Do you believe in God and why

[Tippaporn]

3 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Pepperoni in Italy are peppers. What you call pepperoni is salamino piccante. 

Do I have to teach you everything?!

 

And I'd bet you call a bak sida (บักสีดา) a guava, too. 

 

Next time I go to an Italian restaurant here (and I do often) I'm going to ask for a salamino piccante pizza.  If I end up getting a crab and shrimp pizza with mayonnaise I'm gonna send it to your house along with the bill. 

 

Edited January 28 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

On 1/27/2024 at 11:03 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

I get the eggs and bread, but what is the stuff looks like mince, and the round brown things ( perhaps sliced sausage )?

 

I would say the brown things are minced potatoes covered in the used oil from Basil's last oil change.  Looks to me to be 5W as it's thin and runny. 

[Sunmaster]

My personal baking girl got the first prize! ❤️❤️❤️

[Tippaporn]

35 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

My personal baking girl got the first prize! ❤️❤️❤️

 

Now that's what I call finding fulfillment in ones life! 

 

So where did your ice cream bars come in? 

[Sunmaster]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

So where did your ice cream bars come in? 

Just did a few workshops to pass the time.

 

Today I made flowers in jelly. Surprisingly easy.

Edited January 28 by Sunmaster

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Just did a few workshops to pass the time.

 

Today I made flowers in jelly. Surprisingly easy.

You're not just a pretty face then. If you were doing that in almost any western country you'd be a celebrity, but the Thais are so artistic that you are just a star in LOS.

 

Have you thought of making wedding cakes for those western people that want to have a ceremony in Thailand. You'd mint it if you could get into that market.

[Tippaporn]

6 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Just did a few workshops to pass the time.

 

Today I made flowers in jelly. Surprisingly easy.

 

When does the bakery open? 

[Sunmaster]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

Have you thought of making wedding cakes for those western people that want to have a ceremony in Thailand. You'd mint it if you could get into that market.

 

Actually, we did that for a few years (mainly for Thais) over 10 years ago. I was teaching at that time plus starting my own business. 2-3 weekends a month, we would load the pickup with all kinds of wedding decorations and cakes and drive around Thailand, set up everything, wait for the ceremony to end and then dismantle again. It was hard work. We were doing quite well, but then stopped when my biz took off. 

 

[Tippaporn]

On 1/25/2024 at 10:12 AM, Tippaporn said:

Seth does not focus merely on our material existence.  Hence the book of exercises I posted.  But we're here now and we're here for a reason.  And so Seth certainly addresses that quite practical and real fact, too.  The reason for our very existence here is missed completely by Swami Sarvapriyananda.  I would say "in my opinion" but it's in his own words, which I transcribed from the video.

 

You are that.  Why should we be interested?  Well because Vedanta tells us the way to overcome suffering and to attain fulfillment.  Which is after all what we are interested in.  All that we do in life is trying to overcome suffering and to attain fulfillment.  Lasting peace, happiness, security.  The way to do that is to realize who you are.  That's the big claim.

 

You missed commenting on this excerpt.

 

I highlighted what Swami Sarvapriyananda claims as the purpose of life in bold text.  Is that it?  And yes, it is as he says . . . "That's the big claim."  And it is nothing more than a claim, indeed.    For the rationale behind the claim is, the ideas which support the claim are, entirely missing.  Far be it from me to take that claim as "true" on simple pure faith that it is "true."  I like to examine ideas as to their validity before I decide to accept them.

[Tippaporn]

On 1/26/2024 at 8:08 PM, Sunmaster said:

On 1/25/2024 at 10:12 AM, Tippaporn said:

There needs to be a blending of science (intellect) and spirituality (intuition and emotions).  Since I see science as arising as a counter to religion (not in total, of course) then for science to incorporate spirituality would be seen as a return to religious precepts.  It ain't gonna happen anytime soon.  This thread is evidence of that in spades.

Yes. This is a typical pre-trans fallacy. In Spiral Dynamics religion (Blue) predates science, while spirituality (Yellow and beyond) transcends (and includes) science. From one at Orange (science), the 2 are indistinguishable. It will happen sooner or later, of that I'm certain.

 

In my opinion Spiral Dynamics is a system of thought which attempts to explain why life works the way it does.  There are an endless number of systems of thought which attempt to do this, all to the end of providing explanations as to what makes reality function as it does.  I have my answer which explains it all in excruciating detail.  The simple answer is you create your reality in every aspect and down to every nuance using subjective ideas which are translated into an objective medium which you then experience and interact with.  How that works in all instances is the excruciating detail.

 

I could investigate and analyze every system of thought out there in an attempt to see where each system of thought might be correct and where it is amiss.  To what end, though?  And if there is no worthy end then I'd only be wasting my time.  Of course there would be an end to doing so if I didn't already have answers.

[Sunmaster]

25 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

You missed commenting on this excerpt.

 

I highlighted what Swami Sarvapriyananda claims as the purpose of life in bold text.  Is that it?  And yes, it is as he says . . . "That's the big claim."  And it is nothing more than a claim, indeed.    For the rationale behind the claim is, the ideas which support the claim are, entirely missing.  Far be it from me to take that claim as "true" on simple pure faith that it is "true."  I like to examine ideas as to their validity before I decide to accept them.

What? That we try to avoid pain and seek fulfillment? Isn't that obvious in everything we do? 

And you came to that conclusion after skimming through a couple of videos? 

[Sunmaster]

16 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

In my opinion Spiral Dynamics is a system of thought which attempts to explain why life works the way it does.  There are an endless number of systems of thought which attempt to do this, all to the end of providing explanations as to what makes reality function as it does.  I have my answer which explains it all in excruciating detail.  The simple answer is you create your reality in every aspect and down to every nuance using subjective ideas which are translated into an objective medium which you then experience and interact with.  How that works in all instances is the excruciating detail.

 

I could investigate and analyze every system of thought out there in an attempt to see where each system of thought might be correct and where it is amiss.  To what end, though?  And if there is no worthy end then I'd only be wasting my time.  Of course there would be an end to doing so if I didn't already have answers.

When I paint, I use a number of different brushes and techniques. I could paint with one brush alone and in a single style, but the result would not be the same. It would be quite boring and would not give me the desired result. 

 

You "think" you have the answers, but your misunderstanding of Vedanta tells me something else. 

 

I'll retire into my bomb shelter for the next few days, just to be on the save side. 😅😬

[Tippaporn]

On 1/26/2024 at 8:08 PM, Sunmaster said:

On 1/25/2024 at 10:12 AM, Tippaporn said:

Nowhere that I've seen yet is there any discussion of how specific experience is created.  I do not see any talk of ideas or beliefs; what they are, what their function is, and certainly not what their effects are.  Who is creating personal suffering?  Who creates personal fulfillment, or lack of fulfillment?  Is fulfillment in physical life something which is not attainable?  Or only in the spiritual world once we become one with the One?  Are we not spirits now, in this life, merely clothed in flesh, blood and bones?

 

What kind of fulfillment are you looking for? Physical fulfillment? Sex, food, alcohol....? How long does that fulfillment last? There's the expectation of fulfillment and then there is the experience of getting what you crave. Then the pleasure vanishes and the  search starts anew.

Are you looking for intellectual fulfillment? How do you get that? From reading books, having deep conversations with a friend? How long is that going to last? As long as you have a book and a friend. What if you don't have them? No fulfillment. 

Are you looking for a fulfillment that is not dependent on anything external? Well then, there is only one source that will never let you down. It's always there, at any time, wherever you are, it's there.

 

If you (I mean in general) are content with the first 2 options, well, go for it...until you'll get tired of being a slave to those needs.

 

Once you realise that the only lasting fulfillment comes from within, you are no longer chained to other needs. You can still make awesome love, eat a delicious steak, drink a great wine, have an awesome conversations. But the pleasure you get from all of those pales compared to the deep fulfillment of knowing who you are.

 

I noticed that your reply focused entirely on the issue of 'fulfillment'; your definition of it, and in askance of what I'm looking for in that regard.  What your reply has failed to address are the two points I made and none of the questions were given answers.  Though you did give an answer to the second from last question in that true and meaningful fulfillment comes only from connecting with your "higher" self, or the One, which you call Brahman.  Physical fulfillment is only fleeting and not meaningful as it's only to satisfy your base ego.

• Nowhere that I've seen yet is there any discussion of how specific experience is created.
• I do not see any talk of ideas or beliefs; what they are, what their function is, and certainly not what their effects are.
• Who is creating personal suffering? 
• Who creates personal fulfillment, or lack of fulfillment?
• Is fulfillment in physical life something which is not attainable?
• Or only in the spiritual world once we become one with the One?
• Are we not spirits now, in this life, merely clothed in flesh, blood and bones?

To answer your questions:

 

What kind of fulfillment are you looking for? Physical fulfillment? Sex, food, alcohol....?

 

Yes, physical fulfillment.  Am I not a physical creature?  I'm looking for the fulfillment which comes from becoming more than I am by utilising all of my abilities in this life.  And since I am a portion of my greater self then my fulfillment here in this physical reality adds to the fulfillment of my greater self as that greater self is not able to fulfill itself in the way that I, a portion of it, can.  That is a point which is not accounted for in Vedanta as far as I can tell.

 

There seems to be an overtone that physical fulfillment is somehow base in nature.  Of course that would fit well with the idea that our physical self - ego - is merely a lower aspect of our "greater," much "higher" self.  Again, Seth has stated that there are no levels of existence.  Levels of beingness are the concoctions of humans as they attempt to classify and categorise everything in terms of levels.  God representing the pinnacle, of course.

 

How long does that fulfillment last?

 

I must first ask "in what terms?"  In terms of our experience of time, as our awareness is focused on one moment following another, each replaced by another as our awareness moves it's focus from one to the next, then in those terms the fulfillment is fleeting.  In terms of greater reality that fulfillment is eternal.  We all have endless desires.  I'm sure you've noticed.  Why?  Where does that desire come from?  Is it not the impulse generated by the never ending process of consciousness seeking to fulfill itself by becoming more than it is?

 

There's the expectation of fulfillment and then there is the experience of getting what you crave. Then the pleasure vanishes and the  search starts anew.

 

True.  Agreed.  It is said that the journey is what's important.  The destination is fleeting in our terms.  And no sooner is the destination of fulfilling a desire arrived at than another desire pops up.  Wash, rinse and repeat.

 

Are you looking for intellectual fulfillment? How do you get that? From reading books, having deep conversations with a friend? How long is that going to last? As long as you have a book and a friend. What if you don't have them? No fulfillment.

 

Yes, I love to make use of my intellect  My intuitions and my emotions as well.  How do I get it?  The means for intellectual fulfillment are endless.  The examples you give are two of an endless means.  What if I don't have them?  Well, that would never be the case.  If that type of means of fulfillment were not available then I would create other types of means.  You create your own reality, remember.  And life provides everything for which to find personal fulfillment.  The state of absence of fulfillment does not, and cannot exist.  It would defy a basic attribute of existence.

 

Are you looking for a fulfillment that is not dependent on anything external? Well then, there is only one source that will never let you down. It's always there, at any time, wherever you are, it's there.

 

Fulfillment is not singular.  There's an infinite number of ways in which to fulfill oneself.  There is nothing which is external.  There's certainly the appearance of it.  But don't let the appearance fool you.

 

If you (I mean in general) are content with the first 2 options, well, go for it...until you'll get tired of being a slave to those needs.

 

The logic of the idea that physical fulfillment is a 'need' therefore has the logic follow that you are then only a 'slave' to those 'needs'.  It's a poor idea which results from a lack of understanding both what we are as physical creatures and what fulfillment is.

 

Once you realise that the only lasting fulfillment comes from within, you are no longer chained to other needs. You can still make awesome love, eat a delicious steak, drink a great wine, have an awesome conversations. But the pleasure you get from all of those pales compared to the deep fulfillment of knowing who you are.

 

Please describe that sense of fulfillment which comes from within.  To say that 'going within gives supreme and lasting fulfillment' without expressing what exactly that fulfillment is or explain what it fulfills in your being specifically is to speak in such general terms that no one would be able to answer the question, if asked by another, "What do you mean specifically?"  The concept of fulfillment then becomes an enigma.

 

This idea that one is 'chained to needs' is a valid one in a sense.  To unchain oneself from 'needs' is when one doesn't care what specific form their desire comes in, or doesn't care if it ever comes.  They feel fulfilled in the journey.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

You missed commenting on this excerpt.

 

I highlighted what Swami Sarvapriyananda claims as the purpose of life in bold text.  Is that it?  And yes, it is as he says . . . "That's the big claim."  And it is nothing more than a claim, indeed.    For the rationale behind the claim is, the ideas which support the claim are, entirely missing.  Far be it from me to take that claim as "true" on simple pure faith that it is "true."  I like to examine ideas as to their validity before I decide to accept them.

What? That we try to avoid pain and seek fulfillment? Isn't that obvious in everything we do?

 

All that we do in life is trying to overcome suffering and to attain fulfillment.  Lasting peace, happiness, security.  The way to do that is to realize who you are.  That's the big claim.

 

It's a perspective for sure.  But it's not a complete explanation of what we're doing here in this world and our reason for coming by any means.  No doubt we all try to avoid suffering.  That is true.  And yes, we all try to fulfill ourselves.  That is true as well.

 

But as I've asked before, to which you've yet to answer, who creates the suffering?  Further questions would be:  What is the purpose of suffering?  Why does suffering exist?  How is suffering created?  How is suffering alleviated?  Etc.

 

The same goes for 'seeking fulfillment'.  What is meant by fulfillment?  What avenues exist for fulfillment?  Are there various ways of fulfillment?  Is there only one 'ultimate' fulfillment?  Etc.

 

Sorry to ask all of these questions but they are the questions which naturally beg from Swami Sarvapriyananda's statements.  One can disregard the questions and simply accept Swami Sarvapriyananda's claims but that is not my style.  I question and I question everything.

 

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

And you came to that conclusion after skimming through a couple of videos?

 

Now I wasn't born yesterday, Sunmaster.    The concept of overcoming suffering and attaining fulfillment is a tenet of many Hindu schools of thought which I've been aware of for decades.  Seth discusses this as well.  I didn't come across it for the first time by skimming a few videos.  Rather than chide me for my poor understanding you would do well to explain it in detail and in full.  Answering some of my questions above would be a good start.  But you must admit that the single statement, "All that we do in life is trying to overcome suffering and to attain fulfillment," is not ambiguous.  It's quite clear in it's meaning.  The conclusion drawn that "that's it" is only a logical conclusion that must follow the logic of the statement.  No other explanation for 'why' is given, after all.  Nor is there any mention of anything more to life.

 

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

What?

 

Two world views colliding is like two worlds colliding.  Lots of explosions.  Perhaps rather than two worlds colliding violently we may come to see two worlds merging. 

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

In my opinion Spiral Dynamics is a system of thought which attempts to explain why life works the way it does.  There are an endless number of systems of thought which attempt to do this, all to the end of providing explanations as to what makes reality function as it does.  I have my answer which explains it all in excruciating detail.  The simple answer is you create your reality in every aspect and down to every nuance using subjective ideas which are translated into an objective medium which you then experience and interact with.  How that works in all instances is the excruciating detail.

 

I could investigate and analyze every system of thought out there in an attempt to see where each system of thought might be correct and where it is amiss.  To what end, though?  And if there is no worthy end then I'd only be wasting my time.  Of course there would be an end to doing so if I didn't already have answers.

When I paint, I use a number of different brushes and techniques. I could paint with one brush alone and in a single style, but the result would not be the same. It would be quite boring and would not give me the desired result. 

 

Well, I don't know if that's quite an apt analogy.  That seems to me to be an analogy for "variety is the spice of life." 

 

My analogy would be this:  if I wanted to know how a car engine works I'd find a manual which teaches me every aspect of a car engine including the principles upon which a car engine is able to function.  You may find hundreds of manuals on a bookshelf in a bookstore and come across one which explains the workings of a car engine and it's functioning principles and find all of the information to be accurate.  Other manuals may give partial explanations which are accurate and other explanations which are not.  But once you have a manual which explains all aspects of a car engine and how it works accurately then what's the point of looking at other manuals?  You'd have to sift through them all to separate the chaff from the grain, the accuracies from the inaccuracies.  That is if you are even able to make those separations. 

 

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

You "think" you have the answers . . .

 

Yes, I think so.  At least what answers I do have thus far are correct and accurate.

 

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

. . . but your misunderstanding of Vedanta tells me something else. 

 

Ah, now to enlighten me would be your task.  If you want to assume the task.  No doubt I am not thoroughly knowledgeable about Vedanta.  I do, however, perceive where Vedanta and Seth's material do not agree.  And I willingly admit that the differences that I perceive may be due to my lack of understanding.  Hopefully you, too, not being thoroughly knowledgeable about the Seth material, can admit that there may . . . may be irreconcilable differences between Seth's material and Vedanta. 

 

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

I'll retire into my bomb shelter for the next few days, just to be on the save side. 😅😬

 

Oh dear.  Is it Russia or China? 

[Tippaporn]

A must repost of an astounding letter by Nick Cave.  Hat tip to Frogs. 

 

2 hours ago, save the frogs said:

This is DEEP and PROFOUND. 

 

ChatGPT - The Soul Eater.

 

Highly recommend. 

 

Stephen Fry reads letter by Nick Cave. How cool is that?

 

---------------------------

God makes the world in 6 days. On the 7th day, he rests. The day of rest is significant because it suggests the creation required a certain amount of effort on God's part. 

 

 

[Tippaporn]

On 1/26/2024 at 8:29 PM, Sunmaster said:

On 1/25/2024 at 10:12 AM, Tippaporn said:

All else emerges . . . for what reason, though?  For what purpose?  I've asked you before, why is Sunmaster in this world?  For what?  Where does Vedanta talk about creativity?  What of reincarnational selves?  If one reincarnational self attains connection with the One then what of those living the other reincarnational existences?  Given that time is simultaneous and all exists at once then how does that work?  Are the rest of the reincarnational selves liberated as well by default?  What of probable selves?  Trace selves?  Counterpart selves?  Now creativity would explain that.

I honestly don't know what would happen to other reincarnational selves, probable selves, counterpart selves, imaginary selves, transcendental selves and whatnot. Does knowing this bring me one inch closer to knowing who I am? Sure, it's interesting, but does it make me meditate deeper? I doubt it. 

Maybe that's why you can't find that information in Vedanta.

 

Okay, so Hinduism, which Vedanta is one of the six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy, believes in reincartional existences.  But it offers no reckoning as to what happens to the other existences if one of those were to transcend it's earthly reality.  Small detail that doesn't rouse any questions and can be ignored since knowing it, though interesting, doesn't matter as the only thing of importance is to know who you are?  Seems to me that the precise functioning of reality in that regard is missing.  Unimportant?  Hmmm.  I guess without any explanation of what happens to those existences then we wouldn't know whether it's important to know or not.  After all, those other reincartional selves are part of the Sunmaster self.  I leave the question be as there seems to be no answer available.

 

What do you mean by "meditate deeper?"  Are you implying that there are levels of meditation?  If there are then how would each deeper level be recognised?  Would each level offer something different, perhaps in terms of insight?

 

I've been meaning to ask and now might seem to be a good time to segue into the question.  What do you experience during meditation?  Granted I may be asking for you to put into words something which there may be no words for.  But I would imagine that coming back from meditation you would be bringing something back which is useful in terms of Sunmaster's reality.  Insight, perhaps?  And if insights then insights on what in particular?  How would those insights then be useful to Sunmaster's life, if indeed there was any practical use to those insights?

 

On 1/26/2024 at 8:29 PM, Sunmaster said:

Vedanta is the most practical philosophy or spiritual teaching I ever came across.

 

I guess my questions above fit here.  Practical in what sense?  For instance, I was never interested in philosophy because it seemed to me to be without practical value.  Perhaps intellectually stimulating but beyond that then what?  Knowledge to me is useless if it has no practical value, or cannot be put to practical use.

 

On 1/26/2024 at 8:29 PM, Sunmaster said:

It cuts through all that intellectual self-pleasuring to ask a simple question over and over again. Who am I?

 

Intellectual self-pleasuring?  That smacks to me of being condescending to one's intellect.  The intellect is an attribute of our type of consciousness.  I would protest at any idea which belittles me or any portion of myself, including my ego.  This is one of my hardships with Vedanta or any other form of religion or school of thought which would put portions of ourselves in a poor light, or if it speaks of our current reality as being "less than" in terms of worth and value and importance.  Seth, on the other hand, never speaks derogatorily of any aspect of ourselves nor does he cheapen experience in any of it's manifestations in any other reality.  He continally emphasises the vital importance of each and every manifestation of All That Is.  As to value to All That Is there is no less or greater.

 

You are Sunmaster, a gestalt consciousness, and Sunmaster is a portion of a greater gestalt of consciousness.  Which is itself a part of a greater gestalt of consciousness.  Sunmaster, as an independent Identity, is eternal and will continue it's development.  Who am I suggests that you have but a single identity.  So I again make mention of Seth repeatedly stating that our understanding of identity is severely limited.  I'd have to agree.  If you want to say that you are part of Brahman, or All That Is, then I heartily agree.  But knowing that does not require relinquishing your identity as Sunmaster.  You couldn't even if you wanted to.  I guess you'll find that out the day that you kick the bucket.  Until then I fear you have an identity crisis. 

[Tippaporn]

On 1/26/2024 at 8:19 PM, Sunmaster said:

On 1/25/2024 at 10:12 AM, Tippaporn said:

Lasting peace, happiness, security implies a final destination.  There is no final destination to anything.  That statement also implies an end to growth.  Beyond which lies eternal repetition and true death.  That is antithetical to All That Is and Seth explains how that works and why in granular detail in "Unknown Reality Vol. 1."

I think you misunderstand the meaning of those concepts.

 

I think not.  As I'll explain.

 

On 1/26/2024 at 8:19 PM, Sunmaster said:

Who grows? You the body-mind called Tippa.

 

Yes, Tippers continues to grow.  Here and after. 

 

On 1/26/2024 at 8:19 PM, Sunmaster said:

If Tippa were to merge with AllThereIs, becoming one with it, who is there to grow?

 

But Tippers is already a part of All There Is.  It is, however, a distinct portion of All That Is.  There is no merging of Tippers with All That Is in which Tippers is absorbed by All That Is and ceases to exist as Tippers.  I've mentioned this before, this absorption by All That Is, or Brahman, which is taught by at least certain schools of Hinduism and I recall you denying that that happens.  Yet here you're suggesting that it does.  I reject that notion strongly and can go into detail as to why.  But I'll leave that for now as the issue here is growth.

 

On 1/26/2024 at 8:19 PM, Sunmaster said:

If there were anything left to grow, it would mean that AllThereIs isn't in fact AllThereIs.

 

I understand your thinking here.  It is the same with the concept of simultaneous time whilst everything exists at once.  So how can something "new" be created if everything already exists.  Growth implies that something new is created.  And how can that be possible.  It's a paradox.

 

I'd be challenged to explain it in my own words at the moment so I won't make the attempt right now.  Later.  One thing we can be certain about is that growth is endless.  A cessation of growth inevitably leads to stagnation.  At that point there can only be an eternity of endless repetition of what is.  It would be impossible for anything new to be created.  Which is why Seth has described the concept of Christianity's Heaven as a dead state of being.  It is a literal end to all challenges.  And Seth says that that is true death, and death is an impossibility.

 

Endless repetition becomes the ultimate boredom.  Imagine playing a video game.  It's challenging when first played.  Even the second time can be challenging.  After the millionth time it is sheer boredom.  But how many millions fit into eternity?  Do you see the inherent problem to an end to growth?   Again, it's a paradox which needs to be unraveled.

 

On 1/26/2024 at 8:19 PM, Sunmaster said:

Seth talks about individuals, entities and Oversoul. What is there beyond the Oversoul? AllThereIs, right? What is there beyond AllThereIs? Nothing. Where is the growth then? Buried in its final destination?

 

Again, I'll leave the paradox of growth for now.  I've mentioned another paradox before.  Seth said that All That Is does not know if another like it exists and is constantly searching.  Now that is information that's interesting but let's face it, it's beyond our ability to grasp and attempt to explain how that is possible.  So I won't even try.  I hope you don't. 

[Sunmaster]

6 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

All that we do in life is trying to overcome suffering and to attain fulfillment.  Lasting peace, happiness, security.  The way to do that is to realize who you are.  That's the big claim.

 

It's a perspective for sure.  But it's not a complete explanation of what we're doing here in this world and our reason for coming by any means.  No doubt we all try to avoid suffering.  That is true.  And yes, we all try to fulfill ourselves.  That is true as well.

 

But as I've asked before, to which you've yet to answer, who creates the suffering?  Further questions would be:  What is the purpose of suffering?  Why does suffering exist?  How is suffering created?  How is suffering alleviated?  Etc.

 

The same goes for 'seeking fulfillment'.  What is meant by fulfillment?  What avenues exist for fulfillment?  Are there various ways of fulfillment?  Is there only one 'ultimate' fulfillment?  Etc.

 

Sorry to ask all of these questions but they are the questions which naturally beg from Swami Sarvapriyananda's statements.  One can disregard the questions and simply accept Swami Sarvapriyananda's claims but that is not my style.  I question and I question everything.

 

 

Now I wasn't born yesterday, Sunmaster.    The concept of overcoming suffering and attaining fulfillment is a tenet of many Hindu schools of thought which I've been aware of for decades.  Seth discusses this as well.  I didn't come across it for the first time by skimming a few videos.  Rather than chide me for my poor understanding you would do well to explain it in detail and in full.  Answering some of my questions above would be a good start.  But you must admit that the single statement, "All that we do in life is trying to overcome suffering and to attain fulfillment," is not ambiguous.  It's quite clear in it's meaning.  The conclusion drawn that "that's it" is only a logical conclusion that must follow the logic of the statement.  No other explanation for 'why' is given, after all.  Nor is there any mention of anything more to life.

 

 

Two world views colliding is like two worlds colliding.  Lots of explosions.  Perhaps rather than two worlds colliding violently we may come to see two worlds merging. 

 

I hope you don't expect me to answer all those questions. 😅

I thought about this post while driving from Korat back home. Almost 4 hours of thinking. In order not to forget, I had to write my points in messages to myself while waiting at red lights, getting gas or stopping for a leak. So forgive me if the end result is a bit disconnected. I also have to warn you....my German side is fond of directness and has very little patience for empty diplomacy. It can be easily perceived as rude or aggressive, but remember, it's not personal. 

 

I never said that AV is better than other maps or that Swamiji (or AV) has all the answers. I respect him greatly, because when I hear him talk, I recognize that he is not just talking from intellectual knowledge of the map, but he has walked/is walking the territory. When he talks about those beautiful mountain roads, I know he's been there because I remember them too.

 

So, one thing I want to make abundantly clear is that I neither have the knowledge nor the interest in promoting or defending Advaita Vedanta (or any other philosophy/map). Not that AV would need defending from an amateur like me, of course. Like I said in a previous post, AV is simply a map and should not be confused with the territory. AV focuses on self-inquiry and direct experience and as a practical tool to navigate the territory, I've yet to find a better one.
 

My intention is not to chide you or your worldview, but merely give you a little taste of the medicine you so freely prescribe to others, which is to question your own map and ask yourself whether your map is more important than the territory it describes. 

 

You mention the analogy of the engine manual. OK, I can roll with that. Yes, you're right that it's important to use the best manual you can find and that once you found it, there is little point in reading other, less detailed manuals. By doing so, you gain a solid base on the functioning of the engine, which is important. As an engineer this surely appeals to you greatly....the rationality and logic behind all those parts working together to produce a complete, efficient engine. Brilliant. When there is a fault, simply consult the manual and do a straightforward fault finding. It's all laid out perfectly before your eyes...A leads to B, which turns C, which produces D...easy peasy.

 

However, does the manual teach you how to drive that car? 

 

You'll say yes, my manual has 10 whole chapters about driving! 
I keep asking you, how does it feel to drive on a beautiful mountain road in autumn just before sunset?
You'll say, ahh my manual talks about this exact thing in chapter 4, section 8, paragraph 5 in great detail. It's beautiful.
OK, but how does it feel? Have you actually experienced it?
Well no, but I know everything there is to know because I studied the manual for many years. The manual says it's beautiful so I'm sure it's great.
Right...

 

Your manual may have the better electrical diagrams while the one I use focuses more on valve adjustment. If I ever have a burnt-out light, I will certainly use yours to solve the problem, and if you like you can borrow mine when your engine sputters. No problem.
You may have the prettiest manual, with the latest updates and laminated pages so you can spill your coffee without worries, but still, when it comes to driving the car, there is nothing compared to the actual experience of driving the damn thing.

 

Even though, for the sake of intellectual honesty, you generously concede that there is a small chance that your manual might be wrong or incomplete, I have a hard time believing you. Deep down you think your manual is spot on on everything, because if one slim part of it is not, that would mean that all other parts could be off the mark too. Where would it end? It's either all or nothing. If there are parts in other manuals that don't seem to fit with yours, that obviously means that those manuals contain distorted information. Hmmmm....There is not much difference in this attitude compared to someone who uses the bible as a manual. They too confuse the map with the territory. 

You see, this one card trumps all other cards. No matter how good or detailed a manual is, it's no substitute for the actual driving experience. It is only by driving that you become a better and more experienced driver. And then there comes a point when you will have no need for a manual at all. Holding on to the manual will actually slow you down.

 

You want me to sit around the kitchen table, manuals wide open, and discuss the differences of our manuals. Sorry, but I rather take Basil for a spin and drive into the sunset.

Again, sorry if this post is not the most coherent and doesn't have a flowing prose. I was driving the car. (pun intended). 

 

[Sunmaster]

6 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

What do you mean by "meditate deeper?"  Are you implying that there are levels of meditation?  If there are then how would each deeper level be recognised?  Would each level offer something different, perhaps in terms of insight?

 

I've been meaning to ask and now might seem to be a good time to segue into the question.  What do you experience during meditation?  Granted I may be asking for you to put into words something which there may be no words for.  But I would imagine that coming back from meditation you would be bringing something back which is useful in terms of Sunmaster's reality.  Insight, perhaps?  And if insights then insights on what in particular?  How would those insights then be useful to Sunmaster's life, if indeed there was any practical use to those insights?

 

This I can answer, because it relates to my experience. 
By meditate deeper I mean becoming more and more centered, when it's easy to be in the moment, just being the observer, not attached to anything, stillness, silence and feeling Grace and Wonder at the love flowing. The more you give up of yourself and offer it without resistence, the more the Ur-condition of eternal bliss reveals itself. You are that.

Such peak experiences are rare and even if you do all the necessary steps perfectly (fasting, right morals, meditating, praying etc), there is no guarantee. What we can do however, is do our best and practice. Lay a fertile ground so to speak, on which Grace may or may not (yet) bless you with it.
I guess you could call that "levels of awareness".

"How would be deeper levels recognised?"
Recognized by whom?

"But I would imagine that coming back from meditation you would be bringing something back which is useful in terms of Sunmaster's reality.  Insight, perhaps?"
There are various ways to be "in a meditative" state. You can sit in the typical lotus position, you can chant a mantra while you drive your car, you can create art, you can wash the dishes. I found that a certain ritual, involving sitting in meditation is the most efficient, simply because the ability to find the center is greatly helped by a certain setting. A nice cozy little meditation place, your pillow, the rising sun, the first birds chirping away, a fresh mind, an open heart...all that helps. But this takes effort for most of us, at least in the beginning. At first the thought monkeys will play crazy, poking you, stimulation you, stealing your attention away. Day after day though, their monkeying around becomes less frequent. Your thought-less attention becomes stronger with practice. Soon enough it becomes like the morning stretch of your muscles. You do it because it makes you feel good. And then, that feeling that you cultivate during your meditations starts to grow, filling the cup of your being more and more, until it reaches the brim, overflows, and spills out into the ordinary life of everyday activities. This is the ideal.

"And if insights then insights on what in particular?  How would those insights then be useful to Sunmaster's life, if indeed there was any practical use to those insights?"
Maybe we can define insights as "instantaneously recognized truths", and I would argue that there is nothing more practical than that.

Edited January 29 by Sunmaster

[Tippaporn]

12 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

I also have to warn you....my German side is fond of directness and has very little patience for empty diplomacy.

 

I laughed in delight as I read that, Sunmaster.  For you are letting me know that I've raised your hackles.  And so, as you've broached a subject which is near and dear to my heart I'll dedicate an entire post to it.  But first I've got to invoke the name of our third amigo, @Red Phoenix, for what I want to say is for his ears as well.

 

You'll recall that I've related a story of my friend, Bull, and how we had an ideal relationship.  I now want to put some finer points to it.  The reason Bull and I were able to be so free and open with each other is that we both knew that though our ideas on certain topics clashed we understood so well that who we each were was "good."  We had no reservations about each other as far as our true character was concerned.  Bull knew that I was a good guy and I knew that bull was a good guy.  There were no differences of ideas which we had that could change the fact that we were both excellent, quality people with good hearts.  And the recognition of that was precisely what allowed us to be free and open and allowed us to be as critical of the other as we wanted to be.  We loved each other.  Obviously not in a homosexual way as we both preferred women only.  I mention that only for any other readers as western culture has well defined norms about sexuality, and therefore as to what is culturally acceptable and not in regards to a man expressing love for another man.

 

Anyway, back to the topic.  I find it unfortunate and more than frustrating at times that people tend to conflate ideas with themselves.  That is, in my opinion, due to the lack of understanding of who and what we are and the lack of understanding as to what ideas are.  If I told someone that I think their ideas suck, and if that someone conflated his ideas with himself, then you could almost be guaranteed that they would react with great indignation.  Perhaps even with a punch on the nose.  And expletives denouncing my person heaped upon me as well.  Most people simply do not understand yet that they and their ideas are separate entities.  And thus they identify so strongly with their ideas that they believe that they and their ideas are one and the same.  Attacks on ones ideas then is perceived to be an attack on their person.  The way we use language itself perpetuates this conflation.  We are more likely to tell someone he sucks than to tell them that his ideas suck.  We are more likely to tell someone who expresses an idea which is counter to ours that he's stupid rather than telling him his idea is stupid.  It's all silly but true. 

 

Now I know we've had a discussion a long time back about confrontation, Sunmaster.  I had been particularly frank back then with a certain poster, to the point of being harsh.  Maybe even brutal.    You had made some comments at that time expressing your ideas of being non-confrontational.  I had let you know that I would go into the subject of confrontation later but later never came.  Well, later came and it is now. 

 

Emotions are generated by and follow ideas.  Another little recognised fact by many.  We all experience and have to deal with a quite valid emotional reality, too.  And emotional reality is another reality which is also not well understood.  So it's only natural that a lot of misconceptions are destined to form around emotional reality; misconceptions which are again due to a lack of understanding.

 

In most Western cultures emotional reality is repressed.  Hence the PC culture.  Too often emotions yearn for expression and yet due to cultural teachings, and even religious teachings, emotions are inhibited and denied their natural expression.  Anger, for instance, is equated with violence even if it does not result in physical violence.  Violence is always considered "bad," due to the misunderstanding of emotional reality.  And so expressing anger is to be avoided, even when in situations it's expression would be appropriate.  Or such expression would be beneficial in avoiding a more serious unwanted situation from developing.

 

Emotions are literally energy.  When emotions are denied expression then one literally dams up that energy.  At some point that dam will burst and what follows then is an inappropriate expression as the full energy released is unrestrained and poorly directed.  Everyone has experienced this whenever they've seen someone who all of a sudden, and for no apparent reason, goes off the deep end.  They had multiple opportunities to express their emotion appropriately and at the appropriate time but inhibited their emotion instead.  And so the age old adage of "the straw that broke the camel's back" arose.

 

Now perhaps I've given you guys some new information or perhaps both of you already know what I've shared.  In which case you may feel that my telling you what you already know is irritable because I'm treating you as a couple of dummies and therefore you both feel I've insulted your persons and you've all had felt this many other times but refrained from telling me so and now you've just had it with me and will blurt out to me to go f myself and put me on your ignore list. 

 

Anyway, I'm glad I raised your hackles, Sunmaster.  I encourage you to release that German side of you and let me have it with both barrels, and a grenade to boot just to make sure I feel your pain as well.    Confrontation is good and bad.  It all depends on the situation and the conditions and the individual.  But to say that confrontation is never a good idea, and I'm not saying that is your idea, Sunmaster, will lead one to dam up their energy until it blows up like a frightening New Year's celebration display and rains fire and brimstone down upon all of the poor innocents. 

 

I know both of you are good guys.  So despite the fact that I think some of your ideas absolutely suck I'll always love the both of you.    Feel free to call me an Ar$ehole any time you guys get the urge.  I'll just smile and know that you love me, too. 

 

Was this post helpful?

 

 

Edited January 30 by Tippaporn

[save the frogs]

12 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

I hope you don't expect me to answer all those questions.

of course he does.

you must.

[Tippaporn]

32 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

of course he does.

you must.

 

LOL, Frogs.  You're teeing up my next post to Sunmaster.  It was the first post I started on this morning but I decided to hold off as I wanted to address the "hostilities" which are often generated when world views collide with deadly consequences. 

[save the frogs]

18 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

LOL, Frogs.  You're teeing up my next post to Sunmaster.  It was the first post I started on this morning but I decided to hold off as I wanted to address the "hostilities" which are often generated when world views collide with deadly consequences. 

 

You may (or may not) like this crackpot. He talks about free will in this one. He also talks about the concept of worshipping God, as in the Bible, being bs. 

He also has some music on his channel. 

 

11:59 - "This is the fall. The free will choice is allowed even if the choice leads to the choice of opposite expression to the original divine intention of source." 

 

 

Edited January 30 by save the frogs

[Tippaporn]

@VincentRJ

 

Sorry to invoke a mention of you, Vince, if it's uninvited and unwanted.  I had the impulse to direct this at you and just followed through with it.

 

Here's my message which I've been harping on for as long as I've been here:  It is one of the key concepts in understanding this world and what it is.

 

The physical universe as idea construction.

 

What is meant by that?  Basically it means that there is nothing which exists in the objective universe which did not first exist as an idea.  Now I well imagine that the first idea to pop into ones head to rebut the validity of this concept would be to point to all of the 'dead' matter which comprises the physical universe and ask, "Yeah, well explain how a rock is an idea.  Rotsa ruck."  Followed by a boisterous laugh at the stupidity.  To say that everything is comprised of energy would be acceptable.  To say that energy itself is conscious, well, that would be a bridge too far.  And I have no expectation of you crossing that bridge.  Yet.    So I'll leave that aside for the moment and perhaps return to it if one day your find yourself willing to cross that bridge.

 

If we consider only the achievements of man, everything which he has creatively brought to manifestation - works of art, buildings, all of our technology, whatever you can name or point to - all of that began as a non-physical idea residing in subjective reality in the imagination of the mind.  All of it.  Unless you can name any of man's creations which did not begin as an idea and just magically appeared then I'll assume that you would agree on that point.

 

Hence it is why I've said to you often that the source of the objective world is the subjective world.  For that is whence every idea of man comes from.  Once one understands that everything is composed of energy, and grants that energy is aware-ized, then the concept becomes fully understood rather than just partially.  For the energy which composes the rock is the same energy which composes us.  There is no such thing as "live" energy and "dead" energy.  It's all the same energy.  It's all alive.

 

Ideas are used as building blocks.  Ideas do not exist in isolation but are attracted to each other magnetically.  And so there are idea constructions from the simple - a widget - to idea constructions of great complexity - a computer.

 

And that is why I also have said more times that I can remember that science, in their quest to uncover the truth, is destined to become dead-ended for as long as they believe that subjective reality's source is objective reality then the truth will always be hidden by that very belief despite the truth having been in plain sight in front of ones very nose all along.

 

Anyway, as I said, the impulse to impart that to you came to me and rather than analyse it and dismiss it I went with it before that happened.    Perhaps you'll understand it, perhaps not.   

[save the frogs]

Sorry if this is spam?

Same channel as above post.

Not even sure what instrument he's playing, but he's talented.

 

 

[Tippaporn]

32 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

 

You may (or may not) like this crackpot. He talks about free will in this one. He also talks about the concept of worshipping God, as in the Bible, being bs. 

He also has some music on his channel. 

 

11:59 - "This is the fall. The free will choice is allowed even if the choice leads to the choice of opposite expression to the original divine intention of source." 

 

 

Why do people feel the need to create so many terms of art rather than use simple, plain English when expressing their conceptualisations?    The least they could do is to provide a glossary in the description so that listeners can follow along as a term of art is used but one forgets what it's definition. 

 

Maybe the guy has something worthwhile to convey but I simply can't keep up with all of the specialised terminology.

[Tippaporn]

11 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Sorry if this is spam?

Same channel as above post.

Not even sure what instrument he's playing, but he's talented.

 

 

 

Looks to be a 12-string guitar.  Music is never spam. 

 

Edited January 30 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

of course he does.

you must.

 

How come everyone gets Popular Posts except me?  Hot chicks pics don't even do the trick.  I think it's a conspiracy by y'all to discourage me from posting. 

[save the frogs]

28 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

How come everyone gets Popular Posts except me?  Hot chicks pics don't even do the trick.  I think it's a conspiracy by y'all to discourage me from posting. 

 

yeah, we're conspiring behind your back to not let you get too popular.