Do you believe in God and why

[Sunmaster]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

With the implication that intellectual knowledge is of less or of little value?  And so dispense with the intellect and go for direct experience only? 

Again, not what I said. 
I said they are not equal when it comes to the subjective inner world. The intellect is a tool to explore and manipulate the world for our benefit. But it's not the appropriate tool to explore the inner world, at least when used on its own without the vital input of direct experience.
Nobody said anything about dispensing with the intellect or relying on direct experience exclusively. 
The intellect can be used in our favour though. For example by shaping new habits and routines that in turn promote direct experience. In practical terms, setting up a place and time for meditation. But once you sit down in meditation, the intellect has done its job. Insisting on using it from this point onwards is the exact opposite of what meditation is all about. The intellect is fed by thoughts and thoughts are what prevents us from "hearing the silence". 

[Sunmaster]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Whew.  So you understand the vital importance of Sunmaster now?  And that Brahman can never be a replacement for Sunmaster?  I know I'm stretching things here . . . 

 

Who are you again? 

Replacement? Sorry, I don't follow....

[Tippaporn]

45 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Or....they are all right, given the limited amount of data they have. Of course, from a wider perspective we can see that each of them only holds a partial truth.

 

Now that's stretching it.    Your inner self depends on accurate assessments of reality from your outer self in order to perform it's function.  What about, or how could any of those answers be interpreted as "partial truths?"  Now that's an answer I'd love to hear. 

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

@Sunmaster

 

Christianity prescribes a way of life.  Islam prescribes a way of life.  Hinduism prescribes a way of life.  Buddhism prescribes a way of life.  Vedanta prescribes a way of life.  Seth does not prescribe a way of life.  That's a huge difference.

And yet, all of them are simply maps of reality. A reality that has to be condensed and diluted enough to make sense for us. 
Can you grasp and truly know/feel what it means to be one with AllThatIs by using your intellect? Can you feel the bliss, the ecstasy of feeling the divine love flowing through your whole being by thinking about it? According to you, you should be able to. If the intellect can generate knowledge on the same level of direct experience, then this should be quite easy.

[Sunmaster]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Now that's stretching it.    Your inner self depends on accurate assessments of reality from your outer self in order to perform it's function.  What about, or how could any of those answers be interpreted as "partial truths?"  Now that's an answer I'd love to hear. 

An issue of definition first.
You use the Sethian definitions of outer self and inner self, where the inner self is a connecting point between the world (outer ego) and the vastness of the inner world. So from the outside to the inside, it goes like this (correct me if I'm wrong here): outer ego, inner ego, entity, Oversoul, AllThatIs.
The Self I'm talking about is not the same as the "inner self". I use this progression: ego, self (individualized consciousness) and SELF (Absolute Consciousness).
In that sense, the SELF needs nothing as it contains everything. The self however, needs to peel off ignorance to remember that it is in fact the SELF. To do that, it needs an accurate assessment of the reality it lives in.

[Tippaporn]

21 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

32 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Now that's stretching it.    Your inner self depends on accurate assessments of reality from your outer self in order to perform it's function.  What about, or how could any of those answers be interpreted as "partial truths?"  Now that's an answer I'd love to hear. 

An issue of definition first.
You use the Sethian definitions of outer self and inner self, where the inner self is a connecting point between the world (outer ego) and the vastness of the inner world. So from the outside to the inside, it goes like this (correct me if I'm wrong here): outer ego, inner ego, entity, Oversoul, AllThatIs.
The Self I'm talking about is not the same as the "inner self". I use this progression: ego, self (individualized consciousness) and SELF (Absolute Consciousness).
In that sense, the SELF needs nothing as it contains everything. The self however, needs to peel off ignorance to remember that it is in fact the SELF. To do that, it needs an accurate assessment of the reality it lives in.

 

You didn't answer the question.  I didn't ask about the definition of our psychic structure.

[Tippaporn]

33 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

@Sunmaster

 

Christianity prescribes a way of life.  Islam prescribes a way of life.  Hinduism prescribes a way of life.  Buddhism prescribes a way of life.  Vedanta prescribes a way of life.  Seth does not prescribe a way of life.  That's a huge difference.

And yet, all of them are simply maps of reality. A reality that has to be condensed and diluted enough to make sense for us. 
Can you grasp and truly know/feel what it means to be one with AllThatIs by using your intellect? Can you feel the bliss, the ecstasy of feeling the divine love flowing through your whole being by thinking about it? According to you, you should be able to. If the intellect can generate knowledge on the same level of direct experience, then this should be quite easy.

 

Here, too, I made a comment about religions prescribing a way of life whereas Seth doesn't prescribe one at all.  What do maps of reality have to do with that?  And I never mentioned the intellect but you went into a discussion of it.  So where does that come from?

[Sunmaster]

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

You didn't answer the question.  I didn't ask about the definition of our psychic structure.

Sorry, I thought that was self-evident...
The person who touches the belly and says it feels like a wall is correct. It does feel like a wall. His statement is correct given the limited data and context. So are all the others. Their partial truths are correct. Only a wider perspective reveals that they are only partially correct.
We don't know what we don't know.

[Tippaporn]

42 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

  

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

5 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

8 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

When I ask you "why is Sunmaster here in this world" my answer is that this reality is one of your creations and demands that you use all of the abilities of the type of consciousness that is yours presently.  And using those abilities is what leads to the fulfillment of the individual personality (such as your art for you).  And through your personality then that adds to the fulfillment of your greater self and All That Is.  Adds to, which suggests that there is no single fulfillment.

Yes, I agree. 
I think this is an universal truth and I don't see a conflict between our points of view.

Whew.  So you understand the vital importance of Sunmaster now?  And that Brahman can never be a replacement for Sunmaster?  I know I'm stretching things here . . . 

 

Who are you again? 

Replacement? Sorry, I don't follow....

 

Replacement.  You know.  Since Sunmaster is only a finger puppet who doesn't have a true identity, for there is only one true identity for the self which is Brahman, then the identity which is Sunmaster isn't real.  You replace that Sunmaster identity with the one and only identity that exists, Brahman.  Who am I?  Am I this Sunmaster self?  No. I am Brahman.

[Sunmaster]

16 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Here, too, I made a comment about religions prescribing a way of life whereas Seth doesn't prescribe one at all.  What do maps of reality have to do with that?  And I never mentioned the intellect but you went into a discussion of it.  So where does that come from?

Isn't learning to trust your inner self and consciously creating reality with your beliefs a way of life for you? It sure seems so.

You didn't mention the intellect in this specific post, but did so previously. I claim artistic freedom for jumping from one topic to another. Deal with it. 😁

Edited February 5 by Sunmaster

[Sunmaster]

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Replacement.  You know.  Since Sunmaster is only a finger puppet who doesn't have a true identity, for there is only one true identity for the self which is Brahman, then the identity which is Sunmaster isn't real.  You replace that Sunmaster identity with the one and only identity that exists, Brahman.  Who am I?  Am I this Sunmaster self?  No. I am Brahman.

No!
Replacement implies that you take away A and put B in its place. 
What I'm talking about is transcending A, so that B includes A. 
Very, very different.

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, Sunmaster said:

Sorry, I thought that was self-evident...
The person who touches the belly and says it feels like a wall is correct. It does feel like a wall. His statement is correct given the limited data and context. So are all the others. Their partial truths are correct. Only a wider perspective reveals that they are only partially correct.
We don't know what we don't know.

 

Now I've gotta say that that is pure mind f'kery.  For whatever one feels then becomes truth.  At least partially.  Which means that any answer could be partially correct.  Granted their limited data and context misled them to mistake a thing as something other than what it truly is.  But to call that partially correct?  In their misinterpretation of the thing they were trying to perceive.?  Man, I can't go there with you, Sunmaster.

 

Still, your response of defining our psychic structure in answer to the question escapes me as to how that definition has anything to do with the question.

[Sunmaster]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Now I've gotta say that that is pure mind f'kery.  For whatever one feels then becomes truth.  At least partially.  Which means that any answer could be partially correct.  Granted their limited data and context misled them to mistake a thing as something other than what it truly is.  But to call that partially correct?  In their misinterpretation of the thing they were trying to perceive.?  Man, I can't go there with you, Sunmaster.

 

Still, your response of defining our psychic structure in answer to the question escapes me as to how that definition has anything to do with the question.

Well, since none of us are enlightened (yet), we are all those blind men with only a partial truth. I could say your partial truth is simply wrong because it's not the absolute truth, but I doubt you would like that. So I prefer to say that your truth is partially correct. Even though it's wrong. 
Mindfckery much? 😁😅

[Tippaporn]

7 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Isn't learning to trust your inner self and consciously creating reality with your beliefs a way of life for you? It sure seems so.

 

No, that's not a way of life.  A way of life is prescribing how to live it in particular detail - a list of do's and don'ts, whether they be actions or behaviours.  Fulfilling a desire to understand the rules of the game and then playing by them is not a way of life.  It's an approach to life.  But that approach in no way makes decisions as to what I should or shouldn't do, or how I should or shouldn't behave in my life.

 

15 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

You didn't mention the intellect in this specific post, but did so previously. I claim artistic freedom for jumping from one topic to another. Deal with it. 😁

 

[Sunmaster]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

No, that's not a way of life.  A way of life is prescribing how to live it in particular detail - a list of do's and don'ts, whether they be actions or behaviours.  Fulfilling a desire to understand the rules of the game and then playing by them is not a way of life.  It's an approach to life.  But that approach in no way makes decisions as to what I should or shouldn't do, or how I should or shouldn't behave in my life.

I don't see how Advaita Vedanta is prescribing anything. Unless you want to become a monk, you have full freedom to do with your life whatever you want. Sure, there are guidelines on what the most efficient ways are if your intent is going within...fasting helps cleansing the body and clearing the mind for example, eating certain types of food are more conducive than others if you want a healthy body, certain thoughts and beliefs are more beneficial than others if you seek true fulfillment. But they are all just habits that simply make sense if you choose to dedicate your life to inner discovery. If you want to be a swimming champion, you better don't eat McDonalds or go to sleep late every night. Common sense really. They are not prescribed in order to be "one of the club".
 

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

Again, not what I said. 

 

Right.  Not said but implied.  And that is the language I used . . . "the implication is" . . .

 

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

I said they are not equal when it comes to the subjective inner world. The intellect is a tool to explore and manipulate the world for our benefit. But it's not the appropriate tool to explore the inner world, at least when used on its own without the vital input of direct experience.

 

" ... Needless to say, I wanted you to know that there is much more than even this, complexities that are truly astounding, intelligences that operate in what I suppose you would call a gestalt fashion, building blocks of vitalities of truly unbelievable maturity, awareness, and comprehension. These are the near ultimate [as I understand such things]."

 

I guess Seth is dead wrong then.

 

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

Nobody said anything about dispensing with the intellect or relying on direct experience exclusively. 

 

Well, it sure sounds like it.

 

5 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

I have come to the conclusion that whatever comes out after the intellect has put it into words, is but a pale, lifeless approximation of the real thing.

 

If the intellect can only put into words the real deal experience, which is only "a pale, lifeless approximation of the real thing" then it only logically follows that we should be relying only on direct experience.  If the intellect can't achieve any knowledge of inner reality itself and only direct experience can then the intellect is, for all intents and purposes, useless in the subjective world.

 

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

The intellect can be used in our favour though. For example by shaping new habits and routines that in turn promote direct experience. In practical terms, setting up a place and time for meditation. But once you sit down in meditation, the intellect has done its job. Insisting on using it from this point onwards is the exact opposite of what meditation is all about. The intellect is fed by thoughts and thoughts are what prevents us from "hearing the silence".

 

So the conclusion is that the intellect is geared only towards the physical world?  "Insisting on using it from this point onwards is the exact opposite of what meditation is all about."  Which means dispensing with it when turning your consciousness inwards.  I don't know how else you can interpret that..

[Tippaporn]

24 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Mindfckery much? 😁😅

 

Indeed. 

 

26 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Well, since none of us are enlightened (yet), we are all those blind men with only a partial truth. I could say your partial truth is simply wrong because it's not the absolute truth, but I doubt you would like that. So I prefer to say that your truth is partially correct. Even though it's wrong.

 

One is right about some things and wrong about others when dealing with absolutes.  Partially right or partially wrong applies when there are multiples.  In the singular, though, it's either 100% right or 100% wrong.  A wall is not an elephant and an elephant is not a wall.  There is no 'partial' to it.  No wonder we have such difficulty with agreeing on points. 

 

". . . but I doubt you would like that."

I have no problem with that.  I'm certainly not infallible. 

[Tippaporn]

35 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I don't see how Advaita Vedanta is prescribing anything.

 

What were you saying earlier about self-pleasuring the ego? 

 

36 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Unless you want to become a monk, you have full freedom to do with your life whatever you want.

 

Unless you go to church every Sunday you're not really a practicing Catholic.   Sure, you're free to do anything with your life but then your not a practicing Hindu.  Vedanta being one of Hinduism's schools.

 

40 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

They are not prescribed in order to be "one of the club".

 

In name only then. 

 

[Tippaporn]

@Sunmaster

 

Just a few questions . . .

 

If Vedanta is the same as the Seth material then why didn't Seth simply point everyone to Vedanta?  Was it merely to give new, modern clothing to the old Hindu texts?

 

Why doesn't Seth ever refer to Vedanta?  Is it because Vedanta contains truths and distortions which Seth didn't want to deal with.  You know, "Well Vedanta is spot on here but over here it's got the wrong idea."

 

Do you ask yourself those questions?  Or are you so heavily invested in the ideas which Vedanta espouses that you'd rather not know?  I don't know what the case is but I do know that you are heavily invested and when people are heavily invested in something, right or wrong, they tend not to let it go easily.

 

If you continued to read the Seth material and found something which made perfect sense to you but contradicted something in Vedanta what would you do?

 

On 2/3/2024 at 12:57 PM, Sunmaster said:

The problem here is, your harking on about Vedanta this and Vedanta that, compare it to Seth said this and Seth said that.

 

The reason I go on about it is because you've claimed that Vedanta is the same as Seth.  It's clearly not.  And yet you insist that it is.  You say you're not an expert on Vedanta and only came to it about a year ago.  You've read a few of Seth's books but not all.  You've admitted than his material is convoluted - meaning you don't understand much of what you did read.  I've been working with Seth's material for 44 years daily.  And yet you insist that Seth's material and Vedanta are the same.  I say it is not.

 

Edited February 5 by Tippaporn

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Right.  Not said but implied.  And that is the language I used . . . "the implication is" . . .

 

No. Neither said nor implied (as I explained in my reply). You interpreted it that way. You created that reality. 

 

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

 

" ... Needless to say, I wanted you to know that there is much more than even this, complexities that are truly astounding, intelligences that operate in what I suppose you would call a gestalt fashion, building blocks of vitalities of truly unbelievable maturity, awareness, and comprehension. These are the near ultimate [as I understand such things]."

 

I guess Seth is dead wrong then.

Where does it say that those complexities have to be understood on an intellectual level? Where does it say that they can't be experienced? Where is the contradiction?

 

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Nobody said anything about dispensing with the intellect or relying on direct experience exclusively. 

 

Well, it sure sounds like it.

Again, no and I explained why. It "sounds like it" is a result of your own bias and distortion. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

If the intellect can only put into words the real deal experience, which is only "a pale, lifeless approximation of the real thing" then it only logically follows that we should be relying only on direct experience.  If the intellect can't achieve any knowledge of inner reality itself and only direct experience can then the intellect is, for all intents and purposes, useless in the subjective world.

Yes and no. 
The mind is a construction, a focusing tool we use to cut out a slice of infinite reality so that we may interact with the material world. Imagine a life with an unfiltered awareness, where you would be aware of light in all its bands of frequency, be aware of all sounds on the spectrum, be aware of all the thoughts and emotions around you, be aware of all the magnetic fields.....how would you be able to have a conversation with your buddies or even just feed yourself? No, our perception is limited in a way that makes physical life possible, by blocking out most of the stuff around us (or in us, for that matter).
While you dive into the formless, the intellect (or maybe better call it "mind") has to be left waiting outside the door. It will be there once you come back and it will serve you even better than it did before. 

 

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

The intellect can be used in our favour though. For example by shaping new habits and routines that in turn promote direct experience. In practical terms, setting up a place and time for meditation. But once you sit down in meditation, the intellect has done its job. Insisting on using it from this point onwards is the exact opposite of what meditation is all about. The intellect is fed by thoughts and thoughts are what prevents us from "hearing the silence".

 

So the conclusion is that the intellect is geared only towards the physical world?  "Insisting on using it from this point onwards is the exact opposite of what meditation is all about."  Which means dispensing with it when turning your consciousness inwards.  I don't know how else you can interpret that..

The mind's area of expertise is the physical (gross) and mental (subtle) world, but not for the inner worlds beyond the mind (causal). The same way you wouldn't use science to explore the inner worlds, using the mind would give you the same results. Just another empty, lifeless religion built on words instead of first-hand experience. 

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

I have no problem with that.  I'm certainly not infallible. 

But Seth is? 

[Sunmaster]

50 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

What were you saying earlier about self-pleasuring the ego? 

 

 

Unless you go to church every Sunday you're not really a practicing Catholic.   Sure, you're free to do anything with your life but then your not a practicing Hindu.  Vedanta being one of Hinduism's schools.

 

 

In name only then. 

 

Are you confusing spirituality with religion? 
🤔

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Just a few questions . . .

 

If Vedanta is the same as the Seth material then why didn't Seth simply point everyone to Vedanta?  Was it merely to give new, modern clothing to the old Hindu texts?

 

Why doesn't Seth ever refer to Vedanta?  Is it because Vedanta contains truths and distortions which Seth didn't want to deal with.  You know, "Well Vedanta is spot on here but over here it's got the wrong idea."

 

Do you ask yourself those questions?  Or are you so heavily invested in the ideas which Vedanta espouses that you'd rather not know?  I don't know what the case is but I do know that you are heavily invested and when people are heavily invested in something, right or wrong, they tend not to let it go easily.

And here you go on about Vedanta again. I thought I made it abundantly clear (several times now) that I'm not here to defend Advaita Vedanta. You seem terribly threatened that there might be another manual/map out there that has a much longer history than the Seth material, can back up its claims by producing some of the most enlightened souls and has a living tradition fueled by scores (millions) of practicing people. 
How many saints has the Seth material produced? How many have experienced bliss by reading his books? Or is the sole goal of a Sethian to "create your reality" and live a content life with good relationships, wealth, happiness in the material world? Not that there is anything wrong with that,.... if that's the only thing you're looking for. 

 I don't know what the case is but I do know that you are heavily invested and when people are heavily invested in something, right or wrong, they tend not to let it go easily.
LOL If there ever was a more blatant case of the pot calling the kettle black! 🤣

 

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

On 2/3/2024 at 12:57 PM, Sunmaster said:

The problem here is, your harking on about Vedanta this and Vedanta that, compare it to Seth said this and Seth said that.

 

The reason I go on about it is because you've claimed that Vedanta is the same as Seth.  It's clearly not.  And yet you insist that it is.  You say you're not an expert on Vedanta and only came to it about a year ago.  You've read a few of Seth's books but not all.  You've admitted than his material is convoluted - meaning you don't understand much of what you did read.  I've been working with Seth's material for 44 years daily.  And yet you insist that Seth's material and Vedanta are the same.  I say it is not.

What is it with you today? I never said they "are the same". I said they both point to a reality which is beyond human understanding (using the mind). Even in Vedanta there are different schools of thought. No problem. They all point to the same thing. They point to the same thing, but neither of them ARE the thing. It's UP TO YOU to find your own truth. 
Forget about Vedanta, forget about Seth. Forget about all that mind stuff.

You've admitted than his material is convoluted - meaning you don't understand much of what you did read. 
Woa....slow down buddy. I said it's convoluted (at least some parts), not that I didn't understand it.

This is what happens when you put intellectual knowledge above direct knowledge. You start to dissect the world in smaller and smaller bits in search for the life that fuels it. 

Why do you feel the need to defend Seth?
Now that would be an interesting post.

 

Edited February 5 by Sunmaster

[Tippaporn]

@Sunmaster

 

At this point I think we're going to just have to agree to disagree. 

[save the frogs]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

"Love" has to be the most misunderstood and most improperly used word in the English language. Doesn't help that it's a cover word for many different things eg mother love, love of country.

The most accepted meaning IMO has to be "romantic love" which IMO is complete BS. It's either lust or a way for girls to get stuff for free, IMO.

 

I fully agree.

 

I'm not making this up.

In the Bible, when they say "I love you", it literally translates to "I will pay all your bills" from the original Aramaic texts. 

 

 

[Sunmaster]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

@Sunmaster

 

At this point I think we're going to just have to agree to disagree. 

No problem, but you can still answer my last question. At least think about it. 

[save the frogs]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

@Sunmaster

 

At this point I think we're going to just have to agree to disagree. 

 

Say it ain't so.

How can you possibly disagree on anything when you've only exchanged about 10,000 different points with each other?

Try a Vulcan mind meld with Sunmaster and then you will fully agree on every single point. 

[save the frogs]

10 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

@Sunmaster

 

At this point I think we're going to just have to agree to disagree. 

 

I have good news for you.

AI may crack aging and human beings might live forever.

You stand to have some of the best survivalist skills because you can talk forever and ever and get lost in abstraction.

You and Sunmaster might be some of the few people that never get bored if life goes on and on forever.

 

Edited February 5 by save the frogs

[save the frogs]

our minds are merging.

i feel what you feel.

i know what you know.

 

 

[Sunmaster]

17 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

You and Sunmaster might be some of the few people that never get bored if life goes on and on forever.

 
I rarely get bored, but no thanks.