Do you believe in God and why

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

~

Your post reminded me of this saying by Lao Tze -

"the way that can be spoken is not the true way"

That quote can be explained in many ways, but instead of trying to put its meaning in my owns word (or rather how I interpret it), I consulted the Brainly website, and the answer that came up addressed it in a far more eloquent way than what I would have written. 

 

> The meaning of this phrase is that the true nature of things cannot be fully captured or explained through words or language. It suggests that there is a deeper, more profound reality that lies beyond our ability to understand or express it through language. It highlights the limitations of human understanding and language and encourages us to seek a deeper understanding of the world beyond what we can see or hear.

 

This phrase is also interpreted as a reminder that language and concepts can only point to the true reality, they cannot capture it. It is a reminder that words and concepts are limited and that the world is full of mystery, and that it's important to avoid becoming too attached to ideas, concepts or words as they can limit one's understanding of the true reality. It suggests that true understanding comes from intuition and direct experience rather than through language or concepts.

 

= = =

 

Why this quote? 

Because all religions / teachings are by definition an imperfect way of trying to convey in words/writing what cannot be expressed in language. 

And so when choosing which Path (if any) to follow on your individual journey towards Truth, it is only natural that you will be attracted to that religion / teaching which is most aligned with you current level of consciousness.  For Tippa that's Seth, for Sunmaster it are the Hindu yogi's, sages and masters.  For me it's Gurdjieff and the Sufi sages.

Let me be clear > Imo there is no wrong or right Path, but it is the path that helps you on your journey which is the right one for you. And the closer you get to the Truth (or actual Reality as Tippa would say), the more you will recognize and appreciate the unspoken same undercurrent in all of these spiritual approaches.

 

Which finally brings me to the point that I wanted to make, that there is indeed - as Seth channeled - a tendency in Western seekers to search for truth 'far from home'.  With 'home' meaning their own cultural background. 

Every religion / teaching did emerge within a specific setting, i.e. the cultural traditions of the people they wanted to reach at that time using text/language fit and adapted for that specific setting in order to convey a glimpse of the Truth that cannot be expressed in words.

It is useful to remember that there is a rich Western esoteric tradition that is actually more fit to our cultural background than the 'exotic' Eastern religions and teachings that were established for people from a different age, time and tradition.

And this is no critique of Seekers that have chosen a non-Western teaching that coincides with their current spiritual needs, as I wrote higher: you have to be opportunistic on your journey and opt for that which helps you further. 

 

A touch of humor always helps, so here one of my favorite cartoons...

 

 

Very heavy, RP.  I need to reread that after I smoke this joint. 

 

All kidding aside I believe you wrote a perfect post.    Even more perfect was the timing.  At least from my perspective.  You see, in my private mind I had seen two potential probabilities.  One in which the differences between Sunmaster and I would tear us apart and the other, which I strongly preferred, was a probability in which our differences were the very thing which would actually bring us closer together in understanding each other.  I was, therefore, taking great care in my responses.  And now I don't have to anymore.   

 

And lo and behold, you, who have not been around these parts much, came out of nowhere, as if you descended from the heavens from behind the clouds, where you had been hiding and spying on watching us, to make me step back a bit further from that immense object and gain some new perspective and understanding.  Well, excuse me for engaging in some flowery, hyperbolic imagery.    And truth be told, you didn't make me step back a bit further.  You shoved me.  And shoved me hard.  I should file assault charges against you but it all worked out in the end so you're off the hook. 

 

Thanks, friend!  I owe you a debt of gratitude.  Beers are on me.  You pay for dinner, though. 

 

Edited January 16 by Tippaporn

[Sunmaster]

In regards to RP's post, how do you see this point of direct experience as opposed to mere intellectual knowledge, Tippa?

Is Lao Tze's statement a distortion?

Does Seth offer practical methods to obtain direct experience? 

 

Asking for a friend...

[Sunmaster]

While I wait for your reply, I asked another wise "man" called BARD.

 

Does Seth have any practical methods (like meditation) on reaching a higher state of consciousness?

While the Seth Material primarily focuses on personal creation and exploring individual realities, it does offer some practical suggestions for expanding consciousness, though not in the structured, traditional sense of meditation found in other spiritual paths. Here are some key ideas:

Focus on Awareness:

• Observing your thoughts and emotions: Seth emphasizes cultivating a continuous awareness of your internal landscape, observing thoughts, feelings, and beliefs without judgment. This self-observation can reveal limiting patterns and unconscious conditioning that can hinder your growth.
• Noticing reality's fluidity: Pay attention to the dynamic nature of your experiences and perceptions. See how your thoughts and expectations shape your environment and how reality can be reshaped through deliberate intention.

Creative Practices:

• Visualization and imagination: Seth encourages active use of your imagination to visualize desired realities and potential outcomes. This can help overcome limiting beliefs and open up possibilities for personal growth and manifestation.
• Dream exploration: Dreams, according to Seth, offer glimpses into different realities and aspects of your subconscious mind. By actively recalling and interpreting your dreams, you can gain valuable insights and tap into deeper levels of awareness.
• Artistic expression: Engaging in creative activities like writing, music, or art can be a powerful tool for expressing your inner world and connecting with deeper levels of your being.

Living Consciously:

• Embracing life experiences: Approach challenges and difficulties as opportunities for learning and growth. See every experience as a chance to expand your understanding of yourself and the world around you.
• Practicing empathy and compassion: Developing empathy and understanding for others allows you to transcend your own ego and connect with the larger web of consciousness. This can contribute to a more fulfilling and meaningful existence.

Overall Approach:

• Personal exploration: There's no rigid formula for higher consciousness in the Seth Material. It's more about self-exploration, experimentation, and discovering what works best for you.
• Individual responsibility: You are seen as the creator of your own reality, responsible for your thoughts, beliefs, and experiences. The emphasis is on taking ownership of your life and actively shaping your destiny.

It's important to note that these are just some glimpses into the practical suggestions offered by the Seth Material. You'll need to delve deeper into the original texts or discussions with experienced practitioners to get a more comprehensive understanding and find practices that resonate with you.

Remember, there's no one-size-fits-all path to higher consciousness. While the Seth Material offers unique perspectives and approaches, it's up to you to choose what resonates with you and create your own personal journey of spiritual exploration.

[Sunmaster]

Can you elaborate on Seth's view regarding "transcending the ego"?

In the Seth Material, "transcending the ego" isn't necessarily about eradicating or abolishing your individual sense of self, but rather about understanding and moving beyond its limitations. Here's a deeper look at Seth's perspective:

Shifting Perspective:

• Ego as tool, not enemy: While many spiritual traditions view the ego as an obstacle to enlightenment, Seth sees it as a valuable tool for navigating the physical world, interacting with others, and pursuing personal growth. It's the "driver" of your individual reality.
• Beyond limitations: However, the ego can also generate limiting beliefs, fears, and desires that restrict your true potential. Transcending the ego involves moving beyond these limitations and recognizing your connection to a larger consciousness.

Expanding Awareness:

• Oversoul and fragmentation: The "Oversoul" in the Seth Material represents the collective consciousness of all beings. Transcending the ego involves realizing your individual self as a "fragment" or facet of this larger whole. This fosters a sense of unity and interconnectedness.
• Consciously shaping reality: By moving beyond your ego's limitations, you can take responsibility for your thoughts and beliefs, thus consciously shaping your individual reality rather than being driven by unconscious patterns.

Key Approaches:

• Self-observation: Cultivating awareness of your thoughts, emotions, and reactions allows you to identify unhelpful ego-driven patterns and make conscious choices about how you respond to situations.
• Creative expression: Engaging in creative activities like art, music, or writing can provide a channel for expressing your deeper self and tapping into your connection to the Oversoul.
• Empathy and compassion: Connecting with others on a deeper level through empathy and compassion transcends the separation the ego creates and allows you to experience your interconnectedness with all beings.

Overall:

Transcending the ego in the Seth Material is not about suppressing your individuality, but rather about expanding your awareness and realizing your connection to a larger whole. It's a journey of personal growth and transformation, where you learn to use your ego as a tool while living from a space of greater consciousness and understanding.

Remember:

• While Seth offers valuable insights, the process of transcending the ego is unique and ongoing for each individual.
• Explore different spiritual and philosophical perspectives to find practices and approaches that resonate with you on your own journey.

I hope this elaboration provides a clearer understanding of Seth's view on transcending the ego. If you have any further questions or specific aspects you'd like to explore further, feel free to ask!

 

 

[Sunmaster]

Not sure how accurate the above info is...

 

[Sunmaster]

And with that, I'll let you digest and I will retire for the time being. 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/15/2024 at 4:07 PM, Tippaporn said:

 

It's enjoyable but not great reggae.

 

 

  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. 

While I don't know what "rock" you are referring to, I probably don't like it then.

I had Vonda Shepard's version of "in dreams" on repeat in the car, played very loudly while driving today- doesn't get better than that, unless it's AC DC played very loudly while sitting in a Pattaya Walking Street road front bar. Been there, done that and was so happy I almost wet myself ( the line "she told me to come but I was already there" has never been more appropriate.

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

> The meaning of this phrase is that the true nature of things cannot be fully captured or explained through words or language. It suggests that there is a deeper, more profound reality that lies beyond our ability to understand or express it through language. It highlights the limitations of human understanding and language and encourages us to seek a deeper understanding of the world beyond what we can see or hear.

 

This phrase is also interpreted as a reminder that language and concepts can only point to the true reality, they cannot capture it. It is a reminder that words and concepts are limited and that the world is full of mystery, and that it's important to avoid becoming too attached to ideas, concepts or words as they can limit one's understanding of the true reality. It suggests that true understanding comes from intuition and direct experience rather than through language or concepts.

 

= = =

 

Why this quote? 

Because all religions / teachings are by definition an imperfect way of trying to convey in words/writing what cannot be expressed in language. 

And so when choosing which Path (if any) to follow on your individual journey towards Truth, it is only natural that you will be attracted to that religion / teaching which is most aligned with you current level of consciousness.  For Tippa that's Seth, for Sunmaster it are the Hindu yogi's, sages and masters.  For me it's Gurdjieff and the Sufi sages.

Let me be clear > Imo there is no wrong or right Path, but it is the path that helps you on your journey which is the right one for you. And the closer you get to the Truth (or actual Reality as Tippa would say), the more you will recognize and appreciate the unspoken same undercurrent in all of these spiritual approaches.

and what if, shock horror, there is no path at all?

 

I come from the viewpoint that "God works in mysterious ways" and if God wanted us to know how God worked, God would make it a lot more easier to understand than it is.

 

Soooo, I had my Damascus moment, and yes, God exists, but God isn't running some sort of club that can be accessed only if we read a lot of stuff and practice meditation etc. We are all welcome, good, bad and indifferent- after all, we all have a bit of God in us, regardless of how we lived.

 

I'll take my glimpses of the almighty in nature in general and in particular in a a sunset ( preferentially a sunset on a lovely breach with a friendly companion- but unfortunately God isn't in the business of granting wishes ), and wait for it all to be revealed in not too many years from now.

 

Not that I'm dissing anyone else's theories- after all I know sod all about it, and perhaps I'm just too busy doing other things to try one of those paths.

[Tippaporn]

11 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I had Vonda Shepard's version of "in dreams" on repeat in the car, played very loudly while driving today

 

That would be Dreamin' and not In Dreams, right?  Geez, TBL, dancing while driving is kinda dangerous, dontcha think? 

 

11 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

On 1/15/2024 at 10:07 AM, Tippaporn said:

 

It's enjoyable but not great reggae.

 

 

  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. 

While I don't know what "rock" you are referring to, I probably don't like it then.

 

11 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

. . . unless it's AC DC played very loudly while sitting in a Pattaya Walking Street road front bar.

 

That's the kinda rock that I was thinking about that you can't dance to.  AC/DC.  You'll certainly move to the music but it ain't dance moves. 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

 

That would be Dreamin' and not In Dreams, right?  Geez, TBL, dancing while driving is kinda dangerous, dontcha think? 

 

 

 

That's the kinda rock that I was thinking about that you can't dance to.  AC/DC.  You'll certainly move to the music but it ain't dance moves. 

 

What are you on about? Waltzing would be kinda hard while driving. I just like to sing along.

 

https://www.justsomelyrics.com/1321218/vonda-shepard-in-dreams-lyrics.html

Vonda Shepard In dreams Lyrics

I close my eyes and I drift away
Into the magic night I softly say
A silent prayer, like dreamers do.
Then I fall asleep to dream my dreams of you.

In dreams I walk with you. In dreams I talk to you.
In dreams you're mine. All of the time were together
In dreams, in dreams.

Its too bad that all these things, can only happen in my dreams
Only in dreams in beautiful dreams.

 

 

 

That's the kinda rock that I was thinking about that you can't dance to.  AC/DC.  You'll certainly move to the music but it ain't dance moves. 

 

Wanna bet? You haven't seem me doing "shapes" to AC DC then? ( I believe "shapes" is how young people refer to dancing, but I could be wrong ).

[Tippaporn]

18 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

In regards to RP's post, how do you see this point of direct experience as opposed to mere intellectual knowledge, Tippa?

Is Lao Tze's statement a distortion?

Does Seth offer practical methods to obtain direct experience? 

 

Asking for a friend...

 

Well, to answer your first two questions I'll reply to RP regarding that wonderful Brainly interpretation of Lao Tze's quote.  I'll leave the third question for another post.

 

21 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

Your post reminded me of this saying by Lao Tze -

"the way that can be spoken is not the true way"

That quote can be explained in many ways, but instead of trying to put its meaning in my owns word (or rather how I interpret it), I consulted the Brainly website, and the answer that came up addressed it in a far more eloquent way than what I would have written. 

 

> The meaning of this phrase is that the true nature of things cannot be fully captured or explained through words or language. It suggests that there is a deeper, more profound reality that lies beyond our ability to understand or express it through language. It highlights the limitations of human understanding and language and encourages us to seek a deeper understanding of the world beyond what we can see or hear.

 

This phrase is also interpreted as a reminder that language and concepts can only point to the true reality, they cannot capture it. It is a reminder that words and concepts are limited and that the world is full of mystery, and that it's important to avoid becoming too attached to ideas, concepts or words as they can limit one's understanding of the true reality. It suggests that true understanding comes from intuition and direct experience rather than through language or concepts.

 

"The meaning of this phrase is that the true nature of things cannot be fully captured or explained through words or language."

 

Now this statement certainly mirrors Seth's explanation where everything in our world is a physical representation of something which exists in our inner reality.  Spot on.  Dead nuts.  Also, it reflects perfectly Seth's explanation that the source reality of what is being represented physically is much greater than the reality of the same in it's physical representation.  Seth had made a number of points regarding this.

 

For one, he stated that there exists no camouflage system capable of containing, or perhaps a better term, expressing the whole.  But he then also quickly and immediately tied that fact together with the purpose of camouflage systems to begin with.  So I ask, why does greater consciousness create these camouflage systems in the first place?  That, my friends, is an important question.  And if one misses the point of why greater consciousness creates camouflage systems, or ignores fitting the answer into their overall picture, or map of reality, then that would allow for distortions to then emerge.

 

Now what rubs me the wrong way with both Lao Tze's quote and Brainly's interpretation is the use of the word 'true'.  I will insist that it's an inappropriate word as it must imply that anything other that true is false.  I would replace 'true' with 'greater' wherever possible to make it more accurate.  Whilst it is certainly true that language has it's limitations then once aware of the fact it then becomes even more important to use this limited tool as accurately as possible.  Which means using those words which most accurately convey the meaning intended and are less prone to be interpreted other than the intended meaning.  Seth has remarked on this often and has explicitly stated at times why he shies away from using certain common descriptive words as they are too loaded in the different potential meanings they carry.  Specifically, he mentions that he prefers 'entity' over 'soul' as the latter is chock full of different definitions and meanings whilst the former, not so much.

 

Another entity similar to Seth, Abraham, had remarked on the limitations of language as well.  Now they made a very fine substitution for the world 'love'.  Love is probably one of the most loaded terms one can think of as it means so many different things to different people.  So Abraham replaced it with 'appreciation.'  Appreciation is reflective of love but it's definition is very straightforward and not apt to be misinterpreted as meaning something else.

 

Just to note.  One of the reasons my replies are so time consuming for me is that I've long ago recognised the limitations of language and the importance of conveying understanding with as much accuracy as possible.  Therefore I spend a lot of time choosing my words very carefully.  I make use of a Thesaurus often to choose the synonym which best fits what meaning I'm intending to convey.  I also use adjectives profusely.  And I always reread my posts before hitting the submit reply button and it's not often that I don't edit my original text.  I'm also very repetitive.   

 

Getting back to the Brainly interpretation.  I'll walk through it line by line.

 

The meaning of this phrase is that the true greater nature of things cannot be fully captured or explained through words or language.

Edit only.

 

It suggests that there is a deeper, more profound reality that lies beyond our ability to understand or express it through language.

Spot on.

 

It highlights the limitations of human understanding and though language and encourages us to seek a deeper understanding of the world beyond what we can see or hear.

Edit only.

 

This phrase is also interpreted as a reminder that language and concepts can only point to the true greater reality, they cannot fully capture it.

Edit only.

 

It is a reminder that words and concepts are limited and that the world is full of mystery, and that it's important to avoid becoming too attached to ideas, concepts or words as they can limit one's understanding of the true greater reality.

Edit & comment.  Green = Kind of ambiguous to me.  Unfortunately, I can't quite put my finger on it as I'm not too clear on the precise meaning that this is alluding to.  It's the "ideas, concepts" part that I'm having trouble with.  Somehow they don't seem to fit.  Any suggestions or what it means to you?

 

It suggests that true greater understanding comes from intuition and direct experience rather than through language or concepts.

Edit & comment.  Green = I'd strike the "or concepts" as it doesn't fit with the rest of the statement to me.  Perhaps their definition of the word is different than mine and thus fits for them.  The definition which I agree with is:  an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars; a construct.

 

I would argue that, given the definition of 'concept' per my accepted definition, we are quite capable of intuiting concepts whilst not finding the words to describe them, as often they don't even exist.  Perhaps an example.  What you experience, Sunmaster, when you meditate and connect in the way you do then you would say, I believe, that that connection, or direct experience, conveys an understanding that you cannot otherwise understand.  And yet since that greater reality which you've experienced directly cannot be expressed in it's fullness in this reality you do come out of that experience retaining the concept, or the construct, of that greater reality.  It's not purely intellectual understanding but a combination of intellectual understanding and intuitive understanding.  At least that's my idea.  And so I would conclude that as physical creatures we are quite capable of understanding via conceptualisation which, again, would be combining the intellect and the intuitions.  Hopefully what I'm trying to express isn't coming out as too convoluted.    And I hope, too, that you don't think I'm being too anal in my analysis. 

 

In any case, to close out this post, I'll again pose my question which answer, in my opinion, seems to get lost or overlooked.

 

So I ask, why does greater consciousness create these camouflage systems in the first place?

 

And perhaps another, too.

 

Why do you choose to come into this camouflage system in the first place?  For it was, indeed, your choice to be here (though you would be hard pressed to recall making that decision ). 

[Tippaporn]

47 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What are you on about? Waltzing would be kinda hard while driving. I just like to sing along.

 

Just poking fun, TBL.    Waltzing?  Does anyone do that anymore? 

[Tippaporn]

49 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Wanna bet? You haven't seem me doing "shapes" to AC DC then? ( I believe "shapes" is how young people refer to dancing, but I could be wrong ).

 

No do post a video of you "shaping" (if you dare).  THAT would be fun to watch. 

[Tippaporn]

54 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

https://www.justsomelyrics.com/1321218/vonda-shepard-in-dreams-lyrics.html

Vonda Shepard In dreams Lyrics

I close my eyes and I drift away
Into the magic night I softly say
A silent prayer, like dreamers do.
Then I fall asleep to dream my dreams of you.

In dreams I walk with you. In dreams I talk to you.
In dreams you're mine. All of the time were together
In dreams, in dreams.

Its too bad that all these things, can only happen in my dreams
Only in dreams in beautiful dreams.

 

Odd.  I can't find it on YouTube. 

[Tippaporn]

18 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

So I ask, why does greater consciousness create these camouflage systems in the first place?

 

And perhaps another, too.

 

Why do you choose to come into this camouflage system in the first place?  For it was, indeed, your choice to be here (though you would be hard pressed to recall making that decision ). 

 

@Sunmaster

 

Rather than edit my post to include another question, and something else which seems to be lacking in any of your discussions of the worldview you hold, gleaned from various sources, is this:

 

What of the inherent infinite creativity which consciousness is endowed with?  Where does that fit into 'higher' and 'lower' consciousness and inner and outer realities?

 

 

[Tippaporn]

21 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

While I wait for your reply, I asked another wise "man" called BARD.

 

Does Seth have any practical methods (like meditation) on reaching a higher state of consciousness?

While the Seth Material primarily focuses on personal creation and exploring individual realities, it does offer some practical suggestions for expanding consciousness, though not in the structured, traditional sense of meditation found in other spiritual paths. Here are some key ideas:

Focus on Awareness:

• Observing your thoughts and emotions: Seth emphasizes cultivating a continuous awareness of your internal landscape, observing thoughts, feelings, and beliefs without judgment. This self-observation can reveal limiting patterns and unconscious conditioning that can hinder your growth.
• Noticing reality's fluidity: Pay attention to the dynamic nature of your experiences and perceptions. See how your thoughts and expectations shape your environment and how reality can be reshaped through deliberate intention.

Creative Practices:

• Visualization and imagination: Seth encourages active use of your imagination to visualize desired realities and potential outcomes. This can help overcome limiting beliefs and open up possibilities for personal growth and manifestation.
• Dream exploration: Dreams, according to Seth, offer glimpses into different realities and aspects of your subconscious mind. By actively recalling and interpreting your dreams, you can gain valuable insights and tap into deeper levels of awareness.
• Artistic expression: Engaging in creative activities like writing, music, or art can be a powerful tool for expressing your inner world and connecting with deeper levels of your being.

Living Consciously:

• Embracing life experiences: Approach challenges and difficulties as opportunities for learning and growth. See every experience as a chance to expand your understanding of yourself and the world around you.
• Practicing empathy and compassion: Developing empathy and understanding for others allows you to transcend your own ego and connect with the larger web of consciousness. This can contribute to a more fulfilling and meaningful existence.

Overall Approach:

• Personal exploration: There's no rigid formula for higher consciousness in the Seth Material. It's more about self-exploration, experimentation, and discovering what works best for you.
• Individual responsibility: You are seen as the creator of your own reality, responsible for your thoughts, beliefs, and experiences. The emphasis is on taking ownership of your life and actively shaping your destiny.

It's important to note that these are just some glimpses into the practical suggestions offered by the Seth Material. You'll need to delve deeper into the original texts or discussions with experienced practitioners to get a more comprehensive understanding and find practices that resonate with you.

Remember, there's no one-size-fits-all path to higher consciousness. While the Seth Material offers unique perspectives and approaches, it's up to you to choose what resonates with you and create your own personal journey of spiritual exploration.

 

As to your third question . . .

 

I believe I had passed this on to you earlier.  123 pages.    The definitive handbook on Seth's recommended exercises.

 

Here's an interesting one pertaining to my comments on RP's Brainly offering.

 

Experiencing an idea intuitively

When this focus is finished, when the subject tells himself "Now I will come to, now I have solved the problems that I set out to solve," then what hap-pens is the withdrawal of the self from the plane. The construction vanishes and is heir to the materials which compose the particular universe.

I will also go into this more deeply. You should be able to see now why a concept such as I refer to is difficult to achieve on your plane. You cannot focus upon it thoroughly. When the fourth inner sense is exercised, and I will outline exercises and all three of you would certainly benefit by following my suggestions, you will discover what an idea really is.

You will discover this by experiencing the idea directly, and you can best achieve some approximation of accomplishment by using psychological time. Your idea of experiencing a concept is doubtlessly to follow it through from beginning to end. Sweet tootsies, there is no beginning or end, and this idea of yours is the result of a complete and utter concentration upon camouflage time.

Nor does the evolution of either an idea or a species involve time. It merely involves time in your universe. You insist upon labeling as laws of absolutes what is actually your distorted and limited vision of concepts as they seem to appear to you. Using psychological time, sit in a quiet room; and I hope this is not impossible, when an idea comes to you, and I presume it will, do not play with it intellectually. You can dissect it to your heart's content after the experience.

Reach out to the idea intuitively. Do not be afraid of or reject unfamiliar bodily sensations. With practice, and to a very limited degree, you will find that you can become the idea. You will be inside the idea, looking out, not looking in. This is thought.

If you think you think you are in for a surprise.

Session 37, Page 298

 

 

Compilation of Seth Exercises.pdf

 

Edited January 17 by Tippaporn

[Sunmaster]

52 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

It is a reminder that words and concepts are limited and that the world is full of mystery, and that it's important to avoid becoming too attached to ideas, concepts or words as they can limit one's understanding of the true greater reality.

Edit & comment.  Green = Kind of ambiguous to me.  Unfortunately, I can't quite put my finger on it as I'm not too clear on the precise meaning that this is alluding to.  It's the "ideas, concepts" part that I'm having trouble with.  Somehow they don't seem to fit.  Any suggestions or what it means to you?

Excellent post.

The green section reminds me of the finger and the moon analogy. It is important to remember that the finger pointing at the moon (I called it "map" in previous posts) is not the moon. Becoming too attached to the finger, focusing too much on the way it looks, comparing it with other fingers etc, is keeping the seeker from experiencing the moon itself. 
Concepts emerge after the direct experience and are a way for the mind to build a framework around it and make sense of the experience. During the experience, there are no concepts because those are "mind stuff". The experience transcends the mind. 
So, all this means is not to get attached to the mind stuff, which is just a reflection of the moon in muddy waters.
 

 

59 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

So I ask, why does greater consciousness create these camouflage systems in the first place?

 

A common answer to this question (also known as "What the hell are we doing here?!") is that it is a way for the One to experience itself. And to do that, it has to split into 2. The next step is to put a veil of forgetfulness over the creation in order for the game to really work. 

Imagine the One being a child. It's lonely and bored and wants a friend to play with. So it creates finger puppets. Now it has 10 puppets on its hands but they have no independence. So the child decides to let the finger puppets forget the fact that they are the fingers of the child, so they start believing that they are separate entities. They start to interact with each other as if they were separate characters. The child observes them and chuckles in delight. "Oh look at them. So funny. I wonder when they will realize their true nature. Well, let's wait and see."
Or something like this. :-D

 

 

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Why do you choose to come into this camouflage system in the first place?  For it was, indeed, your choice to be here (though you would be hard pressed to recall making that decision ). 

Difficult to answer. Who is that "you" you're referring to? 

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

 

As to your third question . . .

 

I believe I had passed this on to you earlier.  123 pages.    The definitive handbook on Seth's recommended exercises.

 

Here's an interesting one pertaining to my comments on RP's Brainly offering.

 

Experiencing an idea intuitively

When this focus is finished, when the subject tells himself "Now I will come to, now I have solved the problems that I set out to solve," then what hap-pens is the withdrawal of the self from the plane. The construction vanishes and is heir to the materials which compose the particular universe.

I will also go into this more deeply. You should be able to see now why a concept such as I refer to is difficult to achieve on your plane. You cannot focus upon it thoroughly. When the fourth inner sense is exercised, and I will outline exercises and all three of you would certainly benefit by following my suggestions, you will discover what an idea really is.

You will discover this by experiencing the idea directly, and you can best achieve some approximation of accomplishment by using psychological time. Your idea of experiencing a concept is doubtlessly to follow it through from beginning to end. Sweet tootsies, there is no beginning or end, and this idea of yours is the result of a complete and utter concentration upon camouflage time.

Nor does the evolution of either an idea or a species involve time. It merely involves time in your universe. You insist upon labeling as laws of absolutes what is actually your distorted and limited vision of concepts as they seem to appear to you. Using psychological time, sit in a quiet room; and I hope this is not impossible, when an idea comes to you, and I presume it will, do not play with it intellectually. You can dissect it to your heart's content after the experience.

Reach out to the idea intuitively. Do not be afraid of or reject unfamiliar bodily sensations. With practice, and to a very limited degree, you will find that you can become the idea. You will be inside the idea, looking out, not looking in. This is thought.

If you think you think you are in for a surprise.

Session 37, Page 298

 

 

Compilation of Seth Exercises.pdf 607.66 kB · 0 downloads

 

I often read about "psychological time" but to be honest, I still don't quite understand what it is exactly. Maybe you can explain it?

The practical instruction here is a bit confusing. How do you become the idea? What is the point in becoming the idea? How do you reach out to the idea without becoming attached to it? Have you done it or are you practicing this? How?

I will try to answer your other question about creativity later. Now I have to take Basil and drive to the immigration office.

Edited January 17 by Sunmaster

[Tippaporn]

@Sunmaster

 

About time you showed up.  Ya know, we all start work around here no later than 5 AM.  So you sleep late, post a quick reply, and off you go on errands.  Sheesh! 

 

You remind me of Frankenstein . . .  (from one of the best comedies ever made )

 

 

Edited January 17 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

Or something like this. :-D

 

 

Sorry, just a very quick reply.  Good post, and I read it, but I'm outta time for today.  I admit, though, that when i read your explanation, in serious contemplation, as to why consciousness creates camouflage realities and you ended with that line I literally laughed out loud.  Ya gotta admit that after giving someone a detailed and somewhat lengthy explanation and ending with, "something like that," is funny. 

 

Edited January 17 by Tippaporn

[Sunmaster]

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Imagine the One being a child. It's lonely and bored and wants a friend to play with. So it creates finger puppets. Now it has 10 puppets on its hands but they have no independence. So the child decides to let the finger puppets forget the fact that they are the fingers of the child, so they start believing that they are separate entities. They start to interact with each other as if they were separate characters. The child observes them and chuckles in delight. "Oh look at them. So funny. I wonder when they will realize their true nature. Well, let's wait and see."
Or something like this. :-D

Addendum about "free will".

From the perspective of the puppets they are indeed under the impression that they are deciding things. But ultimately they wouldn't exist without the will of the child. The child's will is a priori to the puppet's will. That makes their "free will" an illusion just like their existence as separate beings is an illusion. 

Does that make sense?

 

 

[Sunmaster]

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

@Sunmaster

 

Rather than edit my post to include another question, and something else which seems to be lacking in any of your discussions of the worldview you hold, gleaned from various sources, is this:

 

What of the inherent infinite creativity which consciousness is endowed with?  Where does that fit into 'higher' and 'lower' consciousness and inner and outer realities?

 

 

I see creativity as an inherent quality of consciousness. The same way as love. We are vehicles to express these qualities. 

One may tap into these qualities according to his present state of development. 

 

Incidentally, I just wrote a comment today on Facebook in one of the watercolor groups.

"Art is the physical interpretation, expression and manifestation of your inner world. A shallow person will produce shallow art. A person who has navigated  and explored the inner world deeply, will be able to produce art full of deeper meaning. Strive to know yourself, your true nature and identity and good art will follow. This is independent of technical skills, but those skills obviously help to translate the inner world into physical art effectively."

 

While I have a hard time calling myself an artist (creativity+skills), I think I'm quite creative and I try to channel this in everything I do. 

 

Does this answer your question? 

[VincentRJ]

11 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Now what rubs me the wrong way with both Lao Tze's quote and Brainly's interpretation is the use of the word 'true'.  I will insist that it's an inappropriate word as it must imply that anything other that true is false.  I would replace 'true' with 'greater' wherever possible to make it more accurate.  Whilst it is certainly true that language has it's limitations then once aware of the fact it then becomes even more important to use this limited tool as accurately as possible.  Which means using those words which most accurately convey the meaning intended and are less prone to be interpreted other than the intended meaning. 

 

That's is a good point. The precise meaning of the words we use is a very significant issue. When one searches the dictionary for the meaning of any word in common usage, there are often many variations and synonyms, and the meaning often changes with the context.

 

However, the numerous scientific disciplines have to create words that are much more precise.
According to my search on the internet, the average English speaker knows, or recognizes, about 40,000 different words, but around half of those are only partially understood, and not understood well enough for active use, so the average English speaker uses only around 20,000 words.

 

The full Oxford English Dictionary list about 500,000 words, but it's estimated there are another half million technical and scientific words that are not listed in the Oxford English Dictionary. The field of Biology alone has over 70,000 precise terms, which is almost twice the number of words that the average English speaker has stored in his/her memory.

 

However, there appears to be hundreds of 'branches' of the major scientific disciplines. The following Wiki article lists them, but doesn't provide a total number. Perhaps someone has the time to count them. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_branches_of_science

[Chris Daley]

Christians are definitely the slimey spineless ones of the bunch.  At least the others have some balls and conviction for their holy books.  The Christians I've met in the past have been some of the most devious people I've met.  Even now listening to them in the office is nauseating.  Met one freak that was into men and hot tubs.  No women allowed.  Odd trips to South America with a bunch of other peoples' kids twice a year.  Missionary workers scamming money from the community and flying around first class.  One <deleted> would walk around the school hugging all the boys.  Why not the girls?  Just keep the professional distance at work.  Creepy people those Christians.

Edited January 17 by Chris Daley

[Tippaporn]

7 hours ago, Chris Daley said:

Christians are definitely the slimey spineless ones of the bunch.  At least the others have some balls and conviction for their holy books.  The Christians I've met in the past have been some of the most devious people I've met.  Even now listening to them in the office is nauseating.  Met one freak that was into men and hot tubs.  No women allowed.  Odd trips to South America with a bunch of other peoples' kids twice a year.  Missionary workers scamming money from the community and flying around first class.  One <deleted> would walk around the school hugging all the boys.  Why not the girls?  Just keep the professional distance at work.  Creepy people those Christians.

 

Ah, we're all a bunch of hypocrites. 

 

Joking aside, though in truth it is not mere jest, I had the epiphany at age 23 that we're all natural born hypocrites.  The realisation didn't come to me as a judgement, nor was it meant as a slight against man, but as a simple fact, or an accurate assessment of reality.  There is no one alive who does not hold conflicting beliefs about one thing or another.  Conflicting meaning two ideas which contradict, or oppose each other.  The old adage "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" is a beautiful expression of this fact.

 

The truth is everyone has strong convictions . . . until circumstances dictate otherwise. 

 

"Creepy people those Christians."

 

Isn't it obvious to you that it is your beliefs which create for you a stereotyped distortion of what Christians are?  And then to generalise by throwing them all into a single basket?  If you deny that then there are folks here who are not so fooled.  Just letting you know in a friendly way.   

 

Edited January 17 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

8 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

When one searches the dictionary for the meaning of any word in common usage, there are often many variations and synonyms, and the meaning often changes with the context.

 

You've noticed that, too. 

 

And that leads to how many misunderstandings, which then lead to arguments as people use the same word but each assigns a different meaning?

 

I make constant use of a thesaurus over a dictionary because I can then choose the synonym which matches best.  Although I do then, just to make sure, often but not always, look up the definition of the synonym I pick.  One of the benefits I've found is that it vastly expands my vocabulary to the point where the 'perfect' word comes to me easily from memory.  And I also benefit by then being able to express myself so much better in verbal conversations as well.

[Sunmaster]

The thesaurus....at least one book we all have in common. 🤣

[Tippaporn]

17 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

19 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Imagine the One being a child. It's lonely and bored and wants a friend to play with. So it creates finger puppets. Now it has 10 puppets on its hands but they have no independence. So the child decides to let the finger puppets forget the fact that they are the fingers of the child, so they start believing that they are separate entities. They start to interact with each other as if they were separate characters. The child observes them and chuckles in delight. "Oh look at them. So funny. I wonder when they will realize their true nature. Well, let's wait and see."
Or something like this. :-D

Addendum about "free will".

From the perspective of the puppets they are indeed under the impression that they are deciding things. But ultimately they wouldn't exist without the will of the child. The child's will is a priori to the puppet's will. That makes their "free will" an illusion just like their existence as separate beings is an illusion. 

Does that make sense?

 

Well now, time for a fuller reply.  And thanks for your additional explanation. 

 

"Imagine the One being a child. It's lonely and bored and wants a friend to play with."

 

I would say that your analogy is inappropriate since your greater self is not bored in the least.    Your greater self is sourced in endless creativity.  Your greater self is engaged in constant and never ending self expression.  It is also eternally fulfilling itself.  Thus in it's creative expression of itself towards it's fulfillment it forms realities in which it seeds with portions of itself.  Bored?  I don't think so. 

 

"So it creates finger puppets. Now it has 10 puppets on its hands but they have no independence."

 

I believe the idea that our physical selves have no independence to be highly distorted.  Consider this:

 

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.

 

Seth's introduction of consciousness units, or CUs, I consider to be one of his most startling revelations.  The shocker he is bringing awareness to is that these indivisible units of consciousness form all types of consciousness.  Now in Seth's previous books he's made clear the idea that what we are, our physical Sunmaster selves, is a gestalt consciousness.  Now I should give my definition of 'gestalt':  an organized whole that is perceived as more than the sum of its parts.  These CUs, then, organize themselves into gestalts and then these gestalts have their own identity as a gestalt consciousness.  Hi, Sunmaster!!    Yet the individual CUs always retain their identities and individuality despite merging together to form a greater unit.  Hi, Sunmaster!!    The mechanics of this are gone into much greater depth by Seth.

 

Think of a company.  Any company is composed of individuals.  As a company, a gestalt created by and comprised of all the individuals taking willing part in the company, it then, too, has an identity as say, XYZ Corp.  Now the company assigns functions to the individuals, all of whom freely and willingly take part.  Whilst the company provides a certain amount of direction the workers, then, have free will which is bounded by the company's rules and regulations.  Yet if an individual decides to leave the company, which he is free to do, then he still retains his identity and his free will but moves on.  This is rather a crude analogy and one which just came to mind.  I'd have to think about it more to see that it's truly fitting but I think it gets the general idea across. 

 

Now this material certainly blows apart our limited views of identity.  And individuality.  And explains our separate individuality despite being unified with our greater self, which is merely a much greater gestalt consciousness than the gestalt consciousness that we are as physical selves.  Remember my analogy of Russian Matryoshka dolls?  To me they represent a gestalt consciousness within, or part of, another gestalt consciousness, which itself is part of an even greater gestalt consciousness.  This is how I view All That Is.  The ultimate gestalt consciousness which is, as the definition of gestalt defines: an organized whole that is perceived as more than the sum of its parts.  All That Is is more than the sum of it's parts.

 

Seth also makes my analogy of the Russian Matryoshka dolls clear in this passage:

 

The units 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 [In Consciousness]."

You think of one I-self (spelled) 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.

 

Consciousness creates camouflage systems which they then immerse themselves in.  At least as much of themselves as can be expressed within that camouflage system, for the whole cannot fit.  Those portions of itself that enter the camouflage system are themselves gestalt consciousness with their own identity and individuality and free will and independence.  Question:  do you think babies are made only on earth? 

 

The last two lines of that excerpt describe, or allude to, the never ending expansion of our greater selves, which has nothing to do with space.  The point of our physical selves is to aide in that expansion.  That makes us critically important to our greater selves.  And our physical experience then changes our greater self.  And so it is with All That Is as well.  Never ending expansion via fulfillment and rediscovering itself as something else, all rooted in inherent and unlimited creativity.

 

I had mentioned before that the Unknown Reality is one of my favourite books, though not until sometime later in my life as I needed to become knowledgeable about other concepts first.  Here is Seth speaking directly to what I'm alluding to:

 

"The Nature of Personal Reality" is an excellent handbook, one that will enable people to manipulate in the world they know with greater effectiveness. It will not matter whether or not they understand deeper issues upon which the whole nature of physical reality itself depends. The material I am giving now will attempt some explanation of those deeper issues.

Ruburt's own development makes this possible, for it was necessary that he progress to the point that he has in "Adventures [In Consciousness]," and reach the level of certain theories so that these could be used as springboards. Give us a moment . . .

 

It turns out that my experience was no different.  I needed to understand more concepts upon which the material on consciousness units would make sense to me.

 

I've been toying a lot lately with the idea of presenting Seth's material on consciousness units and walking them through in my own words as I simply can't shake the feeling that this material would would bring a great deal of clarity and explanation that would dispel so many distortions, as I sense them to be.  Because a part of me feels to be going round and round as what I'm attempting to explain on other issues appears to me to not be understood.  There is a great deal of material that follows what I have excerpted which is in itself exceedingly eye opening as well.  Seth gets into the mechanics of it.  The mere existence of Basil serves as proof that you like to get down with the nuts and bolts. 

 

Anyway, that's my long-winded response.    As I see it, your difficulty with the above will be whether or not it fits into your worldview, or what about it may clash with your worldview.  No doubt you may find yourself having to rearrange some of your mental furniture.  Or you'll simply reject what clashes or doesn't fit and let me know in no uncertain terms. 

[Tippaporn]

3 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

The thesaurus....at least one book we all have in common. 🤣

 

True but . . . Yeah, well my thesaurus is a better one than yours.  So many more entries. 

[Tippaporn]

@Sunmaster

 

Afterthoughts.  Goddamned afterthoughts.  I wish they'd leave me alone. 

 

In my last post I did not mention explicitly that what All That Is is is (a trifecta of is's - can you do that!!  ) the totality of all these CUs, and yet it is more than the sum of it's parts.  Recall that Seth said that God was, in a truer sense, an idea.  Does that statement by Seth then make sense?