into various kinds of gestalts of consciousness. Basically, it is not correct to say that one is more progressed than another. The petal of a flower, for example, is not more developed than the root. An ant on the ground may see that the petal is way above the root and stem, but ants are too wise to think that the petal must be better than the root.

 

Now: Consciousness flowers out in all directions -

 

All directions taken by the flower of consciousness are good.

 

That observing point of view is one which is based on ideas of one-personhood, consecutive time, and limited versions of the soul.  What are probable selves?  Are those not our consciousness flowering out in all directions?  in this case probable directions in which each choice we make is explored in either our reality or another?  The same with reincarnational selves, though those are also probable selves but within a historical context.  Do they exist on different levels?  Parallel levels?

 

Don't get me wrong, Sunmaster.  I'm not being argumentative with you.  I'm merely asking you questions as to how you would place these on levels.

 

 

The very framework of the statement implies a progression which Seth is explaining doesn't exist.  It implies that we are working towards becoming a realized being.  And a 'realized being; implies a more advanced being just as an 'unrealized being' implies less advanced.  But what is a 'realized being'?  An identity which is aware that it is part of a greater identity, of which it already is?  It appears to me that you think that the Sunmaster identity needs to be it's greater identity.  Yet your Sunmaster identity is that already.  There's no becoming it in that sense.  You already are it.

 

What is your idea of the meaning of gestalt consciousness?

 

 

As long as you believe that higher or lower states exist then you will have trouble understanding much of what I'm saying.  What I'm saying is outside of that framework.  You wish to remain inside of it.

 

If you wish to not be distracted by all of the hindrances of your lower impulses so that you can be in pursuit of exploring your inner self then why not become a hermit on top of a mountain?  Leave all the hindrances behind and beyond the temptation of your no good ego?  If getting drunk and chasing tails is fulfilling then I would say that is the very definition of practicisng spirituality.  By God, I've certainly done my share in my life and I would not reject any of it in favour of meditation that demands some sort of purity of the self.  We are on very different pages here.

 

 

My use of importance here refers to lower and higher states of being.  Or less advanced and more advanced states of being.  It was taken from your statement:

 

"The first part just means not to become a slave of the body's demands for temporary pleasures. Indulging in excessive food, drink, sex only satisfies the lowest aspects of our being and tend to distract from the more important ones."

 

Indulging in pleasure represents satisfying the 'lower' aspects of being.  To distract from the more important ones, where 'important' equates to 'higher' aspects of being.

 

Important can be used in the context of 'higher' or it can be used in the context of preference.  Your quote above uses it in the latter context.  My question uses the word 'important' in the former context.

 

 

The smiley emojis I use are 1) my way of keeping the topic light - as in humourous and 2) as an impish grin because I know the questions will start the gears turning in your head.  Nothing sinister or snide about it.  This topic isn't deadly serious sh!t and so I attempt to keep it from sliding in that direction.  Show some humour!  Life is supposed to be fun. 

 

Anyway, getting back to, ahem, dead seriousness my question is meant to lead you to consider the eternity of Sunmaster.  Since our understanding of identity is limited and we tend, quite naturally of course, to think linearly, then most believe in a straight-line, linear birth to death progression of development.  Yet all time exists now.  Which means that body, your car, your house do enjoy eternal existence.  Not an iota of existence is ever erased.  It only all disappears as you change your focus elsewhere.  Yet you can always return your focus.  Seth had mentioned that he is particular fond of his 14th (I think) century study and often enjoys returning.

 

Our existence is bound by time only in the sense that our experience of it, our organization of it, is agreed upon to be in a straight-line, linear birth to death progression of development.  And yet our existence can be experienced differently by organizing it differently.  One such way would be organizing it via association.  You've done that, as has everyone.  You may think of something which reminds you of something else which then reminds you of something other etc.  All of your thoughts have a cohesiveness yet the thoughts are structured associatively in an out of time sequence.  Creativity is unlimited and there are an infinite number of ways of organization.  A single event can be experienced to last a thousand years but not in the sense that time is stretched.  Ah, there's so much more.

 

 

"Of course my ideas are based on my limited perception of reality, which is still bound by consecutive time."

 

My ideas of development, specifically linear development, have developed (pun intended ) to where I'm standing further back from the immense object.  But yes, as long as I'm physical I will be adhering to the experience of consecutive nows, one after the other.

 

I went a couple of rounds with mauGR1 on hierarchies.  Yes, they exist but only within a certain framework.  Just as gravity exists in this framework but no in the non physical.

 

 

I said what I did because it is only logical.  For a physical individual to have Seth's perspective and knowledge he would most likely have graduated out of the reincarnational cycle.  But even accessing that knowledge, which is nonverbal, he would have to translate it into our terms.  Hey, distortions happen.  Seth had said that any information anyone receives then becomes new as the holder of the information automatically changes it to a degree.  There have been lots of people who have traveled to other realities and when they came back interpreted their experience using their beliefs as a filter.  Hence tales of people having extrasensory experiences and upon return telling tales of encountering demons and such.

 

Seth covers so much information, from animal consciousness to past civilizations and so much more that you would have to admit that so much of what Seth covers is nowhere to be found in any religion.  It just is what it is.  This not a pissing contest and it is not, never was, and never will be one for me.  I'm simply giving you my honest opinions and views.  No judgement.

 

 

  Sorry, but I have limited time.  What's the old saying, "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak."  Change that to, "The spirit is willing but the time is short." 

 

It's funny that you mention the "pissing contest", because that's where it seems to be heading to be honest. I don't subscribe to any one philosophy or teaching in particular, so I don't have to defend anything. I don't quote lengthy paragraphs of scriptures or famous books to make my points. My eggs are not all in one basket, so to speak. I have sifted through many different sources in the past 30 years with the sole intent of validating and organizing my own experiences and thoughts. 

Accepting a single source or map is a double edged sword. If the source is clear and has a proven track record of leading the seeker to the intended destination, then that's great. Hinduism and Buddhism have done that more than any other, I would argue. You can contest that there is no destination, that we are just perfect the way we are. But are we? 

  Sorry, but I have limited time.  What's the old saying, "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak."  Change that to, "The spirit is willing but the time is short." 
C'mon, this just seems like a cheap cop-out Tippa.  Sounds like something our atheist friends would say. 555


My questions were:
 

To summarize:

1. The ego is the very "thing" that prevents opening up to a wider reality, because its very job is to concentrate your attention on a small part of reality. 

2. Does Free Will exist? Yes and no. It apparently exists within a paradigm bound by time and space, but since we know that this reality is only one reality within a bigger reality that is not bound by those restrictions, free will becomes just another illusion. In short, free will appears to be real when we look at it from inside the dream (this reality as seen from the ego perspective), but once you wake up, it disappears along with the dream. 

3. A personal question. Do you practice any kind of meditation or have other ways to find the silence behind the thoughts? If yes, what happens when your thoughts quiet down?

 

 

As you know, Eastern philosophies put first-hand experience through regular daily practice above all else. Intellectual knowledge, even the sharpest and most compelling, is nothing if not combined with direct experience. The analogy of the donkey carrying a load of sugar, but never tasting it, is perfect here. I know because after studying for 30 years, all it did for me was to fill my head with lots of concepts, but it didn't lead me one step closer to uncovering that which lies behind my ignorance. It made me look smart in the eyes of some, and a smartass evangelist in the eyes of others. And they were right (the second group). I can say that now, but I couldn't admit that to myself before.

That's why nobody likes bible thumpers. They like to speak from a pulpit, but they have not earned the right to stand on one. Why? Because the source of their knowledge is secondhand knowledge from a book, not their own experience. How do we know? By the simple fact that they try to convince others of the veracity of their words. Had they first-hand knowledge, then there would be no need to convince others. Others would naturally be attracted to them and understand the truth of their words.

 

The very framework of the statement implies a progression which Seth is explaining doesn't exist.  It implies that we are working towards becoming a realized being.  And a 'realized being; implies a more advanced being just as an 'unrealized being' implies less advanced.  But what is a 'realized being'?  An identity which is aware that it is part of a greater identity, of which it already is?  It appears to me that you think that the Sunmaster identity needs to be it's greater identity.  Yet your Sunmaster identity is that already.  There's no becoming it in that sense.  You already are it.

I've talked about this before. Knowing on an intellectual level that "you are already it" is not the same as being it, living it from that perspective. Can you say you are enlightened right now? Can you say you can see what the Entity (in Sethian terms) is seeing? Probably not.

Yes, you stepped back and are looking at the "thing" from a distance (as opposed to pressing your nose against it), and that's a great step forward. A progression, a development, a new level of understanding. And yet, looking at that thing is not the same as BEING that thing. Because what else is it other than YOU?

You see? I'm not content with simply looking at it and describing it to others. I strive to BE IT. I see nothing else more worthwhile and precious than that. I would offer all my intellectual knowledge I collected in these past 30 years and burn it on a bonfire, in exchange for a second of BEING that thing. 
Would it help to meditate in a cave? It probably would help, yes. It's not my path though. I have responsibilities that I have to honor. But who knows, maybe there is a cave somewhere waiting for me...in this life or in another.

So no, there is no pissing contest, because I have nothing to present to you other than what I know to be true in my heart, and that doesn't come from any book, philosophy, religion or guru.

Too serious?

 

 

 

[Tippaporn]

7 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

It's funny that you mention the "pissing contest", because that's where it seems to be heading to be honest.

 

Yes, indeed.  It's not so funny, or coincidental, that I mentioned it because I did it on purpose.  I sense it in your writing and in the seriousness of your approach.  Evidenced, as a single instance of many, by your questioning of my smiley emoticons.  As if they were somehow inappropriate or given as my mocking you.  As I said, life is supposed to be fun.  I like to have fun.  I joke constantly and laugh boisterously throughout my day.  Ask my daughter.  She'll tell ya. 

 

So I thought it best to broach the subject and address it head on.  For we both know how pissing contests end.  People ultimately walk away from each other as there can be no winner.  What is a pissing contest anyway?  It's two people with differing views, each claiming their view to be the correct one.  And neither willing to see or agree with another's point of view.  Or to concede on any point of view.  That applies to any subject matter - simply browse the rest of this forum for evidence, including ours.

 

The Seth material is not identical to eastern religion, nor any other religion.  The others are not a perfect match.  Else Seth would have come through and pointed his readers to some religion or another.  He would not have written the books he did for his message would have simply been a one liner:  "<insert religion> has all the answers you seek."  But he didn't do that because his viewpoint and religion's were not the same.  Common sense alone 'enlightens' you to see that.

 

Now I've said that every religion contains great truths.  But every religion has it's share of distortions as well.  That, to me, is not at all difficult to see.  And accept.  And why shouldn't I accept it?  I'm pnly interested in knowing who and what we are and what our reality is as it exists apart from our beliefs about it.  I have no undying loyalty to any religion and therefore feel no need to defend it on all counts.  Defend it I will, with vigor, whenever it is representative of truth.  But not when it is distortive.

 

And here I am not suggesting, Sunmaster, that you defend yours on all counts.  As you said, your views come from many different places.  You've mixed and matched and derived your truths by picking them out singly from various sources.  So I want to make that clear lest I'm accused of accusing you of staunchly defending any religion.

 

I've experienced others who have come from different backgrounds asking the same questions I've been asking myself, and with perhaps the same amount of vigor.  It's only then natural that we engage in conversation and share our views.  They tell me what they've learned and where they've received their information from and I do likewise.  This is not the first time that I've encountered another who, after listening to my views and agreeing on some points or others, then remarks, "Hey, Seth is saying the same thing that I've learned from my source.  They're the same!"  But as I listen to the views of the other and as his views clash with Seth's on important points, and when I respond that they're not the same I inevitably hear, "Oh, yeah they are."  I then lower my head and frown, knowing that things are not going to proceed smoothly.

 

This is, in my estimation, where you and I are at the moment.  You wish to believe that your views are in complete alignment with Seth's.  But they are not.

 

The Seth material and your views are not identical.  And where they differ that then creates points of friction.  Take the ego, for example.  Your views are very much different than Seth's.  Granted, there are similarities.  There is agreement on points.  But there are very important, and irreconcilable, differences as well.  Getting back to my analogy of the immense object, I see what you see and I see also that there is more.  But you do not see what I see.  And until you step back you won't see what I see.  But in order for you to be able to step back you would need to suspend your current ideas of what the ego is first.  As long as you step back whilst bringing your ideas along with you then you will do little more than compare and contrast the two vies.  You cannot attempt an objective understanding to occur for bringing your ideas along with you those ideas will then act filtering mechanism creating bias.

 

Now we could continue to focus on the differences of our views but that will only lead to a pissing contest.  You'll dig your heels in on what you believe to be true and as your truth is different than mine then I'll dig in mine.  You'll become more serious and I'll, well, I'll be smiling to myself.  I'll be smiling because I understand this is not at all serious.    And no, this emoticon does NOT mean that I am laughing in your face. 

 

I'll pick and choose some more of your post to respond to . . .

[Tippaporn]

9 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

I don't quote lengthy paragraphs of scriptures or famous books to make my points.

 

That's fine, Sunmaster.  You have your preference based on your ideas.  I, though, will continue to post lengthy paragraphs since I don't share your ideas and have my own.  Thus my preference is to post them whenever and wherever I see them to be fitting and practically useful.  I hope it's not annoying to you. 

 

I'll also continue to make prolific use of emoticons to convey my sense of humour. 

[Tippaporn]

9 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

I don't subscribe to any one philosophy or teaching in particular, so I don't have to defend anything.

 

But you will defend what you believe to be true.