Do you believe in God and why

[Red Phoenix]

13 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

@Red Phoenix lurking in the background and steering clear of any involvement. 😁

~

@Sunmaster & @Tippaporn - Enjoying the debate between the two of you. 

And the Winner is ...

 

 

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

@Tippaporn

I remember reading years ago about an event (or events) in India, where different schools of thought would come together and battle out their theories in a sort of open tournament. The debates would start by one opponent summarizing the other's point of view, and only once the other opponent declared that that summary was correct, could the first one make his point and refute the opponent's point. Basically, they were all monks beating the philosophical sh!t out of each other. 
This is the way I always saw our exchanges. 

Yesterday I did some soul searching and I came to 2 conclusions:
1) In exchanging blows, I don't regret the content, but I think it could have been delivered with more compassion.
2) In the heat of the debate, I think some spiritual pride tainted my responses. I wanted to offer a nice glass of Chateauneuf-du-Pape, but it was tainted by a drop of lemon.

For this I would like to apologize to you.

 

Thanks, Sunmaster.  But I reject your apology for there's no apology needed.

 

"In every moment everyone does the best that they know how to do."

--Seth

 

A fitting personal anecdote to explain that:

 

I had a five year relationship with my first Thai girlfriend.  It was one of the most blissful relationships I'd ever had.  No fights about anything ever.  Just fun and laughter.  She was very loving.  And yet there was a deep seated and fatal problem to our relationship, unbeknownst to me.  She didn't have an attraction to farang and preferred Thai men.  Whilst I was good to her and raised her stature economically she yearned for a Thai on Thai relationship.  She could not resist that yearning and so she did the dirty on me.

 

I confess that it broke my heart, especially considering the bliss I had felt on my end for so many years on end.  After we broke up I experienced emotional swings from one extreme end of the spectrum to the other.  I would wake up one morning and my thoughts would immediately focus upon her transgressions.  My emotions where at the far end of the scale of anger that would turn to deep sadness.  The next morning I would wake up and immediately focus on the love and the good times we had experienced and shared together.  My emotions then moved to the far end of the scale of love, gratefulness and appreciation for all that she had given me.  No matter how much I tried to cancel out the good with the bad I knew that the good was eternal and therefore could not be erased.  And so I experienced this seesaw for well on a month.

 

Anyone knows that to constantly go from one extreme to another emotionally is not healthy.  I recognised the deep quandary I was in and sought to end it.  So I decided to utilise what I had learned in, get ready for it, books.  My desire paved the way to release the knowledge of what I had learned and bring it to awareness.  That Seth quote came to me out of nowhere one day and proved to be the solution to my intolerable dilemma.  Understanding the truth of that statement filled me with utter compassion for her and from that moment on I released all anger and sadness for I understood that she was doing only the best she knew how.  She didn't want to hurt me, for she did love me, yet her desire had to find it's fulfillment.

 

To this day I can freely recall every detail of her transgressions and feel nothing but love and appreciation for her.  I'll deeply love and appreciate her always and only love and appreciate her.  I will, however, accept that nice glass of Chateauneuf-du-Pape from you, Sunmaster, and make a toast to her.  Her name?  Tippaporn.

 

Okay y'all, put away your Kleenex's now.  Was that the end of my experience of utilising that specific knowledge?  Well, the anecdote has a Part Two.

 

Now I did not want to be single and so I was firm on creating for myself another relationship.  This time, however, I got out pencil and paper and wrote down a list of everything I wanted in a woman.  I was not about to repeat that relationship via a hit and miss approach so I understood it was important to first define for myself what it was that I wanted as opposed to what I didn't want before I went fishing again. If, that is, I had any expectation of success.  At the top of the list were 1) honesty, 2) a good heart, 3) a balanced personality, 4) a woman who was happy with herself.

 

Less than a month later I was headed home one Sunday night from one of our mutual friend's house.  I was about to turn into my soi when I was struck with a strong impulse which I couldn't deny and so followed it.  That impulse was to go to a bar, walk in and order a single beer, and the first lady who came to me I would take home.  I was not interested in sex at all.  I was only interested in talking to another female.  I took her home and we sat on the sofa and talked for hours.  She had just come off a three year relationship herself.  She then asked me if I wanted her to stay with me.  Again I followed my impulse without the slightest analysis and said, "Sure."  Seventeen years later and the list I had penned of what I wanted in a woman was completely satisfied.  We are extremely happy, fulfilled, and loving.

 

Now fast forward another five years from our initial meeting.  A few months prior to returning to Thailand from a long 3-1/2 year stay in the U.S. I was on Skype with her, as was our usual almost daily routine.  This day, however, her voice was not it's usual.  She told me that she had some news for me that was about to seriously threaten our relationship.  Okay.  I felt completely calm and relaxed and felt not the slightest apprehension as she delivered the news.  She was pregnant.  She told me that she still wanted to stay with me and not with the biological father of her newly formed child.  But, she told me that she wanted to stay with me only if I could love her child.

 

What happened next was quite remarkable.  At least in my view.  I was literally besieged with a gadzillion thoughts in what seemed to me to be hitting me almost simultaneously.  Whilst each thought was indeed fleeting at the same time each thought was almost suspended in time in that I was able to identify each distint thought with absolute clarity and respond to it.  These thoughts which I was experiencing were rational yet were not due to any kind of intellectual analysis on my part.  I would say that each thought was of a different and distinct implication which this situation presented me with.  And after each thought my response was an immediate, "Good," and then did the next thought present itself.  For I could just as clearly see how each potential consequence would work out to my beneficence.  And to all of our beneficence, including the biological father.

 

Whilst my still girlfriend at the time continued to plead her case, as I was being bombarded by an incredible number of ramifications, after less than two minutes I replied, "Sure."  My then girlfriend did the best she knew how in every moment.  I had no right to have any expectation for her to be celibate for 3-1/2 years.  Besides, I understood only too well the cultural conditioning we've all been indoctrinated with regarding what is appropriate and what is not regarding sexual encounters.  It makes little sense.  I also became the favourite man amonst her girlfriends who were awestruck that I would still accept her.  Our daughter's biological father had even remarked to me that he was quite taken by my graciousness in accepting him and offering him participation and sharing in his daughter's life.  Unfortunately he could never overcome his negative feelings over the fact that the mother would not go with him.  He engaged with us perhaps once or twice a year and has since disappeared without a trace.

 

Interestingly, I was torn in a way about having another child.  I already had two in the U.S. and I was not in favour of experiencing child rearing again.  It's a lot of work and I didn't want to do the work anymore.  Our daughter is now 11 years old.  And she's been a blessing of such enormity which I could never have imagined in my wildest dreams.  Just goes to show what delicious fruits can be harvested by trusting in yourself rather than by reacting automatically from the stance of acceptable conventional "wisdom."  I should have just dumped my girlfriend then and there, right? 

 

Compassion to me, Sunmaster, comes from knowing that "In every moment everyone does the best that they know how to do."  No apologies needed, my friend. 

 

Edited February 8 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

And to all those who want to complain about my long-winded, verbose posts I salute y'all with my middle finger whilst I play a fitting tune dedicated to y'all. 

 

The J. Geils Band with an awesome cover of John Lee Hooker's Serves You Right To Suffer off of their eponymously titled '70 debut LP.

 

 

Edited February 8 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

~

@Sunmaster & @Tippaporn - Enjoying the debate between the two of you. 

And the Winner is ...

 

 

 

I always thought you were partial to Sunmaster.  This proves it. 

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

@Tippaporn

I remember reading years ago about an event (or events) in India, where different schools of thought would come together and battle out their theories in a sort of open tournament. The debates would start by one opponent summarizing the other's point of view, and only once the other opponent declared that that summary was correct, could the first one make his point and refute the opponent's point. Basically, they were all monks beating the philosophical sh!t out of each other. 
This is the way I always saw our exchanges. 

Yesterday I did some soul searching and I came to 2 conclusions:
1) In exchanging blows, I don't regret the content, but I think it could have been delivered with more compassion.
2) In the heat of the debate, I think some spiritual pride tainted my responses. I wanted to offer a nice glass of Chateauneuf-du-Pape, but it was tainted by a drop of lemon.

For this I would like to apologize to you.

 

I forgot to credit you with possessing supreme graciousness, Sunmaster. 

 

Getting a feel yet for having a friendship that can get ugly at times but none of that could ever get in the way of the friendship?  Wonderful, innit? 

[Sunmaster]

Question for you @Tippaporn...
How do you see the whole concept of enlightenment? Do you believe it exists? Do you believe it is a radically different way of experiencing the world and yourself? Do you believe it can be realized by following certain thought processes?

[VincentRJ]

12 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

And your point is?

 

Are you trying to understand what the Seth material is via parapsychology treatises on mediumship?

 

Well, one of my points is that Seth is a fictional character created by a female author who suffered a very traumatic childhood, and who had many health problems throughout her life, dying at an early age of 55.

[Tippaporn]

7 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Well, one of my points is that Seth is a fictional character created by a female author who suffered a very traumatic childhood, and who had many health problems throughout her life, dying at an early age of 55.

 

You mean Jane Roberts was human?  Oh, my God.  I've been reading the Seth material and Jane's own works for decades.  This is a new revelation to me.  Thanks for letting me know, Vince.  I'll steer clear of the material from here on out. 

 

Sarcasm aside, what did you expect to find when your intention was to find "dirt?"  Tell me, if you were to do the same with scientists and look closely at their personal lives, specifically and only to find whatever trash you could about them for the sole purpose of discrediting them, do you think some scientists might be living imperfect lives?  That's a rhetorical question because you know the answer to it.  Of course you would.  And if so (and you can be guaranteed to find that most scientists have dark issues in their lives as they, too, are human) then what does any of that have to do with the works they produce?  That's another rhetorical question because you know the answer to that one as well.  Nothing.

 

Your using your rational and logical thought processes to prove the following theory to be correct: if an author's character is suspect, or a scientist's, then their work is suspect.  If found to be suspect then that invalidates their work.  And if this theory is "true" then one only need to examine ones character to judge their work.  This is a well known logical fallacy of the Red Herring family of fallacies called argumentum ad hominem.

 

The most common form of this fallacy is "A" makes a claim of "fact," to which "B" asserts that "A" has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going entirely off-topic, and hence "B" concludes that "A" has their "fact" wrong -without ever addressing the point of the debate.

 

This is one fallacy you're using to dismiss Jane's works and/or invalidate it.  A fallacy also well regarded as character assassination.  Which is, well, at least I regard it such, to be a despicable tactic that makes one wonder about the character of the person who employs it.

 

Another logical fallacy you're employing, out of several others that can be cited, is also from the Red Herring family of fallacies called ad verecundiam, or appeal to authority, a form of argument in which the opinion of an influential figure is used as evidence to support an argument.  Hence the "authoritative" treatises you cited as your "proof" that Jane is a disturbed individual and also to use as "proof" of the conclusion that Seth is a fictional character.

 

The only thing of importance is the work itself.  Of course you already know this and don't need me to tell you this.  What is wholly evident, though, is that you rest your case on fallacious arguments for the purpose of dismissing Jane's works and thereby relieving yourself of any responsibility to examine her work's actual substance.  The fallacious arguments also allow you to then pass off an utterly uninformed opinion as well informed.

 

It does take quite a bit of work to keep folks honest.  Hopefully you can appreciate that effort with some acknowledgement.  For it is done for your benefit so that in the future you use sound rationale and logic and don't expose yourself as appearing dumb.    Don't misinterpret me here, Vince.  This is not at all intended a slight.  It's just simply assessing reality accurately and properly.  Whether you allow yourself to accept reality or whether you wish to believe your deceptive logic is valid, for that is in essence what logical fallacies are - deception, then that is up to you.  You're a good poster and I'm sure you'll choose wisely. 

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Sarcasm aside, what did you expect to find when your intention was to find "dirt?"  Tell me, if you were to do the same with scientists and look closely at their personal lives, specifically and only to find whatever trash you could about them for the sole purpose of discrediting them, do you think some scientists might be living imperfect lives?  That's a rhetorical question because you know the answer to it.  Of course you would.  And if so (and you can be guaranteed to find that most scientists have dark issues in their lives as they, too, are human) then what does any of that have to do with the works they produce?  That's another rhetorical question because you know the answer to that one as well.  Nothing.

 

You seem very confused, Tippaporn. Why do you assume that my intention was to find 'dirt'? I'll repeat what I wrote in the post you are responding to.

 

"I'm no expert on 'Seth', and I have to admit that until I searched the internet for information about him, I assumed he was a real person rather than a 'fictional' character created by the female writer, Jane Roberts, whilst she was in many states of some type of trance, communicating with the paranormal.
Her life and writings should be a fascinating subject for parapsychologists. Following are a couple of articles which address her beliefs and her background, which seems quite awful, and which must have influenced her later writings."

 

I have an enquiring mind, and don't accept anything simply because a particular authority claims it is true. However, I have a high degree of faith in the 'true' methodology of science, and whenever I see that the requirements of that methodology have not been fully applied, as in the case of Anthropogenic Climate Change, I believe it is sensible to be skeptical.

 

Likewise, if a poet and fiction writer, whilst in a state of trance, claims that 'consciousness creates all the matter in the universe', then I would search for validated evidence that confirms this hypothesis, before accepting it as true.

 

However, I also accept that there are many, many issues that are far too complex for the successful application of the 'Methodology of Science', which is why many 'so-called theories', are really in the category of 'Hypothesis'.
The concept that 'consciousness creates all matter' is a hypothesis, similar to the concept that the universe was created by God.

 

I should also address a part of my quote that you might have misinterpreted. 

 

"Following are a couple of articles which address her beliefs and her background, which seems quite awful, and which must have influenced her later writings."

 

The sentence does not state that 'her beliefs' seem quite awful, but just her background. If I included both beliefs and background to seem awful, I would not have used the word 'seems'. Perhaps it would have been clearer if I'd changed the position of the commas, as in: "Following are a couple of articles which address her beliefs, and her background which seems quite awful, and which must have influenced her later writings."

 

Everyone throughout their life is influenced by their background and early experiences, but not in the same way because no two situations are identical. Some people become criminals because of traumatic experiences during their childhood. Jane Roberts became a famous writer, which is obviously a remakable achievement.

 

[Tippaporn]

9 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

 

Well, one of my points is that Seth is a fictional character created by a female author who suffered a very traumatic childhood, and who had many health problems throughout her life, dying at an early age of 55.

 

Sorry to say, Vince, but pointing out the damning flaws in your logical processes to reach flawed conclusions was only Part One.  In Part Two I'll cover another major flaw in your reasoning.  This part has to do with your scientific beliefs as they form the basis for the illogical thinking that follows from those beliefs.

 

It's true and well accepted that man, and science, have precious little understanding of what consciousness is or what it's capabilities are.  Therefore, given such immense ignorance it is neigh on impossible to then determine which expressions of consciousness are valid and which are not.  Science accepts only those expressions which it can verify via their scientific methodology.  Any expressions which science is unable to verify using that methodology are considered invalid.  Hence it is only common sense that given the great degree of ignorance regarding consciousness then it must be, it can only be, that many of those expressions which science currently rejects as valid are indeed valid.

 

The expressions of consciousness are of a vastness which easily escapes comprehension.  What is known of consciousness by science is not only the slimmest of a sliver but much of what is thought to be known is flat out erroneous.  Despite the fact that the degree of ignorance of what consciousness is and what it's capabilities are is so great that doesn't prevent science from declaring with certainty which expressions of it are valid and which are not.  Those expressions considered valid become conventional thought and represent science's paradigm.  Any expressions which fall outside of that paradigm are not only deemed invalid but also anyone who claims to have experience outside of science's limited framework of conventionality are seen as disturbed.  For science to declare with such certainty what is acceptable experience and what is not is an indication that the degree of their hubris may well exceed the degree of their ignorance.

 

These scientific-minded pundits which you cite take a scientific approach to the question of Jane, Seth, and mediumship largely vie case studies.  Studies which seek to categorise, compare, contrast and ultimately make sense of the subject matter.  They begin with their theses and from there select only that data which is significant in terms that it confirms their theses.  Data which does not is left out for it does not fit.  This data is left out for the reader as much as it is left out for the authors.  In that sense it does a disservice to the reader in that it denies the reader data which the reader may deem important and relevant.

 

Science's approach in examining consciousness is to examine it from a detached position..  For scientific methodology demands that.  Consciousness, however, can never be understood using that approach as consciousness is not a thing, an object which can be calibrated using purely objective oriented tools.  For any true understanding of what consciousness is and what it's capabilities are then the tool to use is consciousness itself.  Unfortunately no scientist would ever consider such a proposition as it would defile and automatically invalidate any findings.  Such is the box which science has unwittingly placed itself in.

[Sunmaster]

@VincentRJ
How about you Vince?
How do you see the whole concept of enlightenment? Do you believe it exists? Do you believe it is a radically different way of experiencing the world and yourself? 

[Sunmaster]

7 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

For any true understanding of what consciousness is and what it's capabilities are then the tool to use is consciousness itself. 

How to use consciousness to understand consciousness?

[Tippaporn]

13 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

You seem very confused, Tippaporn. Why do you assume that my intention was to find 'dirt'? I'll repeat what I wrote in the post you are responding to.

 

My apologies for assuming that your intention was to find dirt on Jane.  I arrived at that assumption due to the fact that there is much information to be found on the Internet on Jane and Seth.  Of all of the available information that exists I found it curious that you would link to a couple of citations which focus on aspects of Jane's life which do not present her in a favourable light.

 

19 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I have an enquiring mind, and don't accept anything simply because a particular authority claims it is true. However, I have a high degree of faith in the 'true' methodology of science, and whenever I see that the requirements of that methodology have not been fully applied, as in the case of Anthropogenic Climate Change, I believe it is sensible to be skeptical.

 

I would always advise one to be skeptical and agree that that is a sensible approach.  Skepticism promotes questioning.  However, I would love for you to apply that same skepticism to the belief that the 'true' methodology of science is the only means of validating everything which exists.  Unless you question it you will never understand it's limitations.  Yet that methodology is such a fundamental cornerstone of science that it would appear that to understand and accept it's limitations would be to somehow reject science.  Science would for certain reject you if you were to accept that the methodology of science is limited. 

 

I very much recognise and appreciate immensely that you have an enquiring mind.  In fact I applaud you and have applauded you.  An enquiring mind is in essence a questioning mind.  And so I would recommend to you that you not only ask questions of that which you do not know but importantly ask questions of that which you do know.  Only by questioning what you do "know to be true" will you ever be able to uncover that perhaps what you thought you knew to be true just ain't so.  And if you choose to refuse to question what you do "know to be true" then you may only be accepting a reality which does not exist in fact but only exists in your own mind.

 

41 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Likewise, if a poet and fiction writer, whilst in a state of trance, claims that 'consciousness creates all the matter in the universe', then I would search for validated evidence that confirms this hypothesis, before accepting it as true.

 

And if validated evidence cannot be had via the 'true' methodology of science then what?  The idea that validation for some things can only come from yourself is something which appears you currently are not willing to accept as true.  What I am insisting on, incessantly so, is that the 'true' methodology of science can never prove that 'consciousness creates all the matter in the universe' one way or the other.  For science that idea, or contention, will forever exist only as a hypothesis.

 

47 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

However, I also accept that there are many, many issues that are far too complex for the successful application of the 'Methodology of Science' . . .

 

I think you're beginning to understand. 

 

50 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I should also address a part of my quote that you might have misinterpreted. 

 

"Following are a couple of articles which address her beliefs and her background, which seems quite awful, and which must have influenced her later writings."

 

The sentence does not state that 'her beliefs' seem quite awful, but just her background. If I included both beliefs and background to seem awful, I would not have used the word 'seems'. Perhaps it would have been clearer if I'd changed the position of the commas, as in: "Following are a couple of articles which address her beliefs, and her background which seems quite awful, and which must have influenced her later writings."

 

I accept that.  I did notice the qualifier 'seems' when I first read it.  Jane's background did indeed influence her in many respects.  To say that it "must have" influenced her writings I accept as true.  But we'll never know what part of her background played an influence nor will we ever be able to determine whether any portion of her background which may have influenced her writings did so in a negative or positive way.  It's a question which I, myself, see as having little bearing as I allow the material to stand for itself.

 

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

 

Everyone throughout their life is influenced by their background and early experiences, but not in the same way because no two situations are identical. Some people become criminals because of traumatic experiences during their childhood. Jane Roberts became a famous writer, which is obviously a remakable achievement.

 

Just an interesting and pleasant anecdote which comes to mind relating to the influences in ones life and how that influence exerts itself.  This is a true story which I came across years ago.  Someone had attended a local outdoor art show featuring local artists.  The guy was interesting in a painting by an 80-year-old woman.  So he asked her how long it took her to paint it.  She replied, "80 years."

[Tippaporn]

@VincentRJ

 

Just to leave you with a quote from the Seth material:

 

The unknown reality, colon: Again, because of your precise orientation you are often theoretically intrigued by the contemplation of worlds not your own. And while you may often yearn for some evidence of those other realities, you are just as apt to become scandalized by the very evidence that you have so earnestly requested.

Ruburt has embarked upon his own journeys into the unknown reality. I cannot do that for him. I can only point out the way, as I do for each reader.

 

That is the grand irony for those who seek true answers.  And yes, it is a major impediment if allowed.

[Sunmaster]

32 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Ruburt has embarked upon his own journeys into the unknown reality. I cannot do that for him. I can only point out the way, as I do for each reader.

 

That is the grand irony for those who seek true answers.  And yes, it is a major impediment if allowed.

Precisely my point...
Seth (the Seth Material) can only point towards it. The map is not the territory. The territory is beyond intellectual understanding. The territory has to be walked, not talked about. Each one of us has to do the walking on our own. Once we have walked, we can talk about it with some authority.

 

Edited February 9 by Sunmaster

[Tippaporn]

16 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Question for you @Tippaporn...
How do you see the whole concept of enlightenment?

 

Well, I best first define what enlightenment is according to me.  Generally speaking I'd go with the dictionary definition:  the state of understanding something.  Apt synonyms would be: awareness, insight. understanding, wisdom.  As it applies specifically to Hinduism and Buddhism I accept these definitions:  a final spiritual state in which everything is understood and there is no more suffering or desire; the highest spiritual state that can be achieved.  I'll assume you're referring to the latter so I'll answer accordingly.

 

As to the first definition, since I don't believe in beginnings or endings, or in final destinations of any kind, then I reject that interpretation of enlightenment.  I do not believe that there exists a state where everything is understood because more that is as yet unknown is constantly being created.  I've stated before that growth is eternal for if that were not the case then nothing new could ever come into being.  Without anything new then existence could only be eternally repeating itself.

 

As to the second definition I do not believe there is a "top of the pyramid" for that would imply the existence of levels and also imply that the goal of any existence is to climb a ladder which ultimately leads to the top.  I believe that idea to be sourced in our current ideas which play out, for instance, as the goal of life being to forever climb the rungs of the financial ladder to ever and ever greater riches.

 

I prefer the general definition, which is to perpetually increase our awareness of just how much there is to us, to forever gain new insights, to eternally increase our level of understanding, all of which creates wisdom.

 

16 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Do you believe it exists?

 

As defined by Hinduism and Buddhism, no.

 

16 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Do you believe it is a radically different way of experiencing the world and yourself?

 

I believe that growth is what we are all engaged in every moment of our existence via experiencing and engaging in our world through our selfhood.  Growth increases our awareness, insight and understanding.  In that sense then we are in a never ending process of enlightenment.  So since this is the natural process of existence in which we are constantly engaged then it cannot be radical.  No one can escape becoming enlightened in one way or another, to one extent or another.  There is no one who learns nothing in life.

 

17 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Do you believe it can be realized by following certain thought processes?

 

Again, I believe that enlightenment as defined by Hinduism and Buddhism does not exist.  If an expansion of awareness is desired in certain direction then yes, there are certain thoughts, or ideas, which are beneficial and aid in that expansion.  Those are the beliefs which people subscribe to and hold.  Limiting beliefs impede an expansion of awareness and beliefs grounded in the idea that the self is unlimited allow for such an expansion to occur.

 

I've said before, though, that life is not a horserace to some imagined finish line.  The joy is in the journey, not the destination.

[Tippaporn]

44 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Ruburt has embarked upon his own journeys into the unknown reality. I cannot do that for him. I can only point out the way, as I do for each reader.

 

That is the grand irony for those who seek true answers.  And yes, it is a major impediment if allowed.

Precisely my point...
Seth (the Seth Material) can only point towards it. The map is not the territory. The territory is beyond intellectual understanding. The territory has to be walked, not talked about. Each one of us has to do the walking on our own. Once we have walked, we can talk about it with some authority.

 

Here's a quote from Seth which I know you will love, savor, and shove in my face with childlike glee.    I purposely refrained from posting this earlier for I knew you would use at as a cudgel to beat me repeatedly and mercilessly. 

 

Now the first paragraph is ideally suited for @VincentRJ.

 

Give us a moment ... The true scientist understands that he must probe the interior and not the exterior universe; he will comprehend that he cannot isolate himself from a reality of which he is necessarily a part, and that to do so presents at best a distorted picture. In quite true terms, your dreams and the trees outside of your windows have a common denominator: they both spring from the withinness of consciousness.

Simply as an analogy, look at it this way: Your present universe is a mass-shared dream, quite valid - a dream that presents reality in a certain light; a dream that is above all meaningful, creative, based not upon chaos (with a knowing look), but upon spontaneous order. To understand it, however, you must go to another level of consciousness - one where, perhaps, the dream momentarily does not seem so real. There, from another viewpoint, you can see it even more clearly, holding it like a photograph in your hands; at the same time you can see from that broader perspective that you do indeed also stand outside of the dream context, but in a "within" that cannot show in the snapshot because of its limitations.

 

Maybe that quote will get you to change your tune about objecting to my quoting Seth directly. 

 

I must follow that quote with another to give it some extra context.

 

In the same way that you latch upon one personal biological history, you latch upon but one mass earth history. Others go on about you all the time, and other probable selves of your own experience their "histories" parallel to yours. In practical terms of sense data, those worlds do not meet. In deeper terms they coincide. Any of the infinite number of events that could have happened to you and Ruburt [do] happen. Your attention span simply does not include such activity.

Such endless creativity can seem so dazzling that the individual would appear lost within it, yet consciousness forms its own organizations and psychic interactions at all levels. Any consciousness automatically tries to express itself in all probable directions, and does so. In so doing it will experience All That Is through its own being, though interpreted, of course, through that familiar reality of its own. You grow probable selves as a flower grows petals. Each probable self, however, will follow through in its own reality - that is, it will experience to the fullest those dimensions inherent to it. You pick and choose one birth and one death, in your terms.

 

Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with you that it is important that we explore our own consciousness I completely disagree with the idea that any exploration is beyond intellectual understanding.  As you stated once before, the journey into the unknown is done without the intellect.  I disagree because the intellect is an inherent attribute of consciousness.  I should provide you with Seth's information regarding the intellect, but not in this post.  That material explains that our present use of the intellect is misguided.

 

Now in this second quote the bolded text is my emphasis.  As consciousness expresses itself in all directions, which includes infinite different realities - ours being merely one of them, via it's experience within any reality it will experience All That Is but interpreted in the terms of the reality in which consciousness has created for itself.

 

My objection to the teachings of Vedanta, for instance, is that this school of thought does not seem to recognise what this second quote is stating.  Vedanta basically teaches that there is only one goal of existence; and that is to realise who you are for the sole purpose of then liberating oneself from the suffering of this world and thereby ending the reincarnational cycle, never again having to return to this world of suffering.  Vedanta seems to miss entirely the point of this existence and why it was created in the first place.  As well as the self which occupies this territory.  Seth stresses again and again that the point of any exploration of consciousness is not meant as a means of escape, or a way of replacing physical experience with another, but only in order to enhance our experience in the reality which we currently have our experience in.  For that reality is essential and vital in itself.

 

Vedanta does not explain why the suffering exists in the first place, except perhaps as a cruel prod to force one into realising themselves.  Nor does it explain how that suffering is created.  The cornerstone of the Seth material states that you create your own reality via the translation of subject ideas into materialised physical form and experienced events.  Whatever suffering one experiences is created via the ideas they adopt as beliefs.  The Physical Universe As Idea Construction.  That essay Jane produced in 1963 via automatic writing was her first initiation with Seth.  The concept is seminal and perhaps the fact that it is a cornerstone is why it was Jane's initial writing.  Seth:  "You get what you concentration on."  "You create your own reality.  There is no other main rule."  Abraham, another channeled personality, "There are only two things one can ever think about.  What you want and what you don't want."  "There is no such thing as exclusion.  There is only inclusion."

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Here's a quote from Seth which I know you will love, savor, and shove in my face with childlike glee.    I purposely refrained from posting this earlier for I knew you would use at as a cudgel to beat me repeatedly and mercilessly. 

 

Now the first paragraph is ideally suited for @VincentRJ.

 

Give us a moment ... The true scientist understands that he must probe the interior and not the exterior universe; he will comprehend that he cannot isolate himself from a reality of which he is necessarily a part, and that to do so presents at best a distorted picture. In quite true terms, your dreams and the trees outside of your windows have a common denominator: they both spring from the withinness of consciousness.

Simply as an analogy, look at it this way: Your present universe is a mass-shared dream, quite valid - a dream that presents reality in a certain light; a dream that is above all meaningful, creative, based not upon chaos (with a knowing look), but upon spontaneous order. To understand it, however, you must go to another level of consciousness - one where, perhaps, the dream momentarily does not seem so real. There, from another viewpoint, you can see it even more clearly, holding it like a photograph in your hands; at the same time you can see from that broader perspective that you do indeed also stand outside of the dream context, but in a "within" that cannot show in the snapshot because of its limitations.

 

Maybe that quote will get you to change your tune about objecting to my quoting Seth directly. 

 

I must follow that quote with another to give it some extra context.

 

In the same way that you latch upon one personal biological history, you latch upon but one mass earth history. Others go on about you all the time, and other probable selves of your own experience their "histories" parallel to yours. In practical terms of sense data, those worlds do not meet. In deeper terms they coincide. Any of the infinite number of events that could have happened to you and Ruburt [do] happen. Your attention span simply does not include such activity.

Such endless creativity can seem so dazzling that the individual would appear lost within it, yet consciousness forms its own organizations and psychic interactions at all levels. Any consciousness automatically tries to express itself in all probable directions, and does so. In so doing it will experience All That Is through its own being, though interpreted, of course, through that familiar reality of its own. You grow probable selves as a flower grows petals. Each probable self, however, will follow through in its own reality - that is, it will experience to the fullest those dimensions inherent to it. You pick and choose one birth and one death, in your terms.

 

Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with you that it is important that we explore our own consciousness I completely disagree with the idea that any exploration is beyond intellectual understanding.  As you stated once before, the journey into the unknown is done without the intellect.  I disagree because the intellect is an inherent attribute of consciousness.  I should provide you with Seth's information regarding the intellect, but not in this post.  That material explains that our present use of the intellect is misguided.

 

Now in this second quote the bolded text is my emphasis.  As consciousness expresses itself in all directions, which includes infinite different realities - ours being merely one of them, via it's experience within any reality it will experience All That Is but interpreted in the terms of the reality in which consciousness has created for itself.

 

My objection to the teachings of Vedanta, for instance, is that this school of thought does not seem to recognise what this second quote is stating.  Vedanta basically teaches that there is only one goal of existence; and that is to realise who you are for the sole purpose of then liberating oneself from the suffering of this world and thereby ending the reincarnational cycle, never again having to return to this world of suffering.  Vedanta seems to miss entirely the point of this existence and why it was created in the first place.  As well as the self which occupies this territory.  Seth stresses again and again that the point of any exploration of consciousness is not meant as a means of escape, or a way of replacing physical experience with another, but only in order to enhance our experience in the reality which we currently have our experience in.  For that reality is essential and vital in itself.

 

Vedanta does not explain why the suffering exists in the first place, except perhaps as a cruel prod to force one into realising themselves.  Nor does it explain how that suffering is created.  The cornerstone of the Seth material states that you create your own reality via the translation of subject ideas into materialised physical form and experienced events.  Whatever suffering one experiences is created via the ideas they adopt as beliefs.  The Physical Universe As Idea Construction.  That essay Jane produced in 1963 via automatic writing was her first initiation with Seth.  The concept is seminal and perhaps the fact that it is a cornerstone is why it was Jane's initial writing.  Seth:  "You get what you concentration on."  "You create your own reality.  There is no other main rule."  Abraham, another channeled personality, "There are only two things one can ever think about.  What you want and what you don't want."  "There is no such thing as exclusion.  There is only inclusion."

 

 

Hold on to something...here it comes...

 

 

You create your own reality. 
OK
You created this reality where a personality (a seeming individualized ray of consciousness) pokes you with new information and forces you to expand your currently held worldview. You created this situation that brings you to the edge of your current understanding and gives you the opportunity to go beyond it. 

Enlightenment is not like you explain, "a running away from the world", but experiencing the world from the perspective of All-That-Is. How could this be an escape? How could this be anything other than complete fulness of experience? 
A famous quote about enlightenment goes like this: before enlightenment carry water and chop wood, after enlightenment carry water and chop wood.
There are different ways of life after enlightenment, depending on the individual and his/her preferences. If you've lived your life in a cave, you will probably go on with this life. Others who lived a more similar life to ours will go on living the same life, taking care of family and attending to their worldly responsibilities just like before. Others again will feel the need to help others by bringing wisdom and compassion. They may become teachers, healers, gurus...

There isn't a predefined way that all enlightened must follow.

 

Enlightenment is not an end of something. The world is still unfolding around you. It's the way you experience it that changes. Once you take the perspective of AllThatIs and hold it, you permanently see the world as a movie on a screen. You can then decide whether you want to participate in this movie or not. There is no judgement. You can live in a cave detached from everything, or you can do the opposite, be completely immersed in the dream movie. Whatever you do, the knowing of the One consciousness as the originator is permanent and unshakeable.

 

Seth says: "To understand it, you must go to another level of consciousness. One where the dream does not seem real." Another level of consciousness. Isn't that what I've been talking about? This life, this dream. How to understand it? By changing levels of consciousness? Note: Levels. He didn't say expand your knowledge by studying books and thinking really hard about consciousness. That is just horizontal expansion (like a branch of a tree growing out horizontally). He said "level", which indicates a vertical growth. Going from one branch to the next one higher up, where the perspective is wider.

 

And so, there are indeed levels of consciousness, or maybe better "levels of awareness that allow for an increasingly wider understanding of consciousness ".

A plant has some awareness of the world around it. A frog has another. A person another still. But to say that there are no differences (no levels), would be wrong IMO.

 

Even within the human condition there are many different levels of awareness. Some people gravitate mostly around their body awareness. Some people gravitate around their mental awareness. A few gravitate around the more subtle aspect of their being. Different awareness, different interpretation of the One Consciousness. (PS: most people are a mixture of these levels but have usually one main center of gravity).
What you seem to confuse is the difference between horizontal and vertical expansion. A person on a lower branch will find it impossible to make sense of what another says from a higher branch. Take those that interpret the Bible literally and tell them about consciousness as the Ground of All Being. Will they be able to grasp those concepts? Probably not, or they wouldn't be interpreting the Bible literally. You have the same issue when you talk to materialists. As much as you try explaining your perspective, they don't seem to get it. Right?

 

You can write the longest post, clearly explaining your worldview in the most logical and rational way, yet still nothing. Frustrating, isn't it?

This is because they are currently gravitating around a lower branch of the tree. This is not a judgement in value, but simply an acknowledgement of what is. There will always be branches under and over you, until.... Until the awareness is so wide that it encompasses EVERYTHING. That awareness witnesses all of consciousness as its own body: the tree trunk, all the branches, every single leaf. That's what they mean when they say Tat Tvam Asi...You Are That. You are the whole tree.

 

I currently experience the same problem with levels when trying to bring my points across. I've been on your same branch level, I know what it's like. You haven't experienced the branch I'm sitting on. Yet.

I could tell you for hours and days about it, but unless you jump to this branch, you won't get it.

 

That's why I always say, put your scriptures aside and start climbing. You don't climb the tree by exploring the current branch horizontally (accumulating more mind stuff), you climb it by leaving the old branch behind and venture up the tree trunk.

 

You are constantly asking me to climb down on the level of your branch to discuss the differences (and similarities) of the branches on that level. I can do it and have done so, but I also know it's a futile endeavour. I rather hold out my hand and invite you to see the spectacular view from my branch level. (This makes me think about the Christmas tree with the shining star at the top. Nice analogy.)
That way you could see for yourself what it's all about.
No talking necessary. 

[Tippaporn]

On 2/8/2024 at 6:04 PM, Sunmaster said:

Question for you @Tippaporn...
How do you see the whole concept of enlightenment? Do you believe it exists? Do you believe it is a radically different way of experiencing the world and yourself? Do you believe it can be realized by following certain thought processes?

 

Same questions for you. 

[Sunmaster]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Same questions for you. 

I think I answered this question in my last post and in many previous posts.

[Red Phoenix]

> There are many answers that can be given to the question what is enlightenment and how to 'achieve' it. 

There is no ultimate answer, but this one by OSHO is an elegant one...

 

Source:

This is an excerpt from the transcript of a public discourse by Osho in Buddha Hall, Shree Rajneesh Ashram, Pune. 

Discourse Series: Come, Come, Yet Again Come

Chapter #14

Chapter title: The Forgotten But Not the Lost

9 November 1980 am in Buddha Hall

 

[Sunmaster]

8 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

> There are many answers that can be given to the question what is enlightenment and how to 'achieve' it. 

There is no ultimate answer, but this one by OSHO is an elegant one...

 

Source:

This is an excerpt from the transcript of a public discourse by Osho in Buddha Hall, Shree Rajneesh Ashram, Pune. 

Discourse Series: Come, Come, Yet Again Come

Chapter #14

Chapter title: The Forgotten But Not the Lost

9 November 1980 am in Buddha Hall

 

Yes, great quote.
Quoting Osho is a bit "dangerous" due to his excentric lifestyle, but his teachings are always very profound. 

 

Edited February 9 by Sunmaster

[Sunmaster]

If we can accept that consciousness is at the basis of all things, including us, and that consciousness, in its most fundamental definition, is "All That Is", it follows that we are always part of this consciousness, right now.... on the physical level, on the level of the mind and on the "super-mental" level (the level that transcends and includes the mind and the body). 

This point of awareness that we call "I"....where is it?
The first reaction of most people is "Here, this body. That's me."
Where exactly in your body?
Well...here, in my eyes...in my brain!
Can you pinpoint the exact location?
Ok, maybe it's not the brain but the mind. That's where the "I" is. Memories, thoughts, feelings, likes and dislikes....that's me.

But when you were born, you didn't have any of those. Was it still you?
Well, of course it was me, but.... errr, I don't know....

If I take away all your memories right now, will there still be a "you"? Or will you slump down dead like a sack of potatoes? Feelings come and go. You see them rising, you see them falling away. They appear on the screen of your consciousness. The same with thoughts. You are the "I" that observes them all.

 

Now it gets interesting.

So where is this "I" that comes before the first memories, thoughts, feelings?

 

In meditation I strive to first relax the body, then the mind. The mind is then prepared like a horse. I put the mouthpiece on, the blinders and hold the reins. Everyone can do it. You train your mind to stay focused on one thing and not fall pray to the wild monkey thoughts. Every time a monkey takes hold of you, you simply come back to your anchor, which in my case is a mantra, but can be a multitude of other things. And so, the monkeys will come less frequently and finally leave you alone. What you're left with is a calm, open mind...and silence. This state of mind is the best conductor towards revealing the true "I". The rational mind is not at work here. The true "I" lies beneath the mind, behind our thoughts, memories and feelings. This must be practiced and experienced first-hand. It can not be understood on an intellectual level, because the mind is the very thing that covers the observer behind it. When the mind subsides, the observer becomes stronger and we are able to widen our perspective (climb the tree trunk). 

For those rare people that have taken this to the final stage, a radically different world becomes evident. They may appear the same on the outside, but their "I" identification is no longer in the body-mind, they are now speaking from the perspective of the One Consciousness. "I" is for them the One Consciousness. 

To come back to enlightenment. What is meant by enlightenment is simply that first moment when consciousness realizes (remembers) itself completely and permanently. You can have several mystical experiences, many insights and awakenings before, but those are not permanent. You cannot be "un-enlightened" however. And why would you? You can still chop wood and carry water, while effortlessly resting as that One Consciousness.

 

I don't know if this is how Vedanta or any other philosophy or religion explains it. This is how I explain it.
 

[Tippaporn]

7 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

If we can accept that consciousness is at the basis of all things, including us, and that consciousness, in its most fundamental definition, is "All That Is", it follows that we are always part of this consciousness, right now.... on the physical level, on the level of the mind and on the "super-mental" level (the level that transcends and includes the mind and the body). 

This point of awareness that we call "I"....where is it?
The first reaction of most people is "Here, this body. That's me."
Where exactly in your body?
Well...here, in my eyes...in my brain!
Can you pinpoint the exact location?
Ok, maybe it's not the brain but the mind. That's where the "I" is. Memories, thoughts, feelings, likes and dislikes....that's me.

But when you were born, you didn't have any of those. Was it still you?
Well, of course it was me, but.... errr, I don't know....

If I take away all your memories right now, will there still be a "you"? Or will you slump down dead like a sack of potatoes? Feelings come and go. You see them rising, you see them falling away. They appear on the screen of your consciousness. The same with thoughts. You are the "I" that observes them all.

 

Now it gets interesting.

So where is this "I" that comes before the first memories, thoughts, feelings?

 

In meditation I strive to first relax the body, then the mind. The mind is then prepared like a horse. I put the mouthpiece on, the blinders and hold the reins. Everyone can do it. You train your mind to stay focused on one thing and not fall pray to the wild monkey thoughts. Every time a monkey takes hold of you, you simply come back to your anchor, which in my case is a mantra, but can be a multitude of other things. And so, the monkeys will come less frequently and finally leave you alone. What you're left with is a calm, open mind...and silence. This state of mind is the best conductor towards revealing the true "I". The rational mind is not at work here. The true "I" lies beneath the mind, behind our thoughts, memories and feelings. This must be practiced and experienced first-hand. It can not be understood on an intellectual level, because the mind is the very thing that covers the observer behind it. When the mind subsides, the observer becomes stronger and we are able to widen our perspective (climb the tree trunk). 

For those rare people that have taken this to the final stage, a radically different world becomes evident. They may appear the same on the outside, but their "I" identification is no longer in the body-mind, they are now speaking from the perspective of the One Consciousness. "I" is for them the One Consciousness. 

To come back to enlightenment. What is meant by enlightenment is simply that first moment when consciousness realizes (remembers) itself completely and permanently. You can have several mystical experiences, many insights and awakenings before, but those are not permanent. You cannot be "un-enlightened" however. And why would you? You can still chop wood and carry water, while effortlessly resting as that One Consciousness.

 

I don't know if this is how Vedanta or any other philosophy or religion explains it. This is how I explain it.

 

What level are you on?  Or have you reached the final stage already?

[VincentRJ]

9 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

If we can accept that consciousness is at the basis of all things, including us, and that consciousness, in its most fundamental definition, is "All That Is", it follows that we are always part of this consciousness, right now.... on the physical level, on the level of the mind and on the "super-mental" level (the level that transcends and includes the mind and the body). 

This point of awareness that we call "I"....where is it?
The first reaction of most people is "Here, this body. That's me."
Where exactly in your body?
Well...here, in my eyes...in my brain!
Can you pinpoint the exact location?
Ok, maybe it's not the brain but the mind. That's where the "I" is. Memories, thoughts, feelings, likes and dislikes....that's me.

But when you were born, you didn't have any of those. Was it still you?
Well, of course it was me, but.... errr, I don't know....

If I take away all your memories right now, will there still be a "you"? Or will you slump down dead like a sack of potatoes? Feelings come and go. You see them rising, you see them falling away. They appear on the screen of your consciousness. The same with thoughts. You are the "I" that observes them all.

 

Now it gets interesting.

So where is this "I" that comes before the first memories, thoughts, feelings?

 

In meditation I strive to first relax the body, then the mind. The mind is then prepared like a horse. I put the mouthpiece on, the blinders and hold the reins. Everyone can do it. You train your mind to stay focused on one thing and not fall pray to the wild monkey thoughts. Every time a monkey takes hold of you, you simply come back to your anchor, which in my case is a mantra, but can be a multitude of other things. And so, the monkeys will come less frequently and finally leave you alone. What you're left with is a calm, open mind...and silence. This state of mind is the best conductor towards revealing the true "I". The rational mind is not at work here. The true "I" lies beneath the mind, behind our thoughts, memories and feelings. This must be practiced and experienced first-hand. It can not be understood on an intellectual level, because the mind is the very thing that covers the observer behind it. When the mind subsides, the observer becomes stronger and we are able to widen our perspective (climb the tree trunk). 

For those rare people that have taken this to the final stage, a radically different world becomes evident. They may appear the same on the outside, but their "I" identification is no longer in the body-mind, they are now speaking from the perspective of the One Consciousness. "I" is for them the One Consciousness. 

To come back to enlightenment. What is meant by enlightenment is simply that first moment when consciousness realizes (remembers) itself completely and permanently. You can have several mystical experiences, many insights and awakenings before, but those are not permanent. You cannot be "un-enlightened" however. And why would you? You can still chop wood and carry water, while effortlessly resting as that One Consciousness.

 

I don't know if this is how Vedanta or any other philosophy or religion explains it. This is how I explain it.
 

What an amazing amount of confusion over a simple concept of 'what and where' is the "I". Do we have such confusion about 'what is a car', or 'what is a house', or 'what is a tree'?

 

The quality of consciousness in humans, and our capacity for abstract thought, gives us the ability to name both objects and subjects, and make distinctions between them, which is a necessity for all scientific enquiry and all human activity.
Can you imagine anyone being able to function and survive if they were not able to distinguish between a house and a car, or a rock and a tree, or their arm and their leg, or themselves and someone else, and so on?

 

The reason why this issue of 'who am I?' becomes a problem, is due to greed, and attachment to things which or not "I". Because people usually 'feel' attached to their beautiful house, for example, they consider it a part of themselves. They are the owner. When the house is destroyed during a flood or cyclone, the owner will probably suffer emotionally, even though they themselves have not been injured in any way. If they are not the owner, and are just renting the house, they will probably not suffer nearly as much, unless their material possessions (which are not them) were left in the house when it was destroyed.

 

What's the point of suffering because a material object has been damaged or destroyed? Oh! I see! You think material objects have consciousness, just like you do. 

[Sunmaster]

 

20 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

The reason why this issue of 'who am I?' becomes a problem, is due to greed, and attachment to things which or not "I". Because people usually 'feel' attached to their beautiful house, for example, they consider it a part of themselves. They are the owner. When the house is destroyed during a flood or cyclone, the owner will probably suffer emotionally, even though they themselves have not been injured in any way. If they are not the owner, and are just renting the house, they will probably not suffer nearly as much, unless their material possessions (which are not them) were left in the house when it was destroyed.

I think you are the one who is confused as evidenced in your post. 
You got one thing right, though. The example with the house is a good one. Attachment to things that are not you. The same way some people are attached to their bodies. The body decays, but does that affect the real you? I'm almost 50 but inside I still feel like a young man and sometimes a little boy.
Other people are attached to their minds and how brilliant it seems to be. But the mind is also an object. You are the observer of that object. "I have a mind. I have memories, I have thoughts." Mind, memories, thoughts are objects just like the house and the body. Who is this I that possesses and experiences these objects? 
That's the question that you've failed to understand and answer.

 

Edited February 10 by Sunmaster

[Red Phoenix]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

 

What level are you on?  Or have you reached the final stage already?

~ Actually Tippa's question asking what level @Sunmaster has achieved is not as 'daft' as it might look to those that are not familiar with the notion of the levels in man's possible evolution. 

G.I. Gurdjieff - the rascal sage - never used the term 'enlightenment', but distinguishes 7 'levels' of man. 

Every man is born number one, number two or number three, depending on where his 'center of gravity' lies (in the physical, emotional or intellectual center).  And every man has the potentiality through consistent and conscious effort to develop into man number four, five, six or seven, but it are only the very very few that are able to make that transition.  For sake of clarity > Man number seven is what referred to in this thread as being enlightened.  

In G.'s words "Man number seven means a man who has reached the full development possible to man and who possesses everything a man can possess, that is, will, consciousness, permanent and unchangeable I, individuality, immortality, and many other properties which, in our blindness and ignorance, we ascribe to ourselves. It is only when to a certain extent we understand man number seven and his properties that we can under­stand the gradual stages through which we can approach him, that is, understand the process of development possible for us." 

The distinctions between and characteristics of man number one to man number seven (as well as the types of religion/spirituality that those levels are inclined to), are addressed in P.D. Ouspensky's rendering of Gurdjieff's teachings. 

Here a link to a 4-page extract on this notion of 'levels of enlightenment'.

> http://www.doremishock.com/ouspensky/mannumberseven.htm

 

 

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

10 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

If we can accept that consciousness is at the basis of all things, including us, and that consciousness, in its most fundamental definition, is "All That Is", it follows that we are always part of this consciousness, right now.... on the physical level, on the level of the mind and on the "super-mental" level (the level that transcends and includes the mind and the body). 

This point of awareness that we call "I"....where is it?
The first reaction of most people is "Here, this body. That's me."
Where exactly in your body?
Well...here, in my eyes...in my brain!
Can you pinpoint the exact location?
Ok, maybe it's not the brain but the mind. That's where the "I" is. Memories, thoughts, feelings, likes and dislikes....that's me.

But when you were born, you didn't have any of those. Was it still you?
Well, of course it was me, but.... errr, I don't know....

If I take away all your memories right now, will there still be a "you"? Or will you slump down dead like a sack of potatoes? Feelings come and go. You see them rising, you see them falling away. They appear on the screen of your consciousness. The same with thoughts. You are the "I" that observes them all.

 

Now it gets interesting.

So where is this "I" that comes before the first memories, thoughts, feelings?

 

In meditation I strive to first relax the body, then the mind. The mind is then prepared like a horse. I put the mouthpiece on, the blinders and hold the reins. Everyone can do it. You train your mind to stay focused on one thing and not fall pray to the wild monkey thoughts. Every time a monkey takes hold of you, you simply come back to your anchor, which in my case is a mantra, but can be a multitude of other things. And so, the monkeys will come less frequently and finally leave you alone. What you're left with is a calm, open mind...and silence. This state of mind is the best conductor towards revealing the true "I". The rational mind is not at work here. The true "I" lies beneath the mind, behind our thoughts, memories and feelings. This must be practiced and experienced first-hand. It can not be understood on an intellectual level, because the mind is the very thing that covers the observer behind it. When the mind subsides, the observer becomes stronger and we are able to widen our perspective (climb the tree trunk). 

For those rare people that have taken this to the final stage, a radically different world becomes evident. They may appear the same on the outside, but their "I" identification is no longer in the body-mind, they are now speaking from the perspective of the One Consciousness. "I" is for them the One Consciousness. 

To come back to enlightenment. What is meant by enlightenment is simply that first moment when consciousness realizes (remembers) itself completely and permanently. You can have several mystical experiences, many insights and awakenings before, but those are not permanent. You cannot be "un-enlightened" however. And why would you? You can still chop wood and carry water, while effortlessly resting as that One Consciousness.

 

I don't know if this is how Vedanta or any other philosophy or religion explains it. This is how I explain it.

 

What level are you on?  Or have you reached the final stage already?

 

Someone laughed.  It's a serious question.

[Sunmaster]

23 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Someone laughed.  It's a serious question.

I laughed. 😁

Certainly NOT at the final stage.
Maybe just a tiny but important step ahead the road.

[Tippaporn]

13 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

~ Actually Tippa's question asking what level @Sunmaster has achieved is not as 'daft' as it might look to those that are not familiar with the notion of the levels in man's possible evolution. 

G.I. Gurdjieff - the rascal sage - never used the term 'enlightenment', but distinguishes 7 'levels' of man. 

Every man is born number one, number two or number three, depending on where his 'center of gravity' lies (in the physical, emotional or intellectual center).  And every man has the potentiality through consistent and conscious effort to develop into man number four, five, six or seven, but it are only the very very few that are able to make that transition.  For sake of clarity > Man number seven is what referred to in this thread as being enlightened.  

In G.'s words "Man number seven means a man who has reached the full development possible to man and who possesses everything a man can possess, that is, will, consciousness, permanent and unchangeable I, individuality, immortality, and many other properties which, in our blindness and ignorance, we ascribe to ourselves. It is only when to a certain extent we understand man number seven and his properties that we can under­stand the gradual stages through which we can approach him, that is, understand the process of development possible for us." 

The distinctions between and characteristics of man number one to man number seven (as well as the types of religion/spirituality that those levels are inclined to), are addressed in P.D. Ouspensky's rendering of Gurdjieff's teachings. 

Here a link to a 4-page extract on this notion of 'levels of enlightenment'.

> http://www.doremishock.com/ouspensky/mannumberseven.htm

 

 

 

What about multi-personhood, or multidimensionality?  Reincarnational selves, probable selves, for instance,.  Not to mention existences in other camouflage realities.  That idea would kinda shred the concept of levels, whether 7 or any number, and show it to be false.  For this concept of 7 levels deals with only two realities; the physical and the subjective, or whatever one wants to term the reality in which the greater self, All That Is, Brahman, God, whatever the term exist in.

 

The problem with these ideas is that if specific questions were to be asked which drill down deeper into the practical working aspects of this ideology you would find that there are no answers, no explanations.  Just blank stares.  That's satisfactory for some but does not nealy suffice for a great many.

 

Of course you might get an answer such that these are merely unimportant details.  For once someone attains enlightenment then those questions are only asking for answers to details that no longer matter.  You're enlightened now and everything is understood clearly.  Which answer would be a total copout.

 

Another answer may be that these questions all originate from the intellect.  Once you've reached enlightment the intellect is no longer needed.  In fact, the intellect is a barrier to enlightenment, as one poster here suggested earlier.

 

Anyway, my reation to the ideas you put forth, RP, is  and  and .

 

Earlier discussion here came to a conclusion accepted by a few posters that there needs to be a blending of science and spirituality.  That ain't ever gonna happen when you toss out all reasoning, logic, practicallity, and chain up the intellect in a deep, damp dungeon.  For once you do that then anything goes.