Do you believe in God and why

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I watched a Tull VDO once. He had a rather unusual leg activity when performing.

Music wise I'm not a Tull fan- does that put me beyond the Pale?

 

That's Ian Anderson's theatrical style.  I've always contended that he would have made a great actor.  He's a master of facial expressions.

 

Sorry, but yes, it does put you beyond the Pale. 

 

How can you not like a song like Sossity?

 

How can you not love a song like Witch's Promise, off of their masterful '70 Benefit LP?

 

Lend me your ear while I call you a fool
You were kissed by a witch one night in the wood
And later insisted your feelings were true
The witches promise was coming
Believing he listened while laughing you flew

Leaves falling, red, yellow, brown, all look the same
And the love you had found lay outside in the rain
Washed clean by the water but nursing its pain
The witches promise was coming
And you're looking elsewhere for your own selfish gain

Keep looking, keep looking for somewhere to be
Well, you're wasting your time, they're not stupid like he is
Meanwhile leaves are still falling, you're too blind to see
You won't find it easy now, it's only fair
He was willing to give to you, you didn't care
You're waiting for more but you've already had your share
The witches promise is turning

 

 

[Red Phoenix]

25 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

@save the frogs

 

I remember that you had once suggested that I write a book.  I can't say what triggered the remembrance but as I remembered all of a sudden a book title came to me out of nowhere.  Nowhere being within, too.  But since I'm within God then the within was not within me but within the me that is within God.  Does that make sense?  Anyway, I can't honestly attribute it to my own creativity so I'll write the dedication to He who was the true inspiration.  It would be a self-help book of incredible value, found in the occult section of all book stores.

 

How To Speak Greek In English

 

It's brilliant if I must say so myself.  And it would be the easiest book ever written, too.  All I have to do is copy and paste from the Seth material.  Of course, I would also pepper it throughout with my own examples of speaking Greek in English by quoting some of my own thoughts.  Just so I can say it's an original work.  Why I could even include some of my conversations with @Sunmaster and @Red Phoenix.  But then they may want some credit and demand their share of royalties.  So maybe not such a good idea.

 

What I need now, though, is some encouragement and confidence that the book would sell.  Tell me you'll buy a copy, Frogs, and I'll begin work immediately. 

 

Hi Tippa,

I have some furniture with uneven legs, and your envisioned "How to Speak Greek in English" book-series, will come in quite handy to even out the legs and stop the wobbling.  The more voluminous books of the series I can use as door-stoppers. And of course they will also 'burn nice in the stove' (a dutch expression), as my shed and garage would be far too small to store the whole series. 😁

[Tippaporn]

5 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Hi Tippa,

I have some furniture with uneven legs, and your envisioned "How to Speak Greek in English" book-series, will come in quite handy to even out the legs and stop the wobbling.  The more voluminous books of the series I can use as door-stoppers. And of course they will also 'burn nice in the stove' (a dutch expression), as my shed and garage would be far too small to store the whole series. 😁

 

The best way to express appreciation for the value "How To Speak Greek In English" offers is to use it as a paperweight. 

[Tippaporn]

16 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Hi Tippa,

I have some furniture with uneven legs, and your envisioned "How to Speak Greek in English" book-series, will come in quite handy to even out the legs and stop the wobbling.  The more voluminous books of the series I can use as door-stoppers. And of course they will also 'burn nice in the stove' (a dutch expression), as my shed and garage would be far too small to store the whole series. 😁

 

I could as well include a profuse amount of pornographic pictures.  I wouldn't then need to commission Sunmaster to do the water colours and save myself some dosh  Thinking about marketing now . . .

 

A must have book to occupy a prominent position on next to every intellectual's bookshelf commode.

 

Cha-ching, cha-ching, cha-ching!! 

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

eth provides ideas.  Vedanta provides ideas.  Some ideas are the same and some are different.  Yet ideas is all that either offer.  Then given those ideas it becomes a matter of discerning which ideas are an accurate reflection of what reality is and how it functions.  What is clear is that two ideas which oppose each other cannot both be an accurate reflection of reality.  Therefore it is not a matter of better or best but one of accuracy.  One is accurate and the other is not.

 

Never heard of the parable of the blind men, each one touching a different part of the same elephant and each claiming to know what the elephant looks like? A tree trunk? A rope? A fan? A wall? A spear?
You say 2 conflicting ideas can not be both true. I disagree. Seemingly contradictory ideas may find a peaceful resolution on a new level they both transcend. Or are you saying you can see the whole of the elephant? How? By intellectual understanding??
How is it possible to squeeze the unfathomable, ineffable Absolute Truth into limited relative truth made of concepts and language?

[Sunmaster]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

One of the ideas of Vedanta, as you have expressed, is that there is intellectual understanding and there is direct understanding.  Direct understanding trumps intellectual understanding.  And so via comparison it is concluded that intellectual understanding is inferior.  Not only is it inferior but intellectual understanding cannot lead to any true understanding.  True understanding can only be validly gotten via direct understanding.  Those, my friend, are ideas.  And they are ideas I most strongly reject as being an accurate representation of how reality works.  They are, therefore, what I consider a distortion of the truth.  My evidence?  That would be my own experience, for one.

You say intellectual knowledge is not inferior to direct experience when it comes to subjective reality, and to support your idea, you call upon your own experience. Can you see the logical fallacy here?

[save the frogs]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

What I need now, though, is some encouragement and confidence that the book would sell.  Tell me you'll buy a copy, Frogs, and I'll begin work immediately.

 

It's not a good idea for me to discourage you.

A lot of people can't stand Jethro Tull. It never stopped him from making his music. 

 

What's your motivation? To be rich and famous and millions of people read your book and get converted to your point of view?

Then you might be setting yourself up for disappointment.

Or are you writing something that's meaningful to you? Then go for it. 

 

 

Edited February 5 by save the frogs

[Sunmaster]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Well, if you can believe that information then apparently the intellect is not solely an attribute of human consciousness.  And therefore the intellect can be used to gain true knowledge and understanding.  Which means that direct experience is not the only avenue to attaining real knowledge and understanding.

I don't think I said that. What I said was that the intellect is no good at attaining real knowledge on its own. It has to be paired with direct experience. 
Direct experience reveals knowledge in the "form" of instantaneously recognized truth. The intellect then, to the best of its abilities, sifts through that truth and translates it into concepts and words in order to integrate the experience and make sense of it on an intellectual level. Note that, the experience or insight already made perfect sense without the intellect shaping it into words. 
So, the intellect is important of course, but not equal to direct experience.

You can have a body of water without waves, but you can not have waves without a body of water.
Direct experience is more fundamental than intellectual knowledge.

[Sunmaster]

2 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.

[Tippaporn]

44 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

How is it possible to squeeze the unfathomable, ineffable Absolute Truth into limited relative truth made of concepts and language?

 

That, my friend, is a question you need to answer for yourself.

[Sunmaster]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

 

That, my friend, is a question you need to answer for yourself.

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.
How do you answer it?

[Tippaporn]

45 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Never heard of the parable of the blind men, each one touching a different part of the same elephant and each claiming to know what the elephant looks like? A tree trunk? A rope? A fan? A wall? A spear?
You say 2 conflicting ideas can not be both true. I disagree.

 

If none of them guessed that it was an elephant then any answer other than an elephant would not be an accurate representation of the elephant.  They would all, therefore, be wrong.  Your analogy doesn't work in showing how two answers can both be correct.  I'm not saying that two different answers can never be correct, though.  The truth can be more than one thing.

[Tippaporn]

2 minutes 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.
How do you answer it?

 

With sadness at the conclusion you draw.

[Tippaporn]

15 minutes 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.

 

Have words never stirred your soul?  It seems to me that once you've realised your "true" identity then you've done so at the sacrifice of the brilliance and vitality of physical experience.  It seems to me that it's no more than a mocking shadow of "true" experience.  I've said before that our concept of identity is severely limited.  For it appears that there is only one identity that personality can have.  It's true identity as the Brahman.  The other identities are mere illusions.  How much more limited can that idea be?

 

Edited February 5 by Tippaporn

[Sunmaster]

14 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

With sadness at the conclusion you draw.

Lol
That doesn't answer my question though...

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

You say intellectual knowledge is not inferior to direct experience when it comes to subjective reality, and to support your idea, you call upon your own experience. Can you see the logical fallacy here?

 

My fault for misleading you.  It should have read "my own experience with intellectual knowledge."  My bad. 

[Tippaporn]

4 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Lol
That doesn't answer my question though...

 

7 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Have words never stirred your soul?  It seems to me that once you've realised your "true" identity then you've done so at the sacrifice of the brilliance and vitality of physical experience.  It seems to me that it's no more than a mocking shadow of "true" experience.  I've said before that our concept of identity is severely limited.  For it appears that there is only one identity that personality can have.  It's true identity as the Brahman.  The other identities are mere illusions.  How much more limited can that idea be?

 

 

That would be my answer.

[Tippaporn]

49 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

It's not a good idea for me to discourage you.

A lot of people can't stand Jethro Tull. It never stopped him from making his music. 

 

What's your motivation? To be rich and famous and millions of people read your book and get converted to your point of view?

Then you might be setting yourself up for disappointment.

Or are you writing something that's meaningful to you? Then go for it.

 

Not my thing. 

 

No need to write about it. 

[Tippaporn]

53 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

What I said was that the intellect is no good at attaining real knowledge on its own. It has to be paired with direct experience. 

 

That's one idea.

 

So what's the purpose of intellect?  For if it's unable to acquire knowledge on it's own then what's the good of it?  I've created never before seen tooling that worked using my intellect.  And then experienced the positive and fulfilling results afterward.  Of course there was intellectual fulfillment experienced as I was in the process of design.  Is that not valid?

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

o, the intellect is important of course . . .

 

For what? 

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

Direct experience is more fundamental than intellectual knowledge.

 

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? 

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

3 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? 

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, save the frogs said:

There's no time to lose, society left us
Love is the tool, raise the vibration
'Cause when you live in the love it's called a civilisation

I ain't gonna dance for a new religion
I ain't gonna dance for a new religion

 

"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.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I could as well include a profuse amount of pornographic pictures. 

Sure to be a best seller in that case.

People have been drawing porn ever since Og discovered that a burnt stick was good for drawing on cave walls.

These sad days it's as close to the real thing many men will ever get, even though they may be married to an actual woman.

[Great nestea]

I DO BELIEVE IN GOD!!! 

[Tippaporn]

43 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sure to be a best seller in that case.

People have been drawing porn ever since Og discovered that a burnt stick was good for drawing on cave walls.

These sad days it's as close to the real thing many men will ever get, even though they may be married to an actual woman.

 

Nothing Viagra can't fix. 

[Tippaporn]

@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.

[Sunmaster]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

If none of them guessed that it was an elephant then any answer other than an elephant would not be an accurate representation of the elephant.  They would all, therefore, be wrong.  Your analogy doesn't work in showing how two answers can both be correct.  I'm not saying that two different answers can never be correct, though.  The truth can be more than one thing.

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.

[Sunmaster]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

My fault for misleading you.  It should have read "my own experience with intellectual knowledge."  My bad. 

 

It's still your experience that comes a priori of the intellectual knowledge. You are not the mind. The mind is an object which makes sense of subjective data. "I have an idea." I=subject....the idea=object. You can't be the idea, because subject and object can't be the same. Same for the body. "I have a body". Same for feelings. "I feel sad." Same for memories..."I remember that one time...". Same for beliefs... "I believe in X,Y,Z.". 
In all these cases, there is one subject that observes the objects rising up from consciousness.
Intellectual knowledge is therefore simply another (immaterial) object which is observed by the Self. 
How can we know the Self? Not by reading a book or thinking about it really really hard. Do you agree? Otherwise we would have scores of philosophers and clever people who have found their true identity and become not just clever, but wise sages. But then, where are all these enlightened people who reached enlightenment by thinking and analyzing? I would guess that there are none. All the sages, masters and profoundly wise people I know of, from every tradition and time period, came to that point by direct experience. Not by the way of the intellect. In fact, the intellect is the very thing that prevents direct experience. 

The Self can only be experienced and AFTER that, that experience can be put into concepts and words, with the all the distortions and limitations that such an act includes. 

This I say from my own experience and has nothing to do with Vedanta or other philosophies.

[Sunmaster]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

That's one idea.

 

So what's the purpose of intellect?  For if it's unable to acquire knowledge on it's own then what's the good of it?  I've created never before seen tooling that worked using my intellect.  And then experienced the positive and fulfilling results afterward.  Of course there was intellectual fulfillment experienced as I was in the process of design.  Is that not valid?

The intellect has it's place, just like the ego, in helping us survive as physical beings and make sense of the world that surrounds us. You used your intellect to understand and manipulate the material world around you. You succeeded in creating what you've envisioned, and this produced satisfaction and fulfilment. 
All these are activities of the external world. 
But ask yourself...who is that who used the intellect? Who is the one who created that tooling? Who experienced fulfillment?
It was the Self at the root of it all. The Self that experienced all of it...the thinking, the creating, the fulfillment.