Do you believe in God and why

[Sunmaster]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

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.

I'm glad you asked RP. 😄

[Tippaporn]

3 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I laughed. 😁

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

 

Again, serious questions.  What level are you on?  How many levels are there?  What is it specifically that is needed for you to take this tiny, but important, step?  And when you've reached enlightenment then are you forever in a state of bliss where no other states of feeling exist?  For surely sadness and suffering cannot exist in a state of bliss.

[Red Phoenix]

13 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I laughed. 😁

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

Yep, imo you have experienced glimpses of Man level 4 consciousness, and are working to fully attain that level (which of course is the stepping stone to levels 5, 6 and 7). 

Edited February 10 by Red Phoenix

[Tippaporn]

Just now, Sunmaster said:

I'm glad you asked RP. 😄

 

Feel free to answer for I ask the same questions of you.

[Red Phoenix]

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

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.

~ ... and Tippa is a 'pure' Man level 3. 

No offense here, as I would categorize myself as a blend level 2 - level 3. 

[Tippaporn]

7 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

~ ... and Tippa is a 'pure' Man level 3. 

No offense here, as I would categorize myself as a blend level 2 - level 3. 

 

Sorry to have to point it out, RP, but you addressed none of my post.  Is it because you can't?  Honesty is required here because otherwise it will be nothing more than debating with liberals who make up everything on the fly.

 

Edited February 10 by Tippaporn

[Sunmaster]

6 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Yep, imo you have experienced glimpses of Man level 4 consciousness, and are working to fully attain that level (which of course is the stepping stone to levels 5, 6 and 7). 

"The knowledge of man number four is a very different kind of knowledge. It is knowledge which comes from man number five, who in turn receives it from man number six, who has received it from man number seven. But, of course, man number four assimilates of this knowledge only what is possible according to his powers. But, in comparison with man number one, man number two, and man number three, man number four has begun to get free from the subjective elements in his knowledge and to move along the path towards objective knowledge.

 

The way I see it, my one experience 30 years ago gave me a short glimpse of what it's like to be man number 5, 6 or 7 (hard to say when you are just a short time visitor). This short visit helped me greatly to make the jump from man 3 to man 4 and gave me a compass that would show me the right direction. The transition however took a long time, because I relied too much on that one experience and intellectual knowledge (reading mountains of books {see Tippa? no hate for books!}) as a means for progress. But finally realized that progress is not achievable by the mind alone. Daily practice is needed.

[Tippaporn]

@Sunmaster @Red Phoenix

 

This idea that once enlightenment has been attained, the top level, then what's left to do?  If that represents an unchangeable state, as Sunmaster has earlier stated, then there is nothing new to create.  Existence is finished.  It has come to an end.  And perhaps that's why, Sunmaster, when I asked you what Sunmaster is doing in this world and what the purpose of this existence is you replied with you finger puppet analogy.  In your own word you stated that you greater self creates this because it is . . . bored.  When creation has come to an end then the only logical conclusion is endless repetition of what already is, which inevitably results in boredom.

 

Again, show the practicalness of this idea.  How it works.  And if you can't then be honest and say that you don't know.  But please do not attempt to make things up on the fly as an explanation.  Remeber what I said, my own quote:  In the game of life truth always wins.  Bullsh!t is always and forever doomed to failure.

[Tippaporn]

3 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

The way I see it, my one experience 30 years ago gave me a short glimpse of what it's like to be man number 5, 6 or 7 (hard to say when you are just a short time visitor). This short visit helped me greatly to make the jump from man 3 to man 4 and gave me a compass that would show me the right direction. The transition however took a long time, because I relied too much on that one experience and intellectual knowledge (reading mountains of books {see Tippa? no hate for books!}) as a means for progress. But finally realized that progress is not achievable by the mind alone. Daily practice is needed.

 

To what ultimate end is this desire for enlightenment for, though, Sunmaster?  Would you never again experience your self-created pain and suffering in this world?  Would you always and only be in a state of bliss, or pure happiness?  Would you be in a state of perpetual peace with yourself and the world?  Would enlightenment fill you with supreme awareness, which awareness then translates to understanding everything?

[Sunmaster]

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

@Sunmaster @Red Phoenix

 

This idea that once enlightenment has been attained, the top level, then what's left to do?  If that represents an unchangeable state, as Sunmaster has earlier stated, then there is nothing new to create.  Existence is finished.  It has come to an end.  And perhaps that's why, Sunmaster, when I asked you what Sunmaster is doing in this world and what the purpose of this existence is you replied with you finger puppet analogy.  In your own word you stated that you greater self creates this because it is . . . bored.  When creation has come to an end then the only logical conclusion is endless repetition of what already is, which inevitably results in boredom.

 

Again, show the practicalness of this idea.  How it works.  And if you can't then be honest and say that you don't know.  But please do not attempt to make things up on the fly as an explanation.  Remeber what I said, my own quote:  In the game of life truth always wins.  Bullsh!t is always and forever doomed to failure.

Just like a material reductionist reduces everything to the material, you are trying to reduce the ineffable into easy to understand bits of information, that you can then analyze and categorize and compare with the other little bits of information you already have. The ineffable can only be experienced, not understood intellectually.
So, if you expect and demand otherwise, that ain't gonna work. Sorry.
So I prefer not to answer at all.

Edited February 10 by Sunmaster

[Tippaporn]

17 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Just like a material reductionist, you are trying to reduce the ineffable into easy to understand bits of information, that you can then analyze and categorize and compare with the other little bits of information you already have. The ineffable can only be experienced, not understood intellectually.
So, if you expect and demand otherwise, that ain't gonna work. Sorry.
So I prefer not to answer at all.

 

I understand, Sunmaster.  And I've understood for quite some time now.  When confronted with questions you cannot answer then you will forever come back to the "The ineffable can only be experienced, not understood intellectually." as a copout.  So, no honesty?  For the copout boils down to taking the burden off of yourself to answer questions and to dishonestly relieve yourself of that burden by placing it on me; I'm the problem because I haven't reached enlightenment; I'm the problem because I'm trying to understand what can't be understood.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  It's the perfect Catch 22.

 

If you think you can fool me, or placate me with mind fvckery then I'm sorry to have to tell you that I'm not an idiot.

 

Edited February 10 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

It's about to get r-e-a-l quite on this thread as @Sunmaster and @Red Phoenix will refuse to answer questions which they can't asswer.

 

 

[Sunmaster]

28 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

I understand, Sunmaster.  And I've understood for quite some time now.  When confronted with questions you cannot answer then you will forever come back to the "The ineffable can only be experienced, not understood intellectually." as a copout.  So, no honesty?  For the copout boils down to taking the burden off of yourself to answer questions and to dishonestly relieve yourself of that burden by placing it on me; I'm the problem because I haven't reached enlightenment; I'm the problem because I'm trying to understand what can't be understood.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  It's the perfect Catch 22.

 

If you think you can fool me, or placate me with mind fvckery then I'm sorry to have to tell you that I'm not an idiot.

 

But when materialists insist and demand proof of your Seth theories, what do you do? You answer them once, twice, maybe even three times until you reach your limit. They won't get it anyway. Whatever you place in front of them doesn't stick. They just come back with the same questions over and over again. Like you. 

You demand answers to your questions, but when answers are given to you, you don't accept them and just keep asking. Well, I've reached my limit and being repeatedly called a fool and dishonest certainly didn't help. 
You have it all figured out already anyway.

Edited February 10 by Sunmaster

[Red Phoenix]

51 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Sorry to have to point it out, RP, but you addressed none of my post.  Is it because you can't?  Honesty is required here because otherwise it will be nothing more than debating with liberals who make up everything on the fly.

 

Hi Tippa, you might not like my answer but I know you can take it, and so here you go: pure honesty without any sugar-coating...

I did not address anything FROM your post, because imo what you wrote is nothing more than a steaming pile of Bvllsh!t.  Do read it again yourself: it's pure intellectual masturbation, a thought-monkey aimlessly jumping from one mental branche to another.

But in my response I DID address where those excrements came from: a blind automatic self-defensive reaction from the gravity center of Man level 3. The scholar in the High Book Castle sensing what he perceives to be an attack on his own 'reality' illusion, and trying to protect the crumbling fundaments of his worldview.

To your credit you seek and welcome discussion, but dismissing what seemingly does not fit in your carefully crafted mental construct, is imo the real 'mindfvckery'.  May I suggest to embrace the idea that Truth is by definition 'unspeakable' and any attempt to do so can appear contradictory on the level of the interpreter. 

Your honest friend RP

[thaibeachlovers]

On 2/7/2024 at 9:45 PM, Tippaporn said:

The story devalues knowledge gained from books.  Anyone who has benefited from books would take exception. 

This is a true story. When I did my nurse training ( in hospital training before it became necessary to get a degree, which was the worst con sold to a gullible public, ever ) I was required to buy several very expensive books, I never even opened any of them ( I've still got them in storage in mint condition, but they won't be the "proper" books for today's overeducated and under achieving university graduate nurses ). I passed every exam simply by reviewing the notes I took during lectures.

 

Book learning isn't the be all and end all of learning, IMO.

I'm not suggesting that someone that does a required degree should never open a book, but nursing is a trade and not a profession, regardless of the nursing hierarchy's desire to pretend it is. A nurse is not a doctor and a degree is not necessary to clean poo and feed patients.

 

BTW, I love books. I have many, and all loved.

[charleskerins]

On 8/23/2023 at 9:43 PM, save the frogs said:

andrew huberman is a scientist (neuroscientist at stanford) and admits that he meditates and prays and believes in god. also, he said the head of neuroscience at stanford also did. 

 

he says "if we don't believe in something bigger than ourselves, we at some level will self-destruct."

 

 

We do self destruct on a regular basis .   What is the belief  in and all knowing Supreme being?

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Hi Tippa, you might not like my answer but I know you can take it, and so here you go: pure honesty without any sugar-coating...

I did not address anything FROM your post, because imo what you wrote is nothing more than a steaming pile of Bvllsh!t.  Do read it again yourself: it's pure intellectual masturbation, a thought-monkey aimlessly jumping from one mental branche to another.

But in my response I DID address where those excrements came from: a blind automatic self-defensive reaction from the gravity center of Man level 3. The scholar in the High Book Castle sensing what he perceives to be an attack on his own 'reality' illusion, and trying to protect the crumbling fundaments of his worldview.

To your credit you seek and welcome discussion, but dismissing what seemingly does not fit in your carefully crafted mental construct, is imo the real 'mindfvckery'.  May I suggest to embrace the idea that Truth is by definition 'unspeakable' and any attempt to do so can appear contradictory on the level of the interpreter. 

Your honest friend RP

 

Wow, and more wow!

[save the frogs]

2 minutes ago, charleskerins said:

We do self destruct on a regular basis .   What is the belief  in and all knowing Supreme being?

Haha, just when I was getting sick of posting here ...

And I'm not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate?

 

[save the frogs]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

Wow, and more wow!

 

Amen to Red Phoenix's post.

Thanks for quoting. I had missed it.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, charleskerins said:

We do self destruct on a regular basis .   What is the belief  in and all knowing Supreme being?

I'm not sure what you are saying in the second sentence, but if you meant "What does the belief  in an all knowing Supreme being mean?" I'd say it's the same as believing that the sun rises in the east, and that the sun sets in the west.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

 

To what ultimate end is this desire for enlightenment for, though, Sunmaster?  Would you never again experience your self-created pain and suffering in this world?  Would you always and only be in a state of bliss, or pure happiness?  Would you be in a state of perpetual peace with yourself and the world?  Would enlightenment fill you with supreme awareness, which awareness then translates to understanding everything?

I, obviously, can't say what benefit he gets from enlightenment, but whatever it is, it's a better use of his time than running around like a headless chicken screaming that "the world is going to end unless we all drive electric cars" ( and make Elon very very very rich ).

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

When creation has come to an end then the only logical conclusion is endless repetition of what already is, which inevitably results in boredom.

I had thought that you were better than to ascribe human emotions to the creator of the universe. Whatever form the creator takes, it's definitely not human.

[Tippaporn]

3 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

But when materialists insist and demand proof of your Seth theories, what do you do? You answer them once, twice, maybe even three times until you reach your limit. They won't get it anyway. Whatever you place in front of them doesn't stick. They just come back with the same questions over and over again. Like you. 

You demand answers to your questions, but when answers are given to you, you don't accept them and just keep asking. Well, I've reached my limit and being repeatedly called a fool and dishonest certainly didn't help.

 

It's a false equivalency, Sunmaster.  Because the issue isn't about someone refusing, or unable to understand certain knowledge contained in given answers.  The issue is that I am never without answers, and on those occasions in which I don't have an answer which I am confident is a correct answer then I will say so.  You, on the other hand, don't have answers to questions I ask of you and so you often dissemble.  Or you ignore the question.  Or, to quote you, "So I prefer not to answer at all."  How can you debate ideas when you refuse to answer questions?  And it is dishonest to then use the excuse of "you can't understand what can only be understood by direct experience."  Seth had no problem.  So that's all the evidence I need as proof that your reasoning is bogus.

 

By all means, stick to it if that's all you got.  But how in the hell are you ever going to convince people of something being true when you can't answer their questions.  Well, at least those people who actually do a significant amount of questioning.  People who don't questions will be more apt to just nod their heads and accept yopur offered ideas.

 

When I say you're being dishonest, Sunmaster, it's not a deliberate dishonesty.  You're simply not aware of it because the reasoning used in your answers is oftentimes logically flawed and your arguments oftentimes use fallicious logic.  You can't see the fallacy of your arguments.  People use fallacies of argument all of the time and they're unaware of it.  Of course, there's the strong element of your desire to have your beliefs about who we are and what reality is to be true.  So much so that you're willing to cross the line if needed.

 

Just an example of the fallcious logic you've used in the past.  You've made the point that Vedanta, or the Hindu religion, has been around for thousands of years.  It's a fallacy of logic because time is not the determinant which makes something true or false.  It's irrelevant.  Yet the inclusion of the fact that it's been around for thousands of years is meant to decieve one into thinking that it has relevance.  Time is utterly relevant.  Again, it's not a deliberate effort on your part to decieve but rather it's simply not recognised as such.  

 

No worries about our friendship, if you're still interested.    ". . . repeatedly called a fool and dishonest certainly didn't help."  The truth can be brutal and I'd rather be brutal than pussyfoot around.  There's a time and place for confrontation and this is the time and place for it.  If that's too much, well then, you tell me.

[Sunmaster]

Thank you again for the link RP. Although I'm not quite sure what the difference is between man 4 and 5, I recognize many similarities in my own thinking.

"The knowledge of man number seven [the enlightened one] is his own knowledge, which cannot be taken away from him; it is the objective and completely practiced knowledge of All. "It is exactly the same with being. There is the being of man number one, that is, the being of a man living by his instincts and his sensations;
the being of man number two, that is to say, the being of the sentimental, the emotional man; the being of man number three, that is, the being of the rational, the theoretical man, and so on. It is quite clear why knowledge cannot be far away from being. Man number one, two, or three cannot, by reason of his being, possess the knowledge of man number four, man number five, and higher. Whatever you may give him, he may interpret it in his own way, he will reduce every idea to the level on which he is himself."

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

~ ... and Tippa is a 'pure' Man level 3. 

No offense here, as I would categorize myself as a blend level 2 - level 3. 

Let's be honest. You are man 4 at the very least.

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

 

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.

 

Okay. I'll try to answer it for you, to dispel your confusion. 

 

Mind, memory and thoughts are not objects like a house or any other inanimate object, but they are related to, and dependent upon the body. 'No body' equates to 'no mind', and 'no mind' equates to 'no thoughts'.

 

What science reveals is the enormous complexity within all the objects and life-forms that we observe. Such complexity can only be addressed by specific scientific disciplines directed at specific aspects of an object or subject.
The normal description of all objects and subjects that the average person is aware of, involves simple and basic labels to identify the object or subject. Most people understand what a car is, or a house is, or a tree is, and even what consciousness is, at a basic level. If they don't, because they are a bit illiterate, all they have to do is search a dictionary for the meaning of the word. 

 

Consciousness is awareness, which everyone experiences when they wake up after a sleep.
However, if one wishes to go into the details, within and related to, each 'labelled' object, one could spend a lifetime discovering more and more information.

 

Consider the simple example of 'what is a car?' Most people understand what a car looks like, and what its purpose is. They can identify the model, if it's printed on the car, and its identity in terms of the number plate. However, if they wanted to know the full details related to the car, they would have to ask thousands of questions, such as 'how was the car manufactured', 'what are the materials used', 'where were the materials sourced', 'who designed the car and who designed the individual components, and how do those individual components work and contribute the the functionality of the car, and so on, and so on.
 

[Sunmaster]

4 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Okay. I'll try to answer it for you, to dispel your confusion. 

 

Mind, memory and thoughts are not objects like a house or any other inanimate object, but they are related to, and dependent upon the body. 'No body' equates to 'no mind', and 'no mind' equates to 'no thoughts'.

 

What science reveals is the enormous complexity within all the objects and life-forms that we observe. Such complexity can only be addressed by specific scientific disciplines directed at specific aspects of an object or subject.
The normal description of all objects and subjects that the average person is aware of, involves simple and basic labels to identify the object or subject. Most people understand what a car is, or a house is, or a tree is, and even what consciousness is, at a basic level. If they don't, because they are a bit illiterate, all they have to do is search a dictionary for the meaning of the word. 

 

Consciousness is awareness, which everyone experiences when they wake up after a sleep.
However, if one wishes to go into the details, within and related to, each 'labelled' object, one could spend a lifetime discovering more and more information.

 

Consider the simple example of 'what is a car?' Most people understand what a car looks like, and what its purpose is. They can identify the model, if it's printed on the car, and its identity in terms of the number plate. However, if they wanted to know the full details related to the car, they would have to ask thousands of questions, such as 'how was the car manufactured', 'what are the materials used', 'where were the materials sourced', 'who designed the car and who designed the individual components, and how do those individual components work and contribute the the functionality of the car, and so on, and so on.
 

I use the word "object" not just for material objects.
Take the sentence "I have a thought." for example. "I" is the subject, "thought" is the object in this sentence. There is a duality here of subject possessing an object. Subject and object are not the same, that's why you say "I have a thought" and not "I am the thought."...or "I have this memory" and not "I am this memory." Just like when you say "I have a car." it means you are not the car.
So anything that can be juxtaposed to the I is not the I. The subject can not be the object. The car is not the I. The body is not the I. The feelings are not the I. The thoughts are not the I.

What is the I then?

[charleskerins]

1 hour ago, charleskerins said:

We do self destruct on a regular basis .   What is the belief  in and all knowing Supreme being?

"an "

[charleskerins]

1 hour ago, charleskerins said:

We do self destruct on a regular basis .   What is the belief  in and all knowing Supreme being?

Very poorly worded ,apologize  was unable to edit.     Retry.

  We do self destruct on a regular basis.

What is the composition of the belief   an all knowing Supreme Being ?  

[charleskerins]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

It's about to get r-e-a-l quite on this thread as @Sunmaster and @Red Phoenix will refuse to answer questions which they can't asswer.

 

 

Pretty good song they "made   up on the fly".