Do you believe in God and why

[Tippaporn]

25 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I understand that you can't comment on my experience. That's not what I was asking about.
I also understand that there are no distinct divisions between the outer self and the inner self and the Self, and that the whole system is interdependent, where energy flows both ways.

So, if I am getting this right, you are saying it is the outer ego (the personality) alone who creates either consciously or unconsciously the reality it finds itself in. The inner self is not responsible for the outer self's creations. 

This is where I have trouble.... My outer self had no way of consciously knowing about the Kundalini energy and logically, couldn't therefore have created it. 
The inner self, not being restricted and being aware of a far larger portion of reality, undoubtedly knows what the Kundalini is all about. It's an energy coiled up at the base of the spine, which once released, rises up through the spine and ultimately erupts from the crown chakra. It is a rare occurrence, but at the same time perfectly natural. 
The outer ego can try to set the right conditions for it, but ultimately can't force this energy to erupt. It has a mind of its own, so to speak. 

If we now try to use this information and interpret it through the Seth teachings, I would say that the experience was not created by the outer ego who had zero previous knowledge or experience of it, but by something "higher up", which allowed it to happen. This "something" we can call the entity, the source of the inner self. Or we can call it "grace". Calling it Grace doesn't make it something external to us. In reality, nothing is truly external. It does however imply that a decision was made somewhere up the line, of which the outer ego/personality experienced the consequences.
Or maybe there was no decision at all.... maybe it was simply the right time, like when a flower blossoms. It just happened because the conditions were right.

Both of these theories still make more sense to me than the idea that the limited outer self created the experience.  I agree with you in the sense that the outer self set the conditions for it (time....place...mindset), but not the rising of Kundalini itself.

"Our more expansive inner self does not create for us."

It (the entity/inner self) does create us (the personality) though, along with all the potential situations we then choose to experience. Correct?

I've added a little sketch of the inner/outer worlds, according to how I interpret the Seth material. How do you see it?

I'm not trying to be flippant with my humour but the way I see it is that I've been a bad, bad boy today.    I've been posting all morning long and it is now 11:58 AM.  There's still enough daylight to salvage part of my day for the duties I need to be involved in.  I will, however, reply later, Sunmaster. 

[Tippaporn]

51 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I understand that you can't comment on my experienceitsef. That's not what I was asking about.
I also understand that there are no distinct divisions between the outer self and the inner self and the Self, and that the whole system is interdependent, where energy flows both ways.

So, if I am getting this right, you are saying it is the outer ego (the personality) alone who creates either consciously or unconsciously the reality it finds itself in. The inner self is not responsible for the outer self's creations. 

This is where I have trouble.... My outer self had no way of consciously knowing about the Kundalini energy and logically, couldn't therefore have created it. 
The inner self, not being restricted and being aware of a far larger portion of reality, undoubtedly knows what the Kundalini is all about. It's an energy coiled up at the base of the spine, which once released, rises up through the spine and ultimately erupts from the crown chakra. It is a rare occurrence, but at the same time perfectly natural. 
The outer ego can try to set the right conditions for it, but ultimately can't force this energy to erupt. It has a mind of its own, so to speak. 

If we now try to use this information and interpret it through the Seth teachings, I would say that the experience was not created by the outer ego who had zero previous knowledge or experience of it, but by something "higher up", which allowed it to happen. This "something" we can call the entity, the source of the inner self. Or we can call it "grace". Calling it Grace doesn't make it something external to us. In reality, nothing is truly external. It does however imply that a decision was made somewhere up the line, of which the outer ego/personality experienced the consequences.
Or maybe there was no decision at all.... maybe it was simply the right time, like when a flower blossoms. It just happened because the conditions were right.

Both of these theories still make more sense to me than the idea that the limited outer self created the experience.  I agree with you in the sense that the outer self set the conditions for it (time....place...mindset), but not the rising of Kundalini itself.

"Our more expansive inner self does not create for us."

It (the entity/inner self) does create us (the personality) though, along with all the potential situations we then choose to experience. Correct?

I've added a little sketch of the inner/outer worlds, according to how I interpret the Seth material. How do you see it?

Sunmaster, while I have to disappear for awhile a thought just occurred to me that might be helpful.  I've noticed that you have downloaded all of the material I've attached earlier in a PM.  Amongst that material is Jane's book, Adventures In Consciousness An Introduction To Aspect Psychology.  It's a good read.  On page 70 of the PDF (page 124~125 of the book) is a diagram of the source and aspect selves which Rob did for the book.  I think you'll be intrigued.  Maybe in a few days when I come back, and if you've the time to peruse any of the book, we can discuss it.

I'll attach the file here for your convenience.  I actually have two PDF copies.  I'm not sure what the differences are but the one I'm attaching here is the 2nd PDF version, which you do not have.  Rob's illustration in this file is on PDF page 69.

 

239933-Adventures In Consciousness An Introduction To Aspect Psychology_text.pdf

 

[Sunmaster]

55 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I have no intention of giving up my ego, thank you.  Not now or ever as long as I'm on earth.  After all, my ego is my best and beloved buddy. 

All humour aside I ask, what is the point of coming into life with an ego only to then have the sole lifelong purpose and goal of unceremoniously ridding yourself of that ego?  For are you aware that as soon as you obliterate one ego another will arise?  Perhaps the number one reason I have never entertained exploring eastern religion is due to their maligning of an integral portion of who we are on this earth.  You could not function in this world without an ego.  It is a portion, a very important portion serving a critical function of the self which is clothed for a time in flesh and blood here.  For what sane reason would people come to the conclusion that the ego is some sort of step child of the self that needs to be locked into a damp and dark cellar with the key tossed away?

 

The ego has been falsely and unjustly accused of being the source of all the unsavoury aspects of man.  And even of preventing man from rising above himself in this "god forsaken existence" into some blended oneness existing in some unknown medium of bliss.

I would like to add to this part.

The point of Eastern philosophies is not to "destroy", or "getting rid" of the ego. The ego is a tool to interact with the material world. The point is to not identify with the ego construction. Meditation helps doing exactly that. 
What happens when you dis-identify with the ego? You learn that the outer ego is not who you are. You learn that it is only a part of the real YOU. The real problem is believing that the outer ego is all you are. 

"For are you aware that as soon as you obliterate one ego another will arise?"
What makes you believe that? 
You don't obliterate anything. You simply break the tyranny that the ego holds on you, telling you "you are this and that and that's all you are", and you make your true identity shine through. The outer ego is recognized as what it is: a tool, a useful construction. The usefulness of this construction depends on the beliefs it is built upon, like you always say. 

"And even of preventing man from rising above himself in this "god forsaken existence" into some blended oneness existing in some unknown medium of bliss."

If the outer ego is left unchecked and you identify with it, the result is that you don't see the connection you have with the inner world and thus don't see that the worldly personality is only the tip of the iceberg. Dis-identifying with the outer ego is therefore necessary to blend with the Oneness, which brings bliss. Basically, you re-identify with something bigger, deeper and more true than before.

This is what I tried to show with my latest drawing. The outer ego is only the tip of the iceberg. The subconscious is under the waterline and is rarely explored. If it were, it would become obvious that there is much more to us than what we can see on the surface and we would recognize that we and everything is connected.
Meditation helps in this process of recognition, cracks open the silver screen upon which our lives seem to play out, and exposes the underlying forces from which everything arises.

[Hummin]

7 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

"It is not about winning or loosing, it is about living in this world we call reality and the challenges we are met daily to accomplish what we think is important and also know how to live in peace with our self and our surroundings."

Take away the "it is not about winning or loosing" for the moment and it could be said regarding the rest of your statement that no truer words have ever been spoken.  You are spot on, Hummin.  Kudos to you.

Regarding the winning and losing there's much to say as to it's meaning.  It's quite evident to me that your meaning refers to the type of winning and losing usually ascribed to a debate.  In this case, the debate we are engaged in whereby it's a contest of your ideas versus my ideas and vice versa.  In that sense I would agree.  The true intention of a debate is not to win or lose.  A debate is for the purpose of arriving at the truth.  If the objective of a debate is to merely declare a winner and loser, the truth be damned, then the debate's true intention has been perverted.

My meaning of "you win" refers not to a concession on my part in which I throw in the towel and declare you as the winner of our debates over ideas.  Instead I mean it in the sense that you largely avoid being corralled into debating any actual ideas.  Which is why I have said that you are more slippery than any eel.   Most every effort I make to get you to answer a specific question, or to get you to explain your ideas in greater depth, or get you to show how your ideas might work in practicality, or get you to take a simple practical step by which you can prove to yourself a point that I'm making, or get you to define or expound or speak with more clarity on what you preach as to what you've learned so that it's not so vague and nebulous and therefore another might benefit from the wisdom you've gained . . . all of these many attempts have frustrated me to no end.  You are the epitome of trying to get an honest, straightforward answer to a hard question out of a politician.  You'll never get one.  And so I am giving up on my attempt to pin you down on any of the above.  I'm tuckered out whilst you maintain your stamina to continue to elude.  You win that contest, Hummin.

And I won't bother going into all of the deception whereby you attempt to turn the tables on me.

Go in peace, Hummin.

I have tried to explain earlier, for me Seth is way out there, and some of his talks, is also way above my understanding how things are and how my reality is. When I state I truly do not know, I do not know,  Im also happy to not know.

 

New age is not for me, and I really do not need any intellectual explanations to make my life complete, neither is the search necessary when you finely feel free, grounded and complete. 

 

You know your seth for sure, and you also preach Seth with great conviction because Seth is important to you and your life, and I  am sure you feel fullfied having Seth in your life.

 

Nature is absolute and also dynamic, and we need to adopt, not the other way around.

 

Im quite sure we would had alot to speak about face to face, but here on this board, I find it hard. Very hard.

 

Wish I could taken you out on the sea a rough day kajaking, and also showed you the sunrises and sunsets when it was perfect conditions, as well padle ounder full moon on one side, and nordic light on the other side, as well midnight sun. Catch fresh food, and not to forget walking in old forrests where fresh water filtering through the small river.

 

All this and more, exploring how important every little part is puzzled together and we are part of it.

 

Very few have the chance to explore life like that, undisturbed for more than a day or a week, or if ever will experience undisturbed life at all.

 

For me preaching any belief system is disturbing, especially all absolute reasons, causes, teases, and also threats if not, or do not

 

Im sure you know where Im heading.

 

If people really cared about anything god created, we would turned around and cared more for our home, all the answers is here, right now

 

No ghosts, no mysteriousness, just life and recycling

 

Sorry Im such a pain in your B.TT ????????

 

[Hummin]

I want to add one important factor

 

The difference between intelectutally understanding, and true connection is sometimes felt same, and often gives same effect, but when I believe I finely connected, I had no more urge to prove anything, neither the necessery to be aknownledged or approved. 

 

It is just okay to observe and be but still being curious about others journey thow. and why, 

[save the frogs]

7 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Rarely a serious answer.  Just more guffaw.  Does that define your character, save the frogs? 

my question wasn't a joke.

if gurus and gangster rappers are both promoting drugs ... what does it imply?

 

[Sunmaster]

4 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

my question wasn't a joke.

if gurus and gangster rappers are both promoting drugs ... what does it imply?

 

It implies absolutely nothing because gurus are not promoting the use of drugs.

[save the frogs]

7 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

It implies absolutely nothing because gurus are not promoting the use of drugs.

well i can go back and quote tippaporn. but i'll wait for his response first.

[save the frogs]

Oh, sth else.

Has anyone mentioned dreams in this thread?

Like ... a nightmare is God talking to us, isn't it?

I've actually had some nightmares that warned me about dangers ...

Like a girl I was dating ... i saw her face in a dream and her head was covered with snakes like medusa.

I got the hell out of that relationship ... she would have eaten me alive.

 

Anyone ever had a "prophetic" dream? I have, but it wasnt mind-blowing. I had a dream a few months before my mom died. In the dream, it told me exactly when she would die. She already had cancer, so it's wasn't a major revelation that she would die soon, but the dream pin-pointed the time she would die and it was accurate. 

 

[CharlieH]

A troll comment on Moderation has been removed along with responses to it.

[Sunmaster]

4 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Oh, sth else.

Has anyone mentioned dreams in this thread?

Like ... a nightmare is God talking to us, isn't it?

I've actually had some nightmares that warned me about dangers ...

Like a girl I was dating ... i saw her face in a dream and her head was covered with snakes like medusa.

I got the hell out of that relationship ... she would have eaten me alive.

 

Anyone ever had a "prophetic" dream? I have, but it wasnt mind-blowing. I had a dream a few months before my mom died. In the dream, it told me exactly when she would die. She already had cancer, so it's wasn't a major revelation that she would die soon, but the dream pin-pointed the time she would die and it was accurate. 

 

Yes, i believe we talked about dreams on a few occasions.

I had a couple of dreams that helped me sort out stuff in the waking world.

I also had several lucid dreams, but it takes a lot of effort and discipline to be aware that I'm dreaming.

[save the frogs]

what about superstitions?

i know on the forum in general people like to make fun of thais for being superstitious.

 

maybe some or most superstitions are unfounded and silly. but that doesn't mean you should never be superstitious ever. 

 

i went to a job interview once. and a major storm broke out. a really nasty rainstorm.

at first, i thought this is bad luck. i should probably cancel this interview. then i thought this is silly. so i went.

then a while later, i had a nightmare about the place. 

and sure enough that whole job was cursed and I barely lasted a few weeks at that place.

 

 

[save the frogs]

anyway, good news for anyone into drug experimentation.

andrew huberman, a neuroscientist, is promoting psychedelics for mental health. 

personally, i'll pass. but maybe it can have some benefits. 

 

 

[Hummin]

7 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

anyway, good news for anyone into drug experimentation.

andrew huberman, a neuroscientist, is promoting psychedelics for mental health. 

personally, i'll pass. but maybe it can have some benefits. 

 

 

Belief can move mountains, and also the correct treatment for human diseases as well weaknesses. Even if it is just placebo.

 

I believe nature can cure any illness or any disorders. No doubt the answers is right in front of us

[Sunmaster]

1 minute ago, save the frogs said:

anyway, good news for anyone into drug experimentation.

andrew huberman, a neuroscientist, is promoting "safe and effective journeys'' with psychedelics. 

 

 

It's nothing new. Psychedelics have been used privately for a very long time to heal, but only recently under scientific supervision. They have a very high success rate in curing heavy drug addiction and depression. 

In the 60s, before they were banned, LSD was used on prison inmates. Something like 60% turned their lives around and had no further issues with the law.

 

It's completely irrational to have such an effective tool and not use it.

[Sunmaster]

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

Belief can move mountains, and also the correct treatment for human diseases as well weaknesses. Even if it is just placebo.

 

I believe nature can cure any illness or any disorders. No doubt the answers is right in front of us

Psychedelics ARE nature. 

[Hummin]

5 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Psychedelics ARE nature. 

No doubt at all, we just need to learn how to use it as it should

[save the frogs]

16 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I believe nature can cure any illness or any disorders. No doubt the answers is right in front of us

now you're talking my lingo, my man.

all you need is some willie nelson and the sun.

 

i get my energy from the sun and i'm not the only one.

 

 

[save the frogs]

some interesting "new age" lyrics from mr willie nelson 

 

and if you hear spirits talking

their wisdom can't be bought

apply it to your thinking

and energy follows thought

 

 

[save the frogs]

24 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Psychedelics ARE nature. 

but nature is also nature.

which most people aren't getting enough of. 

I love AI. It knows I'm having this discussion and this video just popped into my feed. 

 

 

[Hummin]

12 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

but nature is also nature.

which most people aren't getting enough of. 

I love AI. It knows I'm having this discussion and this video just popped into my feed. 

 

 

Nature provide health and poison

 

Good and Bad

 

 

Yin Yang

 

[save the frogs]

proof of reincarnation - children remembering their past lives

 

 

[Hummin]

1 minute ago, save the frogs said:

proof of reincarnation - children remembering their past lives

 

 

I would be careful to call it proof

[save the frogs]

29 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I would be careful to call it proof

"dorothy's knowledge of egypt was beyond simple intuition ... it was uncanny."

 

not 100% proof though.

 

if someone has a child who is making such claims, perhaps it might be best not to dismiss them and instead document them and not interfere with the child's imagination .

 

[Hummin]

6 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

"dorothy's knowledge of egypt was beyond simple intuition ... it was uncanny."

 

not 100% proof though.

 

if someone has a child who is making such claims, perhaps it might be best not to dismiss them and instead document them and not interfere with the child's imagination .

 

Take a look at the channel behind the video ????

[save the frogs]

17 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Take a look at the channel behind the video

yeah, that's always "tricky" ... "reliable sources" 

 

[Hummin]

5 hours ago, save the frogs said:

yeah, that's always "tricky" ... "reliable sources" 

 

quite interesting Wiki article about Dorothy Eady

 

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

[Nemises]

 

 

God doesn't exist. It's a man-made conscript to control the weak and gullible by fear.

 

 

[save the frogs]

1 hour ago, Nemises said:

 

 

God doesn't exist. It's a man-made conscript to control the weak and gullible by fear.

 

 

that's one of the best quotes of the thread so far.

to honor it, i've asked chatGPT to re-write it in the style of Yoda.

 

Exist, God does not. Conscript of man, it is. Control the weak and gullible by fear, it aims to do.

[save the frogs]

2 hours ago, Hummin said:

quite interesting Wiki article about Dorothy Eady

 

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

thx. 

who knows how much of it can be believed?

even wikipedia is not necessarily factual.